The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:

1. Adding me to the admin log for the article
2. 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.
3. Adding my name into the log of warned editors
4. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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, 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". [3] 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 User:KillerChihuahua

I received a warning almost identical to User:B's; afterward, Elonka used that to add my name to User:Elonka/ArbCom log as # KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) notified to not reverse admin enforcement actions. - Please note that B was not added, which gives weight to the argument that this is a "hit list" or not even-handed, as we both committed the same "error" and both received the same "warning" - and I agree with B that her taking that power to herself is dangerous in and of itself. As she dismisses concerns from those whom she has "warned" [4] (difs being added) claiming, in effect, it is "political" or "personal"I suppose she has now discounted any and all concerns B, I, or any other editor to whom she has given "warnings". This has the clear appearance of disenfranchising people in order to dismiss their concerns. She is, and I am borrowing content from another editor here "using that system the power to block editors they are having personal disputes with, and to ignore advice from other admins" ("that system" being AE). Elonka is almost always within the letter of civility - yet her ABF and general attitude of I am the uninvolved admin simply doing AE while accusing others of bias, false motives, "listening to gossip", and all manner of other ills (difs avail, see prev. note) has had a chilling effect and is intimidating others. She has been informed, by many, of this - here is my attempt in which I expressed concern that You seem to be using the ArbCom case to win a content dispute, and that is distinctly not desirable. - this was a day or so before she "warned" me and listed me as such. She is giving the distinct impression of editing by proxy. By intimidating editors and supporting those whom she approves, she can shape an article without ever making an edit. Add to that the AE club she wields at every turn, and I am appalled at the overall effect on articles Elonka chooses to "enforce" and on Wikipedia in general.

- thanks in advance for your patience on the difs.

• Comment about the list: pls note that I did not remove the list, which might be implied by Elonka's expanded statement which she linked to ("Then admin KillerChihuahua came in and deleted things again"). Her statement "very disappointing to see administrators edit-warring with administrators in this way. I'd also contacted KillerChihuahua and B to advise them of the SV motion, but they were less than cooperative." does not recognize that it was her list which was causing the disruption and strife and divisiveness; that no editor removed any part of the list more than once, and most only stated their strong opposition to the list on the talk page or Elonka's talk page; that Elonka in discussing her "warning" states that "KillerChihuahua and B ... were less than cooperative" which frames our difference in interpretation of the SV ruling as B and myself not "minding" or bowing to her authority, based on her interpretation, rather than allowing for any valid disagreement; and lastly she seems more concerned bout how civil I was in an edit summary which criticized her actions than in addressing the actions themselves. Unfortunately this is fairly standard for Elonka - when criticized she cites CIVIL and does not address the concern.
• Comment about Elonka's extended statement in general: IMO a bad idea to have the bulk of a statement elsewhere, especially as Elonka has a history of deleting her sub-pages. Either she should trim or simply post her statement here as is, so it is in the history of this page.
• On the list and edit war: After Elonka added the list, it was removed by editors: QuackGuru [5], ThuranX [6], Cameron Scott [7], B [8] and restored by Elonka twice [9] [10] and Jayvdb once [11] I removd one section which was replaced by Penwhale; Verbal removed his name in protest, which resulted in the hostile "What exactly are you trying to do here?" [12] on his talk page from Elonka. It has been discussed to the tune of 3,155 words on the talk page there [13] in addition to Elonka's talk page, including sections she has blanked, ANI, etc. I'd say its fairly clear the list has been a problem.
• Elonka's assertion - you're joking, right? If your edits are not "protected" you think it is encouraging you to block or ban? I have no words for how bizarre I find this assertion. Don't block or ban any more than before, and don't petition ArbCom for rulescreep to give you more authority. Really. Just warn when its appropriate, and only block or ban when that's appropriate. You don't need a bigger stick.
• Comment to Shell: I have no idea what you're talking about. I was concerned about the interpretation Elonka had given the SV ruling. You're talking about something else.

Specific question from MastCell

I prefer not to comment on the larger issues at this juncture, but I would like to ask the Committee to clarify one technical point.

The Committee has ruled 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." I understand this to mean that admins are not to reverse each others' administrative actions (blocks, topic bans, 1RR, etc) - that is, it's a formalization of the standard that we should discuss with the blocking admin before unblocking. Elonka has interpreted this to mean that any edit which she deems "pursuant to an active arbitration remedy" may not be reverted or otherwise altered ( [14]).

In order to nip this in the bud, could the Committee please clarify whether the ruling in question applies specifically to reversal of administrative actions, or whether it is indeed intended to render edits unrevertable if an admin deems them pursuant to an ArbCom remedy? MastCell  ^Talk 19:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by GRBerry

One of the arbs below asked if there are enough admins involved in dealing with this. The answer to that is clearly no. We need more admins active in dealing with this particular mess. One group of battling edit warriors in this mess has adopted a strategy (whether or not they are conscious of doing so I have no idea) of attacking essentially all active admins in the area. Elonka has been more willing than most to ignore these partisan attacks on her, but it would clearly be better if there were more admins involved. GRBerry 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Reply to Orangemarlin.

Statements here are to inform the ArbComm. Members of last year's committee are already aware of the relevant evidence presented about one particular individual multiple arbitration cases ago. Your own behavior also offers plenty of examples of the use of the tactic, in particular your behavior towards FT2 following last summer's fiasco and towards Elonka on multiple occasions, including this request. GRBerry 04:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment on first motion.

I understand the clause "that are not specific actions applied to specific editors" in the second sentence to limit each and every item in the list preceeding it. A standard requirement in the discretionary sanctions the committe has passed is a requirement that warnings be given prior to the imposition of any discretionary sanctions, e.g "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and ..." from the 9/11 case, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBPS, WP:ARBAA2, and with a period where the semi-colon is in the quote WP:ARBMAC - which are all the cases that I looked at. With that interpretation, the proposal is unsurprising. I know of two topic area sanctions that are consensus supported and not editor specific, one is some form of 1RR across The Troubles and the other is a contingency plan for handling one of the Mantanmoreland articles if and when needed (having announced the contingency plan is itself part of the plan for avoiding the need to implement the plan). Any admin that would overrule them is going to ignore the special restriction anyway... GRBerry 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by Penwhale

The basis of the issue is that, at my last glance, there were only two admins listed on the list that was being contested for removal. How, in the world, could we have only two administrators looking over these?

I've personally advised Elonka that since her neutrality is contested to build a list of what happened where so another administrator can independently look into the matter. OM's calling for de-sysop of Elonka is absurd, as this is 1) a single incident, 2) she did NOT perform anything of what we relate to as normal administrative actions (deletion/blocking...)

What FloNight said below may be a temporary way to diffuse issue-- but only if it is while the issue is being looked at. I do not think it is fair to explicitly disallow Elonka from performing any discretionary sanctions since that would involve other situations. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

:Shot Info, you should know that editors are allowed to compile their statements for RFAR uses. Has she provided it? No. Then it's not presented, and you're attacking her on a statement that she hasn't made. Think about that for a second. What I see, from glancing at pages, are people who are challenging her. I've advised Elonka to seek second opinions from other administrators before she takes actions (or allow others to take those actions). Your comments do nothing to solve the problem; rather, you are making Elonka's life harder when she needs a space to compile and see what she's going to present while she said, clearly, that I will post a summary statement when it is ready, with a link to additional information (such as a list of the few ArbCom notifications or discretionary sanctions I've ever placed). Think about that for a second. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Again.. she hasn't provided anything. Therefore, there's nothing to comment on. She's free to scrap in her own userspace, as long as she provides something within a reasonable timeframe lest someone MfD's it. I may change my statement once she provides her evidence, but until then, I'll only voice that I am not happy with how people are not assuming good faith here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Agree with MastCell's clarification question, as it may be argued over and over and clarity is important here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Struck out some of my response to Shot Info, as Elonka has presented her statement. Agree with the beginning of her statement asking for clarification. It also seems as if there was edit-warring over the lists, and maybe it may be worthwhile for the ArbCom to look into it. I agree with the factual evidence of what happened at the talk page of the list that the addition/removal of the names were being wheel-warred over, and for the rest, I do not and will not comment on. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Re:KC, she felt that her statement would otherwise be too long, so she elected to do so, I believe. But I agree with you that the list was in contention by various people on both sides, and you can't exactly say that both me and jayvdb were not looking at things neutrally. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Re arbitrator comments below: The issue here is that there were wheel-warring by different people. If people still feel that after *two* other administrators restored it that it needs to be removed, we have an issue that needs to be addressed, regardless of what Elonka's position is. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Let us clarify this again: there is underlying problem because there was wheel-warring. Calling for Elonka's head (or de-sysop) or restrict her from enforcing any and all discretionary sanctions without a full case is a grave error. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by Elonka

The core things which it would be helpful for ArbCom to clarify, are:

• Does the SV motion preventing overturn of ArbCom enforcement actions, also apply to messages posted by an administrator at an article in dispute? Or can these be reverted just like anything else in an edit war?
• If an article is in longterm dispute and an administrator attempts to help stabilize it, but several editors at the article protest strongly that they don't trust the administrator, should the admin back off, even if there is no other admin monitoring the page?

In terms of Orangemarlin's rather bizarre comments about my actions: No, I am not " involved" in this topic area; no, I do not have a history of overturned decisions; no, I am not pushing a POV; no, I do not have a vendetta against him; and perhaps most importantly, no, the "List of editors" that I provided at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts was not just of "disruptive editors", but was of all editors on the talkpage, simply to try and keep track of who was who.

Administrative presence at the pseudosciences article was definitely not greeted with open arms by all the editors there, but this is par for the course in ArbCom enforcement matters. Ultimately though, an administrator's presence should be judged not by the short-term drama that may be caused when they enter a dispute, but by the longterm effect on the article. Does the administrator leave the situation in a better state than when they found it? I would argue that some short-term instability is worth it, to bring longterm peace, and in most cases that I know of, administrators who enforce discretionary sanctions have a positive impact and are able to stabilize articles that had previously been in longterm chronic dispute. Usually all that's needed are a few well placed warnings, and even the most complex dispute can be brought under control within a month. It is very rare that I've ever had to go as far as an actual sanction. In fact, in the pseudoscience topic area, I have only placed a total of four discretionary sanction blocks or bans. The rest of my efforts are usually simply in providing structure to a dispute, identifying the source of the disruption, and issuing clear instructions to certain editors on how their behavior needed to improve.

For an expanded statement and a more detailed timeline, see User:Elonka/Pseudoscience statement, and for a complete list of the discretionary sanctions that I have ever placed, in any topic area, see User:Elonka/ArbCom log. -- El on ka 05:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

(amendment) At the time that I wrote my statement, I had been under the impression that KillerChihuahua ( talk · contribs) was an uninvolved administrator in the pseudoscience topic area. However, I recently became aware that my assumption was incorrect, and that she has been involved in both edits and edit wars in pseudoscience articles. I apologize for the error, and have amended my comments to clarify her status as an involved editor. -- El on ka 20:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

(followup comment about the #Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity clarification motion) I would ask the arbitrators to give careful thought to what they're saying here. As the consensus seems to be forming, the clarification is saying that the SV motion only applies to direct administrative actions such as a block or ban. What this clarification may cause as an unintended result though, is that if an administrator wants their action to "stick", the admin will be quicker to block or ban a user, since other admins can't reverse it. Because if the admin chooses to simply warn a user, that that can be reverted. This is not a good way to be encouraging administrators to address disputes, since it may result in more severe admin actions than necessary. A better clarification to come from ArbCom right now might be one that expands upon the SV motion to state something like, "Administrators should refrain from reversing each other's actions taken in an administrative capacity. When there is disagreement between uninvolved administrators on how to deal with a situation, the administrators should engage in civil and collegial discussion to determine a consensus on how to proceed. If and when administrators disagree, they should demonstrate by example how disputes are to be dealt with, by engaging in discussion and consensus-seeking – not by edit-warring." -- El on ka 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

(further clarification) I may have been unclear above when I talked about warnings being reverted, so to clarify, this has nothing to do with users removing warnings from their own talkpages. Users are of course allowed to blank pretty much anything they wish from their talkpage, per WP:BLANKING, as by removing a warning, a user is also acknowledging that they have read it. What I was talking about was situations where one administrator warns a user, and then a different user or administrator comes along and removes the warning. For example, when I posted a formal notification about Orangemarlin at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, QuackGuru deleted it, [15] it was then restored by me, then KillerChihuahua reverted most of it, [16] then arbitration clerk Penwhale restored it again. Another incident took place on Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts where QuackGuru deleted OrangeMarlin's notification, [17] I restored it, then KillerChihuahua deleted, [18] Penwhale restored, [19] then ThuranX ( talk · contribs) further escalated by deleting not just the entire list, but the entire discussion thread, with comments from multiple editors (including myself). [20] Jayvdb restored, Cameron Scott deleted, [21] I restored, and then B deleted again. [22] I'm also having other (non-warning) troubles now with KillerChihuahua, where she is following my contribs to revert me in multiple locations, sometimes with extremely uncivil edit summaries. "Ye gods, Elonka, not everyone thinks that toting out the Big Guns is how to deal with disputes. Lets not encourage new admins to cause the kind of chaos you've been causing lately" This kind of "admin harassment" is just another tactic being used by disruptive editors who are seeking to intimidate administrators away from dealing with a particular dispute, which in this case is the battleground pseudoscience topic area. What the arbitrators must do here, is be clear that unless there is a clear and substantial consensus from uninvolved editors, that administrators working in these complex arbitration enforcement can take an action or make a statement or other warning, and that the administrator has the authority to make their statements "stick". -- El on ka 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by Hans Adler

I believe the situation at the article is more complicated than just the familiar pseudoscience conflict, mainly due to additional questions such as whether a list's name must reflect the inclusion criteria precisely, and how to deal with various degrees of certainty that various proportions of various fields are pseudoscientific (using headlines? explanatory text? footnotes? dropping all but the strongest cases?). The division of opinions about these questions does not at all follow the usual lines of conflict, and there are complex dependencies between them. I think although it makes resolution of the problem of stabilising the article very hard, this is a sign that things are working as they should.

I am not convinced that admin involvement was even needed in the situation, and I still have hope that after some tedious discussions with many unnecessary distractions a generally acceptable framework for the list will emerge. ScienceApologist's false claim of an earlier consensus was an early such distraction. Elonka's involvement was such a distraction. The overreactions to her dubious methods was another. This request is yet another.

Statement by User:Shot_info in response to Penwhale

With respect to Penwhale comment above OM's calling for de-sysop of Elonka is absurd, as this is 1) a single incident, 2) she did NOT perform anything of what we relate to as normal administrative actions (deletion/blocking...) it should be noted that Elonka is providing the very evidence (see here) that will display that it is not a single incident - but instead is a long standing and consistant abuse of process by an admin. Likewise it can be agreed that she is not abusing "normal administrative actions" instead she is abusing her role as an administrator by making up and utilising her own policies that clash with a large and growing sector of the Community (as her RfC clearly showed). Being a so-called lightning rod isn't a badge of being correct. Its a clear sign that the Community is getting fed up with you. Shot info ( talk) 05:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Orangemarlin in response to GRBerry

You stated that, "One group of battling edit warriors in this mess has adopted a strategy (whether or not they are conscious of doing so I have no idea) of attacking essentially all active admins in the area." This comment smells like the old IDCab meme that has been thoroughly discredited, especially since you provide no proof whatsoever that there is a problem. Elonka is the problem here. Not editors. Please note few (if any) science admins get involved in these disputes, because they know that the science supports the removal of fringe or pseudoscience edits. But, you need to support your comments. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by Coppertwig

I suggest that the Committee provide clarification as requested. Many of Elonka's actions are neither use of tools nor imposition of a sanction on a user, but other related actions such as stating that a page is not under discretionary sanctions; stating that a page is under discretionary sanctions; stating that specific conditions apply to editing a particular page; notifying users of potential sanctions, and maintaining lists and logs. My reading of the actual wording of the discretionary sanctions is that sanctions may be applied to a user; I don't see anything about applying sanctions to a page.

I suggest dividing such actions into two categories: those which the Committee considers to be part of a reasonable interpretation of the discretionary sanctions; and those about which the Committee states that it is making no comment because they are considered to be other actions by an admin, actions not contained directly within the act of applying such sanctions.

Coren has wisely said that these issues are complex. I realize that the Committee has a long agenda to work on, and that it's not easy to provide clarifications since anything the Committee says may have unintended consequences. However, I seem to remember decisiveness and speed being mentioned during the election, and I agree with FloNight that a quick response would be useful; although I think asking Elonka not to apply discretionary sanctions would be unnecessarily heavy-handed; if Elonka is not applying them as envisaged, guidance should be sufficient. ☺ Coppertwig( talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I would also like to see an answer to MastCell's question. ☺ Coppertwig( talk) 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I support Shell Kinney's interventions at the Chiropractic article, based on my limited experience as an infrequent editor at that page. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by SlimVirgin

I was also about to file a request for clarification of "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." As MastCell writes above, Elonka has been using this to define her actions, whatever they are, as inviolable — unless overruled by consensus on AN/I — because she says she's enforcing an ArbCom remedy. During the recent situation, where she was keeping a list of editors on a talk page, several people asked her to remove it, but she refused, citing this ruling, saying that not even another admin could revert her. It would therefore be appreciated if the ArbCom could clarify — for example, by making clear that the ruling applies only to blocks, protection, or revert restrictions, and not to more imaginative remedies, which may be quite wrong-headed.

I would also ask the new ArbCom to consider whether the ruling is a healthy one to have at all. Admins have to be allowed to exercise their judgment. To be forced in every case to wait for consensus to emerge on AN/I, or for permission from ArbCom, no matter how much drama or unfairness the enforcement is causing, is to ask us never to use our common sense or initiative. But this remedy says no, ArbCom always knows best, and admins acting to enforce our remedies magically know best too. That attitude violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Yes, most of the time, it's best not to revert other admins without discussion, whether the ArbCom is involved or not, and that's a position I have always argued for. But sometimes, even if rarely, it might be important to do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 05:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Reply to Thatcher: Admins reversing each other is nothing new. It used to happen a great deal more than it does now; when I became an admin in March 2005, it was a routine occurrence. My recollection is that the definition of wheel warring always excluded the first revert, something I recall arguing against, but the consensus was clear that admins had to be allowed to exercise their own judgment, which was seen as part of our checks and balances, providing a check against any one group or individual assuming too much power. The ruling we're discussing shifted that balance in favor of the ArbCom. My hope is that the new ArbCom might see that as not necessarily a good thing. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 20:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by Thatcher

• Regarding the Restriction_on_arbitration_enforcement_activity, I see this as another symptom of the accelerating deterioration of the admin corps. Admins should never reverse each others' actions without meaningful, informed discussion involving multiple points of view. Assuming such a discussion has taken place (the venue is largely irrelevant) and there is a consensus for reversal, there should be no dispute about modifying or reversing the original actions. Over the years the committee and the community have adopted ever-looser standards in this area, to the point that reversals of blocks and deletions without discussion are almost routine unless the subject is particularly notorious or the admin makes a stink. (One time, an admin reversed a checkuser block of mine without consultation, re-enabling the template vandal.) It is now written policy that reversing an admin is not wheel warring. It implicitly assumes bad faith on the part of the first admin and places the onus on the first admin to justify his actions rather than on the second admin to justify the reversal. Wikipedia in general, and AE in particular, is not going to climb out of the hole it is in until there is a sea change in people's attitudes.

• Claiming that an admin is involved in a dispute and is therefore banned from taking enforcement action at WP:AE is a timeworn and tired tactic.

• Placing a notice on someone's talk page, whether characterized as a warning or a notice, is not an enforcement action, it is a bit of bookkeeping intended to prevent the party from claiming ignorance when and if discretionary sanctions are applied. It is a courtesy. If Elonka has not actually issued a page ban, 1RR limit, or block to OrangeMarlin, then there is no issue here to be arbitrated. Frankly, OM or anyone else can remove those notices and it will have no effect on future enforcement, the point is that he has been made aware of the situation.

• Thanks to all for reminding me why I quit. Thatcher 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• • Per Shell Kinney, arbitrators should not undermine admins who undertake difficult enforcement tasks unless they have a really good reason for doing so. Thatcher 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by Shell Kinney

So if I'm reading what the Arbs are saying correctly, when an admin steps in to difficult situations and the editors being sanctioned begin to complain, the admin should then voluntarily withdraw from assisting in that situation. Am I the only one who feels this is a particularly virulent form of lunacy? If you're not going to support the people whom you authorize to carry out your decisions, how does the Committee expect to discharge its duty to resolve these disputes? Shell ^babelfish 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to OrangeMarlin - I think you may have missed the first sentence of my statement where I indicated that I was opining on the Arbs response to the situation. However, I do believe your claims are a great deal more smoke than fire, but that's good marketing, not lunacy. The fact that editors who work in disputed areas and their buddies are all upset that Elonka's involvement means they can't carry on business as usual (which has found to be lacking in more than one case now) doesn't really carry much weight with me. Claims of "bias" or "POV" or "involvement" just dial up the rhetoric a notch and of course those folks who didn't get their way don't have "confidence" that Elonka is doing the right thing. As another admin that works in difficult areas and with difficult mediations, I've been accused of all number of things, none of which have ever turned out to be true (either that or I'm both a "fringe" and "science" supporter - it boggles the mind, no?).

I have seen cases handled by Elonka where I've thought "I might have handled that differently" or "I think that could have been done better" and in some cases, I've waded in to help make changes or discuss other ways of handling the situation but not once have I thought "That was damaging to the encyclopedia". There are experiments of Elonka's that have gone well and some that haven't, but again, I've got a lot of respect that she is trying new ideas and is listening to feedback and adapting her approach. This is why we have many admins and editors - their different viewpoints and experiences make us stronger as a whole. So I'm afraid that while Elonka and I don't always see eye to eye, I have yet to see any examples of mistakes that rise near the level where I'd suggest she find another hobby. Shell ^babelfish 14:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to KillerChihuahua - I've been asked to update my statement here as I failed to address some of the specific points made by KillerChihuahua and B regarding their interaction with Elonka in this situation. So to specifically address the edit warring and finally the escalation of a dispute to a case log page - let me just say that its hard to express how completely ridiculous I find the situation. If you disagree with the manner in which another admin handles any situation, there's no excuse not to talk it out. If you and the admin can't come to an agreement, involve more people in the discussion and develop a consensus. I can't fathom why anyone here thought it was appropriate to exert their will by reverting, especially on, of all things, a case log. All of you knew better. Screw the comments about SV ruling and other misdirection, if you don't know how to properly use dispute resolution - what are you doing interfering in an arbitration enforcement area? Shell ^babelfish 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Jim62sch

Seems to me that [23] is just a bit threatening, and [24] is at best unhelpful. •Jim62sch• ^dissera! 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Orangemarlin in response to Shell Kinney

So you're calling our complaints "lunacy"? Did you read any of the links that show how counterproductive and disruptive Elonka's warnings were to good-faith editors? Since Elonka is basing her power to stifle editing completely on a rather old ArbCom ruling, then ArbCom must either update it, support Elonka, or remove her from dealing with articles and editors with whom she is involved. So, in answer to your rather bad faith accusation that this is lunacy, it's perfectly rational to determine whether admins have this type of power. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by Sticky Parkin

I am uninvolved in this particular couple of articles, except with an interest in scepticism. Elonka has a clear 'opinion' when it comes to how these articles should be handled, one which is more sympathetic to pro-Alternative Medicine or whatever editors than most people might be. I would prefer User:JzG to enforce these articles, but then that shows my own opinion.:) To have Elonka arbitrating them is just as POV, IMHO. At lest JzG doesn't claim to be what he's not. Those editing these articles from a pro-science viewpoint (or at least, OM, and SA) clearly do not feel Elonka is uninvolved here, nor do they accept her ability to arbitrate. I personally feel she might have some New Age philosophy of some kind which she enjoys. Either way, it's not just her decisions which are called into question, even if her decisions have been perfect in the past, her ability to work with editors with certain opinions on these articles and thus enforce arbitration effectively is now unfortunately non-existent, and she should leave anyone else to do it, they are bound to be more successful, at lest at first, as people's opinions about them, and their own opinions about editors, will not have become ingrained. If Elonka has a list of people she believes are troublemaker editors on these articles, she clearly does not lack an opinion on them now and can't claim to be an outsider merely enforcing arbitration. Sticky Parkin 13:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by SebastianHelm

I hope that this case will not lead to instruction creep. This is an isolated case of an administrator, who for a couple of days could not stay cool when it would have been wiser to do so. We already have a policy for that: WP:DR, which recommends to “stay cool” and, when that is not possible, to “disengage”.

I wrote to Elonka to remind her of that, but she did not heed my advice. (The communication consisted of 9 e-mails and actually started with another related case. Most of my questions remained unanswered. I agree with making the communication public.)

My preferred outcome would be:

1. clarification that administrators are not exempt from the recommendations of WP:DR;
2. a reminder to Elonka to give the advice of uninvolved, experienced editors serious thought and answer their questions about the reasons for controversial actions. — Sebastian 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by dave souza

The clarification given to date is welcome, but unfortunately Elonka's response "So I will do my best to adapt to the community norms, even though I think that this will result in more severe admin actions than necessary. --Elonka 17:22, 26 January 2009" looks very much like a threat to engage in WP:POINTy blocking of editors on the same dubious grounds as she has been issuing warnings. As I've commented on her talk page, [25] that would clearly be disruptive, and I hope that is not her intention. As discussed at ANI, [26] her intervention under the AE banner created a new dispute over her request for suggestions about sanctions, and subsequent decision to ignore the clear majority of responses to introduce her sanctions anyway. The arbiter's comments on discussion of admin actions is significant, as attempts to discuss these issues with her are met by actions such as deciding that the concerns are being raised by an "involved editor" and can be ignored. [27] As I recall, she has shown some willingness to rotate admin attention to dealing with controversial areas, and it appears to be time for her to step back from the pseudoscience area and let others deal with it, at least for a reasonable period. . dave souza, talk 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

Actually, reviewing the evidence, I've found something highly disturbing.

In this diff Elonka threatens Orangemarlin with admin sanctions - at least in part for having criticised her. The statement "You have been making threats and false statements" links to [28] [29]. She then accuses him of ignoring warnings, linking to him removing her own warnings from his talk page as evidence.

This is bad. Very bad. Elonka is clearly threatening to use her admin tools in order to further her dispute with Orangemarlin, and Orangemarlin's criticism of her, while blunt, is not "threats", and her very behaviour in reaction to it gives lie to it being a false statement - she is clearly too involved to see that threatening admin action against her critics for criticising her is a very bad thing to be doing. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

If request becomes a case, recuse due to my advices to Elonka. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure where to write an answer to you, so I'll do it here. Actually, I don't have an answer, since I'm a bit confused by the question. Since this filing was an attempt to clear up the interpretation of the original SA/Martin case to either allow or prevent Elonka from pursuing her agenda against editors such as myself, I thought that this was necessary. If you, in your opinion (and I have none) think it should be a full case, I wouldn't be opposed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't care if it gets opened again, actually. If this doesn't go into a full case, recusal doesn't really matter as a clerk. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:50, 22 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
• Two issues that need to be addressed. 1) If AE is well served by the Discretionary sanctions remedy. This question is best left to the general review that is happening now in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement. 2) If Elonka's continued participation in the enforcement of this specific case remedy in the best interest of dispute resolution specific to this situation, and more generally is her further use of discretionary sanctions helpful to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. The second issue needs to be resolved promptly, and can not wait for a fuller review of AE, so I suggest a motion either directing Elonka to stop participating in AE or maybe more narrowly directing her not to use Discretionary sanctions. Thoughts? FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• I think this requires the Committee's attention, but I also thing that the problem is more complex and intricate than first appears, and certainly more complex than can be justifiably handled with a summary motion. I recommend this be moved to a request for a full case, which I would accept; stopgap measures that may be required could be made as injuctions in such a case, as the need arises. —  Coren  ^(talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • At the end of the last year, the Committee saw the need to get feedback from the Community about our methods of enforcement. I'm reluctant to open a new round of discussion related to the Fringe/Pseudoscience topic or issue more Discretionary sanctions remedies or substitute your new Supervised Editing sanction until the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement is finished. I prefer to do something more limited now. There is no point in opening a full case about this issue until we decide whether to make changes to AE. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I agree here and that is a good idea. I prefer waiting for the Arbitration enforcement RfC to finish since there is some considerable activity going on there. I believe a kind of an injection is necessary in order to offer the RfC a chance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Recuse I have taken admin actions on both sides of this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• I am in agreement with FloNight. I'd also make a general comment to those involved that there's a lot of inflammatory comments flying around and that the involved parties know quite well enough how to handle matters at the community level in a calmer fashion using the appropriate channels. Vassyana ( talk) 10:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As regards the previous motion referred to, I am inclined to interpret it only as it regards administrative actions. Warnings and user lists quite simply do not fall under that remit. (I must admit, I more than a bit baffled and concerned to see the limited edit warring over the list described as wheel warring.) That said, Thatcher may well be on to something when he speaks about the degradation of the admin corps and the interactions thereof. There's a serious issue if admins need to be specifically instructed to exercise some sense and caution in overturning arbitration enforcement actions, or to avoid taking administrative actions that are almost assured to cause more problems than they solve. I believe that these issues could be resolved (at least in large part) by the community. This could be accomplished through the normal means of establishing and revising community norms and policy. Obviously, in cases where an administrator is not responsive to community consensus and feedback, arbitration would still remain an option. Vassyana ( talk) 18:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Brief reply to Shell Kinney: Not at all. Vassyana ( talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • In reponse to more recent comments: Consider trout-slappings applied liberally all around, as appropriate. That said, everyone involved knows the way to user talk pages, ANI and RfC (and knows how to move on to the next step if one doesn't work). Even better, get a DR experienced editor from MedCab or MedCom to help everyone talk things out in a civil and productive manner. Mediators have experience in getting people in heated disputes to sit down and have a polite chat. This situation could use a whole lot more of people talking with each other, than at each other. Vassyana ( talk) 02:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• The request brought before us is more complex than meets the eye. There is a general question of whether discretionary sanctions are an appropriate administrative responsibility, and I agree with others that that particular discussion is better suited to the RFC. The questions specific to this issue are:
  • Was the degree of editorial misbehaviour present on the article sufficient to require that discretionary sanctions be employed? I'm seeing an article that had been protected for a short period, with relatively good discussion occurring on its talk page. The fact of the article being indefinitely protected isn't particularly relevant; that simply means it's protected until the issues are resolved. Elonka's offer to "administer" the article a few days earlier appeared to have been rebuffed. I'd like to see some commentary specifically focusing on this point.
  • Was the notice/warning Elonka gave to OrangeMarlin (and other editors) within the scope of the discretionary sanctions? Leaving aside the question of whether or not she is an involved editor or whether or not discretionary sanctions should have kicked in, the notice/warning is exactly what the sanctions require, and I would not fault Elonka for giving the warning.
  • The list of editors which Elonka placed on the talk page of the article involved was hotly contested. Is such a list appropriate? This is a more difficult question, because the discretionary sanctions as written are intended to be editor-specific as opposed to article-specific. I'm not clear in what way the list of editors falls within the scope of the discretionary sanctions; it stretches the phrase "any other measures" a pretty long way, and I am hard pressed to say that its presence on the talk page is protected by the "rules" of discretionary sanctions, and therefore removing it is probably not a violation of the discretionary sanctions per se.
  • Finally, there is the issue of whether or not Elonka is an "involved" editor/administrator. To a large extent this revolves around the fact that Elonka has chosen to focus significant administrative time and energy on applying discretionary sanctions to articles relating to and editors working in a relatively narrow topic area. This is perhaps the crux of the matter. Is there a point where an administrator's chosen interest in managing content disputes in a specific area, where the same core group of editors contribute, stops being helpful? I'm not sure that I have seen such a perception all that often before; however, Elonka's methodology is quite different than that used by several other administrators, and that may have an effect on how her actions are being perceived. Risker ( talk) 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• My views here are that the general issues with Arbitration Enforcement should be addressed at the RfC, while individual problems should be dealt with by dispute resolution or a request for arbitration if all other options have failed. My view is also that the "don't overturn an ArbCom enforcement action" motion was meant to apply to specific actions about named individuals, not to broad topic or article management. Some motions clarifying that one way or the other would probably be good here. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Motions

NOTE: There are 16 arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so there are 14 active on this case, so 8 the base majority. For motions with 1 or 2 abstentions, the majority is 7.

Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity clarification

The restriction on arbitration enforcement activity is clarified to apply only to specific administrative actions applied to specific users. It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. This is a provisional measure, pending the resolution of the arbitration enforcement request for comment.

Support

1. Vassyana ( talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Per my comments below. This should be considered general guidance, not directed at any specific administrator. Risker ( talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill 00:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 01:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. As a temporary measure until the matter is addressed at the request for comment. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Abstain

1. I am concerned with the issue raised in the last paragraph of Elonka's comments. I also believe that the motion previously adopted was insufficiently nuanced in some respects (including some that were addressed in my alternate motion of the time, which was not adopted). I believe that a better course of action here would be to address this issue in the context of reactions to the RfC on arbitration enforcement which, as noted in the motion, is pending. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments

1. Agree that a provisional measure is some type is needed. Does it need to be more specific about the situation presented to us by Orangemarlin? Or will the involved parties understand how this motion pertains to them? FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   I believe it is best to focus on the clarification, as this is pretty much a request for clarification. The application of these clarifications in retrospect and going forward should be readily apparent. Both are relatively simple and to the point. However, if the clarifications counterproductively lack clarity for the involved parties or AE-active admins, I would welcome comments explaining the confusion and/or unintended consequences. Vassyana ( talk) 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Noting comments made in relation to this motion: No one should be reverting warnings regardless of whether or not it falls under arbitration restrictions, unless they're well outside of our communal norms. (As an obvious example, if someone is involved in an acrimonious edit war on an article and leaves a groundless vandalism warning, it's blatantly trolling and can be handled as such.) If someone disagrees with a warning, there's the warning admin's talk page, the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard and a host of other appropriate places to raise concerns or engage in community discussion about the action. However, this is not carte blanche to punish an editor for removing a warning from their user talk page. Long-standing norms permit editors to remove notes from their talk page as received and is generally interpreted to mean that the user has seen the warning (or in other words, the intended purpose of notifying the editor has been served). This motion, and all other ArbCom actions, need to be interpreted in the proper (and broader) context of the full body of relevant and established rules and norms. Vassyana ( talk) 06:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Similar to Vassyana's comments, I'll just point out that it is not possible to "un-warn" someone. Once an editor-specific warning is given, it is given; if the editor removes the warning from their page, it is considered to have been read and understood. This applies regardless of whether the warning is related to arbitration enforcement. Warnings given inappropriately may later be redacted by the administrator or by a strong consensus, but that doesn't mean they weren't given in the first place. I would be extremely concerned if an administrator decided to block, ban, or impose some other restraint on an editor rather than warning the editor, just so it would "stick". Arbitration enforcement lowers the threshold at which administrative actions can be taken, but administrators are still expected to work within the framework of our established practices. Risker ( talk) 16:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Discussion of administrator actions

Administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution. The restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard.

Support

1. Vassyana ( talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Communication is key when acting as an administrator. —  Coren  ^(talk) 03:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. absolutely. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Despite the ongoing RFC, I believe this issue should be clarified now so that administrators working in this area are provided with guidance as they continue their activities in arbitration enforcement. This should be considered general guidance, not directed at any one administrator. Risker ( talk) 00:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill 00:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 01:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Support. Relatedly, "[t]he committee appreciates the work of administrators who assist with enforcing its decisions, including by participating at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. The norm that one administrator should generally not overturn another's action without either consulting with the administrator who took the action or attaining an on-wiki consensus is especially applicable to arbitration enforcement actions." (from my prior proposed motion in November) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. As temp measure until the matter is addressed after the request for comment. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Although this rule should not be used as a weapon to hit at administrators after obviously vexatious requests for explanation of matters that have already been explained. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

1. Same comment as above. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.