Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 41

Request to amend prior case: Scientology (March 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Anynobody(?) at 22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) ARBSCI and ARBSCI


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * (On other wikis and here until I created a super complicated password which I made my browser memorize, and subsequently forget when I forgot to migrate my passwords before moving to a new hard drive I edited as ) Anynobody(?) 02:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Amendment request

 * I'd like to resume editing Scientology related articles (most interested in Hubbard's military service but am also interested in unrestricetd editing again). The board found that I was POV pushing in 2007 when #1 I uploaded primary source documents regarding L. Ron Hubbard's service in the Navy during WW II and #2 needlessly harassed another editor.

Statement by Anynobody

 * Regarding #1: The documents were official USN records which showed Hubbard had misrepresented his naval career during the conflict and claimed awards he did not receive. Since the source is verifiable, reliable, and neutral (the USN has no agenda) I felt the records deserved inclusion. (Hubbard claimed to be a naval hero, in order to be truly NPOV the navy's side of things should be represented too.)


 * Regarding #2: I'm not looking to have this changed, but I feel compelled to respond given the way the finding was written. I only mention it here because anyone looking into my part of this case will certainly notice the board's finding and might wonder about my side of the story. In my opinion the other editor was engaged more in defending his faith as a Scientologist than editing according to the rules. In a nutshell I participated in numerous discussions on WP:ANI and attempted to set up a WP:RFC/U on his behavior which was stopped by an involved administrator who said my attempts to go through with it despite their disagreement (I wanted outside comments from non-involved people) were harassment. The arbcom agreed and instructed me to stay away from him after the 2007 case Requests for arbitration/COFS which I thought I had abided by.


 * Summary: When I was topic banned in 2009 I had become accustomed to citing almost every post I made to a Scientology article if I wanted it to actually stay in. The arbcom cited evidence from 2007, when I first started editing as being the reason for the ban. As long as I ensure that any edits I make to Hubbard's or any other Scientology article are cited by an acceptable source, and include all relevant information from them then NPOV will be maintained. So I'm asking the arbcom to let me edit those topics again.

Reply to Coren
I'm really not into edit warring and already practice a version of 1RR: If I add something sans a source which gets removed, I won't try restoring it until a good source can be found (since I don't edit as much as I used to this usually means a day or so.) I'm also not a fan of reverting edits without discussion. If I had a good source to begin with and my edit is removed without a logical reason I first add a section to the talk page explaining why my edit was valid regarding relevant policies/guidelines and then revert the article (usually trying different verbiage) noting to check talk page in the edit summary. Most people will then proceed to a discussion on the talk page where either I am convinced to remove the edit or the other editor is persuaded my original edit was ok.


 * To sum up: I totally believe 3rr is unnecessary in dealing with good faith editors, but sometimes due to confusion one revert may be constructive. Anynobody(?) 19:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Luke
Actually the docs I uploaded, were for the most part* discussed in this secondary source about Hubbard's service and his claims regarding it called Ron the War Hero. For example most of the documents I uploaded come from this page on the site about Hubbard's claimed sub kills. *An exception would be the ASW-1 form I uploaded, which was not found on the site. That was uploaded in case anyone reading Admiral Fletcher's report wondered what he meant by saying PC-815's report was not in accordance with ASW-1.


 * The graphics were simply meant to illustrate topics discussed, for example the text referred to two separate DD-214 forms listing two different sets of awards and commendations. We usually list these in articles about military personnel, for example Richard Stephen Ritchie. Thanks to Hubbard there can't be only one list, since he claimed to have earned these awards we have to mention that (even the one's which he couldn't have gotten or didn't exist.)


 * To sum up: None of this is original research because it came from a secondary source and I'm not saying Hubbard was liar. In fact I don't remember stating anywhere in an article that Hubbard was an outright liar in those words, nor did I imply he was somehow mistaken or trying to come up with other explanations why his war claims aren't backed up by any reliable sources. Though I can't argue the existence of so many contradictions does give one that impression, but remember this isn't my original research, it comes from a secondary source backed by primary documents. Anynobody(?) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies
I'm not saying I was perfect, I certainly wouldn't add a reference like Admiral Weneker's report about Japanese subs not commerce raiding off the US coast as a response to Scientology claims that the Japanese were in the area often.

Further, Wikipediatrix carried it over when she created the article specifically about his career: Version as edited by Wikipediatrix (talk | contribs) at 15:10, 25 May 2007. I totally understand, given the amount of work you do as an arbcom member and the usual attitude of people asking for editing rights who don't seem to think they've done anything wrong must be frustrating. Please understand I can't find anywhere where it says we can't upload primary documents referred to by (and here actually in) a secondary source being used as a reference.
 * Per CHL... CHL probably didn't realize when he wrote his reply that the primary docs he points to came from a secondary source Wikipedia was using before I even started editing: Version of this page, as edited by BTfromLA (talk | contribs) at 04:54, 21 November 2006 back when Hubbard's military career was a subsection of his article.
 * I'd also like to see considerably more activity in other areas before revisiting this. I spend a majority of my time supporting the project with graphics used on wikis all over the world, are you saying I should put more time into editing articles rather than illustrating them? Anynobody(?) 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Something else to consider
Fellow Wikipedians I started editing here in January 2007 and during the few months made some mistakes based on misunderstanding our rules. (Let's call them the early 2007 errors) By the time I was involved in the first Scientology case in July 2007 I thought I had done a good job of editing within policy and put the early 2007 errors behind me. The arbcom didn't seem concerned I was still making the same editing errors: Issue addressed was unrelated to editing articles. (It's also relevant to mention I completely refrained from contacting the other editor as mandated by the arbcom in that case.) By mid 2008 I had certainly come to understand how WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:CITE work: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=203474155 Diff ''I think that's rational, bearing in mind that some use of CoS sources is necessary only to report their major assertions about him discussed in secondary sources. However CoS information which has not been in a relevant secondary source is probably unacceptable.] (I should mention that I know the same standard applies to any'' source.)

In May 2009, citing my early 2007 errors, the arbcom topic banned me from editing Scientology topics. If the concern is that I'll go back to making the same early 2007 errors, creating WP:SYNTH, and getting involved with edit disputes I promise that is definitely not the case because I wasn't doing those things in 2009 when I was banned. (This is why I may come off as arrogant or unrepentant here, being punished for mistakes made two years earlier that have not been repeated since, is incredibly frustrating!) Anynobody(?) 00:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Was not active on this case, and sufficient numbers of those active on this case are still on the Committee, so leaving it to them to review this (i.e. staying inactive on this one, and noting it here for the purposes of any motions that might be proposed). Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyeverybody, would you be willing to also abide by a 1RR on Scientology-related topics? &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be defending editing which was almost textbook definition OR, particularly WP:SYN (Hubbard said this, but I have primary sources and user-created graphics to advance the position he was a liar). I'm reluctant to lift the topic ban for this reason. Cool Hand Luke 15:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per CHL. I'd also like to see considerably more activity in other areas before revisiting this.  Roger Davies  talk 17:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per those above. SirFozzie (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Abd-William_M._Connolley (Abd's restriction) (April 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Enric Naval (talk) at 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Abd editing restriction (existing disputes)

"3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls."


 * latest request for clarification of this restriction

Statement by Enric Naval
Abd has never edited the Ghost article or been involved in disputes there (he is not an originating party of the current dispute there). He has commented in the RfC about pseudoscience in the Ghost article, which is correct and allowed by his ban conditions.

However, now he is trying to insert himself into the dispute by completely removing a contentious lead paragraph that has been under heavy discussion, asserting that "lede should enjoy the highest level of consensus, remove controversial paragraph, not necessary for overview of "ghosts." Lede is fine without it.", and removing the talkpage box that warns about the Pseudoscience arbitration restrictions "remove pseudoscience arbitration notes, this is not a pseudoscience article by Wikipedia standards. Make the cat stick first!". He performed the removals after commenting in the RfC, and he hasn't made any comments on the talk page about any of the two removals. I warned him after his first edit, and he replied that it was the first time that his ban was applied to article edits (as opposed to being applied only to talk pages).

Abd is not an originating party on that dispute, but he is trying to insert himself as the final arbiter of the dispute. It appears to me that Abd is evading the ban restrictions by editing the controversial parts of the article and the talk page without commenting on them.

This seems to be an attempt to evade the ban. Please advice if this is a ban violation or not.

Adendum: read the edit summaries. If Abd had placed them as comment in the talk page, then he would have been in a clear-cut violation of his ban. He has managed to comment on the dispute, while at the same time avoiding a technical violation of his ban. The restriction was intended to keep Abd out of disputes where he wasn't an originating party. Abd has found a way to comment about those disputes without violating the letter of the ban. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Adendum: Well, damn, I hadn't noticed, which is a straight-forward violation of his ban. I'll make a separate request in AE for that diff. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

AE thread for other diffs. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

P.D.D.: The "commenting at polls" clause seemed to work well at first, but now it's just luring Abd into inserting himself in disputes where he was not an originating party (aka, after commenting in the Ghost RfC, he started inserting himself into the whole Ghost-NSF-pseudoscience dispute that spawned the RfC). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Abd
History archive of original response by Abd

The Request here was filed prior to an AE request filed by Enric Naval (permalink) over the same issues. I request that my response there (permalink) be reviewed first, because the examples underlying this request can be seen with evidence and argument regarding each example. My summary there, visible outside collapse, is brief, and even the full discussion is not massive.

This request for clarification is becoming a consideration of other response, such as modifying the sanction to address unspecified problems. I advise against this before understanding the current sanction and what has happened with it. I am currently bound to a very tight interpretation, so tight that I won't edit Wikipedia if it stands, based on Carcharoth's opinion that I'd violated, presumably with what Enric Naval alleged (but Carcharoth indicated that this might be clarified, so it could change).

Until that is clear, other measures are probably moot, a waste of time.

Outside the single acknowledged (inadvertent) violation, number 3 in the list, did I violate the sanction? The goal here should be a clarification that would avoid future disputes. If an MYOB sanction can cause major dispute over interpretation, it's a bad idea for anyone, not just me. (So far, most alleged violations were not found to be so, but that's not a clarification question.) If there were no violations outside the single error, then perhaps the sanction is working, and disruption is coming from other causes, which can then be examined and addressed.

The sanction as it stands is this (I've summarized a piece that is not in contention):

3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes [all Wikipedia pages]. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.

What is prohibited with this ban? It's clear: only discussion of a certain kind (outside of polls). Not any other kind of editing. The edits claimed to be violations were not discussion of a dispute unless I was the originating party (i.e., a single blacklist request was filed with a claim, which I disputed, until then the claim was unopposed), by any reasonable classification (but for one, number 3, an error, acknowledged as a violation). None of them were edits that would ordinarily raise an eyebrow. I never dreamed that the ban could apply to article space at all. While my edits may have been "unwise" in some way, they were not ban violations. If they were disruptive, I could be dinged for that directly. The original ban purpose seems to have been preventing Wall-o-TextTM comments alleged to be dominating discussion. In spite of a ban attempt at AN claiming it, I have not been posting walls of text, no example other than the AE report cited above was given, and if that's an improper wall of text, given the context, I'm astonished.

The allegations at AE and here by Enric Naval did not involve poll comments, so removing the poll provision as suggested would fix something that isn't broken. I have avoided using the poll permission as a loophole to allow long comments, and other editors, in those polls, have made much longer ones, and engaged in much back-and-forth threaded argument, which I've also avoided (except for a very minimum of helpful comment, accepted as such, or response to direct question addressed to me). Looking at the RfCs I commented in, I doubt that anyone reasonable would conclude that my comments were a problem there.

Please take this step by step, there is no emergency. I will suggest one possible improvement: allow a mentor, to interpret the ban for me and for others. It is unclear to me why this provision was removed; instead, it should simply have been required that the mentor be approved by ArbComm. Fritzpoll volunteered before and was told, first, that this was not necessary, and then, later, that his arbitrator status prohibited mentoring (the first time I'd seen that -- he was already recusing), and then the provision was removed, so I did not seek another mentor. Fritzpoll has now retired, but a mentor would allow flexibility and a ready path to the ban being lifted. Keep it simple. --Abd (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @SamJohnston:This editor brings up the same evidence over and over, and has now claimed a new offending edit. It's all moot here, because I could have offended many times and that would not change the issue here: what is and what is not "offense." SamJohnston did find one edit that I agreed was a violation, and I promptly struck it as soon as my attention was called to it. Since then, he's brought this edit up over and over. Now he asserts a new one: . That was not a "comment on a dispute," it was a friendly comment, not controversial, a bit jokey, and it caused no disruption at all. SamJohnston's approach is to read "dispute" into everything, because he's clearly looking for mud to toss, and his contributions will show the extent to which he's been tracking me. This is not a comment on his behavior elsewhere, with other editors, and this would be, if I pursued it (I have no intention of that), a dispute between him and me, "originating party," you know. --Abd (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad: Bans are special sanctions intended to reduce disruption by defining certain behaviors thought to be causing problems, so that they can be efficiently prevented without the inefficiency of arguing each offense. If a ban is not clear, it can cause more disruption than it prevents. Bans should be very specific, and "wikilawyering" may actually be appropriate, i.e., some insistence on the literal meanings of words. That's not the norm on Wikipedia. I had come to a settled and simple interpretation of the ban, tighter than I'd thought, but at least reasonable, until the present allegations arose.
 * Carcharoth has done two things, and you agreed with one, general advice, but also an opinion was given that I'd violated the ban. If Carcharoth means by this that I violated an unstated (and unclear!) spirit of the ban, that's one thing. If it means that I actually violated the ban itself, as standing, it's another. If I violated the spirit, then the appropriate response would be to clarify the ban so that the spirit is reflected in the language (or designate a means for efficient interpretation, like a mentor). If I violated the ban itself, then we have a very difficult problem, and probably I should be site-banned, because I'm unable to understand bans and therefore contain my behavior. This is a request for clarification. It's not a request for advice to Abd to stop him from being disruptive. Such advice, divorced from a deeper discussion of goals and the value of my participation here, is likely to be misplaced. General editing is part of why I'm here, and I was doing general editing, but it's not the most important part. So, if you value my work at all, and it is, indeed, about "parliamentary procedure," which is about what peer groups, in the past, have found necessary for efficient and fair process, you will, please, attend to Enric Naval's request here, which I join, seeking clarification on a narrow "legal issue." Did I violate the ban? (That is, did I violate it where there is difference of opinion, not with the edit where I acknowledged an inadvertent violation?) ArbComm is free to find that I've been generally disruptive, should it choose -- I don't think that's true -- but the ban doesn't prohibit general disruption, nor is a general disruption ban necessary, it's already prohibited. --Abd (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @Shell Again, this is a Request for Clarification. I am currently avoiding almost all Wikipedia editing, due to what seems to be an interpretation that I violated the ban, and there was no controversy from Enric Naval over my RfC !votes, and no instance of refusal to discuss based on the ban, beyond one, where I asked that I not be repeatedly questioned within the RfC, which would have pushed me closer to the ban limit. And I did answer the question. Had that editor gone to my talk page to raise an issue about the RfC comment of mine, not about the editor's dispute with others, I'd have responded specifically to that. Nobody complained. So "unfair" to whom? I haven't complained about the ban, though some others have. Please, do consider the ban itself and whether or not I violated it. If I did or didn't (as to what is in dispute), please so state. If I didn't violate the ban itself, but some unstated spirit of the ban, please clarify it. General editing advice does not clarify the ban at all. --Abd (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by SamJohnston
If you break it down this appears to be fairly straightforward: I don't believe that confining commentary to edit summaries and/or new threads evades the restriction because it includes, but is not limited to talk pages et al. That said, the editing restriction is intended to avoid inflaming disputes, not prevent Abd from editing altogether (we have blocks for that). With this interpretation Abd would be able to edit provided he avoided hotspots and raised his own new issues as required. -- samj in out 02:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there an existing dispute? Yes
 * Did Abd discuss the dispute? Yes (unsigned)
 * Was Abd an originating party? No.
 * Again boiling it down to basics, Abd started editing Ghost, contributed to existing content disputes here and here (so much for a single "inadvertent" violation), removed controversial content actively being discussed from the article and talk page here and here and the article was protected for Edit warring / Content dispute the very next day. He then made a similar controversial edit to the Witchcraft article, where the same topic was also an existing debate. To quote Hans Adler: "He tried to help, but he wasn't helpful".


 * The loopholes used to justify participation in the existing conflicts were a) article edits, b) edit summaries and c) polls. These should be closed by clarification (even if just by requiring Abd to avoid active areas). -- samj in out 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * GoRight's condescending "clarification" doesn't warrant further comment - he won't WP:HEAR it anyway. -- samj in out 08:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Verbal
Yet again Abd is testing the limits of his sanctions, and clearly not abiding to them. This shows a continuing pattern of continued poor behaviour, and it should be stopped. Abd again injected himself into a existing dispute with which he had no previous involvement, one which had more or less been resolved, and has inflamed the situation - making matters worse. This oft repeated pattern reflects on Abd's motivations for being on wikipedia. If he wants to show he is here for the good of the project then he should show that in his editing, and not by testing his restrictions, gaming admins, and making situations harder to resolve. Verbal chat  12:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hans Adler

 * Original comment

I am commenting here because I am heavily involved in the situation at Ghost. From the point of view of my watchlist, around early March the complex battle between fringe fans and pseudo-sceptics has flared up again after many quiet months. As in earlier cases the mainstream is in danger of getting pulverised between two extremist fronts. Since Abd is often vocally painted as being on the fringe side, I want to say very clearly that his unhelpful intervention at Ghost was an attempt to support the mainstream against the very real danger of being marginalised and treated as fringe. Hans Adler 10:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by GoRight
Can Arbcom please put a stop to the abuse and harassment of Abd that this sanction has caused. This disruption is unnecessary. --GoRight (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the analysis by SamJohnston above : I wish to thank SJ for providing a thorough recitation of the most pertinent edits which have lead to this request for clarification, however his analysis appears to be flawed on a number of points so allow me to clear a few things up for the benefit of all:


 * (1) As the arbiters are no doubt aware, the most recent version of Abd's sanction can be found here, and it currently reads (emphasis is mine):


 * Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.


 * (2) Future Perfect had proposed and implemented an interpretation of the sanction at a previous request for clarification. The short version of that clarification is as follows (emphasis is mine):


 * The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you.


 * (3) It should be plain, and therefore not confusing to anyone, that the operative phrases in both the sanction itself and FP's clarification are "discussing any dispute" and "comment about any conflict", respectively.


 * (4) It should likewise be plain, and therefore not confusing to anyone, that words have specific meanings which are used, in the case of a sanction, to convey the intent of that sanction. Please note that the meanings of the words "discussing any dispute" and/or "comment about any conflict" are distinct and non-overlapping with the words "participating in a dispute".


 * (5) Even a cursory review of the edits highlighted by SJ above clearly demonstrates that Abd was merely "participating in a dispute". So, as currently written and clarified Abd's edits in no way violated the letter or the spirit of the sanction as it has been articulated thus far.  Abd's edits are completely consistent with any editor who is simply participating in a normal content dispute with a proper focus on the content in question and without extraneous meta discussion of the dispute or its participants.


 * (6) If it is Arbcom's intention to prevent Abd from editing any articles where there happens to be content disputes on topics for which he has an opinion and wishes to express it, then I would submit that the current wording of the sanction and the feedback that has been given to Abd is wholly insufficient to have conveyed that particular meaning and intent. Thus, if that truly is Arbcom's intention then they should make that intention clear via this clarification because the existing sanction and the feedback surrounding it clearly do NOT address the simple act of editing and participating in content disputes as we see here.

Hopefully this helps to clarify some of the facts in this case for anyone who may have been confused by them. --GoRight (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I apologize if anyone feels that this post is condescending. That was not my intention. I merely seek to highlight some rather straight forward but highly pertinent facts regarding this request. --GoRight (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Responses:

@Carcharoth : The edits that refactored my section are here. --GoRight (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@Carcharoth : "... that Abd and those involved in the original case(s) will stay apart (that includes GoRight and others as well)." - I am unclear as to your intended meaning here. Could you please clarify? Do you mean that (a) I and other Abd supporters should also stay away from Abd, (b) I and the others in the original case should stay away from each other (yes please), (c) both, or (d) neither (i.e. something else)? --GoRight (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci
Why can't Abd find something innocuous to edit just for once? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Carcharoth: I imagine that most users at this stage, myself included, would avoid initiating any kind of sanction against Abd, simply because of the total drain on time that would result. Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth. You seem to be criticizing me below for writing - in a 12 word sentence - essentially exactly the same thing you wrote about Abd's editing. The main point in my evidence to the ArbCom case concerned Abd's return to mainstream content editing. That is still my hope now. Why are you suggesting otherwise? Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth. Are you now suggesting that at some point I have edited a contentious article? Is this really what you intended to write? Please remember that the problematic editor here is Abd. You, I and others might hope that his editing patterns will improve; but in the end Abd is the only one responsible for what he chooses to edit. Please be more careful what you write. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Observation by TenOfAllTrades
GoRight has been a consistent apologist for Abd's disruptive conduct since at least the Abd/WMC Arbitration. GoRight's encouragement and endorsement is absolutely the last thing that Abd needs. Further, GoRight has been repeatedly blocked recently for his own counterproductive approach to Wikipedia editing. His attacks on Enric Naval isn't pretty, either &mdash; complaints about other editors' 'harassment' of Abd might be more credible if GoRight didn't seem so prepared to overlook and enable Abd's misconduct. It's well past tiresome; a MYOB restriction on GoRight would not be out of place.

Finally, Abd's three-month ban imposed in the Arbitration failed to drive home the point, and a longer – if not permanent – ban on Abd would be appropriate now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments struck at Carcharoth's request. My concerns about GoRight's role in disrupting enforcement of provisions related to Abd's conduct remain, however, and I look forward to ArbCom bringing forth a MYOB motion in the very near future.  (A further request for clarification &mdash; is Carcharoth's request on his own initiative, or is he speaking formally, on behalf of the entire Committee?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, don't you realize that you've just declared such a MYOB restriction here, by personal fiat and in an entirely ad hoc manner? Either get the Committee on board with you and make a formal statement – I don't mind if you tell me to butt out as long as GoRight can be made to stop stirring the pot; his hyperbolic attacks were the only reason I offered a brief, diff-supported, 93-word comment – or withdraw your own instructions.  Otherwise, you're putting the clerks in the awkward position of acting as your own personal enforcers, rather than as agents of the Committee and (by extension) the community.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel that it is entirely proper for me to comment about the actions taken by Arbitrators as part of their participation in this Request for Clarification. I have struck out any mention of particular problematic editors' conduct, though I do still believe that it is perfectly within scope for the ArbCom, as part of a Clarification, to comment on the conduct of editors seeking to enforce (or not) an Arbitration remedy in the lead up to the Request.
 * I am not comfortable with suppressing mention of what I feel are valid points related to the processes followed by Arbitrators in responding to this Request. I will note that my only participation in or comment on the extant dispute here was my brief comment above. I have had nothing to do with any of the other discussions in any of the other fora, and I don't believe posting a seven-sentence note – even if arguably tangential – constitutes an abuse of the ArbCom's time or attention.  I have affirmed that I would support a proper MYOB restriction if brought in an appropriate venue, however I object to Carcharoth attempting to implement one himself on this one page.  (I observe that at least one other Request on this page contains an explicit request for a motion to which Carcharoth responded positively.)
 * I do not give permission or approval for anyone to make edits to my signed comments on this page, however I recognize when I'm outgunned, and I won't edit war with a clerk or Arb &mdash; so don't go getting silly ideas about needing to issue blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Could a clerk please either ask the parties above to remove, refactor, or strike commentary about anyone other than Abd, or do so themselves? My reading of the above thread is that this would apply to most of what Hans Adler and GoRight said (a brief comment about the dispute at Ghost will suffice - there is no need to name names here). And the first paragraph of what TenOfAllTrades said can go as well. This is not a clarification about other editors at the Ghost article or GoRight. That will help keep this clarification request on topic. If the off-topic stuff is removed, could whoever does that (whether the original editor or a clerk) please leave diffs to indicate what was removed. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Update - no longer needed, parties have largely redacted or struck the off-topic comments themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recused from all Abd. Steve Smith (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  08:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How MYOB (mind your own business) sanctions work in practice seems to be problematic. My view is that MYOB sanctions are a last resort, and it is up to the editor under a MYOB sanction to avoid controversial areas and go and find something productive to do in an uncontroversial area where there are no disputes. An editor placed under a MYOB sanction is essentially being told that in general they bring more heat than light to discussions, and even trying to sort out whether they are making useful contributions (as here) is a time sink. Abd, you should find quiet areas to work in until your restrictions expire (or until you have accumulated enough evidence of improved conduct to appeal your restrictions). Find a quiet area to work in and then if others turn up, any dispute is not one that you will have started. Turning up on a page where there is an existing dispute does breach the terms of your restrictions as I interpret them. If you (Abd) or others would like the restriction clarified to make that clearer, that could probably be done. I agree with Hans Adler about the ghosts and pseudoscience matter, but that should be a separate clarification (possibly related to one of the cases that concerned pseudoscience). Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to recent comments, it might be simpler to bar all participants to the original case from filing clarification or enforcement actions against each other. It is not just Abd that needs to back off here, but some of the others from both sides as well. It has become clear that the original participants in the case are not stepping back and letting others deal with this, but are all perpetuating the battles going on here. Some have asked why Abd can't find innocuous areas to edit? I would apply that to others as well. It tends to be the case that only the original participants in a case can be bothered to request enforcement of arbitration sanctions, but I don't think this is actually healthy. If someone's participation somewhere is truly disruptive, then others will file enforcement requests. However, this would only work if everyone subject to arbitration sanctions were forced to include in their signature and on their talk page a little scarlet letter so people editing with them were aware of this. But as you can tell, my use of the term 'scarlet letter' shows that I don't really think it is a good idea. Still, what can be done about the problem where participants to a case watch each other like hawks and call for enforcement of sanctions? Could those who have commented here state whether they have done so because they were involved in the Ghost dispute, or whether because they follow these pages and comment on previous cases they were involved with (hint: the former is OK, the latter is generally unhelpful). Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, have you counted how many of the people who have commented above were involved in the original arbitration case? The arbitrators are well aware of the previous case. Enric Naval, you (Mathsci), GoRight and Verbal made statements and gave evidence. TenOfAllTrades made workshop proposals. I haven't found anything in the original case from SamJohnston, so he probably became aware of this another way. But do you see what I mean about how frustrating it can be for arbitrators when a request for clarification just erupts into arguments between those that were present at the original case? Why not just make brief statements and leave us to attempt to clarify things? I would propose to limit previous case participants to making a brief statement narrowly restricted to the clarification request. No arguments, no back-and-forth. Just brief statements that explain how you got involved in the present dispute (merely seeing it pop up on your watchlist here and deciding to comment is not a sufficient reason to comment). I would apply the same to arbitration enforcement as well. It would cut a lot of the arguments out and allow people to get on with enforcements and clarifications and amendments, without the associated noise. In a nutshell: brief comments that must stay on-topic; no back-and-forth; and step back and let others comment and make the decision. It would make things quicker as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking that, TenOfAllTrades. Limiting the scope of this request is purely my initiative. Hopefully other arbitrators will comment here at some point to state their views. If they want to widen the scope to include others, that can happen, but I think it should be at the initiative of an arbitrator, not someone involved in the original case (unless a separate request is filed). With the amount of work on ArbCom's desk, I am trying to limit the scope of clarifications so they can be dealt with in good order. By all means file a separate request if you think you have a case to make, but folding it into this one is unlikely to be helpful. Also, the editor would in most cases have to be under current ArbCom sanctions unless the conduct is egregious (according to arbitrators, not according to the filing party). Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the statements made above, and all are now on-topic for this request except for the statements and comments from TenOfAllTrades. Others have refactored as requested, while TenOfAllTrades has refactored but followed up by continuing to make off-topic comments on the conduct of GoRight. Suggest that he take concerns about GoRight's conduct (and my conduct as well, if he wishes) to the relevant talk pages. The single unstruck sentence about Abd is relevant to this request, while the concerns about others disrupting enforcement of provisions related to Abd's conduct can be stated in general terms, and arbitrators can request more details and specific names if needed. After that is done, it will then be possible to get back to the point of this thread, which should be making the clarification that Enric Naval asked for. Carcharoth (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@Agreed with those above. Abd, it's best for you to find somewhere quiet and uncontroversial to work at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for the further strikes, TenOfAllTrades. I have no objection to you proposing a motion about Abd, but my view is that extending proposed motions to include others should be done by arbitrators (in part because we would then formally notify them). My current thoughts on this matter are to formally propose a motion to tighten Abd's existing restrictions to remove the clause that allowed him to participate in polls and requests for comments. I should clarify that I'm still only pondering on something further about how to manage the interactions between Abd and those who originally participated at the case - there is no de facto MYOB clause in effect and no-one should interpret my comments that way (that would require full voting on a motion). My hope (per Mathsci) is that Abd and those involved in the original case(s) will stay apart (that includes GoRight and others as well). It is entirely possible that both my proposed motions (one still only being considered) will fail, but that is how I see things at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To GoRight: I meant (a), but only those that were involved in the case. The idea is both that Abd finds somewhere quiet to edit, and also that those involved in the case neither support him nor drag him down. He should stand or fall on his own merits. It shouldn't need those involved in the original cases to pop up and reiterate what happened there. Too many people cluster around controversial articles trying to contribute their bit or to object to what others are saying or to support those they agree with (the agreement and support should be for the content, not for the editors). Sometimes a different approach is needed. If someone finds themselves editing controversial articles all the time, that is not really a good sign, no matter how "right" you think you are (anyone reading this and thinking that it is OK editing controversial articles all the time if your edits are good, the long-term effect is still degrading). Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, I agree with Carcharoth's advice to Abd. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Noting that Brad is talking here about the first comment I made. Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Carcharoth's clarification about how Abd's sanction is supposed to work and also encourage him to avoid polls, RfCs and the like as well for the time being. Its not fair to "vote" somewhere and then tell editors that you cannot discuss the issue further because of your restriction. Find some nice quiet articles where you can participate fully. Shell   babelfish 14:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Summary out-of-process deletions (April 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Maurreen (talk) at 08:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * , and anyone who follows his example with such out-of-process deletions -- notification

Statement by Maurreen
As a minimum, I ask the committee to prevent any out-of-process deletions while it considers these issues with more information and deliberation than involved in the orginal case.

In short:
 * The committe said, "The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner." And "Everyone is asked to continue working together to improve and uphold the goals of our project." (Emphasis added.)
 * User:Kevin recently wrote that I intend to pick up where I left off in January].
 * There is indication that other people have done similar deletions since the ArbCom's decision. But this deserves further research before I name names here.
 * "The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people."
 * That RFC has progressed.
 * WP:BLPs are being rapidly sourced.

I might or might not add more to my statement. That depends on factors on- and -off wiki. Maurreen (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to Doc -- About why this is at arbitration: Mainly because Kevin recently wrote that "I intend to pick up where I left off in January."
 * I agree that the consensus is reasonable, one that most people on both sides of the issue can live with. I think that we ought not let outliers on either side work against that consensus. Maurreen (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If ArbCom agrees with SirFozzie about looking dimly "on attempts to force the issue on either side" -- I think that firmly clarifying that position should efficiently address the immediate matter at hand. Maurreen (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to Steve Smith -- We agree that the *issue* is contentious. That is not the same as saying that any given article, the specific articles that have been deleted, or unsourced BLPs in general are contentious. Maurreen (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One motivating factor for those supporting the out-of-process deletions seems to be the perceived urgent need for such unilateral action, with no oversight or clear record. For the moment, putting aside whether these should be deleted or not -- If they deserve delection, they should go through our standard processes. Why do something drastic and contentious, when a routine method is available? Maurreen (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Administrators have special tools, not special authority.
 * If deletion of BLPs for the sole reason of having no sourcing was supported by the community, there would be many more of them at WP:PROD. There are very few at WP:PROD. Here is a list of Prod'd articles, with the justification. I expect that a sole rationale of "unsourced BLP" is used less than an average of once a day. Maurreen (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (Added two sentences, forgot sig earlier.)

A little elaboration on Baloonman's suggestion of how ArbCom might handle this efficiently -- In a nutshell, the result of the RFC is: I believe that people on both side will agree that this is the result of the RFC, regardless of how much they like it.
 * 1) The community supports sticky prods for new unsourced BLPs.
 * 2) In general, the deletion side is willing to wait a few months to see if they believe further action is necessary.

Work on the sticky prods is proceeding apace. Maurreen (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (Forgot sig earlier.)


 * During the RFC, Doc (from the "deletion" side) suggested a compromise. That compromise included "Do nothing for three months, so see if the recent falls in the backlog continue," and "If the progress stalls and the backlog stops falling at the current rate, then in three months we may need to start discussing deadlines."
 * To the best of my knowledge, no one from the deletion side objected to the suggested three-month wait-and-see period for old unreferenced BLPs.
 * Especially given that they did not object during the RFC, I see no justification for unilateral contentious behavior, or to condone it, implicitly or explicitly. Maurreen (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No evidence has been given that unsourced BLPs are otherwise more problematic than sourced BLPs. Limited evidence is available that there is no correlation between sourcing and other aspects. For one external example -- The On Wikipedia blog has been researching WP. Of 15 BLPs, the BLP subjects were roughly evenly divided as to their opinions on how accurate, complete and unbiased the pages were. At the bottom of the page, in a comment responding to me, the blogger said the sourcing in all articles was poor.
 * The focus whether the article has *a source* is misplaced. If *a correct source* was added to all our articles overnight, that wouldn't make the articles more accurate or less biased. It would only mean *a source* had been added. This focus whitewashes true problems.
 * I've read sometimes that the community brought this on itself, because it did not rectify "the problem." But the community is all of us. Destructive measures should be a last resort. They should not be used unless substantive productive methods have clearly failed. As just one example, what notice was given for deleting said articles? Did the deleters either publicly warn the community or directly warn the specific article editors? Maurreen (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And do the deleters source any of these articles, or do they think they have to destroy the village in order to save it? Maurreen (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If ArbCom allows out-of-process deletions, either explicitly or implicitly, after the committee's original motion, that can significantly decrease incentive for people "to continue working together" (as encouraged by the committee's original motion) whether on addressing any BLP problems or in whether and how they contribute to encyclopedia more generally. Maurreen (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Some people are trying to work together. Some people on both sides push boundaries.
 * User:Coffee has re-prodded articles after the tag has been removed. Coffee has changed the instructions on some WP:PROD tags to indicate that the tag is to stay on until references are given. Neely Tucker and P. Paul Verma
 * This is explicitly against instructions at WP:PROD, which say: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a prod tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."
 * I would like to clarify to ArbCom that the purpose of my request for clarification is not to support either side.
 * I am asking the committee to firmly support the middle ground -- the compromise by the community found in the result of the RFC. Maurreen (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A number of issues are related to the larger "BLP problem."
 * Related

We could be working on more-effective steps than just adding a source.

A number of options have come up in other discussions. One of those possibilities is this template. The details of the template and any views on it are not my point here. My point here is that:
 * 1) The positive effect of just adding a source is minimal at best.
 * 2) The community is distracted from working on more-effective solutions while it focuses on whether BLPs have a source.
 * 3) The occurrence or threat of summary deletions is discouraging. Maurreen (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Scott or anyone -- I keep hearing that "the community failed."
 * I had been away from WP for a few years. I would be interested in learning of what steps, if any, were tried and failed before the mass deletions. Maurreen (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth
Your response is confusing to me.

By "It will be difficult to get something that has wide-ranging agreement," were you referring to agreement within ArbCom or agreement within the community?

About "What would help, I think, is some set deadlines here" -- Point 4 of Part 2 of Balloonman's proposal in the RFC set goals to reduce old unsourced BLPs to zero within a year. That was accepted by the community, with !votes of 52 to 33.

Some of your statements concerning out-of-process deletions seem to go back and forth.

Should the following be understood to best represent your view on out-of-process deletions?
 * "BUT, the preceding would only apply if all other options had been exhausted. As others have said, the removal of contentious material applies to article text, not to entire articles. There is no visible consensus to extend such removal to entire articles (though stubbing BLPs appears to be less controversial than it was). We are nowhere near the stage yet where those pushing for this should feel able to engage in out-of-process deletions, and people should still be actively trying to shape consensus on these matters and continue to reduce backlogs."

If so, thank you.

About "If there are deadlines in place regarding achieving consensus in the discussions, and there are people actively working towards those deadlines, could that be explicitly stated" -- There are no deadlines. I think deadlines would not serve consensus or the community. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding. But any deadlines for discussion suggests that "If you don't decide this by x date, we will."

That seems like a threat. And I can't fathom how you expect to encourage people by using a threat.

If ArbCom is going to take over Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop, it might be better to do that sooner rather than later. That way, the rest of us won't waste our time.

It also sounds like a demand. Please remember that this is not a job. We have lives outside of WP. Not only is this volunteering, it is trying to achieve consensus among a group of people with diverse views and schedules and commitments who have been through a very divisive time on the general issue.

You asked, "Would there be any volunteers to oversee the discussions or are there people already unofficially doing this?" -- For whatever it's worth, I and a few others have been trying to keep things on track in a way that gets the most acceptance from the most people.

We are making progress. Our progress is probably slower han anyone would like. But there's nothing good that can be done about that. As far as I can tell, we're doing the best that is possible under the circumstances.

Those of us working to build the encyclopedia, whether through the Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop or by sourcing the BLPs, would be encouraged by substantive support from ArbCom.

By "substantive support," I mean a clear declaration against the out-of-process deletions. Maurreen (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, point taken, majority but no consensus about deadlines to reduce number of old unsourced BLPs to zero within a year. Maurreen (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Balloonman

For various reasons, I am taking an indefinite break from the sticky prod workshop. Maurreen (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Housekeeping update

The short answer is that it might be best to get help from one or more impartial moderators.
 * About any facilitation of the discussion to develop sticky prods

As I mentioned earlier, a few of us had been working to keep the discussion on track and get the most acceptance from the most people. But such major housekeeping can be perceived negatively. That perception can be magnified by the fact that the housekeepers are involved in the discussion and apparently are on the same side in the "fix vs. delete" debate.

If appointing any moderator(s) is pursued, I encourage that to be done with consultation of at least one vocal editor from each "side." That should help encourage harmony all around. Maurreen (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed motion
I propose the following draft. Maurreen (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Committee has examined this matter. In light of the following considerations:
 * The community has well-established procedures for deletion.
 * Out-of-process deletions have led to divisiveness in the community.
 * In Phase I of the RFC suggested by ArbCom to address unsourced  biographies of living people, a proposal to  delete on sight "any biography that is poorly referenced or completely unreferenced" was rejected by the community, 157 to 54.
 * In Phase II of the same RFC, Scott Mac (Doc) suggested a compromise.
 * The suggested compromise led to a formal proposal by Balloonman.
 * The community has significantly reduced the number of unsourced BLPs.
 * The community is developing a system to delete new unsourced BLPs.

The Committee has determined that:
 * The community is progressing in addressing the issue of unsourced BLPs.
 * The community should start a review of that progress in June.
 * The community should strive to meet the goals outlined by Scott Mac (Doc) and Balloonman.
 * Whatever justification that might have existed earlier for out-of-process deletion based solely on lack of sourcing, that justification does not currently exist.


 * Reply to Carcharoth

Will do. Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've put a note at the sticky prod pages and the RFC talk page. Also put notes on the talk pages of Kevin, Mr. Z-man, Balloonman, and Kudpung. Should I notify all the people who have commented here? I'm not sure of the ArbCom-related customs. Maurreen (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also notified Coffee. Maurreen (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

People keep bringing up policy and the foundation. Where do either support deletion for the sole reason of lack of sourcing? Maurreen (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Coffee

One way that the motion is helpful is that it gives encouragement to those working on the problem that their work is not in vain. For example, it is discouraging to work on a compromise if summary deletions continue regardless. Maurreen (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Scott
 * Clarifying -- it is discouraging to work on a compromise when summary deletions have taken place after the original mass deletions that started this kertuffle.
 * Those deletions have been indicated elsewhere on this page. Maurreen (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And knowing about any further such deletions might require either happenstance or an inordinate amount of detective work. Maurreen (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am open to moderate suggestions. Specifics could be helpful.
 * Reply to anyone who disagrees with my proposed motion

The motion is intended to get the most acceptance from the most people. Thus, it essentially endorses the compromise suggested by Scott Mac (Doc), formalized by Balloonman, and supported by a large segment of the community. I note here that Scott Mac (Doc) and Balloonman are on opposite sides of the "fix vs. delete" debate. Maurreen (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot is being done to address unsourced BLPs. This motion primarily addresses summary deletions. Thus, concerns of both "sides" are given consideration. Maurreen (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if nothing is going to happen here, this might as well close. Maurreen (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Closure

Statement by Balloonman
Should an admin unilaterally decide that an active RfC did not reach the conclusions that said admin desired, and started acting contrary to the consensus (or lack thereof) of the community, then said individual should be stripped of his/her adminship. The threatened action, if carried out, will be a willful premeditated action that could not be tolerated.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, there is nothing in WP:BLP or WP:CSD that says that a BLP article without sources is a candidate for speedy deletion. The only way that it is acceptable to speedy delete said article is if it is an attack page or copy vio... an argument could be made for articles about people who are known for breaking the rules/laws.  The notion of speedy deleting BLP articles solely because they do not have sources has been universally rejected everytime it has been brought before the wider community.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve Smith---your statement fails to address a key factor... just because a biography is unsourced does not mean that it is contentious. Kevin et al are not talking about limiting their deletion activities to just contentious materials, but intend to redefine the definition to cover any BLP that lacks sources.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, what is contentious is the careless deletion of unsourced BLPs, not the articles themselves. The "Contetntious Materials" in the policy deals with questionable material within the article itself.  An article can be 100% accurate, factual, and neutral without citing a source.  These articles are not by definition contentious except for a small minority of the community whose position was rejected in the recent RfCs.  If you review the RfC's, you'll see several threads wherein the notion that an unsourced BLPs equates to a bad/POV articles has been rejected.  You would be hard pressed to find any consensus to support the stance that the mere lack of sources makes an article contentious enough to warrant speedy deletion.  This is a position held by a small minority of people who contributed to the RfCs.  In fact, the reason why Kevin has made this threat, is because the community has roundly rejected that notion, and frankly if you can't see that in the threads, I have to question your objectivity on this subject!  In order to be a good judge/arbitrator, you need to be able to put your personal position aside.  If you can't do that, then you need to recluse yourself from this case.  The fact that you see the RfC as supporting a notion which it clearly doesn't distresses me.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of ArbCOM members have asked what actions can they take as a preventitive before creating a whole new slew of ArbCOM cases/issues. Simple. Make it clear that in your previous motion you referred the issue to an RfC, the RfC has happened, and all parties are expected to adhere to the outcome. Not everybody will be happy with it, but everybody needs to adhere to it. Sir Fozzie's statement would be a good foundation for such a clarification.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC) PS I must compliment those people who personally want CSD to be applied to unsourced BLPs (Z-Man, JClemens, Collect, et al) but respect the voice of the community. My stance here is not based upon my person stance, but rather upon the notion that when the community explicitly and repeatedly states something, the we have to adhere to those wishes until we can convince them that consensus has changed or an edict from Jimbo/WMF comes down. I think they realize that too.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Cofee---we elected the members of ArbCOM because we trusted them to serve the community and to enforce policeis and guidelines as defined by the community. We did not elect them to override the communities wishes when the community explicitly wants something else.  The community has spoken loudly and in several different forums, at the current time, it does not want or support the use of CSD to handle articles simply because they are unsourced.  THAT is the position held by the minority of people.  It is not ArbCOMs job to dictate policy... members of ArbCOM are free to use their reasoning/rationale as long as it reflects the will of the community.  When a member of ArbCOM holds a personal view that is contrary to the community, I expect them to temper their personal position with those of the communities or to recluse themselves if they cannot.  When a few members of ArbCOM start to dictate policies, then we get resolutions such as we did in the first phase of the RfC where there was a strong rebuke of ArbCOM's actions.  ArbCOM's role is not to supercede that of the community and write policy.  You may think that policy is on your side and you may think that this is a justifiable case for IAR, but the community thinks otherwise.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Maureen---I would not consider a 61% support to be a sign that consensus has been achieved. A majority yes, but the opposition provided strong rationale reasons for opposing my second proposal that I would not say it is consensus.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to Maureens request on my talk page, which was done at a request here, I do believe ArbCOM needs to make some sort of statement affirming the RfC. In its previous motion, ArbCOM opened a can of worms by praising and condoning the out-of-process deletions. While the subject of deleting unsourced BLP's is a conetntious one, the articles generally are not. In its previous motion, ArbCOM referred the issue to the community. The community has repeatedly rejected the notion of wholesales deletions for the sole reason that they are unsourced. This position came through in spades at the RfC, yet we still have people who have threated and/or implied that they intend to do so anyways (including one member of ArbCOM who supports doing so!) The first time, we can say, "OK, this get the ball rolling." But when the community speaks in a loud clear voice, ArbCOM needs to support that position. It doesn't matter what your personal views are on the subject are, the role of ArbCOM is not to override clear community consensus. It doesn't matter if ArbCOM hoped for/expected a different result, you referred the issue to RfC. In doing so, you acknowledged that the issue was beyond the scope of the few members of ArbCOM, and subjected your position to the will of the community. The RfC made certain issues very clear (namely no out of process deletions) now you (ArbCOM) have to support that position (until the community and/or Foundation say otherwise.) If you don't, then it will only be a matter of time before somebody decides to follow-up on Kevin's threat.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC) @Carcharoth: I came across a BLP today that had not been tagged in any way whatsoever, so that area still needs attention. I think that is a large part of the reason why people are reluctant to accept a firm timeline as I proposed. We really don't know how big the issue is. Furthermore, I've seen some evidence since the RfC that some people want to have BLP-CREEP enter the fray. EG define BLPs to include organization, clubs, activities, events, etc using the logic that if there is a negative reference to the subject, then we are ultimately inditing the living people who might be involved with said subject! If that position goes through, then virtually every article on WP could be subject to BLP!--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I have to agree with Lar, if the committee isn't going to address the mess they helped create, then we might as well close it now---it's pretty obvious that the committee is unable or unwilling to act.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc
Reject this as patent nonsense, please. Nothing in the RfC precludes administrators from doing their job, which is to uphold WP:BLP, whether it be deleting unsourced contentious articles, tagging, PRODding, and so on. There is still this ridiculous attitude of "let's wait and leave the articles be, someone, sometime will get to them eventually." Enough, already. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers
wp:BLP can be upheld without disruptive editing or disruptive use of admin tools. Now would be a good time for Arbcom to remind all editors to inform the creator and other substantial contributors when prodding or otherwise tagging articles for deletion, and to remind editors "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist". I think that the BLP RFC is very close to getting consensus for a major change to BLP policy that would make an exception to the latter, and it would be a great shame if that was derailed by another out of process deletion spree.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Peter cohen
The RfC has reached a conclusion. Some of us are prepared to live with it even though we did not like it. Others have issued threats to start the deletion spree again against consensus and then [agreed with their mates to do so]. The contempt shown by certain admins for process and consensus makes them unfit to hold the tools that they abuse. Firm action is required of arbcom rather than the previous wishy-washy motion which has made the offenders feel they can get away with more of the same.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Kirill. This is not something that ahs not happenned yet. User:Scott MacDonald, for example, has deleted Stephanie Sanders this month with the explanation "unreferenced BLP for 2 1/2 years, no one seems able to source. I will undelete if anyone willing)" How people were expected to notice unless they checked for evidence of his carryign out his thrats, I do not know. MacDonald is well aware that the number of labelled unreferenced BLPs has declined by roughly a quarter so far this year. However, rather than working in a collaborative manner, he is acting in an extremely disruptibve and WP:POINTy manner which demonstrates him to be someone who should not be trusted with his sysop tools. This needs firm action by arbcom rather than vaascillation.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to several arbiters below. Your first attempt at dealing with this matter attracted well-deserved derision from many well-established Wikipedians. You are going the same way with your response to this request. Several of you are maintaining that you are being faced with a hypothetical situation when both I and others have given you examples of speedy deletes of long existent articles earlier this month. If you are demonstrating that youy have not read properly the evidence with which you are presented, then how can you expect your judgment to be respected?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald
Speedy deletion isn't ideal here. We need a robust alternative that effectively deals with unrefereced BLPs. Speedy deletion is, however, preferable to continuing with a failed policy of evantualism.

In effect, those of us using speedy deletion agreed a voluntary moratorium to allow the community to develop an alternative. In my opinion, there seemed to be an adequate way forward with "sticky prod" for new BLPs and some deadlined for clearing the backlog. If the current rate of sourcing continues, then no deletions might be necessary. If not, then some level of sticky-prodding might be. I think there was some consensus around this.

Unfortunately, as the weeks have gone on, there seems to have been a tendency either to talk this to death (see fillibuster), or to add a WP:BEFORE requirement - which effectively switches the burden back on to the person proposing deletion: if no-one is willing to look for sources, then the article remains (that's the failed eventualist policy again).

There certainly should be no immediate return to systematic speedy deletion. However, given that it was the initiative of speedy deletion that was the catalyst to the current discussions, I'd strongly suggest that any ban on deletions would allow continued delay and inertia.

We hope for an alternative to speedy, but the clock is ticking and patience shows some signs of running out. Perhaps those bringing this case would do better spend their time better seeking a working alternative pretty damn soon.


 * I'm not sure we're not talking at cross-purposes here. The consensus I thought there was (sticky-prod for new BLPs, a one-year deadline for the backlog, with a review in 3months to see if we are "on target) is certainly one I can live with. The problem is that the RFC pages have become so convoluted and there appear to have been numerous attempts to summarise an close, that I've no idea what it is that I'm supposed not to be content with. Can someone actually tell us where this is at, and why a sticky prod isn't running yet? People are speaking about admins not getting their own way, but I've absolutely no idea whether there's a problem or not, the pages just confuse me. There may be no problem here at all. Why is this even at arbitration?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly reasonable for admins to issue reminders that moratoria dealing with BLP problems don't last for ever, and that this one will soon expire. As Lar has said, get the alternatives up and running, and the problem goes away.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Maureen's motion This is unhelpful. Firstly, on the "out of process deletions" issue, there is no problem to be solved. There have been no such deletions, and there won't be any if those involved stop wasting time at arbcom and get their act together. There is a consensus for "sticky prod" but, frankly, weeks turn to months, and we have no sticky prod. What could have been a simple solution "prod tags may not be removed from unsourced BLPs unless a source is added" has been frustrated because after the community agreed the principle, most users thought the job was done, and an extremely small group of users (many of whom don't like the basic idea) have spent weeks either disputing the underlying principle or quibbling on the warning tag wording. They wore me down - so I've now withdrawn. The biggest threat to the peace is this process dragging on for any longer. To those who want to avoid irregular deletions, make this process happen NOW - and note how those of us involved in those deletions have a) stopped deleting (months ago) to let this happen b) already indicated that there will be no resumption when this is up and running.

Why is this at arbitration? I have no idea. But the statement that "Whatever justification that might have existed earlier for out-of-process deletion based solely on lack of sourcing, that justification does not currently exist" - has been true for weeks and no one has said otherwise. However, the "does not currently" is, for me, predicated on the consensus outlined by Maureen being actualised. That's beginning to look like a problem. Arbcom will make this worse if they rule against the threat of resumed deletions whilst not preventing further delays in the agreed alternative. Carcharoth's comments simply confuse me - leaders are not the problem, the problem is filibustering.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @Maureen. You say "it is discouraging to work on a compromise if summary deletions continue regardless." Yes, but summary deletions have ceased months ago, and have not continued, precisely on the basis that we had a better way forward. The problem here is the failure to implement consensus which was not to use summary deletions because we had an agreed way forward. The problem is that the agreement has failed to be implemented. The solution is to implement it, not to look to bar hypotheticals predicated on what happens if consensus is not implemented - or continues to be obstructed by prevarication. --Scott Mac (Doc) 15:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Point of order
The non-threaded nature of this page is not a successful mechanism for continuing this discussion. We've now got comments from various people, on various topics, arbs comments, and a cycle of disordered responses "@" someone, all over a period of a week or so. I'm thoroughly confused and don't know who or what I'm responding to, or how to correct some misleading statements of what's happened. I'd strongly suggest that this isn't a discussion that can be handled as a "clarification" or by motion. Arbcom should either reject this, since no current userconduct issues are raised, or (if they must) open a full case. I'm unwatching now, because this is giving me a headache (and that's not a reflection on anyone's good faith).--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
"Isn't ideal"?

The use of this threat of speedy deletion goes specifically against the ArbCom motion as elucidated, and against the letter and spirit of WP policies and guidelines at this point.

It is clear, moreover, that the RfCs had definitely reached consensus on many issues. That it was not the precise consensus desired by some admins is not a mark of a problem with the process, it is a mark of the use of the ArbCom motion as a rationale to avoid facing the real and proper results of the actions of such admins who do not accept consensus which is the problem. Impose the penalties apparently sought by such admins. Collect (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Appending: Maurreens's proposed motion ought to be well considered by the Committee, and adopted. It is provided within the tradional WP processes and procedures, and has strong community support as far as I can determine. It reflects carefully the results of the RfCs held, and seeks to restore the rule of WP consensus being the basis for WP policies and guidelines. My earlier comments in this and other actions apply with full force and vigor. Collect (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Okip
The reason that disruptive editors such as Kevin continue to delete articles against our rules is because arbitrration gave them a free pass. We have already been here, this is the third time. First their was the amnesty of disruptive administrators Scott Macdonald, Kevin and Lar, then there was the arbitration request for disruptive wheel warring editor Coffee, and now this.

Arbitration has sent a clear message to the community: If administrators blatantly disrupt and break wikipedia rules, having "utter contempt" for "community consensus" (deleted from talk page with a rationale for behavior) it is okay as long as the majority of the arbitration committee supports their disruption.

I have absolutely no faith that the arbitration committee will do the right thing here and accept the case, because the arbitration committee and Mr. Wales himself have already shown complete contempt for our established rules and established consensus with these bullying editors before. Okip  17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Response to Lar, one of the three original rule breaking administrators who received amnesty by the arbitration committee:
 * Deleting full unsourced articles is not within policy, such as you did Lar: that is why an amnesty was necessary Lar, amnesty is defined as "a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment" you were an offender who the arbitration committee exempted from punishment. I grow extremely tired of these disruptive administrators who, if there was actually any fairness and equality on wikipedia would have lost there adminiship a month ago, instead of continually trying to silence editors and rewrite the history of their extreme contemptible rule breaking behavior. Okip   17:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar continues to attempt to silence me with threats, yet more threats from the same group of disruptive bullying administrators. I am so disgusted that the arbitration committee has emboldened these disruptive editors to continue to threaten, bully, and silence other editors.
 * I strongly encourage them to take this case, instead of giving these disruptive administrators continued amnesty for their disruption. Okip  18:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In Lar's continued threats, he pointed out something I was not aware of, that the arbitration committee found that
 * "The Committee has found that Lar's actions during the BLP deletion incident were entirely supported by policy."
 * The same arbitration committee which gave Lar amnesty, now ignores the community's rules and states that Lar broke no rules. I strongly disagree with this arbitration decision. Okip   18:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lar
Deletion of unsourced material is entirely within policy. Admins are empowered to use whatever tools are available to do so. If some group wants a particular process used, get the process done so it can be used instead of frittering away time on endless prevarication. Get sticky prod up and running, instead of wasting everyone's time with requests like this one. I urge ArbCom to reject this request for clarification with a clear statement that the matter is not open to further debate, either develop a process, or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To Okip... You are confused about who is violating what, or to whom amnesty was granted. ArbCom was specifically asked to comment on (among other matters)
 * The allegation that Lar has violated English Wikipedia policy and ignored consensus (except in cases where consensus is trumped by Foundation directives) regarding deletion of Biographies of Living Persons.
 * Their reply was
 * The Committee has found that Lar's actions during the BLP deletion incident were entirely supported by policy.
 * In other words, I didn't need an amnesty since I violated no policy. Sorry if that's "arrogant" of me to point out, but you're so confused on this point that it merits direct refutation. You should stop ranting. It's really rather unbecoming. I am minded to ask ArbCom for a sanction on your actions since you continue to make unfounded and scurrilous allegations even after being repeatedly warned about it. ++Lar: t/c 17:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may be so bold I would like to suggest that the Committee come to grips with what to do here, even if it is "close no action" or "await further developments in process X" or what have you, as this has been sitting a while now. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Calliopejen1
Even if summary deletion were an appropriate action at one time, it has now been rejected by the community (see Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase I). This supersedes whatever policy clarification (or whatever you want to call it) issued by arbcom in its past motion (see Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase I). The problem of summary deletions is not merely theoretical at this time. User:Buckshot06 speedy-deleted John Murphy (techncial analyst) on March 6 on the grounds that it was an unreferenced BLP. The arbcom's vague motion in the prior case has created confusion and encouraged administrators to violate consensus whenever their views of policy differ from the community's. I encourage the committee to take this case because it would prevent drama-causing deletions and allow the community to develop appropriate consensus-backed policies without the threat of rogue administrative action. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To respond to arbitrators' misconceptions:
 * This is not a matter of "something that hasn't happened yet". As I showed above, at least one administrator speedy deleted an uncontentious unsourced BLP as recently as March 6. Furthermore, it is impossible to compromise when one side holds over the other side's head the threat of not abiding by consensus.
 * This is not a dispute about "contentious material", as Steve Smith writes. This is a dispute about uncontentious BLPs being deleted simply because they are unsourced. (No, not everything unsourced is contentious--see Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content.) And what on earth is Steve Smith trying to convey when he says "WP:IAR should never override WP:BLP"? I don't think anyone has ever invoked WP:IAR to override WP:BLP. This seems like a total strawman. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Pohick2
i resurrected the article John Murphy (techncial analyst) with references. i would say marginal keep, but process circumvented. i note some earlier examples: a macarthur winner getting proded, ; president of vassar geting Proded ; a guggenheim getting a speedy ; a guggenheim getting prod'ed  it would seem there is a process problem. Pohick2 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * i agree a process is needed to review BLP's, delete the non-notable and keep the notable. references are part of it.  i am concerned that there is a lack of common sense, where clearly notable, but without references are thrown out with the bathwater.  a ticking time bomb is not a solution; editing is. Pohick2 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jclemens
One thing that seems to have been missing in this discussion is the fact that the out-of-process deletions were held to be more disruptive and harmful than the simple existence of unsourced (vs. contentious/negative unsourced) BLPs. Consensus has quite thoroughly pointed out that the emperor has no clothes: IAR involves improving Wikipedia, yet there is a consensus that widespread, out-of-process deletions of unsourced BLP material do no such thing. There is no CSD for "unreferenced BLP", newly created or preexisting, nor will there likely ever be, based on the RFC's consensus. Absent consensus to add a speedy criterion, and absent agreement that deleting unreferenced BLPs out of process is improving the encyclopedia, there is absolutely no justification for further out of process deletions. While the amnesty may indeed have been the right way to deal with prior rash actions, the RFC consensus is clear: the community does not support out of process deletions as a remedy, the participants know this, and any future actions taken against consensus are incompatible with assuming good faith. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Steve Smith: There's no objection to deletion of unsourced article content, nor has there been. This request for clarification focuses solely on the deletion (specifically, ongoing and threatened future deletion) of entire articles using criteria that do not exist as part of CSD, and that have been specifically rejected by the community. WP:BURDEN does not allow for the speedy deletion of articles, and CSD criteria G10 and A7 allow speedy deletion of BLPs only in certain limited cases. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin
I had hoped that my actions would spur on some real change, even just a sign that Wikipedia had turned a corner and was now ready to act in a responsible manner toward BLP subjects. Deletion of the unsourced BLPs is of course only a small step, but it would have been one that showed that change was taking place.

Rather than force ARBCOM to once again deal with this, I shall withdraw from the project desist from deletions in line with Scott. Kevin (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber
Two things - (1) as a staunch inclusionist, I can now admit I can live with mass deletion of unsourced BLPs as long as there is some register or list, so folks can readily review, source and re-add articles. (2) we need to aggressively ensure that a collaborative environment is enforced. Giving one side a free pass and excusing their incivility is extremely bad for morale. Leaders need to be unifiers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Kudpung
I thoroughly support Casliber's statement  above. This comment is clearly not a threat. If anything, it is a perfectly  justifiable warning about  extremists and what they might do. The BLP RfC was exceptionally confusing, because it tried to  address too many  BLP issues in one discussion, making any  one consensus extrememly  difficult  to identify. The RfC has been closed. The consensus has something in  it  to  satisfy  all  but  the most  intransigent  of extremists of either leaning. Most of us will  probably live with  the decision and act accordingly although it  may  be necessary  to occasionally politely  remind those who go OTT : --Kudpung (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stricter controls over what gets published in BLP are needed - without interpreting  Mr Wales's recent  comments comments on  it too liberally.
 * Mass, arbitrary, or out-of-process deletions of a backlog are not a solution.
 * Speedy deletion should be used with  extreme discretion and only  in  non  contentious cases (spam, hoax, vandalism, etc).
 * Liberal tolerance of what gets published is definitely  counter productive to  the making of an encyclopedia.
 * WP:BEFORE is a policy that is extremely difficult to  enforce, but  there are plenty  of clear cut  examples where many taggers do not even read the first  line of the lead. Some form  of policy action  is required against such  taggers.
 * A sticky PROD will both educate and encourage new users to  provide sources and continue editing.
 * Some positive action has been done, such as the creation  of workshops to address the separate issues.

--Kudpung (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to   Carcharoth
 * Deadlines: Yes, setting deadlines is essential, but  lets us not  forget  that  most  of us have full-times occupations as well.
 * Natural leaders: Nice in principle, but in this entire saga there have already been too may  chiefs and not  enough  Indians.  So who  would lead the leaders? Finally, as only  FIVE people signed up for the task  force, and one has given up  in  exasperation  already,  do  we need a leader for such  a small group?

Statement by DGG
I can not accept the mass deletion of anything that is not proven to be harmful, and I do not think there was every any evidence that the unsourced BLP articles were even potentially harmful in any way more than the rest of Wikipedia. We have serious content problems, but they to a considerable extent are inseparable from the inherent problems of any project like ours that operates without editorial control: the need for truly competent referencing, for understandable writing, for balance in coverage between and among articles, for avoiding promotionalism of people's individual viewpoints, and, more especially, the need to update every article in Wikipedia in a regular and reliable manner. Certainly we must be careful of what we say, and this applies to every article in the encyclopedia. This is artificially generated hysteria, and the only explanation I can come to is that this is the unthinking reaction of people who recognize they have no hope of dealing with the real issues, and who are over-focussed on the mistakes they made in the past that permitted the out of control situation to develop. It's right that our founder and the other long-term Wikipedians who started a project that had inadequate standards should regret they did not insist on sourcing from the beginning--but their reaction is typical of those who try by harshness to make up for the sins of their childhood. What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages new editors: the entire thrust of Wikipedia policy should be devoted to the encouragement of new people,, and the development of them into active and well-qualified editors, to replace the ones who will inevitably be leaving. This is done by helping the articles they write become good content. The proper reaction to an unsourced article is to source it, ideally by teaching the author how to do so, and impressing on them the need to do this in the future. What does not help is to remove it without doing everything feasible to see if it can be sourced, and if it can be considered important enough for the encyclopedia. In particular, the following are wrong: I joined Wikipedia to improve its quality. i recognized it would be a slow process. It does not surprise me that it is not faster, and I thus have no reason to get angry because I had misjudged he difficulty. I am, however, beginning to get exasperated at those who would prevent me and the others from improving it. I am probably a little unrealistic to get angry at those in authority who have no better idea than to abet them, for it should not really have surprised me that such is the nature of authority. I have tried not to use names. Too many people are at fault. It would be wrong to criticize only those who have made the most noise about it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the idea that maintain a list of articles deleted will help--for how can someone who sees the bare names know what they might be qualified to work on. What will help is keeping the articles until they are properly worked on.
 * time limits so short they prevent adequate sourcing. Some of those who argue in favor of mass deletions are insistent also on the quality of the sourcing, and they are right to do so, but they then have proposed extending mass deletion to anything that does not meet their standard. And some of them do so without in the least being prepared to do any actual work on them.
 * the view that WP:BEFORE is unworkable. Making a cursory search in the googles is not difficult, and everybody who works here should be capable of it. the thought that we would want to remove what we have not looked at is about as rational as removing every tenth article from the encyclopedia blindly, on the grounds that something is probably wrong with them. There are easy ways to enforce it--one is to  do delist any deletion request that does not include a search. those who want articles deleted will then search, as they ought to.
 * the attitude that other people should do the work of improving Wikipedia. For someone to say, all I want to do is mark articles to delete, and I don't care whether they ought to be deleted. Let other people figure that out is irresponsible and unconstructive and uncooperative. Those people who care that articles should be sourced, should want to source them. To say that I want article to be sourced, and you others go source them, is insolent, and  against the egalitarian principles of the project. It's the statement of a boss, of a dictator, of a policeman: let the plebeians do the work, and we will judge it. Rather, the only people qualified to judge are those who are prepared themselves to work, and thus prove they understand what is wanted.
 * the view that "liberal tolerance" of what gets published is counterproductive. It's exactly the opposite. We need liberal tolerance of what gets started, in order that we may improve it. It's the only productive course for making as wide-ranging encyclopedia as we are aiming at.
 * the view expressed by one of the arbitrators that because the existence of apparently innocuous unsourced material is challenged, it must be removed. I could remove half the encyclopedia that way. Contentious material means material which is contended to be harmful or incorrect in good faith, on the basis of reason., not blind assertion.
 * the previous decision of the arbitrators to commend those who removed material without looking at it. This will lead to the tyranny of whatever group among the arbitrators is in the majority among arb com. Arb com has essentially said, do whatever you like, as long as we agree with it.   What is called for now is for them to repudiate that view. I hope they pronounced it because they did not realize the consequences.


 * Response to Steve Smith: I join with the others who are of the opinion that your view that all unsourced BLP articles are inherently contentious is unsupported by evidence, by consensus, by logic, by any special meaning of words as used at Wikipedia, by the ordinary meaning of words as used in the English language in general, or by anything except your own personal idiosyncratic view. I see that view as so extreme and so extraordinary that you should recuse yourself from this and any future discussions of the general issue.
 * Response to NYBrad: not only is there widespread but not universal consensus " that mass-deletion without the exercise of discretion about each specific article is not the way to go"  but that there is similar consensus that any speedy deletions outside of established reasons for deletion is not the way to go. I have never seen nor can I easily  imagine an article that would actually  need speedy deletion for the sake of the encyclopedia that would not be not covered by existing rationales.    DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fences and windows
In another voting statement, Steve Smith says that "Rules either mean something or they do not." In this case it seems that rules mean whatever Steve Smith wants them to mean. There is a clear community consensus against speedy or summary deletion of unsourced BLPs, and the wording of the BLP policy (i.e. "contentious") was never intended to give carte blanche to delete all unsourced BLPs. ArbCom members siding with a minority interpretation to force a change in policy is disturbing. As we elect ArbCom to decide on behavioural disputes and enforce policy rather than set policy (something only Jimmy and the WMF can do by fiat) it would seem proper that any ArbCom member who uses their position to force a change in policy should be subject to recall. Fences &amp;  Windows  14:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
With all due respect Steve, ArbCom specifically invoked WP:IAR to overrule WP:BLP as a means to justify that asinine motion. You can't make sacred today what ArbCom trampled yesterday. Resolute 14:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To add: I find the attitude of both Scott MacDonald and Lar utterly disgusting, disruptive and detrimental to the present and future of this project. Honestly, who does Scott think he is to be threatening the community as he does in his comments? I'm sorry, but Scott does not own Wikipedia, no matter that he has deluded himself into believing otherwise. The unsourced BLP backlog is down twenty-five percent, and the discussions on getting the sticky-PROD idea are ongoing. His comments make it patently obvious that he is not interested in working with the community, but rather believes he is above it and has no issues with ignoring consensus and violating any policy he wishes to make his point. The committee may choose not to address the disruption these editors promise to create now, but we all know that we will be right back here when their attitude of "sod the community" once again reasserts itself.

You've been running away throughout, but you can't hide from this mess forever, ArbCom. The only question is how much damage are you willing to permit before you actually take the time to mediate a resolution to this, to deal with your terribly short-sighted motion, to decide if you with to further corrupt the purpose of ArbCom itself and to decide if you are willing to respect the voice of the Wikipedia community. Resolute 02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by The-Pope
This isn't about the RFC, the future of BLPs, how contentious information in BLPs may be, nor hypothetical situations. This is a request for clarification whether or not administrators who have either deleted articles or are threatening to delete articles, without using any of the normal AfD, PROD or CSD processes, specifically if they use "unreferenced BLP" as the primary deletion reason, should still be subject to the amnesty of the previous motion or allowed by a selective interpretation of the WP:BLP policy? Or should they be either strongly reminded, or actually held accountable to the existing provisions of the policy of WP:BLPDEL and the almost 3-to-1 rejection of MZMcBride's proposal of immediate deletion in the WP:BLPRFC? The-Pope (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mr.Z-man
I agree with Balloonman, if ArbCom needs to do anything here, it should be to state that people should abide by the results (few as they may be) from the RFC, as there are still people working on Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop to prevent the sticky PROD process from accomplishing its goal by restricting its use to only unverifiable articles. Mr.Z-man 04:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the motion, I agree with some of the comments by Scott and Coffee. The biggest issue now is a small minority taking advantage of their increased influence in the smaller discussions for the implementation details to try to create compromises on things that aren't really necessary, delaying the implementation, or people trying to force in things that there was no consensus for in the RFC. I refer to to my comment above for what a motion should include. Mr.Z-man 15:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee
I would like to remind everyone that ArbCom is an administrative role, that exists to ensure that the rules (and Foundation standards) are followed and enforced, and to solve any issues that the community at large can't seem to fix (such as BLPs). Any motions they make (including the BLP one) are not an indication of some view point (the very idea of forcing BLPs to be sourced as a "view point", is laughable as is) but are an action to ensure the proper maintenance of this site, and were a result of what the ArbCom thinks is best to resolve the problems they are presented.

To insinuate that the Arbitration Committee has in any way violated their seat is trolling in it's finest, and is an attempt to force the view that enforcing our policies using strict measures, is somehow a minority POV that is dangerous to the site. The only thing dangerous going on, is the way that some members of the community are trying to create a new way to scare other editors, into thinking that deleting articles to maintain the site, is somehow a rouge attempt to overthrow Wikipedia policies.

The Arbitration Committee is doing their jobs, while the only thing some of you commenting here are doing, is attempting to thwart the possibility of stricter enforcement of WP:BLP. Baseless threats like those from Fences & Windows, only show some of the ignorance from that crowd. The community elected these ArbCom members, that means the community thought they could do their damn job. If you don't like their decisions, then that's just too bad, as you and those around you, were not elected to the committee.


 * @Maurreen: A motion such as that is attempting to say that the administrative actions taken are not administrative but are instead a view point... which is quite maddening. There are quite a few issues I have with your idea of a motion, so let me list them all:

"The community has well-established procedures for deletion."


 * Yes, but admins aren't being allowed to use said procedures simply because some people favor the possibility of notability over verifiability.

"Out-of-process deletions have led to divisiveness in the community."


 * There are quite a few problems with this statement. First, "out-of-process" has many different meanings and interpretations, and different people have assessed that different ways. Secondly, "Out-of-process" suggests that the BLP policy, or the Foundation's stance on this issue is in some way contrary to removing unsourced and potentially contentious information from this encyclopedia. Third, that "divisiveness" was only caused because the idea of verifiability > possible-notability made several people worry what the future of article acceptance would be.

"In Phase I of the RFC suggested by ArbCom to address unsourced biographies of living people, a proposal to delete on sight "any biography that is poorly referenced or completely unreferenced" was rejected by the community, 157 to 54."


 * Correct, most people don't want mass deletions of articles (the mass deletions were a way to get people's attention). However the more important thing that came out of that RFC was the consensus for a sticky PROD, and any motion or other finding of consensus that does not mention that most vital point outright, isn't placing weight in the right places.

"In Phase II of the same RFC, Scott Mac (Doc) suggested a compromise. - The suggested compromise led to a formal proposal by Balloonman."


 * Motions don't typically state a timetable to show what has been decided, whereas just mentioning Balloonman's proposal would have been just fine. However, the only thing that matters is the closure of that RFC... individual proposals carry no weight in ArbCom motions.

"The community has significantly reduced the number of unsourced BLPs."


 * Another disputable claim; we neither can confirm that the 9,000 articles that were removed from the unsourced log, were actually sourced nor if that number has declined from deletions. The other important aspect of this is the brewing thunderstorm of the possibly tens of thousands of articles, that are neither tagged as BLPs or tagged as unsourced, or even more important: articles that aren't sourced properly.

"The community is developing a system to delete new unsourced BLPs."


 * This may be the only note that is actually important to an "in light of the following considerations" section, and/or uncontroversial.

"The community is progressing in addressing the issue of unsourced BLPs."


 * Again, this is open to individual interpretation, and in my opinion isn't entirely accurate. The community has once again met at the stalemate that we've run into a billion times before while trying to enforce the standards on BLPs, and that stalemate has prevented any real "addressing" of the BLP issue, and has instead just created loads of circular discussion that leads to nowhere.

"The community should start a review of that progress in June."


 * What progress? Start another review? One is highly inaccurate, the other is highly ridiculous. As I mentioned above, the amount of progress on this can be counted in the amount of words of discussion that we've had, no more no less; and having another discussion to see if the previous two discussions did anything, is just a bucket of nails dumped on the road to fixing the BLP issue.

"The community should strive to meet the goals outlined by Scott Mac (Doc) and Balloonman."


 * I'm sorry, but what motion has ever dictated something like this? If I recall correctly, the previous motion regarding BLPs merely stated that the enforcement of our polices should not be thwarted by over-process. To require people to do something not implemented whatsoever in any policy, is ridiculous.

"Whatever justification that might have existed earlier for out-of-process deletion based solely on lack of sourcing, that justification does not currently exist."


 * Does someone care to tell me exactly how a justification for an issue, that has only been slightly dented by article work, somehow disappears because a motion says so? It doesn't. The justification was that nothing was happening to bring those articles to meet the standard. That justification doesn't stop becoming a justification until the problem with every single article is fixed.


 * In summary: This motion is not necessary, and is just an attempt to make the Arbitration Committee backtrack on their previous motion. It is not the ArbCom's job to rule on community consensus when there is no need for them to do so. The only thing the community has accomplished, is a discussion on how to add more adhesive to patch an already corrosive band-aid; and this motion does nothing more than add fuel to the fire of conflict between the two sides in this debate. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 09:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ''@Scott: I couldn't agree more. The main problem with the BLP issue right now is the filibustering going on to prevent the sticky prod process from being a simple easy PROD tag that can't be removed unless the article is sourced. And that filibustering isn't likely to ever be handled by a motion that does nothing but further some editors' ability to filibuster. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 09:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Birgitte SB
I think asking Arbcom to clarify this motion is very unlikely way to resolve anything. The motion was a messy to begin with and I find it very unlikely to be clarified because doing so would require bringing forward issues that it seems to me Arbcom has taken pains to avoid addressing head-on. The best way that I can see to bring clarity to the issue of whether such deletions are appropriate or not is as follows: Figure out which admin is currently using the most extreme interpretation of speedy deletion. Compile a list of several recent, clear-cut examples of their deletion with an outlier interpretation of policy. Ask them to act more conservatively on their talkpage. If they defend their interpretation as correct and appropriate, have others who also find it inappropriate try and politely convince them to compromise. Then wait and see if they continue to actually delete in a similar manner. If they do continue start a user RFC, determine whether consensus finds their interpretation of BLP and speedy deletion appropriate or not. This is a much narrower question than the BLP RFC and clear consensus should be achievable. Everyone should realize however that this is true question, consensus could go either way. And if consensus finds it appropriate, this will not be wrong. And if consensus finds it inappropriate, this will not be wrong. What it will be is resolved. And resolution in either direction is good. It will mean that we all have accurate expectations of what will happen, and we can all make plans to mitigate the surrounding issues with greater confidence and less stress. -- Birgitte SB  18:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Side note: I recommend people involved in this issue read the following [http://suburbdad.blogspot.com/2009/04/getting-it-right.html If I could give a single piece of advice to the new administrators out there, it would be to pay less attention to what you decide, and more to who gets to decide. And remember that speed kills.] [http://suburbdad.blogspot.com/2007/04/chronicle-nails-one.html If a process is actually a process, then any reasonable person has to be open to the possibility that he could have input, and still lose. That’s not impossible. . . Losing isn’t proof that your input was disregarded. It may well have been taken seriously. It just didn’t win.] And I highly recommend Arbcom members study this one Learning Not to Answer.-- Birgitte  SB  18:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ohms law
Most of what needs to be said here is being said already, so I'm not going to add a huge statement here. All I'd really like to say is that the committee is obviously largely unaware of what brought this here, based on the comments about not being able to "rule preemptively". There would be nothing preemptive about a ruling on the threats made my some, on behalf of the committee itself (through it's earlier ruling), in public and to people who have been largely uninvolved in most of this mess (which, incidentally, was created by same said people...). — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:DGG's last comment, above. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 07:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by GRuban
I worry about SteveSmith's second comment below. He seems to be saying that since the people who want to delete unsourced BLP articles say that all unsourced BLP material should be deleted, then all unsourced BLP material is automatically contentious. That makes the "contentious" qualifier in WP:BLP meaningless. I'm sure that wasn't the intent when it was added to the policy. --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Septentrionalis
Maureen is asking ArbCom for four Findings of Fact of the sort ArbCom routinely makes: in this case, that four things are consensus. I believe they are true and consensus:
 * We are making progress, both in decreasing the number of unreferenced BLPs and in coming up with measures to deal with any future problem.
 * There is agreement to review this progress "in three months" which would mean late May or June
 * Balloonman's and Scotty's proposals are the basis of the present discussions. There is some dispute over one hypothetical point (whether to proceed with sticky prod if the review in June finds the problem has been dealt with without one), but I don't think ArbCom is being asked to decide that.
 * The fourth point deals only with out-of-process actions by admins; I should hope that ArbCom would have no problem dealing with those. The discussants most determined to deal with unreferenced BLPs have also written that such actions should be severely dealt with (Scotty has said so repeatedly, but there are others.)

I regret Steve Smith's comments below. That is not policy; BLP reads, as it long has, Remove any contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies on self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Members of ArbCom have a duty to distinguish their positions as Arbitrators from their advocacy as members of the community. Risker did this in closing the first phase of the RfC on this subject, and I expect to see Risker recuse on this question. Other Arbitrators should do the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jubileeclipman
My very first thought is that the "the Badlydrawnjeff case" in the present version of Arbitration Committee/Motion regarding biographies of living people deletions needs to be linked to the actual "case". (Presumeably Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff? It took me an age to figure out what was being referenced.)

Second. Maurreen's proposal seems sensible as it is a very useful summary of events, proposals/counter-proposals and followups.

Third. Regarding the "Sticky PROD"/"BLP-PROD", I don't believe for one second that anyone is "filibustering" or "insisting on delay". There are obviously several very sensitive issues to deal with: libel, newbie-biting, policy procedures, technical issues, etc. These are being debated as we speak on both WT:STICKY and WT:STICKY POLICY.

Fourth. It might be useful to remind editors of the BLP project. They are doing fantastic work at the other end of the spectrum while also catching several new articles in the process.

Hope my thoughts help. --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by JoshuaZ
With all due respect to Steven Smith, there's nothing in policy that says that. The overwhelming community consensus in the last RfC was against speedy deletions in this context. There's nothing in the wording of BLP that supports your argument. You seem to be engaging in some sort of meta-reasoning under which someone claiming something is contentious makes it contentious. Under that logic, everything in the universe is potentially contentious if a user who happens to say so. That's clearly wrong. Your argument is not supported by the community, by the wording of policy, or by logic. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway
The best clarification that can be given here is to remind the community that, until a formal process is agreed, the overriding interests represented in the BLP still justify the summary deletion of unsourced biographical articles. To get this discussion to an end, feet may have to be held to the fire. Those still harboring hopes that Wikipedia may be returned, if enough time elapses without agreement, to the feckless, harmful ways of old, should be reminded that this isn't going to happen. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion by Durova
This request has been open nearly three weeks and has been quiet for days. In light of what's happened at RFAR during the last two(ish) months, perhaps a community-based solution would be more effective if actual problems arise in future. The community could resolve further disruption (not threatened, but actual) via either conduct RfC or topic banning disruptive individuals from BLPs. Durova 412 21:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I almost forgot that I was recused on this motion. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We cannot really rule on the propriety of something that hasn't happened yet, I think. Beyond that, I would urge everyone involved to work together in pursuit of a generally acceptable path forward, and to avoid comments that might unnecessarily inflame matters. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to pre-emptively decide this.. but I stand by what I said previously. A) We need to find a way to deal with the BLP problem going forward. Applying band-aids are not a solution (the problem's too big for that), but B) I'd look dimly personally on attempts to force the issue on either side. SirFozzie (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion of unsourced (not unsourceable) contentious material in BLPs is policy. It is desireable for the community to develop a process by which this policy can be fulfilled, but the absence of consensus on such a process does not mean that the unsourced stuff gets to stay; WP:IAR should never override WP:BLP. Steve Smith (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Balloonman, Calliopejen: I am not sure how it is possible to have followed the recent discussions on this subject, in the RFCs and elsewhere, and conclude that this material is anything but contentious. With respect to Calliopejen's question about IAR and BLP, I cannot see the suggestion that this contentious unsourced material should be allowed to remain as anything but an invocation of IAR. Steve Smith (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * While we are not constrained against advisory opinions, I think it would be unwise of us to try to determine the propriety or not of an hypothetical without the actual context surrounding it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kirill. It will be difficult to get something that has wide-ranging agreement, but I think progress is being made. What would help, I think, is some set deadlines here, and some people being appointed to oversee the progress of the discussions (it is all too easy for discussions to peter out or get bogged down by volume). Would there be any volunteers to oversee the discussions or are there people already unofficially doing this? In passing, I would like to endorse what DGG and Birgitte say above, the only thing I disagree with is that a list of anything that gets deleted is essential. Trying to work out from deletion logs what was deleted out-of-process is a nightmare. Even if out-of-process deletions do occur, one thing I would be looking for is whether those doing deletions kept a list, or just deleted and didn't bother to organise the way they were doing this, or justify themselves when asked. i.e. are they being disruptive or are they allowing their actions to be tracked and assessed (a standard log entry would probably be sufficient)? BUT, the preceding would only apply if all other options had been exhausted. As others have said, the removal of contentious material applies to article text, not to entire articles. There is no visible consensus to extend such removal to entire articles (though stubbing BLPs appears to be less controversial than it was). We are nowhere near the stage yet where those pushing for this should feel able to engage in out-of-process deletions, and people should still be actively trying to shape consensus on these matters and continue to reduce backlogs. If there are deadlines in place regarding achieving consensus in the discussions, and there are people actively working towards those deadlines, could that be explicitly stated. If not, that is a priority, and such deadlines are something I think ArbCom could set to help the process along, along with appointing people to oversee the discussions (though I would prefer that such 'leaders' emerge naturally and are accepted by those engaging in the discussions). Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maurreen, thanks for the proposed motion. I have pointed it out to my colleagues. Do you think you could ask those involved in these discussions to comment on whether they think a motion such as you have proposed is needed, especially those you have mentioned in it? As I said elsewhere, proposing ArbCom motions to help move such discussions forward is very slow. The question is whether it is slower than community discussions to the same end. If participation in the discussions is declining, that is usually a sign that the discussions should be moved to the next stage or even implemented (if things are clear). To get more participation, consider publicising the discussions in the appropriate venues. The key things seem to be to ensure continued reduction of the backlog (if activity tails off there, that would need to be addressed), and to ensure that the work on the backlog isn't undone by the addition of new unsourced BLPs. As an aside, I came across a BLP today that had not been tagged in any way whatsoever, so that area still needs attention. Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noting Scott MacDonald's most recent comment above, to the effect that because of the way ArbCom pages are structured and the length of time this request has been open, the back-and-forth has become very difficult to follow. In any event, I am not convinced that action by this Committee is needed at this time. I believe there is a widespread, though not universal, consensus at this time that progress toward better sourcing and quality control is essential but that mass-deletion without the exercise of discretion about each specific article is not the way to go, certainly not at this time, and hopefully progress will continue to be made so it will not be necessary at any time. Continued progress on all BLP related issues (lack of sourcing is but one of these, and probably not the most important one) is essential. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: ban of User:Offliner (April 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Colchicum (talk) at 10:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (impossible to notify, banned user, talk page protected)
 * , wondered a similar thing in February

Statement by Colchicum
Back in January Offliner was all of a sudden banned indefinitely by the ArbCom without any explanation. However, he has since appealed his ban and will be a member of the community again in less than a year. Especilly under such circumstances I think it is absolutely vital for the community to know the reasons behind his ban. I am not going to ask anybody to go into detail and present evidence, particularly if it concerns privacy violations, but what are the specific charges? The policies he violated should not be kept secret in themselves. As long as he is supposed to return, the community should have a very clear idea of his inclinations. Colchicum (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re various. I don't care whether Offliner wants public clarification or anything else. I am not a big fan of him at all, to put it mildly, and I readily believe that he might have eaten children for breakfast. I want clarification on who I and others are going to stumble across in a year. What were the charges? Sockpuppetry, outing? More akin to the latter, as far as I can infer from some of the comments here. But this fact is not personal information by itself. Is it that difficult to announce properly? Colchicum (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is exactly what I have requested. Thanks. Colchicum (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia
I am fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the ban of User:Offliner, and I will say that it was based purely on tangental evidence, and this has been noted as such in several emails from Arbs to Offliner (which I am in possession of). Basically, the Committee, driven by one or two particular Arbitrators (it seems), have made Offliner the fallguy for information relating to a particular recent Arbcase appearing on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and have accussed him of off-wiki harrassment. User:Kirill Lokshin and User:Vassyana have made the accusation against Offliner directly. There is zero evidence of such, and the appeal from Offliner to WP:BASC (which I am also in possession of) shoots holes thru the Committee's accusations against him, and make the suggestion that the appeal be made public, so that the community can judge for itself whether the ban has any merits -- I have permission from Offliner to publicly post his appeal with information refuting the Committee's accusations. The Committee needs to answer the questions raised by Offliner in his appeal, and make the full reasoning public. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have forwarded a copy of Offliner's appeal to WP:BASC to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for his perusal (with permission of Offliner). It should be publicly noted that the Committee claimed that it had technical evidence that Offliner was responsible for certain things. Yet, when Offliner has asked what this evidence was, the committee sidestepped the issue, and refused to answer. What the committee basically did was decide to hold a secret trial in which Offliner's guilt was obviously predetermined, and they refused to listen to any sort of logical reasoning - sorry committee, but show trials such as this are sooo-1930s Soviet Union, and you guys are also liable to be held to account for your actions. I suggest that the Committee come clean with the flimsy reasons for the ban, and also admit that they may have just gotten it wrong on this occasion, and rehabilitate Offliner forthwith. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_10 went unanswered in January; no such silence from the Committee in April should be tolerated. If this is indeed an Arbcom member, then you should be ashamed; isn't it obvious that Offliner wants a public clarification? Why else would Offliner give me permission to forward his appeal email to an admin? In fact, if you look thru your mailing list archives, you will see numerous emails from Offliner asking for clarification, only for them to be ignored, and for him to receive a single email from Lokshin repeating unfounded allegations and stating that the Committee isn't interested in hearing his side (and therefore, logical information). It is absolutely astounding that an Arb (if it is one) is suggesting that Offliner follow due process, but yet they have not done so themselves. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 18:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Offliner has informed me that he has now asked for public clarification by way of sending an email to the Arbcom. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 22:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Responses/questions to arbiters
Shelly, I am in receipt of ALL emails; I have asked Offliner to send anything to me which may help me to understand what the hell this committee is doing. Certain things have been "charged", and Offliner has admitted those things without any pressure; but then other things have been claimed is part of Offliner's responsibility, and if any of you took at least 2 minutes to read his appeal, you will see that the collateral damage you are all charging is bollocks; in the sense that Offliner should not be held to account. I will now be preparing a summary of the actual ban, and the actual appeal that Offliner lodged; of course being very careful at the same time not to breach anyone's privacy. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 01:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Shelly, I am being very careful not to disclose anything that may be used to identify editors, and that includes arbiters as well. Everything I have posted is already common knowledge amongst many editors. And some of what I will be posting in debunking Arbcom's decision is easy for someone to find; if they really wanted to investigate it...of course, we wouldn't be here if Arbcom did this investigation in the first place, and before they continue to push the line that 2 + 2 = 5. Sorry, 2 + 2 ≠ 5, and I believe that Offliner has a right to publicly put his case, because Arbcom sure as hell don't want to do anything about it. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Request by Offliner to Arbcom for public clarification
In order to dispute what the Arbiters are claiming in relation to Offliner not asking for a public clarification, I hereby offer this:

On 11 April 2010 at 10:01pm, Offliner sent an email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org which states:

Re:<BR><BR>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification&action=historysubmit&diff=355372853&oldid=355370019<BR><BR>

"...isn't it obvious that Offliner wants a public clarification?"<BR><BR>

Yes, it is, and I do want one. I want:<BR> 1) all the questions answered that I have asked you in my appeal and other emails<BR> 2) evidence to back up your baseless accusations (points C1-C6 in my appeal)<BR> 3) a coherent block rationale, which does not include any of the false assumptions and false accusations which I have disproven in my appeal<BR><BR>

In case you are unable to provide both 2) and 3), I'm asking you to withdraw the unjustified block and submit a public apology.

In response to this email, he has already received a response or two, but none that really clarify 1) the reason for the indef block, and 2) the rationale behind the block supported by evidence. I don't know about anyone else, but my mother tongue is English, and his desire for there to be some transparency to this is pretty bloody clear. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Background
Shelley et al, I am in possession of all correspondence to and from Offliner, and am in possession of it so that I was able to see for myself what was being said, and the reasons that were being offered. Arbitrators are able to hereby tell me if I incorrect in my assessment of this?

During the WP:EEML case, User:Radeksz edited Schieder commission, and instead of posting the materials he meant to post on behalf of a banned user, he posted some of the contents of his email inbox; which proved that the list was still active during the case, and still participating in the behaviour that they stood accused of. The fact this had happened led another editor to announce this at EEML and to introduce evidence as per. This led to myself, Offliner, and possibly a heap of others - the fact that there are still 95 watchers to the evidence page is evidence of that - from being alerted to the diff. I posted this to Giacomo's talk page. The link that was removed was a freezepage.com snapshot of the diff that Offliner took for use in evidence, and which he shared with me. A matter of hours later I removed the link from Giano's talk page, and it was later oversighted. On 5 December, I was blocked for a week for inserting the link; although it was likely it would be oversighted, I actually inserted the link before the oversight was done. OK, I shouldn't have inserted the link in the first place, and the 1 week block was justified. The diff in question (by Radeksz) was oversighted a good 90 minutes after it appeared on WP.

All the while, and basically from the beginning of the case, there was information being posted to another website concerning the case. We can not ignore that it exists; you, me, we all know it. Back in November, User:Vecrumba was blocked for 72 hours after WP:OUTING a user from that website, who came across to WP, ostensibly, for the lulz. The exchange was later oversighted, mind you. The information which Radeksz posted into mainspace, and which was alerted to in the evidence pages of the case, appeared on that same website in its entireity.

Ban and evidence

 * Preparing response to lies and half-truths from Arbcom's statement***

Statement by Biophys
It's none of our business when people are privately talking, like Russavia and Offliner or CAMERA people. However, any real life harassment in the open internet is a serious problem and must be punished by block if wikipedia-related.

I now must retire to avoid the ungoing outing and harassment (see statement by Vlad at the workshop talk page) and would not be able to represent myself any longer. But I might return back when it is safe. Please do not reveal any personal information. Best wishes. Biophys (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I believe it's in everyone's best interests&mdash;possibly including Offliner's&mdash;to limit the spread of potentially private information. If Offliner wants a public clarification, he can ask for it via email, and we'll deal with the matter then. Cool Hand Luke 19:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Russavia, I should not be ashamed. BASC did in fact answer Offliner's formal appeal by reducing the ban length from indefinite to 12 months. This happened in February. We have not received anything from Offliner recently, although perhaps it's caught in moderation. If we get something from Offliner, we will discuss it with Offliner and other involved parties. Cool Hand Luke 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: It has been correctly pointed out to me, that changing an indefinite block to 12 months is not always a reduction. In many cases, "indefinite" may be a short time&mdash;as when an editor is required to respond to a particular request. In this case, I believe fixing the end date was to Offliner's benefit, so felt it could be described as a "reduction," but I hope that this perhaps poorly-chosen word doesn't distract from my main point. Namely, we did respond to Offliner and will continue to respond to him now. He knows why he was blocked and has known for some time. Cool Hand Luke 14:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Offliner is aware of the reasons, and can seek clarification himself if he feels it required.  No other editor has standing to request (let alone demand) that information and we do not divulge private information to third parties, period.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Offliner has been given, repeatedly and in detail, the explanation of why he has been banned. This was done at the time of the ban, repeated during his BASC appeal, and has been repeated again as recently as a few hours ago.  That he refuses to accept the explanation does not make it wink out of existence.  It is worth noting that Offliner still has not agreed (or even requested) to have our explanation posted publicly, he is simply demanding that we reverse our decision.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Offliner has given his assent to the posting of a brief statement, though I should note that he disagrees with its substance. Nevertheless, that statement explains the incident leading to the committee banning him.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Luke and Coren. I will note that do not agree with several aspects of Russavia's characterization of things, but will not elaborate absent a request from Offliner that I do so. Steve Smith (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Russavia, can I just say that Offliner gave you a very one-sided version of events that doesn't appear to approach reality at any point? Still waiting on clarification from Offliner about what he wants here. Shell  babelfish 13:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Russavia, can I ask if you are in possession of the two emails sent to Offliner since the email you posted? As to your background you are, in fact, missing quite a number of details about the situation with Offliner.  Did you not include those on purpose or do you not have all the details? Shell   babelfish 16:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So it seems that the both of you still have difficulty with the concept of privacy. In that case perhaps you should remember that a response you don't like != no response. Shell   babelfish 01:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a side note, if you guys are going to insist on using a diminutive to refer to me, could you at least spell it correctly? It's S - h - e - l - l - e - y. Shell   babelfish 01:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Offliner's statements do not match up with what happened in this case. We have a proposed statement on this issue.. the ball's in Offliner's court if he allows it to be posted or not. SirFozzie (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: user:sulmues (May 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Sulmues  talk   at 20:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Statement by sulmues
I am topic banned from Kosovo per this. I am respecting my topic ban but I was involved in edits in Burrel today (4/15/2010) (see ), removing a primary source that involved the city and also getting into a discussion in the talk page. My edits were in good faith because Burrel is under the Albania Task Force, not under Kosovo, but since the interpretation of the topic ban can be enlarged, I am going to stop from making any edits that even remotely concern Kosovo.

Is there anything else I should do? Also, since my ban will expire on 5/27/2010 and I have always been compliant with the ban, could the ban be possibly lifted? Please clarify. Thank you! -- Sulmues talk   20:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Results by Jehochman
I agree to take over Moreschi's role here.

I have reviewed sulmues' block log and the arbitration enforcement log. Since the six month topic ban was applied, sulmues subsequently received a civility restriction, a 96 hour block, a 21 day block, and finally a one week block on January 26, 2010. The good behavior has lasted less than three months at this point. I think there is an excessive risk of further blocks if the topic ban is lifted now.

Sulmues, thank you for the improvements you appear to have made in recent months. You're on the right track. Your blocks occurred during the period August 2009 to January 2010. Habits, both good and bad, are formed by practice. I'd like to see you maintain a clear block log for longer than five months before relaxing your restrictions. Jehochman Talk 09:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Sulmues has been notified per Risker's request -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I see the topic ban was imposed by User:Moreschi who has not edited since 8 February 2010 (I presume you did try asking Moreschi first?). Suggest that going to WP:AE and finding another admin to take over the topic ban and answer your questions is the more "correct" route here. Only if that fails, would you need to take it to us (ArbCom). As a general principle, I'm not opposed to the lifting of topic bans (or any sanctions) early for 'good behaviour', but there need to be clear statements by other editors saying that they have not seen any problems and that your conduct has been productive, or someone needs to be willing to briefly check your contributions and block log before such a lifting of the topic ban is considered. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carcharoth. In general I dislike giving good-faith requests the runaround by shunting them to another subsection of arbitration, but the administrators who work on enforcement would probably be able to advise whether there have been problems here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Jehochman has some good advice here. You're back on the right path - give it some time before immersing yourself in a difficult environment again. Shell   babelfish 06:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with those above. SirFozzie (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agree with those above. I believe that you are on the right track here, and as Jehochman has taken over Moreschi's role, you have the opportunity for guidance. Unless Sulmues has further questions, this section can be archived in 48 hours. Would a clerk please let Sulmues know of this?  Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)