Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

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

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

Decoupling

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbcom cannot reasonably rule on this case without deciding whether Sandstein was just abusing AE to prevent his predictably contentious block from being reverted. Sandstein asked for this case, and he got it. WP:BOOMERANG. Hans Adler 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Question for Sandstein

What was your basis for the following:

(a) determining that Ludwig2's post was sanctionable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

<Principle name>

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Dreadstar undoing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Dreadstar desysopped for 1 month

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Adopting the 'gorilla cage' rubric for fringe topics

1) Acknowledging the following:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

An example: a few days ago (as part of an ongoing tussle at the Traditional Chinese Medicine article), BullRangifer (talk · contribs) complained that Herbxue (talk · contribs) had a COI and was a fringe advocate [1] because Herbxue is (apparently) a licensed acupuncturist and a professor at a college of oriental medicine. Now it seems to me that a licensed acupuncturist and professor of oriental medicine would be a great asset to the TCM article in that he actually knows the material and can provide an accurate and detailed description of what TCM is and does. So long as there is no effort to (a) promote his own business or school, or (b) unduly promote TCM as a practice in general, where is the COI or advocacy? In fact, brangifer'sthis kind of complaint (which is a common kind of complaint from anti-fringe editors, and is to a large part the rationale behind MEDRS) is intended to force the TCM article to be described entirely through the lens of western scientific medicine, and more specifically entirely through the lens of skeptical criticism (since mainstream medicine doesn't have much to say about AltMed). in other words, brangifer et al it wants TCM to be described solely in the terms of scholars who do not know the subject well and have a decidedly jaundiced view of it to begin with. This is what I meant by the analogy of throwing it in a bare steel cage and plastering "stupid ugly dangerous animal" warnings all over it; this kind of thing produces acrimonious, argumentative articles which are painful to read and spurs the kind of synthesis from scientific sources that QG has engaged in, because editors keep reaching farther and farther to find sourcing for derogatory anti-fringe viewpoints.

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

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

I'm going to repeat again, my POV is being misrepresented above, especially in this statement:

• "in other words, brangifer et al want TCM to be described solely in the terms of scholars who do not know the subject well and have a decidedly jaundiced view of it to begin with."

That's just the opposite of my POV regarding ALL subjects (and shows bad faith, also toward the other editors). It's untrue and also a straw man ad hominem argument. Please strike my name. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. I'm not perfect, but that didn't represent my editing philosophy. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@ brangifer. The scope of my example above was limited to this statement only: you explicitly said these things - which are en clair (if mild) personal attacks against other editors - with complete impunity. It's not the first time (by far) that you've gotten away this; you're not the only editor (by far) who has gotten away with this; if I tried the same tactic on you or others I would get immediate warnings and calls for refactoring. The greater problem here is that you and other anti-fringe editors have become accustomed to advancing your position by attacking and undermining editors who oppose you. Yes, I do see you all use valid sourcing and content arguments, no problem there, but if you look at the talk page of almost any fringe article you will inevitably find numerous assaults on the character, reputation, motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics of editors simply because they are editing from a position that you all disagree with. The more heated the page gets, the worse it gets, so that highly-conflicted talk pages read like one long laundry list of the personal and intellectual flaws of anyone who dares to say anything positive about fringe topics.

Claims about behavioral violations - like COI, SPA, sock/meatpuppetry, vandalism, advocacy, etc. - are serious matters that should never be used as casual rhetorical ploys to undermine content discussion. The fact that anti-fringe editors are comfortably allowed to do so systematically just reeks of prejudice and bias, and sets up an ugly confrontational atmosphere on talk pages (since these supposed pro-fringe editors not only have to present valid content arguments, but are also forced to argue against the continuous and unjustified personal attacks that are so freely made).

Just as an aside, if you want to know why I'm such a grumpy ass at times, it's because I have a kneejerk response (developed over years of academic infighting) to demolish ad hominem arguments with prejudice. In academia this is functional behavior - people who make ad hominems usually do it accidentally and generally are embarrassed about it, so one acerbic shot across the bow and they snap right back to reasoned argument. On wikipedia, it's periodically dysfunctional, because a lot of editors don't recognize an ad hominem for what it is (or maybe have a sense of entitlement about it, as though they should be allowed to speak that way) and consequently aren't embarrassed by it. that means my kneejerk response sometimes blows up into a full-scale critique of their reasoning style, and that's never pretty.

I don't really want to fault you for that single statement. I want to fault you and everyone for indulging the endless, constant stream of such statements, which gives the very strong impression that anyone who edits fringe issues is a second-class citizen undeserving of the the kind of civil treatment everyone else expects. --Ludwigs2 16:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No special favoritism for anti-fringe editors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Arbitration Enforcement remedies only intended for article and article talk space

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Perhaps. I am more concerned with AE becoming a tool by which one administrator can unilaterally and permanently suppress the discussion of a given issue. If AE sanctions can be applied anywhere, then that's perfectly feasible - warn and block anyone who mentions the issue anywhere, and soon no one will mention the issue again in any forum out of pure fear. That would be draconian even for real problems, and if it's used to suppress certain kinds of content additions or protect certain editors from ever having their actions questioned, well... that's just ugly. --Ludwigs2 02:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thought has not escaped ArbCom, and I expect it will be dealt with. In fact, I'd say it was a key element of accepting this as a case, instead of just attempting to resolve it by motion. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have submitted evidence that shows that this proposal is at odds with longstanding AE practice. It is not only a novel idea and has no basis in the actual wording of the discretionary sanctions remedies, but is also a very bad idea. Arbitration regulates conduct, not content; and disruptive misconduct (outing, harrassment, meat- or sockpuppetry, canvassing, BLP violations, etc.) can and does occur in any namespace. It would make no sense if administrators could sanction, say, a BLP violation in an article or on an article talk page ("Foo is a baby rapist!") but not, say, in an AfD ("Strong delete because baby rapists do not deserve an article!"). Disruptive conduct on any Wikipedia page is ultimately detrimental to the calm and collegial editing environment that the Committee's decisions seek to maintain, and thereby impairs productive article work.  Sandstein  21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein, T. Canens, Hodja: The point of this is that there must be someplace where the fear of sanctions does not reign. The threat/use of discretionary sanctions is useful in areas dedicated to content discussions (article talk, content noticeboards, possibly even AfD pages), but applying it to administrative pages like ANI doesn't help develop content; it merely stifles editors from raising or addressing ongoing problems. Administrative pages are chock-full of administrators, so I think it's safe to say that anyone who tries to disrupt them will be handled easily under normal sanctioning processes - why should one admin need to unilaterally apply AE measures when there are dozens of admins present who can quickly reach a consensus about normal behavioral measures? If it's really disruptive, consensus should be easy to reach; if it's not disruptive, then one admin should not be crushing the discussion in such a heavy-handed way.

Don't get me wrong: I've been the subject of tendentious ANI campaigns [removed by clerk]. But the freedom to speak freely about problems with other editors vastly outweighs the convenience of quick-and-dirty discretionary sanctions. Discretionary sanctions are simply not needed at administrative pages, and they open a door to certain kinds of abuse that we ought to leave closed.

I don't really care about the history of it (sandstein) - I'm sure it's been done well on many occasions, but multiple examples of effective use does not imply it is needed or justify the potential for abuse. Nor does this make 'battleground behavior and other misconduct' untouchable, it merely means that on ANI (and etc) admins have to use more normal, consensus-based procedures for dealing with it (that was a pretty hefty straw-man you used, Timo). When applied to administrative pages, AE has no real advantages over more conventional processes and adds an unconscionable potential for abuse, so it shouldn't apply there. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Re to Luwdigs: You tell: "I am more concerned with AE becoming a tool by which one administrator can unilaterally and permanently suppress the discussion of a given issue." I do not see any evidence of this. Of course, if someone explicitly made decision "we forbid to discuss such and such issue" (for whatever reason), that would indeed be the case. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So admins would be powerless to sanction someone who files frivolous AE requests or AFD disruption? Suppose two different people created socks to !votestack at AfD, but one of the socks also made a minor edit to a covered article. We would have the ability to sanction one but not the other? Or that battleground behavior and other misconduct is untouchable as long as it is not article talk (e.g., one cannot misrepresent sources on article talk, but can do so with impunity on project talk or user talk)? This is a horrendously bad idea. T. Canens (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions limited; Justifications required

4)

1. Arbitration Enforcement discretionary remedies should be limited in scope to dealing with clear, immediate, and well-defined problems. Vaguely defined problems, tangentially related issues, perceptions that a problem might manifest in the future, or similarly speculative concerns are not actionable beyond warnings.
2. Any administrator applying a discretionary measure is required to give a clear justification for the action with in 30 minutes of imposing it.
   • This should be done the Arbitration Enforcement page, or at a special enforcement log page dedicated to this purpose.
     • sanctioned editors should always have access to this page, even if blocked, so they may contest the measure.
   • This must include diffs and discussion of the specific triggering event that caused the measure to be applied, and an explanation of why warnings, requests to refactor, cease-and-desist requests, or less powerful measures would not have been adequate in the given case.
3. Sanctions not justified within 30 minutes of being imposed are automatically overturned, and may be undone by any admin without discussion. Regular failure to justify sanctions, or imposition of sanctions with poor justification, can result in sanctions on the administrator up to being barred from AE or even being desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see a hard-and-fast timeline applying. I think clarifying the appropriate scope of sanctions enforcement and the level of warning necessary is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, the necessity for some kind of timeline is that we don't want an admin applying a 3-day block and then coming back 2 days later to give a justification. If the justification is bad, there's no way of giving those two days back to the editor who was unjustly blocked. I was originally going to say "is required to give a clear justification for the action at the time it is imposed", but didn't want to give wikilawyers the option of saying "30 seconds have gone by since my block and there's still no justification!!!" There's probably a better way of wording it that isn't so picayune but still makes sure that admins justify the act in a reasonably short time frame or see it overturned. --Ludwigs2 23:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed: If we're going to use this kind of discretionary sanction system, then we should tighten the rules. Limit what can be done with discretionary sanctions to 'clear and present danger' situations, and require that admins using AE explain themselves clearly and immediately: make them give their rationale for the measures they took in detail, so that other editors can examine and contest the necessity of the act. --Ludwigs2 21:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

QuackGuru engaged in OR

1) That:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

You'd probably get more people to actually read and consider your statements if you AGF'ed more/ABF'ed less. I get that you didn't like the outcome, but the ability to talk about it in a detached and neutral manner would help your case. Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boris, three points:

• By saying "Ludwigs2 has threatened disruption, and Sandstein blocked him. End of story."[2] you did in fact render an opinion about whether the block was justified. Unless, of course, you were thinking of that as a detached restatement of objective facts, like this was some nature program ("The Sandstein stalks its natural prey intently; a paradigm of evolution's brutal, efficient mandate" - yes, that was humor [ˈhjuːmə]).
• If you don't think the issue had anything to do with QG, that's fine, but then you must be claiming that Sandstein is entirely incompetent or that he was out to get me as a personal vendetta. there aren't really any other choices that I can see. His actions were too methodical to be considered a simple mistake.
• Administrators may not get paid, but they certainly have responsibilities to the encyclopedia, and they are generally expected to display higher-than-average standards of behavior. see wp:administrators.

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

Pervasive air of favoritism to anti-fringe editors

3)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone who wants to look at the source and the way it is currently used can see for themselves that your claim is false, but this is not a matter to be dealt with here, unless you wish to distract attention from dealing with QuackGuru and also distract attention from (your friend) Ludwigs2's threats. I have asked for you to show some good faith and refactor, but instead you show your vindictiveness and warlike attitude once again by bringing up a very old matter. Would the clerk put a hat on this? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not bad faith to disagree with your misguided way of interpreting sources. I have no objections to hatting or removing our discussion starting with your first comment, which is where it begins to get off-topic. Stephan Schulz obviously was not aware that pseudosceptic POV pushing actually does happen, as opposed to being just a talking point of fringe POV pushers. Therefore it was necessary to point out an example. Surely you don't expect me to prove the occurrence of a type of V/NPOV violations with examples that do not involve V/NPOV violators. Hans Adler 16:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer: this is not personal, and I'd appreciate it if you did not make it personal. The objective fact of the matter is that you did the following:

• You took a statement from a footnote of an NSF publication relating to public science education, and tried to use it as evidence of a general claim by the NSF about pseudoscience itself.

It's not an issue of why you did this; it's an issue about whether this is an appropriate approach to a source. This strikes me (and Hans, and others) as a real stretch of the imagination bordering on wp:OR, but unfortunately the sprawling multipage discussion and confusing overlapping RfC's that resulted made it very hard to consider the sourcing issue clearly. This is not dissimilar to what QG did on the pseudoscience page - it shows a similar overly-literal, context-free approach to quotes - though to your high credit you were willing to discuss the issue and eventually showed flexibility on the position that allowed us all to reach a mutual understanding. I'm still waiting for any sign of that from QG. So please, let's let bygones be bygones, but let's also keep out eye on the ball here. --Ludwigs2 17:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me credit for my part in the final resolution of that matter. I'm not saying it's bad faith to disagree with me, but it's not wise to drag me and an old conflict into this situation and I wish that Hans Adler would stop doing it on this page and other pages.

I am very willing to keep my eye on the ball here. If QuackGuru is site banned I won't shed a single tear, and NOBODY will miss him, not even the skeptics. He's not worth it. His disruptive influence is so pervasive that I avoid many articles where I would usually be siding with you and Hans, and would be making constructive contributions to article content. Instead he ties everyone up on the talk pages. I just don't like editing on the same pages where he is because he creates a time sink of enormous proportions. I'm here to edit, not to battle with him over a few words for months on end. That's what he does. He ties up numerous good editors with petty matters. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Talk:AIDS denialism, Talk:Aspartame controversy, Talk:Objections to evolution, and others indicate that this does not hold as a broad principle. Individual examples may, of course, exist. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to look at Aspartame controversy recently and found it to be quite polemical in tone, due to the type of editing Hans Adler is criticizing. Hans is in general analyzing this situation very well. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Aspartame controversy was a poor counterexample. See Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive 2#Unomi deserves an apology for what happened there two years ago. A new editor was continuously called a sockpuppet for no good reason at all (someone has since told me he read "Unomi" = "you know me", but it would have been no problem to google that user name to see that presumably the same person is using it elsewhere on the web), even after a strongly negative SPI outcome. A government report (GAO87) was misrepresented in the article, but Unomi's attempts to correct this were countered with the argument that reading the report is original research and, anyway, since the report does not pass WP:MEDRS it cannot be used even for non-medical information such as the history of the conflict around Aspartame.

OrangeMarlin, the main driving force behind this travesty abandoned his account after I started preparing an RfC/U on him and apparently stopped editing completely after I caught him socking. [3][4] But many who found nothing wrong with this and actually supported him are still editing, and essentially similar things continue to happen. Hans Adler 12:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

QuackGuru admonished

1) QuackGuru admonished for engaging in original research and tendentious editing, and for failing to respond to administrative processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've added a 'failure to respond' clause because QG has gone back to making exactly the same type of edits at the pseudoscience article and talk page, regarding exactly the same source, without responding to this preceding at all. These edits are all from March 19th: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. This is a typical pattern - QG usually avoids any discussion in which his behavior is called into question and after some short delay continues editing as though the discussion of his behavior never existed. This is true of the RFC/U that was opened on him, and of roughly three quarters of the Wikiquette, AN, and ANI proceedings that tried to deal with his behavior. --Ludwigs2 01:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I support the "failure to respond" clause and believe it should be a factor in all official proceedings like AE, RFAR, RfC/Us, and other places where an editor has been notified that their behavior is being discussed. As the old saying goes: "You don't want to lose just because you failed to appear", and that should maybe be the result here. The more like a court of law the better. Failure to appear gives a default judgment, not based on the merits of the case, but based on failure to appear. Such a loss says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of the issue at hand (often related to content), but says a lot about the attitude of the editor who shows a lack of respect by failing to appear. If you're not interested in taking things seriously, you don't deserve to be here, or at least to enjoy full rights for a time. "Judgment: Loss by default, due to failure to appear." -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein admonished

2) Sandstein admonished for

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

• In regard to all 3 items, no. In regard to the first item, over time ArbCom enforcement practice has expanded from article talk pages to other discussion pages, such as for example user talk. This expansion hasn't been reflected in the wording of the sanctions, which I think led to a good faith misunderstanding. In regard to the second item, I completely disagree. And in regard to the third item, I disagree even more strongly. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, Phil, I don't understand the grounds on which are disagreeing with the last two points.
    1. Sandstein explicitly dismissed QG's actions at two or three different points. Are you suggesting that QG did not engage in a policy violation? (and if so, have you read my evidence on that point?) Or are you suggesting that Sandstein as an administrator is entitled to selectively enforce policy violations at his discretion?
    2. I need to finish my evidence on this, but it seems self-evident that there is a bias here. If nothing else, note that brangifer was never so much as warned for making multiple personal attacks in this post (false accusations of COI, false accusations of advocacy, false accusations of vandalism) despite the fact that he was doing it at ANI, and I asked twice [10], [11] for an admin to warn him. The only reason he wouldn't be warned for this is that no one actually perceives these insulting statements as improper, which is the very definition of a systematic prejudicial bias. I am frequently warned for making far less pointed comments; he has never to my knowledge been warned over things like this, though I've seen him do it dozens of times (and I've seen other editors and even admins engage in this kind of personal attack with impunity more times than I can count). --Ludwigs2 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed enforcement

QuackGuru topic-banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No, this user has been duly warned enough; he needs to leave. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Reversal of arbitration enforcement actions

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Consistently questionable arbitration enforcement actions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

• At best unnecessary, at worst unhelpful. It is a clear fact that the Committee may do this. We are also a community organization, so that I would assume that the community might - in an extreme case - ask an administrator active in AE to desist, and I would hope that this administrator would do so. This does not mean, of course, that the baying of individuals, especially those unhappy with AE provisions against them or their compatriots, means an AE administrator should change. It strikes me that the Trusilver motions got it exactly right; at best this restatement is equivalent (then unnecessary); at worst it enacts additional perceived protection for AE actions, which is also unnecessary and may be harmful. (BTW, on rereading, I am slightly concerned that "consistently" is too high a bar; I think it should merely be "repeatedly", however it should be the Committee that decides that) Martinp (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Martinp. Wikipedia is a community and if the community feels a particular admin is doing a poor job, the community has the right to restrict that admin from doing so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Dreadstar

1) Dreadstar undid a block ([12]) that had been made pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and that had been explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, without either the written authorization of the Committee, or a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard. Dreadstar did so under circumstances in which they were, or should have been, aware of the requirements for undoing arbitration enforcement actions. When other editors made Dreadstar aware of these requirements ([13]), Dreadstar declined to undo their reversal of an arbitration enforcement action ([14]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Ludwigs2 and QuackGuru

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed. Nothing in the evidence so far makes clear that the underlying dispute is more than a content dispute combined with the usual (at least for WP:AE) ideological battlegrounding, incivility, etc. that can be dealt with at the AE level or (one can always hope) through consensual dispute resolution. There is also currently insufficient useful evidence for findings and remedies about this matter.  Sandstein  20:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In fact, this assertion is incorrect. As my evidence clearly shows, QG's actions represent a clear, distinct, tendentious and long-term violation of sourcing policy that cannot be addressed through normal DR processes because of editors and admins who consistently run interference for him (for whatever misguided reasons they might have). sorry, but this proposal is vacuous at best. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Unnecessary. Martinp (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the state of the /Evidence page and this one, some statement that certain concerns being raised are dismissed without prejudice as being outside the scope of this case would be nice. Otherwise we might see argumentation that concerns have already been addressed or that ArbCom did not find this or that behavior objectionable. I would especially like to avoid turning this case into ARBPS2. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I would very much like to avoid ARBPS2 because it could easily create a situation in which it is harder to oppose actual fringe POV pushing. That's why I hope that this case will serve as a reminder that the People's Front of Judea is supposed to fight against the Romans, not against the Judean People's Front. [15] But that can only work if we look at some of the structural problems here. Hans Adler 23:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

Dreadstar desysopped

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Slim, Ludwig2 wasn't blocked for expressing his frustration with Quackguru. He was blocked because, after expressing his frustrations, he made a threat of what would happen if he didn't get his way, see evidence I just presented. He wasn't blocked because, as you said in the ANI thread "his language was a little aggressive"[16]; he made a threat and, after being asked very directly, he played silly instead of retracting it. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Enric, I am seriously disappointed. You are honest, you are intelligent, and you can read. It's incomprehensible to me how you can interpret Ludwigs2's plea for help as a threat when read in context. This only makes sense if you know the way Ludwigs2 generally behaves when he is confronted with unreasonable POV warriors and is not getting the support he deserves, and if you fault him for that. That's blaming the victim for practising self-defence after crying for help and being ignored by the constable. It's the mechanism that makes workplace bullies successful and causes their victims to be sacked. -- Or maybe I am wrong. In that case it should be easy to provide an example where Ludwigs2 has acted disruptively. (And preferably not from his first 6 months at Wikipedia.) Hans Adler 00:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly" If this is not a nasty threat of disruption, what is? - BorisG (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a vivid description of what happens when an academic is faced with a Randy, doesn't get the support from admins and other editors that he can rightfully expect, but decides to solve the problem anyway. It's a description of a situation that is symmetric in that either user can stop it any moment by withdrawing and letting the other one win. It's a description of a situation that is asymmetric in that one user is acting rationally and entirely within policy, and the other is not. And it's a description of this situation by a user who is sufficiently objective and self-critical that he realises the potential of disruption and knows that he will be blamed for it by idiots who can only think in black and white, yet sufficiently idealistic to do the right thing anyway. Hans Adler 02:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, two comments:

• I have no doubts that the arbiters will take the full context of my quote (as I laid it out in my evidence) into consideration.
• I have no delusions that Enric or other editors in his camp (which apparently includes new-editor-Boris) will take a reasonable, detached perspective about it.

There is no point in debating the issue, because the issue comes down to whether one reads what I wrote in good faith or in bad faith, and Enric (for one) has never shown any inclination to take what I say in good faith. Best just to let him have his say - it's unlikely that anyone who matters will be taken in by this kind of ham-fisted rhetoric. --Ludwigs2 02:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Hans, you are suggesting that Ludwigs2 threatened that if admins do not take action, he will take the law into his own hands. I think Ludwigs2 is quite right on the substance of the dispute with QG but I don't think such a threat is an acceptable way to address it. The only way I can explain your attitude is that you are so much involved in the actual dispute that it has limited your ability to judge this objectively. Unlike you, I am competely uninvolved, and I find this approach appauling. BTW, if Ludwigs2 went ahead and caused the disruption he threatenned, this would likely result in a long topic ban for both QG and Ludwigs2. Depends of course on his specific actions, whoch were only alluded to in vague terms. - BorisG (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris, I made a grumpy frustrated allusion to the fact that things were likely to fall apart without admin intervention (which is the normal result of QG editing on a page, incidentally), and stated explcitly and clearly that I did not want it to go that route and that I wanted advice. To see that as a threat, you need to selectively take the quote out of context, and then expressly interpret that selective quote in the worst light possible. And even then, it's such a vague thing that calling it a threat seems quarrelsome. The whole 'threat' thing is a little bit of my doing filled with a whole lot of hot air, and the only reason it's still floating around is that there is no shortage whatsoever of hot air blowing from that side of the fence. --Ludwigs2 07:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is how I read it when I first saw it. I was a bit astounded, but maybe there are other ways of reading it. Let's leave it at that. But your implication that my position on this is somehow related to my views on the content (or conduct of other editors) is completely misplaced. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludwigs2. I have re-read your comment a few times, and I can only see a threat of causing disruption if admins didn't act your way. Denying such a simple fact is not helping your case. Honestly, you would be better served by simply recognizing that you made a threat due to frustration, and then explicitly retracting it. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enric: as I said previously, I've never seen you interpret anything I've done in good faith, so your perspective is unsurprising. I freely admit I was frustrated and that it was a poor choice of words, but there's really no way of interpreting my comment as a threat without a whole lot of mental gymnastics. sorry. --Ludwigs2 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein, I want you to know that if I decide to put forth a remedy that you be desysop'ed, it will be primarily on the basis of your advancing this as a remedy. (I doubt either would pass, so I'm debating whether it would actually be worthwhile to demonstrate the relative support for either outcome) Regardless of your particular religious persuasion or lack thereof, you might want to read and consider Matthew 7:1-5. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, if proposing to desysop somebody is in and of itself worthy of desysopping, wouldn't you need to propose, then, to desysop yourself also if you make the proposal to desysop me because I proposed to desysop Dreadstar?  Sandstein  08:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

• Overkill. An admonishment is warranted (possibly with a restriction to not overturn any admin actions if the Arbcom feels this is necessary), but in the circumstances of the case a desysop is unnecessary. In the Trusilver case, the AE-reversing admin was very forcefully stating that his principles required him to do the action, while in this situation Dreadstar has apologized and recognized he should have acted differently. There is no need for ArbCom to use the strongest penalty in its arsenal. To anticipate the objection to my point of view, Sandstein's evidence has shown that by and large AE sanctions are both fairly applied as well as rarely subject to reversal, through discussion or unauthorized Cowboy action. So there is no need to "assert authority" forcefully and make an example of someone - an admonishment to indicate "we mean it" is adequate. Martinp (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Martinp here. T. Canens (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The only danger here with leniency is that others may view policy as toothless. Given the hearing that this transgression has gotten, I don't think anyone will confuse any result here with leniency. I agree with Martinp as well. Admonishment is best in this specific situation, and future situations may yield different results. aprock (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• While I almost entirely agree that Sandstien is correct in this dispute, desysop is too much. Noting even in Sandstien's related principle that admins face a sanction "up to and including desysopping". If an admin with a good record who has apologized for his isolated mistake is given the highest possible sanction then under what circumstance is a lesser sanction warrented? If the block is upheld and AE sanctions are re-affirmed then there is no reason to call for Dreadstar's head. Admonishment tops... maybe even just a reminder if the Arbs were feeling lenient. 158.35.225.240 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I stand by my previous comment that this particular violation alone does not necessitate a desysop, Skinwalkers evidence of Dreadstar's pattern of behavior has convinced me that a desysop should be considered by the Arbs. I wouldn't call it a sure thing, but enough for it to be on the table for discussion. 158.35.225.240 (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]