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

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * 1) Blnguyen
 * 2) Charles Matthews
 * 3) FloNight
 * FT2
 * 1) Jdforrester
 * 2) Jpgordon
 * 3) Kirill Lokshin
 * 4) Matthew Brown (Morven)
 * 5) Paul August
 * 6) Sam Blacketer
 * 7) Thebainer

Inactive:
 * 1) Deskana
 * 2) FayssalF
 * 3) UninvitedCompany

Deletion review
Does remedy number one mean that where an admin has used the ".... deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance" with the BLP policy, an appeal cannot be taken to deletion review? The remedy as worded at the moment seems to suggest that instead it must to taken to one of the noticeboards or to the committee. I hope this is not what is intended and that the remedy could be clarified to show this is not the case. Davewild (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I put this in the wrong place because I am still a newbie on Wiki, but Romeo Vasquez Velasquez is a living person and a member of the armed forces in a foreign country, Honduras. I would seriously call into question the use of a blog as a reference for the material in the biography but someone has done just that and if you remove or ask for citations the person just removes it and puts it back how they had it. So you can you please take a look at this as it is not only biased but quite likely libelous.Summermoondancer (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Put your concern at Talk:Romeo Vásquez Velásquez. If results are not satisfactory there, then put it at WP:AN.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Arb count
Since arb FayssalF is inactive, should the arb count be 13/7 and the list on this talk page list him as inactive? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to Fayssal's directions, I don't believe so:
 * My interpretation of that (original comment) is that he wishes to remain active on cases he has already participated in (ie., cases he is already listed as active in), and be put to inactive on any cases accepted after he has announced his inactivity. There are, of course, alternative interpretations that one could draw; for example, that "already participated in" is a reference to his actual editing of the case pages (eg., proposing via the workshop, voting, etc.), rather than simply being listed as active.
 * My interpretation of that (original comment) is that he wishes to remain active on cases he has already participated in (ie., cases he is already listed as active in), and be put to inactive on any cases accepted after he has announced his inactivity. There are, of course, alternative interpretations that one could draw; for example, that "already participated in" is a reference to his actual editing of the case pages (eg., proposing via the workshop, voting, etc.), rather than simply being listed as active.


 * It remains something of a "grey area", and it may be useful to have Fayssal clarify the matter himself.


 * Anthøny 11:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, I read it that precise alternate way though, meaning cases he'd actually edited. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the public record (Rlevse is already aware of this); per the following email, from FayssalF:
 * {| style="border: 1px solid silver; padding: 3px;"


 * I am sorry for the confusion. I mean I'd still participate on cases I have voted on. I'll be back soon on mid-week i believe.
 * }
 * It has been interpreted, that Fayssal will be marked as inactive on this case. I have adjusted the majorities as necessary; see and . Regards, Anthøny  17:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

An abysmal decision
Decisions by the Arbitration Committee should consider the behavior of all involved parties. The current proposed decision, however, is highly inadequate in this respect, as it sanctions Alansohn in part for alleged incivility against the abusive sockpuppet account (see the sixth diff in Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision), while completely failing to even mention , the sockpuppeteer who operated the account Runreston, as described in my evidence. By sanctioning good-faith, highly productive contributors such as Alansohn for six instances of alleged incivility over the course of 45000 edits while ignoring blatant, bad-faith abusive sockpuppetry, this decision has the destructive effect of encouraging good editors to leave while rewarding abusive sockpuppeteers with an apparent immunity to sanctions. John254 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That would presuppose Alansohn's sole instances of incivility were against that one account, a breathtakingly revisionist view of the situation. Unfortunately for your premise, Alansohn has has hundreds of breaches of civility and WP:AGF violations against dozens of editors.  The RfC alone documented one hundred and twenty violations, a total the tenth of which would have gotten any novice editor blocked.  If there is a failure in the process, it is in that Alansohn has gotten away with too much for too long, at the cost of many editors who either no longer wanted to deal with him or who wanted nothing more to do with a project that demonstrably had little interest in enforcing its civility rules.    Ravenswing  12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The case of the coatrack arbitration
So, a case was accepted for arbitration on "quotes in footnotes", and the decision was to make no decision on "quotes in references". Why accept the case? It just seems to have been a coatrack to punish the behavior of Alansohn and ignore the behavior of RedSpruce. Wouldn't it have been easier to not accept the case? Why is calling someone an "idiot" and a "moron" acceptable. Is that where the bar now stands for incivility? Why is an admission of edit warring to make a point, by RedSpruce ignored? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I interpret the lack of ruling on such quotes as a sign that it is a content dispute, not a behavior one, and one that the AC won't touch. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to have also been a coatrack, or bait and switch to pass the equivalent of the Patriot Act to fight BLP terrorism. No one was even interested in the footnotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone beat you to it. WP:PATRIOTACT has already been created as a redirect to Arbcom's new BLP nuclear option. Alansohn (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Created and on its way to being deleted. 1  !=  2  21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A bait and switch is generally a deliberate and premeditated act of dishonesty. Just out of curiosity, do you think there was some deliberate dishonesty involved here? RedSpruce (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, the arbitration committee is actually elected to decide what the beef is. If they decide that the beef is something other than what you think it is, ten of them all unanimous and elected by us, I think it's a bit much to say they're engaged in trickery.  Didn't you vote?  Did the people you voted for do something you disagreed with?  Okay, don't vote for them again. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can explain, Redspruce, your newfound enthusiasm for arbitration when I have previously requested your participation and you have refused? A refusal that would be documented on your userpage but for the fact you deleted it and the whole associated exchange with me?  When, in response to this scrubbing of yours, I noted that Wiki guidelines say "archiving is preferred" to deletion, you deleted that as well with the edit summary of "get bent".  There is other evidence that suggests you hitherto haven't been interested in multilateralism, as well.
 * But NOW you go to arbitration and the case is signposted as "A case involving the use of quotes in footnotes", yet with respect to the actual particulars of this ANNOUNCED reason for ArbCom, an "uninvolved admin" who actually "reviewed the last few months of talkpage discussions, and ... the last few months of edits (and reverts) to the article" found AGAINST your deletionism! This finding of fact against you by the only admin that actually investigated the "Footnoted quotes", the availability of that more focused resolution method combined with your history of rejecting formal arbitration, and last (but not least) this, is prima facie evidence that this ArbCom case is, indeed, a coatrack to get a sweeping decision that supports your "anti-McCarthyism" agenda of having articles about persons accused of being communist apologists or subversives be written from a POV favourable to the subject.  Perhaps if you hadn't been engaging in such actions as the scrubbing I referred to above, an inquisitive ArbCom might have had access to information that would cause them to be more alert to the hazard of being caught up in a coatrack.Bdell555 (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Question to Arbitrators/Sam Blacketer about Finding 2.1
Can you please clarify? You've said it's a legitimate disagreement over content, only in the absence of unambiguous guidance from the guidelines. Then after that, you say it should be decided by consensus after wide consultation. So consensus against the guideline in that article isn't a legitimate disagreement over content? Or is that a restatement of consensus for making the guideline to begin with?

I didn't think guidelines were enforced as the be-all and end-all, except at GA/FA levels. There have been cases where consensus was unclear on which formatting to use - both sides wanting their preferred style. In such cases, I don't think this is helpful either. And effectively insisting they be followed means that whenever a change is made to the style guidelines, all articles have to constantly be changed. I'd rather a finding 2.2 be made -

The question of what material—such as quotes—should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content, and should be decided by consensus after consultation with the wide community. Guidance may be sought from relevant style guidelines including Manual of style and in Footnotes.

Wouldn't this be more accurate as an absolute principle? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your first paragraph is suffering from a confusion over its object. The issue of whether, in a particular article, a footnote should contain a quote, is a legitimate disagreement over content unless and until there is a clear and unambiguous statement in the Manual of style. The decision of whether there should be such a statement in the Manual of style, and if there is, what it should say, is something on which widespread consultation must take place before it is added. Not everything about article style has to be laid down in the Manual of style. American English vs. British English is one issue on which there is quite deliberately no guideline per se.


 * Of course revert-warring over whether footnotes should include quotes is always going to be wrong. Unless there is a clear style guidance on whether footnotes should include quotes, then both positions are on equal footing with regard to policy. I would also say that in the event that guidance was made which said that footnotes should not include quotes, there would still be individual cases where exceptions should reasonably be allowed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thank you for clearing it up - Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion and the proposed finding of fact are straying from the actual issue. The issue is not "whether quotes should be included in footnotes." The issue is about irrelevant and redundant quotes being included in the footnotes of a vast number of artricles. Obviously, there shouldn't be anything in the manual of style that says "quotations should/shouldn't be used in footnotes." Quotations are entirely appropriate in some footnotes under some circumstances. But at the same time, I'm not sure the MOS should be modified to say "Material in footnotes should be not be irrelevant or redundant." This is common sense; obviously (to most of us) all material in an article should be relevant and not redundant.
 * Under more normal circumstances, this would be an ordinary content-dispute issue rather than an issue for the ArbCom. There are two factors that make the circumstances unusual: First Richard Arthur Norton is making very similar detrimental edits to literally thousands of articles. Second, most of these edits are--taken individually--only mildly detrimental, and are made to obscure articles. Thus, while other editors have occasionally objected to the damage he is doing, there usually isn't sufficient opposition to overcome his relentless stubbornness and his refusal to listen to reason. At best, he gives up on one article and moves on to wreak his little dis-improvements on a dozen or so other articles before the day is out.
 * RedSpruce (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved and ongoing issue
Re. the issue described in Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Evidence, RAN is resuming his edit-warring at G. David Schine and in a few other articles (Elizabeth Bentley, William Remington). In the G. David Schine article in particular, the issue is not so much redundant footnote content, but rather the blatantly obstructionist pretense of "discussion" that RAN and Alansohn engaged in. As seen in User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), I have proposed mediation, but RAN (as of this writing) hasn't responded.

If RAN is going to continue making indefensible edits while refusing to engage in real discussion or mediation, and if this RfAr doesn't deal with this issue in some way, then I don't see what course of action would be open to me other than to make a new RfAr as soon as this one closes. RedSpruce (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Remedy 2: Alansohn restricted
"Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith..."

Can we start reporting violations, such as this and the edit summary here, now, or do we have to wait until this case is closed? RedSpruce (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly does bolster the premise that Alansohn does not and will not ever get it. One would think that an all-but-unanimous Arbcom sanction against him would get his attention and be a clear "Cut this out right the heck now" signal, as opposed to him presuming that Should [Alansohn] make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith (unless some idjit has it coming to him) ... is what the ruling really means.  (By contrast, the edit summary, added after my comment, does not strike me as out of line.)    Ravenswing  05:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's out of line. With "the customary and arbitrary removal of sources" Alansohn is referring to my edits; he is saying that it's "customary" for me to make "arbitrary" edits, despite my extensive explanation and justification for my edits. That covers all three items: uncivil, personal attack and assumption of bad faith. RedSpruce (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that Arbcom has ruled that calling someone an "idiot" and a "moron" was acceptable behavior. If those words didn't trigger an incivility ruling, the incivility must now have to be stronger than calling someone an idiot and a moron. Using the term "arbitrary" doesn't appear to me to be a stronger epithet than idiot or moron. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope Alansohn agrees with that clever little theory, RAN. It will be interesting to see how far it gets him. RedSpruce (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Special enforcement on biographies of living persons
I strongly suggest you unwikilink the wording "the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard" from the appeals section. If the administrative tool used was protection, the appropriate location is WP:RFPP. If the tool used was deletion, the appropriate location is WP:DRV. For blocks, bans, and topic bans the appropriate location is WP:AE. There is no one link that fits all possible appropriate locations, so a wikilink is a bad idea.

You may, given these circumstances, be better off expanding the wording so that you can link all of the currently relevant locations. GRBerry 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking over this further, this case does not merit this remedy. The evidence and workshop pages of the case simply don't merit a broad-reaching policy rewrite such as this.  This effectively rewrites policy for all editors without notice or community input.  While we might find a case that merits such a remedy, it seems clear to me that this should not issue as a remedy in this case.  GRBerry 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(separate ?, same topic)

Currently, it says "any means necessary". That's a _bit_ too broad, as it explicitly authorizes admins to do anything to uphold BLP. I'm sure people can think how that wouldn't work well... ff m  00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If by "wouldn't work well" you mean "awesome", then I agree. I just think it's very appropriate that something as damaging and pernicious as the BLP policy is being fixed with an irresponsible and tossed-together remedy like this.  It's poetic.

Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log is now created
I note that MBisanz has now created this page. I am not so sure it's a good idea to create a log based on an Arbcom decision that has not yet closed and is still under discussion in the community, as it may give some individuals the impression that they should jump the gun and proceed as if their actions are authorised. While some of those actions—standard page protection, deletion of inappropriate content, and blocking—are all within the scope of any administrator regardless of the article type, unilaterally imposed sanctions without community discussion/consensus that require "clear community consensus" to modify or override are new authorities for administrators, and are not in effect until such time as the Arbitration Committee closes this case. Risker (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They are only effect then if Arbcom has gained the ability to decree policy, and not just interpret it. It would be splendid if nobody actually acted on this policy, although I doubt that will be the case. Neıl 龱  16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP goes nuclear
I confess to not having been following this case. "Footnoted quotes" sounded likely to be a bit dry and technical - a bit of an automatic "nothing to see here" stamp on its forehead. But it seems that actually this case contains a pretty surprising remedy likely to have fairly dramatic consequences for the future. I realise that this case is about to close but offer some thought on the "Special enforcement on biographies of living persons" provision as it stands:
 * Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy.
 * This will I suspect be one of the most quoted passages of an ArbCom decision for a long time. What does "any and all means at their disposal" actually mean? There is far from a consensus on what exactly BLP requires in specific cases. The use of the words "letter and spirit" paves the way for a lot wikilawyering... Baby 81 incident saw an instance where administrators differed sharply over how to apply to Badlydrawnjeff decision, I shudder to think of the extra heat that would have been generated had those administrators wishing the name of the baby removed from the article on BLP grounds been given ArbCom's blessing to use "any and all means necessary". I do not believe such a blanket proposal will actually improve Wikipedia's BLP problems - the fighting likely to result may well eclipse the actual issues. The provision feels like to blunt a tool, potentially lacking the finesse necessary to be effective.
 * Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance.:
 * This seems to qualify the above - it must be "believed" to be reasonably necessary, but apparently does not have to be reasonably necessary. The two qualifiers trouble me: surely it should either be "must be believed to be necessary" or "must be reasonably necessary"? Also, page protections and deletions must be so believed, but there is no similar provision for blocks?
 * ...administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary.
 * The worry with these sorts of provisions is that they allow blanket actions there must be a consensus to overturn, rather than requiring discussions first to establish consensus as to appropriate remedies. Different administrators will favour different remedies, some taking a more Draconian approach to others and the enforcement is likely to be uneven.

This remedy has a feel of, "We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do it." It is being implemented through a case which has had little community attention - the most hits the proposed decision has had in one day seems to be about 100, whilst the workshop has been one of the quietest ones for a while. This remedy is going to come as a surprise to many and its implementation is in my view going to generate more heat than light. The creation of Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log for targeted sanctions aimed at those who frequently create issues on BLPs is a good move, but I think there should be more of an emphasis on the need for consensus for imposing such sanctions and I would suggest the removal of language such as any and all means at their disposal. I simply cannot see any situation in which it could be beneficial for someone to be able to say, "I have authority to use all means at my disposal..." WjBscribe 13:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above comments. I wasn't even aware of the existence of this case until pointed here by one of those "evil" attack sites.  Inserting this remedy into an otherwise dry, technical case regarding WikiWonkery about footnote format seems like a complete non-sequitir, and would seem to be an attempt to not only have the ArbCom effectively make policy (something it's not supposed to do), but to do this in a sneaky, underhanded way by tacking it onto a case that few are paying attention to, so that as little as possible community comments are made before it's made a fait accompli.  It reminds me of how the U.S. Congress sometimes sneaks controversial measures into law by tacking them onto unrelated bills that few congresspersons themselves even bother to read. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dan T., Signpost regularly reports on arbitration cases. I find this a reliable source of information about our cases. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that the case, and its proposed remedy relating to BLP, did indeed get some coverage, which I somehow escaped noticing (perhaps distracted by all the drama surrounding some other ArbCom cases going on concurrently, making this wonky-named one seem tame and uninteresting in comparison). Still, I remain unconvinced that this remedy has any logical relation to the subject matter of the case, and it seems to be an indication that ArbCom is willing to use any case on any subject to legislate on whatever other topics they wish; it would be like if the U.S. Supreme Court took a case regarding the applicability of parking fines and then issued a decision that included a section which empowered policemen to seize allegedly obscene books on their own initiative. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Typical. From Wickard v. Filburn: “In the wake of Jones & Laughlin and Wickard v. Filburn, it has become clear that Congress has authority to regulate virtually all private economic activity.” - WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with WJBscribe as well. This is a terrible remedy and will only cause drama all over the wiki. The standard civility paroles that the committee keeps insisting on including in cases are already troublesome enough. It is not acceptable to impose a remedy that applies to roughly a quarter of our content—at a time when the policies covering such content are in flux—without direct and requested input from the community. Deleting, blocking and page protection are fine and are all within the basic tool set of any administrator; but sanctions such as page/topic bans should be discussed by the community before they are imposed, not afterward, and consensus reached before their imposition, not having to be developed to lift the arbitrary decision of a single administrator. This has the potential to create an enormous rift within the community, and within the administrative ranks as well. Current policies do not support this remedy; it is not even an interpretation of existing policy, but policy de novo. Please reconsider. Risker (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I could not agree any more, myself. This process was supposed to address the use of brief quotations in footnotes, yet Arbcom has determinedly refused to leave this issue unaddressed while tackling numerous issues utterly unrelated to the subject at hand. User:Rlevse, an admin who describes himself as the clerk of this entity, decided to drag in an issue with George Thomas Coker, an article in which he has stubbornly refused for a period of years to include details about the subject's extensive appearance in the Academy Award-winning film Hearts and Minds, abusing the clearest possible conflict of interest to satisfy the subject's demands to remove references to the film from the article. Ample evidence documenting User:Rlevse's abuse of Wikipedia policy has been provided here, but the only apparent response from Arbcom is to create a remedy that allows any admin to wield the claim of supposed WP:BLP issues as a club to remove any content that the lone admin has decided doesn't belong. We have already harmed the Wikipedia community by granting near unlimited power to admins. This proposal only compounds the clear potential for abuse that User:Rlevse has amply demonstrated. That this "remedy" has been dragged in here on a totally unrelated matter, that the abusive admin who inserted this subject here appears to have manipulated process to insert an issue on which he has already abused Wikipedia policy and seeks a "solution" to fit his personal bias, that this is a matter on which Arbcom lacks any authority and that this is a matter that should be addressed by the community as a whole, clearly demonstrates that this matter has no place here whatsoever for Arbocm to be addressing this matter. Alansohn (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bravo, ArbCom, for taking a strong, unequivocal stand on behalf of those administrators and editors who work to ensure that the project complies with its legal, moral and ethical responsibilities toward living persons whose lives we attempt to chronicle. While the precise wording might be helped with some tweaks, the concept is right on - we have to make it more difficult to push POV on BLPs. FCYTravis (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As was done with Rosalind Picard? Oh wait...
 * Seriously, I agree that the BLP policy needs to be changed and strengthened. This proposal, however, gives carte blanche to administrators to do as they wish with any information involving a living person. The Picard article, however, is an excellent example to discuss. It sat in a clearly biased state for months because ordinary editors had been kept at bay (a newbie indef blocked too) by a group of administrators. It was only when an another administrator challenged the status quo on that article that anything happened, and even she was threatened. Anyone who has edited here for any length of time knows that touching such articles is tantamount to wiki-suicide. Gary Weiss, anyone? Patrick Byrne? In each of these cases, the administrators defending the status quo, blocking newbies and threatening established editors with blocks, believed honestly that they were doing the right thing. Each of these cases created huge drama, because many people knew instinctively that those articles were not BLP-compliant, but there was no effective way of changing them short of major upheaval. Arbcom is supposed to address problems, not create them, and this is going to be an absolute nightmare.  Risker (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to comment at length here, but I think that this principle and its consequences should be followed very closely by the arbitration committee. They would be abrogating their responsibility if they did not do so. They should also be prepared to modify it or withdraw it if it is clear things are not working out. My immediate reaction is, sadly, not to think "let's start cleaning up BLPs", but to think "ooh, better avoid BLPs now". The presumption, maybe, is that only those that care about specific BLPs will now edit them. Is that a good thing? I also second the comments that I nearly missed this because I was not following the case. There was also something somewhere about a "sourcing noticeboard". Are these proposals by ArbCom getting enough scrutiny from the community? Carcharoth (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The proposal that begins "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal" is a poorly worded, extremest, unbalanced, against community consensus, unjustified by evidence, policy creation proposal that will cause disruption, drama, and POV articles far more than actually solve anything. Balance of goals is necessary. NPOV and BLP must be balanced. Arbcom does not have the authorization to make BLP overrule NPOV. You do not have the right or the power to implement this god-awful proposal. Crafting an excellent encyclopedia requires thoughtfulness, carefulness, study, evaluation, civil communication, and caring about things like usefulness and human feelings. Giving the police bigger guns is not helpful. Everything looks like a nail when you are walking around with a (ban) hammer? WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP does not conflict with NPOV. In fact, BLP can be seen as an extra-stringent demand that, in particular, biographical articles must be in full compliance with NPOV at all times. At its core, BLP is a restatement of all the major policy provisions, plus a rebuttable presumption that we should err on the side of privacy and discretion when making decisions about including or excluding pieces of content. FCYTravis (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP is widely misunderstood. Even by admins. People claim "do no harm" is paramount. It is not. It is one important consideration. People claim it is only a tough assed implementation of our other rules. It is not only that. It is also a rule that says to treat people like people and not like some building. That common sense idea was not part of our content policies until BLP. Some claim the motivation for the policy is libel. It is not. We already have a WP:LIBEL policy. The motivation for BLP is the same sense of morality and ethics that cause many of us to contribute in the first place. Asking individual admins (some teenagers) to use their personal judgement concerning content on wikipedia claims about living people (not just BLP labeled articles, but any claim anywhere, even on talk pages) is to create trouble. Arbcom will be Wikipedia's greatest drama creator and should be abolished if it insists on this terrible terrible ruling. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But what people are discussing here is not the BLP policy itself, but this new attempt by the ArbCom to impose sweeping new enforcement powers that will give every admin carte blanche to insist that everybody abide by his/her own interpretation of BLP, on threat of being blocked. Some rouge admin thinks that mentioning that somebody is "blonde" is an intolerable assault on BLP?  They're the sheriff in town, and the judge, jury, and executioner too; their word is law unless a firm "consensus" develops against it (and they can do their best to prevent this from happening by intimidating opponents into silence with threats of blocks and bans, full-protecting discussion pages where such a consensus might develop, etc.).  The ArbCom must have known that this would be highly controversial, which is why they're trying to sneak it in by adding it as a remedy in what would seem to be a thoroughly unrelated case that seems so un-interesting that almost nobody even noticed it.  Thank goodness for the "attack site" which drew my attention to this. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, attempts (by administrators) to take action on BLPs have not been effective enough - this gives admins both the assurance and tools to use more effective measures. Prevention is key in relation to BLP articles - it's a special category of articles which is why a special policy applies to them. Various formalities have made it impossible to focus on this in taking effective action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is "making policy", at least in the pejorative sense. This reads to me like the approach that already has been taken by a small but active subset of the admin community; I suspect that there is a larger subset who would be prepared to take such aggressive action should an appropriate situation arise. Of course, at the present time this is being done with a heavy dollop of IAR; this ArbCom remedy would, it seems to me, simply be describing and hence disseminating current best practice. All that having been said, I don't really think tinkering like this will have much effect; truly radical change is needed to address the BLP problem and I don't see that happening without a serious media or legal incident to drive it - even then community inertia will probably mean a solution will have to imposed from above. CIreland (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What WJBscribe said. What has this case to do with BLPs in the first place, anyhow? The only principle and finding of fact are general ones, while the other finding of fact ("Alansohn has repeatedly engaged in unseemly behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith") does not mention BLP problems at all. I'm confused. --Conti|✉ 13:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add my dissent here - while BLPs need a few exemptions here and there, I really do not like the idea of sweeping powers being accorded to admins, as there are plenty of admins who I don't trust with such power. Sceptre (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged revisions
I recommend that Arbcom implement Flagged revisions on BLPs instead of this. There are numerous parameters that can be played with and we can use the BLPs in Wikipedia to figure out what those parameters should be. Start with some medium-security set of parameters and then tweak one way or the other. Then when it seems about right, we will have had enough experience to know what to implement in the rest of this wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea to me. --Conti|✉ 13:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It might well be a good idea to implement flagged revisions on BLPs, but in what sense would it be ArbCom who would be implementing it? Has someone staged a coup here? 87.254.84.198 (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom's "Remit"
Has the AC overstepped the mark here? What exactly is the mark? What recourse is there for the community if this proposal is passed? I remember Jimbo saying on his talk page that the community could not overrule ArbCom decisions. Thoughts? Do we need a discussion on this? Martinp23 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Our remedies are done collaboratively with the community. As always we need to work together to figure out the best manner to impose the sanctions. Your comments are always welcome. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then might I suggest that given there is community concern over the idea, a move is made by the AC to either defer the proposal to the community (which is obviously preferred - it's a policy statement and last I checked AC don't make policy) or delay the closing of the case to allow people to comment. I can't help but wonder how "collaborative" you are when I see you supporting the closure of the case even after having seen some community feeling here. For what it's worth, I think I'd support the proposal with some tweaking - the sort that would be achieved through a community discussion - not a decision brought down from the mailing lists on high. Martinp23 16:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If remedies are done collaboratively with the community, then based on the response here from the community, at this point proposed remedy 1) needs to be shelved, and the arbitrators arguing in its favour, and for closure of this case, need to revisit their votes. Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I see the objections spelled out, I more convinced that we are not changing policy. In fact eliminating this wording would weaken the existing policy, I think. Think about it a bit more, okay? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, if I, or another "critic"-type, were to use the word "impose" in reference to what the ArbCom is doing, I'd be upbraided for using loaded, incendiary language and urged to describe it in "fairer" terms, like "The ArbCom is clarifying policy". Anyway, if the aim was to encourage community participation, then the worst thing the ArbCom could possibly have done was to introduce this sanction in the middle of a seemingly unrelated and little-noted case, and then swiftly vote to pass the sanction and then move to close the case before any community comments from outside ArbCom circles had shown up. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This case has been open for a long while. I'm on the 3rd week of an extended break (I'm not really here :-), and was quite surprised that the case had not closed in my absence. Kirill is right on that this case is very much related to BLP issues. He does excellent investigation of the cases, and experienced in writing our cases. Nothing unusual is happening in this case, truly. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight, you are completely out of your mind if you think that sneakily dropping this whopper of a policy change in wikiwonkery like Footnotes is going to be widely accepted. BLP is being used to POV push, edit war, and filibuster attempts to make the encyclopedia better. People are frustrated precisely because some administrators are not using BLP in good faith. Giving broad discretion like this to override consensus is wrong and those who keep on saying that we must be sympathetic to our subjects are wrong. NPOV IS THE POLAR OPPOSITE OF SYMPATHETIC POINT OF VIEW. This project's future depends on the idea that NPOV IS NON-NEGOTIABLE, we cannot allow POV pushers and white-washers to have free reign over the project. That is why it is so controversial. How a subject feels is totally irrelevant, because we are here to write a verifiable, reliably sourced, neutral encyclopedia. While it is true we aren't a tabloid, it is also true that we aren't Pravda. Whitewashing BLPs causes us great harm in not being neutral and appearing inaccurate. Everyone has negative aspects, it is a fact of life. Stop giving the whiners, revisionist historians, and trolls ammunition to further cause harm to the project. That some crybabies can't handle the truth being in their biography is just too fucking bad in my opinion. The first amendment broadly protects publications to the point that few libel lawsuits ever are successfully argued to the court, especially if the subjects haven't even tried reasonable measures to get the publisher to remove inaccurate or poorly sourced information. We already have a policy for dealing with legal challenges, it is called WP:OFFICE. That is where the authority must remain, out of the hands of biased and involved administrators. Community consensus is required for a policy change of this magnitude. Get your collective heads out of your asses and understand that just because we have a couple hundred or a couple thousand poorly written BLPs does not entitle you to compromise on NPOV!!!! --Dragon695 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice rant. Where's the evidence? Which articles do you suggest are now out of compliance with NPOV because of BLP-related intervention?
 * The First Amendment is not particularly relevant here. We are not a free speech forum. We are an encyclopedia. Freedom of the press inevitably entails a heavy burden of responsibility, and includes not only the right to print, but also the right not to print. We have a responsibility to be fair, neutral, accurate and non-invasive in our biographical coverage. We are not a tabloid and we are not an investigative journalism outlet. FCYTravis (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The per BLP issue is a common one, that pops up over and over again but. Fortunately, those who oppose arbitrary and capricious use of per BLP can contest and revert improper applications of this policy. There is one example that comes to mind. Currently, there are some group of folks running around whitewashing the criminal records of some BLPs. A criminal record is very relevant information and should not be excluded to hide misdeeds. The are many examples, but I don't want to rehash what has already been pointed out time and again on WT:BLP. What is of concern is the potential to abuse this remedy. Leaving everything at the discretion of administrators and their judgment, who would only need cite per BLP, is a recipe for disaster. Do you think these actions are going to be reserved only for BLP violations? I doubt it, they'll just go around ignoring consensus and the refrain will be per BLP. Dare to speak up about the problem and bam you get blocked. I can almost guarantee that it will be used in editing disputes and other such conflicts. We saw the massive bad judgment with the MONGO external links fiasco, I cannot even begin to think what trouble this will cause. Do you think they are going to just limit themselves to problematic BLPs? What is funny is how the BLP proponents are trying to extend BLP to articles that have nothing to do with BLP. We have way too many administrators who lack good judgment to implement this properly while still respecting NPOV. What I am most concerned about is us being manipulated and turned into a spin machine by political and notable figures. Don't like something in your article? Call OTRS and get it sent down the memory hole. We simply cannot exclude the negative aspects of peoples' lives just because they don't like it. To be fair and NPOV we should include both the good and the bad, but be respectful by not allowing undue weight in the amount of space that is given to such information. Would this policy help in Rosalind Picard? Doubtful. Being credible and NPOV is more important than doing no harm. There are always people who feel harmed by one thing or another, we can't possibly please them all. The only consistent thing is to be NPOV, which means we don't take sides in how a particular individual is viewed in light of their history. Here is an excellent quote on the matter:
 * An encyclopedia cannot legitimately adopt damnatio memoriae as a policy.
 * I couldn't agree more. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP has never been limited only to BLPs. It has always applied to any statement or content about a living person anywhere on the encyclopedia.
 * You still haven't pointed out a single example of an article which you allege is no longer NPOV because of alleged BLP actions. FCYTravis (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at George Thomas Coker, where User:Rlevse, the admin who pushed Arbcom to consider an issue that had no place in the discussion, has used BLP as an excuse to delete the merest mention of the fact that the subject appeared in a film that the subject deems unflattering. I edited the article this diff adding the utterly bland neutral statement that "A clip of Coker was featured in Hearts and Minds, a 1974 film that won that year's Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary. " User:Rlevse then removed this neutrally worded, verifiably sourced mention of the film (this diff) with the edit summary of "rm, BLP issue". There was clearly no legitimate BLP issue with the edit. That the case used as the excuse to consider the BLP issue is one of the clearest examples where BLP has been abused to violate WP:NPOV only adds the issues with the proposed solution. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Point by point
(quote)

Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy.


 * The "letter and the spirit of the BLP policy" is not defined. This is grossly subject to varying interpretation.  Already we see poor blocks justified by "BLP" by admins who understand neither the spirit nor the letter.

Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance.


 * This needs to specify "on articles in which they are fully uninvolved", in some way, to preclude conflicts of interest and suchlike.

Administrators should counsel editors that fail to comply with BLP policy on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area, and should ensure that such editors are warned of the consequences of failing to comply with this policy.


 * This is fine, and obvious.

Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary.


 * What point is there in specifying solutions when you conclude it with "any other measures necessary"? The other measure will be indefinite blocks, and you will see more of those than of anything else.

This does not preclude the use of emergency measures where necessary, and all administrators are explicitly authorized to take such measures at their own discretion.


 * This is as bad as the first sentence - it's grossly subject to interpretation. This would almost be fine if all Wikipedia admins were competent and fair minded.  Unfortunately, there are admins I would not trust to open a door unsupervised, and they will drive away hundreds of good faith contributors.

(end quote) This is, in effect, a change in policy. Arbcom does not create policy; it enforces it. By rewriting BLP, without allowing the community to make this decision, Arbcom is prescribing policy. By effectively giving admins carte blanche to do what they like, we will see a cavalcade of preemptive and/or ill-thought-out page protections, blocks, and deletions. I could even guess the names of some of the admins who will start rampaging through Category:Living persons as soon as this "decision" is passed. Please, please, allow the community to determine policy - this is not your job. I also strongly object to the way this was tagged on to a low-publicity Arbcom decision about minor misconduct. It reminds me of a Simpsons episode about Krusty running for Congress ... "Now your job is to attach Krusty's bill to a more popular bill, one that can't fail." <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  16:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I do not see this as a significant change from the current BLP or admin policy. From my perspective, the Committee is restating existing policy in a manner that draws attention to the matter while spelling out some safeguards such as warnings, central logging, and requiring careful review before acting. The problems mostly occur because admins are acting in isolation. By implementing the sanctions in this manner, we are likely to get more attention to off the mark actions, and therefore will prevent them, I think. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, that at the very least, the "any other measures necessary" and "emergency measures at their own discretion" clauses need to be removed, because otherwise the safeguards you list will be habitually bypassed. What are "off the mark actions", please? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  16:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * the "any other measures necessary" and "emergency measures at their own discretion" clauses need to be included so that the BLP is not weakened. If we always require a community discussion prior to blocking or banning on BLP content, then the Committee will be re-writing policy. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops - I just noticed the initial reply by FloNight which addressed most of it anyway. Sorry for some of the repeats below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To Neil - I think you've missed the point completely. There is no rewriting of policy - it's just similar to discretionary sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are admins who are consistently making blocks in the name of a certain policy, without understanding it, then it makes sense that they should not be allowed to use (or have) administrative privilleges until they do - this remedy may help identify such administrators, if this is such a significant regular problem. There is no change to the treatment of consistently ill-considered administrative actions. (Hint hint - admins will be suspended or desysopped if they do)
 * There is no need for nitpicking - the entire provision only operates on administrators who are uninvolved. If an administrator insists and acts as if they are uninvolved when there is evidence that they are involved, then it will carry the same treatment as ill-considered admin actions.
 * It is not fine and obvious enough perhaps - some administrators have done a very poor job of ensuring this is done properly.
 * Blocks can be appealed, as usual. Indefinite blocks, like anything else imposed under this provision, are recorded at the log - and again, there is no change to the treatment of ill-considered administrative actions.
 * Emergency measures has been aptly explained by FloNight above.


 * You say "(Hint hint - admins will be suspended or desysopped if they do)" So this is a honeypot? WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a restatement of basic admin policy, which I'm suggesting Neil already knows or should know - that's all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ncm - this remedy states admins should use their judgment and act strongly, strictly and harshly, using whatever means they deem fit in their judgment. Indefinite blocks placed under BLP will no doubt have to be appealed via email to arbcom-l (like the pedophilia ruling a few admins keep using to justify overzealous blocks out of the blue.  This will further obfuscate what should be a clear and straightforward process, by pushing it into the hands of a select few, only four or five of which ever bother to communicate with the masses, and - worse - a number of whom were voted off Arbcom yet retain sway, on a closed mailing list.  No thanks. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  21:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's really hard to credit that you thought there was nothing new here. When you voted in favor of principle 5 "The apparent failure of Wikipedia's traditional dispute resolution system—including the Committee's traditional past approaches—to resolve the conflicts plaguing certain problematic areas within Wikipedia forces the Committee to adopt novel approaches and methods in order to work towards the resolution of these conflicts.", did you think it was just a random observation with nothing to do with this case, or were you thinking it was directed at footnotes? 87.254.84.198 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ArbCom, deciding to inject itself on an issue improperly inserted by its clerk and not the subject of this arbitration, is legislating from the bench, defining a standard that any admin has veto power over any statement in any article for a living person for any reason, as long as one admin waves the BLP flag. This arbitrary veto power overrides any and all other Wikipedia policies regardless of the sources. The article that User:Rlevse used as an excuse to have Arbcom improperly address the subject, Hearts and Minds'', in which Rlevse acceded to the subject's demand to remove reliably and verifiably sourced material solely because the subject wanted it removed. When the clear conflict of interest was exposed, the admins swarm to the rescue waving the BLP flag, demanding removal of the most neutrally worded reference to Coker's appearance in the film. This whole process stinks, and it could not be any clearer that the Arbcom process is being abused to allow legislation from the bench. When BLP can be abused to mean anything any one admin decides it means, we can throw consensus out the window. Alansohn (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Either this provision doesn't change any policy, or it does. If it doesn't, then it's unnecessary, unless needed to resolve a specific case that has been brought before the ArbCom, with remedies specific to that case; that does not seem to apply here given that the remedy is written in broad and general terms and does not seem to relate directly to the subject matter of this case.  If it does change policy, then it is out of the remit of the ArbCom, and the issue should be brought for community consensus like all policy changes. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Remedies can be specific to an area and don't need to be specific to just one case - in this case, to prevent problems arising on other BLP pages. This is necessary given the principles and findings about BLP problems, and has not gone out of the ordinary in terms of previous arbitration cases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But the "area" of this case, as originally brought, seems to be nitpicky details about the formatting of footnotes, the presence of quotes from the source material in them, and alleged edit warring between a few specific people on those issues. BLP only comes in peripherally, in that some of the articles in which the reference format was being fought over were about living persons; rather than trying to drag that issue into this case, it would have been better to start a more specific other case and seek relevant evidence and discussion on that issue rather than trying to sneak the decision in here. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter - edit-warring (among other things) are one of many severe problems that BLPs are facing. The current system has not been working, with many difficulties in actually taking action. It needs to be dealt with so that action isn't taken so so reluctantly by admins, and the community (inclusive of other users) in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There were no BLP issues whatsoever in any of the articles that were the ostensible subject of this arbitration. User:Rlevse cleverly inserted the George Thomas Coker article, in which he has persistently attempted for over two years to keep out any mention of the film Hearts and Minds in the article as part of a rather blatant conflict of interest with the article subject. Rlevse, and a gaggle of admins, have wielded supposed BLP issues as an excuse to keep out reliable and verifiably sourced material out in an effort to whitewash the article. Now this tangential connection is being used to justify granting every single admin veto power over any article by simply typing the three magic letters "BLP". We already have a problem of admins abusing their authority; This "solution" grants carte blanche veto power to override consensus and every other relevant Wikipedia policy. I could not imagine a worse solution to the supposed problem. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll: Did the community get fair notice of the BLP remedy in this decision?
Since the issue has come up, and some have argued that this case has been extensively noted in places like Signpost, so anybody interested in commenting on the proposed BLP sanction has had plenty of fair chance, I'd like to know how many of the people commenting now were aware before June 1 (the date of the last arbitrator's vote on enacting this sanction) that the issue was even being raised in a current ArbCom case? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, the voting on the case started on 17 May 2008, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note: this proposal was discussed in the workshop between 12 May 2008 and 18 May 2008. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So perhaps the date in this poll should be moved back to May 17 or May 12? That would only increase the number of people who weren't aware of the case by the relevant time. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you want - a daily publication of what's being proposed at an open arbitration case to be sent to all users? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What I want is (1) for ArbCom not to act like a legislator; leave the making of policy to the community, and only rule on the application of policy to specific cases brought before it; and (2) the rulings on specific cases be relevant to that particular case and aimed at its named parties, so you don't have, in effect, a judge issuing a ruling on John Doe's unpaid parking tickets that includes declaring Mary Roe guilty of murder (when she wasn't even informed of any charges against her, and nobody was notified that murder, rather than unpaid parking tickets, would even be the subject of a pending case). *Dan T.* (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Flo, what has that got to do with the price of beans? Of course a case as innocuous and sleepy as something called Footnotes is not going to invite much examination. Quite frankly, it sounded like the same nonsense that was going on over at Episodes and Characters. It was a dispute about some boring part of policy, not about BLP. I would argue that is how most saw it. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of it before June 1.
 * 1) Yep, I knew about it and was cracking jokes about its wording long before June 1.  MBisanz  talk 02:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Just a note that as can be seen near the top of this page I was aware of this on 17 May and still think this will cause far far more trouble than any potential benefits. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I knew about it when someone made a post somewhere in VP/M, I don't remember exactly where; if ArbCom is going to continue legislating from the bench and investing their powers into others (an astronomically bad idea from a political science standpoint), they should at least observe the courtesy of pointing their policy changes out to the community than rely on whistleblowers to do it for them.   Celarnor  <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of it before June 1, and I wish better notice had been given.
 * 1) *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Dragon695 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC) (did not know about this attempt to write policy til today)
 * 4) I was only made aware of it when someone posted a note to WP:AN - few people make a habit of reading every Arbcom case, particularly ostensibly lower-profile ones such as this. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)   brenneman  01:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) I noticed it about a week ago while bored and looking at ArbCom cases. The other day, I checked back to see if it had received wider notice, and it really hadn't, so my first thought was of course to tell a badsite about it. --NE2 01:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) giggy (O) 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) I just heard about it, and I think that ArbCom has grossly exceeded their authority. ArbCom's job is to resolve disputes brought before it.  Issuing a statement that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy." is setting policy, which ArbCom is not authorized to do. See WP:AC. --John Nagle (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) I normally try to avoid straw polls and votes, but this one is important. There should also be a list somewhere of the various "boards" that Arbcom has set up, has proposed, or is proposing. I know of at least three (nationalist, sourcing, and another one I've forgotten). Those interested in the history might want to look at how the Arbitration Enforcement board and the BLP noticeboard were set up. Sometimes things happen very fast with little objection. At other times there is lots of objection. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) I noticed on June 4, when I posted above about it.  The first thing I saw was that the committee obviously hadn't thought about it much, because they wrote it as if there was only one proper noticeboard, when there are at least 3 proper noticeboards to use depending on which tool the admin used.  Then I thought about it myself, and saw that it was a terrible idea, so commented again.  GRBerry 13:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Adding myself here for the record as it were. Just now heard about this when someone mentioned something about an ArbCom BLP decision over at a discussion regarding the Barack Obama page. I was following two other ArbCom cases but assumed this one was innocuous after first looking at it weeks ago. I'm rather shocked that this kind of change - and I certainly view it as a change, despite what FloNight says above - was stuck into the "Footnoted Quotes" case. I most definitely wish I would have been aware of this earlier, and though I didn't see the section on the case in Signpost I don't think that would have had me running over here either.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 07:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Breaking a wikibreak to mention this. -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Where did this come from? The ArbCom went way outside its "review user conduct" remit in approving this remedy. If the community wants to make a policy giving the "nuclear BLP option" (as it was called above) to administrators, it can do it, as it is the ultimate authority in site policy, with the exception of the Foundation. The Arbitration Committee must consult with the wider community if it wants to draft something as far-reaching as this, and an obscure case page does not meet that requirement. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) I'm increasingly disturbed by the ArbCom's inability to communicate effectively and their inability to resolve cases in a rational or timely way.  This would just be one piece of evidence, really, in support of the hard to avoid conclusion that the Committee is drifting toward almost non-functional incompetence. --JayHenry (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Although the deed is done, I feel it is important to register my strong objections to ArbCom's actions in this case. In my view they went outside their mandate here in creating new policies rather than enforcing existing ones. Slipping a fairly major change related to BLP into a decision about footnotes and quotes, of all things, is also unseemly. At the very least ArbCom should advertise their proposed decisions that seriously affect existing policy at high-traffic areas such as WP:Village pump (policy) and WP:AN, so that the community has adequate time to respond before some other administrative fiat infringing on the rights of the community is imposed on us. Nsk92 (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What rights of the community have been infringed? What rights does the community have?  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of it before June 1, but I don't care anyway.
 * 1) [put signature here]

This is a silly thing to have a poll over
 * If you want to keep up on what is happening with arbcom decisions, read the arbcom cases. The idea has been publicly posted since May 17, 2008. There is no secrecy going on here and no vote will change that. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely, plus it's in SignPost. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm supposed to read all of them, including ones on dry, technical matters I'm not interested in, involving parties I don't know or care about, just in case ArbCom decides to throw in a zinger out of left field that changes policy for all users on a major issue? This whole thing reminds me of Arthur Dent's complaints about his house, and soon his planet, being destroyed by order of an authority who posted its plans in plain view somewhere obscure where he'd never look. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to read all of them if you want to know about the content of all of them. Unlike Mr. Dents house, these were not stuck to the bottom of a cabinet door in an unused lavatory labeled "Beware of puma", they are listed will every other arbcom case. Where would you suggest an arbcom case take place, at the village pump? <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, what the Signpost said (I hadn't got around to reading it yet myself - tagline date is 9th June, publication date is 14th June) is at Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Arbitration report:"Footnoted quotes: A case involving the use of quotes in footnotes, and general concerns with the biographies of living persons policy. Currently, one arbitrator supports closing the case, with two opposing. Remedies supported by eight arbitrators encourage more enforcement of the BLP policy, and impose a one-year restriction banning Alansohn from making any edits judged to be 'uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith'. The latter remedy allows his blocking, without warning, should he violate it. The former remedy currently passes, but the two opposing arbitrators have cited concerns about the remedy as written." At the Signpost, I read "encourage more enforcement of the BLP policy" and I think to myself, "oh, another one of those bland remedies without teeth". But when you read the actual remedy, you see "Special enforcement on biographies of living persons - 1) Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal...". With all due respect to the work Ral315 and his team and volunteers do, I think the Signpost dropped the ball on this one. The previous Signpost reports don't really draw attention to this remedy either. I'll point this out to Ral in case he wants to respond here or elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When the community takes a dispute to the arbitration committee, it then fully expects the committee to resolve the dispute. The notion that the community should be served notice that the committee intends to perform its task seems to be quite baffling and nonsensical.  Yes, of course it will determine the nature of the dispute and then do whatever is needed to resolve the problem.  That is the Committee's purpose. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When the community takes a dispute to arbitration, and the issue is accepted by Arbcom, the rather reasonable expectation is that Arbcom will deal with the subject of the arbitration. I would have loved to hear what Arbcom thinks about inclusion of brief quotations in footnotes -- the nominal subject of this arbitration -- but Arbcom decided that the subject of footnoted quotes was a content dispute outside of their purview. This arbitration then became a fishing expedition, with editors from all over coming up with subjects that they wanted reviewed and addressed by Arbcom, regardless of how tangentially-connected or utterly irrelevant they were to footnoted quotes, the titled subject of this arbitration. Under bizarre circumstances that I have already discussed elsewhere, Arbcom decided that enforcement of WP:BLP was the issue it needed to address here. Only problem is that BLP was never an issue among the editors involved in the arbitration. No editor or administrator had ever raised any BLP issue with the articles in question between the involved parties. The BLP issue was somehow related to an article that I had last edited in January in which (as I still see it), BLP was used improperly as an excuse to keep thoroughly-sourced, neutrally-worded material out of an article. Without any apparent understanding of the actual case, Arbcom decided that super-duper triple secret probation ("special enforcement") was needed to solve some unknown BLP-related problem that was never a subject of the arbitration nor a proper matter of dispute in any article raised here. Arbcom chose to decide an issue that it had no legitimate jurisdiction over to address as part of this arbitration. Most of the efforts in signpost and elsewhere to draw people to discuss "special enforcement" provide no context or explanation of the supposed issue, the remedy Arbcom came up with or the drastic and chilling effects it will likely have if ever used. That so many in the community feel confused, flabbergasted or duped is a simple matter of an inability to understand why BLP special enforcement solves the issue of footnoted quotes, a still festering problem. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Finding of Fact 1 in this case. It is to be hoped that the increased power of administrators under the new provision will make it easier to resolve the many disputes of varying complexity that arise at present because of confusion amongst administrators and other editors as to the importance of the biographies of living persons policy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Question on what is to be logged at Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log
As I have noted in a few places on this page, many administrative actions are taken on a daily basis with respect to BLP violations: people are blocked, inappropriate content is reverted or admin-deleted, pages are protected. Is there an expectation that all of these routine actions are to be logged on this page? Is someone writing up a special blocking template that all admins can use to indicate that the block is being made for BLP reasons? In particular, is someone creating a block template that specifically identifies that the usual is not applicable for any BLP blocks, and that requests for unblock must be forwarded directly to Arbcom? Will someone be updating the block messages to include specific language for admins to select so that any reviewing admin will see it is a BLP block? For that matter, exactly how is a blocked editor going to appeal their block to WP:AE? While I am not a fan of this proposed remedy, I realise it is unlikely to be set aside at this point; therefore, the practicalities of how this will be effected must be considered.

Given the current wording of the proposed remedy, it appears that all actions taken under this provision (including blocks and page protection) must be logged, not just additional sanctions; and that the avenues for appeal of any administrative actions taken with respect to BLP are limited to WP:AE or the Arbitration Committee. If that is not the intention of Arbcom, then they should fix the wording. Risker (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These are important points. They need to be addressed before the case closes, otherwise there will be chaos. Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, they're already fully adressed: yes, all actions done under this remedy must be logged (otherwise, it becomes very difficult for us to monitor how the remedy is being used), and yes, all appeals go to AN/AE (and may be copied there in the case of block appeals, etc.). Kirill (prof) 13:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose there is something to clarify, actually: appeals of actions taken under this remedy go to AN/AE. If an admin takes an action and does not indicate (either at the time, or when subsequently asked) that he was performing an enforcement action under this decision, then his action may be appealed/reversed/etc. via whatever the typical route for such matters is. Kirill (prof) 13:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When drafting this proposal, the log was created for several purposes. One was specified by Kirill above - another is to ensure administrators are counselling and warning users in the proper manner as specified in the remedy.
 * Re: appeals against sanctions involving blocks, I think the following may make sense: blocked users who wish to appeal their block via the first method (i.e. to the community) may use the standard template to formally indicate their desire - a note is to be left by another user at the appropriate admin noticeboard of the unblock request. The request template would need to meanwhile be removed/declined by any admin (including the blocking admin) stating that they are not authorized to unblock or modify the block by themselves per this decision [link], and that the appeal is currently being considered by the community (at the appropriate admin noticeboard at [link]). Per usual practice, if the blocked editor wishes for to be heard in relation to his/her appeal at the noticeboard, part of the editor's talk page can be transcluded there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The talk page transclusion is not "normal practice". It is something that grew up from a few rare cases and is still extrememely rare, as far as I can tell. Calling it "normal practice" is misleading. If you stop and think about it, it is actually a very demeaning process. It would work better if the reverse took place as well - the ANI discussion was transcluded to the user's talk page. If you've ever tried to follow a conversation in one place, and edit a template in another place, you would know how confusing it can be for people not used to that. Anyway, one of my more pressing concerns is that admins may refer to this remedy, or follow the spirit of the remedy, but not bother to use the log page. I've seen enough people fail (more usually forget) to log sanctions taken under other arbitration cases. The same will happen here. I hope the arbitration committee are prepared to distinguish between those who wilfully refuse to note their blocks and actions at this log (either through trying to avoid scrutiny, or not wanting to engage in another bureaucratic step), and those who forget, or think they are taking "independent action", unrelated to this remedy ("I would have done this anyway - I wasn't taking action under that remedy"). Carcharoth (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no intention to be overly harsh on anyone. As always, we will AGF and educate. Only persistent patterns of lack of clue, or deliberate refusal to follow the sanctions in a manner that is willfully disruptive are going to get an editor or admin in hot water. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No personal offence, Flo, but that has been said before, and things haven't always worked out how people intended. Things can be unpredictable like that around here. It is best to look before you (the ArbCom) leap. I've been reading the evidence and workshop pages, and I see a small group of people trying to "fix" things with various proposals for BLP. Is there a centralised list anywhere of the others changes that ArbCom have proposed and how well those proposals have worked out? Like, a "performance review" of ArbCom? Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (to Carcharoth) You'd be surprised that it isn't extremely rare - it's happened a few times in the past couple of weeks as it is. I should've said; it is becoming increasingly usual practice. Of course, occasional mistakes are compatible with sysop/non-sysop status. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A hypothetical question
Should (or, rather, when, as nobody other than Flonight seems remotely interest in reading the community's concerns and broad opposition to this proposal) Arbcom succesfully sneak this rewriting of policy into effect, then Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log will become active, presumably.

Hypothetically, what would happen if I or any other user were to send it to Miscellany for Deletion for the very valid reason that it is a policy page that has not been determined or accepted by the community? It does, at the moment, seem like the only way the community (who makes policy, not Arbcom) will get a say on this. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  09:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not going to be deleted unless Jimbo decides to get rid of this step in dispute resolution - it is part of a binding arbitration decision. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be correct if Arbcom were mandated to decide policy. However, they are not.  The community decides policy, and if an arbitration decision is strongly enough dissented, it could, in theory, be shot down.  It hasn't happened yet, as Arbcom are (were?) usually sensible enough not to implement something that would not fly with the community. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  10:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Prior to reading this I put a delete tag on it because there is no "Special enforcement" in any policy and those supporting this claim it also will not be creating policy. For "Special enforcement" to exist the community must create it in policy. Jimbo does not own wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest putting a "proposed" or "disputed" tag on it. MfD might get the message across, but I suspect some "strong arm" admins will remove and close MfD discussions. A proposed tag might have some chance of staying in place while making clear that it is disputed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A proposed tag was added earlier, and was met with "This is not a community decision" . I didn't think a speedy tag was the best way to go with this, rather MFD, to enable the community to deliver their verdict on this miraculous policy.  I would very much hope no admin would be numbskulled enough to remove and close an active MFD discussion.  No doubt someone would prove me wrong, of course.  But MFD is the way to go here. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  11:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that the log is not a policy page—it's a log—I would expect that the effects of deleting it would be rather less significant than one might think. We could just as easily have specified that actions be logged on the case page itself, but I thought that a prominent central log would provide for more transparency.  In either case, the remedy would still be active with or without the log's presence. Kirill (prof) 13:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirill, I suggest moving the log page to Requests for arbitration/BLP special enforcement log or similar (and updating the remedy), to prevent such issues. Daniel (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that'd be a band-aid, at this point. People that want to cause a constitutional crisis over the issue could still do so by getting, say, the case itself deleted through MFD; and I see no reason to make finding the page more difficult because of it. Kirill (prof) 13:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I've full-protected the enforcement page, by the way, as per the remedy itself only administrators can add to it, and leaving it open to editing for all will result in disruption both over its existance and also people removing their entries, modifying their entries, or disputing the wording of a logged sanction - all stuff we don't need. Daniel (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You think admins won't get into such disputes? Maybe I'm too cycnical. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit melodramatic to call it a "constitutional crisis". Does anyone actually disagree that between ArbCom and the community, it's the community that's sovereign? The only source of authority beyond the community is the Wikimedia Foundation, and they're not going to take a position on this (and if they did then again, no crisis, Foundation wins). Certainly Anthere has always been clear that the community can abolish or replace Arbcom if they so choose and I've never heard that any of the other Board members has argued otherwise. 87.254.84.198 (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact such a thing is even being discussed, and phrases like "constitutional crisis" are being bandied merrily about should suggest to Arbcom they need to slow down, at the very least. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (response to ip) The purpose of ArbCom is not to overturn the community. It is here to help out the community when it cant agree on a way out. If the community agrees that this isn't the best way forward with clear consensus then it can be gotten rid of and there is no reason for people to see if prehaps the community doesnt agree with this. But if there isn't a community agreement then ArbCom are within there jurisdiction to do this as this is what there job is, to make those tough decisions when the community as a whole can't. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 17:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Helping the community on a point on which there is disagreement would involve taking a case specifically on that issue, soliciting relevant evidence (such as evidence showing that the current way of enforcing BLP isn't working), and issuing a relevant decision. Inserting a sweeping remedy out of the blue in the middle of a case about "footnoted quotes" is not a sensible way of doing such "help". *Dan T.* (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you agree with me that there is no "constitutional crisis" pending. If ArbCom are overruled by the community then that's it, they're overruled, and if they're not then they're not. 87.254.84.198 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What if someone were to delete the log and cite BLP? :) --NE2 17:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that some of the details of cases might inadvertently get mentioned while logging things, that is not as silly as it sounds. Question is, where do you log the action? Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be invaluable to someone who wanted to sue Wikipedia, or just write a scathing article about the project: it would collect, in a single location, a swath of potentially libellous edits and behaviours. Perhaps Arbcom might want to find out what Mike Godwin thinks about having such a compendium of editing misbehaviour visible to the public, even if it is buried deep in the non-editorial pages. Risker (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer's closing comment

 * Close. I have looked at this every which way to see if the BLP remedy could be redrafted to accommodate concerns and conclude that it can't. There comes a time when you've just got to go ahead and try it, and if it's a disaster we'll come back and stop it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If the only solution is a bad one, it's better not to implement it and spend some time working on a better policy, rather than implementing it. Or even better, ArbCom doing its job and nothing more, and allowing the community to determine the policy. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "...you've just got to go ahead and try it, and if it's a disaster we'll come back and stop it." I said my piece above and won't drone on, but I have definitely seen better judicial reasoning... <font face="Verdana">WjBscribe 16:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nod. The problem is that BLP is... well... it's a foundational policy, I've asserted in the past, although I can't find the diffs to prove it. But it's a special thing that can't be decided (any which way) by community consensus I don't think. There are requirements that override consensus. Or local consensus anyway. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the "fact" tagging from my words (I'd rather people didn't edit my words on talk pages, thanks...). I acknowledge that there is not a cite for it being a foundational policy. But I assert that some people think it nevertheless is, or else is something that is clearly a fundamental thing derived directly from foundational policies. I don't want to get into that matter here and now, it's been argued before. My point only is that there are many, including myself, who view BLP as something that community consensus cannot weaken beyond a certain point, only strengthen. YMMV about whether that's the case or not, and that's OK. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we may find out, in the edge cases, how firm a grasp some admins and the arbitration committee have on how BLP and NPOV interact, and the best way to handle good-faith disagreements over particular cases. It is extremely difficult to resolve cases where both sides stonewall and stick to their respective and reasonable positions, positions that can't, however, be reconciled, because they are mutually contradictory. The best that usually be obtained in such cases, in the articles in question, is either verbatim quoting or fudged and vague wording. Stability is rare, and the number of cases is too large to enforce stability. Carcharoth (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the idea behind Sam's comment is that there are no superior possibilities that he can see; it's not necessarily the case that he was suggesting that the BLP remedy is somewhat poor, but "oh well, we'll just run with it anyway"–rather, it's simply the best we have just now. Whether that best is good enough, of course, is another matter: the majority of the arbitrators, and by extension the committee itself, evidently think it is at the moment, however. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 17:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lar, WP:BLP is not foundation policy, it is Jimbo policy that is still highly controversial and contested within the community. With all due respect to Jimbo, the level to which he currently owns this project has diminished since 2002, especially now that it is funded in large part by public and private grants (not to mention donations). The project exists because of this funding and because of the efforts of the community, it is bigger than him and it is time to let go of per Jimbo rationalization. What is foundation policy is WP:NPOV. That is where we need to stand. Fortunately, I predict that this is going to be just as controversial as the attack sites remedies and it will promptly be ignored and wheel warred over. Arbcom is not going to solve anything with this. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP is a core content policy, the existence of which is not controversial or contested in the least. Interpretations vary and there should be and is a healthy debate about where to draw the line in applying BLP. But the policy itself is a permanent rock of the encyclopedia. Anyone who wants to write biographies which don't comply with BLP is free to exercise their right to fork. FCYTravis (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

<-- I see that JD Forrester's edit summary, voting in favour of closure, reads "OK, go for it. If it all breaks, so be it." Between Sam Blacketer and JD Forrester, I am getting the impression of a committee that does not have much confidence in its own decision here. Suddenly, when the eyes of a larger portion of the community are viewing this proposed remedy, there seems a rush to close this case. Meanwhile, the behaviour of one of the key parties in this case is being discussed on WP:ANI for continuing exactly the behaviour on which this case was hypothetically focused. I note that the committee is not re-examining that portion of the decision at all, even though that is why they accepted the case in the first place. It seems they are solving a problem they weren't asked to fix, while setting aside the problem they were asked to address. Risker (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ever heard of "Be bold"? If we make a mistake we can undo it later, this is common to the project's philosophy. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  19:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ever hear of "use common sense". This offers nothing other than the potential for abuse. Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Being bold would have been for the arbitrators to have, as individuals, edited the policy they wanted to change (presumably WP:BLP) and, if others of them agreed with the change, to visibly and actively support such change. There is confusion here about what exactly is being changed, though.  It isn't the BLP policy; deletions, page protections and blocks have been used for a long time in enforcing that policy, and the Arbitration Committee has in the past issued user-specific remedies to enforce the policy as well. It is the admin policy, WP:BLOCK, and WP:ARB. There is nothing in WP:ADMIN that permits administrators to impose specific editorial restrictions. There is nothing in WP:BLOCK that says blocks apparently due to violations of WP:BLP require Arbcom or WP:AE discussion and community consensus before being lifted, or that they cannot be lifted by use of the  template.  There is nothing in WP:ARB that permits the committee to delegate the imposition of user-specific sanctions to any single administrator; by convention, issues and principles can be returned to the community for action, and it would be entirely reasonable to have community discussions about proposed sanctions on individual users, but that is not what is being proposed here. Indeed, there is some question of whether they have crossed the boundaries of their own statement of scope by focusing on what at best would be considered a peripheral issue in this case. Risker (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Only just seen this. What I was trying to hint to was that I have seen many instances, not just on Wikipedia, where a controversial policy has been proposed and has then been criticised and opposed. Sometimes, this results in an attempt to soften the proposed policy to the point at which it becomes meaningless, unworkable, or ineffective in achieving its aims. One can't genuinely achieve a compromise between fundamentally different principles. It is sometimes better to go ahead with a controversial move full-heartedly rather than half-heartedly in a way which we know will fail. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of abuse of BLP by admin who pushed the issue here
I had seen the article George Thomas Coker, and edited the article after noticing that he lived in New Jersey, a subject of focus. With the article now on my watchlist, I saw that User:Rlevse removed a link to the article for the film Hearts and Minds (this diff with the rather bizarre edit summary "upon subject request", a rather clear indication of Rlevse's persistent conflict of interest in editing this article. Assuming that Rlevse had an issue with the improper formating of a wikilink as an EL or perhaps with the lack of a source, I edited the article this diff adding the utterly bland neutral statement that "A clip of Coker was featured in Hearts and Minds, a 1974 film that won that year's Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary. " User:Rlevse promply removed this neutrally worded, verifiably sourced mention of the film (this diff) with the edit summary of "rm, BLP issue". There was no BLP issue and it is hard to believe that any editor (let alone an admin with a clear conflict of interest) could argue that this presented any genuine BLP issue. It was this same User:Rlevse, the purported Arbcom clerk, who pushed to include the George Thomas Coker article as a subject of this arbitration, when none of the articles that are the ostensible subject of this arbitration had ever been BLP issues. It is utterly disturbing that Arbcom would be manipulated so shamelessly to address a fundamental issue on such a flimsy pretext and then come up with a remedy that only grants admins even further power to abuse BLP as the ultimate trump card in any article for a living person, overriding any and all other policies, without any means for overturning the result. The legitimacy of this entire process needs to be questioned. Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been reading through Talk:George Thomas Coker, and I think Alansohn has a point here. I'm also concerned that once this case is closed, that the dispute there will start up again. In some ways, it is a good case to see whether this arbcom remedy can work, but in other ways it is not. How can arbcom impose sanctions on admins or editors who take the "wrong" action over that article without implicitly supporting one side or other in a content dispute? Sam Blacketer said on the workshop pages that this article and the stance taken by Rlevse was "outside the scope of this case". It seems that the proposed BLP remedy has brought it back in scope. I'm struggling to see how we can let the subject of an article influence the editing of the article, as per this. Instead of removing stuff like that, what needs to happen is that (if he has not already done so) Coker needs to go on the record with a reliable source (eg. book or newspaper interview or article) to express his opinion about the film and the use of the clips of him in the film, and then Coker's opinion can be documented in the articles (biography and film) using that reliable source. I will say, though, that "a 1974 film that won that year's Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary" is neither bland nor neutral. From what I've read, that film is controversial, so merely praising it is not the right way to go about it. If there is a controversy here, both about Coker and the film, it can't just be airbrushed out. Carcharoth (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A content decision. ArbCom does not make them, remember. :-) We are concerned with editors that are difficult to work with and make it near impossible for the other editors to reach consensus. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And when admins use their tools to enforce content decisions, citing the BLP remedy in this case, and it gets appealed to ArbCom, what then? Carcharoth (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The community wrote the policy that allows for temporary removal of BLP material until the issue can be sorted out. Attempts to reinsert material prior to consensus being reached will be dealt with in the same manner as always.
 * We need to address NPOV (and other core policies), be sensitive to people that have BLP content about them on site, and insist that content editors work in a collaborative manner. All three need to been done at once and with the same passion. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And when discussion breaks down, how long is "temporary"? When such temporary removal is stonewalled for months, then that becomes gaming of the system. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is always a problem with consensus discussions on Wikipedia. Present in all content disputes. We have been trying to address it by being more aggressive in giving topic bans to editors that are obstructing consensus decisions that lead to a somewhat stable version of an article. That is the reason for the discretionary sanctions type rulings that we are making. We need to have faith that once qualtiy collaborative discussions occur then, reasonable minds will reach consensus. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and that too is highly game-able by those who see Wikipedia as a form of online role-playing game. The goal then becomes to try to get people on the "other side" of whatever dispute you're in to get banned, blocked, topic-banned, put on warning, or otherwise neutralized, while "your side" remains in good standing and can claim a consensus in its favor.  This can be accomplished by staying just barely on the "fair" side of the line and goading the other side into crossing it so they can be sanctioned, or by getting a clique of friends large and powerful enough to ensure that "the other side" is tightly scrutinized for all possible ban-worthy violations while "your side" is protected from scrutiny (tossing around claims that you're being harassed or stalked by whomever is trying to scrutinize your actions is useful). *Dan T.* (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom has effectively made a content decision here, supporting the use of BLP as the ultimate trump card by any admin in any article, regardless of the sources, circumstances or any other Wikipedia policy. Per Carcharoth, I would have willingly added the word if that would have resolved the issue, but User:Rlevse had already made clear that even a link to the film somehow violated his disturbingly broad interpretation of BLP. For that matter, referring to the film as "controversial", without a source explicitly stating that fact is almost certainly a violation of WP:OR, nor did the editor pushing for removal indicate that there was any issue with the wording. I would have been willing to remove the "praise" by eliminating the factual statement that the film had won an Academy Award (and not just in any film by a guy with a camera), but there was no willingness on User:Rlevse's part to accept any mention of the film in any form. That it was Rlevse who appears to have pushed this one article as the excuse for having Arbcom support his side in a content dispute in which he has a clear conflict of interest only adds to the deeply disturbing and disruptive nature of the "solution" that Arbcom is imposing. Alansohn (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No it hasnt. The evidence provided by Rlevse was to assist the committee see the problematic editing behaviour, such as "Alansohn".  That does not mean that arbcom needs to grapple with every content issue related to every article that is mentioned.  Unless you are able to put together evidence that shows Rlevse consistently being a problematic editor (and I dont see that in your evidence), then it is reasonable that arbcom choose to disregard this, and instead focus on the problem editors.  That doesnt imply that arbcom has sanctioned the edits made by Rlevse; it simply means that they believe that standard editorial methods will work, and I agree, because from what I have seen, Rlevse is quite keen to AGF, listen to his fellow editors, etc, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't what? The clear evidence in the George Thomas Coker article is that User:Rlevse abused BLP to whitewash an article in which he has the clearest possible conflict of interest. As described elsewhere by other editors, the pattern of admins abusing policy to create conflicts that can be wonderful excuses for misinterpreting any response as "evidence" is all too clear. BLP never was an issue with any of the articles that led to this arbitration, and Arbcoms clear refusal to deal with the issues that were at the heart of the arbitration undermines the legitimacy of this entire process and the clearly improper decision to exceed its authority on a matter that was never under discussion and on which it has absolutely no authority. As I see it, based on his pattern of edits at George Thomas Coker, User:Rlevse has demonstrated behavior that would have any non-admin booted off Wikipedia months ago. Deleting the barest mention of a film at the demand of the article's subject and impugning the motives of those who dare add factual information is anything but good faith, the keen kind or otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "No it hasn't what?" -- No, arbcom has not "effectively made a content decision here" in regards to Rlevse/Coker.
 * Arbcom have not sanctioned Rlevse's edits; it is simply that they have not been given evidence which suggests a pattern of user misconduct. Rlevse is an editor as well as an admin; as far as I can see, Rlevse didnt invoke his admin tools in that dispute.  You had an opportunity to present evidence, you did present evidence, and arbcom gave you a response.  If you believe that Rlevse has abused his tools or that there is editor misconduct, the next step is RFCu (more posts like this will start to look like you have a chip on your shoulder and are forum shopping).  OTOH, if it is only this one issue that you see as problematic, take the issue (rather than the editor) to a noticeboard so that a broader cross section of the community can consider the issue. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing case
As the case clerk, I'll be moving to close this case within the next hour. Just a heads up, for those curious regarding when this case will close (the committee has now voted in favour of closing). <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 20:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Where should the enraged mob with torches and pitchforks go? *Dan T.* (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably appropriate to take the position that ArbCom's decision applies only to the parties in this specific case, and any obiter dicta they chose to add are of no force regarding other disputes. --John Nagle (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That would probably be self delusion. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's probably not helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thinking that this is not going to be enforced is unhelpful, a dose of reality is actually very helpful at this point. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  14:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All closed. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 23:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log
Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Miscellany for deletion/BLP Special Enforcement and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Martinp23 22:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You MfD-templated the Arbitration Committee (the people not the page) about a page they "created"? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like that :p Martinp23 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

New venue for discussion
Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement. Discussion on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about contradiction with BLP policy
Is the committee aware that one of the provisions under 3.3.1 contradicts the BLP policy?

The remedy says, "Administrators with direct involvement in an article may not take action regarding it under this provision. Taking action under this provision shall not constitute involvement for the purpose of future such actions." 

The policy says, "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material [referring to unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material] with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." 

SlimVirgin talk| <font color="Light green">edits 19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would imagine that BLP still remains as it, and if you are acting under this ruling the you act under this rulings restrictions. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So then why would any admin want to act under this ruling (which says, basically, do whatever you have to do to make BLPs policy compliant, but make sure you're not "involved"), rather than acting under BLP (which says, basically, do whatever you have to do to make BLPs policy compliant, and to hell with whether you're "involved")? SlimVirgin  talk| <font color="Light green">edits 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SV makes a very good point, which goes to the heart of why this ruling is problematic&mdash;it does not necessarily connect with the larger community-established BLP policy, nor does it acknowledge that said policy has recently been an enormous topic of debate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Community norms insist that "involved" administrators keep the use of their tools to an absolute minimum needed to fix a serious breach of policy, such as a copyright violation, vandalism, or the introduction of highly concerning content about a living person. The community expects the administrator to involve other "uninvolved" administrators to address ongoing issues related to the same situation. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what the policy says, though, and that's the point. It says that admins may use their tools, including blocks, to keep BLPs policy compliant, even if they themselves are editing the article. So we have a situation here where the ArbCom is trying to change a core content policy, and it would be a very detrimental change in my view. The spirit of BLP is that we must deal quickly with violations, not hang around to find other admins. Speed is of the essence if someone adds serious defamation, for example. SlimVirgin  talk| <font color="Light green">edits 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The policy that says involvement is okay does not mention the ruling, and does not say this applies to the ruling. The ruling does not say that BLP is replaced by it. If you use the extended power given in the ruling then the extended limitation of not being involved applies. So there is no contradiction, because the source of authority of the two documents are not based on each other. You either act under traditional BLP and follow those rules, or you act under the special ruling and follow those rules. The ruling does not prevent the traditional use of BLP in any way. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's way too legalistic. The common sense interpretation of the BLP policy is that admins can use their tools to make sure BLPs are okay. The common sense interpretation of this new provision is the same. There is therefore a contradiction between them, because one says involvement doesn't matter, and the other says it does, but they seem to be referring to the same set of actions.


 * If you think the new provision says that admins may do something extra that BLP doesn't mention, what is that extra thing? SlimVirgin  talk| <font color="Light green">edits 16:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Legalistic? I am just explaining how it is laid out. Common sense has to be common to be such. The BLP policy is not effected by this, people can use the BLP policy as they always have. It is only, and I mean only, if they claim to be acting under this ruling that the restriction takes place. It only effects people using this ruling. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  19:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Long-term versus short-term fixes
Based on my understanding of current BLP policy, the policy primarily addresses an admin ability to make short-term fixes for problematic BLP content through protection, and in rare instance a block. The ArbCom ruling does not interfere since it is written to allow emergency measures. What the arbcom ruling clarifies is that an "uninvolved" admin can make long-term fixes in order to resolve problems with BLP content. Community norms do not allow an "involved" admin to impose long-term protection or topic bans on problematic editors. The Committee does not think that this should change with BLP content so instead layed out what the best practice should be in this situation.

I think that using the ArbCom BLP remedy will help solve some of the current problems of low quality, non-NPOV compliant BLP content once the Community gets a better understanding about the way that it will work. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your biggest implementation problems will be minimizing drama and preventing the whitewashing of pages. Not just BLP pages and not just article space pages. In time, say by 6 months from now, this will have become a magnet for people who love power and/or attention. At first there will be many eyes. By 6 months, the volume will scale up enough that people will be able to slide stuff by. Already someone created a template to place on an article talk page that claimed (until I changed the wording) any single admin's right to unilaterally place statements on that talk page that can not be undone except by arbcom that restrict what can and can not be done on that article or its talk page based on prior BLP problems. Someone (even an admin) can create socks that disrupt any article on wikipedia by making defamatory statements, then any admin could claim the right to say no one may place such and such a claim on that article or talk page. This kind of thing is very game-able to control content. Six months from now we could have many dozens of minor BLP admin actions a day and it will be easy for abuse to get overlooked. I wish this effort well, but I believe this effort is a very huge mistake. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is hard to tell what the implementation problems will be until people actually use it. The fact is that any admin willing to resort to sock puppetry can disrupt an article without this ruling. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

another question for arbitrators
How did a BLP issue arise with respect to "Footnoted quotes" in an article the subject of which is DECEASED? Should this be interpreted as a wish to extend the BLP provisions to non-living persons?Bdell555 (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That was not the case. Pls read the whole case. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the case? So it's just an astounding coincidence that on that article's Talk page there happens to be a dispute involving the same parties and a "Footnoted quotes" issue?  If that's not the primary article that gave rise to this arbitration, which article did?  I can rephrase the question for the arbitrators if you prefer: who is the particular LIVING person for whom the arbitrators were concerned (if not that dead guy?)  It would not be good faith to assume the arbitrators just imagined or invented such a person.  If you'd rather argue that this case is not about "Footnoted quotes", the appropriate place for such an argument would be in response to observations made above.Bdell555 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well. for one thing, it's not just this case that caused the BLP remedy. BLP has been very problematic for a long, long time. See the arb case Badlydrawnjeff for one instance. For the BLP issue you're looking for, see the evidence related to Coker. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A user above says that you are the one trying to insert Coker into this case, and only arbitrator comment I saw with respect to Coker is that Coker is "Outside the scope of the case"! So my question remains: how did BLP get into the scope.  "Quotes" appear 4 times in the signpost for this case but no hint of a BLP issue.  If it is, in fact, not this case that created a BLP issue as you suggest, I take it then that you believe that the BLP resolutions here have been coatracked in.  Let's hear from the arbitrators as to what they have to say about the propriety of coatracking.  I might add that whether there are, in fact, "BLP problems" as opposed to simply problems with articles not adhering to WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and most importantly WP:NPOV is a whole another presumption.Bdell555 (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many arb cases expand beyond their initial scope so the case name not covering all issues is not unusual. They said Coker was outside the case, not BLP issues in general. Dane Rauschenberg was also brought up during this case, he's still living. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 18:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Coker and Rauschenberg are both being offered as justifications for Arbcom creating the "special enforcement" remedy. Dane Rauschenberg involved an article in which User:Racepacket and a series of his confirmed and likely sockpuppets edited the article to insert false and defamatory information about the article's subject, including claims that the designated charity was shortchanged and (my favorite) a claim that The Washington Post was manipulated into printing a picture of him kissing a girlfriend on New Year's Eve as part of an insidious publicity campaign ("Rauschenberg started testing his ability to gain free publicity by obtaining a Washington Post article and photograph covering his efforts to use craigslist to obtain a blind date for a 2004 New Years Eve party." - see here). More than a dozen sockpuppets related to this article, from both pro-Dane and anti-Dane "factions", were blocked as a result of their edits to this and related articles. I raised BLP as an issue with many of the edits, but this was never pursued at any time by any admin as a means to end the problems with the article created by Racepacket, and any and all issues with the Rauschenberg article had been addressed before the arbitration started. The alleged BLP issues regarding George Thomas Coker are equally questionable. My second edit to the article, adding the briefest possible description of Coker's appearance in the film Hearts and Minds was reverted  with the edit summary of "rm, BLP issue". I think that a rather good faith argument could be made that the mention of BLP as justification for removing sourced material itself violates WP:BLP. In addition to BLP, other justifications proffered by various and sundry editors (including several administrators) used to exclude sourced material from the Coker article included claims of WP:LIBEL, WP:LEGAL], [[WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, "remove at subject's request", various claims of bias and efforts to "tarnish" the subject's reputation and claims of a New Jersey-based anti-Coker conspiracy, all of which were wielded rather effectively to blunt the addition of material that was added in good faith with reliable and verifiable sources that fully complies with WP:BLP. In light of what I perceived to be persistent obstructionism at the time, I walked away from editing the article in mid-January. It seems rather difficult to see a causal and justifiable connection between either of these articles and a claim that WP:BLP could not be used effectively to protect biographies of living people, let alone as justification for Arbcom to legislate from the bench in articles that were not relevant to the case in hand and were not examples of articles where additional remedies were needed. Both cases were examples of situations where prompt, neutral intervention by administrators could have ended the problems without any additional remedies needed. The question of why Arbcom took the case in the first place while refusing to deal with footnoted quotes, why it deemed either Coker or Rauschenberg relevant to BLP and how on earth these "special enforcement" procedures would have solved these imagined problems needs to be asked. The totality of the circumstance in which this case was handled raise significant questions that need to be answered. Alansohn (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)