Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:33, 21 January 2009

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

White Brazilian

Initiated by Opinoso (talk) at 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Opinoso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Donadio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff. [1]
Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Link [2]
Link 2

Statement by Opinoso

The user was already blocked because of his bad behave at article White Brazilian[[3] but keeps doing the same mistakes. He keeps erasing sourced informations and including non-neutral personal point of views. He claims there are 15 million "Italian Brazilians", while the Embassy of Italy in Brasilia claims 25 million. He said the Embassy is lying and "exaggerating". He's also claiming the Embassy of Lebanon figures are fake. No sources on the Internet say these government figures are fakes, but this user does not respect the Verifiability rule of Wikipedia. He takes personal conclusions based on informations that have nothing to do with the subect.[4] He has a clear "pro-Portuguese" point of view, and is obviously trying to diminish the influence of Italians, Germans and Arabs in Brazil.

Wikipedia asks us to ask another user's opinion when there is a conflict. User Lehoiberri agreed that Donadio's changes based on non-neutral opinions are not allowed. However, Donadio keeps changing the information, even after being blocked and after a third opinion. I already told him several times not to include unsourced and non-neutral informations, but he keeps ignoring my warnings. Opinoso (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/0/0)

Decline as premature; please go through the preliminary stages of dispute resolution before bringing this here. Kirill 01:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline the only attempt to resolve seems to be talk page discussion. Please see WP:DR first. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as premature. On Wikipedia Arbitration case are the last step in dispute resolution. Getting help from more users will likely help settle the conflict. FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Wizardman 02:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline; please attempt dispute resolution first. — Coren ^(talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Kirill. Risker (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline This attempt is not enough. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand article

Initiated by Idag (talk) at 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Idag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TallNapoleon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kjaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CABlankenship (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
J Readings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jomasecu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SteveWolfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Endlessmike 888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ethan a dawe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Modernist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Syntacticus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TheJazzFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ddstretch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

TheDarkOneLives (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Slim Virgin [5]
ChildofMidnight [6]
Peter Damian [7]
TallNapoleon (has already responded)
Kjaer [8]
Snowded (has already responded)
CABlankenship [9]
J Readings [10]
Jomasecu [11]
SteveWolfer (has already responded)
EndlessMike 888 [12]
Ethan a Dawe [13]
Modernist [14]
Syntacticus [15]
TheJazzFan [16]

TheDarkOneLives [17]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediation[18] [19]
RfC; see Talk:Ayn_Rand#Request_for_Comment
Proposed second RfC[20][21][22]
Extensive discussion on Talk:Ayn Rand

Statement by Idag

Some editors of the Ayn Rand article have made it their mission that the article must glorify Rand. Any removal of phrasing that praises Rand is viewed with suspicion (regardless of its merits) and the editor who suggests the edit, (as well as any other editor who agrees with them) is vilified as being part of an "anti-Rand faction."[23] There is a general refusal to consider the merits of proposed changes and there is, instead a tendency to engage in ad hominem attacks.[24] One editor was warned, twice,[25][26] about the AGF policy, and both times he responded by accusing the warning editor of an ulterior motive.[27][28] This inability to communicate has led to numerous edit wars to the point that the article needed to be placed on full-protect three times in the past month.[29][30] Idag (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steve

Kjaer was blocked because he was involved in a prolonged edit war that resulted in heated comments on all sides. I did not edit Wikipedia at all for most of that weekend and was not involved in the edit war. That is why my block was cut short (even Kjaer acknowledged as much).
The RfC that Steve is referring to was invalid for the following reasons: (1) it was closed by one of the protagonists after being up for only one day; (2) the language about how to vote was extremely confusing; and (3) the final vote was actually 7 to 5 (or 9 to 5 if you count two anon editors for who this was their first edit on WP). The RfC was poorly handled and when TallNapoleon offered to create a new RfC, his efforts were rebuffed (see diffs in dispute resolution section). Idag (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve

First: This arbitration request is badly named. This is not about two editors, many, many more are involved. And like most disputes it has two sides. I request that it be renamed, "Editing Dispute (Ayn Rand Article)" - or put the other key editor's names in the title - which would be silly. [the article is now renamed]

The Ayn Rand article has always been highly contentious. It attracts many people who hate Rand and her philosophy: Politically this includes many conservatives, liberals, socialists, anarchists, Christians, as well as advocates of differing philosophical systems. It also attracts dedicated fans, advocates of her philosophy, and cult-like followers. Reading the talk page shows the range of attitudes and positions, some of which are biased for or against to a degree that gets in the way of making a good encyclopedia article.

There was a fairly stable article (something that never lasts for long) towards the end of December. At that point a group who have proven themselves to be strongly biased against Rand, to the degree that their edits have an agenda that is at odds with Wikipedias, began to make edits in the "Influence" section of the article. There is a fan-magazine quality to some of that section and it did need editing. But the editors in question were interested in removing any substantial or notable forms of cultural influence and strengthening any negative comments - even if they were out of context.

The resulting dispute was heated, but within control and had reached a consensus - eaach side to the dispute had agreed on a fairly significant set of changes. At this point, a Wikipedia admin acquaintance of Snowded - that is someone who he is familiar with from other articles they edited, froze the page, based, if I remember right, about comments being to heated in the talk page (which they really weren't - not like I've seen before). And he blocked two editors for 24 hours: Idag and Kjaer. He quickly unblocked Idag but not Kjaer. At the end of the seven day freeze on the article, an avalance of edits poured out making radical changes and without any effort to attain consensus.

Kjaer posted a RfC requesting that the article be restored to the form it was in before those hundreds of edits were applied - all by on faction, nearly all negative. For the most part, those opposed to the edits being applied restrained from reverting, edit warring, fighting on the talk page, and concentrated on the RfC - which provided a 9-3 count in favor of the reversion.

Members of the other faction chose not to honor the RfC, deeming it flawed in this way or that and in general disputing and continuing to make negative edits. The page was frozen again. A meditation was requested. The way in which it was requested, the language framing it, and the unbalanced selection of participants caused me to reject it and to make it know that I believed we needed ArbCom.

There are a group of editors who have a fierce dislike of Rand, and her philosophy and based upon, in some cases, very strange personal beliefs, are that they are editing out of that POV. I believe that an examination of the edits themselves in this period of time and the comments on the talk page will bear this out.

statement by Snowded

I support Steve's suggest for renaming this request
There is a clear need here to determine questions of EVIDENCE and BALANCE as there no agreement between the editors even when citations are given and we have rampant OR
Conduct is a major issue and accusations of bias approach intimidation at times
The vast majority of sources used come from Rand web sites or books from members of her movement, there is little third party material. The same sources (for example a six year old newspaper article) are used to make assertions about the current period. Its a mess
For the record I don't think any of the facts support Steve's statement above, in particular there was no proper RFC, instead a straw poll was called and closed by one of the partisans
This article is just the flashpoint, there have been other disputes on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and Schools of Philosophy as well as vandalism (inserting Rand's definition without reference or honesty) on Philosophy

It needs someone to manage the process. Ideally I would suggest an independent panel or person to make decisions about evidence in controversial areas and to monitor behaviour of individual editors. --Snowded TALK 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TallNapoleon

I agree with the proposal to rename this request. I will post more on this later, when I have time. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue I have with the current state of the article is its size and its structure. It is in my opinion entirely too long, and devotes overmuch time dealing with the minutiae of Rand's views. For instance her views on homosexuality, for instance, are at best a footnote to her philosophy. In addition it promotes an overly hagiographical image of Rand. The inclusion of a section responding to criticism was, in my opinion, an absolutely ridiculous example of this. Finally the legacy section was, essentially, akin to those appalling "In popular culture" sections. It merely listed people who were allegedly influenced by Rand, often of dubious notability (there was soap opera star there, for God's sake), and many of the references used came from Randite sources. To be honest it struck me and many other editors as an attempt to artificially inflate Rand's legacy at the expense of article quality. Attempts at compromise, including proposals to model the article after those for other authors or philosophers which had received FA status and an attempt at mediation were blocked by some pro-Rand editors (others, to their credit, signed on). The rejection of mediation, in my opinion, is simply inexplicable, especially given that it is totally non-binding.

Other issues include the continual assumptions of bad faith by numerous pro-Rand editors, the loss of civility, and the apparent attempts to use Wikilawyering and distractions to achieve goals. Kjaer's RFC was extremely poorly handled, for the reasons Idag explained above, and to use that as the basis to revert over a week's worth of editing, edits which had been discussed on the talk page and for which consensus had been developed at the time, was absolutely unjustifiable and flew completely within the face of policy. There is also | this. I had sent a paper I had written about Rand to User:TheJazzFan privately, which he then posted to his Talk page without my permission (and I do not believe TJF was acting in bad faith when he did so). I asked on ANI that it be removed from the revision history, which it was. After this, TJF made the bizarre insinuation that I was not in fact the paper's author, while User:SteveWolfer sought to have the edits restored on a very dubious basis and despite my expressed wishes as the author that it not be. Frankly it smelled to me of bad faith, harassment, and an attempt to see my IP released under the GFDL against my expressed wishes as the author. The bizarre discourse surrounding Rand's quote about the Native Americans, shown | here and | here is another example of the general breakdown of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF over the past few weaks. Something needs to be done if any progress on the article is to be made. Until such point, it appears that indefinite protection may well be warranted. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ethan Dawe

This is mostly a placeholder for comment to be added tomorrow. Arbitrators should, before ruling on this huge mess, read the long long long debate. Sad to say, but the truth will only be seen by doing that. Steve's description is correct above though. I myself have stoppped editing the Ayn Rand article, with the exception of reverting changes this past fall by spinoza1111 who is blocked. I've stopped spending any serious effort on wiki thanks to the action of some of those involved in this arbcomm. Some of these editors have acted in extreme bad faith and have been supported by admin action. "Anti"-rand posters engaging in attacks on "pro"-rand editors have been mostly ignored my admins while any such behavior by a "pro"- rand editor is immedietly warned. This beahvior is a mockery of what wiki is supposed to be about. Ethan a dawe (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

responce to TallNapolean: Her comment on homosexuality are minor, but her comments on American Indian's having there land seized are important? This wouldn't be becasue you agree with the one and disagree with the other would it? I disagree with both and think despite being an objectivist! Ethan a dawe (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ethan A Dawe

It's an interesting point. Here's the difference, as I see it. Rand's views on homosexuality frankly reflect prevalent sentiments of the time. I'd say they're probably worth a one-line mention--NOT a whole subsection. Rand's view of Native Americans, however, are interesting in that they appear to contradict her stated beliefs in individual rights, and are frankly a lot more disturbing. I would argue that they appear to reflect her own philosophy and core ideas, whereas her comments about homosexuality appear to reflect a relatively common prejudice at the time. It's one thing to say one finds homosexuality "disgusting" while maintaining, as she did, that a proper state would have no business interfering. It's quite another to justify ethnic cleansing, which is what the 1974 West Point quote did. And incidentally, I do disagree with Rand's view of homosexuality quite strongly. That said I could still be convinced not to include the West Point quote. It may simply be impossible to work it into the article well. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by C. Blankenship

Although I have barely touched this article, and have refrained from much personal editing, I have an interest that the mainstream academic view of Rand be presented. Disingenuous claims on her influence abound in this article: harsh critics of Rand such as Murray Rothbard (who wrote an essay calling Objectivism a dogmatic cult, and compared her to communist personality cult leaders) are presented as if they were admirers. Misinformation is common, and attempts to remove it are heavily resisted. It's difficult to resist concluding that there are some editors more interested in propaganda and slant than in facts. Rand is an individual with a fanatical and devoted following on the internet in the form of several cult-like websites that are quite similar to Scientology, creationism, and other fringe groups. They have no qualms with round-the-clock edit warring in an attempt to maintain a fan-page level view of Rand. CABlankenship (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Modernist

I have made only very minor contributions to this controversy; and I'm somewhat neutral on the issue as a whole; although I do have my opinion concerning Ayn Rand, and over the past two years I've made some inconsequential contributions to the article. I've read four of Rands books. I think she was an interesting writer; and not a philosopher. That said - the edit warring and obstructionism on this article and it's talk page must stop. The arguments seems endless, pointless and incredibly defensive on the part of Rands embattled defenders; her critics while just as adamant seem a bit more ready to achieve some sort of compromise. At this point it's beyond a stubborn stalemate; it's become a disgraceful spectacle...Modernist (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Cla68

Find the bozo(s), then ban them from the article and it's talk page. Issue resolved. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from DDStretch

Since my actions as an administrator have been alluded to by User:SteveWolfer and User:Ethan a dawe as if they were somehow improper, I feel I have no alternative but to add my name to this matter, even though I have no desire to. This is a placeholder for a more complete statement that will come later. DDStretch (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

The filing party is advised to use a less adversarial case title in the future, and a less adversarial tone throughout his/her statement.--Tznkai (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/4)

Comment Awaiting more statements. FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, waiting for more statements or mediation somehow starting within the next 24hrs. I'm likely to accept given that the last mediation attempt failed because Steve didnt agree to it. Most arbs agreed to look at this problem if mediation failed.[31] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also awaiting more statements; as pr Jayvdb, I would likely accept if there is no hope of successful mediation. Risker (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per John. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, looks like they are out of DR options. Wizardman 14:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

Martinphi-ScienceApologist clarification

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

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification

Elonka notified

Statement by Orangemarlin

Elonka has chosen to interpret Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist in a high-handed and unfair manner. First, she added my name to a "list" of editors who, in her singular opinion, were disruptive to the article here. I had made merely one edit to the article here, because I believed that fairly POV edits were being made to the article. In a good faith attempt to stop edit warring, I requested page protection, which fairly quickly.

Elonka then decided I was some disruptive character, performing the following heavy-handed actions:

Adding me to the admin log for the article
Placing a warning on my user talk that I might be subject to Arbcom restrictions in editing this article. The warning was inaccurate and included several falsehoods as discussed by myself and discussed directly with Elonka by MastCell.
Adding my name into the log of warned editors
She has then gone on to warn admins of their activities with regards to her personal interpretation of this arbcom decision with rather pointed remarks to B here and to KillerChihuahua here.

Elonka's list is subject to a MfD and her actions are being discussed in this ANI.

Several issues:

She claims she is uninvolved in these articles, but that's a specious argument. She has had a vendetta against me, since I published her threatening and defamatory email to me. Since one arbcom member John Vandenberg has requested that I not publish her email for reasons that don't make sense to me (and to be clear, I have already publicly shown that email on my user talk, and anyone can find the diff in my User talk history in about 1 minute), I have forwarded that email to Arbcom through User:Casliber.
She has left rude messages about me to other users such as this one, and this one (and helping a pro-pseudoscience editor, User:Ludwigs2). Since the arbcom ruling states, "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.", and I have shown that she has both a direct and personal conflict with me, her actions should be disqualified.
I contend that the arbcom ruling also states, "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions." Nothing I have done with article in dispute, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts violates those standards.

Does she have the right, as an admin, to make an arbitrary decision as to who should or should not be logged as a disruptive editor in pseudoscience articles?

I respectfully request my name be deleted from this log and that a full interpretation of how admins may administer the pseudoscience ruling. I also request that Elonka be sanctioned and desysopped for her violation of same Arbcom ruling. Because of Jvdb's support of Elonka with respect to the threatening email sent to me by Elonka, I ask that he immediately recuse himself from this discussion.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

Elonka has in the past attempted to micromanage talk pages for fringe science or pseudoscience articles and has drawn criticism for this. Chiropractic is one example. Editing ground to a standstill. What seemed to work, under the guidance of User:Tim Vickers, was enabling expert medical editors such as User:Eubulides to lead discussions and establish a proper understanding of balance, in writing and in finding sources. One problem with Elonka's technique is that it fails to recognize the distinction between experts and civil POV pushers (like Ludwigs2 or Levine2112), with the result that those representing the fringe point of view can appear to be unduly favoured. In what she has written recently, Elonka seems to imply that mainstream science and fringe science are two warring factions and have to be sorted out. The error in this statement, which underlies the inappropriateness of her approach, is that wikipedia hopes to represent mainstream science faithfully; it is in fact wikipedia itself that is trying to keep in proportion the promotion of the claims of fringe science and pseudoscience. Elonka's actions towards those writing in mainstream science like me has been combative and aggressive. When I raised exactly these points twice on the talk page of List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, objecting to her use of a list of frequent contributors to the talk page, she added me to that list, claiming that I had contributed "multiple" posts. The use of the word "multiple" instead of two, which in modern parlance does not normally mean multiple, many or frequent, was a combative act. It showed that she was unwilling to discuss the flaws in her strategy. I was careful not to bring up the problems with her particular approach in the latest fringe science ArbCom, although in my evidence I obliquely alluded to the difficulties of handling articles on fringe science. I have explained what I see as the fundamental flaw in Elonka's approach. This approach has been criticized by an increasing number of reputable administrators and editors during the current discussion on ANI. She has not yet given an adequate response. It has led to the perception that she favours those pushing a fringe point of view, that civility should take undue precedence over content. Although it is clear that these methods work well on controversial articles that attract rival groups of nationalists, there is absolutely no reason to draw a parallel with nationalistic disputes: that would place mainstream science on the defensive. ArbCom is currently producing a series of principles that make it very clear that mainstream science does not have to "fight its corner" on wikipedia. Her attempted classification of individual editors has been quite unhelpful - what she has very recently written to KillerChihuahua for example implies that only with her months of experience can the "bad eggs" pushing mainstream science be recognized. It is ironic that at the same time she describes herself as WP:UNINVOLVED, a case of wikipedia policy being misused. Principles from unrelated ArbCom cases have similarly been used to justify her actions. In fringe science, in particular matters concerning minority viewpoints on dysgenics and eugenics, she has gone to the extent of labelling those representing the mainstream point of view as a "tag team" or worse still a "lynch mob". Elonka seems to be the only administrator acting in this way at present. Although she makes a great point of remaining civil, her methods are combative and aggressive. In the case of List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, a minor hodge-podge article full of outlandish Professor Branestawm curiosities, she has created yet another storm in a teacup which was quite unnecessary. She should politely be asked not to conduct further experiments of this sort if they are so counterproductive and cause so much offense: there is no virtue in appearing to champion the cause of fringe science or pseudoscience on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:B

Since Elonka defines anything she does on those articles, whether involving the administrative tools or not as "an administrator is taking actions pursuant to an ArbCom ruling". [32] Essentially, she claims that she should be unrevertable. That's a dangerous attribute to give to anyone.

Whether Elonka at one time or another was "uninvolved", meaning, that she was sufficiently neutral to make administrative decisions in this topic area free from editorial interests or user interests, I don't know and don't care. If she was uninvolved, that ship has long sailed and she is clearly involved now. --B (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This request was filed as a clarification but statements suggest this may have been misfiled, but is in fact a request for a full case. Could filing party please clarify?--Tznkai (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Recuse, as I have taken related administrative action in my role as an oversighter prior to sitting on the arbitration committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been discussed at many venues with no apparent resolution so far and therefore needs ArbCom attention —especially that one of the Martinphi-ScienceApologist's case remedies refers to an appeal of sanctions in case of emergence of doubts concerning qualifications of being an 'uninvoled admin'. I can see two problems here. a) Actions and involvment of an admin —while enforcing arbitration decisions— being questioned by a one or more editors and b) possible lack of help from other uninvolved admins. And I can think of two possible options: a) Investigate both Elonka's actions and those of editors and see if there are any possible abuses from any party and b) see if there's a need to have more admins willing to help. I personally believe that the presence of one admin —in a hot area— is both insufficient and less helpful —since more views are always better than one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EK3 clarification

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

Statement by Everyking

Earlier this month, the ArbCom voted to uphold the sanctions applied to me under the terms of the EK3 case. I am very uncertain about how the "restraining order" regarding Phil Sandifer is meant to be applied in various situations, however, and if this restriction is going to be in place indefinitely, a clear understanding of its nature is necessary for me to continue participating in the project comfortably.

The ArbCom apparently imposed and upholds this restriction based on the belief that I am a lunatic who is eager for the opportunity to contact Phil Sandifer and annoy him to the best of my ability. As I have repeatedly explained, this is sheer fantasy, and my only concern has been to see the ArbCom pass a mutual restriction that would equally apply to Phil Sandifer, thereby mitigating or neutralizing the severely negative effect this "restraining order" has on my reputation and community standing. If the ArbCom is just trying to keep me from contacting Phil Sandifer, the restriction serves no purpose, as I have no desire to contact him. There are, however, a variety of real, plausible circumstances under which I might cross paths with Phil, and it is completely unclear how I am supposed to behave in those circumstances.

One example that I have presented in the past is that of AfD: if Phil nominates an article for deletion, am I still allowed to register my opinion on the article as part of the discussion? I have been seeking an answer to that question for years. Furthermore, what if he merely comments—before me—on someone else's AfD nomination; am I allowed to make my own comment in that situation?

How should the "restraining order" be applied to articles? Am I allowed to edit articles that have been previously edited by Phil Sandifer? Am I allowed to edit in subject areas where Phil Sandifer has taken an interest (for example, webcomics)? What about discussions on the AN pages and the like: can I comment on an issue there if Phil has already commented (I have done this before and nothing happened, but I was very nervous about possible consequences)? Can I comment on an issue if he raises the issue himself (for example, by starting the thread)? Perhaps the best way to articulate the problem is to ask: am I prohibited from mere proximity to Phil Sandifer, or am I prohibited from actual interaction with him/commentary about him? In the past, restrictions have always been interpreted to my disadvantage, meaning that I must assume the former and avoid situations involving any degree of proximity. This could lead to an absurd situation in which I create an article, Phil fixes a typo on it, and I am thus prohibited from continuing with my planned work to expand the article further. Naturally this problem makes my participation on the project uncomfortable, and I call on the ArbCom to at least interpret the ruling in some reasonable fashion that gives me more freedom to participate fully in the project. Everyking (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Jayvdb, I am hoping that the ArbCom will state that I am allowed to participate in AfDs started by Phil Sandifer; contrary to what you say, this does in fact need clarification, as it seems to be understood at present that I am not allowed to do that. In November 2008, FloNight told me to not comment on AfDs started by Phil, although I do not know whether the other arbitrators agreed with her about that. Regarding the matter of "editing interaction", that is exactly the kind of thing I need clarified. If Phil has "recently edited" an article and I have not, does that I mean I am banned from contributing to that article?

While it is true that I was not blocked during 2008, this is because I was extremely careful about avoiding any kind of editorial proximity to Phil Sandifer, and on a few occasions when I did edit a page after he did, such as on ANI, I was quite nervous about possible consequences (possibly I escaped being blocked only because no one noticed). I feel that I should not have to deal with that kind of thing. Everyking (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Phil, these are not just hypothetical situations. In April 2008 there was a case where Phil nominated a slew of articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 United States presidential election_controversy and irregularities) and I was unable to vote. I contacted the ArbCom privately seeking permission to vote, but my request was ignored. Furthermore, this is a constant issue on a variety of pages such as ANI, where I am simply not sure what is allowed and feel that simply registering my opinion about a matter on which Phil has already commented is a dangerous gamble. Everyking (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Coren, I have pointed to a specific instance immediately above. It is deeply unfair to keep me under this scarlet letter restriction indefinitely and then punish me further by effectively upholding the most extreme interpretation of the ruling. To date I have respected the ruling very carefully, even when that means excluding myself from participation in various matters that interest me, and I would expect the ArbCom to acknowledge that by clarifying the situation in favor of a less severe interpretation. Everyking (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a test case, I have now made this edit to an AfD in which Phil has already commented. I ask the ArbCom to clarify whether or not that is an acceptable edit. Everyking (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Vassyana, yes, I am aware of that and do not consider it an appropriate method under ordinary circumstances. However, I have been trying to get the ArbCom to address this problem for years, and now some of you are telling me that, because I refrained assiduously from editing the same pages as Phil, there are no specific incidents to consider and therefore nothing can be done. In other words, I stand to be punished for following the restriction so strictly; it's like keeping someone under house arrest and then, when they ask to be released from house arrest, telling them that there is no need for that, because they haven't been leaving the house anyway. That's ridiculous, and I'm not willing to stand around and suffer for my own caution, so I figured under the circumstances that it would be best to give the ArbCom a specific incident to consider.

I think the "bright line", if we're going to have one, should be direct interaction or commentary. In other words, I think the ArbCom should allow me to comment on the same page as Phil, provided I don't comment in response to Phil or make reference to him, and also to edit the same articles as Phil, provided that the edits are uncontroversial article improvements. Everyking (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is entirely reasonable to expect that I should not deliberately follow Phil around, persistently editing things that he has edited, just as it is reasonable to expect him to refrain from doing that to me. However, it is unreasonable to expect me to refrain from registering my opinion in an AfD started by Phil; I have been broadly participating in the AfD (or VfD) process throughout my five years on the project, and there is no basis for believing that my participation in AfDs started by Phil would be intended to harass him. Indeed, in the test case I linked above, Phil and I voted the same way—I am interested in all AfDs as content issues only and I think Phil's involvement ought to be considered irrelevant. It is also unreasonable to expect me to completely avoid editing articles created by Phil, although it would be perfectly reasonable to expect me to avoid making edits of marginal value to a wide variety of articles created by him (that would be reasonable in any case where users had a history of antagonism). Perhaps in these matters we could say that the best approach is caution, rather than prohibition. I am totally willing to be cautious, and I don't expect that very many cases of overlapping editing would arise, but I want to be free to participate when I am solely concerned with the content and Phil's involvement is merely coincidental. Everyking (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the ArbCom does not clarify the situation adequately, I will have to post a request for clarification each time I wish to edit a page that Phil Sandifer has edited, just to obtain permission in that specific instance. I think that imposes an excessive burden on both myself and the ArbCom. If the ArbCom wants me to stay away from articles Phil Sandifer has edited, I will respect that (he seldom edits articles anyway, to be frank), provided it only applies to recent edits and doesn't cover articles Phil edited months or years ago (certain cases could still arise where I might have to seek ArbCom permission, though, for example on a high-traffic article that is the subject of some immediate wiki-controversy). However, AfDs, administrative discussions, and policy discussions are a different matter, and I feel as a member of the community I should be permitted to express my opinion whenever I see fit, as long as I do not engage with Phil Sandifer in the process of doing so. Everyking (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also registered my opinion at the Giano II RfC, which was started by Phil. As I have long held a strong and vocal opinion about Giano issues, I think it would be appalling if the ArbCom were to rule that I could not endorse a viewpoint in this instance, simply because Phil has involved himself. Everyking (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phil Sandifer

If there are specific areas where Everyking feels unduly burdened by the restriction, let him bring them up. But I would rather not turn the restriction into something that becomes about rules lawyering, or that requires my constant negotiation and defending of. I've already had to deal with requests to lift this restriction three times in the last few months, which are three times more than I want to be dealing with Everyking. If there's a specific issue underlying this, fine - last time he brought it up I was perfectly willing to allow him to ask questions on my arbcom bid, in the interests of fairness. But I would rather not be in this position of having to constantly negotiate the parole in the general case, or in an attempt to engage in an extended modification of it that can go through a thousand absurd hypotheticals. But come on. What if I made a minor edit to an article Everyking had created? Really? What if I start an AfD? I do less than one of those a month. If there's an actual issue here, let's hear it. These are ridiculous hypotheticals.

Can the arbcom please rule that there will be no further general case motions about this parole for some nice, long amount of time? This constant having to come back to RFAr to de facto negotiate with Everyking rather defeats the purpose. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rootology

Contrary to Phil's statements, as Everyking is not the only person on Wikipedia under a similar restriction, and if memory serves there are still more, it does need clarification. Phil is not a special case or a particularly special user (none of us are). If UserA is restricted this way from UserB, what happens if UserA has edited a given article, and then UserB comes along? Is UserA then barred from going there? Barred for some time? What if one or the other starts an AFD? What if they both comment on some rambling ANI discussion? Are these restrictions meant to be (as I've interpreted them) from commenting on each other, or some inappropriate placebo for the UserB's of the scenario to not "see" the other party? The "blocks" if mutual in scope are a great idea to basically let useful users stick around while neutering drama. If the restrictions are not mutual, as detailed here, then the scope does need to be defined so that the UserA of the scenario doesn't have to worry about having a pointless and inappropriate cloud over their head from what amounts to an ultra laser specific restriction while improving Wikipedia. If the question of scope comes up, it's a good idea to clarify it, because it seems to be a good solution growing in popularity. rootology (C)(T) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to clarify that this is NOT sour grapes in any way, shape, or form with my own situation, it's just a genuine curiosity for clarification about these cases in general. Specific to my own situation, as I'd said time and time in public and in private to people, I'm absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely fine with it all. The odds of he and I interacting at this point are functionally null. The closest we're likely to ever come to each other is both commenting on different subpages of WP:FAC for our own nominations for Featured status or random FARs. Our interests in content are simply light years apart. However, I do call shotgun on anything related to either Mount Rainier or Mount Saint Helens exploding, but he can have the mountains themselves as they're one of his specialities, unless if the theoretical eruptions kill me, in which case he can have it all. :) rootology (C)(T) 05:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Phil Sandifer notified. Daniel (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

The outstanding remedy prevents "commenting .. about", or "interacting with" Phil Sandifer. If you both find yourself at the same xfD, both parties are expected to only comment on the article or page itself rather than the editor, so no clarification is needed there. If you regularly appear at communal discussions where Phil has commented already, or on topics that you know he has keen interest in, eyebrows would be raised.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Motion re Abtract added a bit of clarity to what would be viewed as editing interaction: editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that [party 1] has recently edited but [party 2] has not previously edited. Everyking, you mentioned that you have needed to err on the side of caution because "In the past, restrictions have always been interpreted to [your] disadvantage". You havent been blocked often, so I am wondering when has this been interpreted to your disadvantage? Was it misinterpreted at all during 2008? i.e. did you have any close calls with someone threatening to block? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are specific incidents where implementation of this restriction has caused problems because of vagarities or ambiguities, I see no clarification to be made. — Coren ^(talk) 03:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking, you've been around quite long enough to know that performing edits just to make a point or test the boundaries of restrictions is frowned upon by our community norms. It certainly isn't the way to get a favorable response. That said, has the restriction been unduly burdensome to you? How, specifically? (Being very honest, the AfD examples don't convince me. Phil nominates relatively very few articles for deletion and it's not like there's any shortage of AfDs to comment upon.) Can you give examples of how the restriction has been used against you as you assert? Presuming the restriction stays in place as is, since the purportedly vague nature of the restriction is a main part of your point, what bright line boundaries would you suggest? I should state openly that I'm skeptical as a general rule when it comes to claims of difficulty/unfairness in disentangling. Wikipedia is a huge and sprawling place with a ridiculous number of activities and topics to participate in. It should not be a herculean burden to disengage from and avoid another editor. Vassyana (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyking, thank you for the response. I understand your point and the accompanying frustration, but the unaswered questions are quite answerable. You're asserting (if I'm mistaken, please correct me) that the restriction has been both unduly burdensome and used against you unfairly. All that I'm asking is that you substantiate the assertions. This doesn't require a test case. (To draw on your example, someone under house arrest doesn't need skip custody to go to the grocer in order to assert a reasonable need to visit the grocer.) Vassyana (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, Everyking should be free to comment on matters (including AfDs) even if Phil is on the same page, but should still avoid interacting with or commenting on Phil. There are also some standard situations that Everyking should usually avoid: articles created by Phil, AfDs started by Phil, discussions started by Phil, and so on (this is not intended to be, nor can it be, a comprehensive list). Common sense says that Phil should do the same to avoid interaction with Everyking. If either Everyking or Phil need clarification on specific points, they should feel free to e-mail the arbitration committee, while noting that such potential encounters should not suddenly become more common than they have been in the past. Please don't engage in deliberate testing of the boundaries of this restriction, but do make a note of situations that come up during your normal editing habits. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Carcharoth, posting on high traffic communal pages should not be a problem if there is no direct interaction noted or implied. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment on content, not on the contributor." Both Everyking and Phil Sandifer know that. I don't believe someone would be able to define or present a detailed and comprehensive list of all possible scenarios where the boundaries get crossed or where restrictions get violated (i.e. commenting on the editor or bringing back history and old disputes). However, many would be able to judge and confirm whether boundaries get unjustly crossed when they really get crossed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this request for clarification begins with a misapprehension. To my knowledge, no arbitrator believes nor has anyone else suggested that Everyking is "a lunatic who is eager for the opportunity to contact Phil Sandifer and annoy him to the best of [his] ability" (as stated above), or "a fifth-class editor, somewhere below anon IPs and above banned trolls and vandals" (as suggested on another website). It bears emphasis that each and every one of the ArbCom restrictions on Everyking has been lifted (or will technically be lifted as of next month) by unanimous vote of the committee, with the sole exception of this one which the committee chose to leave in place at present. Nor is there merit to any suggestion that the restriction has been left in place simply because Everyking previously criticized actions of other administrators, and particularly not because of criticisms that were levied in 2005 (before many of the arbitrators, including myself, had even started editing Wikipedia), nor merely because Everyking has participated on an external site often critical of Wikipedia (as have I). Beyond that, I am disinclined to review on-wiki here the events of three years ago, some of which I was not aware of until this most recent clarification request, as I do not believe that either Everyking or anyone else or the process would benefit from my doing so. With respect to the specific request for clarification, the limited remaining restriction on Everyking should be interpreted in a reasonable, and reasonably narrow, fashion. A test I think often makes sense in "User A is to avoid User B" situations is whether a questioned edit to a page that User B has edited would have been made anyway even if User B had not edited the page. For example, if Everyking looks over a dozen AfDs on a given date and !votes on all of them, although one of them happens to have been started by Phil Sandifer (and Everyking doesn't refer to that fact), fine; if Everyking !votes on an AfD on an article he's edited heavily that Phil Sandifer happened to put on AfD, fine; if Everyking never edits AfD for a month and then suddenly shows up on the only AfD created by Phil that month, not quite as fine. Hopefully few if any close calls will arise and the issue will remain largely moot, as I gather it has been for awhile except in these modification/clarification threads themselves. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]