Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-05-20/Arbitration report

My suggestion for a title: "Collect"ing socks among the occult politics breathing in high altitudes -- for some reason the wiser members of the board didn't think that was a good idea.  Go  Phightins  !  23:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's great to see the Arbitration Report back, Harry! I always enjoy reading it. Liz  Read! Talk! 00:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I never enjoy reading it, because every arb case is a sign that something has gone wrong. However I am very glad that it is there to provide a balanced overview of these, sometimes important, cases.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Given that ChaseMe redacted the part of his initial comments that linked his block to a specific individual (and the SPI was deleted at least in part because of the same BLP issue), perhaps the Signpost might consider doing the same. This is a google-searchable page, after all, and it comes across as though the Wikipedia "house organ" is perpetuating an unproven allegation against a living person. Risker (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. We very deliberately use the words "he believed." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, he "unbelieved" it long enough to remove it from the page before it got deleted. In other words, he had the sense to realise he'd made a BLP violation. Risker (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which, of course, is why we're using the past tense of the word. You would have us bury our head in the sand and pretend this never happened? (a) we're far from the only ones on the Internet reporting on this. (b) we're not judging whether it was initially a BLP violation. (c) what we have is in no way a BLP violation. It's an entirely neutral account of the events. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have an odd definition of "neutral". The arbitration report does not normally include images of article subjects. If you'd had an image of ChaseMe in the article (he's open about his identity and there are several images of him uploaded by him or others on Wikimedia projects), I'd believe you were at least trying to be neutral. Risker (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clear that we're not going to be able to convince each other of the veracity of our views. ;-) We'll have to agree to disagree. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was the Signpost editor who added the image of Shapps. I didn't consult anyone else about this, nor did I have any involvement in writing the Arb Report, so the idea that including the image is some indicator of the bias or non-neutrality of the report is inaccurate.   The Arb Report does not typically include images because the content does not generally lend itself to that, not because of any deliberate editorial decision about whether or not to include images.   In this case, since Shapps was a public figure whose image was available, I made the decision to include it.  I didn't even think to consider whether or not to include an image of Chase Me.  It might be something to consider in future coverage, but in this case it wasn't a matter of me deciding between a picture of Shapps or a picture of Chase Me, it was a matter of me checking to see if there was an image of a public figure available.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel, it *is* a bias, although I'm certain it's not a conscious one; it's the bias of using an image, any image, without consideration of the potential harm to the individual whose image is used. Would you use an image of the Prime Minister of Israel in relation to any of the Israel-Palestine cases (even though edits about him would likely be involved), or an image of Richard Dawkins in relation to a Darwinism case? There's just no reason to include the current image (or any image) here, either. In fact, the public figure is pretty peripheral to the case itself, except for the real-world impact that it has had on his life, and the use of the image perpetuates that real-world impact by continuing to associate him personally with the behaviour of an administrator, which is what has led to an arbitration case. You'll notice the case is not named for him, it's named neutrally. (It's also not named for the administrator involved, something the Arbitration Committee started doing some years ago where possible to reduce the real-world impact on individual editors.)It is even a non-public case, at least in part to avoid the spread of the BLP issues involved. The fact that very experienced editors and administrators can't even see the BLP implications of continuing to name and shame the public figure is worrisome. I'd like to hope that you can see that the same point could be made without the image, and without even naming the public figure; "a British politician in the midst of an election campaign" would be sufficient here. I'll return to this tomorrow; if it's still there, I'll invoke the special BLP provisions.  Risker (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On reflection I agree with here. The image isn't a good illustration of the purely internal Wikipedia matter being reported on here, for all the reasons that led to the case being accepted in the first place. Andreas  JN 466 07:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

, note that the dates for evidence submission and posting of the proposed decision in the SPI block case have once again changed:. Andreas JN 466 08:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Risker, the Signpost is carefully considering the issues you raise. I can't speak for the whole editorial board, but personally I don't find the attempted analogy with the Israeli prime minister to be relevant: that would be pointed and undue weight, whereas here, the photograph is from the article that is specifically at the core of the ArbCom case. I have no problem with the presence of the image here. Tony   (talk)  16:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, Risker, you'd have us stick our heads in the sand when the rest of the world is using the politician's name. I still see no problem here and would resist the use of BLP provisions as you interpret them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)