Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:02, 27 August 2008 view sourceTundrabuggy (talk | contribs)2,973 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 04:10, 27 August 2008 view source Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits Comment by BiophysNext edit →
Line 125: Line 125:
No fair poking the clerks Brad--just doing what you told them to do. Course, it's your page, so you can break it however you like. More seriously, I don't see much point in accepting unless Arbcom really wants another go-round in Eastern Europe and has a better idea for addressing the topical conflicts there. ] ] 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC) No fair poking the clerks Brad--just doing what you told them to do. Course, it's your page, so you can break it however you like. More seriously, I don't see much point in accepting unless Arbcom really wants another go-round in Eastern Europe and has a better idea for addressing the topical conflicts there. ] ] 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:''I'' didn't tell them to do it. But then again, in my real-world life, I am constantly struggling to stay within page limits. (And I know this comment doesn't belong here either. So sue me, except please don't.) ] (]) 23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC) :''I'' didn't tell them to do it. But then again, in my real-world life, I am constantly struggling to stay within page limits. (And I know this comment doesn't belong here either. So sue me, except please don't.) ] (]) 23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

====Comment by Biophys====
I would like to comment on the "tag teams" noted by Piotrus. Such "teams" are beyond the capabilities of ArbComm. Let's consider Russian "team" for example.
#Yes, some of the Russian users behave as a military brigade, with "generals" and expendable "foot soldiers". Yes, they award each other with the ] for winning various "battles". But that is all allowed by WP policies.
#Yes, they may be prone to bad jokes, such as calling themselves "paid members of the ]" (see or , for example), but this is only a joke!
#Yes, the Piotrus and Digwuren cases were "team work". Yes, some editors were driven away as a result of numerous "content disputes" with the team. But again, the content disputes are allowed, and the team work is allowed.
#Some of these users struggle to "protect" their ''government and leaders'' rather than to "protect" their ''people'', which is unusual for "nationalistic" users. But perhaps they sincerely love ]? This is not forbidden.
#An explosive growth of the Russian government-minded users has also been observed since the beginning of ], but this is not surprising.

So, I do not see anything here for Arbcomm, except the embattled Piotrus who became a target of groundless personal accusations, as one can see from the old ArbComm cases.] (]) 04:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


==== Clerk notes ==== ==== Clerk notes ====

Revision as of 04:10, 27 August 2008

Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on 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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Current requests

Piotrus 2

Initiated by Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) at 09:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Piotrus is not a new topic for ArbCom by any means, and neither is he for me. I hate doing this kind of thing, but there are issues here that cannot be solved by anything except ArbCom intervention. Let me first introduce my involvement. About two years ago I had a few minor run-ins with Piotrus related to Jogaila, but it never really got bad, and since I've pretty much stayed away from eastern European stuff save editing a few uncontroversial medieval history articles. Piotrus and I have had a normal working relationship, agreeing on a lot of principles, and haven't been in much conflict at all. I'm not from eastern Europe and don't have any ethnic-issues that involve me in most of the disputes. Still, I've seen the arbcom cases, all the AN/I threads, ArbCom enforcement threads ... like watching a soap opera. So, although in the periphery of my wikivision, he has nonetheless been in (and out) of it.

Edit-war after edit-war, these ArbEnforcement threads offer some of the recent highlights (see links above), though one would need at least 10000 words more than the current limit to even list them. But the following incident came to my attention a little while ago, an incident the discussion of which I got involved:

TigerShark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Piotrus for violation of 3RR. Piotrus got it overturned on #admins IRC by painting his opponents as "POV-Trolls" to an admin who agreed to unbloc, and then (according to TS's testimony) Piotrus gave TS a lecture and some veiled threats . Concerns over that were expressed by a number of parties, but the AN/I forum was impotent. In the following week, Piotrus gained the block of one of his main "enemies", User:Lokyz, a block that the community agreed should be overturned, and which I overturned with the permission of the blocking admin, though incidentally Piotrus still objected to it.(see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive19#Analysis) This is really when Piotrus slipped back into my wikivision.

The above incidents illustrate the typical pattern, pretty much as typical now as two years ago. His opponents he goads, bullies, stalks and harasses, seizing on every opportunity to get them into trouble. For some reason the Lithuanians are particularly victim, users such as Lokyz regularly treated badly. They are subjected to meatpuppet dogpiling, while Piotrus often creates articles in such a manner, ones like Holocaust in Lithuania, in which no-one but an idiot could doubt that the provocative effects are foreseen by Piotrus. This article was created initially by pasting together chunks from several other articles immediately after he came out of the aforementioned block for edit-warring with Lithuanian users. Articles such as this get created in a manner. (another Arb Enforcement threads runs as I write here). In my experience and perception, if Piotrus thinks such behaviour not worth his while or that it'll get him nowhere, he behaves better. Nevertheless, he himself edit-wars as much as many of the users who get blocked every week, but avoids similar consequences for himself. Often it is through cunning, a particularly common method of escape when he is in real trouble is praising his own content contributions and telling people they're losing perspective. Another is co-opting less experienced editors, using them as cannon-fodder meatpuppets ... a concern Arbcom in the past desisted from addressing. Well, I'm opening it because it needs to be addressed.

And this is where I bring in a recent incident, involving me. On early Saturday, August 23 (Euro time), I performed a major cleaning-up of Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018, an article Piotrus had authored. It was an long-overdue effort correcting many of the historical errors and misunderstandings present in the article, a product of Piotrus' normal article-writing method, which in this case I could fix as it fell vaguely into the sphere of my knowledge. He reverted the content wholesale 3 times in 10 hours, on the third edit stating "please do as editors ask you on talk and stop edit warring" . Then when he was reverted again by another user he added an article disputed tag , despite telling me shortly after that "I am not disuputing your additions". Jada jada, tendentiousness par excellence.

Shortly afterwards a user came out of nowhere and reverted , User:Alden Jones, for which effort he was almost blocked for it. The user has only poor English, no interest in the topic and was only reverting to "support" Piotrus, and most of his edits in the past have consisted of little more than reverting to whatever version of an article Piotrus happens to prefer. Funnily enough, Alden had been inactive for more than three weeks prior to that revert, since his 2 day block for revert-warring (along with Piotrus) on Truce of Vilna. Alden Jones has since effectively revealed that he was sent there by another user; the only other reverter was, of course, Piotrus . Piotrus later left this message Long time after the single revert, but 2 hours after Lokyz' comment there. Use your own judgment here.

In the past, Piotrus has been shown to use off-wiki IM and email to recruit edit-warring help . His last arbitration was almost a year ago exactly. It is of note that after Alden had been reverted by a third user, Piotrus contacted three other users "with requests to start or resume the IM communication" . Perhaps all innocent, yes, but the evidence suggests different.

We can't use WP:AGF as an excuse to ignore wikipedia's problems. There's been thread after thread about this user. Behavioral patterns that should be behind us are being sustained and replicated because senior users like Piotrus are guiding newer users such as Alden Jones down this path, teaching them it's acceptable and actually encouraging them for their own ends. His behaviour has proved as thoroughly as any wikipedian's behaviour could ever prove that he is committed to conflict, provocation and partizanship. So this arbcom hearing proposal isn't merely about Eastern European edit-warriors, it's about one of them; one who is a singular problem. Most of his regular "enemies" have no other "enemies" but him, something which strangely tends to be ignored. People are entitled to new chances, to have time to adapt to changing peer expectation. But guidelines like WP:BATTLE are not new, and chances have come enough. Though the wikipedian discourse community is fond of stating without believing that adminship is NBD and involves only access to a few bland "mop privileges", that is in reality far from the truth. His admin status confers on him authority and charisma within his own community, and sets a terrible example to the wider community. By his example many, such as Alden, are led into places they shouldn't and probably wouldn't otherwise be. (I say with deep regret, but) It hence needs, in my opinion, to be removed. ArbCom can't control off-wiki activities, but it is not powerless. Of course, if Arbcom sees a better solution that gets somewhere, that would be even better.

Statement by Piotrus

I am rather surprised by this thread, but I will take this opportunity to address a few issues. I have had few encounters with Deacon, but unfortunately they left me rather disappointed with his judgments. Most notably, he was involved in this AE thread, overturning another admin's decision to block a highly uncivil user (Lokyz). Now that I have requested another AE intervention, after that user accused me of "being on somebody's payroll", Deacon has decided to launch this arbitration to investigate my actions, claiming (above) that "Lithuanians are particularly victim, users such as Lokyz regularly treated badly". Yes, I have certainly acted terribly, asking the community to stop slander and harassment of my person, wasting everyone's time since getting WP:CIV enforced is usually a waste of time... The harassed "Lithuanians" have already launched an ArbCom against me, which, surprise, did not find anything in my behavior questionable (it had however considered a ban of one of the most disruptive Lithuanian editors).

I am also certainly guilty of creating content. As an editor in the Top 50 most active Wikipedians, I have created well over a thousand of articles, brought 20 or so to FA (please see the "Outside view by Raul654" in my RfC), and certainly many of them indeed "no-one but an idiot could doubt that the provocative effects are foreseen by Piotrus". I don't shy from controversial subjects (particularly since I believe that by bringing them to FA status I've proven I understand our core concepts like NPOV). I am well aware that by writing about controversial EE history I have created many enemies (Katyn massacre, Soviet invasion of Poland, Holocaust in Lithuania... I ruffle feathers, yes). Which is why I have the "pleasure" of dealing with several "tag teams" as the phenomena was recently identified by Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars: Lithuanian, German and Russian. I am sure the next few days will see editors from those nationalities criticizing my person; I have taken the liberty of identifying them in an email to a respected administrator I've been discussing this issue with recently, and (refactor note) I will reveal those names to ArbCom, with verification from that editor, as my predictions are already coming true. This of course helps to explain why "there's been thread after thread about this user" (Deacon, above). Of course there were. That's what tag teams do: refuse to let the matter drop, harass their opponents again and again, defend each others against admin actions, rehash past accusations, harass and intimidate hoping to drive their opponents off wiki. This ArbCom is indeed only one in a continuing series of attempts to stop me from creating content and policing the controversial articles in EE history. I watchlist close to ~3k pages and I take it as a point of honor that those articles correspond to WP:NPOV, WP:V and so on (and I believe my FA/A/GA record proves I know what those policies are about). But it would be quite handy for some if I was no longer here so they would have free reign on those articles. My apologies if this sounds a bit megalomaniac, there are many, many other good editors who dedicate their time to policing those articles, but due to my activity (Top 50...) I am the focus of much of those grievances (and believe me, I wish I wasn't - it's not fun being a target of years of harassment).

Since Deacon brought this ArbCom, I would like to point out I am highly disappointed with his recent conduct as a content creator: I brought this article as high as the MILHIST A-class; he rewrote it, labeling my contribution "nonsense", and refused to merge his version with mine, despite encouragement by several neutral editors for this course of action (, ). The discussion was not helped by the sudden involvement of User:Irpen, who accused me of mobilization of a tag team for a revert war coordinated by Gadu-Gadu. I am almost curious to what led to the sudden mobilization of Irpen (not active on Wiki for a month till that day) and Alex (who have never edited this article before). I am sure that the mobilization the Russian editors, including Irpen (who has been found to be rather biased when it comes to my person) is a pure coincidence...

Regarding user Alden... sigh. He is a problem, I agree, see my statement here. I however resent the accusations that he is my meatpuppet. I also resent Deacon's other unproven accusations, ex. "Piotrus has been shown to use off-wiki IM and email to recruit edit-warring help". No, Piotrus has been claimed to do so by tag team members who proposed this motion in the arbitration, and the motion has not been picked up by arbitrators, which as far as I am concerned means "Piotrus has been found innocent". Expect to see more past accusations rehashed, that's a standard tag team tactic. For the record, I have never denied I use IMs, @, IRC or even talk to editors face to face :) I discuss Misplaced Pages with many people, I have published academic articles on Misplaced Pages, presented on Misplaced Pages to various audiences, taught classes with and about Misplaced Pages, and been interviewed for WWeekly podcast. It would be nice if some good faith was assumed with regards for my actions - certainly recruiting edit-warring help is not on my agenda.

I dislike wikipolitics, this post has already eaten up 1h of my life and if the ArbCom continues, it will eat up many more, preventing me from creating content (which actually may be a goal for some editors). As much as I'd like to see the issue of tag teams finally tackled, I have no desire to spend hours digging evidence and compiling arguments; I have done so in the past and I've seen little but "general amnesty" or "general warning" toothless rulings (even the recent updated Digwuren/Workgroup findings seem to be pointless - if reporting Lokyz's PAs to AE under those new sanctions results... in me being reported here). Therefore my recommendation to ArbCom is to refuse this case: in theory we have the rules (Digwuren, workgroup), we just need to finally enforce them and start blocking/content restricting/civility paroling the disruptive tag team members! This case could be solved quickly if several ArbCom members would post in the comments below, encouraging neutral admins to be more willing to ban EE-area troublemakers reported in AE. I find Moreschi's comment below very illustrating of why those issues are not easily solvable: "I would do this myself, except all the people who don't like Piotrus for one reason or another would jump on me" - a proof of a success for the classic "tag team" tactic, i.e. discouraging neutral admins from becoming involved (who want's to join a mud-fight?).

If this ArbCom goes forward, I hope ArbCom will not only review activities of Deacon, but will take a hard look at the issue of "tag team" involvement (albeit this is going to be a tremendous task, mark my words - and to limit the scope I suggest to see which tag teams become involved by posting here). I would also expect to see a series of ruling regarding specific editors: blocking them, putting them under a restriction or a civility parole or declaring innocent. In the past ArbComs I've asked the ArbCom many times to review my behavior and produce a ruling whether I am guilty of being "Misplaced Pages public enemy no 1" (as my "enemies" seem to imply) or not (so the rehashing of old accusations and diffs would finally stop!).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I have contacted three users - all respected editors, good content creators with no past sanctions on them - who left this project after being subject to the very same tag team harassment campaign I am subject to, asking them to comment on their relevant experiences. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lysy

While I've been around at en.wikipedia since I think 2004, I've decided to quit or at least give it a break and I'm now on my self-imposed wikiholiday. Today I've recevied an email from Piotrus, asking to look at this rfa. Sincerely, I don't know Deacon of Pndapetzim and I don't know what prompted him to file this request, but after reading it, it seems to me to be full of compiled and/or fabricated accusations, and probably a part of a harassment campaign by tag teams against Piotrus, whom I had known as an editor who certainly respected the policies. The campaign to make him give up editing and leave the project just as I did. That kind of pestering by another editor was exactly the reason why I had decided to leave. --Lysy 19:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Since I'm not active here any more please use email if there's further need to contact me. Thanks.

Statement by Moreschi

This is probably a waste of time, but while we're here, could the arbcom please ban Matthead (talk · contribs)? I've come to the conclusion that this German nationalist flamer does more than most combined to foment a battleground mentality in EE articles (see current AE thread). I would do this myself, except all the people who don't like Piotrus for one reason or another would jump on me. Moreschi (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Matthead was Rex Germanus's old sparring partner. When Rex left he moved on to other edit wars. His participation is invariably marked by tendentious revert-warring and the personal hostility, massively divorced from objectivity, that does so much to harm the chances of collegial editing. I am contemplating a year-long block. Moreschi (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by AGK

From what evidence I have, issuing sanctions on Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would be a net-positive for the project, and a good move. I don't think we need the committee's involvement to do that, however: the community has not, from what I gather, exhausted all means of banning him available to it (bar the ArbCom). Anthøny ✉ 21:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Irpen

In my opinion the WP:BATTLE issue is central here and the concept of WP:BATTLE alone allows to understand fully the core problem with Piotrus. Most but all of his Misplaced Pages activity is a battle and he is vicious at that.

For the sake of brevity, I want to concentrate my statement on the most revealing manifestation of his approach: Piotrus' central concept of dispute resolution lies in setting the field of his opponents' blocks and being an experienced editor he achieved certain expertise at that. He mastered the methods of baiting content opponents into a reaction that would later allow him to turn the discussion's subject to WP:CIV (which he uses as a tool in content disputes not a guideline for harmonious editing) and paint his opponents as violators of the civility rules, usually baselessly.

Piotrus thrives not in honest discussions but in off-line secretive communications, recruiting users for reverts and votes, building connections with "important people" (off-line whenever possible) who he thinks would be useful for him, logging every step of his perceived enemies for anything he could use against them at the opportune time.

During his last arbcom a secret page in his pl-wiki userspace where he maintained his log on every single content opponent was accidentally revealed (see Piotrus compiled a pile of "incriminating_diffs" against his opponents). Upon the page's discovery and discussion, he claimed to have been happy to turn the page and end his logging. But this is what he really did:

  1. He blanked the page that became a public knowledge with "not needed" edit summary on 2007-10-10 20:28:02 (note the exact time stamp)
  2. He immediately logged out and from an IP he within three minutes (!) at 2007-10-10 20:31:13 he pasted entire content of this "not needed" stuff into a different page for further development.

He continuously and meticulously maintains that black book to this day but edits it only being logged out to avoid detection of the activity, he himself realizes as shameful. And look at what kind of diffs he finds "useful" to keep for the opportune time!

Here are some comments on the malaise, as he claims, by his opponents supposedly supported by the links. Comments come from many respected and high profile Wikipedians:

Another example:

There were other discussions of Piotrus' ridiculous "diffs" but it is not easy to find every thread from so long ago. I can do so if the case gets accepted and Piotrus unloads another pile from his stack at everyone he sees as an obstacle. These are nothing but fraudulent gaming the system and misuse of various policies but WP:BATTLE approach to Misplaced Pages editing is the core of the problem.

Oh, and before he or anyone claims "stalking", I did not discover his secret page by following him (and I could not even if I went to pl-wiki since he edits the page always logged out from many different IP's.) I found the page by mere accident as it showed up in google when, during some wikipolitics discussion, I was looking for some old thread that I knew should have been in Misplaced Pages archives. His page showed up in my google results and made me disgusted beyond belief, especially the fact that it was recreated in such a sneaky way after claimed ceasure of such activity. I had no desire to follow what he was doing there as simply seeing it made me feel like I need to take a shower. This is not a kind of feeling one usually relish, so I did not look forward for the new immersion into that laundry list of grievances. But the very feeling that I was being meticulously stalked and logged (not that I have anything to hide but still) is something any of you can only understand if you get such a dedicated attention yourself. Especially, if while he does that, he attempts to make an impression of reaching out in a friendly-sounding innuendo, while logging the reaction.

I would like to reiterate that I am not seeking punishment of Piotrus for maintaining a black book on a page outside of en-wiki. I am merely saying that this page is the strongest possible evidence that Piotrus' approach to editing Misplaced Pages falls exactly under WP:BATTLE and WP:BATTLING is a sanctionable offense.

As for the usual stuff posted by Piotrus above, I'm confident anyone who is looking will see through it. Alden's own assertion here was that Piotrus asked him to do revert for him , so it doesn't look like poor old harassed Piotrus's love-fest with his adoring "fans" is quite the way he'd like his readers to believe, though admittedly Alden appears to love him enough to co-operate with the public distancing that's been arranged since Alden's "slip". As for Piotrus' boasting about his "excellent" content, I link to my assessment here to save space.

I told him long time ago that there is one thing he should stop, trying to win content disputes through achieving the opponents' blocks. He always denied his doing that. I leave it to others to decide. His diffs are mostly tendentious nonsense he uses to misrepresent the conflicts and overwhelm with "evidence". Examples are in the threads above. If this is not WP:BATLE at its prime, I do not know what is.

Statement by User:Novickas

Three points. 1) This entry does not mention a block or ban, so his content creation is not relevant; it would not be hindered. 2) The following action strikes me as an abuse of admin powers - his threat to block User:Boodlesthecat after B removed a clear BLP violation: he stated that "Next time you change other's users talk I will simply block you for vandalism" , confirmation of BLP violation here From May 2008. 3). User:FloNight firmly opposed his self-nom as an administrator on Wikimedia . Why, if he was deemed unfit to be an admin there, should he remain as an admin here? Novickas (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Procedural remark by Mackensen

No fair poking the clerks Brad--just doing what you told them to do. Course, it's your page, so you can break it however you like. More seriously, I don't see much point in accepting unless Arbcom really wants another go-round in Eastern Europe and has a better idea for addressing the topical conflicts there. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't tell them to do it. But then again, in my real-world life, I am constantly struggling to stay within page limits. (And I know this comment doesn't belong here either. So sue me, except please don't.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

I would like to comment on the "tag teams" noted by Piotrus. Such "teams" are beyond the capabilities of ArbComm. Let's consider Russian "team" for example.

  1. Yes, some of the Russian users behave as a military brigade, with "generals" and expendable "foot soldiers". Yes, they award each other with the military medals of the Soviet Union for winning various "battles". But that is all allowed by WP policies.
  2. Yes, they may be prone to bad jokes, such as calling themselves "paid members of the KGB Internet troll squad" (see this red userbox or this red userbox, for example), but this is only a joke!
  3. Yes, the Piotrus and Digwuren cases were "team work". Yes, some editors were driven away as a result of numerous "content disputes" with the team. But again, the content disputes are allowed, and the team work is allowed.
  4. Some of these users struggle to "protect" their government and leaders rather than to "protect" their people, which is unusual for "nationalistic" users. But perhaps they sincerely love Putin? This is not forbidden.
  5. An explosive growth of the Russian government-minded users has also been observed since the beginning of 2008 South Ossetian war, but this is not surprising.

So, I do not see anything here for Arbcomm, except the embattled Piotrus who became a target of groundless personal accusations, as one can see from the old ArbComm cases.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Not voting yet, but just a comment that I found the statements made this far to be useful in framing the issues to be considered in deciding whether to accept this request for arbitration. Of course the clerks are tasked with enforcing word limits, but my personal opinion is that given the complexity of the history here, I did not find these statements by key players in the dispute to be unreasonable in length, nor did any party obtain an unfair advantage because everyone disregarded the nominal word limit by equally wide margins. Or then again, of course I say that because I would feel like a major-league hypocrite standing by as anyone else's comments were shortened, after my own post just now in the Elonka case. FWIW; YMMV. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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: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).
Reply to thebainer: This is a request for arbitration headed "Elonka". Elonka is the subject. The arbitration committee famously reserves the right to make an arbitration be about the aspect of the subject (or even an aspect not-so-much of the subject) that they want it to be about. If they want it to be about Elonka's conduct, they will of course feel free to do so. That would scarcely be a stretch at all, and I've provided plenty of conduct-related evidence. (Certainly not a stretch compared with making an arbitration about Geogre and William M. Conelly be mainly about Giano.) It was, after all, Elonka's conduct that led to the recall petition. The petition didn't come out of the blue because bad-faith users like Friday, Durova, Bishonen, PhilKnight, Nishidani, Jehochman, MBisanz, Naerii, etc, etc, decided to gang up on Elonka for the hell of it. To see you say that "We've never had a practice here of following the letter over the spirit", and then see you go on to draw from that—from that— the conclusion that the letter of my request is the most important thing about it—that it necessitates throwing out this request for arbitration of Elonka and formulate another request for arbitration of Elonka, because the committee depends so slavishly on how the request is formulated, is... is... well, I despair of finishing that sentence. Bishonen | talk 13:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

Statement by El_C and Irpen

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) Irpen 05:56, 25 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. (I am mainly interested in process and policy weaknesses.)

There are other parties who could be asked to comment:

Thank you for your consideration. Jehochman 22:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC) parenthetical statement added at 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Attention is now focused on a matter that has great potential for disruption and rancor. If the Committee thinks there will be no further disputes in regard to these matters, feel free to reject the case. If, however, you see a situation ripe for further controversy, please deal with it now by reframing the case however you see fit. This does not have to be a case about recall. It could be about the use of discretionary sanctions, and about attempts to stifle or intimidate those who would question an administrator's actions.
Arbitration is like a shower. If you don't go down the drain, you come out cleaner. I welcome a full review of my involvement in these matters. Jehochman 13:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
If the community has the power to grant adminship (through RFA), I assert that the community also has the power to take away adminship. Would the committee be willing to help delineate how such a process would work. The community has been deadlocked endlessly. One possible solution: if there appears to no longer be a "consensus" (typically 70% - 80%) support for the administrator, a new RFA should be held. Without trust, there is no effective adminship. We have an RFC process, and we have bureaucrats who are entrusted to measure consensus. Surely we could put these elements together and make a workable de-RFA process. Jehochman 01:38, 26 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)

Added: As I think someone else has pointed out, there is not, as far as I know, any kind of conditional adminship. All admins get the same tools, for the same reasons: because the community has determined, based on their history here, that they will use them appropriately. Since there is no such thing as conditional adminship, Elonka cannot have been sysopped based on the condition that she agree to recall. If she has misused her admin tools, that's a separate matter; but she should not be subject to RFA on the charge that she violated a condition of her adminship nomination. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

View by NonvocalScream

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)

The committee may be interested in ruling on whether its sanctions were administered properly. Mackensen (talk) 23:57, 26 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)

Comment by bainer

Administrators require the confidence of the community, and thus there must be a strong rough consensus that they are suitable to be administrators. Recall (always an amorphous notion, never with a settled standard) emerged to provide a counterpoint to that notion: that admins should not continue in their position should they no longer enjoy the confidence of the community.

There is a long-standing maxim of equity that one who seeks equity must do equity. Here we have a request for comment that is essentially about questions of policy rather than conduct, nevertheless held in the name of an individual. From this came a recall discussion in which it was not demonstrated that the subject had lost the confidence of the community. We've never had a practice here of following the letter over the spirit; it is not equitable to try to enforce the letter of the recall offer here in these circumstances.

Incidentally, if people actually perceive conduct problems here that have not been able to be dealt with otherwise, then they should by all means bring a request for arbitration on that basis. --bainer (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

View by Ncmvocalist

Per Morven. However, bainer's last point is fundamental to the DR system and I ask that those members who are declining reinforce it for clarity (and the benefit of the parties) - "if people actually perceive conduct problems here that have not been able to be dealt with otherwise, then they should by all means bring a request for arbitration on that basis." Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

View by uninvolved party Geogre

Framing around recall per se is a misunderstanding. The argument is that in this case, for this user, the person would not have become an administrator without it. The renunciation of it, therefore, amounts to changing the rules, as the promotion had been by an extraordinarily slim margin, and passed only because of recall.

For myself, I regard the case as being about the exceptional breadth of users who appear to have tied themselves up with Elonka's actions. In other words, Elonka's actions have shown disruption. We cannot regard all of the people at the RfC as being "POV warriors." To my knowledge, these are users in good standing. I would amend Bishonen's statement to say that Elonka has not responded to complaints on Misplaced Pages. Where she has replied, she has accused her accusers of grievous things. ArbCom should accept only to investigate how disruptive (look at the sheer volume of users disrupted) Elonka has been and to determine if a recall promise during an RFA constitutes something more than a voluntary flitting in and out of the category by established administrators. Geogre (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone else is writing addenda, so I will, too.
Asking for a specific single abuse by Elonka to be formulated with tickets stamped and forms signed is both unusual for this ArbCom configuration (I recall none such in the last two I was involved in), and missing the simplest point. There will not be a specific "she did this to him/her" sort of situation, because what's at stake is disruption. When one person gets a dozen different complaints from three dozen users, each of whom is sharing only the fact the she or he felt threatened and intimidated, then that's the simplest form of arbitration. It's what the community ban stuff used to handle (not with any cheering on on my part), but Elonka is not just some new user annoying three dozen people or accounts; she is an administrator who apparently has extensive off-site communications with arbitrators. Therefore, the only possible way to address this recurring mess is with an open investigation, consolidation of the charges, and specific ruling on what are the most consistent mistakes, if any, she makes. Geogre (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

View by uninvolved party Casliber

One reason why some detailed/systematic examination of this case is, essentially, to answer the question of trust. Surely a review of the evidence is needed to determine whether Elonka has gone back on her word of a genuine recall, or has been ensnared by others with an axe to grind. That would surely be the question. Because if it is the former, then there is a blatant trust issue gone astray (summed by by Geogre above), and if the latter, even more evidence of the failure of the recall system. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Sam Korn

As an addendum to what several of the arbitrators have said, and partially as a comment on Geogre's remarks, I would like to suggest that the fact that the Committee does not regard the recall procedure to be theirs to enforce does not mean that a refusal to abide by a promise made must be ignored. Rather it can be seen as a factor to be taken into consideration when weighing up trust for an admin in general terms. If abuse had genuinely occurred (and I have not examined the matter in sufficient depth to form a judgment here), the Committee would be completely justified in considering the refusal to abide by the commitment as a strongly aggravating factor, and I suggest this is the case that should be brought. Sam Korn 14:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Ramdrake

There are several issues about Elonka here which could be addressed:

-As an "univolved admin" in several situations where evidence was presented at RfC and on her talk page among others that her involvements was criticized as being detrimental to core Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V and others;
-In her repeated statements that admins should act as "role models" for other editors (especially directed at Slrubenstein), and criticizing other editors on this basis, while at the same time her behaviour as a "role model" is being criticized from a number of sources (as per RfC and Recall petition)
-In her ignoring or refusing to supply proof of some accusations of misbehaviour aimed at other editors and admins (I can think of her criticism of Jehochman and WSiegmund)
-In reply to criticism, where she repeatedly made the implication that those criticizing her were not acting in good faith,
-In declining to make good on her promise to be open to recall, on the basis that more people opposed her recall than those who demanded her recall, and that many, if not most of those asking for a recall were not doing so in good faith. It should be noted that her AOR statement mentioned "six editors" and that nearly five times that many endorsed the recall petition.

Now, these could be addressed in many RfAr cases, but I feel this would be a waste of time for the community. I think it would be much better if all these issues were addressed simultaneously in a single RfAr case, so as to evacuate the totality of the issues once and for all. Insistence on examining only one aspect of the issue ("Is Elonka bound by her pledge?") only invites the creation of other RfArs related to the same set of issues, which will probably happen if this case is turned down. I would thus suggest to widen the scope of this RfAr to include any and all behaviour of Elonka (and of course those who interacted with her) which led to the RfC and the request for recall.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Further comment and question to all parties: Based on comments from the arbitrators, would everyone consent that the specific question of AOR commitment be set aside and that we focus instead on Elonka's actions (and those of the people she interacted with) leading up to the recall request (thereby including the current RfC)? Alternately, a second RfAr could be opened for this, but I feel we might save some time by agreeing to redefining the focus here.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by JJB

It seems Bishonen initiated this case because proof of Elonka's bad faith was pretty cut-and-dry: unwillingness to keep a promise which was widely perceived as highly important to admin status has been taken by several editors above (Kelly, RMHED, etc.) as breaking one's word and proof of unfitness; I like comments of Geogre, Casliber, Sam Korn, and Ramdrake also. The issue is not that Elonka must be held to her promise; the issue is that Elonka's failure to hold herself to her own promise betrays the good faith of all she may have done in the hot-content areas. There are other conduct issues too, of course, but it's safe to start with a clear one. I believe ArbCom should accept the case so that all evidence can be considered, rather than wait for someone to formulate a request "correctly". This will make clear whether any sanctions or admin confirmation will be necessary. Elonka will be happy to put on her game face and demonstrate her alleged torrents of support, and the evidence can speak for itself about the conduct of all. JJB 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Carcharoth

I would like to draw attention to the actions or comments made by three arbitrators at the deletion review of the RfC (Link to version of DRV before archiving). The bainer and Sam Blacketer (who both acted or commented there) have recused here, but Morven (Matthew Brown, who also commented there) has not. If the recusals are for other reasons that can be publically declared (not implying anything here, just saying that I am aware that some recusal reasons are for private reasons), would it be possible to declare the reasons for recusal (the same should really apply to clerk recusals as well)? If recusal is simply to be able to present evidence, that could be stated as well. There is also a relevant discussion here. It is rare to see three arbitrators turning up at a deletion review that subsequently got closed as an overturn. One arbitrator carried out the deletion for lack of certification, and two commented on the same lack of certification - a point that was disputed and that some described as wikilawyering. It is that aspect of all this that I find rather worrying - the way that the community and the arbitration committee appear to be out of synch with each other. Carcharoth (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is three recuses a record? We now have two editors co-signing a statement about "personal relations". What is going on here? Some sort of statement is needed to explain the recuses if only to stop rumour-mongering. I repeat, I'm aware that arbitrators are not required to give reasons for recusal, but I would like those who have recused to consider whether giving their reasons might help here (ie. stop rumours getting out of hand). This is as much for Elonka's protection as any of the arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I only signed it conce(!), incidentally, prior to any of the recusals. El_C 06:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think the sequence was your statement, three (so far) recusals (not counting the clerks) and then Irpen co-signing your statement. That co-signing might be a first as well! Oh, and El C, people interpret "personal relations" in many different ways. I'm not thrilled that you've said what you said, though if you felt it needed to be said, then fair enough, but people will be asking "what are you talking about?" Is that a fair question and would you answer it? Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, once the Committee appoints her to Supreme Overload, I am screwed! El_C 07:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

In part, a reply to Geogre: The way a case is framed and presented is and always has been critical to how it is handled. This case was presented as "Elonka won't honor her recall promise, and therefore obtained her admin status under false pretenses and must be desyopped." That case is in the process of being rejected. If the case were framed as, "Elonka has been disruptive in a wide spectrum of areas and should be desysopped for the good of the project" it might be accepted, but of course you would need to show enough evidence (diffs) to get the case opened. As it says on every Case/Evidence page, "Argument is not evidence." Thatcher 19:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by (involved) Arthur Rubin

One of the arbitrators has stated that deadmining should only be for abuse of the admin tools. Whether or not I agree, abuse of powers granted by ArbComm or by the community solely because of being an admin, should be included. I'm specifically thinking of the power to create specialized enforcement rulings. (I'm starting with the addendum, rather than making a specific statement. I may make a specific statement later.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Random832

Some arbitrators seem to be rejecting wholly on the recall issue and ignoring the other issues - can those arbitrators currently leaning towards accept please fast-track reject so a proper case without reference to the recall problem can be filed? --Random832 (contribs) 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ramble by Alecmconroy

If promises to be open to recall aren't binding, then we're ultimately going to lose out on a huge pool of potentially good admins. Adminship isn't supposed to be a big deal, but ultimately, it is becoming a bigger deal because our processes for desysopping aren't scaling. It's just too hard to for a bad admin to lose the bit.

And this causes us to be extra careful at RFA because we know once they're an admin, chances are, they're going to stay that way. So we end up having to apply extreme scrutiny to the candidates, because once they're hired, we're stuck with them. So borderlines have to be turned away.

The candidates and the community came up with a great solutions to this-- a promise to be open to recall. That way, we could give the borderline candidates the mop, knowing that the community had a safety valve if the candidate didn't turn out to be a good fit for the job of admin.

If, however, recall promises don't have to be honored, then that basically means no candidate can ever make a serious "open to recall" promise again-- the whole process of being recallable will short-circuit, and people are going to have to assume at RFA that "open to recall" promises are just empty hot air.

Completely regardless of any of the details of the Elonka case, it's in the interest of the community if we can figure out SOME way for the promises to be binding. That will let us have more good admins who might not otherwise pass RFA, while simultaneously getting rid of not-so-good admins who are recalled. The latter effect may be minor, but I suspect the former effect is quite substantial. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I think I might have had a fairly workable idea. If an admin candidate (or existing admin) wants to be open to recall, they should nominate a group of people to be the "recall committee". Having the candidate select the users means they will select people they trust (though it would have to be people they were not connected to in a similar fashion), and those voting at RfA could check to see if they trusted the nominated five users to be fair about any future concerns. In fact, it would be less a recall committee, but a "if you have problems with stuff I've done, and you are unhappy with my response, please talk to one of these people for a second opinion and they may be able to mediate". This is inspired both by the recall criteria set up by User:Jehochman (see the footnote here), and the possible ad-hoc committee that may come up with something to deal with the ongoing Betacommand issues (see here). Indeed, small ad-hoc committees like this might allow local consensus to emerge without chaotic discussions that collapse under their own weight. Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Another excellent suggestion. But this too will only be feasible if such promises can be binding. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WAS 4.250

We have a poor process for deciding who gets admin-ship; but it is not totally broken. The bigger problem is that we have no real process for ending admin-ship for problematic cases where we don't want to insult the person because they are in general an asset, but Misplaced Pages would be better off with them as editors and not as admins. Whether you take this case or not, please as individuals and as a group; move in the direction of improving this.

Maybe we need an admin emeritus status to kick some people up to a level where they are honored but can do less damage?

Observation by KillerChihuahua

She seems to be attempting to rewrite the standards for de-adminning, which at least one other member of the community finds to be a COI at this moment in time.

And now, as mentioned as part of a pattern by Ramdrake, above "-In reply to criticism, where she repeatedly made the implication that those criticizing her were not acting in good faith," she has accused the editor who undid her rewrite of Administrators of failing to AGF. This is two paragraphs of criticism, without one word addressing the possibility that she might have been acting inappropriately when she made her edit.

Statement by involved editor Tundrabuggy

I believe this is about the 5th action taken by or directly flowing from ChrisO's short bans in relation to his disruptive behavior in the Mohammed Al-Durrah article. The position of those who have brought this action is not that Elonka has abrogated some essential wiki rule or any rule at all. It is rather they use a statement by Elonka (she would step down if 6 admins asked her to) which was later clarified (she would step down if 6 admins asked her to in relation to the abuse of administrator tools) -- a clarification they opportunistically strip as it doesn't serve their purpose, ie the elimination of an uninvolved administrator for having dared to demand that content have structure, and that rules apply equally to all, to involved administrators, to newbies, and to everyone in between. Instead it appears that some administrators are willing to insist another administrator should step down simply because they have a personal pique against that person. To demand that an administrator step down, not for wrong-doing but for any reason at all should a handful of administrators ask it, is a shortcut for disaster for wiki. It is no longer an easy matter to become a wiki administrator, as it was some years ago, such as in the days when Chris0 became one. If we make so easy to desysop that a handful of disgruntled administrators can do it, there will be zero incentive for intelligent and fair-minded people to even want to accept such a commission. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:02, 27 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)
  • Recuse, due to my prior involvement with this matter. (I have not added myself as a party, but it would not be inappropriate for me to be listed as one; on those grounds, it would not be appropriate for me to engage in clerking activities related to this dispute.) Anthøny 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/4/3/2)

  • 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)
    • Comment: this is a good example of how the framing of a request can effect how the committee responds to it. It should have been obvious from the start that the committee was neither going to ratify nor reject the "recall" concept, so it could not stand as the core of an arbitration request. On the other hand, if we were presented a straightforward "Elonka's acting poorly" request, it might have been (and it might be if tried again) accepted easily. Simple issues -- and the behavior of an individual usually is one -- are easy to accept. Start us off with something we can't touch and we probably won't touch it. --jpgordon 21:05, 25 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)
  • Reject. RfA is very much the community's preserve, rather than ArbCom's. People undoubtedly say things there that they feel will be acceptable. One has to hope that the community doesn't vote solely on what they are told, but on some idea of character also. It is quite important that they do. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Recuse. --Deskana (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd accept in case of b and c. Another case without precedent. First, not to judge but to clarify and answer some questions that expressing administrative authority (especially while intervening in controversial topics) is part of the adminship clusters because an admin must be sitting on their admin desks or riding their admin roller skates (experience and quick interventions) wearing a helmet (safety, rule respecting and wisdom) to formally express authority. As everybody here knows, having concerns about admins is commonplace but the fact that the community arrived to the point of requesting an admin recall suggests that there may be probably serious issues to look at and review. A summary of what happened at the RfC would be helpful. Please use my talk page in case. Anyway, we got three main points here... a) As it stands now, the request concerns user:Elonka's admin recall process. It is clear that the process is not binding. It has been intended to be a voluntary honor system as it was accurately described above. Whether admins are held to their word - especially when given during their RfA - or not is up to the way we may approach it ethically. Adminship is based on trust and once people start to lose that bit of trust then the administartor position itself becomes theorically moot. I am also thinking that a recall process without something formal and agreed upon like is moot. That said, I'd highly encourage any admin to set back and resign the tools if there are increasing concerns from the community regarding their administrative actions but I'd not force those admins to do so. A recalled admin can refer to a RfA for reconfirmation after there are assurances that the concerns have been dealt with. b) For now, the only body able to desysop an admin is the ArbCom. And evidence of wrongdoing is the only way for ArbCom to desysop an admin. If there's an administrative abuse of tools or controversial administrative actions (including when expressing admin authority - in contrast with using the tools technically) which the community couldn't handle through AN and/or RfC then this is the right place to deal with it. In some controversial and disputed areas, the ArbCom has encouraged administrative discretionary actions and the safeguards against any misguided actions is the referral to AE or the ArbCom for a hearing if necessary. I'd accept a case if evidence of wrongdoing is provided. I'd also accept it if the community feels an ArbCom clarification regarding the discretionary actions in a whole is needed. c) This relates to a long-standing debate; whether making policy falls within the scope of the ArbCom or not. Turning theory into practice does not necessarily involve policy making. ArbCom can define practice and delegate execution to uninvolved admins. I'd not object to that here because ArbCom was able to impose general sanctions smoothly and delegate discretionary actions to uninvolved admins without creating any policy and I see no reason why we can't delegate discretionary admin recall (with clear safeguards of course) by formalizing the process. In other words, ArbCom cannot rule on something inexistant but it can probably help define or arrange a process if the community agrees to it. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept to examine the sequence of events leading to the original RFC and the associated claims therein; regardless of the recall matter—which is not really within our purview—there are underlying claims and counter-claims of administrative abuse and disruptive editing that need to be considered. Kirill 11:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • From a process and wikiphilosophical standpoint, this is one of the most interesting requests for arbitration in a long time. In view of the committee's current "net four votes required for acceptance" rule (with which I have never been comfortable), it appears clear that the request in its current form will not be accepted, but there some important points to be made regarding various aspects of the matter (which are set forth in no particular order):
    • It is not, as has been said by several users above, within the Arbitration Committee's purview to create or enforce an administrator recall policy. My personal opinion, qua editor rather than qua arbitrator, is that to this point, attempts to recall administrators have resulted in more drama than value; the signal-to-noise ratio has been much too high (although whether this is inherent in the idea of recall, or just a happenstance of the circumstances in which a majority of the recall attempts thus far have been invoked, is a fair question).
    • For that matter, I am not sure how a reasonable recall process might work: the most customary threshold adopted by admins open to recall in order to bring about a recall proceeding or a new RfA is six; but even highly regarded administrators are going, at one time or another, to have done something distasteful to six established users. In fact, high-profile administrators who specialize in controversial admin tasks such as arbitration enforcement will be the most likely of all administrators to trigger recall requests, potentially on thin grounds (although I am not characterizing the request underlying this case, one way or the other). But that is a discussion for another page. If the community wishes to formulate a vehicle for addressing instances of administrator misconduct, or even general loss of confidence in a given administrator's judgment, by means short of arbitration cases, it is free to do so. In any discussion on the issue, the point made by Alecmconroy is probably the best argument for the pro-recall position that I have seen.
    • Given that recall is, at least at present, a voluntary process, this committee lacks authority to compel an administrator to submit to a recall procedure. In this regard, I fully understand the argument that an admin can freely choose not to enroll in the "admins open to recall" category, but that once he or she chooses to do so, it is unfair and unbecoming to withdraw from the category once a recall attempt has actually started. It is a thin line between bad-faith refusal to honor a promise, and belated realization that the promise is being misapplied for purposes outside of its scope. The best practice, of course, would be for one or more highly regarded experienced users not involved in a given controversy to referee these battles ("clerk" the recall is a term that has been used), but this committee's mandate, alas, generally has been to enforce minimum standards of user behavior rather than best practices.
    • The thrust of the request for arbitration here, however, is not that an administrator promised to be open to recall and then changed her mind when a colorable recall attempt was in progress; it is that the administrator passed RfA by making this promise, and therefore it is especially inappropriate for her to be allowed to break it. This contention by the filing party is an entirely reasonable one, and I have carefully considered it. My conclusion, however, is that neither the ArbCom, nor even the community, are in a position to enforce administrators' "campaign promises," much less to decide counterfactual questions such as "would this RfA have passed if the candidate had not promised to do X?" If we are prepared to desysop an administrator for refusing to honor a recall pledge, then would we desysop one who narrowly won adminship based on a promise to spend long nights patrolling AIV, but who it six months later turned out had not blocked a single vandal since being handed the block button; or one (like me) who promised to perform what in retrospect are about four times more types of administrator tasks than there are hours in the day? Now, I recognize that this is a "slippery slope, where do you draw the line" type of argument, and that this type of argument is generally a weak one (the whole point of arbiters and dispute resolution processes, after all, is to decide where to draw lines). And I would not say I would "never" vote to take a case raising this type of concern. On balance, though, I find that the recall-related issues, without more, would be insufficient to warrant acceptance of the request for arbitration.
    • Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova, a case cited by some of the commenters in which an administrator's openness to recall was raised, involved unusual facts and circumstances. Moreover, the case may not have been handled in an optimal fashion from a procedural point of view, or at least I would have handled it differently (those statements, of course, are not equivalent). The haste with which that case was decided should not be taken as a precedent for future cases (and frankly, given that tonight I plan to post proposed findings and remedies in a case that has been pending for four months, I doubt very much that it will be).
    • Turning from the recall issues to the balance of the request and the comments, the major allegation is that Elonka's administrator conduct has been problematic particularly in the area of enforcing this committee's decisions. I would like, in passing, to note with appreciation that a greater number of administrators have involved themselves in this important task than had done so in the past. (For many months, we had only one administrator who was spending significant time on arbitration enforcement, a situation both unacceptable and unsustainable.) All arbitration enforcement, but particularly that involving the so called "nationalism" or "ethnic" cases, requires the highest degree of discretion, tact, and judgment.
    • Decisions made in connection with enforcing this committee's decisions, including but not limited to imposing revert paroles or page-bans or the like, are emphatically considered as exercises of administrator privileges and subject to the standards applicable for administrator actions. The fact that one of the administrator's special "buttons" need not be pushed to take such an action is irrelevant.
    • Elonka stands accused of taking a wide variety of controversial and disputed administrator actions in a number of different areas. The request as currently framed does not permit the conclusion that any of these actions are, on their face, sufficiently problematic to warrant an arbitration case. (I am not invoking anything in the nature of a "technicality" here; the problem is that the case for a case, so to speak, has not been developed, and therefore Elonka has not had an opportunity to respond to it.) I don't believe any of the arbitrators voting (I almost typed "!voting", but this is an actual vote) to decline this case have taken any position on how they would address a case on the merits of Elonka's actions themselves, nor has anyone (including me) said much about Sam Korn's point, which is also an interesting one, that brings the whole conversation almost back to where we began.
    • If, as I expect, this case is declined, I urge Elonka to take a long and careful, introspective look at her administrator work and the comments made about it over the past few months. Tactful, neutral, fair-minded, well-explained enforcement of Misplaced Pages policies and Arbitration Committee decisions is welcome, indeed essential. Deviations from these norms, though, can do severe damage to the project, such as by driving away or discounting the contributions of some of our most dedicated, if perhaps at times overzealous, editors of the content areas in question. I hope that Elonka will steer, or if one prefers, continue to steer, to the proper side of the line between dedication and overzealousness. If problems or perceived problems continue, though, it is probably inevitable that a case will be filed again soon and this time likely accepted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024


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:


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)

To reply to Deskana: ArbCom is here for when we've tried everything we can to handle it ourselves, but can't. I understand going to arbcom right away when it involves admin bits, but Steve is a normal user. Please, let us deal with this. While some people are upset about what has happened, there is no urgency here that would justify cutting the community out of this. -- Ned Scott 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
To reply to FloNight: You say "In the end, the Committee and Steve both agreed that prompt action would be better than a long drawn out public case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)"
This is incorrect. Steve was pressured into accepting this because he believed it was his only option, and feared the committee banning him indefinitely. ArbCom shouldn't even be considering a case at this point. This is something for the community to decide. Arbcom is bulling/blackmailing Steve and his wife into this "agreement", and you should be ashamed of yourself for it. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
To reply to Synergy: When I'm hearing this from Steve's mouth, then no, I'm not misinformed. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"Ned, you appear to be misinformed. The discussion was moving towards a positive sanction in which Steve had agreed to" Nonsense is bolded. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Steve's request, I'm dropping this issue.

I would like to apologies to the committee for some of my comments here. While I still believe this is a situation that the community should handle, Steve's fear of being banned is not the fault of the committee. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Ral315

Note that Steve has apparently taken a wikibreak, which renders questions over his ability to attain the tools moot for the time being. That's not to say that the question shouldn't be considered, but that the final decision need not be made hastily now that the issue has been brought publicly. Ral315 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Synergy

Ned, you appear to be misinformed. The discussion was moving towards a positive sanction in which Steve had agreed to. It was interrupted by an additional notice from arbitration. While I'd like to see Steve in a comfortable spot to edit, this might not be possible. This has been over for some time now, and I'd like to suggest that you let this go.

I'd like to also echo Durova. I too, am eager to see a statement with respect to Peter and Chet. Synergy 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ned, much of this began with hearing things come out of Steve's mouth. My comments are directed toward your assessment of the AN thread, not off wiki conversations. Regards. Synergy 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Ned: Thank you for re factoring, I do appreciate the tone down. But its not nonsense. Here is the diff where he agreed to the proposal/sanction made by Seddon. Please ask yourself this: Is any of this helping Steve? If the answer is no, then please take my aforementioned suggestion. Regards. Synergy 08:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Giggy

I agree with Durova. Please consider her proposal. We, the community, are not buffoons, and we can make these decisions. —Giggy 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

The circumstances of Peter and Chet's re-confirmation RFA I have no feelings on. To address Ned Scott's point, I propose a test. Someone hardblock's Steve's account for 6 months. Then we get to test how many sysops feel it is worth putting their bit on the line to unblock him and also how long it takes arbcom to find a steward to desysop someone for violating their finding. In any case, Steve let AGK put the wikibreak enforcer in his monobook and Steve could very easily overcome it or post to his user talk:Steve Public page, so these offsite issues of being pressured are rather pointless, heck even if they were on-site, I'm still wondering how many people find Steve to be trustworthy enough to believe anything he says. MBisanz 08:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

For the record I think the two former administrators have paid the penalty for their chronic lapse of judgement and that to say they resigned under a cloud should be sufficient, such that the community can decide if they decide to reapply at some future point. The Committee are obviously privy to information we aren't, but I was led to believe from the evidence presented that Peter's was initially logged into without his permission or knowledge, although the situation appears to have changed after that time. Orderinchaos 22:54, 26 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)
      • The Arbitration Committee decides when to accept cases and when to reject them. The Committee was approached by a non arbitrator checkuser with results that showed serious evidence of user account abuse, including administrator account sharing. The administrators resigned their tools. The administrators account sharing was coupled with other incidents of problematic behavior by one of the users before and after the check that indicated problems with trust could continue. This needed prompt action as well since real life issues were intermixed with the on site problems. There was public and private comments made by the Community, and these were taken into consideration, including requests to delay a finding or allow the Community to determine the sanctions. In the end, the Committee and Steve both agreed that prompt action would be better than a long drawn out public case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:25, 24 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:

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)

Thanks to Fayssal and Brad for clearing things up for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 26 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)
    • Angus McLellan, the "or ask your mentor" is not missing. The point is that PHG says that he consults you in validating both foreign language sources (a good thing) and obscure ones(!) -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:41, 24 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)
  • Too early to modify. --jpgordon 15:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I was the scrivener of the decision in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. As I stated in that decision, we continued to assume the good faith of User:PHG, and I continue to do so today. However, the extent to which PHG had overstated or mis-cited the contents of sources used in articles raised serious issues concerning whether his article contributions were adding verifiable and reliable content to Misplaced Pages, particularly in articles on relatively abstruse historical topics that were unlikely to attract much scholarly attention from other editors. Contrary to the suggestion in the current request, the Arbitration Committee did not simply accept the word of petitioning editors such as Elonka and Jehochman that a problem existed, but arbitrators actually read through some of the cited sources to compare them with the uses that PHG was making of them, and verified that the problems were real. I trust that PHG can understand, and would appreciate if he would acknowledge, that a problem existed. To assure myself that the problem has been alleviated, would require a mentor or another user with relevant expertise to spot-check some of PHG's more recent articles on comparable subjects to confirm that sources are now being used appropriately and cited accurately for propositions that the cited works, taken as a whole, fairly support. To date, this showing has not been made and therefore I regretfully join in the decision not to modify the sanction at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 25 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:


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)

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)
Category: