Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement

Temporary injunction

I like the fourth suggestion, something along the lines of a temporary injunction by the community, suspending the arbitration remedy until further discussion. The trouble is, by the time support for such a temporary injunction has been gathered, the process will likely be up and running. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Very sensible. It's just a matter of getting admins on board though, but looking at some of the activity around, this may be more difficult than it seems. Martinp23 22:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need something, because this policy was not approved by the community. Monobi (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider everything listed in that ArbCom page as already in force. Admins already use all measures at their disposal to enforce all the policies on all our articles - I see nothing new that we're not doing already. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then the wording "special" should have been removed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is new in this? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Its already up and running at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log and you'd need a request for injunction at Wikipedia:RFAR#Clarifications_and_other_requests MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

When nothing has changed, why is there a "Special enforcement log" now? --Conti|✉ 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about this as well. The only thing I can think of is the possibility that may have been raised by ArbCom (although I'm not sure) of deleting non-compliant articles without going through an AfD, but we can already do that if it is a simple attack page and in my reading, deleting an entire article for minor BLP problems wouldn't be "reasonably necessary" when all you need do is stub the article, and protect it if problems continue. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also questioned the use of "special" here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've responded here can we please merge these talk pages? MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said on the dreaded IRC, this page (or the Wikipedia: page attached) could well serve as a proper set of guidelines, more open to the community than the protected log. That's best? Martinp23 23:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, isn't that special? -- The Church Lady *Dan T.* (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling seems to allow any uninvolved admin to ban an editor from all living person biographies, if they continue to cause problems after being warned using {{SBLP}}.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are people just objecting because they were not included in the decision? The decision does not really seem to be anything new, we can already use all our tools to enforce BLP, and those actions already should not be reversed without consensus. _{1 != 2} 14:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think an injunction is a bad idea. Arbcom, a body that was elected by the community, has made a decision, and rather than second guessing that decision, I think the community should give it a shot. Wikipedia, for the most part, is pretty great, but it does have problems that need to be solved. Here we have a potential solution--let's try it out. If things go awry, then an injunction may be in order, but only after we've given it a shot. Yilloslime (t) 16:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Inscrutable

"The ArbCom have offered extra powers to admins to read with BLPs". Sorry what? Is that anything like those "read with children" school programs? Please clarify. Skomorokh 22:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected that already. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it was most confusing. Skomorokh 23:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How about...

...a solution akin to the one at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges? Arbitrators and bureaucrats can screen and approve administrators for the sweeping authority based on their (a) time served as administrators, (b) proven knowledge of BLP policy and (c) possible prior issues of criticism. Vishnava _talk 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the community has already shown its trust in (individual) administrators; we do not need more bureaucracy and we certainly do not need more hierarchy. Which aspect of the proposal is this supposed to address? Skomorokh 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the sweeping powers and the "any means necessary," which is scaring some people. Vishnava _talk 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's called WP:IAR. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this would allow systematic, de rigeur courses of action (i.e. deleting notable BLP's) rather than IAR. Vishnava raises a good point about sweeping powers; I think the correct response is not to limit those who possess the powers, but to limit the powers themselves and the manner in which they may be used. For example, we could add conditions such as requiring a second admin to sanction a given action, allowing consensus among editors of a particular article that a particular piece of BLP-sensitive content is reliably sourced to overturn "special enforcement" and so on. Thoughts?Skomorokh 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's give an example. If I felt that a BLP article was being whitewashed and a living person was being represented in a biased way (biased towards the person concerned), with negative material being removed, would deleting the article as an "emergency action" (ie. no article is better than a whitewashed one) be appropriate? I suspect not, but that is the sort of arguments we will see if people get the idea they can unilaterally delete. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely oppose admins having the power to unilaterally delete articles that were not attack pages. What I might be prepared to support is stub and protect, whereby admins could stub a BLP-related article to its bare/uncontroversial/impeccably referenced and protect it for an explicitly limited time period (e.g. 3 days). During this period, a talkpage could establish consensus on what should be restored to the article i.e. how WP:BLP should be applied. Allowing admins to overrule editors consensus on how policy should be applied undermines the legitimacy of policy itself (i.e. supported by consensus). Skomorokh 23:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting an entire article because part of it might be wrong is an action that verges on the irrational. Let's consider real-life cases, rather than rather such far-fetched hypotheticals. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This BLP was deleted outside of process this very day. Apparently it asserted notability and had five references, but I can't view it. I don't think it at all unlikely that articles on minor figures such as this would be deleted by zealous administrators. In any case, what is your opinion (in terms of policy) on the scenarios and prohibitions proposed above? Skomorokh 00:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking into that, it looks like it was created by User:The undertow as part of what has been described as a long-term campaign of harassment against another Wikipedia editor. Not a good example of a BLP this encyclopaedia needs to have. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Who cares why it was created? If it had references, no defamatory material and a claim to notability, it is precisely the type of article that admin's should not be allowed to delete without AfD. Skomorokh 01:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We can all find odd deletion like [1] and challenge them at DRV. At least with this page, there is an extra level of protection for BLPs, that requires admins to go to the extra effort of making public their sanction, if they want it to receive the special protection of not being overturnable by any other admin. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So what happens when, monitoring the special enforcement log, I believe an admin is abusing their powers? If I complain on their talkpage, I may be swiftly rebuffed and told that it is policy. I think we need to develop explicit deletion review procedures for these (non-hypothetical) cases, if we are to allow them at all. Skomorokh 00:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so you see an entry either in the Deletion Log or in the BLP SE Log and question the admin, and they rebuff you citing the Arbcom case, so you take it to AE for review. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AE states that "This is enforcement, not dispute resolution. The case has already been ruled on. The question here is whether they engaged in conduct that breached that ruling.…If others acted problematically, but did not breach a ruling, then seek normal dispute resolution, administrative action or an extension of the original ruling." The ruling here is prohibitively vague - admins should use any and all means possible to uphold WP:BLP. How am I to argue the admin was not in keeping with that ruling? No, the meat of this proposal will not be in the arbitration decision, but in the policy we develop on this page that has been facilitated by the decision. AE is the wrong forum for deciding whether conduct is within policy created outside of Arbcom. Skomorokh 01:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some valid concerns here. When an admin feels strongly about something, they may, and have in the past, fight fiercely for it including citing whatever policy and ArbCom decisions they think support their side, shutting down discussion and debate by citing such policies/decisions as superceding the community and making debate unnecessary (even going to the point of deleting discussion as "trolling" or "BLP violations" or "personal attacks", etc.), rallying a clique of like-minded admins to man the barricades and circle the wagons, and in general stonewall any attempt to get the status quo anywhere other than the admin's preferred version. This policy/enforcement/remedy (whatever it is) gives such admins a potent tool for this, and the doubts about it expressed here can help them play a shell game of telling people, no matter which forum they attempt to start discussion about a particular case in, that they are doing it in the wrong place and need to stop right now. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Special enforcement guidelines

The page says "may use special enforcement guidelines". Where are these special enforcement guidelines? I think people are being confused here. Is this "special enforcement" as in 'over-and-above normal enforcement', or is it "special enforcement" as in 'all enforcement of this important policy is special'? Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, too, but what I think this means are the enforcements listed at the relevant remedy: "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." Don't ask me what's special about that, tho. --Conti|✉ 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Whats special is that you can't appeal such sanctions using an {{unblock}} template or at AN/ANI. Also, other admins on their own cannot overturn a ban, as they normally can. Only a clear consensus at AE or RFAR can overturn admins who place "special" sanctions on people for BLPs. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So if you are blocked for "BLP" violations, that's it? SOL? Monobi (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is very concerning. Editors in a content dispute over a BLP could be unilaterally blocked by an admin with an opposing POV. Skomorokh 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, until you email arbcom, they review it, and desysop that admin. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As we skip down the road towards totalitarianism... Monobi (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, not to be alarmist, but if we desysop'd every admin who made a mistake, the only sysops would be those who never take actions. I hope to fuck that MBisanz's above comments reflect nothing more than a gross misunderstanding on his part. Otherwise, we have an enormous problem. WilyD 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So the appeal process is the only thing that changes if somebody is blocked for this reason? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I found this. It seems that it depends on what the admin claims. If they claim their action falls under this remedy, everything goes very quiet and slow, but at the end of the day, if the admin got it wrong, they will be dragged before arbcom to explain themselves. If the admin doesn't claim the action was under this remedy, the normal processes apply (though presumably admins will still be dragged before arbcom if they wheel-war). Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carc's reading, also I'd say it encourages admins to be less lenient with BLP violation, ie, we won't warn up to level four, then block, then rewarn, etc. It'll be more like warn once or twice, then a lengthy block or broad sanction. MBisanz ^talk 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say it encourages admins to be less strict, or avoid BLP work altogether, but hey. BTW, about the page merging, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log is currently a soft-redirect here. Any reason why it couldn't be a full redirect? Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, since our history diffs would still work, full direct is fine. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant would the redirect confuse some people, and would some discussion specific to the wording of that log page be needed, or the logging actions taken? The two talk pages need to find their own separate purposes in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So it's basically another weapon in the massively multiplayer online role-playing game that some people treat Wikipedia as... a very potent one, but one which must be invoked with the proper incantation. It's going to inevitably be used as a bludgeon by admins with an axe to grind in some dispute. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Balance in the system

I am concerned that the admins that generate most controversy with their BLP work, or who do a lot of work quickly and effectively with no controversy (supposedly - sometimes they just fly under the radar on poorly-watched articles), will not bother using this system. I think this system, if it is going to be seen as fair and workable, needs to be a way to review not just articles and sanctions and actions of editors sanctioned, but also the admins themselves. However, this needs to be done fairly, otherwise admins will avoid logging their actions. Per Kirill's statement here: "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.", it seems that admins can still operate outside this system if they want, but their actions will have more likelihood of being reversed. I think that needs to be made clear in the appropriate places. Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If its not in the log, then its not a special enforcement action and its treated like any other admin action, if its in the log, then the AE/RFAR rules apply. MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We do need a definition of "special enforcement". Is that any different from "arbitration enforcement" (see WP:AE)? My feeling is that this concept of "special enforcement" does refer to something, but that the term "special enforcement" comes from the remedy title and is being bandied around a bit loosely. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

/me points Carcharoth at WP:RFAR to request a clarification.

Seriously though, I think it just applies the arbcom rules to all BLP content and all editors, regardless of their involvement in the case. MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, not special. I think "systematic record of" would have been better than "special". Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The only new admin power seems to be the right to impose sanctions on an editor violating the BLP policy. Should this be added to Wikipedia:General sanctions ? This applies to any article related to a biography of living people. Cenarium (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding as well, in the context of previously being able to temporary or indefinitely block editors for BLP violations, the only new power seems to be editing restrictions. If arbcom want this to be on a separate page from the general sanctions, then I guess we could add a 'see also' section. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect shortcut

Er... I probably agree with them, but maybe those opinions could be discussed somewhere instead of expressed in edit summaries? Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea to bring controversial political acts into this. This will end up in a RFD and create drama. There are certainly similarities, but not to the point to create a redirect. I created a neutral redirect, WP:BLPSE. Cenarium (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a relatively minor thing, though. Monobi (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Opposed

I'm opposed to this, mostly for one reason: we give out admin rights because people were trusted with basic deletion/blocking/etc tools, but not to make this kind of judgment call. Admins are not supposed to hold any greater authority than any other user. If they do it's normally because they, as a user, have a very good repartition, and others trust their judgements on certain things, which is often the same reasons that they get admin rights, but are not a result of the admin status itself. (if I'm making much sense) We're already creeping way too much, IMO, in regards to giving admins "authority", and this is not the direction we should be taking, at least not since we were giving admin rights without considering those same users in these new roles.

I also don't feel this is even necessary. The community has been perfectly able to propose topical bans, short term blocks, etc, when it comes to a problematic editor. To take that and suddenly give that decision making power to a single person, rather than the community, seems like a really bad idea to me. -- Ned Scott 01:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This also goes outside of arbcom's authority, which is limited to the cases they accept. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Striking this last bit, since it's really besides the point I wanted to make, in the interest of keeping this thread on a more specific topic. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to make me find and torture a quote to say otherwise? MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that some might feel arbcom needs more authority on BLP issues, and I won't say that I completely disagree. Other than that part of my comment, what do you feel about the rest of what I said? I'm not altogether opposed to the concept, but I think it would be very unwise to grant admins this ability when we made them admins without that task in mind. I've supported a lot of different RfAs, and I do trust those users with tools like deletion and protection, but my support didn't include this role. Sure enough, I can think of a few that I would certainly not trust in this role (but bearing no ill-will). -- Ned Scott 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To address one small part of it, almost all admins passed RFA before they could grant IP Block exempt and Account Creator, most admins passed RFA before they could grant rollback, a good number passed before they could hide revert edits from recent changes, and iirc, some passed before we even had the ability to delete articles. So their job has been expanded before. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A valid point, but I think it would be fair to say that those new abilities were far less controversial than what is being discussed here. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Semantics I guess, but somehow the ability to delete pages and the ability to evade all IP blocks, seem as Big of a Deal as this, and this isn't even a new technical right. MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They delete pages based off of AfDs and CSD. While there is some personal judgement involved, it's still something largely in the hands of the community. The admin's role in deleting is far more about carrying out what the community decided, rather than their sole judgement. This isn't about what admins have access to, this is about a new role that they would be fulfilling. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This kind of powers have been granted to sysops on numerous occasions, they seem to be the best choice for ARBCOM, as entrusted users, to make this kind of decisions. And it's always possible to appeal at WP:AE. But, the difference here is that the scope is much wider, and it's true that it's beyond the "Footnoted quotes" case... So I wouldn't be opposed to a request for clarification. Cenarium (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand arbcom granting these kinds of rights on a case (arb or otherwise) by case basis, but this is extremely broad. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The way to make Wikipedia worse is to encourage arbitrary action by admins. This proposal will do that very well. We have over the least two years seem many incidents of drama being caused when admins--including some otherwise good admins--thought necessary to take drastic action on BLPs in non-emergency situations without any approach to determine consensus. Most of those admins are still with us, authority intact. We should be looking for ways to ensure that nobody takes such action on their own personal account, not ways to immunize them. A step backwards in accountability. A typically ill conceived action by a board who have consistently to take decisive action on their own--to tell other people to do it instead. The best way to deal with difficult BLP is that if it will not be a matter for office action, to insist on agreement by the community before the admin action is taken. I endorse what WJBScribe said on another page "This remedy has a feel of, 'We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do it.' " And they used an almost totally unrelated and relatively little-watched case to make this decision. I don;t see how they could have gotten things more thoroughly wrong. DGG (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Office actions should be, and thankfully are, only an utter last resort in cases of serious emergency. We do not want to increase the number of office actions. Your supposition that agreement should be required before an action is taken is a complete reversal of the burden of proof which BLP demands. The burden of proof rests with the person who wants something included - and BLP is there to tell us that in the case of disputed information, we must always err on the side of caution by removing it from the article until it can be discussed and contemplated in a community discussion. FCYTravis (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:OFFICE and note things like "courtesy". Actions done as a courtesy are not "serious emergencies". I think that is is an overstatement to claim that the burden of proof has been decided in favour of the deletionist crowd with respect to reliably sourced, notable, and NPOV material (that somehow still violates BLP such that an additional BLP policy is required).Bdell555 (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am also opposed to this without full community discussion. I am concerned both at the possibility for abuse within this policy, and the precedent of arbcom taking unilateral policy decisions. Some BLP violations could easily be misinterpreted, and some useful edits could be lost in the process. If "any and all means" are used to remove the content, there is a good chance that this content will be completely lost before a discussion into the issue can be held. Arbcom was elected to deal with single issues, not to unilaterally introduce policies that affect the whole of Wikipedia. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 06:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think that while this has potential, it is absolutely imperative that admins be held responsible for their actions. It's true that we all make mistakes, but when in doubt, an admin should never use their powers to push a POV. In addition, I'm not sure Arbcom can introduce policy either. I'd have to say on the whole I'm opposed. -Oreo Priest ^talk 08:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• I must agree with the opposed. I see several possibilities here. If this is new policy, Arbcom is explicitly not supposed to be making it. If it's not new policy, then it is redundant and outright dangerous inasmuch as people will misinterpret and see it as a brief to do whatever they think is necessary, whatever means are justified by the BLP ends. Further, if it's not new policy, this is total instruction creep and unnecessary. It only has downsides. If it is new policy (independent of the Arbcom-is-not-supposed-to-make-policy thing), this strikes as still a bad idea: admins are already empowered in many different ways both de jure and de facto, perhaps too much so; and this is more true of BLP than any other area. This strikes me as dangerous and unwarranted. The burden of proof is on supporters to show that there is massive and systemic failure of BLP in the first place, and that supporting 'special enforcement' (seriously, doesn't that phrase alone send chills up anyone's back?) will fix it, and is not only a fix, but the best possible fix.

Needless to say, reading through the talk, I don't see any convincing arguments for any of the three necessary points. --Gwern (contribs) 19:30 17 June 2008 (GMT)

• I think that this proposal is disgraceful, and will further alienate editors from the perceived administrator elite. Legal sanctions equally apply to copyright violations, amongst other things, but no equivalent action has been taken to prevent those. Were I not such a believer in WP:AGF simpleton, I might even be inclined to suppose that this was not entirely unconnected with a certain founder's desire to rewrite his own history here on wikipedia. I will not be wasting my time by watching this page, as clearly the decision has already been made. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point re copyright vios. Copyright vios can and do occur in ANY Wikimedia article, not just BLPs, and you don't see much anxiety about that. It's evidence that the threat of a lawsuit business is in fact secondary to the objective of having BLPs that are favourable ("do no harm") to the subject.Bdell555 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A reason not to codify this . . .

Considering the role of arbcom on en.WP, the way I read the arbcom ruling is this: "We will not desysop or otherwise sanction admins who stray outside of the normal boundaries during the protection of living persons written about on Wikipedia." Considering that arbcom does not write policy. Considering that there is no way to desysop admins outside of arbcom and nor a regularly effective way of sanctioning them. I see this ruling as arbcom attempting to embolden admins to better protect BLP. Since we do not know how well this will work or if it might have unintended consequences, I would personally like to see no policies written up at this time. I would rather leave things open and give it a chance to work as well as leave abcom an easy opportunity to revisit this if it turns out to be a bad idea. P.S. I have only read the ruling itself and not the background conversations, so if arbcom members have already contradicted my little theory please disregard this.--BirgitteSB 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A case study: What remedy is there to get properly sourced material when one admin has decided that it won't go in

I had seen the article George Thomas Coker, and edited the article after noticing that he lived in New Jersey, a subject of my editing 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 portent 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 promptly 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 Arbcom clerk who pushed to include the George Thomas Coker article as a subject of the arbitration, who has steadfastly stood in the way of including factual, reliably and verifiably sourced material about the film in this article. Dozens of suggestions were made in an attempt to satisfy Rlevse's demands, but he stood firm in his insistence that supposed BLP issues prohibit any mention of the film. Under the newly-drafted policy that Arbcom is trying to impose, what remedy is there to get properly sourced material when one admin has decided that it won't go in, regardless of sources, circumstances or any other Wikipedia policy? Alansohn (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fully unacceptable. -Oreo Priest ^talk 07:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread appears to be resolved. The diffs that Alansohn was bringing up were several months old. Admin Rlevse (talk · contribs), who does appear to have a COI where the subject is concerned, is no longer actively editing the article. Also, based on what he has said on the talkpage,[2] he has enacted a voluntary ban on himself from further edits for the rest of the year. I see no need for further action at this time, though I have added the article to my watchlist, and if there are further problems, please bring them up there, thanks. --Elonka 16:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not entirely resolved in that there needs to be a discussion on the talk page of the article about whether or not this information is relevant and should be included in the article. As well, since there is no administrative restriction on any editor with relation to this article (nor any for the article itself), further issues can be brought up for community discussion at WP:BLPN, or an RfC can be initiated to bring in uninvolved eyes. Wherever possible, we should use our existing dispute resolution systems. Risker (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There does in fact seem to be a longrunning discussion on the talk page on the suitability or otherwise of the proposed content. By "resolved" I assume Elonka means that the abuse that Alansohn alleges, if it was abuse, has been resolved without arbitration committee involvement. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Two components. The editing by Rlevse has been resolved by the self-imposed topic ban. The influencing of the topic by the talk page editing less so (and that goes for what everyone has said on that talk page). It is difficult for people to get a clean handle on the issue now. The previous talk page discussions don't so much resolve the issue as muddy it, IMO. There are many different ways of tackling this that have yet to be discussed calmly. That is one of the big problems when people get upset over an issue. Calm, rational thought goes out of the window. Trying to come up with different inflections and phrasings and balancings of something is difficult when emotions around you are running high and accusations are being flung around. The key thing in any dispute, sometimes, is to identify several independent, clear-minded, intelligent, editors from either "side" willing to discuss things, and to have fair-minded admins clear everyone else out of the way (with polite and detailed explanations) and to let the core editing team get on with it. Some of the peanut gallery can be allowed back in to comment if they start being calm again, but only the central core should decide and enact what changes are made. If this sounds familiar, then it should: arbitration cases work exactly like this. Carcharoth (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is making policy

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log

The current policy as described at WP:BLP has been reached through community consensus. The escalation of this via Arbitration Committee's decision was not. Thus, until such time as community consensus has been reached at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or otherwise, administrative action based upon BLP problems is as reversible as any other administrative action. E.g. Reversal is to be done with caution, but does not requiring further approval. At all. The second administrator need not even communicate before they do so, per Wikipedia:Wheel war.

This is unenforceable under the current policies.

brenneman 02:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee will desysop anyone who reverts an action made per this remedy without consensus, as required by the remedy. I fail to see how that makes this remedy not enforcable. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he means its only unenforceable when we run out of admins to desysop? MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia will definitely be better off. Daniel (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Because, under the current behavioural guidelines as agreed upon by the community (also known as "policy") they cannot do that. On a technical note, of course, Arbitration Committee is not able to deadmin at all. meta:Stewards exist for that. If someone who has posted a notice at ANI that they won't repeat the reversal, the likelyhood of finding a steward who will remove the rights is anyone's guess. But that's just mechanics.

The short version: Arbcom don't make policy.

brenneman 02:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Stewards will always desysop if an arbitrator requests it be done per the Arbitration Committee. Daniel (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check that assumption with any Stewards that you are familiar with. I'm doing so as we speak, trust me. - brenneman 02:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I did so, about 3 months ago. I didn't recieve one bit of dissent. Daniel (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirming that it will be done, upon request of the committee--§hanel 02:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I have done so before and would again if the committee requested it. If it was too egregious I would ask that they find another steward to do it but I would not undo a committee action. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(de indent) Per meta:Stewards policy "Their task is to implement valid community decisions." While de facto consensus has been demonstrated for previous action, it has not demonstrated that community consensus exists for the "special" finding. In fact the talk page discussions appear to indicate a _lack_ of consensus. That same policy page says "the steward will not act or make decisions before the uncertainty is eliminated." This is with respect to election, but uncertainty has clearly been demonstrated.

I would not ask any steward to reverse a decision and didn't suggest it. I suggest that before doing a de-sysopping they re-read this policy page and consider carefully the full impications before they act. We're not compelled to do any enforcement, and that applies to stewards as well as admins.
brenneman 02:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that your way of saying "Damn, I couldn't find any stewards not willing to desysop per Arbitration Committee request, but please, listen to me now!"? Daniel (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an unpopular truth, but the fact is the Arbitration Committees of those projects which have one can make binding, final decisions. _{1 != 2} 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(Responding to Until, as I don't understand what Daniel said.) They can make the decision. There is question of that. I am questioning the enforcement. As I said, I believe that if they consider carefully a steward will find enough reason to "pass" on performing this action. I haven't checked if there is any steward/arbcom cross-over, but even if there were a member who could perform the change of rights,steward policy states "Don't change rights on your own projects" should stop them from doing the de-admin themselves. The very simple point is that we're not serfs. No one can be compelled to enforce an action that they consider a powerful vessel of fertiliser.
brenneman 03:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But as you can see above, a number of Stewards will. Your protest to this remedy fails on the grounds that, if there's at least one Steward willing to comply with an Arbitration Committee request, the decision will be binding locally (see the link Until (1==2) gives above) and also technically enforced. Daniel (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What that foundation issue is about is that Wikipedia is owned by a 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity and that foundation's committee is the source of the communities freedom to govern itself, and as such it is well within it's rights to appoint an arbitration committee to make binding decisions. The gift of consensus rule is just that, a gift. Enforcement is not an issue, the software is ready for that. I really would not hold out much hope of stewards not enforcing this. _{1 != 2} 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The other option is to try and get the Board to remove the authority given to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey for the latest discussion on that issue. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaron, rather than foam about possible case where a steward cant be found to act on an arbcom request, lets cross that bridge when it happens. If that happens a few times, then you can say that it is unenforceable under the current practises. Wikipedia policy is ever evolving and is descriptive of what has been proven to "work". This may or not work, but we have two stewards indicating that it is workable, with the only caveat being that stewards are going to stew on any invocation (thank goodness), the details of which cant foreseen. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that courteous response. I do hope I'm not foaming already! I am however concerned by the responses to "should this be done." I'm hearing here that since it could be done I, and by extension we, just had better suck it up. Not to go all Karmafist here and talk about revolution, but "the software is ready" is as uninspiring answer as I have ever heard. Wikipedia is not a boss, or an owner, and volounteer effort is a requirement for it to continue.

• There is ongoing discussion over an issue with wide-ranging implications,
• That discussion was effectivly sqashed by an over-abrupt close of the case, in which
• This page was created before the close even took place.

This "special" finding in not an emergancy. There was no rush, and a close in this manner raises some serious questions. There has not been sufficient community input to these changes. Until that occurs, no amount of sticking your tongue out or linking to courtesy blanked pages will suffice. Simply to be utterly transparent: If and when the time comes to "cross that bridge" I am not going to hesitate to do so.
brenneman 03:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

End moved from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log]]

(following the thread which is a moving target) There isnt much foam here yet, but the dish-washing liquid has been added and if someone keeps stirring, there will be more foam than water.

Your initial post culminated in the statement "This is unenforceable under the current policies", so it is unsurprising that responses have been to the effect of "yes, it is." If you want debate about whether this change to BLP should be accepted by the community, the correct venue for discussion is on WT:BLP. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Gack! This is the last time I'm going to say this, then I'll give up: I started by saying, as you correctly stated, "This is unenforceable under the current policies." I stand by that statement, having gone back and looked several times. The fact that people are saying they will do it, despite what the current policies say, does not in any way affect my initial statement. I'm now going to stop talking, and hope that instead of simply responding people will actually read what I've written so far.
  brenneman 03:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you pay attention to what's being said here - you may need to step back and think about it some more (and refamiliarize yourself with Wikipedia norms) to understand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this does apply outside of a case, I would agree that this is Arbcom making policy, something we've always tried to avoid or minimize. Arbcom exists for Arbcom cases, not as a governing body. Maybe Wikipedia needs a governing body, but that's a much larger community issue. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask where it is written in our policy that arbcom cannot make policy? I have heard it said often, but it does not seem to be true. If you look at arbcom cases you will see it is not unheard of that they enforce things unrelated to policy. So, is this really a rule for them, and where is it? _{1 != 2} 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's kind of an unwritten tradition or internal meme based on many arbcom members having said previously that "arbcom does not make policy". As with many "policies", which reflect what is actually done, and may or may not be written down, this "policy" is a policy now because that's what people do. It would not be a policy any more if ArbCom started consistently actually making policy and the policy it made stuck. IMHO anyway. YMMV. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The thing about unwritten rules that are defined by how people have done things, they can change when people do something different. People could seek to have it codified(see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Procedure for changing this policy), but you will pretty much have to convince arbcom to change their own rules because "Jimbo Wales has also suggested that Arbitration Policy is not open to amendment by the community"(fwiiw). _{1 != 2} 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the spirit of ignore all rules? Folks arguing over the policy on policy-making would do well to spend half and hour watching Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living_people - and don't just look at the recent stuff, go 1000 entries back to the stuff that doesn't get reverted by RP patrollers. There are bigger things at stake than petty wiki-squabbles and worrying about bruising the community's collective ego. CIreland (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with the suggestion that this provision is "making policy" in any meaningful sense (see my arguments on that elsewhere on the page). However I'd like for a moment to look at what it would mean for us if we were to say that, in some sense, policy has been made by the arbitration committee.

Despite a long reluctance by successive incarnations of the arbitration committee to make policy, it certainly has made policy in the past, in the sense that policy can be said to have been made here. Article bans, revert paroles, probations, user mentorships, article mentorships and whatnot, involving similar delegation of powers, were all introduced by the committee without prior consultation with the community. If this provision is "making policy", so were those provisions when they were first introduced, and so in this sense we have a long and productive tradition of the Committee "making policy".

I don't want to get into a semantic argument here, so if there is agreement that such activities by arbcom as introducing novel remedies constitute "making policy", then we should probably alter the arbitration policy to reflect the fact that, at least in that limited sense, the arbitration committee makes policy, and moreover that such works, through internal discussion, have always constituted not a small part of what the Committee does. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 04:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, briefly accepting the innane notion that it should be codified as acceptable for a judicial body to both create and adjudicate policy, there's still the question of whether or not this constitutes delegation of powers. While the "Any and all means" bit may very well be, the procedural issues (i.e, forcing users to appeal in ArbCom territory) are clearly amendments to the blocking policies, which give AN as a recourse in the event of an unfair block. If nothing else, that needs to be changed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, that's an incredibly weak argument. Mentorship, revert paroles, probations and the like are all perfectly acceptable things for admins to have, provided there is transparency and reasonable, neutral, objective avenues of appeal that don't involve the administrator or those who empower the administrators actions. I have no issues with those, and if they were all retroactively abolished by a community resolution that ArbCom can not make policy, they would simply be reinstated as regular administrative perogative. The main reason I have no issue with them is that there are appropriate avenues of appeal for inappropriate uses of that perogative. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone smacks a template saying I'm on a revert parole for an article, and it turns out it is because an administrator is a worker at a company and he's trying to keep criticism of the company's product out of the article, I can take it to another administrator. Failing that, I can take it to AN. Failing that, I can take it to the community (a "community un-ban", if you will). Someone does that with this, I have two options: one, a group that I'm extremely hesitant to trust at this point with even the most simple of cases, and two, the noticeboard for the enforcement of that group's will. My two avenues are hardly equal. One could take months to respond, and the other one probably won't act, or even strenghten it into a ban, further solidifying me into a bad state. The point isn't that they've delegated powers that would be reasonable powers available to an administrator as simple actions taken under a reasonable capacity as an administrator, the point is that they're creating an environment where the actions of the admins can no longer be called into question in the way that anything else could. Not only that, there's no good reason for it; the only justification, and a rather non-sensical one at that, considering it is the actions of an administrator being called to question, not someone who was a named subject in a case and was sanctioned and is ignoring their sanction, is that it's arbcom-related, so it should go to AE. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This to me is clearly making policy (or "changing policy" if you want to get really technical on the semantics), especially with respect to creating the "Special enforcement log". Mathmo ^Talk 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear lord

Is ArbCom mad? Listen, people. You need to get out and edit more. There is a vast difference between creating special enforcement for local, ethnic disputes and for a vast stretch of the encyclopaedia. A cursory look at the BLP noticeboard shows admins disagreeing intensely on interpretation of BLP all the time. Creating a log of this type also encourages admins to game the system to win content disputes, by re-framing things as BLP issues. This is both not needed and completely and utterly counterproductive.

Way to drop the ball again, folks. Your job is to making editing easier, not more difficult.

Sorry, I'll go back on my wikibreak now. Call me if you want to make any more policy, please? --Relata refero (disp.) 14:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'm slightly optimistic about this remedy, I agree there is massive scope to game the system. Enjoy your wikibreak. PhilKnight (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Check the talk page of proposed decision - these concerns have already been addressed by responses there, including about the log itself. It's come to the point that no one wants to deal with foam anymore, so please stop creating any more. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not say they have been addressed, I would say they have been dismissed. There is a difference. I quite concur with Relata refero. Risker (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It must be admitted that heat is greater than light here, and that the noise is drowning out the signal. _{1 != 2} 15:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I made specific points above. If they somehow failed to illuminate you, I do not accept responsibility. OK, must ... return ... to ... break.. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The issues cannot have been addressed in such a short time, I would point out that two arbitrators have opposed the proposed remedy on similar grounds [3]. Arbitrators have jumped on the occasion to "do something" on the BLP issue, while this may be a good initiative, it still needs to be heavily discussed by the community beforehand. Cenarium (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I share the concerns of Relato and Risker as to gameability. But ArbCom has made this remedy. We must try our best to make it work. If there is gaming, and it's endemic and consistent, such that it can't be dealt with by the community, we need to bring that to the attention of ArbCom. They have after all said they were trying this to see if it would work. I nodded in agreement when others spoke out against this before it was imposed but now it is, so we should try to make it work. That in no way disparages or dismisses concerns raised. ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just gameability, Lar; I have enough good faith in our administrative corps that I expect only a tiny minority of admins would use this as leverage to win battles. I'll note, however, that the situation leading to the Mantanmoreland arbcom case was largely due to administrators acting in good faith to take actions similar to those urged upon the admin corps by Arbcom—and we had two really POV biographies out of the deal. Similarly, the Rosalind Picard biography was heavily slanted as a result of good faith actions of several administrators. That's the biography end of things—the other aspect is the use of these special sanctions. To date they have been very narrow focused, involving small groups of articles (Eastern Europe, 9/11); the majority of administrators applying these sanctions have been well-informed of all the issues, know who the main editors are, and so on; however, when an admin who didn't have all the background made use of these sanctions, we wound up with the Tango arbcom case. Sanctions under such arbcom decisions aren't benign for anyone, including the sanctioning admin.

There is no common understanding amongst administrators as to what is and is not acceptable under the BLP policy; check out this AfD, where good faith editors and admins could not come to consensus on whether or not this article crossed the line. There are thousands more like this, and much as I'd probably delete articles like this if left to my own devices, I'd be really hesitant to start sanctioning people for creating or editing them in good faith following such an AfD. But will my practices be the exception or the rule? Risker (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Interesting how I was of the same opinion as Until 1==2 on that discussion

I agree with all your concerns. I too am worried how this will turn out. Although I wouldn't advance the Mantanmoreland case as an example as you did, there are shedfuls of articles where matters are not clear and admins of good faith will not be able to conclusively decide what to do... I agree with all your concerns. And yet I am sure that you'd agree there is a BLP enforcement problem here that needs solving. I will not fault the ArbCom for trying to solve the problem even if I would not have done exactly what they did. My point is that we've been handed this by ArbCom and asked to give it our best shot. We therefore need to do that. It's premature to throw up our hands just yet, I think. We must try. And yet, I agree with all your concerns. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also from a wikibreak, I basically agree with Relata refero's comments. I think ArbCom is overreaching its powers here and trying to make changes that should be only be made as a result of a community concensus and through the standard policy change process rather than by an administrative fiat of a small group of arbitrators. ArbCom is simply not the right vehicle for instituting these kinds of changes. I would like to see these new powers curtailed to the extent possible. There is too much possibility for abuse in various BLP content disputes here and there is too much honest disagreement in the community about the meaning of the BLP policy; these radical blocking/banning powers are a good way to produce some sort of WP civil war. I also think that maybe one should revise the arbitration policy itself, WP:AP, and institute some kind of a formal process for overturning ArbCom's decisions by the community in rare cases. This particular case, as well as the proposed "Sourcing Ajudication Board" in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed decision show the need for such a process in cases of ArbCom's overreaching its powers. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly has changed?

It's completely possible (even likely) that I'm just being dense, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between the new ArbCom ruling and the way we've been enforcing WP:BLP in the past. Delete pages over BLP concerns? Check. Protect pages because of BLP concerns? Check. Block users because of BLP concerns? Too many of those to count....

So basically as I read it, the only thing the ArbCom ruling changes is that the undoing of another admin's actions in this area should be supported by consensus obtained on one of the big noticeboards--a practice that has been recommended by WP:WHEEL for as long as that policy's been around. Likewise, admins have always been at risk of losing the tools if they abuse them, including but not limited to engaging in said wheel wars. So since I'm a little surprised to see so many negative responses in the discussions above to what I see as an already-established practice, I was wondering if maybe someone could articulate what exactly has changed? --jonny-mt 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. There's me thinking the old policy was different... Rudget (logs) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, the major change is that non involved admins are authorized to impose sanctions on editors concerning blp articles (e.g. ban an editor from blp articles for some time, or specific articles related to a blp). And such sanctions cannot be overturned, except by community consensus. Cenarium (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We can already threaten to block people if they continue disruptive activity, I don't see a huge leap between that and telling people to avoid an area they tend to be disruption in. _{1 != 2} 16:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also possible to restrict someone to 1RR on a particular blp at the administrator's discretion, and other things like that. It's a more formal act, it cannot be unilaterally overturned, and it also adds bureaucracy because these sanctions have to be logged. Cenarium (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The sanctions only need to be logged if they are done under this ruling, you can still do it the old way(ie warning about disruption, 1RR etc...). _{1 != 2} 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's based on BLP policy violations/violations on BLP, then it falls under this ruling. For general disruption, there is no change to usual practice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The sanctions have to be logged so that application of this remedy is monitored by the Committee, and the community. This "formality" is to ensure that the remedy is being followed as it was intended, and to provide a log for details of (previously or currently) sanctioned users.

No one may overturn an action you or anyone else has made under this remedy, unless there is clear community consensus or authorization by the Committee. (You must therefore take care in any actions you make)

So the difference - 1/ you are not limited to blocks and protection, but can impose other sanctions; 2/ you must log actions and evidence of warning/counselling editors and 3/ the appeal process is tightened, and where an action is overturned, must also be logged. It is basically a very slightly modified discretionary sanctions remedy on the area of conflict (BLPs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as well. My reading is that the only thing that has changed is that instead of just counseling and blocking for continued violation of BLP policy, I now must now log each counseling event and block event and am at risk as an admin if I don't follow the new logging procedure. This looks to put more resistance in the system for doing what we are all currently obliged to do anyway. How is this helping me do the job of keeping BLP violations from articles? --NrDg 16:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For the majority of administrators (yourself included), this is just a formality (that I don't think is too much to ask) - it's like giving details of why you've blocked a user in the block log, except you're pasting that in this enforcement log and adding the diffs of the sanctioned/blocked user being counselled and warned. Similar requirements of logging exist for the appeals process. The extra formality will be helping both the Committee and the wide community monitor what is being done to tackle several problems that continue to adversely affect Wikipedia.

This formality also serves another purpose. There are (unfortunately) certain administrators who do not adaquately educate, counsel, warn etc. users - this remedy is to signal that this process is compulsory and that failing to follow that process will no longer be tolerated. While genuine mistakes will be overlooked, admins who who are found to not be following this ruling by the Committee (are abusing any part of the process) will have their admin rights suspended or revoked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you do not have to log every BLP action there, only those where you cite the new arbcom decision. --Conti|✉ 17:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's how it will work. Someone tries to add material to an article about a living person. Any admin can come along, wave the BLP flag and stop any material from being added, regardless of the number or quality of the sources and disregarding any other Wikipedia policy. Any effort by any editor to counter the validity of the BLP claim will result in that individual being cited for "special enforcement". Remember, there's no need to actually violate BLP; all that's necessary is that there is a claim by any one admin that BLP is an issue. The only way to challenge this will be to go through Arbcom and to demonstrate a preponderance of support against the admin. Sure there will be admins who will be overridden in the most egregious cases, but the overwhelming majority of cases will either never be challenged by those daunted by the process, will be tied up in litigation for months or years or will result in failure to show the overwhelming preponderance of support needed to overturn the action. The policy was intended to have a chilling effect on editors and to give near unlimited power to any one admin. If not fought vigorously, it will have that effect. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sad to admit this, but Alansohn's prediction is correct: it gives Admins a means to force a tendentious edit, whether in good faith or not. I know of a couple of articles which I have been involved in where I could force my own opinions into an article over its content or language by using this extraordinary power; but since this wrong, I won't do this. What is needed is for more people to use & support the RfC process so that a consensus can emerge. (I have tried this with one article, only to find at most two neutral editors weigh in over an issue which is by no means complex or requires any research.) Only after this process towards a consensus has clearly failed should the extraordinary steps this ArbCom ruling proposes be taken. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a bit of an over dramatic and pessimistic interpretation of things. I am pretty sure that if admins go around claiming BLP violations where there are none and citing this ruling that they will lose their bit pretty quick. Instead of predicting the future lets see what happens. _{1 != 2} 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also want to add that according to the ruling it's not necessary to go in front of ArbCom--"community-based consensus" is fine as well. --jonny-mt 23:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. even without assuming bad faith, this remedy could produce a whole range of unintentional bias in BLP articles. all that needs to happen for an administrator to unilaterally remove an edit is that s/he convinces him/herself that that edit in some way reflects (however indirectly) on a living individual. since there is absolutely no established criteria for determining when an administrator's editorial judgement is skewed - that kind of thing is normally handled within the editorial process, which this 'special enforcement' is designed to circumvent - there will almost never be grounds for an effective appeal of an administrator's actions.

that being said, I wouldn't be all that opposed to this if there was language included that prohibits use of 'special enforcement' except in clear, direct, and unambiguous cases. that would at least forestall it being used to settle minor issues of taste or judgement.

also - and this sounds too much like a no-brainer to me, so I may be missing something obvious - wouldn't much of this problem be solved by giving all BLP pages automatic and permanent semi-protected status? at least this would limit editing to wikipedians who have a minimal reputation to protect, and drastically reduce the tendency towards irresponsible edits. don't get me wrong: I like the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone in general, but I'm not sure that open liberalism should extend to BLP cases. --Ludwigs2 03:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Supposed BLP edit issues at George Thomas Coker

Our excellent case study, George Thomas Coker, has for years been the subject of efforts to prevent factual thoroughly sourced material about Coker's appearance in the film Hearts and Minds from appearing in the article. While admin User:Rlevse has long led the charge to use BLP to whitewash the article, other users have waved BLP as an excuse for deleting material. The latest, this diff, has User:MBisanz removing thoroughly sourced material with complaints of "UNDUE BLP material remvoal [sic]". We already have a problem in which anyone can use BLP as an excuse to remove anything they don't want to appear in an article. Under the new policy that Arbcom is trying to ram through, how exactly does one break through obstruction when the magic letters "BLP" have been thrown in? Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn, you have posted pretty much exactly the same above at #A case study: What remedy is there to get properly sourced material when one admin has decided that it won't go in, and at various other pages. How many more times do you want to post this complaint again? --Conti|✉ 17:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Twice. Once as an example of a hypothetical case, and again now that there is an active effort to claim that BLP is a valid excuse for removal of reliably sourced material. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So there'll be no third time? Good. :) --Conti|✉ 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

TBD. :). Depends on what happens with the article. We have a wonderful example here of an article where these issues need to be confronted. Alansohn (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is at least the fourth time Alansohn has raised the issue, with arbcom evidence and then arbcom proposed decision discussion both being prior to the two times it has been raised here.

I replied to Alansohn at arbcom proposed decision discussion saying "...more posts like this will start to look like you have a chip on your shoulder and are forum shopping...", and he has edited that page since my comment. Rather than reply to me there, he then created this section, so I am starting to leap to conclusions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Coker article is not the brilliant case study that Alansohn makes it out to be. I will not comment here on whether BLP is being invoked appropriately on the Coker article, but I will say that Alansohn is stirring the pot about a minor fact being excluded on the Coker article, and that the Rlevse edits were months ago. The recent changes to the Coker article was because an editor saw great injustice described by Alansohn, and tried to remedy it. It was reverted, so the next step would be talk page discussion. If that fails, we have noticeboards and RFCs for that type of editorial decision. The problem that Alansohn describes, of BLP being inappropriately invoked, is not new. The venue of appeal has always been the appropriate noticeboards. Sometimes appeals don't get noticed; sometimes they result in an awkward compromise; sometimes they result in one side of the debate being overruled. This remedy has no effect on the Coker article - if there is consensus on a noticeboard that the fact should be included, there will be no BLP problem, and this remedy is irrelevant. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I couldn't disagree more thoroughly with you. An admin removing a bare mention of a film as a BLP issue is exactly the problem and making threats of action of BLP violations is exactly we're dealing with here. That Arbcom has now decided that BLP claims can be used by any one admin for "special enforcement" only compounds the problem. That yet another admin would then revert sourced changes to the same article and throw around WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, clear acts of intimidation, only demonstrates the even greater potential for abuse with these new enhanced powers. Rlevse only compounded his clear conflict of interest in the Coker article by injecting himself in the Arbcom case, again despite the clear conflict of interest. He is a continuing part of the problem. Alansohn (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Involvement

I've removed the section that said admins directly involved in a BLP (e.g. as editors) may not take action under this provision. The practice has always been that BLPs are excluded from the "involvement" criteria, and BLP made that explicit last time I looked at it. I'll check it now to make sure it still does. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That provision is indeed still policy. It says, "Administrators may enforce the removal of such 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." [4]

If anyone wants to change this, it should be discussed on the BLP talk page first so that anyone interested can chime in. It would be a major change in the spirit of the policy, not just the letter, which is that anyone anywhere not only can but should remove bad BLP edits immediately, and that admins should use the tools to that end, whether they themselves are editing it or not. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You actually removed part of an arbcom remedy, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision#Special enforcement on biographies of living persons. --Conti|✉ 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is being put forward as a policy proposal, but it contradicts one of our core content policies, namely BLP. Any change to BLP that's as fundamental as that needs to be discussed on the BLP talk page. It may seem as though I'm making a pernickity point here (my apologies if it seems that way), but it's important not to have policies (or even proposals) that cancel each other out. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy proposal template has been removed (I didn't even notice it was there until it was removed), since there's nothing being proposed here. It's a discussion about the recent Arbcom ruling. Would you mind if I therefore remove the note you added? The "involvement" part of the remedy doesn't contradict what WP:BLP says, since it only applies when the new "Special Enforcement" is involved. You can still remove obvious BLP violations and all that, whether you edited the article yourself or not. But now there's the "Special Enforcement", and when you invoke that you need to be uninvolved (And you need to log any action at the corresponding log). --Conti|✉ 19:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Slim this is not being put forward as a policy proposal. This has been ruled by arbcom. If one is not acting under this special ruling, the regular BLP policy still applies. _{1 != 2} 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Conti and Until. The problem is that, as written, it is contradictory. The BLP policy says that admins may do whatever they need to do to make sure BLPs are policy compliant. The ArbCom says that only "uninvolved" admins may do this when wearing the "special enforcement" hat. So if you don't wear the special hat, you can do whatever you need to do, involved or not. That doesn't really make any sense, unless I've seriously misunderstood something. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the idea is that the "Special Enforcement" hat gives you extra authority. Only a clear consensus can override a decision you made with that hat, and other admins are explicitly not allowed to reverse your action. That's why you're supposed to be uninvolved, so you won't use the hat in situations where you just want to get the upper side in a dispute you're personally involved in. At least that's how I interpret the whole thing, which is admittedly very confusing. --Conti|✉ 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

History has however demonstrated that in cases where 'involvement' restricted administrator action, it hasn't stopped admin abuse. An involved administrator can simply ask, by talk page or in private, a like minded administrator to do the action for them. This has been a major loophole for admin abuse, and this proposal simply extends the ability for it to be misused. --Barberio (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons I just mentioned I think that the note about involvement should be removed, but perhaps a note in its place explaining that the restriction only applies if you are acting under this ruling would fill its intended purpose. _{1 != 2} 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We should create a new section in the article on our interpretation of the ruling, with clarifications, and then discuss this. Cenarium (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if current policy allows for involved Admins to invoke BLP to make extraordinary actions, then current policy should be changed. If an Admin can't find an uninvolved colleague who agrees to make the desired action, then that Admin should reconsider his/her opinion on the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In BLP issues, speed counts. One can't always take the time to find an "uninvolved" person. If an admin is involved in an editorial discussion going on about, say, the weighting of a particular incident in someone's biography, and one of the other editors inserts libelous material, it is ludicrous to say that admin can't remove the material immediately and warn/block the person inserting it. FCYTravis (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good thing no one is saying that, then. --Conti|✉ 20:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a discussion for WT:BLP. _{1 != 2} 20:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a hint. Involved administrators contribute to the chilling effect, and their judgement is in no way impartial - this is to be strictly avoided as signalled by the Committee on other occasions. Admins who fail to do so should already know what to expect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It has to be more than a hint. The policy says editorial involvement is not an issue when it comes to BLPs, and it has said that for some time. If anyone wants to change it, they should suggest the change on that talk page. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about a ruling, or a proposal

I think the proposal tag at the top of the page is out of place and misleading. This page is not a proposal, it says "this page is intended to facilitate community discussion about the issues", this page is not an attempt to introduce a new policy. As such I am removing the tag. Revert and discuss if you disagree. _{1 != 2} 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur, what is the proposal ? I also agree with the removal of the shortcut. Cenarium (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts are good, in general. But I agree, this has been set as policy, by fiat, and should not be marked as a proposal or a product of consensus. Nor should the text of the dictated policy be tinkered with. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am all for shortcuts, but WP:PATRIOTACT seems a bit POV to me[5]. _{1 != 2} 19:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What I said, [6]. Cenarium (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, THAT shortcut is way off the mark. Some other one might be good though. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:PATRIOTACT is clearly in bad taste and POV, it needs to be speedily deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• This BLP Special Enforcement proposal is also in bad taste and POV. Can we delete both simultaneously? Alansohn (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

no. _{1 != 2} 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's such a bad idea that we should keep it and have a big 'ol banner saying "this was a really stupid idea, don't try it in the future". -- Ned Scott 21:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"any and all means at their disposal"

“ 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. ”

Very dangerous precedent. "Any and all means at their disposal" - what on earth place does a statement like that have on a project like wikipedia? In essence this is giving OFFICE level powers to many hundreds of admins, and actively encouraging them to use them on any of hundreds of thousands of articles if they feel like it. What is, in some senses, even more worrying is the desire for these powers to be used against any material deemed against "the spirit" of BLP. "the spirit" is one of those wonderfully unquantifiable grey phrases that can mean anything to anyone depending on what they want to do. The letter of BLP is one thing - "the spirit" is just an invitation for misuse and corruption of policy.

These ideas, and the continual erosion of the idea that an editor is an editor is an editor, are having a potentially deleterious effect on the goals of this project. It is becoming more Animal Farm with each passing year - all editors are equal, but some are becoming more equal than others. SFC9394 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

1000% agreed. One only has to look at the latest at George Thomas Coker where User:Oreo Priest added sourced material about his appearance in the film Hearts and Minds (film). Not only was the material summarily reverted with an unsubstantiated claim of a BLP issue, but User:MBisanz (an admin and candidate for Board of Trustees no less) then warned OP that the edit was defamatory and in violation of Wikipedia:Libel (this diff). It is baffling. to say the least, to maintain that the inclusion of the article subject's own statements backed by reliably-sourced references constitutes defamation. If anything it would seem that the accusation of making defamatory statements would itself violate WP:LEGAL. BLP has been consistently abused to mean anything and everything to those who wish to keep content out of articles. In the hands of an admin determined to wield BLP to keep out content, it clearly has the chilling effect of discouraging good faith editors from pursuing the issue. he further creation of a process that only stacks the deck even more in favor of any one admin who decides that there is a BLP issue only adds to the potential damage to this encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it: the source is unreliable because an administrator said so. One can backup a statement by 10 reliable sources in a BLP, but any administrator can claim that all of them are "poor" and block you. Welcome to Brave New World! I have another question: Does this ruling apply to any statement about any living person in any article? Biophys (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Risker (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And this is already coming. Alanson has been blocked. Now others will be more careful.Biophys (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, Alansohn has been blocked under a different section of this decision, which was specific to his own behaviour. Given the number of places and times he has relayed the same complaint about a specific individual, it is no surprise that an administrator blocked him and I can't bring myself to disagree with that action. Risker (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

O'K. But at least one comment he was blocked for was made on this talk page [7]. This is not to challenge any specific administrative actions.Biophys (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that his comment on this page, made repeated times, was in no way related to this proposed policy and was to continue harassment of another user who he disagreed with on a specific BLP and whom arbcom declined to sanction (while sanctioning Alansohn for behavioral misconduct). MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And how are you, MBisanz, helping to resolve the underlying problem here? Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Striking my comment, with apologies to MBisanz. The block issue has been resolved at WP:AE. Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"New" powers vs. "highlighting existing powers"

To the extent that admins are just being encouraged to use the authority they already have, I don't have a problem with this.

To the extent that new powers are granted, such as blocking people from BLP-related articles for up to one year, this needs discussion.

Let's take these one at a time:

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

Historically, administrators can protect pages, remove pages that would qualify for a speedy-removal tag, make edits as any other editor would make, and warn and en-globally-block users for being disruptive. Normally blocks could be of an indefinite, usually escalating time-frame and could be appealed using {{unblock}}. New rights: The right to summarily delete articles that might not qualify for speedy-deletion based only on their own sense of "reasonable necessity." Fix: Reword to say Administrators may use the page protection and revision-hiding tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance. Administrators may summarily delete articles which would, after editing out BLP violations, qualify for speedy deletion. If the BLP content is removed prior to speedy-deletion, such deletions should indicate both the SPEEDY reason and the fact that BLP-violating text remains in the final revision in the deletion log. Administrators may SALT such articles for a short time to prevent the BLP material from reappearing.

• 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. 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.

The common-sense editor-guidance is a good idea but nothing new. Potentially new - enforcement other than escalating blocks without an actual ARBCOM case. Administrators have always had the right to block repeatedly-disruptive editors, which includes people who revert disruptively even only once a day, but every day. Telling people they can't edit a particular article or class of articles or blocking them where another administrator is not allowed to unblock them after a {{unblock}} is too much power for one administrator to have, even if there is an appeals process. Fix: Have any such sanctions be limited to a week or two, and immediately put the situation up on an arbcom-like noticeboard, perhaps call it Wikipedia:EditorsForDiscussion since the outcome might be to "delete" the user's rights to edit certain articles for a time. Based on the outcome of the resulting discussion, and in particular the editor's attitude towards the end of deliberations, a jury-like panel of administrators can decide if the restrictions need to be extended beyond two weeks but no longer than one year, and if so, what needs to happen in the way of an attitude change before the editor should ask to have them lifted. Note that this workaround would require a change in policy and a new administrative body. As far as the jury goes, I would say that a pool of up to 50 random active administrators plus 2-3 random arbcom members should be invited to participate in such cases, with the expectation that at least 5-10 will actually do so. By limiting the per-case invites to a small fraction of active administrators it prevents power grabs. The presence of arbcom members will help ensure some consistency.

• 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.

Common sense.

• Appeals may be made to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard. However, administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

See above, Administrators should counsel editors....

• Appeals of both the original action and of any subsequent reversal may be made directly to the Committee, or another body that is designated by the Committee for this purpose in the future.

See above, Administrators should counsel editors....

• 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.

This should be clarified to exclude emergency actions and actions they already have the authority to use today. In particular, protecting articles and blocking users for a short period of time, e.g. 24 hours or less, for disruption.

• Logging

Housekeeping. Good idea.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Abused BLP patrol

If there isn't one already, there should be a category for repeatedly-abused BLP articles and a list of recently-deleted-for-abuse BLPs and, if technically possible, an easy way to patrol changes to those articles.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning on creating a template later tonight that adminstrators can use to place an article under special enforcement sanctions, it will include a category that should be easily patrolled by BLP watchers. MBisanz ^talk 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that just leaves patrolling of recently-deleted/recreated articles. That may be a subject better discussed at the village pump. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Update: - WP:PUMP primed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where the decision permits administrators to put articles under special enforcement sanctions, only editors, unless you mean the emergency provisions, but long term article probation or enforcement sanctions are not emergency measures. What am I missing here? Risker (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of things that need to be clarified, we should use this WP:BLPSE page, for the moment it's just a copy of the ruling with a tiny note. It would be good to add some content that can be discussed. For example a section on applicable sanctions, a section on appeals, etc. Cenarium (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Risker, the line "Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance." means to me that all admnistrator tools apply, deleting and protection wouldn't actually make sense outside of the article context, since you can't delete or protect a user. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, why would one need a special template to indicate that a page is protected? We already have those. And why would one need a special template to indicate that material has been deleted? It only draws attention to the fact that, umm...material was deleted. Both are routine actions that shouldn't warrant a template. As far as I know, every BLP has a template on the talk page that specifies what material may be removed from the article at any point. But there's nothing in this decision about article probation or special provisions specific to articles, only editors. Risker (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like a template saying "This page is protected and this protection is a special enforcement sanction, don't undo it" obviously it would go on the talk page. Lemme draft it and we can see if it answers your questions. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that raises a good question. Will all page protections of BLP articles now going to be considered as part of this special enforcement sanction, or only those that specifically involve insertion of material that violates BLP? There's plenty of edit warring over stuff that's not particularly BLP-sensitive (e.g., repeated insertion of trivia or reverts over names of songs or film titles) that could result in a page protection; I have a hard time thinking these will fall under the special sanctions, and would hate to have to log all of those. Risker (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To that end, I've created {{BLP Spec Article}} and {{BLP Spec Notice}}. As I understand it, only if an admin invoke special enforcement sanctions, and logs them, does the rules regarding appealability, etc apply. So as long as you don't intend for a page protection to have those rules apply, no need to worry about logging. MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A small, measured move

There are two parts to this:

• existing best practice is encouraged:
  1. admins to identify and "counsel and warn" editors whose conduct is disruptive
  2. blocks etc for egregious bad behavior, page protection and deletion to be used where necessary
  3. discussion of admin actions to be held where and when appropriate
  4. reverting blocks made under the BLP never to be made without consensus (per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff).
• some tweaks are made:
  1. a new avenue of appeal is made available for admin-based sanctions related to the BLP: direct appeal to arbcom
  2. the meaning of "involvement" for the purpose of such actions is spelled out
  3. existing admin-based sanction mechanisms that have evolved under community control are given the stamp of the arbitration committee.

This is a small, measured move in the right direction. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What "existing admin-based sanctions", Tony? I've seen community-based sanctions discussed in several places, and Arbitration Committee-based sanctions, but there is nothing in WP:ADMIN that authorises individual admins to impose sanctions other than blocks on editors, and if they are doing so then they are doing so without the support or knowledge of the community. Those "powers" are new, are not in any policy, and if some admins have been doing them on the side then maybe we'd better be looking at those admins. Risker (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin-based, rather than arbitration-based, sanctions have long been imposed subject to community consensus. We've developed topic-bans, for instance, normally debated on the administrators' noticeboard prior to imposition (see for instance MastCell's discussion on WP:ANI on 13th June [8], in which he mentions this review of a topic ban he had proposed as a remedy for a user. The topic ban was endorsed after discussion.)

I've no idea whether there is a written policy document describing this process. Needless to say, Wikipedia policy requires no such document (see Ignore all rules).

Under the new ruling, a topic ban or any other sanction on grounds of WP:BLP could be imposed by any uninvolved administrator on an editor who had been warned but failed to comply fully with the policy. The change is that prior discussion and community consensus would not be required to impose such a sanction, and it could only be reverted by community consensus or direct appeal to the committee itself. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you have proved my point. While an admin proposed the topic ban, the community discussed it and endorsed it before it was imposed, not after the fact, and not having to develop consensus to repeal it if the community felt it was inappropriate. Risker (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that you have a point. I have said that the decision means that administrators having proposed a sanction under this ruling need not seek community consensus, and you agree. I have said that the sanction can be reversed by consensus after appeal to the community (on WP:AN, etc) or directly to the committee, and you appear to agree with that, too. I don't see any difference in our perceptions of the facts or the effect of the ruling. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, my point is that, even if one takes the position that policy is descriptive and not prescriptive, there is no pre-existing policy allowing a single administrator to impose sanctions unilaterally on an editor. Therefore, this section is policy de novo, and Arbcom is not supposed to make policy. The description of the existing policy up until Arbcom closed this case is that 1) admin or other editor identifies problem; 2) sanctions are proposed and discussed in a public forum in which interested editors and admins may comment; 3) there is a determination of consensus; 4) action is taken (or not taken) on the basis of the consensus. Other activities can be going on at the same time; an editor may be blocked, material may be reverted/deleted/oversighted from an article, a page may be protected. Please note also that not even this Arbcom remedy authorises action specific to articles, only to editors. Risker (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we probably have irresolvably different perceptions of policy regarding admin action. Administrators normally, as part of their job, impose without formal discussion a very serious sanction on users who in their personal judgement are acting disruptively: they block them. This has been the case for several years, in fact almost as long as we've had administrators.

Moreover, the arbitration committee has a long history of delegation of enforcement powers (to the extent that arbcom final decisions now always contain an enforcement section). Typically, enforcement powers are delegated to "any uninvolved admin" which is what is being done here. There is no change of policy here, only the formalised delegation of exceptional powers. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was trying to get at elsewhere in the discussion. It is already too easy to block and too difficult to unblock (whether they be topic bans, community bans, actual bans, or temporary blocks); removing the community element from the former part of the equation and adding them to the latter makes it even more of an unbalanced process. The community should be a part of the process of deciding who should be removed the community. It isn't always a light decision; many admins treat is as such because they do it so regularly. Specifically because of that, the community at large has to be a part of that process, to be able to step in and say "No, this doesn't deserve that measure; you should do this instead", especially so in the BLP arena, where admins hand out blocks like samples at a supermarket. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The question posed in the main page, "What limits are there on this enforcement?" is easily answered by observing the ruling: "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal...". That isn't to say that such actions cannot be reversed either by consensus or by direct appeal to arbcom. Arbcom also has intrinsic, self-adopted limits (such as a normal limit of twelve months to any sanction) which it passes on in the wording of the ruling. So the community and the Committee both perform an oversight function, rather than a one of imposing direct limits on actions taken under this ruling. Actions are also subject to central logging so scrutiny is made easy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be thinking about how we can reverse the actions of an administrator against consensus. We should be thinking about how we can minimize such actions so we can concentrate on building an encyclopedia, and this doesn't help. Most of the things that are discussed here are common sense, and not really necessary; the problem is that rather than using IAR and giving an explanation about why what the user has done is bad, now all they have to do is wave this Patriot Act-esque ruling at them; that doesn't even begin to delve into the problem of having an involved admin handing out blocks. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea what this has to do with the Patriot Act. This ruling only concerns editors who are continuing to flout one of our most important policies after being warned of the consequences. The on-wiki consequences are, it should be needless to say, of far less real world import than the real damage that is caused to the principal and secondary living subjects of articles containing unreliable disparaging information, attacks and defamation. The ruling also gives a precise and tightly worded definition of involvement for the purpose of admin actions taken under it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I couldn't disagree more that BLP is one of our most important policies. I think that it's the largest and best example of CREEP that we have, and I'd be happy to see it gone. That aside, guidelines, rules and process exist for a reason; especially so for admins, as they have tools available to them that most of the community doesn't; it is considerably harder for a user to get themselves unblocked, or for another editor to garner enough support to get them unblocked, than it is for the admin to block them. This kind of dichotomy suggests to me that the proper course of action is not to make the process of getting an improper block lifted more difficult, it should be making the burden necessary to block higher; this lowers the burden, going in completely the wrong direction. An admin can do anything they want, use whatever means necessary they think they need to protect the sanctity of BLP. That seems very PATRIOTACT-esque to me: flimsy rationale for its existence, lowering burdens on bodies with power, making it more difficult to get a reversal of action ... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You also might want to have a look at this VP/P thread. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that the Biographies of living persons policy (BLP) is not one of our most important policies, I think it's possible that the ruling is aimed specifically at people who agree with you and may be tempted to neglect or traduce that policy, with damaging real-world effects. Citing Process is important isn't very sensible. It's an essay, and not one that enjoys any broad support. Indeed the opposite, Ignore all rules, is our oldest policy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I believe in the spirit of BLP (i.e, we need to protect the living subjects of articles). My problem is that crafting extra policycruft to do so is completely vestigial, considering we already have NPOV, V, RS, OR and NOT. Having a "special policy" lessens the importance of maintaining other articles. We don't need BLP at all. We just need people to follow the core policies and it becomes utterly redundant an unnecessary. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the Arbitration Committee taken to deliberately not including time limitations on some of their recent sanctions, and there is nothing in this decision that provides guidance to administrators to do so in their sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For the unitiated in ArbCom's recent fiats, this is probably what he's talking about, which also lacks significant community support. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a tricky and risky ruling by arbcom, that last one you refer to, Celarnor. I look forward to seeing how well it works in cases of sourcing disputes. Delegation of arbcom powers to third parties is nothing new--I myself was made a mentor for another editor by arbcom as long as three years ago, and delegation of arbcom powers to "any uninvolved administrator" is a very old form of remedy. More recent forms include the appointment of special committees of administrators to oversee (mentor) an article or group of articles. So while the purpose of this new committee is new, it does involve a well trodden path--delegation of powers to named uninvolved admins or uninvolved admins in general--and the power to determine whether a source is adequate has been wielded by arbcom in the past in its determinations of tendentious editing. (See, for instance, Franco-Mongol alliance). This power is thus arbcom's to delegate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, it was a decision that took more power away from community consensus and gave it to a select few people (not even "any uninvolved administrator"), similar to what they're doing here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your claim that only a "select few people" are empowered by this ruling. The ruling makes it plain, "Administrators are authorized..." and "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." (where the meaning of "involved" is explicitly spelled out in a later clause) makes it plain to whom this provision applies: literally any uninvolved administrator.

I was talking about the sourcing adjudication board, not this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I got mixed up on what we were talking about. You're correct in this case to say that it is proposed that a "select few" are given this trust. However the proposed remedy has not yet been passed (if it ever will). Time to agonise over arbcom remedies if and when they actually pass, I should think. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the purpose and effect of the ruling is to reduce the capacity of community dissent to sabotage appropriate action under the BLP (note also that such actions can be reversed by direct appeal to arbcom). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem with it. You're siding with the admins, saying that they need to be protected from sabotage; I'm siding with the users, saying the same thing. Under this, users have no recourse. Appealing to ArbCom isn't going to work in all but the most egregious of circumstances; considering what they've been doing of late, "dealing with abuse of power" wouldn't really make sense at this point. Appealing to the AE noticeboard is only a slightly better solution, carrying pretty much the same problem that the community simply doesn't matter there. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I would say that I'm siding with Wikipedia policy. Here's how arbcom puts it:

There continue to be significant and numerous problems with the implementation of the biographies of living persons policy, including both obvious non-compliance at the article level, as well as more subtle attempts to undermine or weaken the policy itself, or to stonewall attempts to implement it in particular cases. There is considerable hesitancy on the part of many administrators to act decisively in these cases, often because the relevant policies are contradictory or unclear.

The arbitration committee can't just jump in and fix stuff (to busy), and so it has granted extra enforcement powers to administrators and significantly reduced the capacity of community dissent to hamper enforcement of the policy. At the same time, there is a safeguard to overrule (and deter) over-zealous admins: inappropriate sanctions can be appealed directly to arbcom. This is a new safeguard that has not existed before, and acts as a brake on possible abuse of the new powers.

To depict this as an argument between "admins" and "users" (as if admins were not themselves users) is unproductive and unlikely to help us to enforce our policies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Rot. What's unproductive is creating policy that exacerbates such a division. Do try editing in more controversial areas, sometime, Tony. Wikipedia has changed a bit since you last spent extensive time there.

And ArbCom doesn't have the time to put out every fire-fight emerging from their ill-designed policymaking. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think I'm no longer editing in controversial areas, it may be because I and a number of other editors have become rather good at making them less controversial by our edits. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, thats not it. Please re-read my sentence for the crucial difference between what I said and what you replied to. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to leave it there. I see no difference. Let's move on. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

If you genuinely see no difference between "in controversial areas" and "in more controversial areas", may I humbly suggest that the moving on you do is to something where such subtle distinctions are not required? --Relata refero (disp.) 23:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The remedy is not acceptable under the current arbitration policy. So it can't be applied.

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy is pretty clear on this. Remedies are in the form of "User X is...". If it isn't in that form, it isn't a remedy. The intent was clearly to limit remedies to individuals.

Any 'remedy' that proposes new processes or policy is therefore not in-line with the arbitration policy. So it can't, and must not, be enforced. The arbitrators can, and have in the past, recommended that new policy be made, but they can't make it.

So there's nothing here to discuss, as there is no policy fiat by arbitration committee, and it does not look like this policy would get consensus. --Barberio (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think arbitration in practice has veered a long way from the policy document. But it is a good point you make here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never really gotten a good answer as to how something empowered by the Foundation as the final binding authority is restricted from making certain rules... MBisanz ^talk 13:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Because that empowerment was limited to what was set out in the Arbitration policy. --Barberio (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the key principles of Wikipedia is that we are not hidebound by policy. CIreland (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Except the ones applied by ArbCom Fiat, because you'd be banned? --Barberio (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am completely confident that if an editor contravened an ArbCom 'fiat' yet his actions were widely judged in the best interests of the encyclopedia, he would not be banned for the sake of procedure. CIreland (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC

The problem is I'm not. There is an observable tendency for groups of admin who get *very* zealous about 'protecting the wiki'. Considering how much BLP gets abused as a policy hammer, "ArbCom enforced Policy!" is going to be fuel for a maelstrom of drama. --Barberio (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this is likely to increase 'wikidrama' - even if it doesn't, it certainly won't diminish it. This is a price I am willing to pay. CIreland (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think that if anyone had suggested that the ArbCom should be enabled to create new proscriptive policies in their remedies, it would have been quickly shot down by the vast majority of the wiki as a very very bad idea. --Barberio (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that Barberio has filed an RFAR in this matter at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Scope_of_the_Arbitration_Committee_to_create_new_policy_and_process._.5B4.5D_.5B5.5D. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The community has never surrendered its right to make or change policy within limits set by the owners of the servers (first Jimmy and now the Foundation). WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the issue is unclear, is it not the case that the community does not have the right to determine arbitration policy? CIreland (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If the policy document is to be taken as binding on the arbitrators, Jimbo Wales is the final arbiter on arbcom decisions. Whilst it is conceivable that the community could abolish the biographies of living persons policy by consensus, as a restatement of other existing policies it would be very difficult to attack without dismantling those Wikipedia policies, particularly the neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (VP:V) policies. The former, WP:NPOV, has been described by Jimmy Wales as "non-negotiable", so best of luck.

On arbcom findings and remedies, the form isn't chiseled in granite, and the Committee derives its powers from Jimmy Wales, to settle disputes on Wikipedia. Disagreement with the mere form of a remedy is bureaucratic and unlikely to prevail on Wikipedia, in any case.

From personal experience of reversing two remedies by arbcom, I have to say that it's possible to change their minds, but you have to have some pretty convincing arguments. I would suggest an appeal of part of the recent decision if there are enough interested parties. The appeal by custom would first be made to the Committee itself, and then to Jimmy Wales. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV, has been described by Jimmy Wales as "non-negotiable"" - this is exactly the point that people make about BLP. Some people mis-apply BLP (with the best of intentions) so that NPOV is lost. Others then retreat to a position where they talk about WP:UNDUE, and then insist that the material being removed under BLP is so insignificant as not to be relevant. The problem has never been with BLP per se, but with people who abuse BLP to whitewash articles or to unbalance an article in favour of a particular POV. The best applications of BLP are when arguing for wholesale deletions of an article (eg. WP:BLP1E). But when applied to information within an article, particularly when reliable sources do exist, things are much more problematic. But really, people should be participating in the threads I started at WT:BLP. Ignoring the main policy talk page (which I too did for a while) is not good. Too many people have divergent views on BLP. Only by centralising discussion will we get people (to a reasonable extent) back on the same page on these issues. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If somebody misapplies BLP you can take their decision to the community or (if that doesn't resolve the matter) to arbcom. If somebody misapplies BLP in the context of this ruling, you can skip the community stage and appeal directly to arbcom. All policies can be misapplied; this does not mean that we should not take steps to strengthen their appropriate application. If you think people are abusing an existing policy, the solution is not to weaken the policy but to stop the abuse. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn and John254 tried to point out what they saw as overly-protective abuse of BLP here and here. Both times, an arbitrator commented "Outside the scope of the case." Despite this, the case ended up with a general remedy aimed at BLP issues. The committee continued to ignore Alansohn's increasingly widespread comments on this issue (he eventually got blocked under his arbcom remedy for essentially harassing Rlevse and bringing the issue up too many times - something I'm still uncomfortable about). Rlevse has since self-imposed a ban on himself editing George Thomas Coker or its talk page. See Talk:George Thomas Coker#Self-ban of User:Rlevse and the response there by an arbitrator. Whether me pointing out that there might be an issue here had anything to do with that, I don't know. Maybe stuff went on in the background as well? Now, I'd like to ask people whether any of what I have described could have been handled better, and if so, what was wrong about the way things happened when and how they did? Anyone? Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Had Alansohn and John254 taken their concerns about the editing of a specific article to prior dispute resolution? I can see how it might be perceived as unhelpful to an arbitration case to dwell on a dispute about a particular article. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

I will note that Alansohn alleged that Rlevse brought the dispute into the arbitration case ("inserted himself"). I haven't looked at the timings yet, but if that is true, then your comment would apply to Rlevse, not to Alansohn and John254. MBisanz pointed out that Rlevse made an offer to have neutral admins mediate, something that still amazes me - since when do we have admins mediating content disputes. Editors are the people to discuss and resolve a content dispute. Admins should (theoretically) use their tools in clear-cut cases of behavioural problems. I say in theory, because nearly everytime I look into some situation, I dig so deep and get so involved, and develop such firm opinions, that I feel unable to use my admin tools. Does anyone else ever feel like that? Carcharoth (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors are permitted to "insert themselves" into arbitration cases. Any uninvolved editors, whether admins or not, may mediate if the parties consent to such mediation by those editors. Admins are essentially just editors who have passed a test of community trust. Obviously a person who doesn't have a firm opinion on a matter is not in a position to adjudicate it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that last bit: "Obviously a person who doesn't have a firm opinion on a matter is not in a position to adjudicate it." - it is possible to have no settled opinion on a matter but to still be well-enough informed about it to be able to adjudicate. No-one will believe you, of course, and it is rare enough that it can't be a requirement, but it is possible. It is also possible to have a firm opinion while still be able to see the other points of view. That is, of course, preferable to someone who can't see the other points of view. But actually realising that you are failing to see the other point of view is surprisingly hard. Carcharoth (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede your point as I think it's not really germaine to the topic, and I suspect that we're arguing apples and oranges in some way. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm the policy suggests a form they should be similar to, I don't see anything there that actually limits them to that form. I see a lot of wishful thinking happening here, the only part of the policy that give you any recourse is "Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales."

Nowhere does it say they may not create policy, that their remedies must be of a specific type, or that 8 pages of community discussion will override them. You can appeal to arbcom themselves, or Mr. Wales, but otherwise that is just how it goes folks. Remember consensus rule was given to us by the same foundation that gave arbcom the ability to override it. _{1 != 2} 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The case that was supposed to be decided was about quotations in footnotes. This entire discussion should be within the perspective of that fact. This decision far exceeds the scope of the original debate and should have been dismissed by the ArbCom before it ever even got to this point. When you review the history of the actual case, this abritrary creation of policy has no relationship to the debate that the ArbCom was actually asked to review. Without violating WP:AGF, it seems like an answer that was desperately in search of a problem. I also agree that it greatly exceeds the stated powers of the ArbCom. This decision creates a sweeping and overreaching new policy/guideline. It was obvious by the evidence that unrelated issues were brought forth during this case, and should not have been addressed by the ArbCom. This is excessive, heavy-handed and should not be considered valid because it precludes acheiving consensus. It is policy by fiat. If any of the completely unrelated issues that were brought forth during dicsovery were actually worth addressing, it should have been that the evidence showed clearly that an editor admin was using WP:OR to violate WP:NPOV through abuse of WP:BLP. The entire WP:BLP argument was decided incorrectly according to WP:V, as the well-sourced facts and very neutral statements that were being prevented from addition to George Thomas Coker were blatantly appropriate. This decision has, backhandedly, upheld a whitewash of relevant, factual, and appropriate facts being included in an article while simultaneously completely undermining the basic priciple of verifiability, not truth that is the core of WP:V. Jim Miller (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Said New Lover, etc. (Tony):

Whilst it is conceivable that the community could abolish the biographies of living persons policy by consensus, as a restatement of other existing policies it would be very difficult to attack without dismantling those Wikipedia policies, particularly the neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (VP:V) policies. The former, WP:NPOV, has been described by Jimmy Wales as "non-negotiable", so best of luck.

As far as I know, nobody is disputing the non-negotiability of NPOV or the assertion that "BLP" began as a re-statement of other existing policies, including NPOV. However the above comment is still misleading because:

• Non-negotiability is not an inherited trait. Saying one policy is based on another (even if it is) does not increase the burden associated with re-thinking it.
• Much (at least half) of the BLP policy page is not derived from other policies. Post facto addition of BLP exceptions and asterisks to the "source" policies does not change this.

— CharlotteWebb 14:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As I maintain the position that the BLP is wholly derived from our more fundamental policies, I'm uncertain what to think when faced with someone who asserts that it is not. Perhaps you could elaborate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP is a redundant synthesis of other policies with a few extra bits tagged on to create the effect that they are more important than other articles and deserve special attention because of the living status of their subjects (something I've always vehemently opposed, for a number of reasons). Referring to it as as such isn't automatically equivalent to an attack on the utility of those it mirrors; it merely asserts that it is unnecessary and places extra weight on a specific subset of articles without any clear reason to do so. To assume that an attack on BLP is automatically an attack on the core policies is somewhat naive, and makes no sense; I could throw together any number of policies which restate NPOV, RS, V and N with respect to articles on cars, companies, software products, retailers and prostitutes, saying that they aren't necessary isn't the same as saying NPOV, RS, V and N are unnecessary. While BLP contains essentially contains a one-to-one copies of them, to disagree with BLP isn't disagreeing with the spirit of the core policies, it's an objection to redundancy and instruction creep. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If, as you now tell me, you've always "vehemently opposed" the idea that we have to pay special attention to verifying and checking statements about living people, I'm no longer suprised that you are opposed to the biographies of living persons policy. My only possible comment here is to recommend that you seek a community of editors producing an encyclopedia where such considerations are explicitly discounted. It should be evident to all editors that stating "Staten Island is the capital of France" has less potential for damage that "John Q. Public raped the First Lady in 1992," and that the two statements should not be treated with equal emphasis. Nor does any Wikipedia policy require that we lapse from commonsense and treat them with equal emphasis. You are living proof that editors of good faith (like you) need this policy to remind them to do the right thing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazing

It is amazing how much trouble people have found with this ruling before anyone has even used it. Instead of inventing problems that do not yet exist and arguing about them here is a great idea:

Lets work on the encyclopedia, and only allow problems to distract us from that when they actually exist. If someone misuses this ruling, then you can come back and rail against the powers that be some more, till then it is just a waste of good drama that could be better spent elsewhere. _{1 != 2} 15:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely you mean a waste of time? Since when was any drama good? Carcharoth (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Drama is just another word for human interaction, we require and thrive on it, and we must not waste it! _{1 != 2} 16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I think any admin would be dam foolish to use this ruling in any but the most proper form, there is after all a mob with pitchforks waiting to find any fault, and an arbcom eager to demonstrate they will prevent such abuse. Unless that admin is tired of being an admin I think they will act very proper. _{1 != 2} 15:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're right. The potential for abuse is just far too much to justify another stick for the BLPites to use from where I'm standing. This requires us to trust admins a lot more; considering this, there are a lot of admins that I never would have supported at RfA had I known they would ever get a tool this broad and sweeping. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that we abide by Wikipedia's policies, we are all BLPites. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about people who abide by BLP. Even though I loathe the thing, I still follow it. I'm talking about the people who cite BLP rather than NPOV or UNDUE as a reason for a reversion, keeping them safe from harm via the 3RR exemption, then make the same reversion 4 times rather than trying to discuss it with the other editor. I'm talking about the people who want to change the default outcomes of AfD so "no consensus to change" becomes "consensus to delete" when it comes to BLP. I'm talking about the people who thought we should have deleted the Giovanni di Stefano article just because the subject whined about it on his blog. In their hands, "any and all means at their disposal to be in compliance with BLP" is something that shouldn't be taken so lightly, should be watched like a hawk by the community, and really has more danger for disruption and misuse than its worth. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's plain that the current arbitration committee regards the problem of bad biographical information causing real world harm as a much more serious matter than any amount of internal dissent. I agree with that and although I recognise that you think otherwise I don't believe your position, while tenable and defensible, is compatible with Wikipedia's purpose, to produce a free, high quality encyclopedia committed to the neutral point of view. The arbitration committee elections are, I believe, in December. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say the same thing about most BLP regulars. I don't think that BLP allows us to approach a quality, NPOV encyclopedia. Allowing material both positive and negative from the subject's POV are very important elements of an encyclopedia; until we can get over catering to the every whim of BLP subjects on OTRS, nominating their articles for deletion when they whine about things said about them in multiple RS appearing on-wiki, and trimming scholarly criticisms sections for no reason other than "Not even positive material, balancing it out", we can't come anywhere near the goal of producing anything really useful except as a biased introduction to the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, we have to worry about real-world harm; fortunately, we don't need BLP to do that. NPOV, OR, UNDUE, COATROACK, V and RS have already made it so someone can't insert libel or defamation. 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think that any admin seeking to abuse BLP would do so without using this ruling, as they would receive far to much scrutiny here. The log page for the ruling is an excellent safeguard, as is the vigilance of the community. _{1 != 2} 16:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that an admin seeking to abuse BLP thinks they're seeking to abuse BLP, not improving the project. I'm hoping that you're right, though; with all the objections here, they may realize that this particular stick isn't the best one to use because at least all of those who objected have probably watchlisted the log page and are eagerly awaiting ammunition to make it go away. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If they truly think they are right, and it is not the case then it is all the better that they get the attention they need when posting at the log. It works either way, plenty of review. Once again they would have gotten farther not using this ruling. _{1 != 2} 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All administrative actions are logged anyway. My biggest problem with this is what it lets them do, and the strength with which it invests their actions. It's pretty easy to follow a block log, notice a block put on an editors talkpage blocking him under BLP, look at some diffs and find out the admin just doesn't like the editor, point it out at ANI and get it reversed with a few "Yeah, bad idea" posts in a couple of minutes. When something is done with the invested powers of ArbCom, the damage is a lot harder to undo; you either need an appeal to ArbCom, a posting on AE, or a bold and daring admin who agrees with you and will reverse the decision of the first. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The ruling makes it clear that if there is consensus to reverse an action at a noticeboard then it is reversed. So it is basically the same system, except more people are watching and the arbcom themselves will likely step in if there is abuse. "Appeals may be made to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard. However, administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so.", it reads a lot like the text of WP:BLOCK which also advices seeking a consensus before undoing admin acts.

The decision to reverse a decision is still in the hands of the community. _{1 != 2} 17:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate noticeboard would be at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE), not ANI. Like I said, it's an ArbCom-invested action, and is a lot harder to undo. Just spend some time there and you'll see what I mean. "The community" doesn't really get a say there, unless they also happen to be admins or involved. I wouldn't be quite so uncomfortable with it if it specified a different noticeboard, but I don't imagine people are going to treat these blocks the same as any other. "ArbCom ruling" is a much bigger and scarier stick than "BLP"--which is saying something--so I imagine this is going to develop into becoming harder to undo these. I hope I'm wrong, but if BLP has shown me anything, its that the more powerful the tool is perceived to be, the harder it is to reverse actions using it. Sometimes negative proof just doesn't work. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have little to no trust in ArbCom at this point, so I'm not counting on them to "step in on abuse". At this point, that would be the pot calling the kettle black; if they're willing to impose such a broad change by fiat, I doubt they'll do anything about all but the most egregious abuses. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's an accident that the arbitration committee is raising the bar for community-obstruction of action taken in pursuit of the BLP. One of Arbcom's most important functions is to step in where the community proves itself incapable of taking appropriate action to enforce policy. Typically it does so by granting increased enforcement powers to administrators, which it has done here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When have they ever done something like this before without the consensus of the community? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All arbitration cases involve cases where community consensus has failed to find a resolution. So my answer is "since Jimmy Wales first stepped into a dispute and took it upon himself to say Stop." That's what arbitration was about from the very beginning. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. I'm not talking about handing out a topic ban on two people who can't agree on somebody's height. That's what ArbCom is for. I'm asking when have they ever created new policy without any input? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you use the word "policy" to include (as it seems above) "novel delegation of Arbitrator powers to administrators", this has been done repeatedly in the past. Bans, probations, paroles, mentorship, and other measures were all novel once, and were all introduced by the arbitration committee through internal discussion. All of them are special measures delegating power to settle disputes decisively by dealing with behavioral issues identified specifically (finding of fact concerning a particular editor) or generally (finding concerning editing patterns on a particular group of articles) by the committee. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are the obvious ones; that's what you would expect from ArbCom, and is specifically part of their repertoire. But when have they ever given OFFICE-level powers ("any and all means") to anyone? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE powers are not discretionary (as these are) and cannot be appealed to the community or arbitration committee (as these can be). While these new powers are sweeping, there are appropriate safeguards. Arbcom can (and has in the past) authorize administrators to use their powers in enforcement of policy. It does so here to the fullest extent possible, but still holds the leash. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuses of the BLP by admins?

It has been claimed that abuse of the BLP by administrators has been a significant problem. While this has not been my experience, it may be that I'm a little out of date, having been away from community matters for a number of months. Has the arbitration committee made any findings of fact to the effect that specific actions by administrators who cited the BLP were abusive? If there have been many such findings, this would be evidence in support of the claim. If not many, it would tend to support my belief that this is either an imaginary problem or a much less serious one than the actual and ongoing daily abuse of Wikipedia to cause real world harm to living people. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Read ANI for a while. Follow a few of the BLP-regular admin's contributions. It won't take long to find something. One of the problems with BLP is that the provisions it grants have a big potential for abuse, and the attitude around it is sort of "Well, if you don't let us do this, then you don't think that living people should be protected on-wiki". Just look for flimsy rationales based on an appeal to authority. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about administrators' noticeboard--anybody can comment there. But how many documented cases of abuse of the BLP by admins do we have, amid all the cries of "admin abuse"? I suggest that we use the best measure available: the number of arbcom findings of fact relating to actual abuse of the BLP by admins. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would say that would be the worst possible measure of admin abuse. First off, someone who abuses BLP is going to get it quickly reversed by the community, as it should; a quick thread at AN of the form "I don't think this is right" by a user, "I also don't think this is right" by a few other users and admins, and eventually a "I agree this isn't right, I think we have consensus; undoing it" by another admin. There's simply no reason that it would ever reach ArbCom. You'll probably have to wait a while until the appeals start rolling in because their AE posting got ignored. By that measure, you probably aren't going to find anything at all. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested that we use as a measure actual findings of fact by the body we elected to resolve disputes and, implicitly, to make such judgements. The measure I propose would show where administrators are not simply displaying the odd incident of poor judgement, but where they have an egregious history of poor judgement as recorded by that trusted group.

They're desysopped long before ever reaching ArbCom, much like Sceptre was. I've never seen admin abuse get to ArbCom. It usually starts as a thread at ANI, moves to AN, and sometimes ends with them having the bit removed. As incredible as it sounds, consensus works; you don't always have to go to arbcom for every dispute. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If an admin makes a bad call and it's fixed by the community, then the policy is working as intended and there's no problem. If the new ruling results in a lot of valid appeals to arbcom (read: lots of annoying bureaucratic work for very busy people), arbcom will revisit the ruling and clarify or reverse it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It can't be fixed by the community, at least not reliably; That's the problem. It may give the illusion that consensus can make a problem go away, but from a practical standpoint, it just doesn't work that way. That's the problem. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends what you perceive to be the problem: that administrators are human and make mistakes? That's a built-in assumption on Wikipedia. That certain administrators are acting abusively or displaying egregrious poor judgement in their implementation of the BLP? Take them through dispute resolution, to arbitration if necessary. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem isn't with admins; that's a human problem, can can never be removed from the equation. In the past, the community has always been empowered to make the decision about something was good or bad, and if they couldn't, they could take it higher up to another group or RFC; dispute resolution has many steps before ArbCom. A post at ANI/AN, Third Party, RFC, MedCab, all of those don't require ArbCom, as they rightly shouldn't; separation is good, especially when you're debating the validity of an action that was allowed by an ArbCom ruling. Each one of those is also effective at getting something done. People can get banned without going to ArbCom, people can get desysopped without going to ArbCom, people can get topic bans without going to ArbCom. The problem is that, with this, the community no longer matters; ArbCom makes all those other steps irrelevant. Only they and their enforcers at AE are able to decide what is and isn't good under this ruling. The power of the community has been stripped away and subjugated, leaving only the mighty supreme court of appeals on teh intarweb that is ArbCom. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the section of the ruling titled "Appeals". An inappropriate administrator action under the new ruling can be reverted if there is clear community consensus to do so. Direct appeal to the Committee is an option, not a requirement.

So your claim that "Only they and their enforcers at AE are able to decide what is and isn't good under this ruling" and "The power of the community has been stripped away and subjugated" is simply incorrect. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The ruling also specifies that the "appropriate noticeboard" at which to develop this "clear consensus" is WP:AE (not any other noticeboard, not AN or ANI or even the talk page of the BLP Sanction log), and that the alternative is a request to the Arbitration Committee. Limiting the discussion to that particular board is troublesome, as very few eyes watch it on a daily basis, as opposed to WP:AN or WP:ANI. It is hardly a microcosm of the community as a whole; while I hesitate to call those who post there "enforcers", there is a core group that reviews notices there. No aspersions are cast, as I think many of them do a good job. Risker (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You may want to have another look at the appeals section:

1. Appeals may be made to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard. However, administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations. 2. Appeals of both the original action and of any subsequent reversal may be made directly to the Committee, or another body that is designated by the Committee for this purpose in the future.

Like I said; only they and their enforcers at AE are able to decide what is and isn't good under the ruling. There's no option for posting to a more neutral, less ArbCom-related and more open to community involvement noticeboard like AN or ANI, or any provisions for gathering consensus outside of ArbCom-controlled 'territory', if you will. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, these war analogies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem of "not enough eyes" is easily resolved: add it to your watchlist and you will have increased the number of eyes. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's facetious. More eyes = more than one person. Posting a notice at AN when there is not enough input an AE could be an idea, and in any case, I would hope that AE threads don't get commented on only by one or two people and then closed, but that might be what happens. Carcharoth (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't mistake my advice for a bit of facetious joshing. Suppose a number of people believe that WP:AE is under-subscribed and are concerned that consequently some inappropriate administrator actions may go unreverted. Then the way to resolve the problem would be for those people to subscribe to that page and to encourage other editors to do so. This increases the number of (pairs of) eyes. Simple. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I do. That's not the problem. The problem is the attitude taken there toward regular editors; it isn't "neutral territory", so to speak. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "neutral territory" suggests a condition of warfare. Do you think there is a war? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but there's certainly a conflict, especially in the case of "I think this was a bad call"; it isn't a good idea to have the discussion of who is right with regards to that particular fact in that place; while it may be the logical place, it isn't the kind of place where logic and evidence trump things made under the umbrella of ArbCom rulings. I don't really know how to explain it, but the environment just isn't very receptive of you regardless of what you have to provide unless you're involved and/or an admin. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If things are as you perceive them, then the logical solution is to encourage more editors to subscribe. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Brief point: "the actual and ongoing daily abuse of Wikipedia to cause real world harm to living people" - you missed out a "potential" there. Much of the abuse doesn't cause harm or gets reverted. It might seem like a semantic argument about the precise point at which "harm" occurs, but there are other edits that could potentially cause harm, but which get less attention merely because living people aren't involved, or because people don't realise living people are indirectly involved and connected to the topic of the article. I know BLP technically covers those edits as well, but the focus is overwhelmly on biographical articles, and that sometimes misses the larger point. Carcharoth (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's one of my problems with BLP. People get caught up in it and get all zealous about protecting harm from teh intarweb, but there are other avenues that can be just as damaging. All articles, not just some arbitrary subset, need to be subject to the same level of scrutiny for accuracy, neutrality and verifiability. Getting into a fervor just because the subject is alive doesn't make sense to me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll have to disagree on this. If an article on Wikipedia suggests that X is involved in fraud (I've encountered a couple of these today) then actual and irreparable damage has been done to that person's reputation because I, an uninvolved party, have read it.

That harm may be done by other articles is not a good argument against taking action on the articles that do harm to living people. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Was it in multiple reliable sources? Did the article present available opposition? Did it take up too much of the space? All of these are problems that can be solved with other policies (RS/V/OR, NPOV/UNDUE/COATRACK). Or are you taking the extreme approach that Ken Lay shouldn't have any mentions of fraud in his article? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if such a claim is presented by reliable sources, it does harm to a person's reputation. We don't aim to eliminate such harm, only to ensure that we don't perpetrate it by repeating unreliable sources. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But ... that can already be done without BLP ... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd think so. Long and bitter experience has shown us that our naive assumptions on this were mistaken. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant that harm may be done because people concentrate on harm to living people over other things. If an edit saying that a company has engaged in fraud is missed because everyone is watching the BLP recentchanges, what then? If there was a proper, systematic approach, then things would be better, but Wikipedia has always relied on a hit-and-miss model, where we have had more hits than misses on average. Carcharoth (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny that you have a good point. You're welcome to concentrate on unreliably sourced negative claims about corporations, societies, groups, trusts, governments, parliaments, public agencies, cities, countries, historical personages, civilizations, and the like. Just don't ask us not to work to improve Wikipedia. Don't ask us to relax our vigilance about living people. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually meant the non-people article that affect living people. Current corporations, current societies, current governments, and so on. Any edit in any article that affects the reputation of a living person or is about a living person. To be vigilant about living people, you need to watch all articles. If your hypothetical edit about person X being a fraudster was made to the article about an obscure fish, the harm is still done, though it is theoretically easier and more likely (hopefully) to be reverted. If it made to an article about the subject's hometown, or the subject's company, we get closer to home. Finally, we have an edit to an article about the subject. But I'm sure you've got the point by now. Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you mean. You're using the "other shit exists" argument in a new form. And you're clearly aware that the BLP applies to every one of the examples you gave above. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not. I'm not saying ignore one set of articles because another set of articles is being ignored. I'm saying be vigilant on all articles. I'm saying we need to ensure that all edits concerning living people are vetted, and that involves vetting all edits because we don't know what an edit is about until it is saved. That is completely different from what you are saying I said. Carcharoth (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is someone in this debate who has said "don't be vigilant on all articles" or (more to the point) "don't be vigilant on all articles, discussion pages, and other pages of Wikipedia" I must have missed it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but the "biographies of living people" title never helps. It is almost as misleading in that way as Neutral Point of View. But you can't deny that people do focus on the articles marked "living people". I don't think that is helpful, but your mileage may vary and that is an argument for another page and another day. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As a "finger in the air" metric, I just visited Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (WP:BLPN). Of the eighteen articles currently under discussion in the "individual articles" section, four are not biographies. One is about a neo-nazi group, another is about a controversial Italian masonic lodge, another is about a catalog of psychiatric disorders, the fourth is about a peer-reviewed journal. I agree that we can discuss this elsewhere as it's a little tangential. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's Baby 81 incident, which you continued to remove the name from after consensus came out against you. Had you been an administrator at the time, you could have used this enforcement and dragged the issue out longer. --NE2 21:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that anyone would do the same for my children. You'd have been welcome to take me to arbitration over it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing that you would have abused this. --NE2 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that would be abuse. Indeed, long before this ruling, Doc glasgow speedy deleted the entire article on BLP grounds, and rightly so. The correctness of his action in doing so was affirmed by the arbitration committee. Whilst I don't know for sure that the arbitration committee would necessarily support further action in that vein, I believe there's enough doubt that any significant consensus existed to justify permanently recording the name of an unfortunate infant. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The article's still there and still has her name... --NE2 22:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It was restored. He's a boy. I'm satisfied to leave it there. Don't tell me there aren't articles where you have seen a discussion go against you. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is that this would have gone on for longer had someone applied this "special enforcement", and the result would probably be the same. --NE2 22:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. Does it matter how long we take to make sure we have the right decision on a matter concerning a living person? In the meantime, it makes sense to avoid the risk of damage. This has been the sense of successive arbitration committee rulings. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is better to not have the same discussion over and over again. This essentially adds another place that it must be discussed (the arbitration enforcement board) and more red tape to cut. --NE2 00:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration enforcement board is only specified for appeals. Unless there is an appeal there is no need to take the matter there. This is the same rule that applies to all arbitration enforcement discussion where administrator action is requested. Reversing an administrator action under this provision would require administrator action. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, there would need to be an appeal if someone removed the name and cited this. --NE2 00:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you can take comfort in knowing he isn't an administrator anymore... --Dragon695 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Volume

I don't think anyone has any idea of the volume that will go through this process, though there are concerns that a high volume of logging here would overwhelm things. In practice, if we could define how things work, should this process be "special" in that it is only applied in exceptional cases? Or should it become something used as commonly as blocks are every day? What, for comparison, is the through traffic on WP:AE? Carcharoth (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The volume so far has been extremely low. _{1 != 2} 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean after the first case. It is ironic, the arbitration committee have said: "There is considerable hesitancy on the part of many administrators to act decisively in these cases, often because the relevant policies are contradictory or unclear." It would be ironic if the same applied to this policy because it hadn't been implemented properly and gained the authority of community consensus, rather than the authority of the arbitration committee. Carcharoth (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are free to act on the ruling or ignore it. If out of however many admins we have, none can be found to take action under this ruling, it's likely to be because such action is not justified in a particular instance. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean by "ignore", but you might want to clarify that. You don't address my point that admins may be hesitating to use this policy. Did you read the bit I quoted? The bit that said that and suggested that one reason such hesitancy arises is because policies are unclear or contradictory? Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you know what I mean by "ignore". I mean "ignore". I hope that is clarification enough.

Removing one of the barriers (that admins are frequently unwilling to act because consensus is unclear) does not mean that other barriers do not exist. One of these is, as arbcom suggests, poorly worded policy. The sense I get from this ruling is that such lack of clarity is not a good reason to shrink from doing the right thing. This doesn't force anybody to act, it just makes it easier for them to do so. -Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By "ignore" I was thinking of two interpretations (there may be others): (1) Ignore this remedy and carry on doing good BLP work anyway without the extra "protection" afforded by this remedy or the extra powers it grants; or (2) Carry on editing and carrying out admin actions against the wishes of admins who claim the "protection" of this remedy. For example, admin A (someone who does good BLP work) comes along and edits to fix article with BLP problems, but then gets a warning template from admin B saying that they (Admin A) had just undone a previous action taken under this remedy. Admin A disagrees, and knowing that they are "right" undoes the action saying "BLP comes first, I'm igoring that remedy and putting the interests of the BLP subject first". Admin B then blocks Admin A and it ends up at arbcom and both get desysopped. Does the encyclopedia win there? There are admins out there who will chafe at the restriction this remedy puts on their BLP actions if other admins are using the bureaucratic processes set up here. They will want to "protect the encyclopedia" because they are "right", but they also want to avoid the bureacray and appeals. A situation like this could be considered in three different cases: (a) Admin A is proved to be "right"; (b) Admin B is proved to be "right"; (c) No-one can agree who was "right". In terms of failing to follow process, it doesn't matter who was "right" (both sides failed to follow process at some point), but in terms of article content it does very much matter who is "right". Carcharoth (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ignore" carries a sense distinct from "defy". Obviously someone who harmed Wikipedia would be subject to sanction. In that the ruling only makes this more clear, it's only a clarification of what we already know. Somebody who "chafes against" a ruling and continue to sabotage the implementation of Wikipedia policy obviously isn't ignoring it.

Few Wikipedia policies purport to oblige any user to "follow process", as you put it, and one of them (Ignore all rules) tends to trump even those. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You are missing my point. I'm saying that the admin applying WP:IAR is the one defying the remedy. While the admin A might be right and justified to do that, by defying the remedy (even though admin B is wrong to use the remedy to try and stop admin A overturning her action), admin A is defying the remedy because it explicitly says "administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so". The defying of the remedy comes when using a combination of IAR and BLP ex-facto this remedy. Arbcom would be in a quandry because while they may privately applaud Admin A for doing the right thing, they can't publically endorse a wheel-warring BLP application of IAR without making their remedy look silly. Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this alphabet soup is helping. The contrived nature of the example is also unhelpful. I'm content to let the arbitration committee sort out anybody who wants to test their patience. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have the patience to follow it, it doesn't mean its contrived. Again, ArbCom is already overworked, and the quality of recent cases has demonstrated that. Things stay open at AE for ages, things go unanswered at clarification time for ages. do they really think they will step in to respond to urgent requests of this sort? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Really you can't use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement (WP:AE) as an example to illustrate the the arbitration committee is overworked. It is, as its title says, a noticeboard for administrators to coordinate and discuss enforcement of arbitration remedies. The Committee's attention there is unneeded. Clarification of cases has always been a slow matter; it isn't a priority and most of the requests for "clarification" tend towards the obscure and lawyerish (today's listings are illuminating).

Evidence that the arbitration process has become more efficient over time, on the other hand, is abundant. A couple of years ago, for instance, the caseload typically looked like this. Now it looks like this. Applications for arbitration are rarer because the administrators do much more of the work (conversely, a lot more cases involve administrators who aren't performing that job well; I predicted some these changes back in 2005 [9]). There are more active clerks, and for the most part they are better trained and more experienced. I would rather be an arbitrator, vintage 2008, than an arbitrator, vintage 2006, because the caseload has decreased over time, experience over the intervening period has made much more powerful remedies feasible than formerly applied, and the Committee has a much better appreciation of the dynamics of the community. It is able to make bolder provisions with confidence. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes you wonder why they take so freaking long to make any clarifications these days. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To get back to Carcharoth's original question, I think part of the reason it is unused so far, is that it does take time to edit war in a bio in such a way that one would prefer using these sanctions than blocking outright. If I see a guy blanking BLPs to "penis" or ass "X is gay" to an article, I'm just gonna indef block for vandalism, no need to invoke special sanctions. I'm seeing these sanctions as being useful for problematic POV-pushers, experienced editors who edit war over re-insertion of material, and at continually problematic articles. It takes a bit of time to identity a POV-pusher, apply BLP, watch them violate BLP, then decide it's worth these sanctions. MBisanz ^talk 16:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from proposed decision talk page

Moved these next two threads here... this appears to be where the actions is. - brenneman 05:41, 19 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." [10]

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." [11]

SlimVirgin ^talk|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. _{1 != 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|edits 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

SV makes a very good point, which goes to the heart of why this ruling is problematic—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♥♥♥ 11:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To avoid accusations of impropriety, perhaps. — CharlotteWebb 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It does say "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." In an emergency I don't think a correct action on the part of an involved admin will result in tar and feathering. We do still have IAR. But for dealing with long term issues, as this ruling is designed for, then an uninvolved admin is the best choice. _{1 != 2} 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You would think so, but we're already in a situation where an admin (myself) has been penalised for fixing a serious breach of policy that included both a copyright violation and the introduction of highly concerning content about a living person, to borrow FloNight's words. BLP enforcement won't be effective unless (a) the entire admin community takes BLP concerns seriously and (b) BLP enforcement is approached consistently. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 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♥♥♥ 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)

I think the above prediction ignores the findings of fact in this case. Well over two years since the creation of the biographies of living persons policy, we've still got a long way to go in clearing the problematic content from our articles. Sure, it is conceivable that the odd whitewash could have occurred under this policy, and it is possible that the remedy could make it more likely that such abuses could occur in the future and go unnoticed. Contrast that with the present, where many articles actually here and now on the wiki contain known problems of balance involving false, poorly sourced, or badly skewed statements about living people and nobody is doing anything about them.

Of course we still have the problem of clearing problematic content from articles. That's because the solution was completely pointless and did nothing to address the problem; all it did was mirror existing policy (with the possible, arguable exceptions of the 3RR exemption, which you could really claim under IAR anyway, and BLP1E, which is really just NOTNEWS with a little more teeth). Any kind of 'solution' needs to involve the community as a whole, not get imposed by a handful of people without any kind of input from the people who deal with these kinds of problems day in and day out; this goes in completely the opposite direction, distancing the community rather than involving it. The answer isn't going to be found in whitewashing BLPs a la DocGlasgow. It isn't going to be found in copying existing policy and "making it stronger". It certainly isn't going to be found in a statement from ArbCom that essentially amounts to "Please, admins, do whatever you have to to fix BLPs". The first one ruins the project. The second we've tried, and it clearly hasn't worked. The third, while it gives more power to those admins involved in BLPs (a problem itself), isn't going to change thing drastically, if at all; it's still the same approach to the problem, it just takes less time now because no one really gets to call you on your mistakes unless they want to take it to ArbCom/AE. Rather than focusing on the piece of policycruft we have now, we need to focus on a new methodology for approaching problematic BLP with our existing policies in mind, not by simply copying what we already have and calling it something else. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

All it does is create an incentive to not edit BLPs. Whether or not I can show you someone who currently has the sysop bit (all the ones that come to mind that I could see readily doing this have either been de-opped or retired), I prefer to think in terms of what may happen rather than what has happened. This is a very game-able system, and there are people through WP's history whom I could very well see doing something like WAS suggested above; not in bad faith, mind you, I have no doubt all of them would have thought they were doing the BLP articlebase and Wikipedia a favor by creating a sock for each and every BLP article, vandalizing it with libel and defamation, then whitewashing it and protecting it. Obviously that never would have worked in the past, but, hey, now they have "Any and all means" at their disposal. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The potential harm that might be done by absence of relevant, well sourced information about a person is minor compared to such actual damage that is being caused by our pride and joy, the encyclopedia, here and now. At most, if an article were whitewashed, the reader would have to obtain the relevant information from the same public, reliable source we would have obtained it from. Having said that, I think predictions of such whitewashes are wrong. I don't think there are any administrators who would want to do that. I don't believe for one moment that there are any administrators who would game the system to do so. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If an article were ruined, someone would have to go somewhere else. Wow. Why stop there? Why have BLPs at all if the information is available elsewhere? I think this is the first time I've ever seen "Information is available elsewhere" as a rationale for removing anything (NOT stuff notwithstanding). In any case, "Oh, no, we don't host information about Andrea Mackris' lawsuit with Bill O'Reilly here, that's too negative; you can find it on CNN and newspapers, though." is not something I think we should be striving for. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You have misread my comment. I am not justifying the removal of appropriate, well sourced information from articles, merely contrasting the potential damage caused by such removal with the actual damage caused daily by our continuing to retain article content that makes unsubstantiated, twisted, or actually false statements about living persons.

I don't know why you appear to be under the impression that we do not have, or are likely to lose, coverage of the Mackris/O'Reilly lawsuit. This is covered in both biographical articles. Are there concerns with the sourcing and balance? Certainly. Such problems are why we have the biographies of living persons policy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It was just an example. I tried to think of the most mainstream controversial person I could come up with and go to the first negative element in the article. While I don't think it will happen (and it shouldn't; it seems quite well done, and in line with all the relevant policies), it'd be easy to do with this ruling. Aside from that, though, yes, what you're saying is that the absence of negative information is preferable to its presence. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the stance of the material is irrelevant; we should be striving for accuracy and NPOV regardless of the stance of the sourcing. What we do now in general is leaning on putting them in a positive light; I think we should be more in the middle. People don't remove unsourced positive statements in BLPs with anywhere near the fervor that they do with negative information. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you don't really believe the example you gave. A more realistic one might have helped me to understand your point. To describe current Wikipedia content on living persons as "leaning [towards] putting them in a positive light" is in my opinion complete fantasy. I think your impression that there is less fervor to remove unsourced positive material is due to selective reading. Such removal is routine (indeed I'd not be surprised if the speed with which we remove hagiographies of virtually unknown people far outstrips that at which we remove damaging statements). -Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If an admin tossed out NPOV like that I am sure there would be an appropriate reaction. And I tend to assume the good in people when there is no evidence to the contrary. How about waiting until someone abuses this ruling in such a way, then worry about it by dealing with that admin. _{1 != 2} 13:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Complete fantasy? Please. If you're going through diffs, which do you think is going to be reverted more quickly: something that says someone graduated at the top of their class, or something that said they bribed the dean to change their grades?

I would expect the latter to be removed more quickly. However my expecation has been confounded by experience many times. In practice, removal of poorly sourced negative material can involve a long and tortous justification; removal of poorly sourced positive material seldom does. I don't know why that is the case, but it is my experience. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Tony here, think of all the non-notable A-7 bios that are deleted, or all the templates like {{Autobio-warn}} and {{resume}} and {{uw-coi}} which are pretty much directed as poorly sourced positive material, that I don't see the issue of removing unsourced ositive material as that controversial, on the other hand, the removal of negative unsourced material, or non-relevant negative material, or non-NPOV negative material, or unduely weighted negative material, seems to attract a firestorm for nearly evry person who tackles the issue. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What does this actually mean?

Is this a free pass to do what we will, or is it more a prod in a specific direction. For example, were I to delete all biographies which violate my interpretation of BLP right now, would arb-com vindicate me, and would the community swallow that? Or is it more a back your judgement call to admins. On the involvement aspect, can someone show me an un-involved admin on Wikipedia? The only place I know to look is Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive. Anyone else is involved in some way. This seems to me to need a lot of thought and understanding. It appears that the reverse will happen though. Hiding T 13:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In this example you sure would be expected to justify your actions with sense. If the community came to a consensus that you were wrong it would be reversed. If arbcom thinks you are wrong you will be reverse. And if it is thought that the actions constituted either bad faith or very poor judgement then you might lose your sysop bit. I am uninvolved on the Sean Penn article, as I am not actively involved with its content nor am I involved in any related dispute, I don't see how you need to be inactive to be uninvolved. In other words the reaction will be very similar to what we would normally do with the exception that it would not be an action "without basis in policy" as it might be without the ruling. You will still be accountable for the action itself and the reasoning behind it.

I think the wording of the ruling makes all of this clear. _{1 != 2} 13:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But the community would need to come to a clear and unambiguous consensus that Hiding's deletions were wrong in order for them to be overturned. All Hiding would need is to recruit a couple of vocal supporters for his actions, and then there wold be no clear consensus and his deletions would stand. Any administrator who attempted to reverse them in the absense of said clear consensus would be subjected to harsh reprisal "strong remedies". Mike R (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a significant number of people who agree with the deletion, then obviously there is no clear community consensus to revert the deletion. This seems reasonable. Recruiting "vocal" supporters (if they weren't vocal, how would we know they existed?) for an action in subsequent debate is the only legitimate way to demonstrate that there is no clear consensus to revert. Were you under the impression that this was in any way illegitimate? Where there is no such consensus, you can still appeal the case to the committee. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's called stacking the deck, and it's a form of gaming the system. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How could we ever know whether we have community consensus on a matter if we were to decide that by stating a dissenting opinion they were "stacking the deck" or "gaming the system". The statement of dissent on Wikipedia is very common and the notion that it might constitute "gaming the system" is simply false. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Having this as an arbcom ruling already makes it "pre-gamed" in a way, so this is something that has to be looked at very closely. Unfortunately, consensus doesn't really mean consensus any more, especially when it comes to Arbitration enforcement (one of the reasons I don't really like AE as a venue for gauging consensus). As not being a vote and based on the strength of the arguments, the discussion is going to inherently biased right from the beginning; the fact that this was an ArbCom ruling already lends a certain strength to that (I mean, how many people are going to stand up to an action taking under an ArbCom ruling that says any admin can do whatever they want versus some admin just doing what they want?) that already tips the balance. Logic and reasoning If you could get a few people to support you doing something, I imagine it would be a lot easier to get 'consensus' for something bad with this than that it would be to get consensus for someone to do something bad of their own accord. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if anything, the Committee has "stacked the deck" by making it more difficult for BLP-based actions to be nickel and dimed by community dissent. On "consensus for doing something bad", remember that it only takes one person to appeal a bad decision to the Committee. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The committee itself is a grossly inappropriate place for appeals on their own ruling to occur. Ignoring briefly for a moment that they and their clerks control the entire venue of discussions, you must be forgetting that it is the Committee that created this monument to totalitarianism in the first place; it's incredibly inappropriate for that same body to hear appeals based on applications of that ruling; if ArbCom is going to continue to invest its powers wholesale and without restriction against its purpose like this, there really should be another body appointed to hear appeals of actions taken under such investments. No one wants to be seen with egg on their face; when shown before ArbCom how bad of an idea this really was and the damage that may be caused, I don't think it is wise to trust them to be objective and set proper precedent; that used to be the job of the community. It sure as hell can't be ArbCom itself, and ArbCom has managed to word it cleverly enough to make the community's ability to fight bad actions severely reduced; at this point, I think it is in the best interests of the community to appoint some kind of check on ArbCom. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about appeals to actions taken by administrators under the new provision, not to the provision itself.

So was I. It's incredibly inappropriate for appeals for actions taken under a measure to be heard by the same body that produced said measure. It isn't conducive to the environment of objective analysis that forms the basic underlying idea of the appeal and it creates a conflict of interest that doesn't benefit anyone involved. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

However the normal route of appeal of an arbcom decision is in fact the arbitration committee itself. After that, appeal is to Jimmy Wales, whose decision is final and binding unless he says otherwise. You seem to be relatively inexperienced in Wikipedia terms, which explains why you didn't realise that he is our check on arbcom.

I don't know what you're trying to get at with the second part of that; ArbCom's history has always been at ARBCOM since day 1. Regarding the first point, that's true, even though it's not a particularly good idea. However, this isn't their usual action; this isn't a remedy that they've passed to sanction a user for inappropriate conduct at RFCs. What they're doing is tagging something on to the end of BLP that says "Administrators can do anything they want to to make this happen". In everything, including the number of people it effects, the orders of magnitude that they've leapt from their traditional role is astounding. For ArbCom's usual disputes, the more primitive method of appealing directly back to them may work just fine, but this is considerably larger than that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides, arbcom is a pragmatic body by its nature, refusing to be bound by precedent and the like. If the provision proves counter-productive in implementation I'm sure they'll revisit it--if it produces a lot of poor decisions by administrators that get appealed to them, they'll get the message very quickly. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you make that statement? I've yet to see ArbCom react as nimbly as you appear to wish us to believe they will. (Tony, I thought you were avoiding community drama?) --Relata refero (disp.) 19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason to revisit and re-examine the monolithic single-entity power structure, then. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're going around and restating the same objections after I've dealt with them. Not a productive use of our time. To summarise: arbcom isn't monolithic, it's a community-elected body of individuals all with very different opinions. Arbitration committee decisions can be reversed by Jimmy Wales on appeal. The arbitration committee's responsibilities encompass what you describe. Tagging something on to the end of BLP that says "Administrators can do anything they want to to make this happen" is not a new form of remedy at all except that it applies across the board to all BLP-related disputes. Certainly the committee has the power to pass this kind of remedy--I'm only surprised and immensely grateful that finally it has taken the problem seriously enough to do so. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, where does ArbCom have that "power"? Its changing policy, which ArbCom does not do. --19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean if an admin resorted to meat puppetry they would get an unfair advantage? Sure, but it would be a poor career decision and would not require this ruling to do. Also it says clear consensus, not clear and unambiguous. We have a clear consensus all the time, and if one went on a BLP deletion spree I am pretty sure a clear consensus would emerge quickly. I also don't see the point in imagining the worst of villainy from people when nobody has even used the ruling yet. _{1 != 2} 14:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Career decision"? Since when did admins take career decisions? You make it sound like all our admins started off on a low rung somewhere, and are moving up some careeer path accumulating prestige and reputation and aiming to end up somewhere. They should already have the reputation to have passed RfA (though maybe not even that if you take a liberal "no big deal" view towards RfA), and they should then be focused on improving the encyclopedia (as they were as an editor) through the use of their tools. They should also still be editing as an editor, not just as an admin. We shouldn't have "career" admins, though I don't doubt they exist. Maybe you were referring to admins who specialise in different areas? Or you maybe meant that such admins would lose the trust of the community and find themselves unable to justify any future "difficult" decisions. Judging an admin's decisions is partly based on their reputation, but it should mostly (ideally wholly) be based on the strength of their arguments, not who they are or the good of bad decisions they made in the past. Or maybe you meant "career-ending" decision as in they would get desyopped? Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant career ending. _{1 != 2} 19:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus does an excellent job of intervening in areas where he is not involved. His path to resolution of disputes is also worth looking at. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

When the first cases this is invoked in appear, we'll know. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

perhaps the simplest way to deal with it is to say that "clear community consensus" is just a rhetorical restatement of what we already mean by consensus, which means the judgement of the community as expressed at AN/I, or Deletion Review, or BLPN, or wherever else the matter happens to end up. Then the only innovation would be the additional route of appeal to arb com. I think they will regret their decision to get involved in such content questions. It would be prudent for us to act on the assumption that it would be much better for us to do things properly by our accustomed channels in such a way that they never need to get involved. The less work they have to do, the better they are likely to do it. DGG (talk)

That's interesting, and I'm curious to see how it would play out if a debate were transcluded from the appropriate BLPN/ANI/AN/DRV to the more "omgnothatsanarbcomruling!!!11!" AE; the goal of the thing seems to stifle the power of consensus by specifically limiting the available venues for discussion, but transcluding a discussion from elsewhere... I don't really want to spill BEANS, but we may have found a weak loophole. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am getting confused by the positions being taken. Why would anyone think the purpose of this ruling is to stifle the power of consensus? It outright says that consensus can reverse decisions made under the ruling, that is the opposite of stifling, it is inviting and welcoming the communities reaction. So it is not really a loophole, but an intended safeguard. I really don't think the location of the discussion is going to stifle anything, people can link to it from the relevant pages. _{1 != 2} 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeals to actions taken under these provisions are only allowed to occur at AE and to ArbCom itself, as opposed to the more neutral venues where administrator actions can usually be discussed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to see AE as a rather boring place, compared to drama forums like ANI and RFC, also I'm not sure where more neutral ground can be found, given that I don't recall seeing arbs at AE on a regular basis. MBisanz ^talk 20:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So the discussion takes place at AE, big deal. I would not call it less neutral than any other place, it is not like there is a predetermined side or something. I mean, like big whoop if it happens in one place instead of another, the community is welcome to go there and have its consensus heard. This is a tempest in a teapot. _{1 != 2} 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with Celarnor's analysis throughout this page concerning the "special enforcement" measures and with regard to BLPs generally.Bdell555 (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Involved

• I still don't grasp the idea of being uninvolved. I have an opinion on how policies and guidance should be implemented, and that opinion is fairly stable regardless of which article I visit. I think it is fair to assume that regardless of the article, any given admin will act in a predictable manner when arriving to deal with a problem. Therefore it is impossible to be uninvolved. The response to an issue with a BLP article is somewhat defined by the first admin to attempt to resolve the issue. And at that attempt, the admin instantly becomes involved, especially is a newer, less involved admin comes to the problem and disagrees. There is no end to this involvement on Wikipedia. To misquote Steve Coppell, if you aren't involved, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Every editor and admin is involved. They may not be an active participant, but they are involved. It appears that Wiki8pedia is becoming even more akin to a game, with notions of active players, inactive players, and discussions over where a player becomes active. Maybe we have a flaw in the system given that a large number of active players are also perceived as umpires. Hiding T 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  The meaning of "involved" is much more tightly defined than you seem to believe (read the wording of the provision). In particular, having an opinion on the BLP doesn't mean you're involved in a dispute over a particular BLP article, and taking action under this provision is expressly excluded from the definition of "involved" for the purpose of the provision (such broad definitions of "involved" would be extremely unusual on Wikipedia, in any case, but there's no harm in spelling it out). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  What I guess I'm driving at here is, take an article like Pat Lee. Was I involved there or acting as an admin? I was trying to implement WP:BLP as I saw it, until I got exasperated and stormed off in a huff. Am I now involved or am I still uninvolved. The best analogy I can come up with is the offside law and the interfering with play, something equally likely to generate discussion and differences of opinion. Is the guiding light still to be "do your best, and as long as you mean no harm you'll be okay?" Hiding T 09:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  To me it looks as if the extensive edits you made to the article on May 29 make you "directly involved" for the purpose of this provision. Your involvement diminishes over time and if you didn't edit the article for a few more months I would consider your involvement to be minimal. On a practical note, I think it highly unlikely that your edits on that article would ever be called into question. You did what needed to be done. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  It certainly needed doing. I'm still confused as to what constitutes involvement. Had I reverted it to an earlier version and protected the page, I would not be involved, but by editing the page I become involved? But I wonder if I am perhaps over-analysing the problem, and that such instances which occur will be easily sorted out in practise. And apropos of nothing, have just finished reading Matter. Not one of the better ones, but a ship name or two there-in seem apt to issues on Wikipedia. Hiding T 11:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the test for "involved" should center around if content is being owned. The question is do your edits appear to push a POV in terms of making sure certain claims remain, or make sure certain claims are not added, or are you blocking/banning an editor with a known POV you disagree with. For example, if you edit a lot on issues related to X, then any article related to X or editor known to disagree with you about X could be an area you are involved in. Removing "poop" or banning whoever added "poop" can not be seen as POV pushing. But blocking only one side in a content dispute where you are banning/blocking a person you have a significant content disagreement on might be. Not had a fight with - someone picking a fight with you does not make you involved. Find some random admin to see if they see it your way. Admins that divide up areas of interest and act as a cabal to avoid non-admin edits in a topic area are simply gaming this concept. Choose an admin you don't know will do as you ask simply because you always do that for each other. Patterns like that make everyone in that group involved. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as we can create scenarios in which one is involved or uninvolved, the test of if someone is involved will come down to how the community reacts to a sanction placed following behavior at X location. No one would ever believe I was "uninvolved" at the Frank G. Zarb, and no one would believe I was "involved" at Conrad Black, but that whole range in between those two is where the community will judge, and yell at, admins who use this provision. MBisanz ^talk 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The point is that we should not create rules that are based on side effects of the main point. Not editing an article is a side effect of not being involved with an issue, not a determining characteristic. For example to define not being involved as having not edited that specific article or any such thing. We should judge involvement by the point of having a rule against involvement; which is to create and maintain NPOV in the articles. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, now I'm even more confused. I thought the point of BLP was that some claims were not allowed to be made on Wikipedia. Personally, I'm fairly more liberally minded regards content than I understand BLP to be. Some of the edits I've made to articles, particularly to Pat Lee I don't particularly agree with from a personal POV, and in some sense think they conflict with NPOV, but based on my understanding of BLP I have decided they are unacceptable for Wikipedia. So at what point am I editing to prevent or include claims? For me all I am doing is weighing sources. I'm not asking myself if something is true, I'm asking myself if something is likely reliably recorded. Is the source reliable enough is the question I am seeking to answer. From a personal point of view I trust Rich Johnston to be fairly reliable on a basic level, but I recognise he isn't reliable enough to base a claim in a Wikipedia article, since he is in some sense gossiping. That the gossip is grounded in something is not likely enough for me to write about it in Wikipedia, even though it may be grounded enough for me to consider it personally a viable version of events. I can't see a way of creating any logical rules for this sort of stuff. Isn't this why we use the consensus method for determining content? After all, isn't the NPOV policy simply a bit of a hack together, since we can consensually ignore a particular POV in our coverage based on issues pertaining to reliability of sources and the like. I guess what I'm driving at is that I agree with WAS that one should seek out admins one doesn't normally confer with, but I also think there should perhaps be a more stringent line taken with regards users who don't walk away from a given issue. That to me is a sign that someone has become involved, that they refuse to move on. Hiding T 15:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

More guidance

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/June_2008_announcements/BLP_enforcement_guidance it appears that Arbcom will be issuing further guidance on this matter in the near future. MBisanz ^talk 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Policies must be editable

If this is a policy, it needs to be community-editable. To set this policy, uniquely compared to all others, in uneditable stone makes it unmaintainable, and is completely out of line with the five pillars Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It is editable is it not?. All I see in the logs is:

• 05:04, 17 June 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs | block) protected Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement ‎ (why do I see this as a pagemove vandal target? [move=sysop])

CIreland (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I should say, rather, that there's no obvious method to change the details and phrasing of the policy, since these are created by fiat from arbcom. Rewriting it as a policy page, with the arbcom ruling integrated, would help, as (as it stands now), it would appear editing the policy proper would require a request for clarification sent to the Arbcom. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of cutting the opening section, and putting a {{how-to}} tag at the top (probably the best option...) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. People who have more judgment than some members of arb com should make use of their common sense. DGG (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a policy, it's an enforcement provision. They're always written by the arbitrators and handed down to the administrators to enforce. If you don't want this provision to be implemented, challenging its status isn't going to work: you will have to convince every single administrator on Wikipedia that it must never be used under any circumstances, and failing that you must convince the Committee that every single invocation of it was illegitimate. And failing that you may find yourself with the ultimate task: convincing every single steward accredited by the Foundation that the Arbitration Committee on English Wikipedia cannot ask them to desysop an administrator. --Jenny 00:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also of indefinite length. We can't have a permanent, massive change to Wikipedia policy that cannot be changed ever without appeal to the arbcom. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me the change to Wikipedia policy. --Jenny 01:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically BLP and APPEAL.

Former (no longer applicable) text of BLP: Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or who have reason to believe that violating material may be re-added, may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material. It is generally more desirable in the medium and long term to obtain compliance with this policy by editors, in order that the article may be kept open for editing wherever possible.

Former (no longer applicable) text of BLP: Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is disparaging and written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be repaired or replaced to an acceptable standard. (Replacement might include a high quality older revision or high quality rewrite.)

New policy: 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.

Problematic differences: Cause is no longer required for action to be taken; administrators can do whatever they like and cite BLPSE.

Former (no longer applicable) text of APPEAL: In principle, any blocked user may appeal their block to the Arbitration committee as a last resort, after other attempts to have the block lifted have failed.

New policy: 1. Appeals may be made to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard (Important note: AE, not AN/ANI). However, administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

2. Appeals of both the original action and of any subsequent reversal may be made directly to the Committee, or another body that is designated by the Committee for this purpose in the future.

Problematic differences: The Committee, which has previously only been judge, jury, legislature executioner and final court of appeals, is now judge, jury, legislature, executioner and ONLY court of appeals, which is an important distinction.

If, as Jenny asserts, this is normal, regular practice, and perfectly within their granted powers, then it looks like it is time to review ArbCom's ability to change and modify policy without community consensus. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, none of the policy has changed. None of this enforcement provision supersedes or alters the policy. It is quite normal for a policy and an enforcement provision to exist side-by-side. For instance a general probation can be applied to a topic, and if any editor makes any problematic edit covered by the provision in an article on the topic, administrators may apply either the policy or the terms of the remedy, or both, to the edits. An editing restriction may be applied to a user. It is up to the administrator whether to invoke the restriction, or general policy, in handling problematic conduct by the user.

Secondly, it is falsely stated above that "administrators can do whatever they like and cite BLPSE." Administrators must use their powers responsibly and this remedy does not absolve them from that. Excepting emergencies, they must counsel and warn users, rather than take immediate action. Directly involved administrators may not take action under this provision, although the policy allows them more leeway.

That isn't false in the least. There isn't even the implication that they can do whatever they like; it's quite clearly stated in black and white. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thirdly, it is appropriate for appeals to an action under an enforcement provision to be made in the relevant noticeboard. The provision also makes a new avenue of appeal available: direct appeal to arbcom.

Then why is it considered okay for probation, mentorship, and all of the other enforcement provisions derived from ArbCom to be appealed at the more proper, more neutral noticeboards, or even just by sticking an unblock template on your talkpage? This wouldn't be so bad if the committee didn't insist on controlling the unblocking/appeals process. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fourthly, Celarnor falsely claims that arbcom is "the only court of appeal" to an action under the provision, although he correctly cites the section of the provision that provides for reversal by community consensus.

AE is not the community. AE is inextricably affiliated with the committee by its very nature. For community consensus, you would need to specify AN/ANI, or some other neutral venue. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Application of enforcement provisions as a result of arbitration cases is normal, regular practice. Interpretation of policies is the remit of arbcom. Enforcement is shared by arbcom and administrators. This changes none of that. --Jenny 02:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AE is not the community. AE is inextricably affiliated with the committee by its very nature. For community consensus, you would need to specify AN/ANI, or some other neutral venue. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As a special favor, could I ask you to reformat the above so that your comments and mine are separate? I find the above quite impossible to follow already and I don't want to add to the mess. --Jenny 03:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

it's no big deal, but it confused me a little, so I thought I'd drop a note here - that Jenny (who is User:RegenerateThis) used to be 'Anticipation of a new lover's arrival, the' and remains the well known wiki chap, Tony Sidaway! :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, somebody asked me to reduce the length of my username and, having thought about it a bit over the preceding weeks, I changed after watching a Doctor Who episode [which may have influenced the choice of name a bit! :) ] --Jenny 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I find non-threaded discussions very confusing, hard to follow and participate in when paragraphs with many interlinked topics of discussion get mapped by the poster, not by the topic of discussion; considering that it's more important what is said than who said it, it doesn't really make sense to me why anyone would prefer such a more primitive form of discussion. When I don't have any choice or the option of separate sections, I always end up going through the mess, moving everything around into threads and previewing it so I can get some idea of what's going on, but if you prefer that way ... I just think replies in this form look somewhat grotesque. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but I've always abandoned discussions when they've been reformatted in that manner, because it destroys the readability of the text and the flow of the argument. What the discussion would look like after multiple comments by different parties over time doesn't bear thinking about. If you don't want to continue the discussion, fine with me. For those who share my inability to read interleaved comments, here is what I said in my last comment. I'd appreciate it if further comments were appended to the end, if only so that I can follow who is saying what. Repost follows:

Firstly, none of the policy has changed. None of this enforcement provision supersedes or alters the policy. It is quite normal for a policy and an enforcement provision to exist side-by-side. For instance a general probation can be applied to a topic, and if any editor makes any problematic edit covered by the provision in an article on the topic, administrators may apply either the policy or the terms of the remedy, or both, to the edits. An editing restriction may be applied to a user. It is up to the administrator whether to invoke the restriction, or general policy, in handling problematic conduct by the user.

Secondly, it is falsely stated above that "administrators can do whatever they like and cite BLPSE." Administrators must use their powers responsibly and this remedy does not absolve them from that. Excepting emergencies, they must counsel and warn users, rather than take immediate action. Directly involved administrators may not take action under this provision, although the policy allows them more leeway.

Thirdly, it is appropriate for appeals to an action under an enforcement provision to be made in the relevant noticeboard. The provision also makes a new avenue of appeal available: direct appeal to arbcom.

Fourthly, Celarnor falsely claims that arbcom is "the only court of appeal" to an action under the provision, although he correctly cites the section of the provision that provides for reversal by community consensus.

Application of enforcement provisions as a result of arbitration cases is normal, regular practice. Interpretation of policies is the remit of arbcom. Enforcement is shared by arbcom and administrators. This changes none of that. --Jenny 04:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is, by far, a larger change than any previous change by the Arbcom, has site-wide ramifications, and has no obvious end point. As such, it's policy, and needs to be editable so it can adapt to problems and other things that come up, without the Arbcom having to be appealed to every single time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's quite a doozy. As to having no end-point, I don't see the sense of such an end-point. It isn't as if they were banning anyone (though bans may be made under the provision, and note that those do have a maximum one year endpoint). They're just saying "this is one acceptable way to implement the BLP." Arbcom provisions don't need an end-point, and arguing that a provision with no end-point is a policy is simple illiteracy. If it needs to be changed, arbcom can amend it by open motion. --Jenny 01:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's mark this historical

No one seems willing to be the 'test case' and enforce this. The Arbitration Policy as written doesn't allow for it. The only people who are defending it appear to be a tiny minority and the arbitrators who voted for it. The RfC statement saying they can't do this kind of thing has community support.

I really can't think why I shouldn't mark this as historical or a failed policy. --Barberio (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion that this has not been used. I cannot speak for other admins but, whilst I have not performed any actions that would require logging, I have threatened to do so in the event that problems persisted. CIreland (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Using the generic templates I created as a tracker, it has been used about half a dozen times at the warning level, and seems to have been effective. MBisanz ^talk 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It has? I couldn't find anything. Or is ther another way to track those templates? --Conti|✉ 15:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Check the image links at Image:BLP Spec Warn.svg, also there were one or two uses of it where the receiving party removed the note after reading it (permitted by talkpage policy) and a couple uses of the article template before I got around to coding a tracking image. MBisanz ^talk 15:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. --Conti|✉ 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't use the templates because I have needed to be far more specific than a template could be. The templates are fine in theory but real-world situations tend to be a bit more complex. CIreland (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, personalized messages are a good thing and totally OK. I was just pointing out that even the generic message has been used a couple times, so the remedy isn't totally a dead operation. MBisanz ^talk 15:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So, basically what you're saying is that warning off editors is working fine, and you've never needed to use this. That's hardly a good incentive to keep something that the community has removed authority from. Go on warning off users who're being disruptive in the normal way. You don't need an extra billyclub. --Barberio (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you are the author of the referenced RFC section, I would like to get some wider input on the matter. MBisanz ^talk 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

37 other editors endorsed that RfC statement. We've had a lengthy discussion on this. There just isn't support for allowing this kind of pseudo-policy, and there's noted objection to allowing it. This discussion has been pretty widely publicised over the wiki, and got a lot of editor involvement.

How much more 'input' do you want?

How about Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#View_by_Celarnor_.282.29 also endorsed by 37 editors, and not all the same editors as my 'No New Policy' statement.

This process is not having a rest, sleeping or pining for the fjords. --Barberio (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well seeing as this page just finished up its own unique RfC without a decision to reject it, and seeing as the RfC you cite is a general principal, not unique to this, I'd expect a unique rejection of this concept. MBisanz ^talk 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Er... Link to this RfC? It certainly seems to contradict the general principles expressed in the ArbCom RfC.

I don't recall seeing an advertisement that there was an RfC specifically on this issue. And have seen no advertisement of it on this page, on the RfA talk page, the Arbitration Policy talk page, or the Village pump policy page.

This smells a lot like forum shopping to find a group of people who will support it.

The ArbCom RfC was widely advertised, on all relevant pages, *and* a watchlist notice for a couple of days. --Barberio (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It was on THIS talk page, the bot removed it due to inactivity here. MBisanz ^talk 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Er... I thought you must have meant some other discussion... I really don't see any clear consensus for support that's generated on this talk page. Especially not one that counters the two clearly worded statements that the ArbCom can't create things like this, and the people who endorsed those statements, on the ArbCom RfC.

To sum up, again...

1. No one has enforced this process, nor seems willing to.
2. It's only being used as a spurious threat, in situations that could be replaced with normal dispute resolution.
3. There was no clear consensus in support of the process.
4. There was clear consensus stating that ArbCom can not form pseudo-policy like this.
5. A statement specifically naming this process as incorrect gained 37 endorsements.

Now, can you please explain why I should ignore the weight of all that, and not mark this historical? Noting that 'I want to be able to use it as a threat against people' isn't really an argument in it's favour. --Barberio (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the specific five points raised above.

1. I have used this process and am willing to enforce it.
2. There has been nothing spurious about the threats of action I have issued under this policy. It is intended for situations where normal dispute resolution has failed or is inappropriate (e.g. because we don't leave attacks on real people in place while we wait for an RFC.)
3. It simply describes existing practice. Thus it has de facto consensus. The only new thing is the logging of sanctions on a special page.
4. ArbCom did form new policy here, as they have stated repeatedly. They simply restated and described existing policy and practice.
5. Folk are always resistant to a perceived erosion of their liberties, even when that perception is incorrect. It was also raised at a time when opinions on and discussion of the arbitration process were particularly heated. CIreland (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To be helpful, and in counterpoint to the RFC mentioned above, interested folks should check out The Footnoted quotes Proposed Decision page where a great amount of discussion over the arbcom case which resulted in this page took place. Notably, I think the question of "did ArbCom create policy" with this action is tackled head on there, and many of the arbitrator's weighed in with their thoughts on the matter. One such example:

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♥♥♥ 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So I think it's not entirely certain to say there's clear consensus that ArbCom can not form "pseudo-policy like this", as the question of this being policy or pseudo-policy is still quite debatable. Barberio does bring an good point in that no sanctions have ever been logged, although warnings have been used. I think it's a better point for discussion to address this point: is this special enforcement lending any benefit to working out BLP issues? If no special sanctions are needed, are the warnings themselves really necessary above and beyond the usual policies? How solid is the statement, "no one has enforced this process, nor seems willing to?" --InkSplotch (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You find me someone who has been warned, and is still violating BLP, and I will apply the sanctions in an instant, so there is at least one admin willing to. MBisanz ^talk 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP Special Enforcement has to be one of the most disruptive efforts at crafting (or is it imposing) policy in Wikipedia's history. Its existence has a chilling effect on Wikipedia editing and the widespread disapproval it has received shows that the community has rejected this as an option. I would prefer seeing it deleted, but eliminating the article in its entirety would erase the details of what should be available to be seen for the mistake it is. Marking it as historical would have the desired effect of eliminating it as anything that could be used or threatened, and would allow it to remain on public view. Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the bonechilling "ArbCom can create policy by fiat" precedent alone outweigh any potential benefit we could ever get by this, even ignoring all of the other problems that it creates. I seem to be in a growing minority that would rather have a somewhat good encyclopedia controlled directly by the community than an excellent one controlled by a much smaller group of people, even though I don't think that having this improves the quality of the encyclopedia in the least bit, and makes it much easier to actually degrade content rather than improve it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no new policy here, simply a description of pre-existing policy and practice. Deleting, revising or marking as historical this page will not change that policy and practice. Since pretty much the day I became an admin I have not hesitated to use the additional tools provided to stamp out attempts to use a Wikipedia as a vehicle for attack and defamation nor will I, or, I suspect any other admin, cease to do so based on the status of this page. The only change has been a requirement for centralized logging of the most severe actions (we used to just note them for review at WP:ANI) - and I can't see what objection anyone might have to the new logging system. CIreland (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mostly because as worded it switched from 'demonstrate the block was correct on ANI', to 'log, then require an appeal to demonstrate the block was incorrect', and that the process was excluded from community alteration being 'owned' by the Arbitration Committee. That's not the wiki way. --Barberio (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is correct. The ability to decide whether or not something was wrong has been removed from the community and placed solely with the committee. That is not the wiki way, and it is certainly not the way the policy was before. If that doesn't constitute a change in policy, then I don't know what does. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course this whole discussion is rather moot, if an admin does a good action under this provision, then no other admin will be willing to undo it. And if an admin goes rogue, arbcom has already indicated it will consider desysopping and the stewards have already indicated they will implement such an instruction. So really, tagging the page is a near-meaningless act. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If one administrator is willing to use this (at least two above), and one steward is willing to follow ArbCom's instruction and desysop a user who wheel-wars over this (as Shanel and Lar did, above), this is enforceable. Unless, of course, you can find a steward who will confirm that they will restore the administrator access to those who have it removed; if you can, I will happily speedy delete this page myself. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What then of the community's expressed consensus that ArbCom overstepped their authority in creating this? --Barberio (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the issue in a practical and realistic sense. Daniel (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC) By the way, I'm sure Metz and The Reg would love to hear from you about this - would fit nicely with the censorship angle you and them ran with last time.

Well, then it appears what we must do to satisfy the rule-lawyers is demand the Committee revoke this, or forcibly revoke their status as arbitrators if they do not. The community has spoken on this. ArbCom did not have the power to do this.

And really? Bringing up the OTRS kerfuffle in this? Would you like to go any lower in ad hominem attacks. Maybe you'd like to insult my mother. --Barberio (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You went and bitched to them, not us. You cried censorship, which is certainly relevant here, as you're doing the same thing. Daniel (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I raised the problems with the community, with OTRS, and with the Foundation. It was only after several months of being ignored, derided and insulted, that I talked to Metz. --Barberio (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Barberio, the extent of your tendentious argument here is atrocious. Like every other RFC, there is 0 binding effect. There is no such consensus by the wide community as several users chose not to waste their time or effort on something so essentially unproductive. This remedy has been more effective than I'd expected at the time - and this page is here to stay. You're running the risk of being blocked - such attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground (even for tendentious argument against the enforcement of a core policy on-wiki) will not stick here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you just clarify. Are you really threatening me with a block for disagreeing with you? --Barberio (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And let's say this again... The RfC was well publicised, had a high level of involvement, and has produced some clearly consensus supported statements.

Attempts to blacken my name by personal attacks, and attempts to belittle the RfC by claiming a 'silent majority opposed it', are demeaning and unintelligent arguments. This is crossing the line to bullying tactics in order to get your way. --Barberio (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it the fact that you don't understand what consensus is (i.e. it's not about a majority), or is it the fact that there were no such attacks on you, that make it bullying tactics? Hint: I'm not going to respond to you further with this, nor am I interested in your gaming of the system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Barberio, the authority of the Arbitration Committee doesn't come from you, nor does it come from us. That you are making demands in an attempt to arrogate this control to yourself fails to change the underlying fact that no one is required to even respond to you. No one but you (that I've seen) is arguing that the arbitrators should be summarily dismissed for this one case, nor that we should engage in revolutionary tactics or the language of mutiny in order to scare them into whistling your tune. If the Committee doesn't agree with you, Jimbo doesn't agree with you, and some or most admins are willing to enforce the provisions of the remedy... You should accept defeat, and find something else to make demands about. Avruch ^T 02:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about me, it's about all the people who endorsed Celarnor and my statements in the RfC.

And I resent your insinuation that I want to 'usurp' Arbcom. That's absurd. I don't even want to be an administrator.

A small group of administrators, the current majority of the arbcom disagree with me. But the expressed consensus in the RfC agreed with me on this issue. It does appear that you're now resorting to character assassination in order to diminish this because I've been vocal about it. Would you like to do the same with every person who endorsed both statements in the RfC? --Barberio (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never used the policy; while I do a little very occasional work with BLP as an admin when it happens to come to my attention, I have never seen the need for it, and I certainly opposed it in the RfC. It seems that even the people who most support it, and are much more active on such issue than I, have never themselves seen the need to actually use it. While BLP is core policy, the specific interpretation of it is not of the same fundamental status, and subject to community decision. The question here is whether the specific BLP special enforcement has the status of community approval. I don't think it does, and that leads to the subsidiary question of whether the arb com has made it policy despite the opinion of the community. That's an open question, that has not yet been resolved--for it is not really sustainable that arb com standards and those of the general community will remain discordant. So it is fair and reasonable -- and indeed necessary -- that it be discussed until it is resolved. The discussion of how to label it is not improper. Whether we will be able to come to some conclusion with the present composition of arb com is perhaps doubtful, for I think the onus is up to them to adjust it so is is concordant with the view of those who are expected to administer it. I don't think a continued discussion of how to mark it is the least disruptive, though I doubt it will be conclusive As far as i am concerned, I'm going to wait for discussion till the arb com election. DGG (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just chiming in here in support of DGG's analysis. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I also feel that this is spot-on. Brilliantine (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the enforcement provisions, and the BLP policy, and the role and authority of ArbCom is fine, although perhaps in a sense moot given the position of the current committee on the issue. That sort of discussion is quite apart from what Barberio has been doing - essentially, flamethrowing his demands for an escalating series of actions by the Committee on multiple forums. "You must withdraw this, or you must resign, or we will throw you out on your ass." (to paraphrase). The intemperate nature of his attempts at discussion is a distraction from the serious issues involved, and if he wants a serious discussion he should take note of the approach of others even on this page. Avruch ^T 14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Er... The 'approach of others' has included resort to personal attacks, bringing up unrelated incidents, and to threaten to have me blocked. Do you really want me to take that as example of good behaviour, or would you rather I continued to be polite but strongly opinionated?

Yes, I do think those members of the ArbCom who've rejected the community opinion on their behaviour should resign, rather than forcing us to wait for the end of their terms. I'm not sure why this is such an awful opinion? It's not like I want them fired from a paid position. --Barberio (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on this:

• It's not very well-written. The arbcom used a great deal of very vague wording, like "any and all means at their disposal", without setting forth any real guidelines about what conditions such grants of power should be used under.
• Due to this vagueness, the decision works out to little more than a statement by the Arbcom that "We support administrators working to defend BLPs".
• There is the germ of a workable idea in here, but any editing to set up such standarsds has been repeatedly reverted by Tony Sidway et al(iases), who claimed he was enforcing arbcom's authority. However, he has no current connection to the Arbcom. [12]
• The best parts of the proposal include the logging and the warning procedure. If this page is editable - and, per MBisanz at the above link ("WP:BLPSE was created by the community to discuss how it views WP:BLPLOG"), which no arbitrators object to, as far as I can tell, it is, then a workable procedure can be made.
• What this page needs is a dose of community editing. Set out conditions for use of these means, give guidance on what it feels are reasonable uses of power, and so on. Keeping fully in the spirit of the arbcom decision, a very workable procedure could be made, by adding community-created guidelines onto it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New Template?

Since we're enforcing this now on the Sarah Palin article, I'm hoping to put together a template that's both easy on new editors but clear on the ramifications of further shenanigans. Could I get some eyes on {{uw-blpse3}} for input on how best to accomplish this? My intent is to have this template perform the counseling that the Special Enforcement ruling requires (taking language directly from WP:BLP), while also serving as a final warning and prelude to a block if blatant violations continue. Is this a workable solution? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The template as written, with the article as a parameter, turns out like this:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Sarah Palin, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially critical when dealing with Biographical articles of Living Persons; Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research. Due to the contentious nature of Sarah Palin, contributions such as the one you made fall under a Special enforcement ruling on biographies of living persons.

Accordingly, you are requested and required to discuss contentious edits such as this one on the article's talk page, which may be found at talk:Sarah Palin. This notice is your official warning that further edits which add non-neutral, libelous, or insufficiently sourced information to a biography of a living person may result in your being Blocked from editing without further warning. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting wording, I had worked up {{BLP Spec Warn}} and {{BLP Spec Sanction}} some months back as the version on WP:BLPLOG, I went with bright colors to make sure people realized this was serious, no reason though it can't be reworded. MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Shows what I get for not doing my research; I didn't see those on the main page here, and didn't think to check the log. We could turn this into a level 3 warning and have the BLP Spec Warn template turn into a matching Level 4 prelude-to-block template. I like the style you used for the Warn template. This idea came from my suggestion that we have a Sarah Palin-specific template; that turned into a generic one with the article parameter. It also edges closer to the zero-tolerance realm that seemed to initiate the enforcement in the first place, which makes sense for an article with the traffic that Sarah Palin is getting. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a level 3 sounds good since it would give admins more leeway in deciding how strongly to warn for a given situation. Feel free to copy anything you need. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done - I've taken your format and turned it into {{uw-blpse4}}, to match the template above (which I moved to {{uw-blpse3}}. I added a conditional for the article title, similar to what you used for the rationale. I also emphasized the block, since even if a 1RR parole or some restriction on editing BLPs is proposed, a short block would be used to stop the violations and prevent damage to the project. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, feel free to update all the documentation and log pages or I'll get to it later tonight. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK; I'll take care of it. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing this page

I think we need to come to some sort of understanding on what type of editing of this page is acceptable. It isn't a standard policy, which can be edited by anyone and the edits that remain for a period of time are seen to have the force of policy and community consensus. It was a direct copy of the arbitration decision. To my mind, its this decision (and not this page, per se) that controls the issue. It makes sense, then, to keep the decision and this explanatory page as close to eachother as possible. Shoemaker's Holiday says that the committee has agreed that this page can be edited for clarity. I wouldn't object to that, although I'd like to see the diff where that was authorized. Changing the meaning or weight of the text is quite apart, though, and something I doubt arbitrators have expressly agreed to. In my opinion, some of Ryan Delaney's recent edits (particularly those mentioning protection and abusive reversion of protection specifically, and seeming to limit the sanctions to such) have actually reduced the clarity of the text by introducing a crucial conflict with the original and authoritative version. I won't edit war about it, but I think we should take the time to consider what kind of editing is appropriate before we make significant changes to the text. It would be unfortunate if an admin relied on this page for guidance, only to find out that the controlling language is found elsewhere and is different. Avruch ^T 19:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can. Arbcom specifically said recently that this page was for the community to clarify and explain the arbcom ruling. It can be edited in any way that keeps in the spirit of the ruling. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you have a diff where an Arbcom member has said something to that effect? --Conti|✉ 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously - how does it help "clarify" anything to introduce inaccuracies into the text and remove the obviously useful link to the decision? Don't you think you should discuss these changes first, before making them? Especially since there is case in the works about this issue right now? Avruch ^T 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say hi to everyone and apologize for not getting some comments up on the talk page here sooner. This isn't the first time I've taken it upon myself to make bold edits to a policy page, and so I understand how some people might be frustrated with what is going on. As I see it, there are two issues to discuss here:

1. is whether the changes I made were discussed sufficiently before I made them, and
2. is whether the edits I made improved the policy or not.

I am inclined to focus on #2, since that is what's really at issue. Here's some rationale behind the edits that I made, that might make it easier to understand my intentions so we can find a common ground on them.

First off, I want to thank Avruch (talk · contribs) for his interest in the article. I'd like to assure everyone that we agree that what counts is whether the page is really as clear, descriptive, informative, and accurately reflecting of Wikipedia philosophy as it could be. I'm pleased to say that we all obviously have those ends in mind, so all that remains is for us to align our perceptions of what is the best way to achieve those ends. I don't have any high degree of certainty that my edits were the best way to achieve the goals I had in mind, but I do believe that my edits were reflective of a way that the old policy was unsatisfactory, and I'll outline my objections to the old version now.

There is an easy pitfall that many, many editors fall into when attempting to understand Wikipedia policies: the temptation is to think that Wikipedia policy pages are designed to be a collection of rulebooks that justify behavior and clearly delineate authorities. One must only go to the Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard or, god forbid, read petitions to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee to see awful talk of WP:NPOV "violations" to collect as much evidence as you like of Wikipedia editors mistakenly interpreting policy pages strictly and literally, as if they were laws. I think can all agree that Wikipedia policy pages are not intended to be used in that way at all. That the Arbitration Committee occasionally contributes to this problem does not help us, and I think that with informed and patient discussion, even we can give them a sanity check.

Rather, Wikipedia policy pages guide and inform our behavior as members of a community project to build an encyclopedia. Policy pages have strong consensus behind them because they are held to be the rules that most effectively promote the productive development of a free encyclopedia. In other words, policy pages say "We have learned through experience that this is the best way of doing things, and so you should most likely be doing things this way too." This requires a somewhat subtle understanding of policy, because while it can be comforting to say "it's the rules, so follow them", Wikipedia philosophy requires us to be honestly an relentlessly self-critical and apply the rigorous criterion "Does it work?" to everything we do. Various attempts to codify this basic principle have cropped up over our history, the most famous (and controversial) being Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Understood properly, I firmly believe in the idea expressed by Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and we all enjoy the irony of those who try to turn it into a firm rule. Imagine how we would laugh at one who spoke of a "WP:IAR violation"!

Of course, that is not to say that all policy pages should be redirected to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules! I want to be clear that I think policy pages serve a vital, fundamental role in all the Wikimedia projects.

I think that might help orient understanding of the edits I am making to this policy page and others. So with that out of the way, we can talk about specifics.

--causa sui ^talk 11:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrator "involvement"

This is an interesting example and, not surprisingly, something on which I've taken part in many discussions over my attempts to remove language of "involvement" from other Wikipedia policies. However, my other attempts were mostly successful after discussion, and I hope we can find a language that is amenable to both of us through discussion here as well.

I think this is an important idea that needs to be expressed somehow: that administrators should take care not to participate in conflicts of interest. My problem with the wording is that two-fold in the case of BLP:

• it is vague what exactly constitutes "involvement". In the strictest sense we are all "involved" in every article on this project, and I have seen the policy that involved administrators should not use admin powers invoked to forbid any administrator from acting in a dispute; because acting in an administrative capacity is itself seen as involvement in the dispute! From this I think we can get the idea that "involved administrators" is, stated in this way, easy to misunderstand as far too broad a criterion, because it does not directly capture what is the issue here: that administrators should not use their powers to settle their own disputes. That the Arbitration Committee itself frequently uses this vague language is not helpful to us, and it is even less helpful for us to feel bound to adopt it.
• due to this vagueness, it may be used in an over broad legalistic sense to prevent "involved" administrators from using sysop rights to keep inflammatory information out of biographies of living persons. I do not understand the policy on biographies of living persons to prevent any administrator from removing potentially defamatory content from an article, regardless of his or her level of supposed involvement. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) made this same objection in an above section, and I don't see evidence that this was resolved.

In previous cases, editors have been satisfied with a revision that reads:

Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.

Would this statement, or some variation of it, communicate the intent of the section more clearly?

Cheers, --causa sui ^talk 11:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom's response to "violations"

On this issue it seems another editor has reverted to my revision. That's fine, but I want to make sure we are all on the same page, understanding the rationale for what was unacceptable about the old version, and happy with the current language. The old version read:

The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

In light of my general statement of philosophy above, it shouldn't be surprising that I tend to grimace at the use of the term "violations" with respect to Wikipedia policies. What counts about bad behavior is not that it violates policy, but that it is damaging to the project. Handling policies as if they are code law takes the focus away from why we do things the way we do, and creates an atmosphere where people are more concerned about not running afoul of policy than doing what is best for the encyclopedia. It may seem like a minor point, but I believe it has wide implications when it comes to our psychology about how to operate on Wikipedia. The revision I tried reads this way:

The Arbitration Committee will consider revocation of sysop rights in the event of wheel warring.

Doesn't require us to think as the policy as law, but makes clear that there are consequences for trying to short-circuit the normal process of seeking consensus. Still, I'm not sure this is the best way to put it, and I'd be happy to hear any proposals.

Cheers, --causa sui ^talk 22:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there were some intermediate steps - your edit changed it to "abuse reversion of page protection", I reverted it to the original language, Adam reverted me and then I edited it to say "wheel warring" instead because its broader than page protection in scope. Avruch ^T 22:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're correct-- I don't pay much attention to these things. What do you think about my suggestion? Is there another way of putting this that you think could work as a compromise, or do you think the current revision is okay? --causa sui ^talk 22:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Any and all means

Although I haven't made any edits on this, I share the serious concerns of others on the first line of this page:

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

"Any and all means" must be understood to be an overbroad mandate to do anything that is required. Also, the talk of "authorization" contributes to an atmosphere of authoritarianism, where there is a higher governing body that is deliniating these authorities. The Arbitration Committee itself has explicitly rejected this interpretation of its own purpose: we are not to understand ArbCom to be a "Supreme Court of Wikipedia" that is issuing commandments to us. Again, we have to keep our eyes on the prize: The reason it is reasonable and necessary for administrators to aggressively defend biographies of living persons is not because the Arbitration Committee or anyone else has told us to, but simply because we don't want to defame anyone!

There must be a better way to convey the seriousness of maintaining professionalism in biographies of living persons without making such an excessive statement. How about this?

Use of administrative privileges to remove potentially defamatory information from biographies of living persons is in a special category of reasonable enforcement. Administrators using their sysop rights to remove defamatory information, or to prevent other editors from contributing it, are rarely overturned by the community.

Still not sure this is the best, but it's getting somewhere. I might post some more ideas later.

Cheers, --causa sui ^talk 22:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're experiencing a bit of a disconnect here. The text is certainly open to criticism based on varying philosophies on policy and the role of the arbitration committee. But the particular text before you began modifying it was a copy of an arbitration decision. There has never been any tradition that arbitration decisions are voidable by the community - at least not that I'm aware of. I think that when issues arise over this particular policy/remedy, they will be adjudicated by the arbitration committee - and they are likely to base their opinions on the wording of the prior decision, aren't they? In that case, isn't it disingenuous to edit the meaning of the text on this page? If nothing else, you should at least ask for their approval to materially alter this page. Avruch ^T 22:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the community is allowed some latitude to interpret their implementation. Certainly, if this is going to be rescued into a viable policy, we will need to set out what's a reasonable level of force.

Administrators may be allowed to use any and all means. That doesn't mean they're allowed to use them in any and all situations, and the community has every right to set out the viable situations. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I want to make clear that my intention here is not in any way to "void" the opinion of the Arbitration Committee. What I think is important to keep in mind is that we don't need to accept that because ArbCom said it, we are stuck with it until they revise it. Wikipedia policies are also editable by anyone, and there is a reason for that! As circumstances change and our understanding of those circumstances evolves, our interpretation of policy -- and past rulings by the arbitration committee -- are also subject to change. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) provides a good rationale in this particular case: the arbitration committee has given us a direction, and I happen to agree with the basic idea of what they are trying to express. But I don't think it's practical as a policy to simply copy and paste their exact wording. There is certainly a better way to express the same idea, and we shouldn't feel constrained by precedent where a clearly preferable alternative is available. Just like Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia policies are never finished, and there is no deadline. With that in mind, I think we should look at this policy page with careful examination, because it happens to be one of our most poorly worded. If we can find a way to improve the wording into a more clear explanation of the philosohpy behind their ruling, the arbitration committee should thank us. --causa sui ^talk 23:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this page?

Is it a policy? A guideline? An essay? Just random mumblings? This needs to be made clear at the top of the page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 11:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to ask the same thing. As it does not seem to be in use, I am tempted to mark it as historical, but to do so without discussion might cause unnecessary rancour. Skomorokh 12:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No uptake for enforcement

Well, considerable time has passed since this was first put up.

Looking at the history of the enforcement log [13] shows that there has been little interest in using this process by administrators, and preference of use of normal dispute resolution methods.

In the light of this, I'm proposing we mark this historical, and put it behind us. --Barberio (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing I was unaware of the enforcement log. But, if I remember right, the reason normal dispute resolution methods are not used is that extensive discussion of inappropriate information spreads it around rather than removing it. Fred Talk 23:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues where discussion is not appropriate are handled in private as office actions, usually after an OTRS ticket has been filed. It should be noted that the 'BLP Special Enforcement' process did not actually provide for a private resolution of such issues.

Office actions are appropriate when the volunteer community has failed to adequately address a serious problem. Due to the small staff we have, pushing a significant amount of work up will not work. Fred Talk 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, there are only two entries logged, neither of which invoked a limit on discussion. Neither of them actually required use of 'BLP Special Enforcement', as they could have used pre-existing methods. It's hard to see a request to protect the Sarah Pallin article not being accepted, and 'BLP Deletions' are already addressed by speedy deletion general clause 10.

But you see the policy itself places a limit on discussion:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Fred Talk 02:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The evidence suggest that this process is not used, and not needed. --Barberio (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The number of logged actions is not indicative of the effectiveness of the provision. I have logged 1 action but have used the provision 5 or 6 times since ArbCom passed the remedy (and as many times before they did). CIreland (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have not logged actions taken as part of this process, you have been acting incorrectly. Please identify these actions so they may be investigated. --Barberio (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand: 'as many times before they did' ? How could you use a provision that hasn't been enforced yet ? The provision makes also very clear that all sanctions should be logged. To Barberio, why wanting to demote its status while this has no status, except than being the copy of an arbitration enforcement ? However, I have never seen the log being used except the two cases, nor the warn messages. Marking them {{Historical}} would be, albeit controversial, a statement of facts. Cenarium (Talk) 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what CIreland is referring to is warning people that special enforcement is being used in a topic area. Often, just warning has the same effect. I agree that warnings should be logged as well, but the remedy didn't, as far as I recall, require that. I do recall asking for a link to be placed in the warning template so that uses of it (even when subst'd) could be tracked. MBisanz did this (see File:BLP Spec Sanction.svg). But I now see that someone broke the system by asking for the image to be replaced. See here. At least I think that is what happened. Anyway, my point is that warnings using this system have been happening and haven't been recorded as such. Carcharoth (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being so unclear. As Carcharoth said, I was referring to warnings and such. When I said I used the remedy before it was passed I meant (but got the grammar all wrong) that I (and many other admins) had taken measures similar to those covered by BLPSE (again, including warning etc.) prior to any requirement for logging. CIreland (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The file I should have been looking at (thanks to MBisanz for pointing this out) was File:BLP Spec Warn.svg. Following up the uses of that, I've found several examples of the use of this special enforcement, at least as far as warnings go. I'll post this below in a subsection. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A decision of the arbitration committee may be appealed, to Jimbo. And the arbitration committee can clarify or, respecting community input, modify it. However, simply overturning it by fiat is not acceptable. I don't think this particular thread belongs on a talk page, perhaps a motion for clarification. Fred Talk 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If the proposed 'demotion' is indeed an attempt to 'overturn' the decision, this is indeed inappropriate and should be terminated. However, we may note that the process itself is deprecated, in a note, Historical being not well adapted. We could ask for clarifications, especially whether they intend to keep the enforcement alive, despite being almost never used, etc. This should wait, however, that the new committee, be fully operational. Cenarium (Talk) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Two more relevant links are:

• Special BLP enforcement principle (Sarah Palin protection wheel war case)
• Full protection and special BLP enforcement finding of fact (Sarah Palin protection wheel war case)

That should help clarify more recent opinion from the Committee (again no comment from me, as an incoming arbitrator, as to current opinion, though I have raised the matter and suggested this issue is at least discussed). Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Examples of warnings using BLPSE

Some examples, found by looking at this tracking system:

• 1 (may be archived at some point)
• 2 (seemed to lead to a block)
• General article warning (later replaced)
• More examples may be out there.

Specific names and details shouldn't be dredged up again (which is why I used numbers, not names), but these are examples to show how BLPSE has been used in practice. The history of this log should (if people remembered to log them) show the blocks carried out under BLPSE. No comment for now on how successful or not this has been. Carcharoth (talk13:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found any block per blpse, and hope none has happened since they should be logged. The second example was a standard vandalism block. Another admin has previously blpse-warned the user but it was completely unnecessary in this situation. The first case dates from 4 August 2008. No previous counseling or warning had been made and as you can see from the history, the admin was edit warring with the user just before posting the warning. The controversial information has remained since, and is discussed in an entire section. As for Obama, the notice was added 3 July 2008 at the initiative of an admin and was not used at all. It was later replaced with the community article probation which has been very successful and a proof that recourse to arbcom remedies is not always necessary, even in most contentious cases. Cenarium (Talk) 15:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Marking as "historical"

Well, what we can take away from this is that

• The only possibly legitimate and logged use of this process was so controversial and disputed it ended up at Arbitration anyway,
• The majority of administrators are not using this process,
• A minority of administrators are using the threat of this process in un-logged and unapproved sanction against editors.

Considering this, I'm going to go ahead and mark this historical, pending review by the new arbitration committee. --Barberio (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want a review by the new arbitration committee, I'd suggest waiting until 1st January 2009 (to ensure the switchover between outgoing and incoming arbitrators is complete) and filing a request for clarification. I'd also suggest waiting at least until 1st January over the proposal to demote this page, as the proposal was posted less than 24 hours ago. In a holiday season, you can't reasonably expect full input from the community in a period of less than 24 hours. I'd say you need to leave the proposal up for at least a week and actively canvass opinion by posting at noticeboards. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd already noted that the committee are not taking any requests till 1st January anyway. And considering that 'arbcom should not create policy' was an election issue, it's likely that this would have been one of the first things looked into. --Barberio (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I contest (among other things) your intent to mark this historical. You are the only person advocating this; there is no consensus for it. CIreland (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to support this process. And as I have been told multiple times, in order for something to remain when it is disputed, consensus must be shown to support it. --Barberio (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Barberio, I've raised this on the Arbitration Committee mailing list and this is being discussed. I am going to repeat my suggestion that a review is requested in January (unless you want both new and old committee to take part in the review), and I'm asking you, in my role as an incoming arbitrator, to revert your marking of this page as historical. I won't go further than this, as I'm still working my way into the arbitrator role, but even without the arbitration considerations here, you have not advertised your proposal to mark the page as historical, and CIreland has contested it. Please revert yourself and let discussion take place. Carcharoth (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Barberio, I have this page on my watchlist and have been watching this. You only started this discussion two days ago and to claim consensus and mark it historical that quickly with significant objections and counterpoints raised is, to say the least, premature. I highly suggest you take Carcharoth's suggestion and remove the tag and allow fuller discussion with the new arbcom in January. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Barberio, I was an opposer to this measure. You can read my oppose on that RFAR's talk page, and on the voting. I opposed it very strongly indeed. But once it was decided, it was consensus and an arbitration decision. I might think we could do better, and I've gone on record that we could improve BLP handling. But this edit was wrong. Even an arbitrator should not override a formal Arbcom decision except in extreme and urgent circumstances, and this was neither.

On December 24 I added BLPSE to the 2009 arbcom list of "issues to discuss", covering whether it was viable, needed fixing, or should be withdrawn. So this was already "on the list" before your edit. I hope that reassures you. I have therefore reverted your change, until it can be examined more by the committee and consensus reached. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Update - the header box was poorly worded. I have reworded it to be more accurate, and linked it to the decision for now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)