Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Proposed decision

__NOINDEX__

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Colons
The colon in principle 6 shouldn't be there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although the /proposed decision page should not be edited except by the arbitrators and arbitration clerks, obvious typographical or formal errors may be corrected by any editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

James F.'s distinction between Jossi and MZMcBride
I've been asked to explain the distinction between my votes for how we treat Jossi and MZMcBride, given that it can be argued that they have both erred to somewhat of the same degree - having each unprotected the article in question twice. However, although this position has some merit, the Committee's job - my job - is not to punish, but to find 'cures', or ways to lend the least damage to the encyclopædia. Thus, essentially, it boils down to my faith in the individuals; I am less confident that Jossi will adjust his behaviour in future than MZMcBride, and that a temporary suspension of the former's 'privileges' will have the most effective outcome (though I hope that I am proven wrong and that my lack of faith is misplaced).

James F. (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My review of the past sysop actions, and the evidence provided for this arbcom, appear to contradict your viewpoint - Jossi acted out of character, driven possibly by partisan sentiment, and has now admitted to a lapse of judgement, while MZMcBrides actions are in keeping with a somewhat WP:POINTy campaign to keep articles unprotected over the considerations/consensus of others... Perhaps I am missing something, or ArbCom has SupaSekrit Evidence, or MZMcBride has spoken off-Wiki with regard to his actions? I note that MZMcBride past history has not been noted in any FoF (and neither has Jossi's), and would ask Arbs to review the evidence/workshop pages and see if there is any need to add same to the proposed decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the statements and evidence concerning prior administrator actions by Jossi and MZMcBride. I agree that these were relevant in judging the background of their actions in this case, but I do not believe that anything in their history warrants adverse findings of fact concerning the prior actions or more severe sanctions than I have proposed. Of course, any arbitrator who disagrees is welcome to propose additional findings. For what it is worth, my conclusion was that Jossi's and MZMcBride's actions here were of roughly equal gravity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's common, I suspect, for email communication to occur between the parties and ArbCom during a case, so that might've played its part. My only doubt is whether MZMcBride would explain his actions in the future when asked to on-wiki - I hope he does. Another way of looking at is, he was also blocked for a short period, and in the past, I don't think any issues have been raised in front of ArbCom regarding his actions. However, this isn't the only occasion ArbCom have needed to look into Jossi's. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this comment is a bit self-serving, but I feel compelled to make it nonetheless: I have never wheel-warred before, and I have understood the mistake I made as presented in the evidence page. I pride myself of my work as an admin over the last 3 years, and I do not understand what a 3 month suspension of admin privileges will do in this situation, unless the idea behind such a punitive measure is to make a example of it and use it as a deterrent for other admins in the future. Can we admins make a mistake and have a lapse of judgment? Or are we expected now to walk on eggshells when using our tools and be infallible? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only repeat the pleas that I made on the workshop, namely that MZMcBride's action's should be (if anything) less excusable than Jossi's, as MZMcBride acted at several days interval (not in the heat of anger) and had a record of more minor actions (which stretched back weeks) on the same sort of issue. The Arbitrators seem to have ignored me in the workshop and here, but MZMcBride's first (and complete) removal of protection remains the elephant in the room on this decision. Physchim62 (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself at least, I've not ignored anything. I see the initial removal of protection as less problematic than the subsequent ones because, as best I can tell, there was no clear consensus and no great controversy at that time. Discussion before lifting the protection would have been preferable, consistent with the principles set forth in the decision, but as a practical matter protections are lifted (as by request on WP:RFPP) many times a week and the best practice of always consulting with the protecting administrator is not always followed. In addition, a week separated the unprotections of August 29 and September 4, so I do not see them as being directly a part of the same episode or an ongoing wheel war. Any arbitrator who disagrees may, of course, offer a proposed finding concerning the events of August 29. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, unless a lone admin button click is especially stupid, no admin would be expected to walk on eggshells. You unprotected once, big deal. But you can't do it again. You still haven't acknowledged that anything there was wrong, except that the outcome didn't turn out how you expected. When 24 users tell you "no", half of them admins, you're required to listen and expected to do what they say. No one lone person outranks anyone or is more in charge, which is a listen hopefully everyone learns from this experience. Perhaps we can all take away something from that simple lesson. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We admins should also learn from this the danger of using tools in topics where we're involved. Neither of these admins would have wheel-warred if they hadn't been involved in the topic. When we're involved we lose the objectivity necessary for correct administrative responses. Perhaps that's why it's prohibited.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worth note that the only admins who took a single action in this instance and were listed as parties to the case are myself and MBisanz, both of whom added ourselves and neither of whom currently stands to receive any specific sanction. Wily D 10:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

BLPocalypse Now
I haven't paid attention this case for quite a while, but I was very surprised to see there are is ruling concerning of MBisanz' declaration of special high-intensity BLP sanctions. I don't care whether it's a pat on the back or slap on the wrist (and I certainly don't expect anything more as it was a 100% experimental maneuver) but it would be helpful if the committee could throw us a frickin' bone here and give some indication whether MBisanz' behavior was good/fair/poor/helpful/incendiary/etc. — CharlotteWebb 08:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See proposed finding 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed that. I was focusing on the odd variety of admonishments in the remedies section and noticed a curious lack of his name (and that of WilyD for that matter—that was clearly a "cool-down block"—poor decision on his part but three hours is pretty trivial... he could use some kind of documented warning not to do that). In any case this is shaping into a rather lopsided decision. Just thought you should know. — CharlotteWebb 13:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Another arbitrator had asked that a variety of proposed remedies be put up for voting, so I did. As for the block, my own view was that while it was not helpful, it did not rise to the level warranting an arbitration finding. FloNight, on the workshop, had suggested that she thought a finding might be appropriate and she or any of the other arbitrators is of course entitled to propose one. You can feel free to draw her attention to this thread if you wish. As for "rather lopsided," I'd welcome any further explanation of what you might think is wrong with the proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just revoke Footnoted quotes
Take a look at WP:BLPLOG. The activity there is virtually nil. Now contrast to other areas where discretionary sanctions are in place. The log of WP:ARBMAC is quite different, don't we think? Ditto WP:ARBAA2. The reason is twofold: in Balkans and Armenia-Azerbaijan articles there was a pressing need for further administrative authority and a small group of admins for each area who knew what they were doing and what needed to be done. This is not the case for BLPs: wikiphilosophical differences within the admin community alone as to what is the correct approach for these articles are extremely prominent (that is, almost everyone has an opinion they care about) and very wide (from "anything goes so long as it can be reliably sourced" to "do no harm! None! NEVER".

Under these circumstances the footnoted quotes decision is simply a formula for wheel-warring. Particularly since I personally do not think the admin corps does a bad job on BLPs, given the tools available. What we really need are FlaggedRevs, or some variant thereof, but that's not under arbcom control, is it? Other than that, if we're really serious about this issue, permanent semi-protection for all BLPs is the obvious way to go. Mandate that, and fine. Otherwise, the footnoted quotes remedy is just doing more harm than good. Moreschi (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not active on the committee when Footnoted quotes was handed down, but if anything, I would think the special enforcement authority recognized in that case, if respected by administrators (as it must be) is a vehicle for stopping any incipent wheel-war on a BLP article. In effect, any administrator is permitted to call "time out" with respect to taking the more conservative approach in a BLP dispute (in favor of deletion, protection, etc.) pending discussion and consensus. Although this case represents an exception, I anticipate that most administrators would respect the need to achieve consensus in these instances, as in others.
 * You are certainly correct that the Footnoted quotes ruling will not address all the BLP problems on Wikipedia: far from it. I have been studying up on the numerous proposed approaches that have been suggested both on Wikipedia, on the mailing list, and on a Wikipedia criticism site which, for all its many faults, has done some valuable work in drawing attention to ongoing BLP problems and their potential solutions. You are right that addressing these issues is not per se an ArbCom responsibility, but it is one that is shared by anyone who might wish to be considered a leader within our community. Input on these subjects from any member of the community would be welcome (comments based on the experience of administrators with OTRS access would be especially valued, as would any comments based on experience within other projects).
 * I plan to press ahead with this effort as soon as I complete the other project I am working on, which is drafting a proposed revision and update of the Arbitration Policy. If any other users would like to join with me as a small task force dedicated to the BLP effort, I would welcome their participation. (Anyone can feel free to cross-post this to WP:BLP or some other appropriate location.)
 * In response to Moreschi's comment, the ability of any administrator to call a temporary halt to a perceived BLP problem and say "I see a serious issue here affecting the biography of a living person; let us pause, and reflect, and figure out how to deal with it, acting with respect toward the interests of the article subject in the interim" is a valuable one. Although I had not conceptualized the matter in so many words before I read the then-draft decision in Footnoted quotes, it is a suggestion I would have made myself long ago had I thought of it. Perhaps we can succeed in writing it, with any appropriate modifications, directly into the BLP policy, whereupon any objections that "ArbCom exceeded its mandate by crafting new policy in this regard" will become moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad, doesn't the fact that the remedy has only been invoked TWICE and we've already had a wheel-war over it tell you that administrators are not going to respect that remedy? Particularly since here you've declined to demop either Jossi or MZM? The case is a standing joke. I'd be surprised if one day goes by in #wikipedia-en-admins without someone poking fun at it and the complete lack of activity on the log. The next time somebody invokes the remedy on something contentious, I am absolutely sure the reaction will be "LOL, you invoked that! SO uncool - and it shows you have no case". It's just not what the cool admins do - or, in other words, if an admin cannot justify himself with reference to existing BLP policy, invoking the sayings of Daddy ArbCom looks puerile and silly. And I'm not even sure the BLP conservatives have a majority among administrators! Under these circumstances more wheel wars beckon.


 * Essentially, the footnoted quotes remedy is arbcom authorising one side in the wikiphilosophical debate over BLPs to act with no restraint, but with a really big bludgeon. This is wrong. Unlike ARBMAC - which is simply a big stick to deal with edit-warring/disruption, footnoted quotes is entirely different. It's trying to resolve a debate which ArbCom has no business trying to resolve and that isn't as urgent as the real problem: open vandalism and slander that goes unreverted before it's viewed by thousands. The people who can solve that are the devs, by giving us a workable, uncomplicated stable versions systems. Bona fide disputes over how to handle potentially WP:UNDUE material in BLPs can and should be solved in the usual way: by reasoned debate, mediation, reference to policy, and talkpage discussion. Admins should only become involved when disputes drag out into WP:TE.


 * ArbCom just need to admit they were wrong and FT2's concerns at the time were right. Moreschi (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To say that this case is a standing joke because it involved BLP Special Enforcement to the extent that an admin was not sensible (to put it mildly) because they failed to engage in on-wiki consensus building is a gross problematic exaggeration, as were FT2's concerns. Application of any sanctions, policies, guidelines and norms will always run the risk of having a 'slow motion train crash of horrible and wheel like magnitude', particularly where there is a dispute between users regarding such application. A large portion of ArbCom cases stem from such situations, and they are unfortunately unavoidable, with or without BLP Special Enforcement. But the first paragraph of Nyb's response sums it up perfectly. Cases (like this one) are exceptions to the most users who sensibly and reasonably take care to follow the fundamental principles and norms (eg; respecting consensus, complying with ArbCom decisions, etc.) In effect, I don't think that this case is a vindication of FT2's position at the time, as you described below.
 * Even in the absence of BLP Special Enforcement, Jossi would have still taken the actions that constituted a wheel war, would have still invoked IAR, and would have no regret in taking that action at the time. The only legitimate question mark then exists is: 'what would be different if BLP Special Enforcement was not invoked by MBisanz'? Jossi might have stopped unprotecting, or Jossi may have done it once more. Another admin may have unprotected. I suspect that at the time, MZMcBride would've still failed to engage in on-wiki consensus building, and would've still unprotected with a clumsy summary, even if the article was reprotected with a justification other than "BLP Special Enforcement". The request for arbitration, and this case that followed, were inevitable even without the existence of BLP Special Enforcement.
 * On another note, the log only lists instances where the remedy has been used, after warning/counselling has not worked, and users still make edits that are not in compliance with BLP policy. Often, blocks and unblocks are made when it comes to BLP vios that are made on-wiki. From what I've seen, the warnings regarding the Footnoted quotes case and/or the counselling (that followed) have been sufficient to convince users to fix their editing and the BLP vios as a #1 priority - if these special warnings and counselling are having the same desired effect that comes from blocks and subsequent unblocks, minus the negative atmosphere, the unfortunate permanent notation in the block log and the wurble, then it is obviously working very well indeed.
 * ArbCom did not get it wrong. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoting FT2
Strong oppose as it stands. Although I agree with the idea in principle, I have deep misgivings that I cannot shake, over the first paragraph. It is a horrible mistake, when that admin community itself is so divided too on what "the spirit and word" of BLP means and when deletion is or isn't legitimate, to them give a ruling that the selfsame sysops may each "use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit ... Administrators may use ... tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance... Administrators should counsel editors that fail to comply ...blocks of up to one year in length... all administrators are explicitly authorized to take [emergency] measures..." etc. Is it just me that sees a slow motion train crash of horrible and wheel-like magnitude happening when the different factions and views involved in BLP get to grips with this new mandate? We do need to do something; but this isn't a something I can see being well run as yet. The divisions on what BLP means run too deep and this will just add to each person that has a different and strongly held view, a larger baseball bat. We need to clarify how BLP's ambiguities should be met, and reduce the divergence noted previously, before just handing out bigger hammers to enforce it at discretion. Will discuss before drafting.

That's voting on the notorious footnoted quotes remedy. I'd say this horrible mess is vindication for him. Moreschi (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Without wading into the current agro, I'll just observe that "don't do this,the devs will soon solve this with flagged revisions" is the same tired old excuse for doing nothing about BLPs that we've seen dragged out at every opportunity for two years now. Meantime may have been libelled. It really doesn't wash any more.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, the devs have already finished their work. What's holding up flagged revs now is The Community's inability to speak as one and ask the devs to turn them on on this project. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me a name and the way to contact them and I'll go ask him/her to turn it on right now. If it doesn't happen I'll go ask Jimbo on his talk page what the holdup is. Cla68 (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The CTO of the WMF and lead developer is .  MBisanz  talk 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done . Cla68 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is that, per a post on WP:AN quite some time ago (I'm too lazy to dig it up - the substance came from Erik Moeller, though I think it might have been reposted there by somebody else), the devs are holding off on installing it on English WP until The Community decides whether it wants it implemented and, if so, in what form. Since The Community is not capable of making contentious large-scale decisions, nothing has happened on that front.  As for an operational test run, it's already happened on the German Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's all it's waiting for, why don't we get an RfC going, publicize it everywhere, and start this ball rolling? Unless someone suggests a better alternative here, I'll try to get something drafted and posted within a few days.  I'll try to find that original AN thread as background. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See WT:FLAGGED. Also this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I wasn't aware that this was actually being discussed by the community. Cla68 (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Scott, if the "BLP" policy can be imposed by fiat, surely a stable/flagged/cabal-approved version system can be as well? If this is added it would be the best approach taken thus far, in my opinion. — CharlotteWebb 06:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Flagged revision will solve much, but not all. But, I will not allow it to be used as an excuse to do nothing, until we actually see it happen. I will not hold my breath. Perhaps, once it is up and running, and if it solves the problems (only evidence will convince me of that) then we can relax out guard on other enforcement measures. Not before.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, I know better than to expect you to relax... but what I'm trying to say is this would significantly ease/reduce everyone's workload without disrupting the traditional editing process (cf. two-week full protection of articles related to ongoing events). — CharlotteWebb 08:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Make it so. (Although, actually, I opposed protection of this article. Stuff on high profile articles is simply the vandalism cost of being a wiki. My concern has always been with under-watched BLPs.)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Developer requests
The developers are urged to give priority attention to any needed software enhancements that may be needed to implement new features recommended by consensus of the community with respect to these matters.

What software enhancements?

What new features?

What consensus of the community?

&mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  12:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)