Revision as of 10:37, 24 August 2008

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

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Elonka

Initiated by Bishonen | talk at 20:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

Involved parties: Elonka and half the community (hyperbole). I don't exactly know who would be proper to list here, besides Elonka and myself. I suggest the people below, but IMO anybody involved in the ongoing Elonka furore should feel free to add themselves, so at to be kept informed of developments.

• Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who initiated the RfC
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who initiated the admin recall motion
• Slrubenstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who is a prominent critic of actions by Elonka which led up to the RfC
• Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is a prominent defender of actions by Elonka which led up to the RfC
• Seicer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), purely because I have commented on an action of his in my request below—perhaps rather disproportionate in this list, but he should be informed.
• Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• RfC: Requests for comment/Elonka
• Recall proposal

Statement by Bishonen

I believe it can be proved that Elonka only obtained her administrative privileges by means of an "Open to recall" pledge at her RFA. See pocket version of proof (chiefly links) below. She has since declined to honor that pledge. Community attempts to persuade her to stand for a new RFA for the sake of her reputation and integrity appear to have been exhausted. I therefore, as a last resort, ask the committee to revoke her unfairly-obtained adminship.

Elonka's third request for adminship ("Elonka 3"), was controversial, as her first two RFAs had been. She promised to be open to recall:

• "My standards will be pretty straightforward. If six editors in good standing post to my talkpage and ask me to step down, I will immediately resign my adminship." Dec 7, 2007. In Elonka's answer to one of the optional questions to the candidate.
• "I think it's a classy way to handle things." Dec 7, 2007. In answer to an optional question which Elonka asked of herself.

Elonka 3 also contains a rephrased recall pledge which specifically mentions admin tools:

• "All it will take is six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools at my talkpage, and I will voluntarily resign." Dec 12. In response to a Neutral comment.

This rephrased pledge has been foregrounded by Elonka's followers, leading to debate on User talk:Elonka as to whether mere explicit or implicit threats to use admin tools amount to "using" the tools. Compare Durova's comment here and Avruch's comment here. Over and above the discussion of that point, I draw attention to a comment by Xenocidic, which shows that the supporters at the closely-contested Elonka 3 would have been influenced by the first, "non-tools", pledge (Dec 7), not the second "tools" pledge (Dec 12). Furthermore, I can testify from my own experience that some users who forebore to post in Elonka 3 at all, were reassured by the unconditional Dec 7 pledge, and therefore chose not to oppose, despite having serious concerns. I was one of them, now with pie on my face. SandyGeorgia was another.

Elonka's response to the recall has been widely criticized, as has her admin conduct. She has also been widely defended, with the recall motion on her talkpage turning into a vote. 1-minute guide to critical comments: this comment by Friday, this by Durova, this by MBisanz, and this by Eleland. I started to compose a similar quickguide to comments in defence of Elonka, but have realised that I'm not the right person to offer that. Hopefully, an Elonka supporter will perform the job in a way more likely to be accepted than if I did it. Note that Elonka has not commented on or replied to any of the posts I have mentioned, and, altogether, has scarcely replied at all to specific criticisms of her actions or requests for evidence, other than with generalities impugning the good faith of the critic. She seems rather unresponsive for an admin. (I don't know whether the committee will consider her replies at the subpage User talk:Elonka/Questions to be an instance to the contrary; I don't think they are.) She has for instance ignored any and all requests for evidence/diffs/examples for her allegations against Jehochman here, which was the most high-profile criticism point in the recall motion. Nor have any of her followers been able to, or chosen to, defend her by suggesting any proof for her allegations. In this context, I particularly mention the action of Seicer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who promised to start (or to engineer? the means are left a little unclear) a wheel war if I blocked Elonka over her Jehochman accusations.

Bishonen | talk 20:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Statement by El_C

Sadly, I get the sense that personal relations between Elonka and several arbitrators are likely to distort this proceeding. In her favour, that is. El_C 20:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kelly

It's long past time for the ArbCom to deal with the issue of admin recall - either by formalizing it or by driving a stake through its heart. Elonka is not the first admin to gain the tools by falsely promising to be subject to recall - Ryulong did the same thing. We have an urgent requirement for ArbCom to delegate some of its admin-bit-removing power to the community. This is not going to come from the bottom up, there are too many admins devoted to filibustering any kind of recall process. (To be fair, for an admin to support a recall process is like a turkey voting for Thanksgiving - just not gonna happen.) Either the ArbCom needs to help with this or Jimbo needs to put on his God-King crown and make it happen. Otherwise the ArbCom will continue to be handed these cases of obvious sysop misconduct that the community could easily deal with given the power. Kelly 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Psychim62

I re-read Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova and see no principles, findings of fact, or remedies dealing with recall. As a matter of fact, the word "recall" can be found nowhere on the page. Kelly 22:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Physchim62

ArbCom has already considered the question of admin recall, in the Durova case. It decided then that the recall pledge has no standing. If the worst that people can find to say about Elonka is that she has reneged on her recall pledge then I don't really see the point of wasting everybody's time here. Physchim62 (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I am posting to confirm that I am aware of this case, but that I have nothing to dispute with any of the named parties at this time.

There are other parties who could be asked to comment:

• User:Thebainer deleted Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka after it was certified by User:Ryan Postlethwaite. That deletion was unanimously overturned at deletion review, except for Elonka's endorsement.
• User:WJBScribe has engaged in on and off wiki communication with Elonka and me. He appears to be without access until the end of the month.
• User:Sarah insisted that I distance myself from the recall that I had started. She seemed to think that I was acting improperly.
• Lastly, User:Durova has evidence about the genesis of this dispute.

Thank you for your consideration. Jehochman 22:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by RMHED

When an admin makes a commitment to be open to recall they should honour it. If they refuse to do so, Arbcom should 'insist' that they do. Elonka has broken her pledge to the community, she has shown that her word cannot be trusted. If pledges are made they should be honoured, how can you possibly maintain any kind of integrity otherwise.
I also agree with Kelly about looking at admin recall. It's about time that either a standard admin recall process is formalised and that all admins be bound by it, or admins have a reconfirmation RfA every year. RfA has only become such a big deal because removing an unfit admin is ridiculously difficult to accomplish. I urge acceptance of this case and its ramifications in regard to 'voluntary' recall and admin accountability. RMHED (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Swatjester

If only the community would make a big decision like this. It seems to me that the community is no longer capable of getting a consensus for any kind of big change, and so we are forever stuck in the rut of never ending debate. I expressed, more in hope, than expectation, the desire that ArbCom might actually be proactive. RMHED (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SWATJester

It's not the ArbCom's decision as to whether all admins should be bound by recall, or whether RFA reconfirmation should occur, as RMHED suggests. That's a decision for the community to make. That is a pure policy issue, and not something within the scope of ArbCom

It IS however, within the purview of ArbCom to enforce that admins who made recall a cornerstone of their RFA standing, be held to that recall. That is a pure conduct issue, and it stands that any admin who runs based on recall, and simultaneously probably would not have been promoted without the reassurance provided by recall, is abusing the good-will of the community by refusing to stand for recall, and has acted disruptively.

At the same time, disruptive recall requests should not be allowed. Recall should be done only when a representative sample of the community believes so; as it stands, it is too easily gamed by a wide number of meatpuppets/sockpuppets/canvassed users who share an opposing point of view. Recall must not be used as a tool to enforce a POV, or oppose admins of a specific POV. There is a real threat that it will be used that way. This too must be addressed by the ArbCom.

In urging ArbCom to accept this request, I'd like to remind them that since they do have jurisdiction over whether an admin is desysopped, so too should this clearly be within their scope. This is too important of a matter to throw out on a technicality, or leave up to a community tainted simultaneously by inappropriate recall requests and disruptive admins who refuse to recall. Arbitration is clearly needed here. ⇒SWATJester 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by IronDuke

I think this would be a good time to consider how neutral, uninvolved administrators working in sensitive areas of nationalist POV-pushing can be (or should be) defended from those self-same POV pushers. This RfC is a prime example of an attack leveled on just such an administrator and cannot, even by a stretch, be said to have been properly certified. ChrisO bore a grudge against Elonka for asking him to avoid the Muhammad al-Durrah page for a while, and to be more civil. User:Ned Scott, who bore a completely separate grudge against Elonka, was upset about her 0RR restrictions (Chris had no problem at all, in principle, with such a restriction).

Lest I be accused of mere process wonkery, I’ll just say: how hard would it be to find two separate users with two entirely different complaints about, well, pretty much any active administrator you’d care to name? If the requirements for an RfC are merely, “Find a bunch of people who, though they have not communicated with the subject in question on this specific issue, are inclined to criticize them,” then we’ll have a lot more admin conduct RfC’s. The subsequent recall process (suggested by ChrisO… I can dig up the diff if necessary), was fruit of the poisonous tree – most of the people who weighed in supported Elonka, and many who did not were either former grudge-holders or friends of ChrisO. Elonka was right to stick to her guns, and not be railroaded away from doing good – from doing crucial – work.

I think arbcom should take the case (to investigate some pretty shocking behavior from a number of parties), but I’d love to see them, after reviewing the evidence, stand behind an administrator who helped them out in contentious areas. Admins who get involved in Nationalist POV wars run a high risk when they cross another admin who happens to have a pronounced POV: that admin, as happened here, can skillfully manipulate the system to make life very, very difficult for the admin who has intervened. Myself, I am very active in Israel-Palestine issues. I’ve looked at a number of Elonka’s edits and, to my considerable surprise, I cannot determine which “side” she might be on. Almost always, people who get involved in that area betray an emotional allegiance. It’s very rare to encounter real neutrality on those pages just for regular editors: for an admin to come in and show such even-handedness… all I can do is say we need a half a dozen more. IronDuke 23:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Exploding Boy

I'm uninvolved in this issue, and to my recollection haven't been involved with any of the primary people concerned. I became aware of the issue a couple of days ago, and simply wanted to comment on some aspects of the case, without taking either side.

I think that having a recall question as part of an Request For Adminship is extremely problematic, and I also think that considering answers given to RFA-related questions as a kind of campaign promise, and punishing the user with de-sysopping if they "break" them, is also problematic. Nominees for adminship are not "elected" per se; they are endorsed, or not, by the community. They should be endorsed on the strength of their edit histories and interactions with other users, not on promises made during the RFA process, and not purely on the basis of whether or not they agree to be subject to recall if sysopped.

There seem to be several issues here, among others: the perception that there are many rogue admins running around abusing their admin tools; the idea that admins are more difficult than other users to rein in if they're causing problems; the idea that it is extremely difficult to de-sysop someone; and the idea that de-sysopping should be a voluntary process. I'm not sure any of those is correct.

It has always been said that adminship is supposed to be nothing special; we should hold admins to the same standards as other users: if they abuse their editing privileges, then we deal with them appropriately, based on the severity of the abuse. We admonish for minor issues, block for more serious ones, and so on. Surely a Request for Arbitration would be sufficient to determine, based on the user's conduct in editing Misplaced Pages, dealing with other users and employing the admin tools, whether or not an admin should be de-sysopped? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

View by NonvocalScream (talk)

If the community wants Elonka de adminned, then a discussion should be had about Elonka's sysopship. Stewards will execute a consensus to desysop. For the committee to do this would be policy creation by the committee. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Flonight: For all of the reasons except adminship (deadminship) I think a case would do good. The community can however throw up a Talk:RFA/elonka and have a deadminship discussion, that would be binding, and would be better. The community does not need existing policy to do this thing. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, actually Lar explained the steward policy to me. A local policy would have to be created first. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Durova

There are several different ways to frame this request for arbitration. The most obvious one is Elonka's recall pledge itself: was it binding? If that were the sole basis for requesting a case then I would lean toward no. Lar created the category with the intention that it would be a voluntary honor system. He has consistently argued against making it compulsory. Furthermore, there has been a noticeable lack of distinction between two important and separate concepts: agreement that Elonka should remain an administrator is not (or should not be) tantamount to opposing the request for a recall RFA. A recall plege is an invitation to scrutiny. One may be of the opinion, stand and be scrutinized so the full light of support may shine upon you. I wish more Wikipedians expressed that sentiment, but the Committee cannot impose remedies on people's opinions.

The arbitration committee took a step toward compulsory recall in my case, by interrupting and circumventing the safeguards I had built into my pledge that would have provided fair opportunity for evidence and rebuttal. Although I supported the recall request on Elonka, I would not wish a repetition of my experience upon anyone: the committee need not make findings that affect admin recall if it takes this case, and I urge it not to do so. In particular, please let the case remain open at least seven days before posting any proposed decision. To do otherwise would prejudice the community one way or the other, and further damage the already weakened recall system. In other words, if you propose that Elonka should forfeit her administrative tools, please do so after a suitable interval under your own mandate rather than invoking recall.

The most pertinent question here is a subtler one: does use of administrative powers consist only of actions that generate log entries, or does it include broader discretionary choices such as imposition of 0RR? It would be a very good thing if the Committee clarified that because an increasing proportion of its decisions have delegated broad discretionary powers under general sanctions, and there has been insufficient direction regarding how to appeal dubious discretionary choices. This is the second time a case has come to the Committee as a result (The other was the Tango arbitration), and in other less extreme situations this issue has undermined the delicate balance at post-arbitration disputes. For example, after the Bluemarine case it surprised me to see another editor swiftly article banned when I posted a request at AE. I didn't take the concern to this page, yet it was a solution that created at least as many problems as it solved. Either the Committee should review and recraft several of its decisions, or else establish some reasonable appeal procedure short of admin RFC/recall/RFAR to resolve questionable applications of discretionary sanctions. As we have seen, the lack of such a process has created a lot of frustration and waste of time. Durova 00:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The proposed decision in my arbitration case would have compelled an immediate reconfirmation RFA, with no grace period. RFAR had interrupted RFC twelve hours after RFC opened. Then the proposed decision followed less than 24 hours afterward. This left me no reasonable chance to respond to many accusations that had been made; some of which were substantive, some had a reasonable grounding but were somewhat skewed, and others of which were frivolous. I was very much ready to assume full responsibility for my actual errors. Instead I had no chance to: two more arbitrators signed on to the proposed decision in the two hours after I requested time to present evidence, and the whole thing unfolded over Thanksgiving weekend. I would much rather have been desysopped in a normal deliberate fashion, if it were your intention that I relinquish the tools. What the Committee furthered instead was a high tech pillory. I have never appealed my own case, yet I don't want anybody else to endure a similar ordeal. The fact that I raise this despite my well-known opinion on Elonka's recall should be more than sufficient to demonstrate that this request is submitted with the highest motives. I urge you to parse it in good faith, and with the assumption that it comes from an intelligent person who has a pertinent perspective to offer. Durova 01:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Lar

The current recall system is a voluntary one. What makes it work, when it works, is force of public opinion. It's not mandatory, and not binding. In particular, it's my interpretation as a steward that the only ways for an admin bit to be removed on en:wp are if the admin themselves asks that it be removed, in a verifiable way, or if ArbCom, the duly constituted authority, through a representative, asks for it. There are almost as many recall processes as there are admins who are open to recall, but none of them are binding. So, to NVS, ...no, stewards would not be removing bits based on any recall. The admin themselves needs to make that request at the conclusion of the process.

There is considerable discussion about whether the current process is effective, and about whether the category and pages that help everyone understand how individual admins should be allowed to remain. But voluntary recall, the concept itself, is not something the community can wish away by making pages go away. (I expect I will remain recallable regardless of the outcome of any deletion discussions) Voluntary recall also is not something the community can mandate, as voluntary actions cannot be mandated. ArbCom in the past has stated that it would not be enforcing recall provisions. Nor should it do so, in my view, until and unless there is a change in overall policy about adminship that makes recall processes mandatory rather than voluntary.

The question that ArbCom should decide here is whether Elonka has acted in ways sufficient to justify loss of adminship. The RfC and statements made during the recall process, in the eyes of some, justify that finding. In the eyes of others, they do not justify that finding. They should be evaluated or mined for evidence to make the case one way or the other. Whether Elonka held to her word or not is a different question, although it certainly has bearing on community trust, and could arguably be a factor that ArbCom considers. It may be hairsplitting to say that's not, if ArbCom chooses to consider it, itself "enforcing the recall process".

I find myself in agreement with Durova in suggesting that rushing to a decision may not be desirable. That's not a suggestion that things should drag on as long as our current poster child for slow cases, or even as long as my own current case, but I do think that at least 7 days strikes me as a reasonable request. There is no pressing danger here, I don't think, that requires swift deciding. I think I also agree that ArbCom, by acting swiftly when there was not proximate danger to the wiki, may have subverted her voluntary process. Perhaps that was the intent, or perhaps it was unintentional.

Finally I will say that I am disappointed in how matters played out in Elonka's case. I think it best to state a process, state criteria, state matters clearly, and then stick to that. Were I Elonka, I would have stated my criteria and process more plainly, (in reality, I have) and I would have appointed a clerk to impartially clerk the recall, and then abided by the outcome. But Elonka may not see matters the same way I do, my observation is from the outside. ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Mackensen

Administrative recall has no force in policy and I've long considered it (please excuse me here Lar) a pointless exercise for that very reason. One can't do much better than quote the majority from Republican Party of Minnesota v. White: "campaign promises are–by long democratic tradition–the least binding form of human commitment." To support someone at RfA based on voluntary recall is buying a pig in a poke; you have absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the future administrator will make good on recall, and you have no guarantee that said administrator will be recalled for reasons which you find sound. At least with an official railroading you can see the train barreling down the track. No comment on whether there's a larger issue of administrators trying to enforce arbcom-handed down restrictions, but the committee has no business sorting out a dispute over a voluntary process. Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

First most, I apologize for the brief reply. I am extremely busy at the moment, and won't have time to prepare a lengthier response for at least three or four days. In reply to the comment from Bishonen above, I would not endorse a block that was made in haste and without consensus. There was no consensus either way for a block regarding comments towards Jehochman -- which I agree was uncivil and unnecessarily harsh, but put into context as to what has been said and proposed on her talk page and at the RfC in such haste, I would be a tad bit angry myself.

As evidenced as to what has been proposed, there was no consensus towards a block, and blocking an otherwise well-respected editor over the comment would be stepping over the line. Taken in respect to the ongoing RfC and comments on her talk page, no block should be issued until all issues are solved, unless it is for a gross disruption to the project -- which, in my opinion, this was not.

Let's put the pitchforks down and let the RfA proceed in accordance. I apologize for the comment I made on (Elonka's talk page? or was it the RfC?) which was made in haste and in error, and I would not wheel war regarding the blocking issue, although I would personally express my strong disappointment and disagreement. seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Recuse as clerk, may possibly present evidence in non-clerk role. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/2/0)

• Accept. We need to look at the Community's expectations in regard to statements made on RFA and in other venues. The Community is divided at this time on how to go forward. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Further comment after reading some of statements. First, there was nothing in the Durova case final wording that touched on recall. The one remedy that touched on the recall issue was struck mid-case after Durova gave up the tools under a cloud. If she had not given up the tools, we were prepared to include wording that touched on the issue. I think we can do that here with out "writing policy". We can help establish the facts, and acknowledge the Community expectations for administrators in these situations. Second, if we are going to make case rulings that allow administrators to give out sanctions then we need to be willing to examine if they are working. This case gives us a chance to review if there are problems with the sanctions, and if there are problems is it because of problems with the sanctions or problems with the admins using them. Third, the community has no other way to address admin problems that need to be addressed by desysop except through the arbitration committee. There is no reason for a private case in this situation. I think a public case is the best venue. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. Deciding here would be more "legislating from the bench" than I am willing to do. We have historically de-adminned for abuse of administrative tools and not for other reasons. The rules for admin behavior are the same for everyone or should be, and votes at RFA are absolute. If you vote for a candidate for adminship, you are stating that you endorse their getting the tools. There is no conditionality about this and there never has been. Statements from the candidate are not hard and fast rules for that individual henceforth except as a matter for personal conscience and community judgment. They should be weighed on that basis only. I think the problem here is that there is currently no way to remove an admin except for misuse of the tools, and some users wish that that were not the case. I don't see that any proposal for this has ever received anything approaching consensus, and I don't think it would be right for the arbcom to produce such a rule alone. If sufficient users feel that there should be such a proposal, let's work on it - but an arbcom case is not the right way. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Recuse. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. Agree with Matthew here. --jpgordon 02:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Reject, in agreement with Matt/Josh. As an aside, I find the concept of self-binding recall "agreements"; as well as open to gaming, they paper over the cracks that some in our community obviously feel we have, other than (privately, for drama-avoidance's sake) asking them to consider their position. However, judgement, and drama avoidance, are not criteria to which those participating in the muckfest of RfA have had regard, and now we are stuck here. James F. (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Recuse. --bainer (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• WP:RFAC
• WP:RCAM

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Request for clarification: Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing discussion link

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

• NonvocalScream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Steve Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by NonvocalScream

Deskana stated that the committee is considering Steve's position, but not the administrators, the community may deal with those. The community has thus far found no sanctions are needed on any of the three. FT2 stated that the committee may may still sanction Steve for his problematic edits. If the committee wishes to sanction when the community has chosen not to, may we:

• Know the nature of the problomatic edits?

• Have a public case filed on the arb pages?

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Flonight: Thank you for the fast response; May the committee inform the community of the evidence, perhaps the community can participate, given the feeling on the AN discussion thread, I believe this would be most helpful. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Flonight: For me to rephrase. May we participate in the decision making process on this? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

I question the provision of your decision that prohibits PeterSymonds and Chet B Long from regaining the tools via normal RFA. The community is in a good position to weigh the seriousness of this situation. On general principle it's better for the Committee to entrust such sysopping to the community's wisdom unless compelling reason exists that the community could not make an informed decision. Durova 07:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

Arbcom does not have the authority to place restrictions on Steve at this time. They are attempting to circumvent the community's right to handle this situation. It was this kind of behavior that lead us to question ArbCom's authority at the recent RfC. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Of course the Committee will give the Community reasons if we give sanctions. The Committee's job is to throughly collect all importance evidence, examine it all, and then have each arbitrator vote. We make a preliminary notice because it was important for the Community to be aware of the events. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. The Committee went public with the announcement before we were finished with our discussion because of ongoing issues forced a comment. We knew that some people in the community knew and some didn't know about the account sharing, the desysops, and the Committee's investigation. At that point we felt a prompt statement was needed to the whole Community. The full Committee has not finished the discussion and voted. We will keep the Community updated as we make decisions. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• We seem to have forged a decision that we are happy with, but must wait for a few addition Arbitrators to confirm. --Deskana (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Durova: That was not actually intentional. I was the one that drafted the message that was placed on the administrators noticeboard, and I didn't exclude their ability to reapply through RFA intentionally... I just happened not to think to include it. If you wish, I could ask if the Committee would be happy with amending the statement to include their ability to reapply through RFA. I've certainly not got a problem with them doing so, but I can't speak for the other Arbitrators. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Ned Scott: Why not? That was exactly why we were created. I indicated that in my statement that the community could discuss its own sanctions if it wished to, but that the Arbitration Committee was also discussing its own. At the time, it seemed unlikely that we would agree on any additional sanctions. Things have changed since then. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for appeal: PHG

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

• User:PHG (initiator)
• User:Elonka (notified )
• User:Jehochman (notified )
• User:Abd (notified )
• User:Eupator (notified )
• User:Angusmclellan (notified )

Statement by PHG

I, User:PHG, would like to respectfully ask the Comity to lift the sanctions I have been submitted to since March 2008, on the basis of (1) Good conduct during time served (entering the 6th month now) (2) Revelations of controversial behaviour on the part of my primary accusers (3) Reassertion of my good faith throughout these proceedings.

1) Good conduct during time served.

• I believe I have properly followed the Arbcom’s edit restrictions (no edits in Ancient History and Medieval areas etc...) during the 6 months served (on a total of one year), a fact even recognized recently by Elonka .
• I used this time to continue my contributions to Misplaced Pages in an intensive way, as encouraged by the Comity, creating from scratch major articles on cultural interactions, as well as numerous sub-articles, outside of my edit restrictions: France-Thailand relations, France-Japan relations (19th century), Siamese revolution (1688), Japan-Thailand relations, Siege of Bangkok etc…
• As requested, I refrained from engaging in lengthy disputes on Talk Pages, even when some behaviour seemed outrageous and illegitimate to me (such as removing important referenced material from articles): , .
• A good consequence of this Arbcom ruling is that I have been able to further improve the quality of my contributions and sourcing. I’ve been working very positively with a mentor User:Angusmclellan for the validation of my foreign language sources or obscure English-language ones.

2) Revelations of controversial behaviour on the part of my primary accusers.

During my Arbcom proceedings I regularly complained about Elonka’s implacable harassment, systematic mis-characterization of my edits etc… At the time, this was simply a matter between Elonka and me, but since then Elonka has been met by a huge amount of similar complaints from numerous independent users and Administrators, to the point that she was requested to honour her pledge to step down as Administrator (a pledge she will apparently not respect anyway, creating further doubts about her ethical conduct): User talk:Elonka#Recall Proposal, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka. In any case, her behaviour has proven to be extremely controversial, and I believe it has been central in misrepresenting my editorial contributions and influencing the decision of the Arbcom. Finally, although the Arbcom had requested Elonka to refrain from pursuing me after the Arbcom decision was taken, she has continued to stalk/ harass me nonetheless .

In respect to Elonka’s apparent supporters, claims of Misplaced Pages:Tag teaming have also been made: Misplaced Pages talk:Tag team#Ironic. Elonka is also known to sollicitate support off-Wiki for her on-Wiki battles: (, ), a fact which I and other users suspect is quite systematic in her case. By doing so, Elonka unfairly manages to obtain the appearance of Community support in her disputes with others.

User:Jehochman, who initiated this Arbcom case against me, also has displayed quite alarming behaviour, recently being described as “if he was not an Administrator he would be called a vandal” and a “harasser” in his current drama with former ally Elonka Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN)

I would like to leave behind any animosity towards Elonka or Jehochman for their actions against me, and I wish to reconcile with them, but I am asking the Arbitration Comity to take into account these revelations about the problematic behaviour of my main accusers, redress this unfair situation I have been put in, and free me from the effects of their abuse.

3) Reassertion of my good faith

I solemnly reaffirm that all my edits have always been done in good faith, as already kindly recognized by the Arbcom. I am no professional historian, but all my references have always been taken from proper published sources. I may have been quite enthousiastic for the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance, looking for every bit of scholarly confirmation or every little bit of information on the existence of the alliance, but I never intentionally misrepresented sources, neither has it ever been shown (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence/Shell Kinney Sources Table), (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance/Workshop#Response_to_Elonka_by_PHG). When several editors band together to make this sort of accusations however it gives the overall impression that indeed there must be something awefully wrong with the attacked editor, and this can clearly sway an Arbcom decision.

Overall I am a good-faith editor who is fascinated by the subjects he writes about, and is maybe slightly over-enthusiastic about documenting them. I am extremely proud to have brought to light and documented such little-known subjects as the Franco-Mongol alliance, Indo-Greek Kingdom, History of Buddhism, Boshin War , Imperial Japanese Navy, France-Thailand relations etc... I document extensively all I write, and no, I don't misrepresent sources, or when it is perceived to be so, it is certainly not intentional and only a mistake on my part.

In a nutshell, I believe my accusers have unfairly harassed and misrepresented my actions to obtain this Arbcom ruling, and such suspicion of undue behaviour has been hugely reinforced with Elonka's current similar disputes on a large scale with other users. I have however complied the best I could to the Arbcom resolution showing an example of good conduct. All my edits have always been done in good faith, and I believe this dispute has at least helped me improve in editorial and sourcing quality. In consequence, I request the Comity to rehabilitate me and now lift the edit restrictions against me. Regards PHG (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The conduct of other people is immaterial to User:PHG's sanctions. All the allegations concerned PHG's editing were independently checked and those that were confirmed were incorporated into the arbitration decision. Any rancor exhibited by third parties towards myself or Elonka has no bearing on PHG. The current situation, where PHG has a mentor, seems to be beneficial, and should be continued. I think that if a mentor is in place, PHG could be allowed to edit any article in the encyclopedia, so long as the mentor is checking edits to confirm that past problems are not resuming. Jehochman 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

With respect, I disagree with PHG's assessment, and I think it's best if the Committee declines this request for appeal. Though PHG has been editing within his restrictions, I have seen nothing from him to indicate that he even understands the problems that caused the sanctions from the previous ArbCom case. Also, we still aren't even done with the cleanup of the articles that he already affected. PHG might benefit from participating at the talkpages of the articles still requiring cleanup, to assist with their repair. That would be the best way that he could prove that he had turned over a new leaf, and was able to work in a collegial manner within that topic area. In the meantime, it is my belief that the sanctions are doing their job of protecting the project (as well as protecting PHG from further blocks or bans), and should be kept in place. --Elonka 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JJB

Just claiming my place in queue. I affirm PHG in his request for restrictions to be removed on the grounds I stated in the last request for clarification, namely, that no specific allegations against PHG were reported as confirmed by ArbCom; only a general affirmation of the validity of the allegations against him was offered. JJB 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

PHG recently earned the 50DYK medal. He earns my thanks his dedication. Based upon PHG's contributions I was on the verge of supporting this motion, but am troubled by the selection and presentation of his claims regarding individuals who participated in the arbitration case. He mentions that Jehochman reconciled with Elonka about her recall pledge, but not that Jehochman initiated the recall motion itself. Nor does he mention that the recent noticeboard complaint against Jehochman was generally dismissed as meritless. I am grateful to be spared a role in the allegation. Unfortunately PHG's construction of that argument bears resemblance to the chief problem that led to his restriction: a tendency to selectively gather and present data that supports a given thesis, and including dubious evidence in support of that thesis while excluding strong evidence against it. Had PHG weighed my role in the Elonka recall movement, it really would not be possible to allege a unified conspiracy or cabal. For the record, I discovered this motion while reading my watchlist and haven't discussed it with anyone. My completely independent opinion is to let the current remedy stand. With respect, Durova 23:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

I would also like to congratulate PHG for the recent 50DYK medal; I truly believe he is an excellent contributor and we appreciate all his efforts. However, comments as recent as this and this indicate that PHG has not resolved the concerns that brought us here - he has an unfortunate tendency to only give information which supports his position, even if that requires taking information out of context, skewing it to mean something completely different or ignoring obvious facts to the contrary. As shown in the diffs, PHG still asserts that he "refuted" all claims that he misrepresented sources and that there were no problems with his behavior, instead, he again focuses on Elonka and "attackers" as the reason the case went against him. This doesn't mean that anyone assumes bad faith of his contributions, but there is obviously a blind spot here and one severe enough that it needs watching if he's unable to recognize and resolve the issue on his own. Shell 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Abd

The Committee continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, however, it found misrepresentation of sources and reactions to questioning. The errors in sourcing could be within what would be normal for a knowledgeable editor with opinions and a massive corpus of articles created, and did not represent willful distortion; hence my conclusion was that the essential problem was with civility, and when civility is the problem, it is rarely one-sided. In following the enforcement of the ban, I saw incivility and personal attack and possible harassment directed against PHG; each incident was a provocation which could have ended his Misplaced Pages career. While the behavior of others should not excuse poor behavior by him, it is also true that normal human beings will react to incivility with incivility, and identifying a "guilty party" often misses what really happened. I would not have advised PHG to file this Arbitration alone, and I would not have advised him to make the behavior of other editors an issue, but I also understand why he did, and his appeal should not be rejected on that basis. I would have encouraged him to try to work out alternative methods of satisfying the concerns of the community, and gather some support for them, before proceeding with an appeal. As an example, he's been required to use sources in English, a requirement that we do not place on other editors. Nevertheless, the requirement is an attempt to answer a real concern: how can we verify that he has accurately represented the sources? I have found it common in certain areas that sources are cited which are difficult to verify, even when they are in English, because the publications may not be readily accessible. We normally accept such sources, assuming good faith on the part of the editor. In a civil environment, solutions to the problem can be found. If there is mistrust and blame, it can be very difficult. PHG could, for example, scan an obscure source and make it available for review; translators could be found to confirm his translations; we could actively consult with experts as well. His content is well worth the effort. I recommend that the topic ban be lifted, provided that PHG continue to work with a mentor or mentors; he should receive advice not only with his use of sources, but also in how to find a productive consensus with the community. Further, whenever the Committee puts an editor under civility restrictions, it is incumbent on the Committee and the community to specially protect the editor from provocation. I saw the ArbComm sanctions against him misrepresented frequently as if the Committee had found him guilty of massive distortion of sources, which was not the case. Errors can be fixed, provided that civility and cooperation is established and maintained. Let's not inhibit this valuable editor; instead, lets help him and others cooperate more effectively. His critics can be very useful, they will restrain his "enthusiasm," by making sure that his sources are checked and that he does not draw unwarranted conclusions from them, and, if we are careful to maintain a constructive environment, the project can only benefit. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

The original ArbCom was in response to some quite egregious behaviour which seriously undermined the credibility of Misplaced Pages in some of the areas in which the appellant edited, and they have never actually acknowledged to be wrong - instead trying to blame everyone else involved in the process. I don't think there are any matters for ArbCom to consider here. Orderinchaos 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Angus McLellan

The short version:

• I do not agree with Fayssal as to exactly what the mentorship remedy says,
• I do not feel that the remedies should be lifted at this time.

I said to Elonka and PHG here, about a month ago, that "I would be happier if PHG would ask advice in all cases, and especially before submitting DYKs" and that the decision to separate the two parts of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources. by and/or rather than and was not helpful. Fayssal seems to be reading things in the remedy which I don't see ("you are required to use sources that are in English and widely available" is missing the "or ask your mentor" part). Because of the and/or, that's not the remedy which I think I'm helping to implement, and it's not what PHG thinks I'm doing. Perhaps this could be clarified?

Elonka raised questions about two of PHG's new articles in July: here (regarding Shanhai Yudi Quantu) and here (regarding Cheonhado). Also regarding Cheonhado, see Elonka's opposition to the original DYK nom here. To me, the problem with the hook suggests that PHG still has to work on following WP:V closely. I appreciate the difficulty of writing hooks dealing with obscure topics which meet the relevant content policies and are interesting as well, but DYK hooks do not need to be sensational. My experience is that they don't even need to be especially interesting.

As regards the restriction on editing ancient and medieval articles in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG restricted, I have only looked at one of the articles PHG mentions, Indo-Greek Kingdom. I do not see that PHG has yet entirely resolved the problems of sourcing which were seen there. For example, Mathsci commented (see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Statement by Mathsci) regarding Siamese revolution (1688). This relies heavily on published editions of primary source materials and it is in no way clear whether it is the primary source which is being relied upon or the accompanying editorial apparatus. For example, in the Siamese Revolution piece, we read: "It is generally considered that Desfarges could have eliminated the conspiracy at this point if he had pursued his mission towards Lopburi ...". This is referenced to Smithies' Three military accounts of the 1688 "Revolution" in Siam, but it is not apparent whether this comes from one of the military accounts or from Smithies' commentary on the accounts. This sort of referencing is only useful to someone who has the cited source in front of them, and that is hardly likely to the case here as Worldcat shows. I am sure PHG could do better, and did do rather better at Siege of Bangkok. Given the problem seen here, I do not think that lifting this remedy would be in the best interest of PHG or the project as whole at this time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• While waiting for the input of the mentor... This remedy was very explicit PHG. It sets a limit which is a year and not six months though this is less important here since ArbCom may respond positively to such a request depending on the circumstances. But your request above got a few flaws. a) you are required to use sources that are in English and widely available -- you say your mentor assists you for the "validation of your foreign language sources or obscure English-language ones." b) one of your statements above includes diffs to admins' issues elsewhere; which are irrelevant to the case at hand. Remember that we are dealing with articles' sourcing. c) spending no more than 5 weeks (since July 17th) with a mentor is not enough. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Want to hear from the mentor before I comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm reading the statements as they come in. I'm still waiting for a few more, from user's that were notified, before I comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Based on the above statements, it is best for the remedy to be unchanged for now. The meaning of the remedy was clarified in the past. PGH can either use English sources that are easily available for most editors to review or PHG can consult with his mentor about using sources that are not easily for most editors to view. If the mentor and PHG agree that the reference is appropriate, then it can be used in a particular instance. PHG is not limited to choosing one approach or the other globally, but can decide in each instance which is the best approach. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'd personally like to see a longer track record of working with a mentor before I will support modifying this remedy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• I, too, would not be comfortable with waiving or altering the remedies at this point. James F. (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Footnoted quotes

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

• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

This page is presumably meant to stand for all time. As it is effectively new policy, I would request that it be declared a {{howto}}, {{guideline}}, or {{policy}}, and have the arbcom's explicit approval of it being treated like any other policy, e.g. it may be edited, adapted, or, (in extreme cases), voted down by the community?

This is based on two bits of logic: Editing and improving is the Wiki way; having a policy page noone could edit, and having this page "fixed" for all time with whatever the Arbcom came up with in a few days' discussion goes against this. Secondly, it's basic five pillars logic: "Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules, besides the five general principles presented here."

I also feel this change would remove most of the controversy surrounding this case.

Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz: User:RegenerateThis, one of the Arbcom clerks, claims that any changes to WP:BLPSE requires appeal to arbcom: Wikipedia_talk:BLPSE#Policies_must_be_editable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Clerk note: User:RegenerateThis is not an Arbcom clerk. — Coren  02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist

As in the previous request for clarification, I don't see how the response would be different - no, this is a remedy (not a new policy/guideline), and no, it cannot be voted down by the community. Basically, an area of the encyclopedia is now under a type of discretionary-sanctions-remedy - the mere fact that it applies to a wider area, or has more specific requirements (such as, in terms of logging) does not change the effect of the remedy. Persistently insisting it is new policy or against Misplaced Pages norms does not make it so.

The only real controversy here, I think, is the same sort that was experienced when discretionary sanctions were enacted for the first time by the Committee. But even then, I wonder how/why it is that much of the community have, particularly in recent times, come to favour the discretionary sanctions type remedies for areas constantly encountering problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

If Shoemaker could specify which page he is referring to, we have WP:BLPLOG and WP:BLPSE. One, WP:BLPLOG was created by an arbcom decision, so presumably, they own that page, the other WP:BLPSE was created by the community to discuss how it views WP:BLPLOG, so I'm not sure it needs any other tags. MBisanz 02:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well I think Tony was de-clerked, so he probably shouldn't be considered a binding expression of arbcom intent. But since I really never worked at WP:BLPSE (I'm a template gnome of sorts), I don't have a view on that page. MBisanz 04:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some Arbs or other involved parties might care to weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement#Let.27s_mark_this_historical. It seems to be conflicting with the below statements. MBisanz 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Barberio

Just a note, to state that this is pretty much moot.

The ArbCom RfC No New Policy statement and View by Celarnor statement has given a clear expression from the community that 'general sanctions' of this kind, and policy, pseudo-policy, and new processes by arbcom fiat are not allowed. Policy creation, and ability to apply a 'general sanction' to the entire community, are powers never delegated to the Arbitration Committee. Please note, the Arbitration Committee were given full time to make the case for why they should have this power, but don't appear to have made it to the satisfaction of the community.

While the below Arbitration Committee members may say otherwise, this 'general sanction' is not in effect, and will not be enforced. --Barberio (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to this.

I am quickly approaching formally requesting that the arbitration revoke this 'remedy', and lift the threat of desysopping admins who refuse to accept it. Both of the above RfC statements had strong consensus support and endorsement. You're really not empowered by the community to act in the way you have.

I would suggest that if you are still going to ignore the community consensus on what ArbCom may and may not do, you should consider your positions. --Barberio (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that the view of Jimbo as 'God King Emperor' of the project is highly disputed these days. I also note that Jimbo did not create the Arbitration Committee from whole cloth and by fiat. The Arbitration Policy did have to be agreed with by the community as with any other policy.

Frankly, Jimbo's opinion of how the Misplaced Pages policies should work are worth exactly as much as the next guy's. Misplaced Pages is not a top-down authoritarian organisation. --Barberio (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Observation by Mackensen

Constitutionally speaking the Arbitration Committee derives its power from Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs), who wields absolute power as God-King of the project, understood to be separate from whatever Foundation responsibilities he might have. The community has no powers to "delegate" to the committee; there is the right to vanish and the right to fork. The community is always free to elect arbitrators who take a less expansive view of Arbcom's role but until such time it has authorized this body to act on its behalf.

All this is a way of saying that arguments over this remedy should turn on whether it's a good idea, not whether Arbcom can do it or not. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chime in by Alecmconroy

Jimbo is not a god-king, he's a very influential editor who has historically been granted certain roles by the community and the foundation. His 'powers' are whatever the community and the foundation collectively give him. If the community and the foundation disagree with Jimbo, the community and the foundation win.

I'm amazed to see anyone even espousing the notion of an absolute power over any group of humans in the 21st century (even if it is just an encyclopedia-making project). That's just not the way humans do things anymore-- ESPECIALLY not on a Wiki.

Mind you, I'm not expressing any Anti-Jimbo sentiments at all. I'm not trying to attack Jimbo himself in the slightest, and the statements I say above are, as best I can tell, entirely consistent with how Jimbo views himself-- not as a god-king, but as a UK-esque constitutional monarch whose role diminishes over time. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• You are requesting a clarication regarding the "special enforcement on biographies of living persons" wich concerns the footnoted quotes' case. Biographies of living people are subject to a strict policy. Special enforcements are part of Misplaced Pages's general sanctions. If we had had a "footnoted quotes" case where no problems with biographies of living persons were noted then this special enforcement remedy wouldn't have existed. Similar remedies were applied to other cases but policies are created following a process --not specific arbitration remedies. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Logging case sanctions on ArbCom pages is the norm. It makes it easier to locate blocks or bans that are the result of a ruling. Additionally, a page was started to explain the logging requirement. If an actual problems arise from this requirement to log or the page explaining the ruling then we can look to make at change. I'm not seeing a need for any action by the Committee regarding this case at this time. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Flo that no action is needed, and with Mackensen in his comments re. the applicability of transitive devolution and delegation. James F. (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration