Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

Uninvolved statements
The following statements were offered by "uninvolved editors" when this case was in consideration at requests for arbitration. For transparency purposes, they are located below; additionally, the originals can be viewed here. Please do not make any adjustments to these statements.

Thank you, Anthøny 16:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

{| style="border: 2px solid grey; background: #f5f5f5; margin: 2px;"
 * style="text-align: center;" | Please do not edit this text, regardless of whether the statement is your own or not. Further discussion is welcome on other mediums.

Statement by Norton
The quote function is a part of the all the citation templates. Quoting the actual text in the article aids the researcher and the fact checker, thats why the snippet view of Google is so popular, you can see the text in situ in the sentence that was used. If they appear to clutter the article in larger articles, we can always write a few lines of code that can suppress them from displaying, but still allow them to be seen in editing. We could also have the reader choose in preferences if they want them displayed or not. It allows many useful things for both the casual reader and for the serious researcher:
 * 1) Allows for reconnection of broken links to a newspaper article. For example: if the title is: "Scientist killed", and the quote is "Today, John Bacon, a New Jersey scientist was killed when his car overturned". A Google search for the title may not find the article, its too general. Using the text string from the quote will find it. Broken links that can't be reconnected are usually deleted. Even if an external link for the citation is broken, and no other version of the newspaper article appears online, a fully-quoted reference can stand on its own.
 * 2) It provides the actual information for fact checking the citation. It makes it easy to double check references that are already in place. You no longer have to have the attitude "trust me" it is in the book, or it is in the article. The actual in situ quote supporting the citation is displayed with the actual wording by the original author. The Wikipedia trend should be to make it easy to fact check an article, not harder. You shouldn't have to get a book from the library or purchase an article to find out the exact wording used by an author to see if it actually supports the text in the Wikipedia article.
 * 3) It is not a copyright violation, the source is attributed, and the quote is usually a single sentence, well within the confines of "fair use". In the Tom Wolfe example, which has been deleted multiple times, the article is 4,254 words and my quote uses 43 of them, or 1%. Whole paragraphs can be used in citations with the blockquote parameter in the body of the article without being considered an abuse of fair use. The titles of the articles, which in newspapers can be longer than the quote, are not considered a violation of fair use.
 * 4) Redspruce himself quotes text in some of his notes and references. See below where he writes "On the other hand, author Tom Wicker refers to Schine as 'Cohn's boyfriend'". It takes up a little less space, because he only encloses two words from the text in the quote, but the reader, including me, is still left to wonder what preceded 'Cohn's boyfriend'. "[He had wild animal sex all day and night as] Cohn's boyfriend" is very different from "[He was derided by his enemies as] Cohn's boyfriend". Which is it, if any? I looked up the ones I quoted because I wanted to see the exact wording. Others shouldn't have to repeat the effort to find out the exact, non-truncated, single-sentence quote.
 * 5) It doesn't add to clutter, any more than inline citations do already. No one forces a reader to scroll down to the reference section in an article, any more than one is forced to read the endnotes in a book. In scholarly books they can be between 25-50% of a book's pages. Just a few years ago no citations were required in Wikipedia articles.

Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual.
 * Here is a good example of using quotes in citations and how they clear up what is in the article, and how it aids the researcher:

Well, what exactly do people have to say about whether Schine was gay or not, how strongly did they word it, and what words did they use. For instance the Tom Wolfe article up to a month ago required a paid subscription to the New York Times, but now is a free link, but you still can't just do a control-f and search for "gay" or "homosexual" because Wolfe doesn't use any of those words. You have to read the whole article to find the single sentence where Wolfe says: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." For a book you would have to get the book at a library, to look up the text. If the quote parameter is used and the exact wording for the sentence is known, it can be searched in Google Book.

6) Editors are skeptical of new information added to articles, so the best effort should be made to persuade them that the information is legitimate, and make that vetting process as easy as possible. For example:
 * Here a skeptical editor reverts corrections in an article to dates of birth and death. If the references were clearer, it would be easier for the skeptical editor to see which information was correct. The dates that were deleted by the skeptic were the correct dates.
 * Here again the skeptical editor reverts changes in an article to a correct school attended by the subject (the subject switched schools, so attended both) and labels it vandalism. More easy to read references, with the quoted text may persuade the editor that the information is indeed correct and not vandalism.
 * Here a skeptical editor removes the subject years of birth and death, maiden name, and place of death. Again, to persuade the skeptical editor, easy to vet, fully quoted citations should be used to persuade them that the information is real and not vandalism. A good editor should always be skeptical, and that why the best references are complete, and easy to verify.
 * Here the skeptical editor removed information on the subject's job, husband's name, and where they were buried. Again, if the references were clearer, and the quote function used to it's fullest, perhaps the skeptical editor would be persuaded that the information comes from a reliable source.
 * Here a skeptical editor removes the names of the subject's children and other information involving their role in a Senate subcommittee. If the original editor had supplied better information, I am sure the deleter would have been less skeptical of the information and it would have remained. The quote function makes for a complete reference, and takes less effort to verify the facts. I only blame myself for the deletions for not providing more complete information, all new information should be treated with skepticism, and I applaud skeptical editors.
 * Here a skeptical editor removes the names of two people involved in the Army-McCarthy Hearings that were mentioned in their obituaries in the New York Times. Again the burden is one me, the person adding the information, to persuade the skeptic that the infomation is factual and verifiable. Although I thought they were well referenced, I should have been even more clear in the sources and quotes so that the information could stay in the article. I should never overburden the fact checker, it should be as easy as possible to confirm with clickable links, and quoted information. As the skeptical fact checker points out, the burden is on the person adding the fact to the article, to show that is comes from a reliable source.


 * As RAN knows, I am the "skeptical editor" in all of the above cases. As RAN knows, in two of these I RVed technical changes made without comment by an anon editor. As RAN knows, in the other cases I was reverting for reasons that had nothing to do with skepticism. As RAN knows, in no case did "clarity of references" have anything to do with anything. RAN is playing games with the Arbitration Committee here. RedSpruce (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyeditor, including myself, is reverting correct information and restoring back to an error, and the reason is not "clarity of references", then the remaining choices for deleting are: lack of research, or the editor is displaying article ownership. Anon is not equal to incorrect, there is no need for kneejerk deletions of material you didn't add to an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Past efforts at mediation
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
 * ANI against RS
 * RS ANI against Norton
 * Second ANI against RS
 * Third attempt at RS Norton mediation
 * Note: The first of these predates any interaction between myself and RAN. RedSpruce (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:KrakatoaKatie
I have had the same problem with Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). In October 2007, I was asked, on my talk page, by User:Wildhartlivie to give an opinion about the use of long quotes in the cited references of Dan Antonioli, a stub article created by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). This is the last version of the article prior to Wildhartlivie's addition of the copyvio template. I investigated, scoured the WP:RS and WP:CP talk archives for previous discussions, and spent an entire afternoon on it. In the end, I concluded that it is/was a copyright violation of four different websites, including one site with a strongly worded copyright statement. Since there were no clean revisions (and the paragraphs/quotes in the cited references were longer than the article itself), I made a case for deletion under WP:CSD as a blatant copyright violation. I had no objections to recreation of a new article in original prose, and I probably should have made that clear.

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Alansohn disagreed, as did Woohookitty. I was not very experienced or assertive as an admin, and I was intimidated, quite frankly, by the in-your-face, long-winded approach I faced on that talk page. When Woohookitty voiced her opinion, I dropped the issue, and the article remained as it was. The quotes in the references have been shortened somewhat in the current version of the article.

I think Alansohn's allegations about RedSpruce are intended to draw attention away from the core of this request, which is the use of long quoted statements or even paragraphs in cited references and the actions of two editors who almost always act as one. They use a tag team approach to buttress each other's arguments, introduce irrelevant subjects or fallacies into discussions, and bully other editors. I feel there are user conduct and encyclopedia content issues here that ArbCom should investigate. Thanks. Krakatoa Katie  21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Wildhartlivie
I am commenting mostly to reinforce that in my view, this is not an issue of attempts at ownership of an article, or articles. The practice under discussion here is pervasive with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and has been at issue in the past. The question of the appropriateness of use of the quote function and how this user has been utilizing it has been at issue well beyond the ones under discussion. As noted by KrakatoaKatie above regarding the Dan Antonioli article, large blocks of quotes were used in the absence of them being incorporated into articles. At no time during the Antonioli discussion was any attempt made by the author to incorporate and expand the article with the use of those sources. This particular article had been under question for deletion and my involvement came from supporting the retention of the article, with the caveat that it needed a LOT of work, and in trying to urge its expansion, was met with the lack of response and the uptake of the argument by Alansohn, the same circumstances indicated by RedSpruce above. One argument at the time from User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) was that it was preserving the quote in situ, to which I counter argued that inserting a block of text via copy and paste was not in situ preservation at all, and there were archive options available to be used when sources were in danger of being lost online. What I have seen is often copy and pasting of the opening paragraphs from, for example, New York Times archives. That particular method links us to a page at the Times website that purchase is required to access the rest of the article, which may or may not contain the material actually being cited. I took it to WP:Citing sources, the entire discussion of which can be seen here. The overall consensus at that time was that this practice violated the intent of the use of the quote function, as was summarized on that page by User:John Broughton. That discussion was obviously ignored and rejected, which brings it to issue yet again, with the same issues. I truly believe a ruling by ArbCom is necessary in this case since efforts at resolution over a variety of articles with a variety of editors has been the case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Here is the article in question: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dan Antonioli
 * Articles for deletion/Dan Antonioli

Comment by User:John Broughton
As noted, this issue was discussed in October 2007 at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 19. My final comment in that section was: ''at this point Wildhartlivie, IvoShandor, Arnoutf, qp10qp, SallyScot, AndToToToo, CBM, Shirahadasha, and I have expressed opposition to the practice of putting chunks of text into footnotes, a practice that is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and that is in no way the norm at Wikipedia. I think that's about as close to consensus as most discussions get, and I suggest that the practice stop.'' Wildhartlivie added one more comment to that section; then nothing happened until it was  achived in January 2008. Given that the opposed practice has continued, this seems to me a clear case of defiance of consensus. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it telling that Mr. Norton's statement, at the moment, is to argue the merits of his approach to footnotes. I have seen these arguments before, and continue to find them unconvincing; he both overstates the advantages and fails to consider the disadvantages, which I consider more significant. But this arbitration case, of course, is not the place to debate the merits of such a change - the point is that Mr. Norton is unwilling to abide by the rules, which say that if one is unable to convince (the majority) of other editors of the merits of one's position, then it is unacceptable to continue on as if a negative consensus did not exist.  Mr. Norton's editing is disruptive; his pattern of ignoring the opinions of other editors should be considered unacceptable. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * style="text-align: center;" | Please do not edit this text, regardless of whether the statement is your own or not. Further discussion is welcome on other mediums.
 * }
 * }

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

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday
This page is presumably meant to stand for all time. As it is effectively new policy, I would request that it be declared a howto, guideline, or policy, and have the arbcom's explicit approval of it being treated like any other policy, e.g. it may be edited, adapted, or, (in extreme cases), voted down by the community?

This is based on two bits of logic: Editing and improving is the Wiki way; having a policy page noone could edit, and having this page "fixed" for all time with whatever the Arbcom came up with in a few days' discussion goes against this. Secondly, it's basic five pillars logic: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules, besides the five general principles presented here."

I also feel this change would remove most of the controversy surrounding this case.

Thank you, Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * MBisanz: User:RegenerateThis, one of the Arbcom clerks, claims that any changes to WP:BLPSE requires appeal to arbcom: Wikipedia_talk:BLPSE.  Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Clerk note: User:RegenerateThis is not an Arbcom clerk. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist
As in the previous request for clarification, I don't see how the response would be different - no, this is a remedy (not a new policy/guideline), and no, it cannot be voted down by the community. Basically, an area of the encyclopedia is now under a type of discretionary-sanctions-remedy - the mere fact that it applies to a wider area, or has more specific requirements (such as, in terms of logging) does not change the effect of the remedy. Persistently insisting it is new policy or against Wikipedia norms does not make it so.

The only real controversy here, I think, is the same sort that was experienced when discretionary sanctions were enacted for the first time by the Committee. But even then, I wonder how/why it is that much of the community have, particularly in recent times, come to favour the discretionary sanctions type remedies for areas constantly encountering problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz
If Shoemaker could specify which page he is referring to, we have WP:BLPLOG and WP:BLPSE. One, WP:BLPLOG was created by an arbcom decision, so presumably, they own that page, the other WP:BLPSE was created by the community to discuss how it views WP:BLPLOG, so I'm not sure it needs any other tags.  MBisanz  talk 02:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, well I think Tony was de-clerked, so he probably shouldn't be considered a binding expression of arbcom intent. But since I really never worked at WP:BLPSE (I'm a template gnome of sorts), I don't have a view on that page.  MBisanz  talk 04:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe some Arbs or other involved parties might care to weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement. It seems to be conflicting with the below statements.  MBisanz  talk 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Barberio
Just a note, to state that this is pretty much moot.

The ArbCom RfC No New Policy statement and View by Celarnor statement has given a clear expression from the community that 'general sanctions' of this kind, and policy, pseudo-policy, and new processes by arbcom fiat are not allowed. Policy creation, and ability to apply a 'general sanction' to the entire community, are powers never delegated to the Arbitration Committee. Please note, the Arbitration Committee were given full time to make the case for why they should have this power, but don't appear to have made it to the satisfaction of the community.

While the below Arbitration Committee members may say otherwise, this 'general sanction' is not in effect, and will not be enforced. --Barberio (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to this.

I am quickly approaching formally requesting that the arbitration revoke this 'remedy', and lift the threat of desysopping admins who refuse to accept it. Both of the above RfC statements had strong consensus support and endorsement. You're really not empowered by the community to act in the way you have.

I would suggest that if you are still going to ignore the community consensus on what ArbCom may and may not do, you should consider your positions. --Barberio (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that the view of Jimbo as 'God King Emperor' of the project is highly disputed these days. I also note that Jimbo did not create the Arbitration Committee from whole cloth and by fiat. The Arbitration Policy did have to be agreed with by the community as with any other policy.

Frankly, Jimbo's opinion of how the Wikipedia policies should work are worth exactly as much as the next guy's. Wikipedia is not a top-down authoritarian organisation. --Barberio (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Observation by Mackensen
Constitutionally speaking the Arbitration Committee derives its power from, who wields absolute power as God-King of the project, understood to be separate from whatever Foundation responsibilities he might have. The community has no powers to "delegate" to the committee; there is the right to vanish and the right to fork. The community is always free to elect arbitrators who take a less expansive view of Arbcom's role but until such time it has authorized this body to act on its behalf.

All this is a way of saying that arguments over this remedy should turn on whether it's a good idea, not whether Arbcom can do it or not. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chime in by Alecmconroy
Jimbo is not a god-king, he's a very influential editor who has historically been granted certain roles by the community and the foundation. His 'powers' are whatever the community and the foundation collectively give him. If the community and the foundation disagree with Jimbo, the community and the foundation win.

I'm amazed to see anyone even espousing the notion of an absolute power over any group of humans in the 21st century (even if it is just an encyclopedia-making project). That's just not the way humans do things anymore-- ESPECIALLY not on a Wiki.

Mind you, I'm not expressing any Anti-Jimbo sentiments at all. I'm not trying to attack Jimbo himself in the slightest, and the statements I say above are, as best I can tell, entirely consistent with how Jimbo views himself-- not as a god-king, but as a UK-esque constitutional monarch whose role diminishes over time. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * You are requesting a clarication regarding the "special enforcement on biographies of living persons" wich concerns the footnoted quotes' case. Biographies of living people are subject to a strict policy. Special enforcements are part of Wikipedia's general sanctions. If we had had a "footnoted quotes" case where no problems with biographies of living persons were noted then this special enforcement remedy wouldn't have existed. Similar remedies were applied to other cases but policies are created following a process --not specific arbitration remedies. -- fayssal  / Wiki me up® 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Logging case sanctions on ArbCom pages is the norm. It makes it easier to locate blocks or bans that are the result of a ruling. Additionally, a page was started to explain the logging requirement. If an actual problems arise from this requirement to log or the page explaining the ruling then we can look to make at change. I'm not seeing a need for any action by the Committee regarding this case at this time. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flo that no action is needed, and with Mackensen in his comments re. the applicability of transitive devolution and delegation. James F. (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Footnoted quotes
Initiated by  Ncmvocalist (talk) at 07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 2


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)

[all listed users are aware]
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment

 * Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes
 * to remove the "for one year" part, and in addition to that, impose a ban, probation,  or any other remedy that will put an end to the problems, and  subsequently act to ensure that they do not recur.

Statement by Ncmvocalist
ArbCom's finding in 2008 stated: ""Alansohn has  repeatedly engaged in unseemly behavior, including personal attacks,  incivility, and assumptions of bad faith". Unfortunately, this finding  continues to hold true today. The remedy that was enacted at the time of  the finding was invoked several times as the case log indicates;  Postdlf and Good Ol'factory whom invoked this remedy in 2009, have since  been repeatedly subject to uncivil and unseemly conduct by Alansohn,  including personal attacks (including in the form of very serious yet  unsubstantiated allegations), as well as other inflammatory commentary  and assumptions of bad faith. Allegations made in the heat of the moment  is one thing, but this involves repeatedly making the same allegations,  yet refusing to provide any evidence to substantiate them (despite  being requested to do so).

Good Ol'factory has in good faith, followed the dispute resolution process - opening a WQA which summarises one of  the main incidents. During this WQA, I also provided input as an uninvolved user. However, Alansohn has now attempted to involve me in his conflicts by filing a  retaliatory WQA over something for which he was not a party to. The community is reluctant to say any further, when this intimidation tactic  shall be employed by Alansohn against any user whom strongly makes a  finding against him. The improvement in his conduct has, therefore, been so marginal that it has dismally failed to adhere to Wikipedia's  expected standards of behavior and decorum. Plenty of evidence is available to substantiate this at Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence/Alansohn's_conduct_post-case, which should also paint a clear  picture of any further voluntary dispute resolution on the matter. I request ArbCom to put an end to the unfortunate effects of Alansohn's  disruption and gross misconduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A CFD restriction would address the first type of problematic behavior that  Good Olfactory has pointed out; but if that's all that ArbCom is willing  to do, the other two types would still remain a problem...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether a couple of your remarks (the last sentence of para 1 and para  2) are stemming from a genuine lack of familiarity with the expected  standards of conduct during dispute resolution, or something else. I'm  fiercely independent of any user or body of users, as ArbCom (and other  users who contribute in DR) are extremely familiar with. I filed this  request solely based on the conduct displayed by Alansohn during and  after the WQA, and I've never contributed to (nor had a particular  interest or position in) CFDs. In fact, the closest I could've come to  interacting (if at all) with any of the users listed would've been on the public  case pages while the  case was open. I can appreciate that the incivility and other misconduct  cited might not match that type you happened to notice in 2007, but  that some of his contributions are useful or that the  incivility/misconduct has taken on a different form during DR in 2010,  does not change the relevance of the principle, Fof and remedy in the case. In such circumstances, I find  your position in those remarks incomprehensible. I would not have filed  this request, had the problematic conduct merely been (or was likely to  have been) an isolated incident. To be specific, in the 3 or 4 years  I've provided uninvolved input at WQA, I can only recall one other  incident where an user filed a retaliatory WQA and engaged in other  incivility against uninvolved users, and even that was greeted with a  sharp response; but if you think that such conduct is commonplace at WQA  against uninvolved users, I invite you to submit evidence to that  effect.  Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at Alansohn's lack of responsiveness to the clerk's request,  I'm not sure if there would be sufficient evidence from both sides for  the case to proceed. I don't have anything further to contribute myself, except possibly at workshop-pd stage. My primary concern was Alansohn's conduct during WQA, and the evidence I had to submit has  already been submitted in the links in my initial statement here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Kirill

Statement by Good Olfactory
The most recent incident is just the latest in a long history of incidents involving Alansohn's behavior at CFD and CFD-related DRV discussions. As a regular participant at these discussions, I can attest that Alansohn's behavior  has not substantially improved since the conclusion of his editing  restrictions. I would classify the latest incident as relatively minor in isolation, but the accumulated history of his behavior makes it  perhaps the straw that is breaking the camel's back.

(Parenthetical:I will state that prior to the editing restrictions being lifted, I did block Alansohn twice for  incidents of trolling, assuming bad faith, and making personal attacks.  The first block was made in response to this personal attacks and  feuding with User:Kbdank71 and User:Otto4711: ,  ,  ,  .  The second block was made in response to a continuation of the  behaviour, and in particular the following attack on User:Jc37, which was made after he had been  warned to temper his comments:. Since these blocks were imposed I have been one of Alansohn's more popular targets of attack, so I have not considered blocking him  further, but have made good faith efforts to discuss with him some of  the problems that continue.)

Since the editing restrictions were lifted, I would categorize the general problems with Alansohn's edits  into the following types of problematic behavior:


 * 1. He users his opportunity to present arguments in CFD and DRV as a vehicle for personal attacks against  editors who disagree with him (or, often, against editors who have  attempted to intervene with him or have blocked him in the past,  including me and User:Postdlf);


 * 2. He repeatedly mischaracterizes arguments he disagrees with and claims that users who choose to propose  deletion for categories are engaging in "disruption" (recent e.g.);


 * 3. When concerns about his behavior are brought to his attention, I have found he uses one of three approaches  to avoid taking responsibility for his misbehavior: (a) he accuses the person who is  bringing the behavioural problems to his attention of "trolling" or of  manufacturing a problem in an attempt to get him blocked or disciplined;  (b) he suggests that the complaints are  invalid because the user bringing it to his attention is in a conflict  of interest; (c) he attempts to shift the focus of  the discussion to what he views as procedural deficiencies in Wikipedia  processes (which apparently are intended to act as a justification for  his behavior). These methods can be observed in the following recent  discussions and the most recent WQA, where a number of users tried to  make progress on dealing with some of his problems: ;

I have and I have seen other users attempt the following ways of dealing  with the problems:


 * 1. Engaging in good faith discussions in an attempt to resolve the  disputes;


 * 2. Using humor to point out the absurdity of his behavior;


 * 3. Ignoring it, in the hope that it would cease;


 * 4. Issuing warnings that continued behavior could result in sanctions  against him;


 * 5. Formal WQA.

From my perspective, no progress has been made with any of these approaches. The problems associated with Alansohn's behavior have been consistent and relatively unrelenting, with the diffs provided by Ncmvocalist just  the latest examples from months of similar behavior. I didn't encourage the filing of this request for amendment and I wished this latest  incident could have been resolved via regular dispute resolution  channels. The only solution that I personally think would solve the CFD/DRV problem completely would be banning Alansohn from CFD/DRV  participation (though I do worry that he would then create the same  problem in another discussion area of Wikipedia). It's gone on a long, long time and many editors have shown a lot of forbearance. It needs to be resolved. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 14 February  2010 (UTC)


 * @Roger Davies: Normally I wouldn't have minded doing this, but I think I'd better not  in light of his recent reaction to my posting on his talk page: .  It might be more likely to promote a response if a non-involved user  were able to remind him. Good Ol’factory (talk)  21:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @Orderinchaos: User:Orderinchaos's comment below contains some interesting allegations that suggest to me that he may not be assuming  good faith about those who have already posted here. I'll let most of  his comments suggesting conspiratorial undertones and sneaky cabals  speak for themselves. However, it's probably necessary that I respond  directly to the following: "Good Olfactory's admission above that he has  used his admin tools to further his position in a dispute to protect  friends -  something which he should most definitely have taken to AN/I instead - is also an  issue." I want to be clear that I  made no such admission, and that is Orderinchaos interpreted my comment  in this way, he is mistaken. At the time the blocks were performed, I  hardly knew User:Kbdank71, User:Otto4711,  or User:Jc37. The only one of those three that  I would even currently consider "a friend" would be User:Kbdank71, but it is purely a Wikipedia  association and is entirely the result of our interactions at CFD that  have taken place since this time. This is exactly the same tactic that  Alansohn has adopted in alleging that I had a conflict of interest in  performing those blocks—he  has taken events and relationships that have developed after the block was performed to  retroactively assume that such a relationship pre-existed and  thereby created a conflict of interest. It's cute, but it's a  misrepresentation. Good Ol’factory  (talk) 21:10, 16 February  2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, the blocks were in 2009, not 2008. My mistaken dating/typo on your talk page in that regard doesn't  change anything I've said above. Good Ol’factory (talk)  06:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @Kirill: I understand the concern regarding the "dregding up" of an old case—if nothing had happened regarding the case for 18 months, I  would agree. But this is not the first time a user has brought the case  before the Arbitration Committee again for clarification or further  action; see here.  This is because the problem with Alansohn's behavior has been  consistent. It didn't end during his year-long sanction period, it didn't end when  the year-long  sanction expired in June 2009, and it hasn't stopped since. In the June  2009 clarification linked to, when concerns were expressed that  Alansohn's behavior had not improved, the arbitrators strongly  encouraged Alansohn to render moot the question of how this case should  proceed by improving his behavior. Other than saying that, no one  answered the question of what we do next, and no one clarified the  question of what should be done if the behavior doesn't improve: .  The behavior has not improved, and I feel that multiple requests to the  committee by different users should be a signal that something further  needs to be done. The question has not been rendered moot, as hoped for.  Good Ol’factory  (talk) 21:36, 17 February  2010 (UTC)

Statement by Postdlf
The fundamental issue is that Alansohn has a recurring problem with turning content disputes into  personal ones, by making attacks on contributors in the course of  disagreeing with their arguments or policy/guideline interpretations. I have tried repeatedly to address this with him through explanations and  pleas, assuming his good faith throughout, but he has turned his sights  on one contributor after another at CFD, and those who try to change or  sanction his behavior in turn get subject to his attacks as well.

I've been personally trying to address Alansohn's incivility at CFD for over  a year and a half now (for example, this thread,  involving his feud against User:Kbdank71,  then a frequent closer of CFD discussions). Alansohn was civil and even complimentary towards me at the time (though persisted in attacks  on others). I even tried to address others' incivility towards him as well.   Though in my view, Alansohn generally bore more responsibility for  initiating the hostile exchanges and escalating and continuing them by baiting. In that particular instance, Alansohn was continuing a feud with yet another frequent CFD  contributor, User:Otto4711.,   And I went out of my way to be nice to Alansohn when I saw him doing  good things in other contexts.

His conduct towards me changed starkly once I blocked him myself, in  January 2009, for his comments towards User:Good Olfactory.,. I have always been reluctant to block someone for conduct other than repeated vandalism. But given Alansohn's very clear editing restrictions, the extreme nature of his comments, and the fact that this  was part of a pattern on his part that I had already tried to address  with him on multiple occasions, I thought (and still think) a block was  very appropriate. I logged it pursuant to his editing restrictions.  And I politely explained the block to Alansohn on his talk page.. Alansohn responded with even more incivility and personal attacks, now towards myself as well.   Another admin reviewed and denied Alansohn's unblock request, finding  that even that request itself contained further incivility.

In the year since, I have periodically tried to bring his uncivil conduct  to his attention, and Alansohn has periodically accused me of having  abused my admin powers, alleging a conflict of interest on my part as  some perception of his that I was acting only pursuant to a "friendship"  (as he stated at the time in his response to my block notice). He has never elaborated or supported this accusation. Alansohn has gone so far as to take my words entirely out of context right below my own post,  claiming that I myself had described my block of him as "taking the side  of a friend";;  I corrected him  and still have not seen any acknowledgment of this.

Often Alansohn's most inflammatory comments do not expressly identify  individuals, but are still understood as attacks on others with whom he  disagrees. At a minimum, the heated rhetoric is disruptive.,,  As before, I tried to point this out to him, losing patience.   His response was to blame others for starting it.   I told him this was non-responsive and pointed out, again, that it was part of a  longstanding pattern.   I did not receive a further response.

The most recent incident between Alansohn and myself began with me addressing his incivility  towards User:BrownHairedGirl, yet another regular participant  at CFD that Alansohn has targeted,,  and who has also tried to address the tone of Alansohn's comments at  CFD.   Alansohn responded by attacking me out of the blue in a completely  unrelated CFD,,  and by calling me a troll when I asked for an explanation,  and by calling me a troll again when I posted a question about a comment  of his at yet another CFD (in which he had been uncivil yet again  towards BrownHairedGirl.

I responded on his talk page, in which I complimented him as an editor,  and pointed out exactly what I had a problem with and what I hoped for  going forward.   As that thread shows, his response was to call the incidents "trivial,"  again accuse me and Good Ol'factory of trolling, and of trying to  "manufacture knowingly false disputes." When User:BrownHairedGirl also joined in that thread as well and asked Alansohn to explain a comment about policy violations, he  responded not with anything relevant to the conduct issues, but rather  with issues of policy and guideline interpretation at CFD.

I was shocked recently to realize just how long this was going on, and I am  disappointed in myself for not being able to bring about a resolution. But I cannot make any progress with someone who dismisses complaints as "trivial," and labels responses to his personal attacks as "trolling." Anyone who cannot participate in a forum without turning discussions personal, and who cannot respond to complaints about their own conduct  without escalating the hostility, does not belong there. postdlf (talk)  23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos
Noting that I have been a past focus of his attention in 2007, and supported all of the previous  ArbComs, RfCs, etc as a strong opponent of Alansohn, my observation was  (and is) that his behaviour significantly improved after the original  ArbCom limitations were put in place and any time I have seen him on the  project since, he has been contributing constructively and, in  particular, making useful contributions to CfD and other areas. On looking at the evidence in this case, I am not seeing the problems which  led to the Footnoted quotes case manifesting themselves, so it should  not be treated as a "request for amendment" of the previous case.

On the other hand, my observations of some of the editors Good Olfactory  names in his statement above are quite negative indeed - they have acted  at times in a hostile, inflexible and provocative manner towards good  faith editors in the CfD area at times, and if this goes to an actual  case, I'll be happy to spend some time at that point finding examples of  this for the evidence pages as it would be a great opportunity to fix  CfD. It's an area of the encyclopaedia which has been a problem for a long time, mainly due to WP:OWN  problems associated with a very small number of editors who have very  strong ideas on How Things Should Be around here - some of the  ideas are good, but others are utterly illogical, and these guys brook  no criticism and carry grudges, sometimes for years, against editors who  take them on. One could be forgiven for thinking this amendment motion, and the stages which led to it, are an orchestrated campaign by the  members of that group to silence an opponent.

Good Olfactory's admission above that he has used his admin tools to further his position  in a dispute to protect friends - something which he should most  definitely have taken to AN/I instead - is also an issue. (Read in connection with 2nd note below) Orderinchaos 12:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ncm: I certainly didn't have you in mind in my comments above - I apologise if I  gave that impression. I think you've likely been caught in the  crossfire actually -  there is a lot more to the disagreement between these parties, in my  view, than first appears. The CfD crew's modus operandi is clear to  anyone who gets in a dispute with them. Granted, it appears Alan did not  handle this particularly well, but the real  aggressors should be targetted for action here, not someone they  provoked into a predictable response given his past history. Orderinchaos 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good Olfactory has asserted to me, and may well be right, that he was not  friends with those involved at the time he made the block on Alansohn,  which was April 2008. My project's first run-in with the CfD  group was possibly  (by memory) in August or September 2008  23–30 September 2008,  by which stage they were a functioning and tightly-knit group of  coordinated editors and any action taken would in that context be  thoroughly compromised as per above. Were it a year rather than a few  months I'd strike my comment; as it is I'll leave it, with this  qualification attached. Orderinchaos 21:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just noticed that the blocks  were performed in 2009, not 2008 (I had been led astray by  this comment by Good Olfactory). There may be  argument for a reprimand with relation to abuse of admin tools here - it was a clear  conflict of interest situation in the terms I outlined in my first post  in this comment. Orderinchaos 05:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * For the record, in line with Roger Davies request below, Alansohn was reminded  at 03:35, 16 February 2010, by one of the clerks..

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am seeing some problems here. I would be willing to see a motion which partially  or fully restricts in the areas of CFD and CFD at DRV. SirFozzie (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could Alansohn be reminded that this is underway? I'm seeing lots of edits from them but no input here  and I'd like to hear their side of the story.   Roger Davies  talk 21:39, 15 February  2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly enthusiastic about dredging up a two-year-old case (and a  remedy that's been expired for the better part of a year) to sanction  someone, even if they do need sanctioning.  This would be better framed  as a new case request, in my opinion. Kirill [talk] [prof]  05:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is enough substantive matter to justify it, then a new case  request might be appropriate.  Otherwise, a dead case resuscitation  doesn't seem appropriate.  &mdash; Coren (talk)  00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse due to involvement in first case.  — Rlevse  •  Talk  •  22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree with Kirill and Coren, if there are continuing problems that haven't been resolve through the  usual channels, a new case might be appropriate, but I don't believe  that this can ride on the tailcoats of the old Footnote case since even  the restrictions have been expired for most of a year. Shell   babelfish  02:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also not very excited about resuscitating a really old case where the area in which the dispute took  place had shifted (from BLP to deletion process) - particularly so  when there is a landmark decision right above it. I recommend filing a  fresh new case if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Notified

Question by jc37

 * Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes

Due to this case, User:Alansohn received a restriction.

In the time since then, though he apparently has done good work in vandal patrol, and elsewhere, he simply hasn't followed the restriction. And though he hasn't been blocked (or even warned) for "every" violation, this section at least lists blocks related to these issues.

I therefore have a few questions:

The first is whether the 1 year restriction was to restart at the occurrence of each block (something I've seen done in other arbcom cases).

The second is to ask: if it is determined that User:alansohn is not following the restriction, what would/should be the next course of action (if any)?

The third is (if the answer to my first question is "no"), does the committee feel that the 1 year restriction should be lifted at this time?

I feel that these are timely questions since, in roughly 2 weeks, it will be one year since the closure of the case.

Thank you in advance for clarification on this. - jc37 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, I'm not sure that you (the arbitrators) have answered my second question.


 * The simple fact is that User:Alansohn isn't following the restriction, and hasn't been throughout the timeframe of the restriction.
 * The block log aside, one need only look at my talk page (and related links there) to see recent evidence of that.
 * From what I can tell, the biggest problem is the presumption of bad faith of other editors (often magnified with incivility). A look at his statement below even shows indications of this.
 * I hesitate to add diffs showing examples of this simply due to the large volume of examples.
 * So no, this really isn't, and shouldn't be considered, "moot". It's a constant, ongoing problem, and one that I believe needs to be resolved.
 * So please clarify what you feel the "next step" should then be? - jc37 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Alansohn
A year was mandated and a year will end in two weeks. Now Jc37 appears to be trying to maintain this "Footnoted Quotes" beyond what was determined and agreed upon. In the past 12 months, I have made somewhere around 150,000 edits (I haven't counted), added tens of thousands of references to a few thousand articles, expanded articles for every one of the 566 municipalities and 120 state legislators in New Jersey and almost all of its school districts and high schools (I think I've missed a few), written from scratch over 300 DYK articles (the most of any Wikipedia editor) and been one of the most prolific vandal fighters in my spare time.

Enough is enough. While I still maintain deep concerns regarding the manner in which the original decision was reached, I've done my time and that time is over. I look forward to the end of these restrictions, after which Jc37 will be free to use whatever legitimate administrative measures are necessary to deal with any future perceived problems -- real or imagined -- once these "editing restrictions" are over. Only now they will have to be weighed against real standards with proper oversight, and applied under the same standards that should be applied to all editors with (hopefully) a small measure of the consistency that has been absent over the past year.

That I have been able to accomplish so much in this past year given the undue harshness of these restrictions is a small miracle. I look forward to accomplishing that much more in the next year without the claim of "editing restrictions" being waved as a threat. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "So please clarify what you feel the "next step" should then be?" Evaluate all users fairly and objectively, both for those who agree with your personal interpretations of policy and especially those who don't where your judgment may be clouded. Avoid using administrative measures with editors where there is a clear conflict of interest. Resist the urge to use "special enforcement" (Wikipedia's own version of Double Secret Probation) as a crutch or to prolong a process that was already arbitrarily long and been remarkably disruptive. Join me in counting down the days to freedom. Move on. Alansohn (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * (Caveat: I was inactive when this case was decided.) In general, sitebans and blocks are restarted when violations (typically socking) are detected. However, the clock on other types of sanctions, such as the civility restriction imposed in this case, typically is not automatically reset upon a violation. I very strongly urge that Alansohn render this discussion a moot issue by adhering to a reasonable level of civility both before or after the one-year period expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad's comments. With the expiry of the extension, nothing is stopping an administrator from using the restriction, and violations thereof, in considering whether a block is appropriate and if so of what length. If problems are persistent, the community is also free to (re)impose an appropriate restriction. Reiterating NYB, if Alansohn adheres to a decent level of civility, this will be entirely moot. --Vassyana (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per both preceding. Alansohn, please contact us if there are any concerns of baiting (which can happen with editors who have been subject to civility sanctions). Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Newyorkbrad and Vassyana. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion to rename the Footnoted Quotes arbitration case (January 2015)

 * Original discussion



Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Copyedit as needed. Simple housekeeping for a still-relevant case with an arcane name. Courcelles 11:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay,  Roger Davies  talk 11:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea to make the scope of the case more explicit. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been recent complaints about the transparency of the name of this case, this is a good way to respond to that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made the copyedit suggested by NE Ent below ("BLPs" → "Biographies of Living Persons"). Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, yes. Baroque Arbcom case names are part of the colour and novelty of Wikipedia. But I agree this new name has greater clarity. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Euryalus the name is rather cute, but alas. L Faraone  13:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * to reduce confusion  DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * --Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  18:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators

 * Proposed. The problem is that we have a broad, active DS recorded on one of the more arcane case names I've seen.  Courcelles 11:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Community comments
Requests for arbitration/Editing of BLPs -> Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons. In case a non-Wikipedian real person stumbles upon it. (Wikinsiders will just use whatever shortcut is provided anyway). NE Ent 13:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that's a good idea, but I'll wait for other committee members to comment as well. Whichever title is chosen the other should be a redirect to it as they are both logical and useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good point. We have a tendency for succinctness when possible (see the recent "Interaction at GGTF" for one even more obtuse to outsiders)... but in this one, you're right.  It's likely to get shown to a lot of newer editors due to its breadth.  Fine with this being made as a copyedit, we hardly need a formal alt for this.  Courcelles 13:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd personally prefer "Biographies of living people",  Roger Davies  talk 13:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It should match the name of the policy that it is intended to support. Risker (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Simpler and clear. I agree. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've now made this change as a copyedit, thank you for the suggestion NE Ent. When this is enacted I also recommend creating redirects for "...People" and various capitalisation alternates. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My objections: Redirects are cheap and renames cause backwards compatibility issues. The chosen name is too close to the Manipulation of Biographies of Living Persons case. If we are going to move it, why does it use the old naming convention? --Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Does it really matter if it's called "editing of BLPs", "of biographies of living persons", or "of biographies of living people"? Just create redirects from the other two. Ditto the naming convention (requests for arbitration/ versus arbitration/requests/case/). The important thing is not what, precisely, it's called (bearing in mind that cases are very rarely cited by their full name, but by the applicable shortcut) but that the title is not ambiguous. The reason for the change is that possibly the broadest set of discretionary sanctions we have is authorised under an obscure case from seven years ago and under a name that gives no indication of its scope. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (February 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by EvergreenFir at 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification NorthBySouthBaranof
 * diff of notification HJ_Mitchell
 * diff of notification East718
 * diff of notification DHeyward
 * diff of notification EncyclopediaBob
 * diff of notification Retartist

Notification of other potentially interested users
 * Notice to the BLP talk page
 * Ryk72 notified as they were mentioned in my statement
 * Masem notified as a potentially interested user added by
 * ColorOfSuffering notified as a potentially interested user added by
 * Risker notified as a potentially interested user added by

Statement by EvergreenFir
There is apparent disagreement among users and admins on the interpretation of WP:BLPTALK. This stems from the removal of a link on Talk:Gamergate controversy by that was originally added by. Because NorthBySouthBaranof is topic banned from Gamergate, this removal resulted in an Enforcement Request against NorthBySouthBaranof that was closed by with no action per WP:BANEX. The basis for the removal was WP:BLP because the link contained very problematic content, the nature of which can be seen in the enforcement request. There was also an Enforcement Request against Retartist for posting the link that was closed by HJ Mitchell with a topic ban. As a result of this enforcement request, the link and other links were REVDELed by per WP:BLP and REVDEL guidelines.

As a direct result of these enforcement requests, a discussion on BLP's talk page (link to specific section) was opened by not named as party due to max of 7 parties, but will be informed of this ARBCOM regarding the interpretation of WP:BLPTALK.

BLPTALK currently says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here. Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks."

Despite the actions of the admins HJ Mitchell and East718, users and  expressed in my understanding; please correct me if I'm mistaken strong disagreement with the use of BANEX in this manner, suggesting that any links should be allowed to be posted on article talk pages if they are being discussed. I expressed the belief that BLPTALK need tweaking and that not all links are allowed to be posted on non-article spaces (e.g., links from Stormfront should never be posted as they violate BLP policies).

BLPTALK needs tweaking. The link that prompted this on GG was not just "contentious", it was libel. BLPTALK should reflect that discussion of RS or at least something that approaches RS (which is also key as the link from GG was not RS) is fine. If, for example, HuffPo has an article with some claims about a politician committing fraud, then the talk page is the right venue to discuss that article. However, not all links are covered by BLPTALK, or shouldn't be. Links to Stormfront would never be acceptable. Links that contain libel or highly disparaging content should never be allowed. Folks seem to be misunderstanding "contentious material" and misrepresenting the example in BLP. Let's clarify it so that if (1) matches the rest of the BLP policy's intent and (2) matches how BLP is being enforced.

Interpretations of this portion of the BLP policy are clearly divergent. Admins and REVDELers appear to interpret the language differently than some experienced user. Specifically, the current wording of BLPTALK does not explicitly state if some links that would be excluded from articles as BLP violations are also excluded from non-article space. Moreover, it's unclear if BANEX covers the removal of links from non-article spaces. I request that the ARBCOM clarify this issue as part of the BLP decision for the sake of users and admins.

Edit: In response to, I wish to be clear that I 100% agree with his and other admins' assessments of the situation and reading of the BLP policy. However, BLPTALK is still rather ambiguous and given the push back from other users I feel that ARBCOM weighing in on this issue and/or suggesting clarified wording of BLPTALK is needed. I chose this venue because of the past ruling and felt an RfC would not be the appropriate way to address this.


 * 's statement is an example of exactly why this needs clarification. It seems the arbs feel that some links are clearly not okay (which I agree with), but the "cut off" is what's blurry here. If arbs are unable to rule on this, what course of action would be recommended? An RfC invites all users to comment, including inexperienced ones. Given that this topic is (1) one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, and (2) the subject of an ARBCOM ruling, it seems that ARBCOM should be the one to clarify it and make substantial changes to it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof
I think it's fairly apparent what the letter and spirit of the policy are intended to do — prevent the encyclopedia from being used as a weapon of character assassination or a tool of online trolls. To that end, policy demands that we treat all matters relating to living people with the utmost sensitivity and care. A hopelessly-unreliable source (such as, for instance, a wholly-anonymous webpage, a personal blog or a series of putative screenshots) that contains or is intended to present highly-negative claims, allegations or inferences about living people has no business anywhere on the encyclopedia. It cannot possibly aid the writing of the encyclopedia in any way, because it is categorically forbidden from use in any way. Anything which even stems from it is effectively fruit of the poison tree. Suggesting, as one editor did, that an inflammatory, anonymous screed full of unsupported attacks, disproven allegations and outright lies about living people (the so-called "dossier") is good background reading (for editors) evinces a clear and present misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. This sense is longstanding and core to our policy's ultimate goal: ensuring that what the encyclopedia publishes about living people is well-supported, fair, sensitively-written and unsensational — all stemming from the use of highly-reliable sources and the avoidance of slander, gossip, whisper campaigns and rumormongering. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are asking me to give in to an off-wiki-coordinated harassment campaign because it's apparently inconvenient for Wikipedia to deal with the ramifications of the committee's actions. Sorry, but no, I will not just shut up and go away, as you and the endless string of trolls demand. I apologize if it's inconvenient for you to be continually exposed to a reminder of how unjust the decision was and how precisely I predicted what would happen in its wake — a continual series of SPAs appearing and reappearing to demand that, in this topic area, reliable sources be ignored, BLP violations be accepted and living people be slandered. That is, as it happens, exactly what is going on now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio, if you truly believe that an editor's refusal to give into an anonymous harassment campaign aimed at forcing them out of a topic area is "battleground behavior," then you have laid the foundation for the destruction of the project, because there will come a tipping point at which time there will be more anonymous trolls than there are good-faith editors and admins left to defend the project's basic principles in contentious topic areas. The goal of these trolls is simple: raise the personal cost of defending the project's basic policies beyond that which anyone wants to bear. Already I have been subjected to numerous attacks, death threats and harassment methods on and off the encyclopedia, for doing little more than demanding that our articles adhere to what reliable sources say, and that our articles reject anonymous attempts at assassinating the character of living people. ArbCom has taught the trolls that all they have to do is depict those who stand up against them as engaging in "battleground behavior" and they win. Already we've seen them come after JzG and others. If you don't think they'll keep going after every single person who tries to enforce the policies against them, you're delusional. And at some point, everyone with a shred of sanity will throw up their hands and give up — even the redoubtable HJ Mitchell, to whom I will entrust any future BLP violations I identify. ArbCom has written the textbook for destroying Wikipedia from within. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement from Harry Mitchell
I have little to add here. I closed two AE requests where the result was astoundingly obvious (and have been taking flak for it on my talk page since). Posting links to obviously inappropriate material, especially where the source couldn't possibly be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes is, at best, grossly negligent. I note that Retartist says they did it in good faith and I have no reason to doubt their word, but that's not the sort of conduct we need in difficult topic areas.

I don't see anything to clarify. Four admins ( and I) were in agreement that the material in question was a BLP violation. I asked whether this was an isolated incident or a pattern of mis(conduct|judgement) and was presented with evidence of the latter. It would have taken something miraculous for that thread or the one against NBSB to have been closed any other way.

That will probably be the extent of my comments here unless somebody asks me a direct question. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  02:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In light of EF's reply and DHeyward's comment, I'll add: I'm not sure this is within the jurisdiction of ArbCom, but if it were my thoughts are that if something couldn't possibly be considered a reliable source, and it contains potentially defamatory claims, it has no business being linked to from Wikipedia. Especially not from an article or its talk page. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  03:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * . <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJ Mitchell &#124; <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts?  22:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
The enforcement request for BANEX is a red herring. The issue is whether links, without any statements about the link content (i.e. "Please look here") are BLP violations in and of themselves on a talk page - WP:BLPTALK. No one is repeating the claims on-wiki. There is a very obtuse view that a link can, by itself, be a BLP violation. That's nonsense. We have much stricter policies regarding links in articles, but links provided for discussion can be ignored, or archived without affecting the encyclopedia. There is more disruption by deleting links on talk pages than by ignoring them. Revdel's are even more asinine. The reality is that a talk page discussion that says "Does this link have anything we can use [wwww.example.com]?" is not the same as saying "This link says Person X did Y, can we use it [wwww.example.com]?". The latter should be redacted if the claims are BLP violations, the former should be ignored or commented on but it need not be removed. We can't even control secondary content in sources in articles, so why stifle discussion (or worse, punish editors for trying to start a discussion? If we source NY Times in an article and they decide to have an inline link that leads to characterizations that WP would not publish (i.e. say a criminal charge), that doesn't forever invalidate the source.  Papers like the guardian have second level links that are "NAtional Inquire"ish type stories on celebrities.

We don't regulate offsite content or links that are twice removed from articles. This is where talk page links are. No one is reading WP and following the link to validate a claim made on WP. If simply following links were bad, without claims, we would need to guard against the side bar content of sites like The Daily Mail that have a number of "Don't miss" articles. The fact is, if he claim isn't made on WP, the link is immaterial and certainly not a BLP violation. This is longstanding policy to allow for collegial discussion of subjects without fear. That should continue. Those that only delete links on talk pages are being disruptive, not collaborative. Ignore it per WP:BEANS. WP is not responsible for what others say offsite nor is a link any kind of affirmation. We've learned this with links to articles about the ArbCom committee itself. The stories were false. Portraying them as true on WP is problematic. Linking to them without judgement is not. Witch-hunting for those that dared add the link is disruptive.

The sole exception is "outing" and the simple rule of thumb is if the Oversight committee is not going to remove it, it's not a policy violation and it should be left alone. --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EncyclopediaBob
Just a quick clarification and summary: I have no position on WP: BANEX and whether NBSB's actions complied. I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of that policy. My disagreement with EvergreenFir (and others) seems to be in the application of BLP policy, whether on talk pages under WP:BLPTALK or in article space under WP:BLP. As I understand it, non-BLP-compliant sources may not be used to source BLP material. As it's been applied by a number of admins, non-BLP-compliant sources may not be used to source any material, even non-BLP material, and the linking of such sources is sanctionable. I joined the discussion on WP:BLPTALK in an attempt to bridge the significant gulf between my reading of the policy and its current application. —EncyclopediaBob  (talk)  02:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Retartist
All i want to say is that i posted the links in good faith and was stupid in posting so many links without checking each one --<font color="Black">Ret&Delta;rtist (<font color="Black">разговор ) 02:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72
I am working on a statement, which not only addresses all of the principle & policy aspects, but is also below the 500 word limit; in the meantime...

Thanks to:


 * , for raising this in this forum;
 * respected ArbCom members, for their time & consideration of this matter;
 * all other editors responding either here or at WT:BLP;
 * and especially, for his tireless efforts in administration in contentious areas.

Clarification:

The discussion initiated at WT:BLP stemmed from my noticing a number of instances of removal, reversion, and revdeletion of links to sources containing contentious material from article talk pages, citing WP:BLP. It is not based on one set of deletions claiming WP:BLP. See:

I am not concerned by any one instance of this type of removal, reversion or deletion nor by the editors involved. I am concerned by the pattern, and the implications on consensus building if it is to become an accepted practice. I ask those commenting and the Arbitrators to focus on the relevant principles, policies & guidelines. See: WP:5P, WP:CON, WP:BLP (incl. BLPTALK), WP:TPG (incl. WP:TPO) & WP:CRYBLP.

Statement: (placeholder)

The concern is that this type of invocation of WP:BLP is being used to suppress the normal working of the Wikipedia Project; preventing discussion of sources, and improvement of the encyclopedia through consensus. Editors are leveraging WP:BLP to remove good faith links to potential sources (and good faith, sourced, discussion of existing sources). Editors should be able to point (link) to a source, and discuss it's appropriateness without fear of sanction. If a source is not reliable, or not usable for any other reason, that should be decided by consensus, which requires that the source be identifiable (linked) for discussion.

In summary:
 * "the purpose of the biographies of living persons policy (WP:BLP) is not to protect living persons (although this is a pleasing side effect); but to protect Wikipedia from slandering or libeling living persons (and the consequences thereof)" - WP:BLP (as understood by ) See:
 * "links to contentious material do not violate BLP; unsourced contentious material violates BLP"; - WP:BLP (as understood by ),
 * "invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion" - WP:CRYBLP

W.r.t ArbCom action on this request, I would ask no more than the committee affirm that WP:BLPREMOVE, as it applies to non-mainspace pages, covers only contentious material, not links to external websites (where the contents are not repeated on Wikipedia).

Thanks again for your consideration of this matter. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
The attention of the Arbitration Committee is drawn to the circumstance that, last night, this page was widely extolled on Twitter by a variety of anonymous accounts bearing GamerGate regalia and celebrating the expected further sanctioning of User:NorthBySouthBaranof which is and has long been their stated goal and plan. There, @theWTFMagazine links to an 8chan thread on that distinguished contributor which begins:


 * His persecution delusions are flaring up
 * His inner white knight is gleaming
 * He changed into new diapers

It apparently began twelve hours ago, attracting some 50 posts overnight.

You will be pleased to know that @PalinFreeborn is cheering you on, @FortunateCat is calling on your vigor, @ED_Updates -- doubtless that same people who were so very eager for you to take action against Ryulong that they needed to tell you all about his religious background (avaricious Jew!) and sex life -- is asking User:Jimbo to stiffen your resolve. All are eager to see that you continue steadily on your course and remain firm in your intention.

Look at the progress you have made! Yesterday, a vigorous and lengthy debate on the Talk page has proceeded through an additional 8,000 words of discussion devoted to whether WP:RS shall be disregarded for GamerGate because the entire press is biased against #GamerGate, 2,500 words revisiting the much-discussed question of whether actions associated with the GamerGate hashtag may be excluded because someone says "they were not really GamerGate supporters" and whether GamerGate is a "movement". One of the GamerGate victims had a 550 word libel revdel'd again; as you know, this is hardly a rare occurrence.

You could (and should) have stopped this; instead, you have encouraged it.

I concur with User:NorthBySouthBaranof: GamerGate has handed every little PR shop a textbook on how to pervert Wikipedia. ArbCom has written the textbook for destroying Wikipedia from within.

This flagrant effort to pervert Wikipedia's disciplinary mechanism is not likely to arouse your notice or evoke your concern. The standard discussed below -- that some BLP-violating links are OK on talk pages, some are not, and that the encyclopedia's defender should be less vehement in upholding its rules -- is risible. After all, the matter is a small content dispute: some editors want to use Wikipedia to spread claims appearing in unreliable sources that specific women in software development are sluts and whores. Others think this is clearly prohibited by policy. ArbCom in its majesty, it seems, believes that Wikipedia will be served well by exhaustively and repeatedly discussing the matter on talk pages, on drama boards, and here.

After all, what's the harm? Just a content dispute!

Wikipedia talk pages are a weapon against GamerGates’s victims. Those who object to this continuing outrage are necessarily and inconveniently guilty of battleground behavior and must be driven from Wikipedia, leaving the way clear for the trolls.

Meanwhile, the world awaits a sign of your care for the editors who served this project, or for its victims. http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html MarkBernstein (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @62.157.60.27 takes me to task for "spreading misinformation about the ArbCom case even in his statement above" and for various other high crimes. If 62.157.60.27 has some particular correction to offer, 62.157.60.27 might be so good as to identify it.  In the same jeremiad, 62.157.60.27 is apparently outraged that Brianna Wu expressed an opinion in the pages of Bustle with which 62.157.60.27 does not agree and wants ArbCom to do something about it. Like the flowers that bloom in the spring (tra la!) this has nothing to do with the case.  The paragraph bearing my name is irrelevant, uncivil, and assumes no good faith; it is also very interesting that its “uninvolved”  author is so well acquainted with the topic and with intricacies of Wikipedia procedure but does not possess (or does not desire to use) a Wikipedia account. I request it be hatted or deleted by the clerk.MarkBernstein (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @Rhoark’s standard of imminent harm creates a new "extra-special BLP" for talk pages. Would (to choose a pertinent example) saying that a software developer has prostituted herself rise to this standard?  Would saying that she had slept with more than five men rise to this level? Would saying that the software developer had faked threats of assault, rape, and death qualify? These are three of the BLP violations in question here; they have been discussed many times and at great length on the talk page, as ArbCom members (all of whom have, I am sure, read the entire talk page archives with care and attention) well know. But of course the separate, vague, higher standard for BLP on talk pages is precisely what is wanted here by those who have so successfully exploited -- and continue to use -- Wikipedia's talk pages to punish their enemies and all who stand in their way --  now including, as mentioned above,   User:NorthBySouthBaranof. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk
Is there a reason we didn't topic ban retartist for three months and block them for 24 hours? Protonk (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still more time than you apparently took before topic banning an admin in good standing for stating the central known fact of the gamergate controversy (a statement which was at the time of the block printed in the signpost, FFS). Sorry if my disgust at your appallingly poor block upsets you. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved IP-editor
If you are not going to clarify the issue in regards to WP:BLPTALK violations, can you at least explain why it is allowed to be one-sidedly used as some sort of hammer to punish ideological opponents?

There seem to be constant revdels and topic-bans for what seems to be some of the most innocuous thing like posting a link to any articles or trying to discuss something on talk pages regarding certain people (Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn for instance), but there seems to be a double standard when this applies to other living persons, for instance this personal opinion article from Bustle: accusing someone of criminal behavior of the most vile kind and calling on the Obama administration to arrest and prosecute them has not been interpreted as a BLP violations against living persons.

You also have User:MarkBernstein who has previously been blocked due to statements he made, but was apparently allowed back and is blatantly spreading misinformation about the ArbCom case even in his statement on this very page and has called other editors "rape apologists" on the site he identified as his own and called for sanctions against them before  and yet he is still somehow allowed to offer his input, while others are topic-banned or blocked for much less? Is there some sort of stipulation that some people or groups of people deserve protection against any kind of violations of these policies, while other living persons or groups of people don't enjoy the same privileges and can be called anything one wishes without recourse or penalties?

62.157.60.27 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad
I understand why EvergreenFir brought this here, but the arbitrators have said what needs to be said, and nothing else useful is going to come out of this thread, whether it is closed promptly or a week from now. I suggest the former. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark
BLP is for the most part a policy about claims, not about sources. I've brought this up before at the noticeboard Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive213. I think everyone should be advised to wait for consensus before redacting links - excepting where the content is illegal or in some way liable to cause imminent harm. Rhoark (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not proposed a weakening of BLP for talk pages, rather a common-sense concession towards strengthening it. Otherwise the content of a link has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia outside those portions that are discussed on this site. Rhoark (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Clerk notes

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



Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'd say changing the wording of BLPTALK is fully ultra vires of the Committee, but I do think the AE admins got this one right, the link served no useful purpose, and BANEX was correctly (and even if you disagree, in good faith) invoked. I'm just not seeing anything for ArbCom to do here. Courcelles 05:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP applies everywhere; however, it applies to different degrees depending on the location of the offending material. While its application needs to be very strict and proactive in mainspace, which is where most people end up looking and where an allegation may sound like it's made in Wikipedia's voice, its application on talk pages and on WP:BLPN needs to be less strict. The policy indirectly acknowledges this, when it says [w]hen material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Since to restore what someone else has flagged as a BLP violation you need a consensus, it follow that it is permissible to discuss in good faith possible BLP violations in talk space and on the appropriate noticeboard; after the discussion is over, if it's determined that the material was indeed a violation, then the discussion may be hatted or purged of the offending material, but, again, there needs to be a place where such a discussion can be had without hindrance. Removal of material without discussion from talk pages or from the relevant noticeboard should be reserved for cases of egregious and uncontroversial BLP violations. This appears to have been one such case. That said, NBSB, you were right on the merits, but your approach still leaves much to be desired. Please move on. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof, that's exactly the kind of battleground attitude I was referring to by "your approach still leaves much to be desired". Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As Courcelles says, it's not our role to change the wording of BLPTALK, nor do I think we should be mandating a specific interpretation, which would have the same practical effect. AS Salvio says, the application of BLPTALK outside of article space isn't as cut and dried as it is in an article, and I agree with his comments on material on a talk page or BLPN - it needs to be possible to discuss at least most suggested BLP violations, which might mean including a link. Hatting or purging may be required after a discussion is concluded. I don't see a role for us here. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Courcelles and Doug. Firstly, BANEX was correctly applied in this case. On the broader point, a blanket statement is not going to help here. It is perfectly legitimate, in almost all cases, to discuss on a talk page whether source X is a BLP violation or not (if consensus is that it is, then some or all of the discussion may need to be hidden or removed). In a minority of cases though, and this is one of them, the BLP violation is so clear and/or so gross that even including it on a talk page is not acceptable. Every case is different though, so it needs to be left to individual judgement as to when this applies. So beyond reminding everybody to err on the side of caution with BLPs there is nothing more for us to do here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As pretty well always, there's no blanket ruling to make here. Appropriateness of material is on a case by case basis, though I would say that discussions as to whether or not certain material is appropriate at all should generally be given relatively wide latitude to take place, certainly more latitude than use in an article due to the difference in visibility. But "wide" doesn't mean "unlimited", and if someone is using such a discussion as a coatrack to push BLP violations or the material is egregiously bad, that is not acceptable and someone is right to stop it. In this case, I think NBSB had a good faith belief enforcement was necessary, and that assessment clearly was not way out of line with consensus on the matter. I therefore see no reason to overturn HJ Mitchell's decision that a legitimate exemption to a topic ban applied here. However, NBSB, I'd strongly advise you to take Gamergate related items off your watchlist. You were quite properly warned that while this instance fell under a topic ban exemption, your ongoing discussion of the matter after the topic ban was in place was clearly not allowed by it, and while that's stale for enforcement at this time, I think you could expect enforcement action if that continues. Topic bans apply to user talk pages as surely as any others. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request (November 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by The Wordsmith at 22:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by The Wordsmith
Motion 6 (WP:NEWBLPBAN) authorized Standard Discretionary Sanctions for BLP content. This precludes WP:INVOLVED admins from acting. The older WP:BLPSE had a similar clause.

However, it seems that this contradicts WP:BLPADMINS, which states that "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved."

In an apparent conflict between policy and Arbcom decision, which prevails? My own opinion is that involved Administrators are able to block, but not log it as a Discretionary Sanction and the block would be subject to the lower standard for reversal that we use for other blocks. There isn't a specific incident I'm thinking of, but I could see it becoming an issue in the future and would like clarification on how that might be handled. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm asking the Committee to clarify both of those things, what options (regular, DS etc) are and are not available to an administrator who is involved. For example, if you added a blatant BLP vio to an article I already participate in, is blocking you allowed? Is blocking you as a Discretionary Sanction allowed? Is a topic ban allowed? I believe the first but not the latter two are correct, but I'd like the Committee to clarify where the line is drawn. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Clerk notes

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


 * Renamed to "Editing of Biographies of Living Persons".
 * This isn't a clerk action, but can I ask you to clarify your request? Are you asking the Committee to clarify whether: (a) Admins may act while involved in accordance with WP:BLP, notwithstanding WP:ACDS; (b) Admins may impose discretionary sanctions under WP:NEWBLPBAN notwithstanding WP:ACDS pursuant to WP:BLP? Kevin ( alt of L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * WP:INVOLVED says that admins should not act in disputed cases but can act (use admin tools) in "straightforward cases" when "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". This is entirely consistent with the BLP policy which states that admins when involved may act to "enforce the removal of clear BLP violations", however "in less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator". Involved admins can, therefore, use normal admin tools in clear cases. However, discretionary sanctions grant individual admins much more power and authority (in comparison normal admin tools when involved can be overturned by any other admin) so should only be used when the circumstances are absolutely clear and the admin is neutral. To answer the question more precisely, an admin can block or protect as a normal admin action but not impose a discretionary sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As Callanecc notes above DS gives a lot more latitude to administrators than the normal BLP policy does. When using that extended latitude (AC/DS), administrators are expected to not be involved. In regards to normal actions, there are also many administrators on this site and as the committee has noted before no perception of an admin thinking they are the only one enforcing things gives them the ability to act where policy wouldn't allow it. Doing so could result in DS or sanctions for that administrator. I know that's not claimed here, but felt the need to add it. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What Callanecc said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What Callanecc and Amanda said. Doug Weller  talk 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Callanecc about DS, but think that there is almost never any reason to use the admin tools oneself when one is involved, and "clear" is not sufficient guidance. Rather, it's an open invitation to doing it and trying to defend it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Callanecc said it well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardly necessary, but pile-on "what Callanecc said" now that I'm looking at ARCA for the first time in ages. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (January 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by DHeyward at 02:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification TonyBallioni
 * diff of notification Sandstein

Statement by DHeyward
On 2 December 2017 I was topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed, by admin TonyBallioni. TonyBallioni had placed an article under 1RR using discretionary sanctions authorized under the BLP arbcom (note: not AP2). It was determined I violated a 1RR restriction. I return to editing and I see an article I created in September, Kris Paronto, was prodded. He is not a politician. I fill in references, etc, etc. It was then put up for AfD. On 9 December 2017 TonyBallioni files an enforcement request for a "topic ban violation" for "creation of article about Mr. Paronto, including overall Benghazi attack template  directly adding information related to criticism of the Obama administration by Mr. Paronto, See all other edits to Kris Paronto"  He hadn't edited the article or otherwise engaged in the deletion discussion when filed as a party. The first allegation of creation was obviously in error. is the only administrator to comment with "I think that this is technically not a violation. The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded."

Later that same day, TonyBallioni IAR'd and withdrew the request noting "Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal." . He apologizes on my talk page with similar language [] adding "If that wasn't clear to others, then I worded it poorly and that mistake is on me."

Nobody changes or clarifies the TBAN (or even whether it is an ABAN which I raised Dec 9) so a reasonable person would conclude that the actions were not a violation.

Fast forward to January 4. The sanction is expired. An editor brings a violation for editing Erica Garner.

Another editor combs through my edits and finds I edited Joe Scarborough about on Dec 30 about 30 days into the 1 month topic ban and lists it as a "blatant violation." My edit was to restore long-standing consensus that mentioning the death of an aide is a BLP violation and I removed it because the Washington Post said it's bullshit. I had linked that article to the Scarborough talk page in November, before the TBAN, to head off the aspersions that surely would follow. Sure enough, people came to readd it. It's like someone adding the Vince Foster suicide to Hillary Clinton - it's a BLP violation to try and link the deaths of these people into biographies of living people, at least in my mind and I've been battling the people adding it for 10 years (see Lori Klausutis and the AfDs if you have any need to see what depths people sank to to keep the smear alive).

Scarborough is no longer a politician and has not run or held office in 17 years. But back to AE: Now, there are tons of admins weighing in. Sandstein and TonyBallioni don't mention the Dec 9 filing and outcome. They both are aware by edit with the problems of clarity and confusion. There is no debate regarding whether my edits advanced the purpose of Wikipedia. No one is aware of the history of Scarborough and the eath of his aide 20 years ago, just that Trump smeared him.

No mention the Dec 9 closing where Sandstein said it was confusing and Tony blamed himself so everyone is operating on their own fresh reading of the ban. TonyBallioni then decides the topic ban should be extended and changed to an AP2 topic ban to avoid confusion. My edit at Scarborough stands as of now and violated nothing. If anything it reinforced both the AP2 and BLP findings by ArbCom. The actual filer of the Jan 4 complaint that lengthened my TBAN was admonished because his complaint was baseless.

My request for clarification is: when an admin acknowledges confusion in interpretation, files and withdraws complaints that acknowledges it's on him but in the end ignores all that, creates a new TBAN under a different ArbCom remedy even though I didn't violate an AP2 remedies, how is it possible for an editor to keep up with these shifting sands? If an admin realizes there is a clarity issue, shouldn't they have a duty to clarify it before sanctioning? --DHeyward (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

the article ban policy says The word "article" usually refers only to mainspace pages. If any other related pages (such as the page's talk page) are to be covered it will usually be stated explicitly. and that was stated by Sandstein on Dec 9. --DHeyward (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, Dec 9th, Sandstein said articles that aren't about politicians can be edited even when the edits were about politicians. Erica Garner was/is not a politician. The only edit comes down to whether we should mention the death of a former employee on Scarboroughs article. Reasonable people may conclude that A) he is no longer a politician just as he now longer is a lawyer or college student and B) references to Klausutis have been removed for years for obvious BLP reasons. it's why my "violating" edit still stands. --DHeyward (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

you're correct that the fast pace of AE is frustrating and made a blatant error on the dates of Scarborough edit. It was also discouraging to note that you did not bring up your own filing and unclear sanction. It's impossible to keep up with the noise and ignorance, let alone the lack of accountability when a sanction. I asked for clarification when you filed as a party and you didn't clarify. When you filed as a party on Dec 9, you didn't recuse later per admin accountabilty but instead ignored your own admission of vagueness and implemented a new ban under a different arncom remedy. Shit, I don't even know when it expires because it's new but you keep saying it's an extension. What you should have done is to come out and say "I fucked up, the TBAN is expired. All the edits were productive." Only the last statement is true, though - "All the edits were productive." That makes you "THAT admin." --DHeyward (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

tony here's all my Scarborough edits. I realize this might be your first go round with it but come on. A trump tweet followed by WaPo calling it BS doesn't mean we add it. Ted Cruz didn't assassinate Kennedy and Clinton didn't kill Vince Foster. Trump Tweeted all three and WaPo called bullshit on all three and your assertion that it might be okay only in Scarborough is awful interpretation of BLP policy. A good question to ask yourself in these decisions is : "Will the WaPo include this information in the obit?" Answer: no. The fact that you don't see that it could be a BLP and the he might not be considered a politician is a huge AGF problem solved by a talk page comment. It's lunacy to think the same edit 3 days later is okay. --DHeyward (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a few comments as I've read some of the statements.
 * 1) I don't edit Wikipedia to "test boundaries."  I edit to improve and expand the encyclopedia as I hope we all do.  This I also see a history of trying to get around sanctions in this area, both with the original TBAN AE thread, the actions that led to this AE, and the various actions afterwards is baseless.  In particular, I wasn't under any sanctions when this second AE was filed and the only action prior that he cited was his aborted Dec 9 AE complaint that he blamed himself.  I'm extremely disappointed that TonyBalloni took the blame for his poorly defined sanction but then still tries to blame me for it here to justify a brand new sanction.  It is true that I was frustrated by this behavior and I could have acted better. But describing an edit on my talk page as nefarious "canvassing" when every single AE action starts with a notice on a users talk page about the AE discussion, lacks intellectual rigor.  I notified Tony about this discussion on his talk page which I'm sure others saw and followed.
 * 2) Tony then doubles down with one of my last edits to Brian Krzanich.  Davidson and Tony seems to think my edits violate AP2.  Read the edits: .  I didn't give those edits a second thought nor cared about his politics.  He was in the news regarding the security of microchips with speculative execution of branching instructions that access kernel memory locations using the hardware page table but then flush the instruction pipe without clearing table entry (not necessary for execution but leaving it can lead to side channel attack).  The edits weren't controversial and fixed language around his stock sales.  They aren't disruptive edits. I could defend them but there is no reward to doing so and I have better things to do than jump when busybodies should just move on (re-read the detail above to get an idea of what I was thinking when Tony ascribed to as an "edge case.").  Heck, the only "edge case" where I thought it may have been on the boundary, I self-reverted.  My revert was undone because it was a good edit with sources (my edits my self revert  and restored by another editor.  Someone even commented that my revert description that undid every edit I made wasn't clear enough.  I'll get right on that.
 * 3) I do have pointy elbows sometimes as Katie mentioned. I try to avoid a lot of discussions that have heated participants.  I slipped on dec 2 on the 1RR.  I'll note as Kingsindian did how TonyBalloni objected to Volunteer Mareks 24 hour topic ban for the same type of 1RR/no consensus violation handed out by Coffee.  And I'll point out that Tony doesn't think BLPONUS applies to my edit that only removed material from Scarborough or that the lead states he is a former politician.  In light of all that, there is no joy in participating where my time is being eaten up in these spaces defending edits that the community finds acceptable.  I have no intention of violating 1RR, no intention of violating any discretionary sanction.  I don't wish to be involved in any more disputes with TonyBallioni.  There's no point in participating, though, if edits like the ones I made to Brian Krzanich are called out on noticeboards.  After the comment about Humpty Dumpty below, I wouldn't be surprised if an edit to Alice in Wonderland is now an edge case.  God forbid I edit Kevin Bacon.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

 * Joe Scarborough is unambiguously an American politician: he is a former member of congress. That was a bright line that was clearly crossed over. The other cases were edge cases, but there were enough of them that I felt, as did the other admins at AE, that combined with the clear violation at Scarborough, the topic ban should be reset. Two other administrators suggested making the ban broader since there might have been some confusion: I agreed that was wise given the previous sanction. Regardless, Scarborough was a bright line, and it was not an obvious BLP violation as required by WP:BANEX, and the text removed was substantially different than previous versions removed on BLP grounds to the point where classifying them as the same topic is even a stretch: it was about Trump advancing a conspiracy theory and was cited to the Washington Post, and specifically called the incident unfounded conspiracy theories. This is substantially different than previous versions reverted:, . A reasonable editor could have made an argument for it's inclusion on the talk page, and have argued that there were a change in circumstances. That means that it is not covered by WP:BANEX.I will note that my sanction here was the unanimous consensus of all admins commenting on the AE thread, and that there was no consensus at AN to overturn the appeal. I have no issue with the committee reviewing my actions here, and I have admitted and realized the topic ban could have been worded better to begin with: that does not affect DHeyward's sanction in this case however, as there was a clear and blatant TBAN violation and there were several others that were on the edges here.I also think that the committee should take into account DHeyward's conduct on his talk page, where he edit warred to redirect it to AE: , , at AE, where he edit warred to restore commentary in the middle of another editor's comments: , , and at AN, where he bludgeoned the conversation by pasting the same statement to multiple editors who endorsed this sanction: , ,  (and I think there are more, but it would likely be easier to see by reading the thread). This all is disruptive editing that makes both the AE process and the appeals more difficult for uninvolved editors to review, and has the potential to have a chilling effect on those that disagree with him. Despite this, there was no consensus at AN to overturn the sanction, and the consensus of administrators at AE was to reset the topic ban. I am fine with whatever the committee decides to do, but I see no way to get around the fact that a former member of congress who is also a prominent political commentator is well within this topic ban on living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed., even without getting to the edge cases that also factored into the AE consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will also note that Andrew Davidson was not admonished for a baseless complaint, he was warned not to use hyperbole because of statements like tags Erica Garner, suggesting that her life did not matter, which is a derogatory implication given her role in Black Lives Matter and This is the first of several edits which seek to disrupt and destroy this article. I, as well as other admins, did consider these edits presented by Andrew as part of a pattern of editing around the edge, but the Scarborough edit was the bright line violation in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * the last day of your current topic ban is 4 February 2018. You may begin editing in the topic area again on 5 February 2018 unless ArbCom lifts the sanction earlier. I hope that is clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just noting for the committee that has filed a new AE request based on this sanction against DHeyward. See: this section. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I have been asked: no, I will not be removing my sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I agree, in general, with your observations, but of course with the difference that I thought it was worth sanctioning. There are two factors that I think you and ArbCom should also consider here: the pattern of behavior that occurred both before and after this new topic ban which is now being discussed at AE, and the behavior of DHeyward during the AE thread itself. On the first case, from my reading of the AE thread, and the previous AE action where DHeyward had 4 reverts on a 1RR article, followed by a self-revert to his preferred version, he had a pattern of pushing the limits on what was acceptable in a sanctions, claiming BLP exemptions that are not obvious (as required by WP:3RRNO and WP:BANEX), and then attempting to WikiLawyer around them. At some point when there is a pattern of continually approaching the line and stepping up to it, an individual crosses it, and I felt, as did the other AE admins, that DHeyward's behavior here, especially on the Scarborough article, reached that point. This pattern can also be seen with the new AE thread: if he had made that post while his appeal wasn't being considered at ARCA, it would have been an unquestionable topic ban violation, but because Jimmy Wales still in theory has the right of appeal from ArbCom (which he never exercises), it is a grey area that admins are put in an impossible place of enforcing: his commentary was more on the state of American politics on Wikipedia than anything else, but he discussed my comment at this ARCA as a part of it, so it was grey.Finally, I do want to address DHeyward's behavior at AE, which I linked to in diff's above. I did consider Mr. Ernie's suggestion on DHeyward's talk page that I let it off with a warning: it would have been the easiest way out. At the same time, DHeyward had violated TPO on AE, and edit warred to reinsert those violations. He'd also just redirected his own talk page to AE, effectively canvassing his watchers there, and had edit warred to keep the redirect. Both of these behaviors are disruptive, especially to a high intensity process that attracts partisans from every angle to defend their friend or attack their opponent. I felt that the behavior in the thread, combined with what I saw as a bright line violation at Scarborough, and edge cases elsewhere, meant that DHeyward was likely to continue to be disruptive in areas where discretionary sanctions were active, as he had previously when hitting 4 reverts on a 1RR article.There was a consensus at AE that the topic ban should be reset, and that it should be made AP2, and I had reason to believe that he would likely continue disruption in the topic area since he was demonstrating the same behavior that led to a topic ban (edit warring) during the AE process. Given these circumstances, and the fact that the AN appeal did not achieve consensus to overturn, I think I was within my discretion to act upon the consensus of AE admins, and that I could reasonably expect that the TBAN would be preventative rather than punishment. I'm sorry to the arbs for my long comment, but this is a complex situation, and I felt that I should explain as clear as possible the reasoning given some of the questions Newyorkbrad raised. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes, I agree looking back, the sanction should have been an AP2 sanction. Oddly enough, I was trying to prevent WikiLawyering when I placed the article under the BLP page level restrictions at the time. I did not clarify after the 9 December AE, because I thought at the time it was clear that politicians were covered, and he should take a wide breadth from them. I had already been accused of being on a vendetta against him (which I wasn't), and I felt that increasing the sanctions for AP2 at that time he might view as vindictive rather than a clarification, but I also felt that the ban shouldn't be removed, because 4 reverts on 1RR is a lot of disruption.In terms of this specific appeal, and your question regarding politicians, I will push back a bit. While you can argue whether or not the city councilman is an American politician here, when the article at the time it was edited has as the first thing in it's infobox his political service as a Member of Congress, and he is included in both Category:21st-century American politicians and Category:20th-century American politicians, and when you consider that he is probably the most high profile news media personality to be in conflict with the President of the United States, I think he falls squarely within the sanction, just by looking at the article itself. I also see a history of trying to get around sanctions in this area, both with the original TBAN AE thread, the actions that led to this AE, and the various actions afterwards.Finally, in the context of the appeal above, I think it would be a bad idea for the committee to overturn this. Above, Sandstein is being critiqued for acting independently of other admins when there was no clear consensus at AE. Here, I acted with the unanimous consensus of all AE admins, and the appeal was not overturned at AN. While the committee is of course free to do as it chooses, criticizing one administrator for his actions not working with other admins in AE above, while also overturning a sanction that was unanimously deemed to be merited by other administrators at AE makes the forum very difficult to work in, and raises the question of whether an administrator should unilaterally close an AE filing without sanctions, when there is a clear agreement amongst administrators that sanctions should occur. I'm willing to admit my mistakes in the original TBAN wording, and while I can see why others might not have sanctioned, given the information that I was faced with at the time, the disruption that had been actively occuring on AE, and the consensus of administrators there, I think that I acted within discretion and in a procedurally correct manner. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * to your question of why TBAN him: because he has consistently shown over the last month that he is an editor who simply doesn't care what the behavioral norms are of Wikipedia or what sanctions are in place so long as he thinks he is right. That indicates a strong likelihood that he will continue to be disruptive in the topic area. His edits here might be done in good faith (he thinks he is right, that he is being wronged, etc.) but they are still disruptive. That's how he got in this situation to begin with: 4 reverts on a 1RR article. It is a serious behavioral problem that needs to be addressed, and skirting the topic ban around the edges, and then crossing the on an article he should have at least thought to asks demonstrates that he could use some more time off from this area to hopefully cool down and get used to editing in less contentious areas where there is less feuding between people from different POVs. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think the most concerning thing about your actions to me is that you haven’t once admitted that others might reasonably disagree with you, and that you insist that you were 100% in the right. Every admin at AE thought you violated your topic ban, and you kept insisting that there was no way you could have: when many reasonable people tell you that they view something differently than you, it is normally a sign that they may be seeing something you aren’t. I was strongly considering letting this off with a warning, but the edit warring on your own talk page and at AE were huge mistakes that suggested to me that you needed a longer break from this contentious area, especially when combined with what seemed to me and other admins to be pushing the limits on sanctions. I see how you might see these as BLP violations: I disagree that they were ban exempt, but I recognize your point of view. My largest concern is that if you go back into the area you will continue edit warring when you think you are right, even if reasonable people disagree and it should be discussed on the talk page. I think these concerns are warranted, and are the main reason that looking at the totality of the picture, I am still uncomfortable lifting sanctions, especially considering that I feel you have misrepresented a lot of what I have said here and haven’t recognized that much of your behavior as a part of the AE process has been disruptive. I would be willing to consider changing the sanction to 0RR in AP2 as a sign of good faith given your last post, but I would not be comfortable at this time completely lifting sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sanction. I have no desire to extend the discussion here, and I respect Katie, DGG, Rick and NYB enough that I'm fine with removing this. I've only ever acted in this manner with regards to consensus, which was in favour of reseting the TBAN at AE. I stand by my recent comments above: I think DHeyward acted very disruptively throughout this process, but if the committee thinks that a sanction should not happen because the wording was vague enough that good faith should be assumed, I will respect their judgement. Having a forum other than AE and AN to look at this is important, and I appreciate their review. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
My involvement in this is superficial and of an administrative nature. I declined to take action in an enforcement request of 9 December 2017 against DHeyward because, for the reasons cited by DHeyward, I did not think that DHeyward's actions as reported there violated their topic ban. As concerns the enforcement request of 4 January 2018 at issue here, I closed DHeyward's appeal at WP:AN against the ban imposed by TonyBallioni, finding that there was not the required clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors to overturn the ban.

I have not formed a opinion of my own about the merits of the ban, and I don't think that I need to, because I think that this appeal should be rejected on procedural grounds. Although follow-up appeals to ARCA from AN or AE are allowed, I believe that, to avoid forum shopping, ArbCom should not review such appeals de novo, but focus on any important procedural errors with the sanction or the appeal below. To the extent I understand this somewhat confusing appeal, such errors are not being alleged here.  Sandstein  07:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN
--<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Enforcement case
 * Appeal and decline

Statement by Fyddlestix
Come on. This was already appealed at AN and the appeal was declined. Do we really want everyone who is unhappy with their AE sanction appealing to both AN and to ARCA going forward? You can interpret the topic ban as narrowly as you want, it was still clearly and obviously violated. The wikilayering here is ridiculous and should not be tolerated. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In reply to some of the comments since I posted this: I'm happy to defer to admins and arbs and accept that the appeal is within established process - I'm not sure I was really arguing otherwise: my point was more simply that DHeyward has used every possible means to challenge these sanctions every step of the way. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but if you believe - as I do - that the tban violation was clear cut then it does seem disruptive. Also, if the 2 appeals currently under consideration here end with the sanction being overturned you should probably all be prepared to spend a lot more time reading arca appeals of ae sanctions going forward.
 * As for the violation itself, I'm a bit flummoxed to see so many admins and others argue that Scarborough is not a politician. Someone who has been a member of Congress definitely deserves that label, and I would push back against the assertion that they stop being a politician the moment the stop serving. Joe Scarborough is, after all, in Category:20th-century American politicians, and you only need look at articles like Nick Galifianakis (politician) (to pick just one random example out of many) to see that members of Congress are frequently referred to as "politicians" - even long after they're dead or have left office. Our BLP articles obviously detail what people did throughout their lives not just what they are doing right now, it seems absurd to me that a biography of someone who served in Congress should not be considered a biography of a politician. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
No matter how many times TonyBallioni says "Scarborough is unambiguously a politician" doesn't make it so. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the ban should be rescinded and a huge trout to TonyBalioni for without him, we would not be in this position we are in now. He wrote a horrible TBAN, DHeyward followed the TBAN, got an AE action against him a while back and it was closed as no violation, and DHeyward used that and then a new TBAN is given to DHeyward for following the rules and precedent. Is it any wonder people have problems? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
The irony here is that THIS ARCA belies claims made in the ARCA right above it. Specifically:

In the AP2 ARCA right above SlimVirgin says: "What can be done about this situation at AE, which seems to have been going on forever, that Sandstein can simply ignore the views of other uninvolved admins? ". Note she does not offer any diffs or any other evidence for this claim aside from the fact that she doesn't like how the MONGO report was closed.

In this ARCA we actually see clear evidence that her claim is false: " I declined to take action in an enforcement request of 9 December 2017 against DHeyward because, for the reasons cited by DHeyward, I did not think that DHeyward's actions as reported there violated their topic ban"

So apparently Sandstein DOES NOT in fact "ignore the views of other uninvolved admins". Gee, perhaps the consensus in the MONGO case was actually leaning towards the way that Sandstein closed it?

As for DHeyward, this is what, the fourth FORUM he's brought up this in? Maybe just the third. What Fyddlestix said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Dheyward has already made an appeal and it was rejected, so it's not clear what the purpose of this is, except as a thinly disguised "appeal of an appeal of an appeal a sanction".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

So... how about we get an actual clarification here. If you get a DS, through WP:AE otherwise, exactly where and how many times can you appeal? It seems like the appeal procedure is: 1) on the sanctioning admin's talk page, then 2) at WP:AN, then 3) here then 4) Jimbo I guess. Is it possible to squeeze in WP:AE or WP:AN/I in there too? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, in his latest comment Dheyward claims that " I wasn't under any sanctions when this second AE was filed". This is false. A sanction is in effect until it is successfully appealed. Just because you are busy WP:FORUMSHOPPING your appeal (because it was already rejected elsewhere) doesn't mean the sanction is suspended.

It is also clear from DHeyward's statement that he blames everyone but himself for the consequences of his actions (no idea what "intellectual rigor" has to do with following Wikipedia policies). Likewise claiming that "I slipped on dec 2 on 1RR" is a bit disingenous seeing as this "slip" consisted of FOUR reverts (which would've been a vio even absent 1RR). And instead of acknowledging that DHeyward instead made excuses and tried to get other editors sanctions under various false pretexts. Tony and the AE admins actually went easy on him. Too easy apparently since he then proceeded to violate the limited sanction that was imposed. And here we are.

I also want to echo something others have said - this is like the third or fourth venue that DHeyward has "appealed" to. The actual appeal - the one that follows policy - was soundly rejected at WP:AN. If you over turn the sanction then you are not only over ruling admins at WP:AE, you are also over ruling the broader community at WP:AN. I can see over ruling one or the other, but both? You will also be incentivizing forum shopping, topic ban envelope pushing and other disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Andrew Davidson
Please note the original timeline. The topic ban was first placed on 2 Dec while DHeyward started editing Erica Garner on 31 Dec, which is within the same calendar month. My view was that this clearly violated the topic ban as the Garner topic was related to multiple US politicians, when "broadly construed", as the ban stated. Myself, I have no particular axe to grind about US politics as I'm British and had only started the article in response to a request at the Women in Red Project. The subject was getting a lot of traffic and was posted on the main page in ITN. I was therefore concerned that the article should not be improperly tagged while it was getting such exposure. I have been previously told by an OTRS admin (RexxS iirc) that such tags can often cause offense when they suggest that the subject is not notable. The subject was covered by the policy BDP and so the matter seemed reasonably serious. Maybe I didn't explain this well but the AE submission form is quite complex and it was quite late at night when I was working through its intricate requirements for diffs and detail. Some latitude should please be allowed for editors who are trying to use the process in good faith but find it difficult.

On 4 Jan, the topic ban was then restated as "DHeyward is banned for one month from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed." On 6 Jan, DHeyward made several edits to the article about Brian Krzanich, e.g. this. That article recounts "Krzanich's involvement in politics" and repeatedly details Krzanich's interaction with Trump and the policies of his administration. Editing this article therefore seems to be a fresh violation of the topic ban.

Andrew D. (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
User:TonyBallioni's original topic ban placed on DHeyward was not a well formed sanction. Tony himself didn't even seem to understand what it covered, as seen by the AE request he brought and then retracted. If the sanctioning admin can't understand a sanction they create, how can we expect an editor to? Additionally, DHeyward's offending edit was removing a borderline BLP error. I will assume good faith and believe DHeyward when he says he didn't think Scarborough qualified as a politician AND that he was enforcing BLP. What caused more disruption to the project? The offending edit was a clear improvement to the article. The resulting attempts to punish DHeyward for running afoul of a poorly worded sanction and subsequent appeals have taken us to AN, Jimbo's page, AE (trips for DHeyward, MONGO, and The Rambling Man), and now ARCA. Tony continues to support his sanction, claiming the consensus from fellow admins at AE is on his side - but of course it is. Admin's rarely choose to side with editors when potential admin mistakes are involved, especially editors who have committed the cardinal sin of having a block log.

Tony, would you consider removing the current topic ban on DHeyward? His behavior will certainly be closely watched. We've already had one editor retire as a direct result of your administrative actions, and it appears we'll soon have another one retire (if he isn't blocked first). Mr Ernie (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

if we can all accept, as you say, that it was a badly-constructed ban, then it seems to me the natural course of action is to either clarify the ban or remove it, not insist that it be enforced. TonyBallioni chose the latter course of action, and it is hard to see how that benefited anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If I understand the arb comments, and  have said they would not have extended the sanction, but are awaiting more comments before deciding what to do, and  has stated his first choice would be to remove the sanction. How can/should we move forward here so we can wrap this up? Are there still any arbs who would like to comment or should we work based on those who have commented so far? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish (uninvolved)
While I'm here: I agree with Mr Ernie. It doesn't make sense to enforce a sanction that was unclear to everyone, admittedly so by its author, who didn't get around to clarifying it. Especially when a) it was about to expire anyway, b) the edits were actually productive and made in good faith, and c) whether the article in question even qualifies is questionable. A friend of mine who died of cancer last year, and who was a Unix system administrator and a book author, and might conceivably be notable, also ran for local public office one time, about 30 years ago.  Does that make him a politician?

This does seem to me to be of-a-piece with the Tony1 wrongful block situation, and the AE report by SarahSV above. Some sanctions-related bolt has come loose and needs to be re-tightened, firmly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
Speaking about this appeal, I do not think that any AE administrator acted outside the limits of their discretion, and therefore I do not see any reason to overturn the decisions on WP:AE and the discussion by WP community on WP:AN. Did AE admins demonstrate good judgement? I think they definitely did. I do not really know the user, but his behavior, i.e. multiple appeals (on 3 noticeboards) with a simultaneous violation of their topic ban and the "retirement" looks to me as disruption. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think reforming the system of discretionary sanctions (as suggested by DGG) could be reasonable. Two suggestions are obvious:
 * 1) These sanctions can be simply removed in many subject areas, although US politics is probably not one of them.
 * 2) Arbcom could define a limited "toolbox" of specific types of restrictions that could be used by admins in such areas. For example, making 1RR restriction for a page would be allowed, but highly complicated restrictions (such as "consensus required" by Coffee) would not be included in the toolbox. That would help a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
While I opposed both the sanction and opposed it in the appeal at AN, I agree with and think this request should be closed because this is simply forum-shopping. AE sanctions can be appealed somewhere (either AN or ARCA or AE itself). The former was chosen and it failed, so the matter should be allowed to rest. My condolences to, but that's how it is. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An addendum: if ArbCom does end up considering the merits of the ban in this venue, I'll be happy to provide my views on how the sanction was bad. In particular, some things I'll say about will not be flattering. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when I said the above, I meant that I thought the purpose of ARCA would be to look at procedural matters (for instance, was the AN request closed correctly? I think it was.) If ArbCom is ready to hear the entire case from the beginning, let me me know and I'll comment accordingly. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll provide a summary of the events as I see them. There are three main acts:
 * 1) Volunteer Marek brings an AE request against DHeyward for edit-warring.  TBAN-ed DHeyward on 2 December 2017 for edit-warring on the article Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, which he had placed under 1RR and consensus required provision. Please note the latter point, because it is important and I'll come back to it. TonyBallioni is a fervent defender of the "consensus required" provision in numerous venues (and I am a fervent opponent; however, the latter fact is not relevant here because I did not take any admin actions here). According to TonyBallioni "consensus required" is a good provision intended to enforce WP:ONUS, namely the requirement that the person who inserts the text has to prove consensus, not the person who removes it. The wording of the TBAN is articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed
 * 2) TonyBallioni brings an AE request against DHeyward for violation of the TBAN. Sandstein determines that the TBAN hasn't been violated because While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni acknowledged that the wording was poor, and withdrew the request.
 * 3) Andrew Davidson brought an AE request against DHeyward. It is 100% certain that based on the diffs provided by Andrew Davidson, DHeyward wouldn't have been sanctioned at all; indeed, Andrew Davidson was admonished in the closing statement for their "hyperbole". However,  brought forward other diffs in the AE request, which were also investigated, first by  and later by others. The decisive edit (agreed to by all people involved) was DHeyward's edit on Joe Scarborough. I am using the word "decisive" properly: without the Scarborough edit, it is very unlikely that DHeyward would have been sanctioned.

Now we come to the Scarborough edit.


 * Scarborough is described in the lead of his article as an American cable news and talk radio host. He has not been a politician for 17 years. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that "past politicians" is covered in the TBAN. So the only way in which DHeyward's edit would be allowed is if it was removing a BLP violation. I come to this very point.
 * Some history of the text at issue. I have already given a full account in the WP:AN request; please also see TonyBallioni's responses to me. Here, I give a capsule summary of the important points. The text in question was inserted by a throwaway sock/troll account called (the woman who died was an intern). They also likely used socks/IPs for this purpose (see this, this and this, for example). Trump had tweeted about this matter, which WaPo (among others) deemed as a conspiracy theory without any basis in fact. Please see the talk page discussion here, where no consensus was found for any inclusion of text, of whatever phrasing.
 * WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is an integral part of BLP policy. Since no consensus for any text was found, edit-warring against consensus by the IP/sock/troll was illegitimate and a BLP violation. This is what happened initially: eventually the person who was edit-warring with the IP/troll rewrote the passage into something closer to neutrality, which seemed to satisfy the IP/troll/sock. Again, the crucial point is that there was no consensus for this phrasing either.
 * DHeyward had removed this text (or something like it) many times over many years; see this for an example. It is well-known that such things in political areas are litigated over and over, often for years. This particular edit has been fought over since at least 2004.
 * This is not really important, but Volunteer Marek himself was the target of reverts by a sock/troll of some smears he claimed to be a BLP violation, on Andrew McCabe. See this AN request. This kind of stuff is routine in political areas.

Now, I come to the punchline. There is a good-faith determination that DHeyward thought that he was removing a BLP violation and did not intend to violate his topic ban. His edit was completely proper (in fact, required under WP:BLP), and it has stood undisturbed since he made it. TonyBallioni's professed concern about WP:ONUS and "consensus required" also points to this outcome. Nobody claims that DHeyward's edits were disruptive or harmed the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni's ban was poorly worded and confusing to even himself.

So why was DHeyward TBANned? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
As I've said privately to TonyBallioni, I can't see how the topic scope "living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed" is any different to "post-1932 American politics," since anything political is necessarily "related" to politicians. I certainly can't see how it could be construed as narrower than a standard AP2 TBAN; it might be arguably broader, since politicians might have other non-political interests which would fall under "related topics, broadly construed." The wording appears at first glance to be narrower than an AP2 TBAN but actually isn't and I think everyone accepts that it was a badly-constructed ban. The only respect in which it is clearly narrower than an AP2 ban is that it only applies in article space (and perhaps with respect to people involved in post-1932 politics but who are long deceased, but that question doesn't come up here).

Given that scope, the question is not whether Erica Garner or Joe Scarborough are living or recently deceased politicians, but whether they are topics broadly related to politicians, which they clearly are. That would make DHeyward's edits unambiguously violations of the topic ban.

The only remaining questions in my mind are whether he reasonably relied on Sandstein's interpretation of the ban to be significantly narrower than its bare wording (you accept that he did, if I understand you correctly, and I think I agree, though his subsequent poking at the limits of his subsequent ban should perhaps give us pause for thought) and then whether that reliance is sufficient to overturn the sanction, on which I don't have an opinion. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
Brad, As you know, I endorsed the AE in the AN appeal, and I still do because, it's well within reasonable discretion to find the topics related. We are called upon to review the consensus discretion of other people, not Sandstein, and those people are endowed with their own reasoned discretion, so I again say, endorse. --`Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome and good luck. I don't get your suggestion that you need a definition of politician -- it's ordinary English, right? - and really, if you accept you need such definition, every sanction will read like a phone book -- and I extend the observation of ordinary English to 'topics related to'. Whatever, theoretical cases may arise (or otherstuff that arose): this former congressmen/political commentator and this political activist/who prominently interacted with presidential candidates and city political leaders, fall within reasonable construction of these ordinary English phrases. (As an aside, Erica Gardner was created on the 29th, so no one was going to edit it till then and the editing occurred in December) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MrX
I feel bad for DHeyward because he keeps finding himself in situations where he is sanctioned, re-sanctioned and reported for violations of the re-sanctions. On the other hand, I don't think that Arbcom should second guess AE admins unless there is strong evidence that they have failed to comply with WP:AC/DS or established project norms. I concur with TonyBallioni's very patient and detailed explanation. Sandstein's statement about procedure is also on point, while I also acknowledge and respect that many Wikipedians see things much differently. Newyorkbrad's somewhat wordy ;) analysis shows that he understands the circumstances well.

The question is: should Arbcom members vote to lift sanctions that they personal would not have imposed if they were admining at AE? Think about that carefully. There is a very real risk of establishing a precedent that is going to make you jobs very, very busy and potentially generate a lot of future drama.- MrX 17:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , with all due respect, AE is the about the only thing preventing this place from blowing up. Reform would be beneficial, but eliminating it would be a huge step backwards.- MrX 18:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24
My very best wishes has made some good suggestions regarding DGG's musing on AE reform. I'd like to add more transparency and, to impose a sanction, the enforcing admin must state specifically what action the sanctioned editor performed with at least one dif. If someone else has to be punished for something, then the admin has to go on record that they believe they did it and that they believe it's bad. And "disruption" is a result, not an action. Say what they did. If AE sanctions are truly intended to be anti-disruptive and not punitive, then identifying the disruptive action is the single most valuable thing to do. Even if you think the sanctioned editor is too stupid to understand, say it for the benefit of other editors reading the public, transparent thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
If I was better person, I wouldn't find myself ironically amused (and somewhat saddened) by the way wiki-volunteers disregard Wikipedia mainspace in the Wikipedia space: According to us, Joe Scarborough "is an American cable news and talk radio host. ... Scarborough was previously a lawyer and a politician" (emphasis mine). And Wikipedia defines Politician thus: "A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government." So ya'll work so hard to maintain the editorial integrity of an encyclopedia which is then disregarded in favor of WP:SYNTHESIS during dispute resolution ...

I'll add -- likely pointlessly in the face of Tradition! -- that the phrase broadly construed really should be struck from the wiki lexicon, due to it's frequent Alice in Wonderland usage: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” In other words, if ya'll are going to do topic based restrictions, precise definition during drafting, and giving the benefit of the doubt to the editor in the gray areas, would reduce the necessity for some much post-edit haggling over whether an edit was or wasn't a violation.

Statement by SPECIFICO
Long AE threads are bad enough. By the time there's been even one appeal, the purpose and intended functioning of Discretionary Sanctions has been thoroughly subverted. We didn't need DS to go through all the drama, including a brief retirement. The initial sanction was well-considered and valid both on process and on substance. And DHeyward has a nasty well-documented history of disruption. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse GoldenRing (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting further statements, and will review tomorrow. Note that we'll look at the related AE and AN threads in reviewing this, so that while anyone may comment here, it's not necessary to repeat every point that's already been made there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been reviewing this and the other new AE-related thread today, interspersed with some offline activities, and had reached a tentative conclusion subject to double-checking some things and finalizing my review. I'll be finishing up and posting tonight (Eastern US time). In the meantime, I see that DHeyward has posted a retirement notice, which I am sure is not an outcome that anyone was hoping for. Since many retirements are non-permanent and the appeal hasn't been withdrawn, I'll be concluding my review regardless of it; the retirement announcement will not affect my analysis or conclusions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was planning to post on this tonight, but my comments on the previous ARCA request took me much longer than I'd anticipated, so it'll have to be tomorrow. My apologies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My thoughts:
 * First, the appeal is procedurally proper. The policy provides for it, and the right to appeal an AE outcome to ArbCom is an important safety valve, even though we respect the AE admins' judgment in most cases, and grant appeals only rarely.


 * On December 2, DHeyward was topic-banned for one month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. On December 9, addressing another complaint against DHeyward, one of our most experienced AE administrators observed that the specific topic-ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits and that edits where the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician were not prohibited. DHeyward says he relied on this construction in interpreting the topic-ban for the rest of the month, and I believe that.


 * There were no further complaints about DHeyward's compliance until a January 4 AE filing about edits to Erica Garner; during the thread, another editor cited edits to Joe Scarborough. (Some other edits were cited, but those were the main focus.) The outcome was a one-month extension of a broader "American politics" topic ban.


 * DHeyward argues that he believed that his edits were permissible. He emphasizes, repetitiously but plausibly, that he would not knowingly have violated the topic-ban so close to its expiration. He also points out that the sanction as imposed was ambiguous. (Clarity in sanctioning is good, but no rule can ever be totally unambiguous even in theory, see here, so common sense must be used.)


 * The question in the new AE thread was whether DHeyward's edits were to articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. This raised sub-issues, including: (1) whether the topic-ban included talk pages (I'm surprised that could still be unclear at this late date); (2) whether Erica Garner was a "politician" (debatable, but understandable to think not); (3) whether Joe Scarborough is a "politician" (he isn't today, though he used to be, but perhaps his is a "related article, broadly construed"); (4) whether removing a reference to a Donald Trump tweet referencing a blatantly false accusation against Scarborough constituted BLP enforcement (another instance of the Allegations Problem, which is one of the most difficult areas of BLP line-drawing, as I've discussed here).


 * If I had been one of the administrators who worked on this AE thread, I would have found that while he sometimes came close to the line, DHeyward appeared to have a good-faith, rational belief that he had stayed onside each time. I would have opined against sanctioning him, though I would also have observed&mdash;and I observe here&mdash;that the best way to avoid having to discern the parameters of a topic-ban from the inside is to avoid being topic-banned in the first place.


 * The AE admins' consensus was that violations took place, with a one-month reset as the remedy. DHeyward appealed to AN, where by my count 15 editors endorsed the sanction and 11 opposed it. The AN discussion was not the very model of a modern noticeboard debate, though in fairness so few of them are. I note in passing that it might have been better if someone else had closed the AN thread (though the "no consensus" outcome was likely inevitable), and I note with strong disapproval how many people's opinions lined up along predictable partisan lines.


 * That brings us here. I think DHeyward probably believed, more reasonably in some instances than in others but not beyond the bounds of AGF, that his edits were compliant. DHeyward might be well-advised to refine his editing style if (as I hope) he soon returns to editing, but I would not have voted to extend this topic-ban.


 * But the question here is not just whether I personally disagree with the AE decision, but whether ArbCom should go so far as to overturn it. Before I reach that question, I'd welcome others' opinions on the views I've expressed so far. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Update: As TonyBallioni has now lifted the topic-ban extension (see above), this matter is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Recuse from this specific topic ban/clarification request, although not from future discussions on BLP sanctions in general. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Recuse from this specific request as with PMC above. I do want to comment broadly though on the topic of appeals to ARCA. Appealing to AN/AE and then ARCA is perfectly fine. In fact, it's what we'd expect. ARCA is the final venue of appeal, and it's typical to appeal at AE/AN before ARCA. See, for instance, arb comments at the Pseudoscience appeal above. Ignoring the specifics of this appeal, I am completely unconvinced by the arguments of forum-shopping. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My comment was more in reply to Fyddlestix. I'm recused on this specific appeal, so I'll let other arbs comment on how they plan to proceed. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the appeal is proper. If we're going to have steps in an appeal process, and if those steps are outlined, then an editor has the right to avail him/herself of each of those steps. I'm a newbie here, but I can at least piece together that much.


 * We could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if the initial sanction had been clear. Setting aside for just a moment DHeyward's claims of removing BLP violations, the BLP policy defines living or recently deceased persons as within its remit. If this had been a simple BLP sanction about living or recently deceased persons, or even an AP2 sanction, DHeyward's edits would have been violations. That was not the sanction, though – the sanction was topic-banned for one month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed.


 * So, who is and isn't an American politician? Does 'politician' include everyone who has ever held elective office at any level, no matter how long ago or for how long? Does it include everyone who ever campaigned for elective office? Does it include everyone who ever made a speech on a political topic? Does it include activists? Does it include people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and wrote a book about their experience? Does it include former military who have written books? The sanction is unworkable without that definition, in my view, even with the broadly construed clause.


 * When Sandstein declined the AE thread over edits to Kris Paronto, DHeyward says he used the guidance given there, about articles vs. edits, to frame his editing for the duration of the sanction. I see nothing that leads me to conclude that this is not true. I'm very puzzled why the sanction was not removed or at least clarified at this point, but it wasn't, so there you go.


 * Sanction expires, DHeyward edits Erica Garner – adding a section to the talk page, and proposing a merger to Death of Eric Garner – and an AE thread is started about it requesting a sanction under WP:NEWBLPBAN, not under the topic ban or even under AP2. (January 4 is unquestionably more than a month after December 2, and I have to wonder if NEWBLPBAN wasn't used as an excuse here.) That discussion veers off into AP2 territory quickly, with DHeyward's removal of a section of Joe Scarborough just before the sanction expired taking center stage. DHeyward is adamant that a) this is a BANEX in that he was removing a BLP violation, and b) Scarborough is not an American politician. He also says he would not have violated the sanction so close to its expiration date.


 * DHeyward has strong views on BLP enforcement, and again, I have no reason to question his motives or his statements here. Could he have behaved better at the AE thread? Absolutely. Is his style abrasive to some? Undoubtedly. He should really think about how he approaches editing in these areas if and when he returns, but I think he reasonably believed he was within the bounds of his editing restriction with the Scarborough/Montell/BLM edits. The topic ban is reset, however, this time explicitly under AP2. DHeyward appeals to AN, where there's no consensus to overturn it. As a participant in the AE threads, Sandstein should probably have let someone else close the AN thread, but he didn't, so there you go again.


 * And here we are. How do I put all that together for myself? Like Brad, I would not have come down on the side of resetting this restriction. Andrew Davidson's rationale for the AE thread was shrill at best and over-the-top hyper-partisanship at worst. Whether we should overturn it is another matter, and I want to hear other opinions first as well. Katietalk 17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As for procedure, i think that: an appeal to arb com is proper. So is the admin removing the sanction themselves. So would be community consensus here or at ANB. The basic rule for procedure is NOT BURO. As for the merits: my first choice is removing the sanction without conditions.  Future problems can be dealt with as they occur, preferably without using AE. I also will not oppose any other proposal for removing it, even if it adds a restriction I think unnecessary.
 * More generally, if we can get into such a convoluted discussion about an AE sanction, it's time to replace AE. The attempt to have a AE as a procedure that would stick has ended up in a total mess of glue. I've earlier said the only reason I would support continuing AE is my inability to think of a  satisfactory replacement, but at this point, the first step is to see if we need it at all.    DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Was this comment meant for this thread, or for the MONGO thread above? (Or both?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted it, so it applies to both.  DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue I, as I see it, is that the sanction was vague in its terminology. As Katie stated above, just who is an "American politician"? Is it someone who ran for public office, and failed and never ran again? Is it someone who served a term 15-20 years ago and since has been in the private sector? That wording is left wide to interpretation and led to somne of this issue.


 * Did DHeyward come close to toeing over the line of his topic ban? Yes, he was close, but WHERE was the line drawn? The effect of the language, timing, and everything else snowballed into what we have now. The appeal is fine to arbcom, and I stand in agreement with in that the sanction should be removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (December 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by TonyBallioni at 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * 

Statement by TonyBallioni
Buffs is currently interpreting WP:ECP to state that admins must either declare protection is for disruptive editing, or apply it under DS. He has taken to requesting logging of ECPs on BLPs at WP:AELOG based on the ruling at WP:NEWBLPBAN. I am requesting the committee clarify whether the practice of using the standard Twinkle drop down Violations of the biographies of living persons policy requires logging at WP:AELOG if it is not intended as a discretionary sanction and it complies with the rest of the policy at WP:ECP. The committee could also clarify whether all actions taken to enforce the BLP policy are under DS or whether the current practice of enforcing it as normal admin actions is fine. I'm sorry to bother you all with this, but since all of his user talk contributions going back 2 weeks amount to a super-literal policing of the use of ECP, I'd prefer the committee clarify this before it gets any further. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not really sure how this is an end-run around ARBPIA4 (which I’ve ignored.) We have someone saying that using the Twinkle defaults for BLP protection requires logging, and when approached about it maintains that is the position. If Buffs is going to continue policing ECP (he can if he wants), there should be clarity on what is actually the standard outside of ARBPIA. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 's. The reason this is at ARCA is because you said While the ECP of Joe Girardi was short-lived, you still need to log your actions here per the ArbCom ruling on BLPs. Please do so. Buffs (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)} (diff)
 * You also told Risker If you are invoking protection of the article because it's BLP]], you need to log such actions here. Please do so.|undefined (diff)
 * You are saying that you are fine with this now that we are at ARCA, but the fact is that your most persistent activity of the last few weeks on Wikipedia has been policing the use of ECP. As I said, that's fine. What I have an issue with is you making up a requirement that all BLP protections must be logged, telling admins this, and when it is pointed out to you that you are wrong, you responding that you aren't. You have said on two occasions that ArbCom requires ECP of BLPs to be logged.
 * When I questioned you on it, you didn't back down and instead said Therefore, it you are citing WP:BLP as your rationale for WP:ECP, it seems to me that you're applying it due to DS, not DE. (diff).
 * As for your objections: when someone has made it their mission on Wikipedia to enforce policy on something, are incorrect on what the policy says, and invokes ArbCom as a reason for their position when ArbCom has said nothing of the sort, the place you go to ask for clarification is here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Buffs
Well, that's a terribly biased and misleading interpretation of events.

First of all, to state that "all of [my] user talk contributions going back 2 weeks amount to a super-literal policing of the use of ECP" is beyond a stretch of the truth. In the only two specific instances he mentioned to me on my user page, the first had no rationale listed whatsoever. I asked for clarification and reminded him that, if it was under DS, to file it in the appropriate logs (even going so far as to provide a link to make it easier should that be the rationale). He stated that he probably overstepped where the protection needed to be. In the other, I asked for clarification and the Admin apparently felt it WAS under WP:DS and filed it under the logs as he should do so. In both instances, I felt such actions were appropriate and it was handled as it should have been.

Second, yes, I've asked for others to be more clear and, if necessary, to log such actions in accordance with ArbCom directives. In most instances, an admin says "hmm...you have a point there" and it's either clarified, clarified and logged, or any of a number of other actions which amount to ✅. To demonize all such conversations as super-literal policing of the use of ECP is beyond what anyone could objectively say is an accurate summary of events and is quite uncivil, IMNSHO.

Third, it seems quite obvious that the requirements for DS and ArbCom decisions are not being properly logged. You need to look no further than the first page of over 1800 ECP'd pages to see that there are dozens of pages under ArbCom rulings that are not logged anywhere. When notified, most admins go "Gee, you have a point there. I'll fix that!" Some have dug their heels in and said "No, I'm not going to do that". I haven't pursued such actions beyond a one-on-one conversation because of ongoing ArbCom discussion and clarification that's already underway. Bringing this here seems to be an attempt to end-run around that discussion. Buffs (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this falls under both ArbCom rulings (not just BLP) AND community consensus at WP:ECP. Please keep that in mind in your deliberations/conversations. Buffs (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Buffs Responses to comments

 * I don't know where Buffs gets the idea that discretionary sanctions has anything to do with the ECP policy
 * Third paragraph of WP:ECP
 * So, somewhere between Buffs, that third paragraph deals with the history of ECP, not the current state.
 * The point is that ECP is indeed applied for DS reasons. If you're saying the third paragraph no longer applies and admins can just do whatever they want, why bother having a policy at all?
 * I don't see the problem with the rationales as they are
 * Then I respectfully submit you aren't looking hard enough:
 * Protecting their own user pages without evidence of any need for any page protection:
 * "I'd rather new users use the talk page for now" but page is indef ECP:
 * No reason at all (out of all the pages with ECP, 3% have no rationale at all)::
 * My personal favorite: "place is fucked":
 * If ECP is applied as a discretionary sanction, the admin should say so and log it...
 * Agree 100%
 * it's not always the case that ECP is applied as a DS.
 * Which is why I have a problem with the way this was initially brought to AFCA. I never said it was. This is no more than a straw man argument. There are hundreds of pages on the list of ECP protected pages which are BLPs that have nothing to do with ArbCom/DS. I don't have a problem with any of them. It's very clear from the edit summaries that WP:DE is a significant problem.
 * If it isn't, a standard rationale of 'persistent sockpuppetry' or 'persistent vandalism' or 'violations of the BLP policy' (and so forth) is sufficient for me.
 * Likewise. I never said otherwise. Buffs (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The extra "paperwork" he is seeking is a solution in search of a problem.
 * I'm sorry. I guess I thought we were on a site where the policies actually mattered. I guess us mere peons have to follow the rules to the letter and intent doesn't matter while admins get all sorts of leeway? Last I checked, WP:AC/DS still applies. Specifically: "While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not...repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions". Saying that no one can even ask removes that layer of accountability to the community as a whole. Buffs (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ...some of these confirmed users would go on to disrupt articles that were not protected at all...
 * So why not block the users? You're just pointing out the flaw in your argument here. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also want the parties involved to understand that actions needing to be logged are not made ineffective by a failure to log.
 * I never said they were and I don't see anyone advocating as such. An analogy: police officer arrests someone but puts the cuffs on too tight. I'm asking for the cops to make sure the cuffs are the proper tightness, not invalidate the arrest.
 * The appropriate response in most cases will be to simply WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM – add the log entry yourself.
 * I would have done that LONG ago if the rules didn't preclude that: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log." Likewise, this is very clearly defined as a role of administrators, not editors. I find it odd that no one is even discussing sanctioning admins when WP:AC/DS states "While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not...repeatedly fail to log sanctions...Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy the committee considers appropriate..." Buffs (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
My understanding is that ECP (30/500 protection) can be applied by an admin in either of these cases: In the first case, another admin must not change the protection as it is a discretionary sanction, and the action should be logged. The second case is a normal admin action which can be changed by another admin, and there is no log but pages are automatically listed at WP:AN. See the ECP RfC. Applying ECP is like any admin action—it might be reasonable to ask an admin why they had taken the action. However, it should be assumed that the first case applies if and only if mentioned in the edit summary. Admins have to take a lot of actions and requiring a discussion should be rare. In the second case, if there is reason to think that page protection should be reduced, ask the admin to do that or make a request at WP:RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) In certain topics specified by Arbcom.
 * 2) In any topic if certain conditions (other methods are ineffective) are met.
 * Admins were notified regarding ECP on 23 September 2016: example. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
Like the others who have posted, I suggest that Buffs drop this matter. The extra "paperwork" he is seeking is a solution in search of a problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (Editing of Biographies of Living Persons)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Buffs appears to want to make it one. No thanks. Guy (help!) 10:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C
With respect to my own protection cited here, the Kurdish set of articles had been a haven for socking-based disruption from confirmed accounts for months before I finally had to apply ECP to a set of related articles, to the relief of regular contributors. Anyway, some of these confirmed users would go on to disrupt articles that were not protected at all, so the formality of semiprotecting those articles first just so they could be immediately ECP'd seemed redundant to me. El_C 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So why not block the users? You're just pointing out the flaw in your argument here — well, I did, at first, but as I recall, the volume proved to be too great. El_C 03:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Some more context is available here — it includes Buffs' objection to my application of ECP as well as a comment from another admin, who supported my applying ECP to several Kurdish-related articles. That aside, that this matter is before the Committee —what purview does it have over this?— surprises me. El_C 03:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux
There seems to be some overlap with the items being discussed at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop, to follow up on my comments there: uses of page protection that are not explicitly related to active arbitration should be dealt with in standard community venues. If the use of protection outside of remedies has truly risen through dispute resolution without a solution emerging it should be dealt with as its own case and not shoehorned on to an old case that primarily dealt with behavior over a different issue. — xaosflux  Talk 18:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * your #4 note, as related to any non-arbcom remedy appears to pull in an unknown number of users involved or directly affected without confirmation that all are aware of the request; for example any admin that lowered a full or template protection to ECP for IAR reasons. It also seems that it would tie all those admins to this case - the core of which has nothing to do with applying protection outside of arbitration remedies or the enforcement thereof. It also appears to assume that "their reasoning" is actually lacking or otherwise not already explained. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Blackmane
Having been involved in the original discussion (and in fact I was the one that suggested that the WP:AN notification be required. Credit goes to MusikAnimal for the hard work though) on implementing ECP as a discretionary measure I would note that the whole point of the notification list at WP:AN was precisely so that there was a log of all ECP's that were levied, irrespective of what they were levied for. Requiring admins to log it elsewhere _as well as it being automatically logged at AN_ is just a box ticking exercise which adds virtually no value. Blackmane (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl
while logging of discretionary sanctions for this situation is a pretty tiny benefit for most instances (how often are these sanctions modified?), due to the rigid rules surrounding arbitration enforcement, it's still welcome. isaacl (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Clerk notes

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



Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I wrote the RFC to expand ECP. Option C, which became the bones of the current policy, states that ECP may be used to . A bot currently handles that AN notification. I don't know where Buffs gets the idea that discretionary sanctions has anything to do with the ECP policy, and I don't see the problem with the rationales as they are. If ECP is applied as a discretionary sanction, the admin should say so and log it, but it's not always the case that ECP is applied as a DS. (I don't think I've ever done it as a DS, but I could be wrong.) If it isn't, a standard rationale of 'persistent sockpuppetry' or 'persistent vandalism' or 'violations of the BLP policy' (and so forth) is sufficient for me. Katietalk 00:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with Katie above. ECP's usage has expanded far beyond DS over the years, and that RfC was the start., that third paragraph deals with the history of ECP, not the current state. I accept that there are a number of rationales which are subpar, however that's not a question for ARCA. It's a question for the admins who placed ECP those rationale - we also have RFPP and AN if it cannot be resolved with the admin in question. For a review of ECP on a wider scale, can I suggest an RfC? At any rate, I'm not seeing the problem that needs to be clarified from an Arbcom perspective. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would think the current practice would be if an editor does not expressly state ECP is being applied as an arbitration enforcement relating to discretionary sanctions, it would be assumed it is a regular application of ECP. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 06:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Mkdw. I would also want the parties involved to understand that actions needing to be logged are not made ineffective by a failure to log.  The appropriate response in most cases will be to simply WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM – add the log entry yourself.   AGK  &#9632;  12:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Absent objection, I am suggesting that we close this request now.  AGK  &#9632;  13:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the state of affairs here is that 1) ECP may be placed as a discretionary sanction, in which case it needs to be logged at the WP:DSLOG; 2) ECP may alternatively be placed as an admin action if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, and it is automatically logged to AN; 3) admins who have placed ECP as discretionary sanctions but not logged the actions in the DSLOG should be asked to do so; 4) admins who appear to have placed ECP outside of the scenarios allowed at WP:ECP should be asked to clarify their reasoning and/or modify the protection level; 5) admins who have placed ECP as per the "semi-protection has proven to be ineffective" scenario should not be required to also manually log the action. Does this seem to cover it? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I probably could've wordsmithed a little better here to avoid what you're hearing. To be clear, I'm not suggesting any sort of formal amendment to the case or anything like that—rather, in cases where a user has concerns about an application of ECP they should determine which of the scenarios above apply and determine if an adjustment needs to be made. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)