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

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

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

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

Clarifications and other requests

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

Request for recusal in Request_to_amend_prior_case:Digwuren

Concerning Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FDigwuren

Statement by Martintg

FayssalF was an involved party in this case, making unproven allegations of online intrusion by Digwuren. Whether or not these allegations were prompted by his earlier heated conflict with some editors over claims of admin abuse is not clear, however there is a clear conflict of interest in FayssalF's participation, which he acknowledges here and here. Nevertheless, it appears that FayssalF has voted anyway. Martintg (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not some minor tweak or "just updating the wording" as claimed by Sam Blacketer, (who also voted in favour claiming "it would give more clarity to all concerned" which contradicts the proponent's statement "a better definition of the area of conflict needed, I'm afraid. Just "Eastern Europe" is too vague"), This is a major escalation from a civility remedy with blocks no longer than a month, to discretionary sanctions allowing blocks of up to one year for any reason with a very narrow definition of involved admin. This proposal was brought on the back of a single Polish/German topic dispute (which is not even within the scope of the original locus of dispute), so why should it be applicable to the Baltic States or Russia, but not Ireland? Where is the reward for those areas that have improved since 2007, if anything we should be seeing a narrowing of the scope of the current remedy to reflect these improvements, not introducing heavier sanctions. There is also an additional concern expressed by some quarters that certain admins may abuse this provision to settle some old scores, which in my view is valid given the bad blood generated in past conflicts in EE. Martintg (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In reply to FayssalF, Petri Krohn is actually Finnish, not Russian. The Digwuren conflict at its core was primarily between an Estonian and a Finn, were the Finn recruited some Russian editors to his cause. (Krohn is even now continuing his battle off-wiki in the Estonian press with his opinion piece "Estonia is a fascist apartheid state"). It is unfortunate that the remedies in the Digwuren case were extended to broadly cover Eastern Europe, and is now being exploited by Moreschi to further his agenda as expressed in his essay "The Plague". And it is a pity that some ArbCom members have apparently bought into it rather than look at the facts on the ground. I think Sarah777's rebuttal of Morsechi's thesis in her lampooning essay "The Real Plague" raises some real problems with Moreschi's misanthropic views on ethnic diversity of viewpoints in Wikipedia. Martintg (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Given the nature of the change being made in the case (ie just updating the wording of the general article sanctions), I can't really see that there is a problem here. The remedy has already been adopted and all that is happening now is a tweak to the way it works. Even if there was a clear conflict of interest (which I doubt) it would not matter very much. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Sam. There isn't a sufficient reason for us to ask FayssalF to change his mind on matter of recusal. James F. (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If the case was limited to Digwuren I'd have had recused myself of course. The scale of this case goes far beyond that and involve a dozen of editors and many (hundreds?) of articles. Please bear in mind that I am neither a Russian, Estonian or a Polish editor. Also note that I had blocked both warring parties before; Digwuren (Estonian) and Petri Krohn (Russian) who were both banned for one year afterwards as a result of an ArbCom case. However, I am ready to recuse myself but would that change the outcome? If yes, then I'd gladly do it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see any good reason to go down the road of "jury selection", or allowing arguments to be brought on the recusal of Arbitrators. There is no particular problem with the current system of recusals. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with above arb's opinions. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (instigator)
• PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified: [1]

Statement by Jehochman

We have a big problem in that PHG's convincing looking citations can fool a majority of good faith editors. In attempting to clean up the article Buddhism and Christianity that I found listed at the fringe theory noticeboard, I spotted a familiar a pattern of original research, original maps that have no sources, and copyright violations in the form of book cover uploads. Sure enough, I found PHG had heavily edited the article. This is exactly the same pattern as we saw before.

Regrettably, PHG's mentorship with Coren (talk · contribs) has ended. Coren appears to have been inactive since May 8, 2008. The mess of damaged articles remains. Attempts to fix this mess meet with resistance because editors are unaware of the problems. I have been asked to prove, yet again, that sources have been misrepresented. Please excuse me for not having 8 hours to drive to a research library, find an obscure book, and go through the article line by line to yet again demonstrate the same problem that was demonstrated at arbitration.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and Christianity, in particular, this edit: [2]. I am at a loss for how to solve these problems. Could the Committee please review this situation and provide guidance. Perhaps an additional remedy is needed to expedite clean up of the messes. Ideally, we need the ability to blank, revert, or delete articles to a state that is untainted by misrepresented sources. It is neither efficient nor scalable to have to go through all the same arguments as we faced at arbitration for each instance of the problem. By now, there should be a presumption that PHG's information on East-West cultural connections from the time period prior to arbitration is not reliable. Additionally, I think PHG needs to stand aside and not obstruct clean up efforts in any way. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7: Click Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance to see all the time that has thus far been invested in dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern in this article is very obvious, given my close attention to the prior case. Regrettably, uninvolved editors like yourself generally don't see the problems on quick inspection. This is the great danger of subtle misrepresentation and insertion of original research. As you point out, PHG has not touched the article for a long time, but it has not been fixed yet because the damage is not obvious. I really do not have the time to engage in lengthy discussion on each and every tainted article while attempting to fix it. There has to be a better way. Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about stubbing the article, but as you can see from the AfD discussion, blanking and starting from scratch has significant opposition. I do not think changing the forum of discussion from AfD to the article talk page would have helped in any way. At least AfD helps bring in some fresh points of view. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hard problem, which is why I have come here for advice. Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, please stop with the straw man logical fallacy. I have not suggested banning PHG here. Could you look a bit more closely at some of PHG's recent contribution. Actually go get the source and look at it. For just one example, Siege of Bangkok, mentioned by PHG below. I have been told by somebody who speaks French that one of PHG's sources is a book by Michael Smithies of translations of first hand accounts by French soldiers and missionaries. Book review This bears checking. It looks a lot like PHG is sill using Wikipedia to publish original research. The past ruling may be insufficient to solve the problem. I'd like to see mandatory mentorship for PHG's editing in all areas of the encyclopedia. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggesting places to list articles for cleanup, and I like Shell Kinney's idea that PHG needs to find a new mentor. This should be mandatory, and include all editing. The mentor needs to speak French. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few articles to the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Should we move that list to a dedicated page, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Checklist? The list is associated with the arbitration case, and may include things that are not closely related to Franks and Mongols. 16:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for temporary restriction

Per Mathsci's report below, I request PHG to be blocked until a mentor is appointed. It is not fair to those cleaning up his messes in article space to allow this pattern of editing to continue without any sort of restraint. PHG is using up a huge amount of volunteer time. Jehochman ^Talk 00:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:PHG

I think I contributed only about 15% of this article Christianity and Buddhism, most of my contribution being historical background (Indo-Greeks etc...) and photographs. My last contribution gets back to August 30, 2007, about a year ago [3]. Just look at the state and length of the article, even before I contributed anything [4]. This is old stuff, and I will be glad to discuss if there are any specific issues to be addressed. We're all here to contribute content as best as we can. For some of my latest contributions, please see France-Thailand relations or Siege of Bangkok, which I am very proud to contribute. Cheers. PHG (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kenrick7

Dispute resolution? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but PHG hasn't edited that article since 30 August 2007,[5][6] and that ArbCom case came into effect in March of this year. The case explicitly doesn't forbid him from commenting on Talk page, so I'm sure commenting on AfD's is fair game. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You trotted him out as a bogey-man and cited his having edited the article as a reason for deleting the article.[7] It's a stretch of the F-Ma case to declare that everything he ever touched is permanently sullied, and he was right to call you out on it. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could always just de-ref the article, i.e. yank all the references (not added in the past 11 months) and put them on the article talk page, and then replace them all with {{fact}} tags, or information that is especially suspect with {{dubious}}. Stick a big {{unreferenced}} tag up top, and just let the article evolve from there. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article was pretty far along before (apparently) PHG ever got there.[8] I don't see how undoing the labors of dozens of editors over several years solves anything. There's no "quick fix." -- Kendrick7^talk 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shell Kinney

I think this might be solvable by having PHG choose a new mentor, since Coren does not appear to be performing that duty any longer. Shell ^babelfish 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka makes a good suggestion - we already had a de facto central area where we were listing articles to review and I'm sure no one would mind if Jehochman has other articles he wants to add to the list. Shell ^babelfish 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

I'm not entirely understanding why this is at ArbCom again. The article that Jehochman is talking about, has not been edited by PHG in several months. So what exactly is it that Jehochman wants the arbitrators to do? Ban PHG for something he's not doing anymore? As near as I can tell, ever since the last clarification a few months ago, PHG has been doing a very good job at abiding by his sanctions. He is still creating articles at a rapid rate, but he is staying out of the medieval topic area, has not been engaging in excessive debate at talkpages, and appears (last I checked) to be sticking to reliable English-language sources. I do agree with Shell Kinney that since PHG's old mentor appears to be inactive, that it would be wise to choose a new mentor (I recommend Shell, if PHG would accept). As for cleanup, I recommend that anything new that is found, that requires cleanup from PHG's past efforts, be added to the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. We are still working our way through the dozens of other PHG-edited articles with NPOV problems, so it couldn't hurt to add a few more, perhaps in a section like, "Additional articles for review", to make it clear that these may be in slightly different topic areas. At least that will provide a depository where identified articles can be clearly listed as still needing review, and will help identify the scope of the problem. --Elonka 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

I am adding these comments at the request of Jehochman, following a private communication. Having looked at some of PHG's recent edits to articles connected with the Siege of Bangkok and Siamese revolution (1688), there do still appear to be problems with his edits. He appears to have used as his principal source translations of primary documents, reports by french soldiers present at the time, recently translated from French by Michael Smithies. A review [9] of this translation makes it clear that it requires the skills of a professional historian to interpret these first-hand accounts, plagued by rivalries and jealousies between different French factions. Other sources are not mentioned, e.g. Hutchinson's classic Revolution in Siam [10] and the very recent Witness to a Revolution: Siam 1688 [11], both translations of contemporary accounts. So apparently most of the article seems to be derived from primary sources and not a secondary text by a professional historian. The Thailand article in Distant Lands and Diverse Continents: The French Experience in Aisa, 1600-1700 by Ronald S. Love gives more detailed references, including a 40 page paper from 1935 by Hutchinson in the Journal of the Siam Society and Thailand: a short history by David K. Wyatt (117-118). Detailed secondary sources (such as the detailed account of Hutchinson) have not been identified by PHG. I hope these comments are useful. Mathsci (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Per Elonka. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Along with the emerging consensus here, all we need to do is to find a volunteer to replace Coren as PHG's mentor. Are there any volunteers? Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Getting a new mentor asp seems to be the obvious solution. And in the future, PHG needs to let the Committee know if his mentor stops working with him. In the future, not letting us know might result in loss of editing privileges or other editing restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Elonka, Sam, and Flo. James F. (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for appeal: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

• ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Julia1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Southkept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Statement by ChrisO

I wish to appeal a page ban applied by Elonka after I removed an obvious copyright, BLP and NPOV violation from an article. The background is as follows:

• Muhammad al-Durrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) concerns a controversy that is currently the subject of libel litigation in France as well as an off-wiki campaign that accuses several individuals of criminal and professional misconduct. Personal abuse like this and death threats have been directed against some of those involved. I have monitored the article for BLP reasons since April 2007.[12]

• A number of previously uninvolved editors have recently been editing the article. Some of the editing and talk page contributions have been very problematic. The article was fully protected for a time and two new editors, Julia1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have been the subject of action by Moreschi [13] and MZMcBride [14] respectively.

• On 10 June, Elonka stepped in to mediate, impose editing restrictions and lift protection. [15] I fully accept that I overstepped the restrictions on a couple of occasions through sheer frustration, as noted by Elonka.[16],[17],[18].

• On 13 June, Julia1987 posted unsourced allegations on the article talk page that an individual mentioned in the article was a drug dealer who had been attacked by a drug gang.[19] WP:BLP requires the removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" from talk pages and articles. I therefore redacted them and asked Julia1987 not to post unsourced allegations in future.[20]

• On 14 June, Julia1987 made a series of edits in which she deleted some sourced material and added essentially the same allegations, this time sourced to this pirate web video, undated, unsourced, translated by an unknown individual, on a video sharing website. Julia1987's edits stated the allegations as proven facts.[21]

• WP:BLP requires that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that ... relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability". WP:COPY requires that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". Elonka's own restrictions state that "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." [22]

• I therefore removed Julia1987's problematic additions and restored the deleted material.[23] In hindsight my edit summary was poorly written and did not make sufficiently clear that the removed material was a BLP and copyright violation. As WP:BLP mandates that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" (by extension the same would apply to a 0RR regime), I did not consider this to be a revert. I did not revert to a previous version, as I retained Julia1987's and another editor's non-problematic additions. (See User talk:Elonka#Sequence of edits).

• I was shocked and surprised to find on 15 June that Elonka had banned me for one week from the article's talk page and thirty days from the article itself.[24] Elonka has since restricted Julia1987 for deleting sourced content in the same series of edits as the BLP/copyright violation [25].

• I have since unsuccessfully sought to resolve this with Elonka on her talk page. Elonka has argued that my edit was an impermissible reversion and constituted "edit-warring", but has not acknowledged any of the NPOV, BLP or copyright issues that I have raised.[26] Wikipedia's BLP and copyright rules cannot be overridden by an individual admin's restrictions, and an admin-imposed 0RR cannot supersede the long-standing rule that the removal of BLP violations is not counted towards reversions. Elonka's action has the unfortunate effect of penalising a good-faith effort to remove material that indisputably violates BLP, COPY and NPOV. This risks sending a message to editors that BLP doesn't matter and attempts to uphold it will be penalised.

I would therefore be grateful for outside views on this matter. Please note that I fully support Elonka's mediation efforts; this unfortunate misunderstanding should not be taken as criticism of the rest of her work on the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Elonka's comment below, I couldn't source Julia1987's allegations to anything other than the pirate video, an unusable source which had to be removed. BLP requires us to reliably source statements about living people ("Be very firm about the use of high quality references"). It wasn't possible to remove the unusable source while leaving in place an unsupported, potentially libelous claim - that would have been a BLP violation in my part. The only recourse was to remove the claim and the unusable source. I'm also not sitting this out because of the unresolved BLP issue and the chilling effect Elonka's action is likely to have on any future efforts to ensure that BLP is followed. We need a clear statement on whether or not editing restrictions can override BLP and copyright enforcement. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some confusion over which edit prompted the page-ban. Elonka page-banned me for making this edit. The BLP violation I removed was this bit (the bolded text is that which was added by User:Julia1987, unbolded article text is previously existing material which I didn't remove)):

Muhammad's father claim he was severely wounded in the same incident and was treated in hospital in Jordan for multiple bullet wounds.<ref name="Tierney">Tierney, Michael. ''Glasgow Herald'', August 23, 2003</ref> However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes. <ref> Ch. 10, April 29, 2008 [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x594x0_jamal-aldurrah-scars-from-the-past_news]</ref>"

This makes the father out to be a liar, it states a purely anecdotal claim made by an interviewee in the report as fact, no other reliable source that I know of has made that claim, it's sourced to a Youtube-style video hosting site (ergo, a probable copyvio), and the reliability of the source was essentially unknowable since at the time I knew of no original copy of the video. The source was unusable and the information in it uncorroborated. It would be appreciated if arbitrators could address whether this is a BLP and probable copyright violation and if so, whether removing it was reasonable. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eternalsleeper

I've been watching these discussions from afar, as I'm way too busy with RL to contribute to Wikipedia on a solid base. Elonka has been reasonable and helpful in moving the page forward, though it would be even more helpful if people stopped making sarcastic and pejorative comments on the talk page, directly and indirectly calling each other's position into ideological questioning. I haven't been following up on the page with enough persistence to make any further comment but I felt a vote of confidence in Elonka's efforts was due. Eternalsleeper (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

Personally I think that ChrisO is wasting his time here, but this appeal might actually benefit from an ArbCom review, as a few editors have been sharply critical of the conditions for editing that I placed on this article. So I wouldn't mind hearing from ArbCom as to whether or not I have been working in accordance with the Discretionary Sanctions that they envisioned in January. To describe the situation in a nutshell: ChrisO, an admin who was participating as an involved editor, was edit-warring at the Muhammad al-Durrah article, which is within the scope of the Palestine-Israel articles ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and had been in a state of dispute for quite awhile. I, as an uninvolved admin (and member of the ArbCom-appointed Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars), decided to take a look at the situation, and chose to place a civility and 0RR (no revert) restriction on the article. Most editors complied, but ChrisO kept reverting. Since he's an admin, I tried to give him lots of leeway, but it's obvious that he felt that the restrictions were for other people, and not for him, and he kept on with warring and incivility, such as referring to loony conspiracy theories. So I gave him a steadily increasing set of cautions.[27][28] [29][30][31] [32][33] After his second revert,[34][35] I told him clearly that if he did one more, he risked being put on tighter restrictions.[36] The next day, he reverted again,[37] with a misleading edit summary of "blatant POV pushing" (his edit summary didn't describe it as a revert, but it was clear that he had cleanly wiped out 8 intervening edits, back to his own last version.[38]) I then put him on (what I felt was) a mild ban of avoiding the talkpage for one week, and avoiding edits to the article for one month.[39] He immediately started wikilawyering with multiple messages to my talkpage about why he was allowed to revert,[40] and then he came up with this after-the-fact "BLP" angle,[41] saying that it excuses his total revert. I disagree. The case is pretty simple as far as I'm concerned, and has nothing to do with BLP. ChrisO was edit-warring, he was told to stop, he didn't, I put a brief page ban on him.

I would also like to point out that when I first learned of the situation, the article was already protected, the talkpage was in the middle of a severe dispute, and ChrisO was begging for an uninvolved administrator to help out. When I offered my assistance, he said it would be appreciated.[42] I am proud to say that since I placed my conditions on the article on June 10, the article has become much more stable, with some very constructive conversations going on at the talkpage. And all of this was accomplished with no blocks and no page protection. Instead, three editors (two new editors, and ChrisO) were placed on temporary bans (see our admin log), and everyone else is back to work. I acted in the best interest of the project, and got rapid control of a situation that was in near chaos, with only very minor course corrections on my part. I wish that ChrisO could recognize that my system works. That he is continuing to escalate and is now trying to spin this as a BLP issue, is disappointing. There were many ways that he could have edited the article to remove anything that he found problematic, by changing the text rather than just reverting. It is also disappointing that he's going to the trouble of filing what will probably be a lengthy appeal, which will probably take weeks to resolve. I had pointed out to him that an easier route would be to simply avoid the talkpage for the rest of the week (until June 22), and then if he resumed participation in a civil and constructive manner, that I would consider lifting the article editing ban early, rather than requiring that he sit out the full 30 days. I've already done this with one of the other editors, Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), who had been banned for 90 days. We instructed him to work on other articles for awhile, and he did, so we lifted his talkpage ban to allow him to resume discussions. But evidently ChrisO would rather stir things up here at ArbCom for a few weeks, rather than just waiting until the weekend to participate at talk, so here we are. --Elonka 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Just a brief comment here. Elonka's system is interesting, and is in fact similar to what I have advocated elsewhere. I'm glad to see that some of these (rather obvious) ideas are at least being put into practice. I am concerned though that sometimes it can end up looking like some individuals (in this case Elonka) are the gatekeepers for the article. To avoid this, I suggest a system of rotation, whereby the uninvolved admins move on to different areas and different articles every few months. This will ensure things do not go stale, that grudges do not fester and build up, and that the admins involved get a fresh look on different articles rather than deal with the same things over and over again (ie. avoid burn out). This would also address the perennial question of whether admins are truly uninvolved and committed. If the admins in question are uninvolved, then they will not mind moving on a different article every few months. Possibly all this has been suggested elsewhere. If not, please do pass it on to whatever board is considering these things this month. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Canadian Monkey

Elonka has done a commendable job of stepping into a controversial article and, through the imposition of strict editing conditions, eliminated edit warring while allowing for continuous improvement of the article. As she notes, ChrisO was given plenty of warning about his behavior, and much more leeway was given to him (presumably because of his status as an admin) than to other editors, who were subjected to similar sanctions for behavior that was, in my opinion, much less disruptive than ChrisO’s. He has clearly edit warred on the page, and reverted on multiple occasions, despite being notified of both the 0RR restrictions and the general ArbCom decision related to I-P articles.

The "BLP" issue is a Red herring. As Elonka notes, ChrisO came up with the "BLP" angle [43] after the fact, and used it as an excuse for a revert that encompassed much more than any potential BLP issues. I’d like to highlight he fact that this is apparently a common modus operandi with ChrisO. On May 23rd, he was reported for a 3RR violation by an uninvolved editor on the same article (prior to the recent restrictions and Elonka’s involvement). He did not claim he was reverting BLP issues in any of his 5 reverts, 3 of which consisted of removing "Category:Violence in media", which is clearly pure edit warring over a content issue that has nothing to do with BLP. But once the 3RR report was filed, he suddenly came up with the "BLP" angle, to excuse his behavior ex post facto, and without pointing to any actual BLP issues that his reverts were aimed at.

His behavior on this article has been problematic from the get go. He has abused his admin privileges by posting warning notifications on the Talk pages of all those who opposed him, even though he was an involved admin. This behavior was found problematic by several uninvolved admins ([44], [45],[46]) and he was told it was improper (though not sanctioned for it).

Unable to get consensus for his views on the Talk page of the article, he has engaged in egregious forum shopping, seeking to get his opponents banned or otherwise sanctioned and his own actions vindicated, on no fewer than 6 different venues: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. In fact, this most recent appeal follows on the heels of yet another appeal, his 7th (!!) this time here, after he had been told by the responding admin that “I would tread on the cautious side and say that if it's not obvious, then note it to someone else and let others do it, if 0RR applies to one of the editors involved.”

Given this extremely disruptive behavior, the length of time it has been going on, and the fact that similar behavior has been exhibited on other articles as well (see this, for example, where he has blocked an editor with whom he has an active content dispute) – I think that ChrisO got off extremely lightly (a 30 day ban from a single article), and that a more appropriate sanction would be a topic ban, from all I-P related articles, for a substantially longer time period.

Statement by Tarc

I find it rather hard to believe that, in the name of "mediation", one administrator can simply ignore policy and guidelines on NPOV and BLP and such. All edits and/or reverts are not created equal; if someone edits in violation of Wikipedia policy, to sanction someone else for addressing and removing such violations is a serious error in judgment. Mediating in this or any I-P related article is a thankless task that few if any have the time, patience, or willingness to undertake, and Elonka should be commended for taking a stab at a difficult task. But a bit more flexibility is called for here, and a hard "no reverts ever" is simply bad practice and completely unworkable.

Statement by JGGardiner

Like everyone else, I have to say that Elonka has done a wonderful job on the talk page. This was definitely a mop and bucket job. I can see how the editing conditions may seem a little draconian but the alternatives are worse.

When I first read Chris' statement I thought it did raise an interesting policy question: can editing restrictions override our policy restrictions. But, having looked everything over once again, I'm not sure that there is an actual policy difference here. Elonka's conditions seem to have exclusions that go far beyond just BLP: "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." Chris’ initial arguments seem to be that his edit was within the limits of Elonka’s restrictions. I think this is just a simple disagreement over the nature of Chris' particular edit.

Chris does acknowledge that he did not adequately construct his summary. If he did alter content beyond what was necessary to satisfy BLP concerns, it is easy to see why Elonka would have felt this was a reversion in violation of the editing conditions.

I am sympathetic to Chris’ feelings. I think that his general concern was having the article within policy. But I think that an admin in Elonka’s position would have had to have given Chris the benefit of the doubt to think that his edit was not a reversion. And at that point nobody on the talk page deserved such a benefit. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kelly

I fully endorse Elonka's actions - as someone who tried to make a foray into this article as an uninvolved party, I can testify that a firm hand is needed in handling this article. ChrisO's behavior has been problematic at times, as Elonka states (particularly his continual use of derogatory terms like "conspiracy theories" to describe other viewpoints; I believe this provokes other editors into inappropriate actions). This is not to say that the editing of his "opponents" has not also been problematic. But, as an experienced user, ChrisO should know better. Frankly, I'm impressed with how Elonka has handled the situation, and feel this approach should be used with other contentious articles. No ArbCom action needed here. Kelly ^hi! 14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on ban of User:Tundrabuggy

Based on the user's comments below, I guess I would ask why Tundrabuggy's sanction was so much more severe than ChrisO's, for what seems to be a much lighter offense. If anything, Tundrabuggy should have gotten more leniency than ChrisO, given that Tundrabuggy is relatively new and ChrisO is, and has been, well aware of editing practices here. Kelly ^hi! 02:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

This seems to be about the imposition of a fairly routine discretionary sanction as provided for by the remedies in the case in question. If someone thinks an administrator erred in imposing such a sanction, their first avenue of redress is surely to seek input from other administrators, say by raising the matter at WP:AN/I and establishing a consensus that the application of the sanction should be reversed. I don't think the Arbitration Committee's input is needed unless the community is unable to resolve the matter, or clarification of the remedy is needed. Neither appears to be the case here. The Committee will waste a lot of time if they're to agree to provide "first instance" review of every discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator. I think other avenues of redress should be explored first. WjBscribe 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

I think the problematic part is the fact that some people would read the original wording as only sanctioning AFTER warning, and not to start with blanket 0RR. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tundrabuggy

As a new user I started my account 28th May and the first article I edited was Muhammad al-Durrah. On June 2, the first external contribution to my talk page was the notification posted by ChrisO [53] without comment or discussion, and logged here: [54]. Until "tidied up" by Moreschi [55] later, the edit read: "notified of the case in relation to single-purpose account editing and promotion of personal views and original research"

Since then I've had a quick lesson in navigating, editing, rules and general "culture" of WP. I believed my half-dozen edits on the article were fair and neutral.

With the recent court decision, the release of the raw footage, and the latest articles, the equation has changed such that to continue to insist that that the opposing viewpoint is "fringe" or "conspiracy theory" becomes not only insulting, but rather a barrier to productive editing. Thus I tried to use neutral terms such as "was reported." This edit, however, became proof of being a 9/11-style thruthers [56], a sentiment endorsed by Moreschi, at the FTN with this highly POV edit [57]. The following day Moreschi goes to the Admin Noticeboard asking for an uninvolved admin to ban me and Julia1987. [58]

Later (ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008)labels other editors: Canadian Monkey, Gilabrand, & Leifern "... to put it bluntly the SPAs and conspiracy theory advocates are not listening and are attempting to edit-war their view into the article. There is some very blatant soapboxing..."

Elonka stepped in and volunteered to mediate. She was accepted by all including ChrisO. As part of her ongoing mediation, she lifted protection on the article in exchange for some simple edit restrictions.

On June 10th I made the first single-word edit on the newly unprotected article -- "reported" -- and was surprised by a 90 day edit-ban on both article and talk page by previously uninvolved admin MZMcBride[59] Elonka asks for reconsideration: [60] and suggesting the ban is excessive, explains her rationale: [61]

I didn't challenge my ban until discovering ChrisO had received a much lighter restriction despite numerous warnings. Indeed, one might suppose he could have been expected, as an administrator and experienced editor, to have required fewer warnings, to have been held to a higher standard than I.

MZMcBride said of my ban of three months: "There truly isn't any need for this level of discussion for something so minor." [62]

If three months is acceptable for one party in a mediated dispute, how is a week and one month from the article so egregious? I believe that ChrisO abused his administrative powers to shoe-horn his POV into this article, and is now trying to break an agreed-upon mediation. He should accept the mediator's decision(s) in good spirit, and abide by them. To me the terms seem generous, and I think he could use his time to consider his own behavior in regard to this article, rather than trying to find fault in the behavior of others. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the issue of what ChrisO refers to as "ongoing litigation" in his statement. There is currently no ongoing litigation. Until and unless France 2 takes this to the Supreme Court, the issue has been decided. On the point of BLP, the latest court decision says of the main figure in this controversy (Charles Enderlin) that in his position "he inevitably and knowingly exposes himself to more careful scrutiny," and that he "admitted that the film, ... perhaps did not correspond to his commentary" "and the statements procured by the cameraman ... cannot be found truly credible neither in their presentation nor in their substance..." and in regard to the wounds of the father: "the lack of probative value of the photographs of Jamal AL DURA’s wounds." Thus the court has made their statement [63]and to reiterate the substance of the investigations that the court decision used to determine its verdict would not seem to me to be in violation of WP:BLP. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Julia1987

Prior to the ban ChrisO violated 3RR but escaped a block for technical reasons (report filed too late). He intimidated other editors using his admin "rank". His contribution page (prior to the ban) almost all his 500 edits are in one article. (or this request for arbitration plus related talk page - arguing about the ban) [64] --Julia1987 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Messedrocker

I do not know the background, but let's assume for the sake for the argument that the editing sanctions were rightfully applied. If a removal is done per BLP, and it is recognized as such by the mediator and others, then it is a granted exception to the editorial ban. This has to be a very cut-and-dry case, though, where it is unambiguously in compliance with the ArbCom statement which goes along the lines of "BLP must be enforced at all costs". Otherwise, it is a breach of the ban and should be reverted.

I have no problem with banned ones requesting others to make edits, BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT the proxy editor must acknowledge that they have passed the request through their own judgment and they are willing to be responsible for their edits. That way, it is like proxy editing, but with the benefit of a human filter to prevent bad stuff from going through.

If the editing ban was wrongfully placed, then that's for the ArbCom to deal with.

MessedRocker (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

I half expected to see this request when I commented on the issue a little bit ago. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I will say that a blanket no-revert rule on an article, applied to all editors, isn't wise. Sometimes someone will make an edit with no redeeming qualities at all, negatively effecting the article, but without it being vandalism (or a BLP issue). My suggestion to Elonka was to make this restriction more.. restricted. Apply it to certain editors, certain texts, or something that wouldn't debilitate one of our most basic cleanup functions.

This may or may not be an issue yet, and this may or may not apply to ChrisO, but that's my two cents. -- Ned Scott 08:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I find myself agreeing with a number of people here:
  • Firstly, I agree with WJBscribe's comment. The original decision included this remedy, on appeals of discretionary sanctions, providing that appeals could be made to the sanctioning administrator, the relevant admin noticeboard (presently arbitration enforcement) or to the Committee. While the remedy didn't spell it out explicitly, the usual understanding is that one would start with the individual administrator, and then proceed "up" the chain of review from there, with review by the Committee being the last step, if others have not produced a resolution.
  • Secondly, I agree with the substance of what Elonka has said. From what I have seen this does not appear to be a BLP situation, but one of simple edit-warring. Reverting simply so your preferred version can stand (here, with an edit summary of "please let this stand for more than half an hour, OK?") is textbook edit-warring. Policy and practice grant much leeway to people to deal with BLP problems, but they have to have a sound basis for exercising such leeway, and they have to communicate that they think there's a BLP issue when they take action so that other editors understand what they're doing.
  • Thirdly, I agree with Carcharoth's view. Speaking generally, in these types of situations, the appearance of non-involvement is often as important as actual non-involvement. Perhaps, in the light of the increased number of discretionary sanctions remedies the Committee has passed over the last year, it would be worth setting aside a page somewhere to discuss discretionary sanction "best practice": what has worked, what hasn't worked, and so forth.

--bainer (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several matters in this clarification: compatibility of 0RR with the case sanction (was Elonka within her rights?) and balancing of that sanction with BLP (if imposed, would 0RR preclude BLP reversion?). A question also exists, per ChrisO's statement, whether the specific item in question is in fact a BLP violation. Quick answers (detail below):

1. Yes, 0RR is an appropriate choice available to an uninvolved administrator, within the sanctions provided. Elonka has correctly understood both the purpose of the discretion given, and the extent of the tools made available for that purpose, and has applied them following appropriate prior warnings, and with care.
2. BLP (if a genuine case) would have a very high priority indeed and would override xRR.

   There is a caveat (because BLP is sometimes pushed or gamed for POV removal purposes). The caveat is, a user who claims "BLP-vio!" to do this, takes the chance they could be deemed edit warring unless the case is obvious. "Exceptional claims" (which include the claim "we have to ignore sanctions and restrictions, delete this now, and discuss later") should be accompanied by a good description of the reason that anyone can follow, and by willingness to discuss collaboratively after removal. Where it may not be clear to others, a good talk page description should usually be provided and ideally posted within moments of the edit and noted in the edit summary, so that the two will be seen together by other editors, and so it doesn't get mistaken for edit warring.

3. The revert by ChrisO does include material that was a clear violation of BLP (negative and unsourced/poorly sourced content). It also included reverting a number of edits that by themselves were not BLP violating, but taken together had a very one-sided negative effect that possibly did meet BLP criteria. (See below: "detail".) I'm willing to accept ChrisO's statement that despite describing it as "POV", this was what made him revert (WP:AGF). A person reverting others' work should be very careful at the best of times not to do so unnecessarily nor to revert valid material (WP:REVERT). This goes double when 0RR is in operation and also when a prior history of warnings for editing conduct has taken place. ChrisO had previously been warned about editing conduct on the article. He then posted a revert of multiple edits to the introduction, with an edit summary "blatant POV-pushing". Some of the reverted material should have been reverted (but on well-explained grounds), some should have been discussed but not reverted -- and a good explanation at that exact time of revert above all should have been given. Especially given the circumstances, he should have made exceptional efforts to be clear. ChrisO did not communicate and the result was a foregone conclusion.
4. Last, as bainer says (citing WJBScribe), this should probably not be brought here first. This dispute is probably not an RFAR matter (at this time). But now it's here, so be it.

I hope Elonka and ChrisO will talk and sort matters out, having seen first-hand the consequences of this communication issue. It's easy to learn from and both are good editors capable of insight. I note the sanction Elonka chose is reasonable and not excessive, and that Elonka carefully distinguishes talk page and article in her judgement of the handling. Bans and the like are preventative, and ChrisO sounds like he may have done mostly the right thing this case, but with poor and misleading communication, even though in prior instances he was breaching good practice and needed warning. I urge both to re-affirm that they are working together, and to collaborate better, which would make the sanction perhaps less necessary to uphold. But the bottom line is, I feel it's best to leave the final decision in Elonka's hands to decide (she's admining on this dispute area, and is doing it well). My own feeling is that if appropriate and if she feels ChrisO may have now learned from this about the importance of good communication in sensitive, already-restricted areas, she might feel like giving a second chance.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More detail.

More detail on the actual points raised: Compatibility of 0RR with the general sanction - The remedy is extremely broad (including "restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary...".) 0RR is a restriction that would apply only to existing or new editors on the article. The aim of an ultra-broad remedy is to get the article back on track however is necessary almost, and to deal with a range of behaviors that need strong action. If an uninvolved administrator feels 0RR/1RR may resolve problems (for example by compelling discussion of all points that become visibly disputed) then that may well be exactly whats needed. If not, we'll find out. Default = trust. If anyone feels that 0RR is a bad idea, it can be appealled (via Elonka as imposing administrator, WP:AE, or the Committee). But so far as I am aware, no claim is made that imposing 0RR per se is a bad admin judgement, or harms the article. Arbitration remedies like this get given only because nothing less seems powerful enough to work, and (provided it is fairly used) to support a strong hand which may actually be what is needed for admins to do their job managing conduct on an article, without being stonewalled. BLP vs. sanctions - A genuinely harmful BLP issue must take priority over most other editorial concerns. If there were a genuine issue with poorly sourced or unsourced material, and it was in a biographical article or shaded negatively towards a living person, I would expect it to be removed. Caveat - I would not expect it edit warred over or gamed. Was the reverted material (despite its revert as "POV") really a genuine BLP violation? - Unequivocably yes, but capable of correction. This is exactly the kind of thing BLP policy was set up to deal with quickly and override other concerns on. Let's look at the case. A living person, the joint subject of an article, has a part of the article saying that medically and factually, an Israeli doctor has examined his scars and they are not bullet scars as he claims ("scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes"). The article is citing this as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Its effect is to discredit the subject of the article. We need a high quality and reliable source to support a claim that roughly speaking this is either 1/ considered the case by the medical world ("they are axe scars"), or 2/ backed by reliable sources ("source X opined that they are axe scars"). We have neither. A google search shows nothing except blogs. There is apparently not one reliable source in Google News. The actual article statement is backed up by a source of no merit whatsoever (a video purporting to be an Israeli TV recording), but no evidence backing this exists in any reliable source I can find. We have no real evidence it was "channel 10" or any Israeli TV channel (much less a reputable one), what its provenance and reliability are. There is a channel ident on the video, but that doesnt matter - I (or any video editing hack) could fake that. A website saying "I am official" doesnt make it official. A video saying "I am channel 10" doesnt make it channel 10. We need a reliable source - ie, provenance - not just a source that claims to be reliable. The doctor and hospital are named, and a statement that "In an anonymous video, Doctor X of hospital Y stated that he identified them as surgical scars from an operation he had performed in 1994" would be better. The translation issue is not a problem (we can check it, like any other non-English source.) But note - we still have no reliable source that this is a doctor, or the doctor, or that there was a surgery case as described, or that the interview is of a reliable nature and not tampered, no confirmation that the claims in the video are endorsed by any reliable source, not one reliable independent source refers to any of this at all... all we have is one anonymous video of a person who says they were a doctor in the 1990s holding up an X ray and making a claim. On this basis the introduction states the subject has been in effect, proven untruthful. We need a higher quality source to support such a statement. That is precisely what BLP is for. Dead end. Other edits reverted were POV. Whether or not serious doubt exists (it may well), these edits placed this doubt in Wikipedia's voice, and implied a negative slant to the bio throughout much of its introduction. Likely ChrisO's version is better in that it cites facts and statements, more neutrally and with less opinioning. In general with one exception NPOV issues do not by themselves reach the standard needed for summary deletion/reversion per BLP, when 0RR is in operation. The exception is when the overall effect is BLP breaching. Here it may well have been, since the introduction had been generally negatively shaded in tone against the subject by these edits. To sum up, ChrisO has admitted that he was at fault for stepping over previous restrictions. But in removing this item, and persisting, he's on target and has got BLP right, and given it the priority it needs. I put the issue down to communication and forethought rather than anything else, with good points coming out of it to go forward. ChrisO especially could have notified it better, and explained it more on the talk page. It wasn't well explained and was in a contentious area. An exceptional issue may need exceptional communication. Editing a contentious area with poor communication following on from prior breach of restriction is a risky proposition. In their intentions and the aim of their actions, both were impeccable - Elonka managing the dispute, ChrisO spotting the genuine serious BLP issue and persisting with removing it. The communication and understanding failed. Above average care, and above average communication, are needed on more sensitive contended areas... a person who doesnt, will often have a problem as a result. ChrisO didn't communicate. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the above, especially FT2's expression of hope that Elonka & ChrisO can resolve; in light of this consensus in the those of the Committee who have posted, I think we should remove this request. James F. (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Request for clarification: Scope of the Arbitration Committee to create new policy and process. [65] [66]

Statement by Barberio

Recently, two 'remedies' have been passed by the Arbitration committee that seek to establish new policy and processes affecting en.wikipedia content. This is a both a step beyond their usual remit of only responding to user behaviour issues not content issues, and only recommending that the community develop new policy to address issues.

I can find no part of Wikipedia:Arbitration policy that enables the Arbitration committee to do so, and I suggest it goes against the spirit of wiki policy. The exact wording in the Arbitration Policy states that all remedies MUST be in the form of "User X is...". In essence, remedies were intended under the policy to apply to individuals. It has been stretched over time to cover groups, but now it has been stretched far beyond it's original intent.

Again, I must make this clear, Wikipedia:Arbitration policy as currently written bars the Arbitration Committee from making remedies that cover more than a single person. I also suggest that those who voted for the Arbitration committee's current make up were not informed, and may not approve, of this extension of the powers of the committee's members.

Can the arbitration committee members please explain to the community

 * Where the power to mandate these new policies and processes comes from;
 * Why they did not feel the need to consult with the community, or allow for community discussion;
 * How they would react if the community rejects these new processes;
 * and any sanctions on editors they may enforce for failing to accept these new processes.

I would prefer individual, and full explanation of their decisions from each arbitrator. I think it would also be fair to ask the dissenting arbitrators to explain their positions too. I do think this issue is important enough to the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, that all arbitrators must explain their actions to the community, beyond a simple 'aye or nay' vote. --Barberio (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the weight of opinion being expressed both here and elsewhere, I think I can state that community consensus is forming around the following points -

• These remedies constitute either new policy, fundamental changes to current policy, or at the very least creation of new processes that must be followed
• The community wishes to retain primacy in creating policy through consensus unless mandated to assume policy by the foundation
• The arbitration committee have departed from the original intent of the arbitration policy by moving from remedies targeted at individuals, to remedies targeted at groups and subject matters, to remedies targeted at the entire community.

I welcome, and urge, comment from the Arbitration Committee to address these issues. --Barberio (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

I take this opportunity to point to m:Foundation issues which is a list of issues made by the Wikimedia Foundation that are beyond the debate and alteration of the local communities. Point five reads in part: "The Arbitration Committees of those projects which have one can also make binding, final decisions such as banning an editor."

I therefore submit that if Arbcom is the final binding authority, it may make its decisions however it chooses and may make them as broad or as narrow, as novel or as regular, as it feels necessary. MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Barberio by InkSplotch

I think it's fairly straightforward here...I've never seen anything to suggest the Arbitration policy is either prescriptive or proscriptive. It establishes the remit and scope of ArbCom, and if anything is truly binding the sections Scope and Rules are it. The rest seems fairly descriptive of the process, informing others what to expect. In this case, that particular remedy does follow the "similar to" format described, neither does it violate the scope or rules clauses of their remit. I think you've a bit of an uphill battle here, needing to establish fully that:

• The aribitration policy is a binding, proscriptive document.
• That these remedies violate the spirit of the policy.
• That these remedies are, in fact, new policy themselves.

I've been following the discussions in several places, from the talk page of the Footnotes:Proposed Decision page over to the BLP pages. Personally, I don't like the remedy as written, and fear it's far too open to abuse. Procedurally, I think it belongs more under Principles than Remedies (something I decided on reviewing the BDJ case earlier today) and I wonder if it would have raised as much fuss there (I suspect so). The more I see from current and former arbs, the more I think I understand why they wrote these remedies, and I'm being swayed that they're not actually "new policy." I still think a good bit more effort needed to go into the writing of things to get this point across, and minimize attempts to wiki-lawyer things.

Barberio, I've seen you passionately argue on these topics before. I think you could have some constructive input over on the BLP talk pages. Trying to strike this down as procedural on this page, however, is just plain wiki-lawyering and it won't really fix anything. We might need more discussion before we all understand one another, but the issues here are real and they're not going away. --InkSplotch (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WAS 4.250

Arbcom rightly has binding authority over behavior disputes between editors that the normal resolution processes fail at solving. It is quite a stretch to say that the case that was brought represented a behavior dispute between editors that normal process failed at and that this ruling is a response to. It is an ill conceived, poorly written, unjustified, variously interpreted terrible ruling that will create and has created drama. In the future it is very likely to create NPOV violations that can not be fixed without even more drama. To embolden admins in this way either creates a honeypot to catch and desyop admins or it is a get out jail free card that will create even less incentive for acting responsibly. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

Unfortunately I don't think much good will come from this request for clarification. We're asking arbcom itself if arbcom can do this or not.. This is a good example of why we need some form of checks and balances. However, I still encourage editors to leave comments here, as the discussion itself my pressure arbcom into re-thinking the issue (as it has in the past when the community got in an uproar over a past decision). -- Ned Scott 21:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Taking a different tack on this, the history of the Arbitration policy is quite interesting, especially how it was actually put together, and especially when you compare it to how things work now. The initial version of the policy was posted over four years ago on 1 February 2004. See here. I think the version that was voted on (see oppose votes 12 and 14 at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote for early uses of "arbitrary"... <ahem>) is here. Anyway, aside from the history lesson, what I really wanted to try and point out, was whether the policy document has actually changed to fit current practice (ie. is it descriptive rather than prescriptive?). Judging my the last year's worth of edits, tweaks are made on a fairly regular basis. Though I will note that this citation tag has remained in the policy since November 2007. There was also an edit war in September 2006 over whether the Arbitration Committee itself should be able to rewrite the policy, plus some other issues. See: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. Currently, the bit at the top says: "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. More so than other policies it should not be edited without considerable forethought and consensus among Committee members." That current version stems from this edit. Just some examples of how the policy has been tweaked over the years. Carcharoth (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

• Sir Thomas: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"
• Roper: "Why, yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
• Sir Thomas: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it, Roper!--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

• From A Man For All Seasons by Robert Bolt.

A challenge to provisions made by the final dispute-resolution apparatus of this community should be treated with care. The arbitration committee is elected and it is in our interests, while telling it when we think it may have made a mistake, to ensure that we do not challenge its legitimacy. We don't want to have to face those winds. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And of course I forgot to say that we're scheduled to hold another arbitration committee election later this year. About half a dozen arbitrator seats will be up for election. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by brenneman

These questions need to be asked.

I too have spent some time recently reviewing the history and role of the Committee, and in particular its response to community input. While I do not believe that this is the appropriate venue, some general threads are already appearing in this very short discussion:

• The tension between policy as "what we do" and "what is written." This is the premise of this entire request, no?
• The tension between Wikipedia as a functional collaborative community and the foundation-level ability of ArbCom to rule by fiat.

The community (and the 'Pedia) have grown enormously. It's well and truly time to go back to first principles: Asking what is the function of the Committee, what problems are they intended to solve, and what the best way to move forward is. Arguments that suggest that we simply cannot disband the committee are well, simply avoiding the substance of this debate.

The most beneficial, the most "wiki" way forward is to have a wide-ranging discussion with the community. You know, the one that actually writes the encyclopaedia?

brenneman 02:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dragon695

Some arbiters are saying that this is similar to remedies imposed on a collection of articles that have been made for awhile now. I just have to disagree with them on this one. The number of BLPs alone is a magnitude of 100x what any of those previous collective remedies covered. To make matters worse, WP:BLP has become like a cancer, creeping into articles and subjects which have very little to do with BLP at all. However, because a living person is mentioned, the entire article is covered by BLP in the minds of some BLP extremists. So, with that factored in, this general remedy is in the order of 1000x what previous general remedies covered. I'm concerned that arbiters are not paying attention to how some very well protected administrators game the system using these policies and general remedies as outlined in C68-FM-SV evidence. Look at what happened to Cla68 when he tried to call out SlimVirgin on her wrong-doing, he was crucified. Did you know that SlimVirgin popped in over at the BLP Special Enforcement talk page to let us know that she would not be abiding by the statement of ArbCom that only uninvolved administrators should apply this remedy, since the word univolved contradicted language in WP:BLP? This is exactly the kind of thing that I and many others feared. If you refuse to revisit this decision, will you please, please, please make it clear that only uninvolved administrators are entitled to invoke this remedy. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kendrick7^talk

I second what Dragon695 says. While anyone can remove problematic information per WP:BLP, involved admins should not be handing out long term blocks, especially where it's easy and commonplace to dress up content disputes as BLP issues. I don't understand why ArbCom can't understand the problem with turning our encyclopedia into a bunch of little fiefdoms. You'll drive off productive editors when they realize they are essentially serfs. If the Middle Ages taught use one thing, it's that feudalism is a crappy way to run things. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Septentrionalis

I have misgivings about the wisdom of both delegations made here. The BLP delegation has been sufficiently discussed; but ArbCom would do well to observe that even advocates of a sweeping BLP policy are decrying this as precipitate, permitting admins to cut down all the protections of consensus by shouting "BLP!" We will see what happens.

But the Sourcing Adjudication Board has the potential to be even worse. The reasons why not to have been discussed in the Homeopathy case: they boil down to: the SAB members can be, and probably will be, carriers of POV themselves. One of the worst editors I know of, now largely departed for Citizendium, was (and Citizendium acknowledged him as) a professor at a small college, with a creditable academic output. This did not prevent him from collecting and citing sources for his Point of View which actually said something quite different; I believe he had put the words he wanted through Google Scholar and did not check whether the sources found supported him when read in context and in full.

We need to do something about source disputes; but there is no reason we cannot do them in public: ask uninvolved editors with access to good libraries what the sources say, and have quotes posted on this puiblished Wiki. Please don't consult privately with volunteer editors and emit sanctions based on the result without hearing the other side. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Robster2001

I have no opinion, at this time, about the BLP or SAB policies themselves.

I simply have a question about the process -- until now, the Arbitration Committee has acted as Wikipedia's judicial body, limiting its role to enforcing existing policy.

With the BLP and SAB decisions, the Committee has assumed legislative authority, which until now has been vested (for the most part) in the community. And it is doing so not in public view, but in two obscure arbitration cases. There are many editors who will be affected by these major policy changes that will have no idea that they have been implemented, and no idea where to look for them.

Realistically, would any non-involved editor (the huge majority of them) know to look for a new sourcing policy in the remedies to a case about Homeopathy articles?

If the Committee intends to become a policy-making body, it should do so in the full light of day -- not by adopting policies in hidden corners of policy-wonk territory, then expanding them out to the greater Wikipedia population.

Even the best-intentioned, and best-designed, policies will fail when adopted in darkness. After all, it's easy to ignore a rule that nobody saw being passed.

Wiki-wide policy simply should not be made this way. It will cause unnecessary dramatics, and divert attention from the merit of the policy to the merit of the process, as this arbitration request has already proven.

There are, of course, larger governance issues on en.wikipedia -- specifically, policies haven't really adapted to the growth of the service -- but that discussion is out of scope here. One hopes that discussion will, eventually, take place.

Some good points here worth addressing.

I would not wish to see the Committee becoming a legislative body (in the usual public sense). Sometimes it will need to reach a binding decision how best we communally work towards achieving our already existing goals, or the processes and standards that existing norms will be operated and measured by, and this is one of its tasks. We do that every time we set out principles in a case, since 2004 - "this is how to think about it in the context of communal standards, norms and policies; this is where the users went wrong". This may be one or two users, or an entire area.

In that sense the committee is doing a role similar in its core to other forms of arbitration - namely, taking a serious situation where multiple sides fail to find a way forward, hearing all sides, and giving a binding statement of the way forward (processes, practices, decisions on areas of contention, etc) that will be adopted in light of their inability to do so themselves. It also does this to make clear if a case arises in future, the standards and expectations it will use to rule on it, so that the community as a whole becomes aware and has fair notice of the standards we would feel best to apply/expect if needed.

On your main points I concur. I have this interesting observation on it, though. At Arbitration, we see a gradual ratchet of cases over time - as we learn to handle routine cases, they get more and more handled by the community so the difficulty of cases we see here and the issues they bring, will steadily and perennially increase. That's the nature of our work, and a good thing too, it keeps us on our toes as the project progresses and shows the lesser cases that used to flumox the community are now readily handled by it much better - they don't need arbitration nearly as often. But by the same token, the community needs to understand that there is a second ratchet over time too - a quality ratchet. Thinking "these articles are sort-of-okay(-ish)" might have been fine a while ago, but the community too needs to learn to demand of itself and its corpus, that higher standards of vigilance and expectation really are possible - it's not just words or "nice ideas". They are genuine expectations that benefit the project and which have had huge debate and little action. As we are constantly stretched, so is the community, and quality is one area where a number of editors are unfortunately just a bit too happy to go along with "last years standards" or "whatever gets by". Not good. Must change.

Having considered the nature of the problem, the solution we adopt to BLP disputes is a broad one, but still purely a remedy. This one's called "special enforcement" and past wide reaching admin tool discretion for unresolved issues were called "general sanctions" is secondary. It's the exact same approach we've adopted to get action on many perennial disputes since 2007, and we feel that the community having produced no workable idea, it's time to try ratcheting a stronger variation of it on this other problem area, too. Basically, "expect to be required to meet a higher standard against our norms and communal policies when it's a BLP - regardless whether it's conduct, judgement, collaboration, or handling of concerns". We haven't say what BLP content should look like, just that we expect to see more realization and greater seriousness that a higher standard of baseline is needed and now expected, for editors (admins and non-admins alike) wishing to engage this area. As ever, WP:AGF and good editorship/adminship is fine. But it must be with more careful thought and better working together, than often in past years. Guidance to follow.

Some thoughts... and thank you for the comments. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Alansohn

When the community takes a dispute to arbitration, and the issue is accepted by Arbcom, the rather reasonable expectation is that Arbcom will deal with the subject of the arbitration. That it may "impose binding solutions" is explicitly listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, but so is the clearest directive that it "is the last step in the dispute resolution process". The arbitration used to impose BLP special enforcement had nothing to do with BLP or the inability of administrators to impose solutions related to biographies of living people using its existing arsenal of remedies.

I would have loved to hear what Arbcom thinks about inclusion of brief quotations in footnotes -- the nominal subject of this arbitration -- but Arbcom decided that the subject of footnoted quotes was a content dispute outside of their purview. The original arbitration then became a fishing expedition, with editors from all over coming up with subjects that they wanted reviewed and addressed by Arbcom, regardless of how tangentially-connected or utterly irrelevant they were to footnoted quotes, the titled subject of this arbitration.

Under bizarre circumstances that I have already discussed elsewhere, Arbcom decided that enforcement of WP:BLP was the issue it needed to address here. The only problem is that BLP was never an issue among the editors involved in the arbitration. No editor or administrator had ever raised any BLP issue with the articles in question between the involved parties. The BLP issue was somehow related to an article that I had last edited in January in which (as I still see it), BLP was used improperly as an excuse to keep thoroughly-sourced, neutrally-worded material out of an article.

Without any apparent discussion of the actual case or alternate remedies that might have addressed the article it had chosen to address, Arbcom decided that super-duper triple secret probation ("special enforcement") was needed to solve some unknown BLP-related problem that was never a subject of the arbitration nor a proper matter of dispute in any article raised at arbitration. Arbcom chose to decide an issue that it had no legitimate jurisdiction over to address as part of the arbitration.

Most of the efforts in signpost and elsewhere to draw people to discuss "special enforcement" provide no context or explanation of the supposed issue, the remedy Arbcom came up with or the drastic and chilling effects it will likely have if ever used. That so many in the community feel confused, flabbergasted or duped is a simple matter of an inability to understand why BLP special enforcement solves the issue of footnoted quotes, a still festering problem.

Simply stated, Arbcom chose to legislate from the bench on a topic which was not under dispute, and on which it has no jurisdiction.

Arbcom needs to clearly explain why it chose to accept a discussion on footnoted quotes that it acknowledged was a content issue. Arbcom needs to explain why it chose to address the BLP issue in the first place, which article had a BLP issue as a subject of the arbitration, how the proposed remedies "solve" the purported "problem" and how faith in Arbcom to be the last resort in dispute resolution when it seems to be issuing extremely broad dictates on topics that are not matters of dispute. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:DGG

Recent events make it all he more necessary for this to be discussed, though possibly not here: ArbCom cannot be the final decider of its own remit and limitations. The foundational principle seems to show a limited scope, and if it is not clear enough it can be changed. it did not always exist--arb com was not in existence from the beginning of the project. DGG (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Martintg

Kirill's proposition to delegate ArbCom authority to admins is in fact a change in policy and the dispute resolution process; it effectively curtails general dispute resolution processes and arbitration as a last resort between individuals, to be replaced by a regime of "discretionary sanctions" applied arbitarily by admins across entire communities of editors on the basis of, what is in essence, racial profiling:

"The current trend of "general" remedies—which is to say, remedies which do not explicitly specify the editor(s) to whom they apply, but are instead left open such that other parties (typically administrators) may apply them without consultation with the Committee—is something that emerged from the large number of cases involving ethnic, national, and political conflicts that were heard throughout 2007 and into early 2008. The fundamental problem encountered there was that problems with editor conduct were not primarily an artifact of the individual, but rather of the group to which he belonged; in other words, the issue was not with the quirks of a specific editor, but with a statistically substantial portion of all editors who were members of some external national, ethnic, political, or other group."

"Attempts to deal with such cases by sanctioning each involved editor individually (as was done in, say, Armenia-Azerbaijan) were largely ineffective, both because new editors would continuosly arrive and engage in the same problem behavior, and because the ease of creating new accounts meant that editors who were the subject of sanctions could evade them with minimal effort. Short of instituting drum-head trials and increasing the current caseload by an order of magnitude or more, the arbitration model simply cannot scale to deal with such scenarios adequately; and so we decided to delegate a portion of our authority to the administrator corps in general, allowing them to essentially issue remedies in our name."

Working at the coalface I can unequivocally state (and examination of ANI and other boards confirms this) in the case of Baltic states topics, there is simply no veracity in the claims that individual sanctions have no effect, of disruptive new editors continually arriving or sanctioned individuals recreating accounts to the extent that it is a problem demanding a radical solution. In fact the reverse is true with good editors leaving the project in the case of the Baltic states. There is no rational basis now for the application of such sanctions across such a broad area of Eastern Europe. "Eastern Europe" is just too broad an area. Despite repeated requests for clarification of scope, and no clear concensus or even discussion about the need from the community and opposition from former ArbCom member NewYorkBrad and others, [72], [73], why is Kirill doggedly attempting to push this through for the third time? Martintg (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Bakharev (talk)

It is my believe that Arbcom does have power to interpret our policies and to make binding decision based on their interpretation. Arbcom has no power to create policies by itself nor it has a proven track of success in creation of those policies. Both policies under question are good proposals that should be discussed and most probably amended by the community. Arbcom might have its word if there will be any dispute over these proposals unresolvable by lesser WP:DR means. It is important that the proposal being adopted by the community rather than Arbcom on two levels:

1. On the procedural ones - it is a violation of separation of powers and creates a wrong precedent
2. On the pragmatic level - Arbcom members were elected for their might in the dispute resolution not on their might in the content creation. Many of them are not fully familiar with all aspects of article creation and the whole range of possible problems there (I suspect no single individual on wiki could claim such a familiarity anyway). Thus, the projects written by such a committee might have significant deficiencies.

In short I propose to consider those two policies as excellent proposal ready to be edited and discussed by the community Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messedrocker

This is how I see it.

The goal of the Arbitration Committee is to be decisive when others cannot. I have no problem with the Arbitration Committee creating policy if it resolves the argument at hand. Once the community has come to its senses, they can decide to do away with the created policy if they well please since it's not the Arbitration Committee's mission to create lasting policy, but rather to solve disputes (even if that means temporary policies are created).

It is unwise to put a blanket ban on Arbitration Committee-created policy.

MessedRocker (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I suggest that you re-read the policy and also review our previous rulings for examples of remedies. Your statement does not reflect the actual wording or the spirit of the ArbCom's policy. In past ruling we have made Findings and Remedies about Wikiprojects and the Community. And our policies, like most Wikipedia policy, are descriptive not prescriptive. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In responce, a direct quote of the portion of the policy,

Remedies will be of a form similar to: "User X is cautioned against making personal attacks even under severe provocation." "User X is limited to one revert per twenty four hour period on article A." "User X is placed on personal attack parole for a period of Y; if User X engages in edits which an administrator believes to be personal attacks, they may be banned for a short period of time of up to Z." "User X is prohibited from editing group Y of articles for a period of Z." "User X is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of Y."

Can you please highlight which part of this allows for remedies that create new policy applicable to the entire wiki? I also directly dispute your statement, the arbitration policy by it's very nature is one of the few proscriptive policies. --Barberio (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your interest in discussing a concern, but you are mistaken in your interpretation of that section. That section of the policy describes the format of the written ruling and not the content of the ruling.

And by custom and practice, ArbCom writes the description of our policy. As always, I'm interested in listening to the opinions of users and will make my decisions after careful reflection on what is best for the Community per my understanding of community norms and policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for being forceful... But you are merely saying I am mistaken, but not saying why I am mistaken. You are making an empty argument, and an appeal to authority.

Again, I ask the simple question to which you now appear to refuse to answer.

Where in the current WP:Arbitration policy are you empowered to create new policy and processes in a remedy? --Barberio (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly unproductive line of reasoning, at best. If you prefer, you may interpret every "general" remedy that we have passed as a statement of intent that we (a) shall desysop and/or ban editors that do not comply with it and (b) shall not to desysop and/or ban editors that do comply, both of which we are perfectly empowered to do by your interpretation of the policy. Kirill ^(prof) 03:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooking, for the moment, the purely semantic matter of how general sanctions may be written in a way that complies with a one-editor-per-sanction model—as I've mentioned above, this is perfectly doable (albeit with more paperwork for us), but I don't think people are that interested in an extended discussion of ruleslawyering—I'd like to comment on the more substantive points raised here.

The current trend of "general" remedies—which is to say, remedies which do not explicitly specify the editor(s) to whom they apply, but are instead left open such that other parties (typically administrators) may apply them without consultation with the Committee—is something that emerged from the large number of cases involving ethnic, national, and political conflicts that were heard throughout 2007 and into early 2008. The fundamental problem encountered there was that problems with editor conduct were not primarily an artifact of the individual, but rather of the group to which he belonged; in other words, the issue was not with the quirks of a specific editor, but with a statistically substantial portion of all editors who were members of some external national, ethnic, political, or other group.

Attempts to deal with such cases by sanctioning each involved editor individually (as was done in, say, Armenia-Azerbaijan) were largely ineffective, both because new editors would continuosly arrive and engage in the same problem behavior, and because the ease of creating new accounts meant that editors who were the subject of sanctions could evade them with minimal effort. Short of instituting drum-head trials and increasing the current caseload by an order of magnitude or more, the arbitration model simply cannot scale to deal with such scenarios adequately; and so we decided to delegate a portion of our authority to the administrator corps in general, allowing them to essentially issue remedies in our name.

It's worth pointing out, then, that this method has been common practice since at least the middle of 2007 (and far longer, if we include the old "article probation" as a general remedy), with no general sentiment that it was incompatible with the stated purpose and structure of the Committee. The current situation is essentially an application of it to a type-of-article scope (i.e. BLPs) rather than to a subject-of-article one (i.e. articles dealing with Armenia-Azerbaijan); it is fundamentally following the same well-established model of delegating our authority in order to be able to handle the disputes in the area with some reasonable expediency. It is not "making policy" any more so than the other remedies of this form were; rather, it's simply a (quite necessary) form of delegation. Kirill ^(prof) 06:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've explained how you got to this point... But this is not an argument in favour of letting the arbcom continue assuming powers by these extensions.

Let me illustrate... There's a path that goes up to a cliff edge, that we're walking up. It's a perfectly safe, level path, except it gets a bit lumpy and dangerous near to the cliff edge. Someone might walk along that path, each step automatic leading on from the one before.

But most people stop once they get to the edge of the cliff.

Perhaps I might suggest that the Arbitration Committee went just a bit too far in assuming powers to make subject-of-article remedies without first consulting with the community as to if they had those powers. I'm comfortably sure that the community would have granted those powers, but they would most probably limited them to areas of correcting editor conduct, not creating new policy and processes.

The major point I feel you're ignoring is that this fundamentally changes ArbComs role. From now on, if this stands, ArbCom will be rule makers, not rule enforcers. And not only that, but rule makers who don't have to listen to community consensus. And I don't think that was what you were elected to be. Arguing that it was a 'gradual assumption of new rolls based on previous actions', is not an actual argument in favour of assuming this new role.

Again, can you please give the community some valid reasoning as to why you should be able to create new policy and processes? Otherwise, I think the community might decide you are not?--Barberio (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, there's no new policy being created here; this is merely a delegation of our existing, traditional authority. Kirill ^(prof) 17:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FT2:

There are two questions asked here - the remedies, and the committee's remit - and the precursor to this dialog took place largely on the mailing list ^{[74] - 'Arbcom legislation'}. I wrote an answer to the question, "what is the role of the Arbitrators in this project", on the wikien-l mailing list (actually two: an email + a wording fix). That covers a large part of the answer. Broadly speaking, Wikipedia is not just "the community", and "whatever the community decides" is not the be-all and end-all on Wikipedia. The community is only half of the equation. The other half is "a project to write a neutral encyclopedia". The Arbitration Committee is one of the project's key checks and balances. Elected by the community, with authority above the community on a number of matters ^[75], it is invested from the same level and same origins that gave consensus decision making to the community as its core decision-making process. Part of its purpose is to ensure that the actual needs of encyclopedia writing and the focus of the community on its intended project, as embedded in its various policies and norms, are not accidentally marginalized in favor of wiki socio-politics and/or society-building experiments ^[76], MySpace, and "drift".

If you pause and think what the request of this post is asking, it's attempting to contend that we may not introduce strong enforcement of BLPs (often our most sensitive articles) as a remedy for a range of communal BLP disputes, when it is plainly necessary, and when the community has repeatedly failed to reach a means to do so by dialog. That is exactly part of what this committee was founded to do. It is precisely one key role of the community-elected Arbitrators acting in their role as handlers of the community's most difficult disputes, to find ways forward that promote the aims of the project and the aims of its policies on such disputes. "We can't ensure good BLP enforcement for biographical articles, but you (arbcom) aren't allowed to make it happen either". No. We are a community together. Our role is to give a ruling to allow progress on "last resort" areas of serious dispute. We have all communally watched this one area try to be given higher quality with stronger enforcement expectations, against substandard editorship for a long time, and it needs a hard shove. This, with better guidance, may help. If not, guess what - we'll figure another way. One way or another, BLP's are being brought up to their intended aim of very high standard articles. There will probably be a sea-change of culture on this, from "well, its okay (maybe)" to "is it really impeccable?" Users can understand that shift, and the reason for it - or not.

The other thing is, this is not policy change. BLP has always been expected to be that way, as ideally all articles are. This is about achievement and laxness, it's about enforcement, and about process provisions to deal with the persistent concerns over under-enforcement or mis-enforcement of these existing policies. Nothing here changes how an article should be written, what standards are expected, what BLP or NPOV mean, what a reliable source is and whether we should have a policy on these. Both of the cited remedies are purely about remedying divisive issues between administrators (and in this case also non-administrators), whereby the community may apply some policies in a patchwork manner at times, or some policies may not be enforced as strictly as the project needs, because of uncertainties and failure of consensus-seeking about what to do in difficult cases. These are both remedies which give extra tools to support the enforcement and best interpretation of existing policies and norms, exactly like all rulings in complex disputes are intended to achieve. They are Arbcom doing one of its most difficult roles - grasping the nettle and using norms and policies to find ways to guide the project through a difficult problem that no other part of the community has been willing or able to fix to the standard we feel it needs to be brought.

Our response to the cases brought to us by the community is,

1. for BLPs (passed) - be much stricter, and we will post guidance shortly on what exactly BLP policy's best interpretations and practices seem to be, in order to indicate what we have in mind on that, and
2. for sourcing (proposed) - to take our authority to resolve all dispute topics (which does include content disputes, but which we strongly avoid applying) and use it to establish some kind of "last resort" arbitration (exact format being discussed and subject to decision) for determining if a source is being properly cited and represented in a dispute.

Cross reference Arbitration policy ("The Committee reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute ... The following are general guidelines... but the Committee may make exceptions.... will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes..."). Cross reference other broad-approach remedies such as "general sanctions" that have gone into wide use, and been adopted by the community as workable. Cross reference my initial view as stated during the case itself ^[77] and at the time of initial proposed close (May 31) ^[78] to see that I have zero problem stating a view honestly held, and then doing so again, and that I would not say this unless I did concur.

Like the wider community we are not 100% sure what will ultimately prove "best". Unlike the wider community, on this occasion, we are less easily driven to doing little about it, by the limitations of large-scale consensus seeking and endless dialog. If in response, the community can produce a convincingly stronger and better regime driving higher quality, that does the job needed to meet the high standard we have communally committed towards, then these remedies may possibly become redundant. So far, despite varied attempts by a number of individuals and megabytes of dialog over a period of years, that has not happened. I will be pleasantly surprised if the community finds a better solution, but until such time as a better way is proposed, accepted, and works, the arbcom solution (subject to development and tuning in light of experience) is the current way forward on these key areas of quality and dispute. If this remedy leads to the community actually realizing the standards that can be achieved, and figuring out and agreeing a still better approach that actually works, then it will have achieved its ideal goal, and I hope that will be the case. Sometimes an issue can drift interminably, and an common effort is only really made when something serious happens giving a sense of urgency. That now exists; enforcement of high standards of editing is here, now, today; users (whether admin or otherwise) should take that on board today, and begin learning better collaborative and editing skills, if they wish to edit our BLP articles going forward without administrative action.

I hope this remedy works. I don't often speak strongly this way, but these things matter and we all know it. They are central to our writing, and the expectation of high standards - enforced to a matching high standard of fairness by experienced users and admins - must become adopted as a working new reality. If not, we'll find other ways to fix it. A discussion today reminded me just how people sometimes don't realize that we can greatly improve quality and handling of our BLPs (or they may only have a vague ill-thought-out concept of it as a theory read on some policy page or a simplistic "delete it all" idea). If they did, perhaps they would realize that we can, and should, strive for that -- not just talk about it.

With hopes that I am doing my best by taking a stance on encyclopedic content quality first, and willingness as always to listen to comments. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

• Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Matthead (talk · contribs)

Statement by Moreschi

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

Please see User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases. The problem goes back years, and is easily comparable to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, Balkans, or India-Pakistan. At the moment a whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked. The current Digwuren case does not allow for this to happen. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Daniel: better definition of the area of conflict needed, I'm afraid. Just "Eastern Europe" is too vague. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Matthead

I had opened at case at WP:AE, after which User:Molobo opened two against me 1st (closed) and 2nd, trying to take advantage that I had been added quickly to the Digwuren list shortly after it was opened, and got immediately blocked, while he and well known other editors have, well, since been overlooked somehow? I perceive the composition of the list as lopsided and doubt that Eastern Europe flamewars are conducted one way. Wikipedia has 5 pillars, of which "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" are the first two, and arguably the most important ones, compared to "Wikipedia has a code of conduct" as fourth. Thus, as we try to write an encyclopedia, I think it is necessary that much more attention is given to the content that editors add or remove, rather than to civility or the lack thereof, or the skill with which some editors can provoke uncivil responses while getting judged civil themselves. For example, Molobo repeatedly denied that there was a by-election to the Polish parliament in 1920 [79] [80] [81] [82] with support by another well known user [83] [84], calling it a German hoax also on talk, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge that after the Versailles Treaty made Soldau/Dzialdowo Polish, a by-election was held, which apparently is also stated on pl-wiki (which he repeatedly rejects, eg. with no source in Polish wikipedia and I can just as well edit that article that Martians invaded Działdowo in 1920. They were no elections in 1920 in Poland to Sejm. Case closed.). If I had not fixed it, the misinformation "A German author claims that after the town was ceded to Poland a large part of German inhabitants left the area but the candidate of the German Party, Ernst Barczewski, was elected to the Sejm with 74,6 % of votes in 1920, although no Sejm elections took place at the time" would probably still remain. Also, on Talk:Karkonosze, he repeatedly made false claims, denying that both Encyclopedia Britannica and Opera Corcontica use Giant Mountains rather than Karkonosze. In both cases, he Refused to 'get the point' despite other editors providing evidence that the was wrong, very wrong. Is such behavior acceptable? Molobo almost got permabanned two years ago. He returned after his one year block, and seemingly was allowed to do as he pleases since. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Relata refero

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

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

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

Statement by Rlevse

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

Comment by Biophys

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

Still, this might be a good idea if the area is clearly defined (e.g. Russia-Ukrainian conflict). But the definition of "uninvolved administrator" is terrible. There are many highly opinionated administrators who edit in the area. They will simply block all others. An "uninvolved administrator" should be someone who never edited in the area of conflict! Biophys (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Martintg

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

A similar motion to impose discretionary sanctions across all of Easter Europe, on the back of a single 3RR violation in that case, was attempted back in February, but was archived due to lack of interest and some important questions of scope remaining unanswered [85]

So what has happened since February? A scan through the WP:AE archives reveals only a small number of cases reported to the AE board have anything actually to do with Eastern Europe. Out of 126 cases since February, only 4 are EE related, particularly Poland, and of those 4, 3 are concerned with Matthead [86],[87],[88]

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

• Alex Bakharev contends the current sanction encourages editors to "bait" other parties into civility violations. If this is the case, then discretionary sanctions will be an even bigger encouragement to bait editors into violation, since it only requires the discretion of a single uninvolved admin and the heavy threat of desysoping other admins who may overturn a sanction. A very profitable outcome to any baiter compared with the current situation. Arguing for additional sanctions across all Eastern European articles because of a dispute about some German/Polish topic is akin to arguing for discretionary sanctions across all North American related articles because of disruption in some US related article like 9/11. I'm sure those editing Canadian or Mexican topics would not be happy about that prospect. Martintg (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases, we see that there were 6 cases in 2007 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu doesn't count, as discussed here), but zero in the first half of 2008. This is a testament to the improvement that has been made since 2007, and thus no comparison to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, for example, which has had already 2 Arbcom cases in 2008 so far. If Moreschi believes there are a "whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked", he should name them here, as I know of none in the Baltic states topic area that requires the imposition of addtitional discretionary sanctions. I'm not aware of issues in the areas either, e.g. like Ukraine, certainly nothing serious enough to warrant reporting to ANI or other boards. Martintg (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus

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

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

Statement by Alex Bakharev (talk)

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

Statement by Daniel

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

Therefore I propose the following motion:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

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

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

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

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

Appeals

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

Uninvolved administrators

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

Logging

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

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

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

Statement by ChrisO

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

Statement by Ghirla

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

Proposed wording from biophys

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

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

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Proposed motions and voting

Discretionary sanctions

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

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

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

Appeals

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

Uninvolved administrators

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

Logging

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

Other provisions

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

There are 12 active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

Support:

1. Proposed as promised; wording is taken from the (currently) passing version in Homeopathy. Kirill ^(prof) 01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Using the preferred wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. This wording seems to work better and give more clarity to all concerned. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Long overdue. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, as previously discussed. James F. (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I preferred the prior, wider definition of involvement. --bainer (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

---

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

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: The list of users in affected areas is too large to collect, list and notify conveniently. I will place notices of this request, so the community as a whole is aware, on the village pump,[89] administrators' noticeboard,[90] and fringe theory noticeboard.[91] If another editor believes there is a specific user or another on-wiki forum that should receive notice, they should feel free to drop a link to them.

Statement by Vassyana

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

Reply about potential admin abuse

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

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

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

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

Reply about community discussion

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

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

Reply to concerns about scope

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

Statement by Rlevse

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

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

Statement by Nealparr

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

Paranormal topics aren't just pseudoscience (though they are, in part, that). There's also a historical perspective (eg. Remote viewing was studied by the CIA, UFOs were studied by the Air Force, Parapsychology was once accepted by the elite in society like William James, etc.). Presenting that historical information is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the sociological perspective (eg. 73 percent of the general US population holds some sort of paranormal belief [92]). Presenting information regarding just the "beliefs" is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the cultural, folklore perspective (eg. Spooklights are common in Southern US folklore). Talking about the folklore on those articles is sometimes called POV pushing by admins who say that the article should predominantly be about methane gases, etc. So, yes, there is a potential for abuse based solely on ideologies and old grudges. If the goal is to just to refresh the editor pool on these topics regardless of whether they're productive Wikipedians, that's fine, that goal will be served if no oversight is in place. But if the goal is to only target disruptive editors, there will need to be some sort of oversight.

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

Oppose

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

Statement by GRBerry

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

I agree that a strong definition of uninvolved/neutral is needed here. I commend the WP:ARBPIA model - has never been involved in a content dispute on any article in the pseudoscience/paranormal topic area with that topic area broadly construed. GRBerry 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need more than that. We need a statement of neutrality toward the subjects themselves. I've seen mediators come in and say essentially "Well it's bunk so..." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martinphi

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

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

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

Statement by DGG

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

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

Statement by Seicer

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

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

Statement by Kww

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

Statement by Tom Butler

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jossi

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

Statement by User:B

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

Statement by User:Baegis

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

Statement by JzG

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

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

Statement by Antelan

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

Statement by John Carter

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

Statement by Filll

Although I understand the desire to come up with a quick fix or a magic bullet here, I do not think that more enforcement is the answer. I have observed how well more enforcement and greater empowerment of admins worked at homeopathy and related articles, and I have to admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. I have also encountered a fair number of administrators who are FRINGE proponents or antiscience themselves, so just giving all administrators more power is not a very well-reasoned response. I would like to see a more measured and careful approach for dealing with this kind of problem, such as those potential options being considered at the discussion lead by User:Raul654 at [93].--Filll (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

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

Therefore I propose the following motion:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

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

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

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

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

Appeals

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

Uninvolved administrators

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

Logging

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

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

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

Messedrocker

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

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Proposed motions and voting

Discretionary sanctions

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

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

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

Appeals

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

Uninvolved administrators

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

Logging

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

Other provisions

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

There are 12 active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

Support:

1. Proposed as promised; wording is taken from the (currently) passing version in Homeopathy. Kirill ^(prof) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Using the preferred wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. As above; the clearest wording for this type of remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Again, yes. James F. (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I preferred the prior, wider definition of involvement. --bainer (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

---