Revision as of 11:38, 9 March 2011

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Dreadstar

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 05:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Dreadstar, 06:39, 9 March 2011
• Ludwigs2, 06:40, 9 March 2011

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• None; this concerns an unauthorized reversal of an arbitration enforcement action.  Sandstein  06:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

At 23:27, 8 March 2011, I blocked Ludwigs2 for 72 hours as a response to threats they made at WP:AN against another editor in the context of a dispute concerning the pseudoscience article (State of the AN thread at that time). I labeled this block as an arbitration enforcement action pursuant to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions, and applied the {{uw-aeblock}} template to Ludwigs2's talk page, which warns administrators not to unilaterally undo it except as per WP:AEBLOCK (Current state of the respective section of Ludwigs2's talk page).

Following my announcement of the block, it was criticized by five editors at WP:AN (Slimvirgin, Hans Adler, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, The Four Deuces, Xxanthippe), of which several, as it appears to me from their statements, had been involved in disputes related to the editor threatened by Ludwigs2 and/or the topic of pseudoscience. Two editors, on the other hand, appeared to agree that Ludwigs2's statement at issue had been disruptive (Collect, N419BH).

At 02:41, 9 March 2011, about three hours after the block, Dreadstar unblocked Ludwigs2 without entering into discussion with me. Later, on his talk page, in response to a query from another user, Dreadstar declined to undo his reversal of my arbitration enforcement action.

I submit that the discussion at WP:AN did not constitute at the time of the unblock, or indeed now, the "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" that is required, per this Committee's prior decision, to undo my AE action. I therefore respectfully ask the Committee to take the steps it considers appropriate to prevent Dreadstar from continuing to unilaterally revert AE actions. At the same time, I welcome any advice or criticism by the Committee about whether my AE action was appropriate or what other action, if any, would have been better.  Sandstein  06:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Stephan Schulz

Your assertions are incorrect. As I noted at the AN thread, Ludwigs2 had previously been warned about the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. I also did not break any self-imposed deadline. I asked Ludwigs2 to respond to my concerns about his threat, noting that I expected them to do so within two hours of their next edit, which they did, albeit without addressing their threat. Moreover, Ludwigs2 is an "editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted)", as per the discretionary sanctions remedy, and therefore discretionary sanctions can be applied to him in reaction to threats made in connection with that topic area.  Sandstein  07:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Roger Davies

The threat was made here, and reads in relevant part: "I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly." I read this as a threat to cause unspecified serious disruption unless administrators take action against the other editor, and it appears even Dreadstar agrees with this interpretation.

As to why I believed a short block was more appropriate than a topic or interaction ban: I considered the block to be the most appropriate measure to prevent Ludwigs2 from making such threats in the (near) future. I would have lifted the block myself had Ludwigs2 shown that he understood the problem and agreed to withdraw the comment. A topic ban would have been too broad, as the problem here did not involve article editing, and an interaction ban would almost certainly have had to be applied to both editors in order to work, but there was no actionable case (as I saw it) for an interaction ban against QuackGuru at the time.  Sandstein  08:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Jclemens

I am not aware of anything that would disqualify me from taking action as an uninvolved administrator in this case.  Sandstein  08:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg and Casliber

I would appreciate advice about the form of dispute resolution that you believe I should have undertaken with respect to Dreadstar, in view of his statement that he is unwilling to reverse his reversal of my AE action.

If you decline this case, you in effect overturn the decision cited at WP:AEBLOCK that AE actions may not be unilaterally undone. If that is your intention, I recommend that for the sake of clarity you also propose a motion to that effect. (I think it would not be advisable to overturn that rule, but that decision is up to you, since it affects the authority of your own decisions).  Sandstein  10:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Jmh649

It does appear dreadstar is involved in wheel-waring. One should not revert another admins block without discussing it with them first or at least obtaining consensus at AN. The comments by Ludwig2 where uncivil and do not improve the atmosphere of editing in this difficult area. Sandsteins block was not unreasonable given the comments. I am sure all Ludwig2 would have had to have done was simply acknowledge that a) what was said was inappropriate and b) agree to remove it and he would have gotten unblocked. Having another admin come in a revert things especially one who is favorable towards pseudoscience was not appropriate.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Stephan Schulz

This request is as hasty and ill-considered as the original block. Quite apart from the fact that the block was disproportionate to begin with, and that it was even more disproportionate to claim AE protection for it, it also had several technical problems (insufficient warning, failing to adhere to the self-set deadline), and it should have been removed under WP:IAR anyways. Moreover, there was substantial support for the unblock at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#QuackGuru_again_-_what_do_I_do_now.3F - in my opinion enough to support consensus. Trout Sandstein and reject. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ludwigs2

Let's be clear: Sandstein's block was deeply problematic for a number of reasons:

1. The statement in question (in the last paragraph of this diff, since self-refactored) could hardly be construed as a threat against another editor: yes I was frustrated with a difficult situation, and probably spoke out of turn, but the last line clearly notes that I don't want things to go down an unpleasant route. How could that constitute a threat?
   • besides, by comparison to other things I have seen on AN, ANI, and talk pages that have never received sanctions, this is milquetoast.
2. I was happy to retract the statement, but was never allowed the opportunity. Sandstein warned me , I asked for clarification (because I really wasn't sure what he was talking about), and he immediately blocked me without explanation or the opportunity to address the issue. He was clearly on a beeline to blocking me, and only left a warning as a pro-forma exercise
3. Sandstein is applying the pseudoscience arbitration result to discussion wp:AN, which is not by any stretch of the imagination a pseudoscience article. that's just bizarre, and apparently designed to punish me for complaining about QG's behavior
4. There was no trouble on the article talk page, no trouble on the article itself, I was engaged in a RfC about removing synthesis from the article (so I couldn't possibly have been pushing a viewpoint): In short, there was no actual, foreseeable, imminent, or even theoretical threat of any unpleasant behavior.

In short, the block was at best purely and completely punitive, and at worst vindictive in response to recent confrontations I've had with him. This block should never have happened, and since it did happen, appropriate actions should be taken to limit or remove sandstein's administrative powers. I will open a second arbitration thread on that issue in a couple of days.

Arbitration rulings were never intended to create petty tyrannies in which administrators could sanction editors with impunity according to irrational whims, momentary furies, or personal grudges. Sandstein went off the deep end on this, and Dreadstar ought to receive the committee's thanks for redressing a significant abuse of the committee's delegated authority.

as an final though, I apologize for any part of this bureaucratic confusion that may be my fault: I placed an {{unblock}} template on my talk page, as well as notifying the committee by email. I've never been blocked under arbitration rulings before, and I was unsure about proper procedures, so I wanted to cover all my bases, but this may have confused things. My ignorance, my bad. --Ludwigs2 07:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by {Party X}

Preliminary comment by Hans Adler

Three major issues have come together here:

(1) Sandstein's inclination to make essentially arbitrary draconian blocks. In this case Ludwigs2 reported extremely disruptive behaviour by Ludwigs2 that had been going on at Talk:Pseudoscience for weeks . In this report he used the following description of the natural reaction to someone who only communicates along the lines of "'No, it is a well established fact that penguins can't fly, and it is well known that your source is an April Fools' joke. There is even a video about how the fake documentary was made. ' – 'I provided V, you did not provide V. You cannot provide V. Will you stop adding OR?'" (completely made-up example for clarity). Normally this would be easy to deal with, but not if such a user is getting massive support due to (3). Ludwigs2 described a natural reaction, the aim of which is to gradually get the supporters of the non-communicator to realise just what they are supporting, with these words: "So, you guys want to keep QuackGuru around as an editor - okayfine. Now, tell me how to get him to use even a modicum of common sense and reason so that we can have a proper discussion on the page. I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly. We don't want that (or at least I don't), so give me another solution." (The background was an earlier AN thread in which Ludwigs2 had asked for a QuackGuru ban, and a general feeling seemed to be that QuackGuru is a serious problem but nothing should be done for the moment.)

It would never have occurred to me to see this as a threat. Sandstein, however, contacted Ludwigs2 on his talk page, asked him for a reason why he should not block Ludwigs2 for making a threat, while pointing at his statement in the AN thread where he gave more details. Ludwigs2 then apparently made the mistake of responding to what he thought was the substance of Sandstein's complaint, rather than the surface. (Both at AN and on his own talk page.) Instead of engaging in discussion and making clear to Ludwigs2 that as far as he was concerned the surface was the substance, Sandstein blocked Ludwigs2 55 minutes after the clock for his two-hour ultimatum was started, i.e. 65 minutes before the ultimatum ran out. Predictably, this arbitrary and draconian action has led to editors such as Short Brigade Harvester Boris, who is generally very critical of Ludwigs2 and had contributed to the derailing of his AN report against QuackGuru, finding themselves defending Ludwigs2.

Sandstein blocked Ludwigs2 for very little reason, essentially for being frustrated with the inefficient handling of a long-standing problem (look at the date of WP:Requests for comment/QuackGuru; nothing has changed since then), as his last action before going to bed. To make matters worse, he declared this as an arbitration enforcement block to make sure it would not be reverted. Surely he was aware how controversial this block would be.

(2) The behavioural problems of QuackGuru have long caused disruption, sometimes severe disruption. An RFC/U in mid-2007 was rather unfocused and ran out without conclusion. I don't have a full record of attempts to solve the problem, but I believe the last one is the one archived at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220#Community ban for User:QuackGuru. At the time I gave the following example that demonstrates the dimension of the problem: "t Talk:Citizendium#Won't someone please think of the article? you can see how David Gerard and SlimVirgin were about to fix an article between them, and then gave up after QuackGuru made it clear that he is the owner."

(3) In the climate change arbitration, Arbcom apparently came to the conclusion that the main problem was severe polarisation, and that the pro-science side was to a large extent responsible for it. While I do not agree that this was the best point to address for solving the entire problem, I do see it as one valid point among several.

Similar mechanisms are at work in the general area of pseudoscience, but in a much purer form. The main difference is that in the climate change area we had actual scientific experts who were respected by the pro-science side. General pseudoscience-related discussions, however, are usually dominated by sectarian self-described "skeptics" who tend to adore pretended experts on pseudoscience whose expertise generally manifests in using strong words rather than strong arguments.

It appears to me that whenever a discussion at an article such as pseudoscience or list of topics characterized as pseudoscience derails, large numbers of such editors swarm in to support each other while showing very few signs that they know what is actually being discussed. (This is probably not the best I can do to describe this problem, so I may revise the description once I find the time.) appear Hans Adler 08:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

When an administrator blocks while enforcing ArbCom sanctions, there are more rigid rules for unblocking which are clearly set out in the blocking template. Whatever the merits or demerits of the block, Dreadstar did not follow those rules, although he was evidently acting in good faith. Even if Dreadstar broke those rules, I do not believe that warrants an ArbCom case. There is an ongoing problem with Ludwigs2's conduct on wikipedia. He must surely have been aware that if he wished to edit Pseudoscience or its talk page, he had to be on his best behaviour. Perhaps some community feedback through an RfC/U might help Ludwigs2 work out better ways of expressing himself and of interacting with other editors. Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Either ArbCom rulings have effect, or they do not. As the specific admonition to all admins not to reverse the block was clearly posted, one can not then "assume good faith" in a deliberate flouting of an ArbCom ruling. This is not even a very close call. And has naught to do with Ludwgs2, and everything to do with the belief that otherwise no ArbCom ruling has any real force or effect. I suggest that ArbCom retract its rules if the rules have no force. I suggest that ArbCom strictly enforce such absolute rules if they are to have force. Collect (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

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

• Questions and comments: Firstly, I am very concerned about the rapid escalation that has taken place here and while waiting for other statements have a few things I'd really appreciate being clarified.
  @Sandstein: could you please identify and quote, for ease of reference, the text you saw as a threat; perhaps characterise the nature of the threat; and please clarify why a block - as against for example a topic ban or interaction ban - was an appropriate response?
  @Dreadstar (in anticipation of your arrival here): when making your statement, could you please demonstrate that clear consensus existed to overturn the block or explain your other reasons for doing so?
   Roger 07:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I echo Roger's expressed frustration with the escalation here. Ludwigs2, you allude to negative past interactions with Sandstein. Are you asserting that Sandstein is an involved with you as an administrator and ineligible to place an AE block? If so, you need to substantiate that assertion. Oh, and you most assuredly do not need to open a second thread, as one will suffice to examine the conduct of all parties. And Jmh649, you might want to read what actually constitutes a wheel war: while certainly not exemplary administrator-to-administrator action, I do not see how this can be construed as that. Jclemens (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Now there's a couple questions here that need to be answered. From the AE-Block Template: : In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." Please focus on the following: A) Was this a valid administrative action pursuant to an active arbitration remedy, and denoted as such? And B) Was there a clear, substantial active consensus of UNINVOLVED editors? I note the statement that this might have mitigating circumstances, (requesting a regular unblock, not an AE unblock). SirFozzie (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Reject unless someone can demonstrate that there is a pattern involving one or more of these administrators that warrants a case rather than an RFC. John Vandenberg 10:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Decline per John Vendenberg and Roger really. A bit of face-to-face discussion and conflict resolution would be an advisable and highly prudent course to take. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2, the tone adopted in the original post to me came across as one of frustration, with an exasperated hypothetical disruption suggested conditional on lack of a closer look at QG. I am in two minds - personally I don't think I would have blocked, but suggest that you are probably aware that the tone of the posting was in a sufficient grey area that blocking was a possibility and so was a risky post to make. You really need to avoid making posts that could be suggestive of disruption in delicate areas.

@Sandstein - the tone adopted in this post was not conducive to calming a frustrated editor down and moving forward. (Agreed.  Sandstein  11:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

@Dreadstar - yes there was divided opinion about the block, but it was an AE block, so warranted more discussion with the blocking admin before unblocking.

There are my three proposed Reminders. I am tempted to make them three Motions (i.e. official Reminders)...or to just leave this and move on. Really, this is a minor issue compared with some others ongoing currently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)