Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Mindbunny's comments on biographies of living persons	Motions	22 May 2011	{{{votes}}}
BLP and flagged revisions		21 May 2011	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Mindbunny's comments on biographies of living persons

Initiated by Mindbunny (talk) at 20:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Mindbunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• James B. Watson
• Sandstein

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Deleted RFC/U on Sandstein
• ANI discussion: [1]
• My Talk page: [2]
• Stephan Schulz's Talk page: [3] [4]

Note: there isn't much to resolve. The BLP part of the conflict consists of one side saying "BLP means P" and the other side saying "It does not!" Back and forth, black and white. The wording of the policy is unclear, and there is no agreement on what is common sense.

Statement by Mindbunny

Facts.

SlimVirgin reported me for edit warring on Lara Logan. Sandstein blocked me. I had 3 edits in 4 days. I was voluntarily following a 1-edit rule on Lara Logan.[5] The noticeboard is for "active edit warriors and recent violations." It is punitive to block editors following a 1-revert rule (what's the goal, other than the behavior the editor is already showing?).

SlimVirgin complained to Sandstein about other editors on Lara Logan, including User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. SlimVirgin's characterization of the other editors was rejected by all as distorted. Sandstein warned all editors except SlimVirgin.[6] [7]

In coninuing the discussion with Sandstein on his Talk page, The Artist briefly opined that Lara Logan has "degenerate and corrupting journalist standards". The opinion was based on the opinion of a notable source being used in the article.[[8]] Sandstein blocked, interpeting WP:BLP to bar criticism of living people.[9].

I objected to Sandstein's interpretation of WP:BLP and his recent administrative actions. I argued history (as described above) was suggesting a bias in his admin decisions supporting SlimVirgin on the article. I created an RFC/U on Sandstein (deleted).

Ensuing discussion in ANI didn't establish a conesnsus on Sandstein's interpretation [10]. Some editors mocked the idea. JameBWatson blocked me for saying that Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt. (He says it was for "pointiness" rather than BLP violations.) Several editors, including at least one admin, objected to Sandstein's interpretation of WP:BLP and were "pointy" about it (several editors also supported Sandstein's interpretion).

Then Sandstein blocked me for criticizing living people on my Talk page. I excerpted Wikipedia on Mugabe (including quotes by Mugabe clearly attributed to Mugabe), and gave negative opinions of Mel Gibson and Dick Cheney (e.g. "Mel Gibson is a jerk."). He deleted the excerpts and my opinions.

I restored the excerpts from Wikipedia, and noted that they came directly from Wikipedia articles. JamesBWatson blanked them again, deleted my note, and blocked me from my Talk page.

My view.

First of all, the recent ANI demonstrates community dissent on whether WP:BLP is intended to prohibit criticism of people. Editors who don't intend to disrupt are being blocked or warned because of the confusion. The Artist intended to explain himself. At least one admin (Stephan Schulz) disagrees with the view.[11] [12] Clarity is needed on how BLP policy applies to editors expressing brief opinions in non-article space. Even those expected to enforce the policy disagree on it.

Textual analysis. The key phrase is "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed...". [13]

1) The wording emphasizes sourcing, implying the intent is to prevent defamation (i.e. factual claims or implications) not criticism. It would make no sense to emphasize sourcing in the context of users' opinions in Talk.

2) The logic of the grammar requires both "poor sourcing" AND "not related to making content choices" in what is prohibited. Editors' opinions are clearly sourced to themselves, so the policy isn't violated. It doesn't support a ban on criticism of living people; it certainly isn't sufficiently clear for blocking.

Note that WP:FORUM has been invoked to support recent blocks. The comments in question are brief, either as part of work on a topic or user Talk pages. WP:FORUM doesn't apply.

Taken as a whole, Sandstein's actions show prejudice in favor of a POV on Lara Logan, and abusive blocking. It is weird (or just outright violation of policy) to block an editor for warring when he's editing once per day. I disagree that I warred on the article months earlier, but even if I had, you don't block a self-corrected editor months later. That's punitive. He followed that by taking SlimVirign's side in a way none of the other editors considered fair. He followed that by blocking The Artist for a comment that was in the context of working on the article, and was based on a critique of Logan proposed for the article and attributed to a reliable source (Rolling Stone). Sandstein essentially set up The Artist: criticizing him, then blocking him when he tried to explain himself. Punitive. Sandstein followed that by blocking me for my opinions on my Talk page. No concrete example of what, actually, I disrupted was given. He blocked knowing the interpretation of BLP was controversial. That's a powertrip. First clarify the policy, then block people over it. Any single one of these instances could be overlooked, but the whole is abusive.

JamesBWatson's blocking followed the same pattern. He has still not explained what was disrupted. The statements on Robert Mugabe were in a discussion of such statements on a page meant for discussing conflicts, and others made the same type of statement (showing lack of consensus). None of these blocks were based on comments in "article space". There were no BLP-violations at all in the last text of mine that he blanked and blocked me over.

The blocking has become so extreme that the admins are deleting quotes from Wikipedia as BLP-violations (I mean, huh?). The first time, it seemed like carelessness by Sandstein, although even that shows an abusive "block first, ask questions later" mindset. JamesBWatson's last block of my Talk page access and deletion of comments was based on nothing. He blanked quotes from Wikipedia and a reply to Sandstein. I was blocked for quoting Wikipedia.

Blocked for quoting Wikipedia? Abuse.

I don't fully understand how ArbCom works; if this is rejected, please give another option. The persistent, ongoing policy problem is the application of BLP to (mostly brief) criticism of living people on Talk pages. I considered starting an RFC somewhere (Village Pump?), but something authoratiive seems in order. I considered an RFC/U for the admins. But, I did that a week ago on Sandstein and it was stupid. JamesBWatson provided an "outside view" which got basic facts wrong, and was promptly endorsed by half a dozen...admins. A popularity contest, testing whether admins will side with admins, won't hold admins accountable. Something else is in order. Mindbunny (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to shorten this statement by 50%, but I'm concerned that would be misleading after people have commented on it. Regarding those comments, I will reiterate that that 1) The concern isn't isolated to me; several editors objected to the "purist" interpretation in the brief ANI discussion, 2) I have actually provided a textual analysis of BLP, as opposed to merely asserting my viewit--the text simply doesn't forbid brief opinionating in discussion, 3) Customary practice most certainly doesn't forbid it, 4) Points about a "forum" are distortions; the question isn't whether Wikipedia is a forum for opinions, but whether such opinions are allowed. It isn't a forum for idle banter, but we don't block people for it either, 5) I frankly don't know whether ArbCom is the best venue. An RFC/U is just a popularity contest. Suggest something better, if this is rejected. I won't comment here again. Mindbunny (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be surpised by the motion, if ridiculousness weren't such a norm here. SirFozzie describes it as "as wide a topic-ban as I can ever remember." The facts of my BLP-related editing:

1. I've never made a BLP-violating edit to an actual article. Nor been accused of it.
2. I've seriously edited one BLP.
3. My alleged BLP-violations occurred in two places: an ANI thread about me, and my Talk page.
4. The total span of the alleged violations was about 3-4 days. May 12-15.

That is what is now being characterized as "a pattern of epic proportions." Why do I think admin culture has a powertrip problem? It should be evident that my alleged disruption has occurred after admin "solutions" to some problem, rather than before.[14]. I have no intention of honoring the topic ban. My concerns haven't been taken seriously. Mindbunny (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by amused bystander roux

Without commentary on the interesting slant to Mindbunny's post here, it's worth noting that Mindbunny either fundamentally does not understand the BLP policy, or deliberately chooses to flout it regularly and disruptively. Frankly I see no reason for an Arbcom case here; all that is required is for an uninvolved admin to explain to Mindbunny that BLP is non-negotiable, and negative/disparaging/deliberately offensive and provocative statements about living people are not permitted, period, and deal with infractions with the usual escalating blocks.

As for Mindbunny's question: BLP applies to every page owned by the WMF, without exception. This also applies to statements about other editors if one is to implement the policy as written, though historically we tend to be a bit more laissez-faire about applying BLP to other editors, preferring to cite WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc rather than BLP when dealing with nasty commentary. This is not required, and the leeway given has no bearing on the fact that the policy is absolute. → ROUX ₪ 20:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

As can be seen from the comments left in the (now-deleted, so admin-only) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sandstein, this request is without merit and is based on Mindbunny's mistaken view that WP:BLP does not apply to opinions voiced by editors about living people, and that Wikipedia is a forum for discussing such personal views in the first place. Should there be any need for further comment on my part, please notify me on my talk page.  Sandstein  21:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by JamesBWatson

I have just found this, and unfortunately I don't have much time. I may possibly come back and say more if I decided it's worth doing so. However, for now I will just mention the following. Mindbunny has been indulging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in several respects, including amongst other things repeatedly claiming that I blocked him/her for expressing an opinion about Robert Mugabe. I have repeatedly explained that the block was not for expressing an opinion, but for repeatedly gratuitously harping on about that opinion in a way that was clearly intended to be provocative and disruptive. Mindbunny not only kept on posting the same opinion repeatedly, but also repeatedly posted announcements about making the opinion, in a way that was clearly meant to be defiant; in effect Mindbunny was repeatedly saying "Look! I'm doing something which some editors think I shouldn't do! What are you going to do about it? See, I can keep getting away with it". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

Further information: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Noloop/Archive and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop

This is a hodge podge of a complaint, so I'll respond only to the bits I'm familar with. In brief, Mindbunny—who appears to be Noloop (talk · contribs)—was blocked on May 7 by Sandstein for long-term edit warring on Lara Logan after I reported it to AN/3RR (report here). Because Sandstein took that admin action, I asked him also to post a request on Talk:Lara Logan asking editors to stop making personal remarks about Logan. [15] There had been some sexist comments, including about her appearance. Sandstein posted that request, and the comments stopped.

I'm not familiar with most of what happened next, because other issues arose with Mindbunny that weren't related to the Logan page. On May 11, he posted an RfC against Sandstein that was deleted as uncertified, then started posting insults about public figures on his talk page, claiming he had the right to do that. He ended up being blocked for that on May 13 by JamesBWatson for three days, increased to a week by Sandstein, with talk-page access removed by JamesBWatson on May 16. In short, Mindbunny is disruptive, and this RfAr is more of the same. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Statment by ErrantX

I'm peripherally involved here as I supported the block and tried to explain BLP to Mindbunny. Mindbunny is arguing that the wording of the BLP policy does not pre-clude an editor expressing an opinion about a living person in non-article space. Partly Mindbunny aruges that this is on the basis that it is not poorly sourced information as it is clearly sourced to the editor.

No one should need to explain the problem there, that Mindbunny simply does not "get" it after a block (which was for making statements of opinion on living people to make a point, and not specifically for violations of BLP) is concerning.

Basically this is wikilawyering to get around the point that the intent of our BLP policy is to avoid people discussing their views on living persons; whether it is in the article or not.

The comments Mindbunny refers to on the user talk page were statements sourced from Wikipedia, and, yes, it was a bit far to delete them. That is just misdirection though, because other problematic statements were deleted from the talk page. It's prossible that the larger set of quotes was misconstrued as Mindbunny's comments. I don't know.

The easiest/simplest solution here is for Arbcom to pass by motion a topic ban for Mindbunny from commenting on BLP's in any namespace. And for them to get Mindbunny to drop the stick and get back to editing. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposed motion, whilst a good step, is somewhat broad - it could be just as effective if it simply addressed the specific issue here. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

I think that the proposed motion is probably premature; community good advice and if necessary sanctions can handle this. I don't think we have to write Mindbunny off yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Question by Ncmvocalist

I don't understand; why are 5 1-month blocks (as a maximum) needed before a 1 year block can be imposed? If the block log (among other things) indicates ongoing problems, 3 such blocks seems like more than enough? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators have moved away from that convention enough times though, with good reason I think. I would presume that the idea of this motion is to resolve the dispute without requiring unnecessary amounts of time/effort being spent in the long term. I don't think the motion will do much beyond the short term if the end result is for the Community to shortcut the motion because it is taking too long to work. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/10/0/0)

• Decline: I see these blocks as being within the realm of reasonable administrator discretion, and since we don't usually review short blocks unless there seems to be a clear injustice or a pattern of abuse, I see no need for arbitration. With regard to the broader issue, I think this request is driven by a bit of an oversimplification, namely, that we (either the Arbitration Committee or the community as a whole) need to decide either that "the BLP policy allows criticizing people on talkpages" or "the BLP policy does not allow criticizing people on talkpages." The correct interpretation of the policy, in accordance with common sense, is of course that people can be criticized, but only where there is a reason and a context for the criticism, and where criticisms that could be considered defamatory if untrue are appropriately sourced. As one example, if two editors are disagreeing on whether to include a sentence in a history article, and one of them says "I think this sentence should stay because it's supported by the work of historian A", then it would be quite in order for the other editor to respond "yes, but historian A's work has been discredited by the subsequent work of B and C." That's a criticism of A, but in context a necessary and reasonable one—indeed, the reliable sources policy makes it not only allowable but sometimes necessary to analyze the reliability of the sources, which means one must sometimes say something negative about the people behind the sources. There is also a need for reasonable leeway in talkpage discussion, and I don't think administrators are going around looking for excuses to block people for participation in such discussions. On the other hand, none of this justifies gratuitously insulting people and calling them names, especially names that reflect negatively on their personal or professional integrity for no apparent reason. For example, gratuitously referring to a journalist's "degenerate and corrupt journalist[ic] standards", apparently just for the heck of it, on a Wikipedia page, is not appropriate. If a clarification of the BLP policy would help to develop the relevant distinctions here, then our policy-writing mavens are welcome to give it a go, but I think most of what I have said here is self-evident. I'll leave it to my colleagues to address the suggestion of a BLP topic-ban for Mindbunny, as well as the allegation that Mindbunny is the reincarnation of an editor who left Wikipedia while under scrutiny in a pending arbitration case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline: what Brad said - I might have used fewer words but actually I can't think which ones I would have left out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline. I see no need for a full case here; this can easily be handled by summary motion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • @Ncmvocalist: Requiring five short blocks prior to increasing the block length has been a standard wording in "enforcement by block" provisions for a long time. I'm not particularly fixated on the number—three would do as well as five, in my view—but I don't see any great need to depart from convention either. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline. This doesnt appear to need arbcom. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline. I think there's a rational defense of the idea that comments about BLP subjects in the collaborative sphere are different from assertions made on the article frontpage, but we are also not a forum and not a place to air grievances about subjects; I echo NYB's comments in more succinct spirit. In any case, the community appears to be dealing with this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline. There are far quicker and easier ways of resolving this than an arbcom case, given that consensus is so overwhelming. – iridescent 14:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline essentially per Brad and Iridescent. Shell ^babelfish 14:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline - a full case isn't required. PhilKnight (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline - no merit to the request. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Motions

1) Mindbunny (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, discussing, or mentioning anywhere on Wikipedia the following topics:

• Any biography of a living person;
• Any person who is the subject of such a biography; and
• The policy on biographies of living persons.

Should Mindbunny violate this restriction, he may be blocked for a period of up to one month by any administrator. After five blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year.

As there are currently 15 active arbitrators, a majority is 8.

Support

1. Per the various statements above. I also note the continuing disruption, which is quite unacceptable. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Unfortunately necessary. We have a pattern of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT of epic proportions here. The topic ban is as wide as I can ever remember, perhaps it would be best just to ban them instead? SirFozzie (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Cool Hand Luke 03:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Tentative support, pending what Mindbunny does next, which might suggest the need for either a greater or a lesser sanction. (I note the discussion between Mindbunny and Georgewilliamherbert on Mindbunny's talkpage as well as the comments yesterday on ANI.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No need for arbcom. Mindbunny already has five blocks, and an admin is likely to indef block shortly, so giving them another five blocks is going to constrain admins. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
2. I don't like setting a precedent for such a draconian restriction. All the reams of text already generated should leave Mindbunny in no doubt as to what Wikipedia's current policy is. Either he'll abide by it from now on in which case there's no need for the stigma of this motion hanging round his neck, or he'll continue to ignore it, rapidly exhaust what little patience remains, and be indefblocked. – iridescent 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Basically per Iridescent. Shell ^babelfish 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
4. I wouldn't do this without a case, and I believe the community is perfectly capable of handling the problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Concur with my colleagues. Risker (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Concur with the above; either we take a case and make this motion or we leave it to the community. Right now they're handling it fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

BLP and flagged revisions

Initiated by Scott Mac at 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Kww notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Urgency doesn't really allow this. But see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_removal_of_Flagged_revision_from_BLPs (ANI) and my talk page.

Statement by Scott MacDonald

too long and perhaps moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apparently, the flagged revisions trial is over. This case is not about that. However, over the last months, many BLP articles have had flagged revisions set because of violations of the BLP policy. Admins have used it for BLP protection rather than for "trial" reasons. In at least one case I set it because of serious violations and complaints. I've not been involved in the ending of the trial, but apparently a decision was taken to remove flagging from all flagged articles. I think that's a mistake - but that's not my complaint. The problem is: Removing protection from BLPs because of some new blanket rule. BLPs are an area where admins are enjoined to use all tools at their disposal. Removing FR for ideological or inhouse reasons, and brooking no exceptions, flies in the face of admin care and discretion on BLPS. The arbiter who closed the discussions (Brad) suggested that their might be exceptions on a case-by-case basis for BLPs - but the "blanket rule" approach is being enforced. Far more seriously is the reckless way this is being done. Even if all FR is to be removed from BLPs, each needs looked at to ensure no living person is put at increased risk. It may well be that alternative means may give adequate protection - but that needs weighed in each case. At very lest the admin who placed the FR ought to be notified, in case something is being missed by the admin who is mass removing. I had nothing to do with this until admins started removing the protection from articles I monitor, and doing so without any discussion. I asked Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who was undoing flagged protections, to desist. When he refused I raised the matter on ANI. However, that discussion was not allowed because Kww's attitude was "we have consensus for this." There was an unwillingness even to pause and consider concerns. I am not asking arbcom to intervene in the ending of the trial. I am asking arbcom for an urgent and immediate ruling that mass unflagging of BLPs should be paused until a responsible way of doing this is agreed - with proper admin notification and a way to discuss any articles which might prove to be exceptional or particularly problematic. It may be that FR can be safely removed in most or even all cases - but we need to have a way to take care. We don't shoot first and ask questions later on BLP unprotection. It may be that this BLP unprotection will prove reasonable, but some discussion is essential. I will withdraw the case if the unflagging of BLPs is paused until this occurs. --Scott Mac 19:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC) @Risker. I'm not claiming he's not reviewing himself (I don't know). But given the number of articles he can't be doing it in depth, nor can he be monitoring the article afterwards for adverse effects. At very least those who have been involved with any BLP problems (and the protecting admin) need to be involved here. No admin is infallible, and this is not an area for gung-ho mass approaches. Each article needs care and each is different. His motivation is obviously to remove flagging, rather than to carefully weigh the article. Last comment Carcharoth's suggestion would be completely acceptable. It allows consensus to have its way, but ensures proper care and attention for BLPs. (As for his gung-ho rant, there's a huge difference between deleting stuff (which can be quickly restored) and doing thinks which may put living people's bios at a risk (which can only be reversed after the damage may be done) Further, an RFC may work out consensus adequately, but it is a rough instrument to balance the particular needs of a sensitive BLP. Wikipedia allows pragmatic exceptions to every rule as a matter of philosophy - RFCs don't change that.) I have no issues with Kww's stated aim of "pending changes being removed from virtually all articles within a week". I've never been its greatest fan anyway, and I've always opposed its mass use as pointless - so it isn't that I'm "footdragging on PR". I have a problem with the way this has been handled and with the mantra that there cannot be exceptions. There are exceptions to every rule in wikipedia. The trial is over. Fine by me. I didn't participate in it, and didn't set any protections as part of it. However, I have used FR as one of the tools available to respond to BLP needs on particular articles (as have others). If that's to be removed it needs care. The "well I'm just taking it away from them all now, and someone else can clean up any mess" approach isn't one we need near BLPs. It is dogmatic precisely where care, specific judgement and creative flexibility are needed. I suggest the way ahead is for us to list the BLPs that are currently (or were until recently) covered by FR. Then differentiate between those set as "part of a trial" (probably most of them) and those set for specific BLP concerns. We then need to examine those set for BLP concerns (notifying the admin) and ensure that whatever concerns caused it to be set can equally be addressed by other methods. Probably mostly they can be (there may, as always, be common sense exceptions - who knows?).--Scott Mac 21:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC) What's for arbcom to do? If admin conduct needs looked at (either mine or anyone else's), then I'd suggest an RFC - calm discussion would be a way to start things. Why I came to arbcom was because continued unprotecting of BLPs was continuing despite requests for discussion. I used a short block to get a pause, and then realising that escalation with tools was not the way to go, came here in the hope that would force a discussion. If I'd waited, the BLPs would have simply been unprotected. Things have now paused, so I suggest what's now needed is probably a discussion on the best way to proceed. This isn't foot-dragging, I'm happy that we work towards removing FR from almost all articles (even most BLPs) within a week or so. The number of cases where fuller discussion may be needed will probably be extremely small.--Scott Mac 22:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I launched this case because we needed to stop and discuss how, if we were to remove flagging from BLPs, to best do that with due care and attention. I wanted to stop people mass unflagging them without some more thought - and I recognised that me trying to force people to do that was not productive. Everything has paused (just for a bit). We've had wise input from Carcharoth and I now see arbcom considering an injunction. I'm content to leave it at that. I've approached Kww to try to find common ground,[16] and I'm seeking ways to safely remove FR from the articles I'm concerned with [17]. I realise my actions are being questioned by some (even Okip who hasn't edit an article in over a year). If they want to come to my talk page or start Requestion for Comment/Scott MacDonald discussion can be taken further. In light of the responsible discussions on flagged revisions and vulnerable BLPs now happening, I undertake not to replace flagged revisions on any article.--Scott Mac 01:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I've been asked what the harm was in mass unflagging, can I simply point to this conversation. No blame to Kww, all admins miss things, but this is why one admin removing dozens of protections from BLPs without seeking input first is a bad idea.

I opened this case to get a pause for thought before mass removal of protections from BLPs. That's been achieved, and discussion is reaching quick consensus. I see now people want to examine my admin actions. I spend almost all of my Wikipedia time in the BLP trench, and I'm the first to admit that can make me a curmudgeon on the issue and impatient with those who don't get it. After years of engagement with community discussion of BLP, I've largely withdrawn from frustration at the circularity, and really only deal pragmatically with individual articles - that may be part of the reason I'm being criticised. If the community wants me to quit the BLP field altogether, I will now do so.

@iridescent You've asked whether Kww have, "put the matter behind us". I can't speak for him, but for me the answer is yes. Largely, the two of us were speaking past each other. He was doing something in line with the consensus to end the test. I was wanting discussion on the implications of mass removal for specific articles. Despite our disagreement, even I see he was acting in good faith, and whatever arbcom makes of my actions, there's no way I'd support any sanction on his - I have no dispute with him. What was needed was a little pause and discussion. That's happened, and now PC will be removed, but with a little more care taken with each BLP (I actually agree with SlimVirgin, that the motion is, if anything, too strong. There is no need for arbcom to look at Kww's actions. Think what you will of mine, (I'm happy to resign if required) but there is no on-going dispute. As for the block, the circumstances were exceptional and, given the furore, I'm willing to undertake not to block again in any similar circumstances.--Scott Mac 15:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mea Culpa: In a nutshell

1. While I can defend the blocking, and reject the big deal being made of it, I have "got the message" that it has caused widespread concern, and so I won't block again in similar circumstances - lesson learned.
2. While I believed that mass unflagging was BLP dangerous and needed to pause, I understand that Kww was acting in good faith, and with the support of a "consensus" (I think the "consensus" was very careless with BLP in the way it was removing flagging without due care - but as PC is now entirely removed that dispute is moot.)
3. I admit to not being as gracious as I might have been in all of this. It was caused by frustration at a community that strains on the gnats of short blocks, and swallows the camel of BLP carelessness. That is, however, a plea in mitigation and not a justification. I should have been more engaged and widened the discussion out. When PC was removed from the BLPs on my watchlist, rather than replacing it, I probably should have temporarily fully protected them and brought the matter to ANI or BLPN for resolution. Again, lesson learned.
4. I don't think policy is a clear as FT2 suggests. We are in grey areas, where good judgement is needed, but also where reasonable people will disagree. That's as it has to be - as you can't legislate (or arbitrate) for every eventuality - and BLP needs a good dose of pragmatism and flexibility. The important thing is that we get to an end result (PC removed with care for BLP protection) which everyone can accept. This does not mean that we got here by the only or best route. Next time something similar happens, I'll certainly try to find a better one.
5. I have no ongoing quarrel with Kww. And I'd oppose any sanction of him. Tempers flared, and this pot ain't calling no kettle black.--Scott Mac 21:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@Kww, I think this is all over. All I ask is that you have the sensitivity to BLP that if someone says "stop that's dangerous", then you stop. You stop even if you think the concern is wholly spurious, because it is just possible you might be wrong, or that there might be a better way to do things, and a short pause and delay to find out costs nothing - and with BLP we always err on the side of extreme caution.--Scott Mac 07:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

This is really nothing more than heel-dragging ... one more attempt to stretch the trial of PC out indefinitely. I've been stepping through articles individually, evaluating the condition of the articles during the trial. If I see that there has been significant rejection of anonymous edits, or it was indefinitely semi-protected when it was placed on PC trial in the first place, I tend to semi-protect it. I've generally been doing a 3-month semi-protection if it looks like there's been some troubles during the trial, and indef if it looks like a truly intractable situation. If there hasn't been substantial trouble during the trial, and it wasn't semi-protected before the trial, I've been unprotecting it. I think my actions are fully justified by the recent RFC on the topic.

Scott has strenuously objected. He has reverted other admins' efforts to remove articles from the trial at Barry Chamish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Dustin Diamond‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In both cases, another admin had already removed it from the trial, Scott had returned it to the trial, and, when I once again removed it from the trial, Scott returned it back to the trial a seond time. Edit warring? Wheel warring? Choose your terms. Scott makes no effort to explain what about the two articles in question makes them so very special that the consensus to remove PC from all articles needs to be unilaterally overridden, but he feels quite comfortable of accusing me of being disruptive for following that consensus. So comfortable, in fact, that he blocked me for not doing what he and he alone thinks is necessary. That block got discussed at WP:ANI#Mass removal of Flagged revision from BLPs, where his position was soundly rejected. If there's any "emergency" basis here, it's an emergency basis to reject this thing quickly so that the effort to shut this trial off can proceed without the cloud of an Arbcom case hanging over the head of admins that attempt to implement the RFC result.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As for my "unwillingess to pause and consider concerns", I have paused since my block. I probably won't resume today, because I have better things to do with my life, and there's no reason for me to shoulder this burden alone. But as for Scott's concerns? I reject them absolutely, in their entirety, and without reservation: there's no need to go through an article by article discussion to remove a protection feature that, by consensus, is not to be used.—Kww(talk) 19:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• (Clerk note) I have removed Kww's responses to other participants in this thread, because the resulting statement, including supplementary material, was far in excess of the 500 word limit. AGK [•] 21:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Shirik

I don't see the issue here, really. There's nothing preventing Scott MacDonald (or any other admin for that matter) from putting up a level of protection as necessary after PC has been removed. For non-admins, that's what RFPP is for. I understand that we need to be a little careful on BLPs, but by Kww's own admission, he has been reviewing each page before removing the PC bit, not just doing it as some bot-like operation. Will mistakes be made? Probably. But mistakes happen every day. And nothing can't be undone. We even have revdelete now so any such unprotected changes that get through due to one of those mistakes isn't even that big of a deal.

The exact topic of this case is, as far as I can tell, not a dispute that is necessary for Arbcom to deal with. However, if anything is to be looked into, it is the block, which was done by an involved admin in a dispute. However, I choose to ignore this issue myself, as it has resolved itself through typical processes in place.

That being said, I personally am not opposed to the thought of some kind of arbcom injunction against removing PC from BLPs, perhaps by saying "semi until otherwise determined safe", but PC needs to die sometime. But really, the time for discussion is over. I thought that's what the RFC was for. It seems like Scott disagrees. An arbcom motion to "please build consensus within this timeframe" is really just a waste of time at this point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by more or less uninvolved Wehwalt

Any involvement I have is limited to saying that the block should be overturned, disclosing that Kww and I had worked together in the past and that I was his nominator on an earlier unsuccessful attempt at adminship. I just want to say that this issue is not worth ArbCom's time. There were, if I recall correctly from what Kww said, about 300 articles remaining that still had pending changes. Simply look through and see if semiprotection is warranted on the BLPs, which are probably not that many of the total. This should not be a major project.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

@arbs, there is little to argue with in the preliminary injunction but what time period is the protection to be set for? Admin discretion, indef, specific time period? Keep in mind that too much discretion might allow your decree to be evaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

Scott has become too involved in this. He wheel-warred against two admins (Ged UK and Kww) who removed PC from Barry Chamish on May 17 and 21, [18] —this was being done in accordance with the closure on May 7 of the RfC—then blocked Kww for removing it from a number of other BLPs. [19] Though there was no support for his position on AN/I, [20] he then threatened to reblock Kww if Kww continued. [21] In addition, this is an article that Scott has recently edited, edits that did not suggest any particular BLP issue. [22] [23] [24] So I urge Scott to stop using the tools in this area.

More generally, one of the issues that has harmed BLP policy on Wikipedia is this kind of aggressive response. It causes people to push against it, as a result of which consensus goes to the dogs, and BLP policy development is once again stymied. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to draw the ArbCom's attention to comments of Scott's where he seems to justify the block: "The block was regrettable and had its desired effect. We've all put the tools down and have started to talk. ..." [25]

And when another admin asked him not to use the tools again in the area of pending changes, he replied: "In the protection on BLPs, I will use the best tools at my disposal. That comes first." [26]

It's completely unacceptable for admins to block established users simply because they disagree with them—especially blocking an admin who's carrying out the consensus of an RfC—and given that Scott won't commit not to use the tools in this area again, I feel the ArbCom really needs to deal with it. Scott has developed a god complex when it comes to BLPs, and it's causing damage. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

Arbitration is the last resort of the dispute resolution process and should only be sought after all efforts by the community to resolve the dispute have been exhausted. As far as I can tell, this dispute is less than a day old and this request is premature. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: My above comment is in regards to the case as requested by Scott. After reading SarekOfVulcan and SoWhy's responses, it is clear that Scott wheel-warred on Barry Chamish[27][28] and blocked Kww[29] with whom he was directly involved in a conflict. Kww also wheel-warred[30] but as SarekOfVulcan points out, that might have been accidental as he went through his list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Carcharoth

I was about to agree with Scott that "this is not an area for gung-ho mass approaches", but then I remembered how the matter of the deletion of unreferenced BLPs was approached en masse in a gung-ho fashion with no individual checking in each case (Kww says that he was checking here in each case before the protection level was changed). There seems to be a disconnect here between how sometimes a mass approach is good and how it is sometimes bad. I don't think it is possible to generalise, other than to say that usually a mass gung-ho approach needs moderately wide consensus (such as by the RfC in question) rather than being adopted by an individual. Unless you view increasing levels of protection (with deletion and salting being the ultimate protection) as progressive steps on a ladder that can be easily implemented by an individual admin, but need some form of discussion to undo. Having said that, it would have been easy to include bot notification of the protecting admin and also a notice on the article talk page (providing that triggers watchlists - I can never remember), before flagged revisions was removed from articles. Wait a week, then have admins willing to do this remove flagged revisions after careful checking of each article, and keep a list of BLPs for a few weeks more to be on the safe side. Unless there was a reason to remove things quicker that I haven't seen yet. That approach might be over-cautious (and not the usual approach to changes in protection levels), but it would have avoided what happened here. BTW, are there figures for how many articles were placed under flagged revisions and how many of them were BLPs? Carcharoth (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

@Kww: as far as I can tell, Scott is only concerned about the BLPs that were under flagged revisions. It seems reasonable to make a list of those BLPs that were under (or still are under) flagged revisions, and provide that list somewhere, for the record if nothing else. It also seems reasonable to notify the protecting administrator where that administrator makes a note in the log to be contacted (I don't know if this was done or not). Articles that are not BLPs are not so much of a concern, but I can't find anywhere something that gives the split in numbers involved between BLPs and non-BLPs. Your concern (and that of others) seems to be primarily to get the trial finished and things tidied up. Scott's concern (and Brad's as well) is to make sure that BLP concerns don't get forgotten. Some people are more cautious about BLPs than others (this is an important point). But you are all on the same side here, and are all reasonable people. I understand that the RfC is months old and needed to be closed, but there should have been no expectation that the switch-off would be to a deadline - if it takes another week or so for the last few articles to be sorted out, that shouldn't be a problem. It should be possible to sort something out without what happened here (and for the record, I disagree with the block that was made). Carcharoth (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple more comments:

(i) One possible misunderstanding that seems to not have been addressed is where Kww says (here) to Scott: "You seem to be under the impression that there is some set of articles that were put on PC independently of the trial". As far as I am aware, some of the articles placed under pending changes were done independently of the trial in the sense that the protecting admin was not thinking "this is a good article to test PC on", but more "this article needs PC so I'm putting it on this article". That obviously requires a slightly different mindset when coming to remove PC. i.e. Not "is it OK to remove PC?" but more "why was PC put on this article in the first place?". Kww saying that "PC itself was only enabled on a trial basis" seems to miss the point being made here. Having said that, it seems that some BLPs were selected specifically to be part of the trial, while some (an unknown number) may have been added by admins as part of what they thought was another tool that could be used ad hoc as needed during the trial period.

(ii) I agree with Kww that some following this may have gained a false impression about the care that he took over his work, which looks exemplary from what I can tell, and at minimum appears to meet the standards expected of administrators. I also agree that something needs to be said about the block (not so much in terms of punishment, but to draw a line under what happened here). Kww's suggestion of "A quick motion reinforcing that admins are free to protect and unprotect articles within the boundaries of guidelines and policies, and that admins are not permitted to block over personal disagreements" seems sensible, and would likely address the concerns raised by the community discussions and comments here and at the noticeboard talk page. Whether Kww and Scott MacDonald are explicitly named or not probably doesn't matter too much, they would both get the message. Anything further that may be a pattern of continuing conduct could be handled under user requests for comments.

(iii) I largely agree with what Wizardman, Cenarium and Chester Markel have said.

Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by mostly-uninvolved SarekOfVulcan

It appears that Scott Macdonald has definitely wheel-warred on Barry Chamish. There's a case to be made that Kww also wheel-warred on that page, but that appears to me to have been incidental in the course of running through his list.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

@FT2 -- I don't see the "Emergency" exception you claim here. When was the last time those pages were vandalized?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@FT2 -- a quick look at Kww's contributions showed that he was adding semi-protection back on to quite a few of the articles he was removing PC protection from. I'm not sure how much more evidence you need than his clear statement that "I am going through one at a time, evaluating article histories, and removing protection or changing to semi-protection as I see the situation warrants."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by ErrantX

At arbcom already? I fear this will boomerang badly onto Scott. For better or for worse (IMO worse, but there you go) consensus is to turn end the pending changes. There is no caveat in that agreement to allow it on any articles. Caution over BLP's is of course a good idea; but Scott doesn't seem to have shown a problem here (either that kww has not take the necessary review of article history or ). Demanding discussion with every protecting admin is just bureaucracy and largely pointless - if an admin views kww's protection measure as not enough then they can easily tweak it at their discretion.

The fact that Scott has blocked kww, wheel warred to re-apply pending changes despite the trial being ended and now bringing it before arbcom does not look good. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved SoWhy

Arbcom is meant to be the last step of dispute resolution that much is true but per Wikipedia:Arbitration it can also be used, when "there is very good cause to believe [all other dispute resolution processes] will not help". I think this is the case here. Scott, as well as a number of other editors, have become very emotionally involved in this conflict and there is nothing to suggest that Scott, who wheel-warred and blocked other admins they disagreed with, will stop acting in this way (having made several statements that suggest this). As such, the best way to resolve this conflict would be for Arbcom to rule clearly what can and cannot be done and to sanction those who breached policy in this case, especially Scott of course who violated both WP:INVOLVED and WP:WHEEL. Regards SoWhy 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Off2riorob

I don't think Scott should be sanctioned for his actions as THE PP RFC closer ( Newyorkbrad ) clearly reflected the position Scott has taken over these two articles in the closure and in his additional closure comments. Scott was requesting discussion prior to removal on a couple or highly sensitive articles for which protection had not been applied as part of the trial but specifically as the best level of protection available for the situation. As a reply to the users claiming Scott is somehow trying to stop the end of the trial and is specifically involved in pending protection that is simply not true, Scott did not even vote in the poll that resulted in the end of trial closure by NYB. Scott needs to let this go though. I understand how hard it is to see what you consider to be a beneficial protection tool removed from articles but for better or worse that was the consensus outcome of the discussion. If an article is not protected enough when pending is removed to semi then fully protect it for a month or two. Without letting it go there will not be a chance in hell of getting any consensus for future use. As soon as the trial is ended (and removed as per the consensus) we can re-poll for capped limited usage which if users can put all this behind them and look with fresh eyes we may just may get a consensus for. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein

As far as I can tell after reading the ANI thread, Scott MacDonald has wheel-warred by reapplying pending changes protection at Barry Chamish after his previous application of this protection was undone by Kww, and then misused his admin tools by blocking Kww, with whom he was by then in a dispute. This is serious misconduct by an administrator and, per WP:WW, warrants a desysop (without prejudice to a reapplication to WP:RFA).

On the merits, I agree with Scott MacDonald that BLPs that have been made subject to pending changes protection should not be taken off protection without an individual review as to whether another form of protection is still needed, but this seems like a problem that can be solved at the community level and, for lack of any dispute resolution efforts to that effect, does not appear ripe for arbitration.  Sandstein  21:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Like Cenarium, I find it very regrettable that the several Committee members who are ready to drop this case seem to be unwilling to do their job by enforcing the very clear policies against admin misconduct - blocking to win a dispute and wheel-warring - that only the Committee is able and expected to enforce. This continues a problematic trend from the recent WP:AESH case, where the Committee (after wasting the time of many people for two months) likewise declined to enforce the supposedly clear rules against overturning arbitration enforcement actions. That is not only unbecoming of their position, but also reinforces the damaging stereotype that we are a two-tier community where admins can effectively do as they please, instead of (as they should be) being held to a substantially higher standard of rule-based conduct. The Committee should spend less time on trying to do the community's job by fiddling around with details of policy implementation, as in their latest injunction, and more time on ensuring compliance with established conduct rules.  Sandstein  22:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by The ed17

I don't really care about flagged revisions a lot (I think it can be very useful, so I'm pretty sure I voted to keep using it?), but I'm much more worried about BLPs. Since when have they mattered so little? It was only a year and a half ago when all of us endured the massive debates over the status of BLPs, whether they could be deleted for having no references, and a major Arbcom motion. I think the main message we took away from that was the defense of BLPs from libelous vandalism should be prioritized. While I think case-by-case discussions are a bit much, I don't see a reason for flagged revisions to not be used on BLPs if there are demonstrated benefits over semi-protection. BLPs have a special status among Wikipedia articles, and if flagged revisions can better protect even a small percentage of them, than we need to use the more-effective tool. This is a textbook example (if there can be one) of where to use IAR.

While the conduct of Scott/Kww is obviously in Arbcom's jurisdiction (if that's the right word), the larger issue of flagged revisions is probably not. However, as established by the 2010 Arbcom motion, I believe the status of BLPs is. I urge Arbcom to craft a motion based on that, with wording which will give administrators the leeway to use flagged revisions on BLPs if a benefit over semi-protection can be demonstrated. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

@DGG, if you are referring to Scott, the quote you cite was written by me (on a user talk page, no less, not in my comment here). If you are referring to me, I have not even mentioned blocking or wheel-warring. Feel free to use the quote, but please don't take it out of context; I was just trying to speak from personal experience as I rarely work with BLPs. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

my error; I redacted below. My apologies. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved roux

BLP is a non-negotiable policy. Anything that makes it easier for that policy to be violated is self-evidently a bad idea. IAR trumps any 'wheel warring' nonsense when it is in very clear defence of a very clear policy mandated by WMF.

Shame on anyone saying that BLP articles should be unprotected and/or removed from flagged revisions. (Shame on anyone who opposes flagged revisions, for that matter; it works perfectly fine elsewhere and enwiki is not special). → ROUX ₪ 22:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

@Kww: "Do you really want to mandate indefinite semi-protection on all BLPs that were in the trial?" - sounds like a good move to me.

@SlimVirgin, regarding Scott's comment about BLP being more important: he's right. BLP trumps all other issues, as mandated by WMF. What part of that is unclear? → ROUX ₪ 02:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Jayen466

There is no rush to remove PC. Scott's proposed timeframe of doing it within a week, after careful discussion of problematic cases, strikes me as more sensible and responsible. --JN466 23:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Protonk

I'm peripherally involved as a strident opponent of PC, but haven't actually used the tools to remove PC from any article. That said, arbcom should take this case up to avoid wheel warring in the future. In general what we are seeing is a manifestation of the BLP "problem". Admins and editors have fought to grant BLP articles special status. I doubt arbcom wants to re-litigate this and I doubt the community has any willingness to change our stance toward BLPs (which is broadly very reasonable). However we continually fail to understand that the dual of such a rarefied toolkit is the responsibility to use it narrowly and judiciously. Specifically because BLPs can be protected (or placed under PC) for almost any reason, we need to be cautious in applying that protection blindly or for ideological reasons. It is clear from this issue that this caution has been abandoned. In fact we have an inversion of the expected model for BLP actions where the extended remit offered by WP:BLP is being used not to inform local and judicious action but to justify broad intransigence.

Further, Scott's argument that "Far more seriously is the reckless way this is being done. Even if all FR is to be removed from BLPs, each needs looked at to ensure no living person is put at increased risk." is a total canard. I doubt it is politically palatable for the committee to label it as such, but we need to get as far away from this insane magical weighing of potential harm as possible. Every action on the wiki (admin or editor) has the potential to bring harm to a living human being. Some actions have a higher probability of causing harm than others, such as extant defamation in an article, the attachment of private information to a pseudnymous account or serious vandalism on a prominent page. Treating the removal of protection of a given article at random as tantamount to inserting defamatory content (which is exactly what this standard implies) is poisonous to discourse and to action on the wiki. Protonk (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Question for arbs

Is the intent of the injunction to prevent admins from changing the protection status of any BLP previously included in the PC trial? I ask because a request at RFPP was declined earlier citing the injunction as cause. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@ FT2

When you say that BLP provides an exception for a host of rules (it certainly doesn't allow an admin to block another admin in a dispute!), do you mean to say that any admin acting on any BLP may skirt rules of conduct? Or do you mean that when an admin finds a BLP violation or seeks to prevent an incipient violation they may break those rules? Because unless we can show that Kww's actions represented an immediate threat then we are basically asserting that when it comes to BLPs we can/should do whatever the hell we feel like.

And I'm sure that you are withholding evidence for:

• "Many of these articles were under PC precisely because they were evaluated by admins to be at above average present risk"
• "There was no evidence of case-by-case checking."

for reasons of parsimony, because it would be a shame to have accusations like that manufactured out of whole cloth. Protonk (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Scott

That's a pretty sensible and gracious statement. I know this (my reply) is wasted space on a RFAR, but I'm glad you made it. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Wizardman

I'll make this short and sweet, since I don't plan to get involved with this case, though as someone who was removing PC without incident, my notes may be useful. The Pending Changes Trial ended a long time ago, and there was consensus on ending it and removing the articles, I was in favor of ending it so that guidelines can be implemented on where PC should be activated, which levels are appropriate, and the like. Once that last step was settled, the many PC issues would finally (mostly) be over, since we would all know what to do with it.

I want to see PC brought to a wider scale, but that wasn't going to happen until the trial was done, and as a result the articles with PC went from ~1000 to ~200. However, Scott Macdonald had a problem with this, blocking Kww. If the two had warred back and forth on an article, then perhaps a block would have been okay, but Kww never re-removed PC to any article Scott restored, so the block was ridiculous.

By blocking Kww, bringing this to arbitration, and wasting time, Scott may have, ironically, screwed the process over, since it is going to take this much longer now to get pending changes guidelines finalized. The only way to get PC wrapped up and an ideal part of the community would be for Arbcom to decline this, trout Scott, and for someone to get the wheels in motion on finalizing guidelines, sooner rather than later.

Because of how this has went down though, there's the chance of a chilling effect throughout the entire process, which I hope doesn't happen... Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by peripherally-involved Jéské Couriano

During this third round of the RfC I predicted that the losing side would take it up to the Arbitration Committee in an attempt to cause an endrun around the consensus. One day after the deadline given by Newyorkbrad (May 20) has passed, PC supporters have taken it up to the Arbitration Committee in an attempt to cause an endrun around the consensus.

Pardon my French... but these people need to man up, stop displaying such bad faith, accept the fucking consensus, and stop holding the rest of the encyclopedia hostage. (And to you PC supporters, I would be writing this same section had the consensus gone the other way.) The arguments about BLPs needing special protection are a very poor straw man argument, and that's because of this [EXCESSIVELY LONG RANT ABOUT BLP AND BLP CRUSADERS OMITTED AS IRRELEVANT]. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Committee) I have to honestly ask, what were you trying to accomplish with the injunction? The issue mainly at hand here is the blatant wheel-warring by Scott Mac; the PC debacle is essentially the curtain. Tear the curtain down and focus on the behavior of the man behind it. The injunction is a waste of time and effort, and even if I may get blocked for this, I encourage all administrators, Scott Mac included, to willfully ignore it and use their best judgment, as is required by the prot-pol, and act as is appropriate. Anybody wheel-warring should be dragged up to ArbCom for a deop. End of. Stop beating around the bush, and actually do something useful. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 04:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by very peripherally involved DGG

Like some others, my only involvement has been a certain amount of skepticism regarding the PC trial in general, and a definite support of the decision to end it. The relevant policy here is that we decide things by consensus, and arb com's previous statement that calling out "BLP" is not a free pass to do whatever one wants. We have the BLP policies we do because we have consensus for them, and do not have a variety of other proposals suggested at one time or another (such as having no BLPs at all in the encyclopedia ) because we did not have consensus. In this case we had very clear consensus initially that the trial was to end at a fixed date--without the commitment to end at that time it would never have been adopted. It was continued past that anyway on various excuses, and then in a final RfC, concluded that it was to end immediately without more ado. One admin would prefer to set his own private conditions, unsupported by policy, and insists on blocking to gain his position, and announces his intent to wheel-war if necessary to maintain it. He alleges various problems , none of which can be demonstrated. He alleges in a comment above one additional problem he found, about a article that wasn't a BLP.[31] Of course BLPs are important but that is why hwe have policy to deal with them, not relying purely on each of 700 active admin's different individual discretion. An admin using his own discretion in direct opposition to policy is a hazard to Wikipedia. I am amazed to see the motion below, which I think amounts to an endorsement of his position, a position in defiance of the community. Arb com is here to prevent not encourage behavior non-compliant with community policy. What I would rather have expected , is a summary de-sysop of Scott Mac by motion to prevent his threatened wheel-warring. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In view of subsequent comments by Scott on User talk:Carcharoth, I totally withdraw the struck out lines above, especially the last sentence. the state of mind of everyone concerned is much clearer than it was 3 days ago. I offer Scott my apologies. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Sjakkalle

Blocking someone whom you are in a edit conflict with is the clearest possible breach of WP:INVOLVED, and an obvious case of administrator misconduct. I am puzzled as to why no sanction (at least an admonishment) is being considered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Eraserhead1

As a supporter of Pending Changes who wants to see it used more widely this is really a very poor admin decision. An admin making an end-run around consensus is outrageous and needs to be treated severely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Tijfo098

I like the new Wikipedia policy of having ArbCom mandate semi-protection or full protection of BLPs. This turd of an article (previously PC2 protected [32]) indeed needed no edits from mere editors, only fancy templating from admins [33]! 11:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Guy Macon

Scott Mac's decision to block Kww for implementing that consensus had a chilling effect on any future administrator who might consider implementing a decision made by consensus. It should be made clear that such a block is not within Wikipedia policy. Especially troubling are the statements by Scott Mac on his talk page indicating that he believes that he is free to ignore consensus and that he fully intends to use administrative tools as he sees fit to override consensus. In addition, the behavior detailed at User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt should be carefully looked at. It appears that this is another example of using administrator rights against another editor during the course of a dispute, which in my opinion is a clear abuse of power. Guy Macon (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

@FT2

I carefully read your "This is about Scott's reasonable (or unreasonable) perceptions and understandings" argument. I really wanted to believe that Scott's actions might not have been as bad as they appear. Alas, when I asked him to agree to never again use admin powers in a dispute he is involved in but instead to ask an uninvolved admin to use his admin powers, Scott made it quite clear that he agrees to no such thing and reserves the right to use admin tools in disputes he is involved with. He has further threatened to quit Wikipedia if the arbcom even considers limiting his ability to use admin powers in a dispute he is involved in. That's going way beyond any "reasonable (or unreasonable) perceptions and understandings." That's actively refusing to agree to follow the rules. Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sufficient votes to close?

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures says that a request will proceed to arbitration if its acceptance has been supported by at least four net votes, with "four net votes" defined as the number of votes to support or accept is at least four greater than the number of votes to oppose or decline.

There are fifteen active arbitrators on the committee (three inactive). Thirteen have voted to give us the current 6/6/1/0 vote. For this to go to arbitration, both remaining active arbitrators and two out of the three inactive arbitrators would have to vote for it.

It appears to me that there are sufficient votes to close this as declined. What am I missing? Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Request by Jehochman

For the prevention of feuds would you please accept ths case and sanction any wrongdoing. It's not proper to leave serious accusations hanging. Either sanction, or clear them. Jehochman ^Talk 12:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by TotientDragooned

This case is not really about BLPs, it's about admin conduct including wheel warring and blocking while involved, conduct over which Arbcom has primary jurisdiction. Those declining this case are implicitly endorsing this behavior. TotientDragooned (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Wnt

In User talk:Scott MacDonald#Pending changes, where this dispute originated, Scott Mac called Pending Changes "the only viable protection" and questioned whether any other method of protection could achieve a better result. Also note that Kww invited Scott Mac to impose any normal protection status he felt was appropriate for the disputed articles. This is consistent with Scott Mac's comment at Talk:Barry Chamish that PC "was not set as part of the trial, but because of distinct and particular BLP concerns with this article."

However, I believe that PC is not a viable mechanism of protection, not merely because consensus is against it, but because we have no policy saying what reviewers should accept and what they should reject, nor what the qualifications for reviewers are, nor under what circumstances the reviewer right should be revoked. This becomes clear at User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt and related conversations at Talk:Pippa Middleton, where Scott Mac first claimed the right to unilaterally revoke reviewer rights for one user who approved an edit, sourced to the Chicago Sun-Times and other reliable sources, because he felt it was "trivial" and not the right kind of thing for a BLP. He then claimed the right to revoke my reviewer rights because of an edit I made on the talk page where I argued that we should feel free to include all reliably sourced material. Now I can't say that he violated policy there because, as I said, we have no policy.

But the outcome is that we have one person claiming the power to unilaterally impose PC on an article, which in turn means that edits only appear after being found suitable, on a subjective basis, by someone he agrees with. Indeed, at Talk:Dustin Diamond Scott Mac speaks of edits that "are good faith but violate BLP. It is therefore useful not to have any edit immediately published before being scrutinised, and (if no one else does it) I am willing to scrutinise all edits." I believe that this kind of domination of an article by one admin, made possible by the existence of the PC mechanism, goes to a whole new level beyond WP:OWN. It is anathematic to the collaborative model heretofore used on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I've recused myself on this request because the dispute is, to a large extent, an outgrowth of my closure of the pending-changes-trial RfC, a closure that to a certain extent is still ongoing. I don't usually close RfCs, but several editors came to my talkpage and asked me to close this one, suggesting I might be seen as a voice of consensus (a status I have pretty well blown by now). My role in closing this RfC has nothing to do with my ArbCom responsibilities.

For those interested, I've added some additional comments to the RfC talkpage tonight, commenting on some of the criticisms that have been made on the extension of the closure I posted on Friday night. To the extent any of that is relevant here, please consider it incorporated in this section; this will become even longer if I retype it all.

This RfC posed the specific question of whether pending changes (PC) should be turned off on the articles that had PC status in the trial that was started last year (without prejudice to the longer-term future of PC or flagged revisions). I determined (it was pretty obvious) that there was a consensus to terminate the trial; but I also found that to do so responsibly would require a couple of weeks for administrators to review the articles still under PC, especially BLPs, to see if alternatives such as semiprotection needed to be applied. I also asked whether there would be support for allowing a very small number of articles to remain on PC, despite the conclusion of the trial, if it could be shown that they were at very high risk and nothing else would work as well to protect them.

Following my closure, no one came to the RfC page to suggest a specific article in that category. On his talkpage, however, Scott MacDonald made some highly relevant comments (see, User talk:Scott MacDonald#Dustin Diamond). I asked him to come to the RfC and comment there, but to my regret he declined to do so.

(This past Friday night, I supplemented my closure by extending the deadline for removing PC for a final week (because the review process hadn't been completed yet, with a couple of hundred articles remaining on PC), and by proposing a specifically worded, narrow exception that would allow PC to remain in place on very-high-risk BLP articles during the interim period until a final decision is made on the fate of PC/FR. It is fair to say that on the RfC talkpage, reaction to both the one-week extension and the proposed high-risk BLP interim exception has been overwhelmingly negative.)

Scott MacDonald's efforts to keep Wikipedia articles about living persons—which, it cannot be emphasized too strongly, almost invariably become the number-one Google hit on an individual's name and can impact their subjects' lives—free of defamatory, harassing, privacy-invading, and inadequately sourced content have been of long standing. In fact, although there are others also to be commended, Scott is probably the single administrator who has most dedicated his time and efforts on Wikipedia to addressing the group of issues that we (somewhat simplistically) lump together as the BLP problem. In addition to practical efforts addressed to individual articles, he is also one of our leading voices in identifying and theorizing conceptual aspects of BLP-related issues—and as someone who has also done a little of this work and hopes to do more, I can only envy the writing style in his essays. (Scott's work was, I might mention, among the sources that helped me gain my own understanding of some of these issues when I was a relatively new Wikipedian—for example, here.)

I do not want to see Scott MacDonald's continuing and important work hampered by his losing his adminship, and I hope that this request that he filed doesn't turn into an instance of this. We need him here, and we need him here as an administrator. But it might be best if henceforth he were to consult with other administrators before blocking established users based upon differences of opinion in BLP-laden meta-disputes on which he has strong views.

Kww's dedication to the project is also well-known and is appreciated, and I am willing to accept that he was assessing the need for ongoing protection on PC articles as he was removing the PC flag from each of them, even though this may not have been self-evident to others at the time. I do not agree with all the comments he has made about PC and BLP in the past few days, but we can leave that for the RfC page—where in any event it appears that the weight of consensus at the moment lies largely with him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to draw the attention of the sitting arbitrators to Scott MacDonald's latest comments above (posted yesterday but I don't believe any of the arbitrators has noted them in the voting section), as well as the discussion on User talk:Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

The Arbcom has responsibility for overseeing the admin corps. Several Arbitrators who've voted to take no action are effectively endorsing the block of one admin by another, just to get his attention. This is despite the fact that the blocked admin was not engaging in any policy violations. If that block goes without any official sanction then it sets a very bad example.   Will Beback  talk  03:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by observer PaoloNapolitano

What we have to keep in mine is that no computer can think like an editor skilled in the art of understanding, interpreting and enforcing Wikipedia's codes, etiquettes and rules. Making more of an effort to improve the administrators would help a great desk more than having computerised bots determining what is good and bad. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cenarium

There is clear evidence that Kww used judgment on each of the transitions he made, as acknowledged by Newyorkbrad, in full accordance with the protection policy and taking care of the article and protection specifics, to the exception of one mistake. The characterization as 'mass actions' of 55 transitions, of which 29 to semi-protection and 26 to no protection is disingenuous at best. Among them, there has been one mistake, but Scott didn't even know about it when he blocked. Scott wheel-warred and blocked Kww because he didn't want to hear consensus and didn't want consensus to be applied. I agree that the conduct of Scott MacDonald, particularly his wheel warring, blocking of the admin he was in opposition with, reckless disregard of consensus, actions taken against standing consensus, and unwarranted and highly combative escalation of the situation to ANI and RFAR which resulted in massive disruption of the project, should be considered by arbcom and appropriately remedied. I regret that this has come to this in light of Scott's generally commendable efforts with regard to BLPs, but this has become excessively disruptive.
With regard to the injunction, the plan had always been for admins to transition to no protection, SP or FP, with all due regards to the article and protection specifics, in accordance with the protection policy. I've already commented on it in substance, let's just say that since arbcom unofficially acknowledges that admin discretion applies after the transition has been made, it's nothing but a political stunt in order to appear tough on the BLP issue. I don't blame arbs because BLP is a hot spot and they are expected by many to act on it, but seriously you should make a better job at keeping in sight with reality. Well, anyway, that's politics as usual, right.
As a general observation, if it were not for the reckless actions of some overzealous users who wanted PC immediately, we would have a consensual permanent PC implementation by now. Cenarium (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

@ iridescent: Even if the main parties agree to put this aside, it doesn't remove arbcom's responsibilities. An admin wheel warred in defiance of a community decision and blocked the other admin for applying that community decision. This is very high on the list of admin offenses and should be considered by arbcom, lest you want this to set precedent for future admin conduct. Cenarium (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

@ iridescent: This may be your view of arbcom's role with regard to admin conduct, but it seems not to be shared by several arbitrators who repeatedly stated that the committee will respond strenuously to serious wheel warring, even if the dispute itself is resolved. Prior decisions reflect that somehow, but with a curious inconsistence. What I expect is some consistency in your response to admin misconduct, especially so as to avoid perceived or actual personal or political bias with regard to the parties or their causes. Cenarium (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

@ FT2 You do realize that Kww transitioned to SP or no protection 55 articles and that in the past few days hundreds of articles have been transitioned ? There are plenty of admins who did this, and many have made much more transitions than Kww. Moreover it seems evident that you didn't even look at Kww's transitions, in no reasonable way can Kww's transitions be considered 'high-speed', since we're talking about 55 actions over four hours, there is not a glimpse of evidence that Kww didn't use judgment on each and every case, only one mistake has been found. Kww followed all relevant policy, all of his actions were clearly within admin discretion, there were no cause whatsoever for Scott's disruption, it just seems that Kww has become a scapegoat for some who would like stronger policies on BLPs. This is truly egregious behavior. Cenarium (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Chester Markel

Scott MacDonald's actions have caused immense harm to the cause of BLP enforcement. By holding himself out as one of Wikipedia's most "pro-BLP" admins, then engaging in egregious misconduct, he's tarred other supporters of the policy with the same brush. The wheel warring and involved blocking are the most obvious and disruptive examples of this phenomenon. But he also causes problems in more subtle ways: User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt explains how Scott removed reviewer rights from Wnt because of a disagreement with the latter's talk page comment over the reliability and appropriateness of a source. No longer content to allow open talk page discussions about whether particular sources should be included in BLPs, Scott has apparently decided to punish editors for expressing unapproved opinions. BLP enforcement requires community involvement, since Scott + arbcom + OTRS cannot undertake all of it themselves. These highly problematic actions taken in the name of BLP need to be stopped, before they result in a massive push-back against the policy, if they haven't already. Chester Markel (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by FT2

Scott's actions have WP:ADMIN, WP:BLP, WP:BLOCK support and Arbcom encouragement. Many of these articles were under PC precisely because they were evaluated by admins to be at above average present risk. Kww had insufficiently appreciated that some BLPs could be at risk, nor that some risks might not be visible (suppression? harassment?). There was no evidence of case-by-case checking. This created a reasonable prospect of ill-considered, imminent, and high speed deprotection of too many "at risk" articles to manage against vandalism/BLP violations in a timely manner. Other admins tried to discuss the concern and had failed or were failing. As such it falls within the letter and spirit of policy and expectations.

• Admin policy has been stable for years. A long-standing stable policy shows a much wider consensus than any individual ANI or talk page discussion, as it implies a consensus of the very many users over several years who have implicitly endorsed that policy. While admins are discouraged or forbidden from reverting or re-reverting ("wheel warring") other admins' actions, policy is very clear and explicit that it allows four rare exceptions. His actions are within the spirit or letter of 3 of these 4:

BLP

Emergency, and

Page protection to obtain discussion in lieu of severe disruption.

• Blocking policy - Emphasizes that the purpose of blocking is to prevent/deter future harmful activity (even in the mis-belief the actions are appropriate). It is highly expected that admins will listen and consult, so valid cases of admins blocking admins are extremely rare. But it has happened a handful of times. Kww believed he was authorized, and was about to potentially leave many targeted and vulnerable articles unprotected. While good faith and careful, this was ill considered given the requests to pause and discuss concerns. Attempts by multiple admins failed. The matter was serious. The criteria for a block were met, even though it is highly unusual for an admin to need to block another admin to prevent a course of action.

• Past Arbcom rulings - A final point is that Arbcom has previously signaled the correctness of, and its support for, "aggressive" maintenance of BLPs by administrators. In 2010 it was ruled that IAR and "wide discretion" exist to "enforce [BLP] policies and principles using their own best judgment", and administrators were "instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people". Scott and others were "commended" for their draconian tool use in BLP enforcement, albeit told to avoid chaotic actions (which this case is not). Dissenters and objectors were criticized.

  Having formally "instructed" all admins to protect BLPs with words such as "aggressively", his actions, especially with the support of both admin policy and BLP, in good faith, and after attempts to discuss, are effectively "as directed".

Scott acted within a reasonable understanding of Admin policy, and within the spirit of BLP and within blocking policy. They were clearly intended for the limited function of procuring debate to avoid unmanageable BLP issues. They followed concerns and pleas by multiple admins to desist and discuss, so were not his alone.

Kww acted in good faith too, believing consensus had spoken and wishing to avoid interminable rehashing of a long debate, but insufficiently open to concerns.

Best outcome? Accept everyone acted in good faith, and community + injunction handled this already. Possible ruling on principles rather than individuals.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• (Clerk note) I have removed FT2's responses to other participants in this thread, because the resulting statement, including supplementary material, was far in excess of the 500 word limit. AGK [•] 21:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/6/1/0)

• Comment: Scott MacDonald, on what basis do you state that Kww has not reviewed each article individually and made a determination? Risker (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline per Kirill Lokshin. This situation appears to be on its way to de-escalation. Risker (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • • • • Note to all interested individuals, whether parties or not: Shirik (talk · contribs) has now completed the report on all BLPs that have had pending changes applied at any time during the trial. Results are located here. Date/time of application of PC is listed in the "first added" column, and date/time of removal/expiry of PC is listed in the "last removed" column. Those with the word "NULL" in the last removed column did not have pending changes manually reviewed (this includes both those where it automatically expired and those that continue to have pending changes applied). Those with a "1" in the "is configured for PC" column continue to have pending changes configured. Please feel free to proceed with any review that is desired. Risker (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment (lean decline accept ) -I see alot of good intentions and increasing frustration. We can be retrospective here (a case) or we can be more prospective (a motion and/or injunction) towards finding interim and final answers here. Am leaning towards the latter for reasons of utility of time, but am awaiting further comments. Much as I hate this path because of use of timeand bigger-picture issues, I sense we have to review admin conduct here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • @FT2 -"Scott was reasonably within policy and practice by every standard I can find" - is really stretching things. He pretty clearly did transgress some admin conduct boundaries (in my opinion). The key question is does the BLP issue justify it enough, and more prospective and constructive dialogue afterwards mean we should skip examination of admin conduct and move on. Does pragmatism and the bigger picture view of wikipedia and the BLP section mean we make a decision not to examine and make a ruling on admin conduct here. So FT2 I am really not impressed with some end-justifies-the-means thinking in this case, I think even Scott is more contrite than that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse. I will be submitting a statement above, but am travelling this weekend and probably will not be able to post it until tomorrow night (New York time). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Now posted, above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• accept I was hoping that we were not going to have another "forcing of the issue" here. but it's here, it's done, and I think we're going to have to deal with it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Accept While noting specifically that we're going to look at how admins should conduct themselves when faced with a consensus (or as close to one as we're going to get around here) to make large changes which may have BLP implications. The review of the RfC and its closure are off the table, as far as I'm concerned, else almost all of the committee would have to recuse. For full disclosure, I've openly opined that if PC was removed, it would be the removing administrator's obligation to replace level 1 PC with semi and level 2 PC with full on any BLP that had PC enabled. If either party thinks that makes me too wrapped up in the particular dispute to fairly arbitrate how admins should conduct themselves in such a situation, I will recuse. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline. The proposed injunction should be enough to mitigate the pressing concerns about BLPs losing necessary levels of protection. Beyond that, I see no particular need for a full case at this stage; the circumstances leading to these particular events are rather unique, and we are not at a point where a broader re-examination of compliance with the BLP policy is required. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Trout; Kww: any mass action that raises a good faith concern needs to be paused and discussed; to hell with deadlines. The worse that could have happened is a couple of lingering FP for a while. Scott: blocking was out of proportion, and wheel warring is always worse than whatever it was done for.

  Otherwise, decline with the expectation that the injunction fixes the immediate problem and that this kind of misbehavior won't repeat itself. — Coren ^(talk) 05:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • @Kww: If it makes you feel any better, I certainly do not see you as a "wrongdoer". As I've said elsewhere, this explosion — while regrettable — was caused by the violent collision of two volatile issues and not because of any ongoing misbehavior. — Coren ^(talk) 00:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Accept - to look at the conduct of the admins, especially in regard to undertaking mass actions, wheel warring and involved blocking. PhilKnight (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. I did comment at the RFC, but I don't see the relevance. I don't think the motion was the right one, but I wasn't available to vote on it, so its a bit moot. I also think that an RFAr is not the place to rewrite the BLP policy. But I do think wheel warring admins, impatient admins who won't wait for a community discussion to finish, admins issuing blocks in the middle of the same discussion etc, does fall into the arbcom remit, and needs to be examined Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Accept to examine the conduct issues only, and I'll change that to "decline" if it becomes clear that Scott and Kww have put the matter behind them. Unless the process of ending the PC trial and deciding whether to ditch it or restart with less buggy software becomes completely deadlocked, I don't feel it appropriate for Arbcom to be ruling-by-fiat on the matter; since this impasse hasn't yet been reached, I wouldn't want to see this turn into a lobby for supporters and opponents of the various options to shout at each other. – iridescent 14:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Cenarium: Arbcom is neither a punishment mechanism, not a process for creating case law; it's specifically for dispute resolution. If Scott and KWW both kiss-and-make-up and the underlying problem doesn't continue, then there's no dispute to resolve. The "masters of the universe clause" which would allows Arbcom to rewrite policy in extreme circumstances ("… in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those[policy and content] questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision") doesn't seem to apply here; since Pending Changes is now shut down, by definition there's no "further disruption" against which to protect the project. If neither of the parties in the case feel there's an issue any longer, then continuing with the case regardless is just a case of process-for-the-sake-of-process. – iridescent 17:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Change to decline. While I doubt Scott and Kww are going to agree with each other, they appear to be discussing their differences reasonably, and appear both to understand why the other acted the way they did. Since the current version of PC is now deprecated, the situation is not going to arise again so there's no point in setting precedent. The old Arbcom may have sometimes issued sanctions as much for symbolism as anything else, this isn't something that should be encouraged unless some demonstrable benefit would come from it, and I can't see the benefit in a long timesink of a case which will end in a lot of bad feeling and not much actual effect. This "decline" is not an endorsement of either Scott's or Kww's actions; people so convinced that their own personal opinions are the one true path and thus feel morally justified in dismissing the concerns of other people regardless of their number or their arguments are the bane of Wikipedia. There's an awful lot of convincing evidence above pointing to this being Scott's view of his take on the BLP issue; likewise, stunts like this seem to suggest that Kww is convinced that anyone disagreeing with his personal take on how things should be done is only doing so to be disruptive. If either party restarts taking unilateral action on any related issue and refuses to stop and discuss the matter when given a reasonable request to do so, I'm sure they'll be hauled back here fairly quickly; hopefully that won't happen. – iridescent 16:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Accept for conduct issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • change to decline. Scott and Kww appear to have put their own issue behind them, the pending changes matter will be wrapping itself up, and since Scott has expressed that he would not repeat the same behavior I see little reason to continue further trout-slapping the parties. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Decline,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary injunction

Any administrator who removes pending changes protection from any article flagged as a biography of a living person shall replace level 1 pending changes with semi-protection of an equivalent duration and replace level 2 pending changes with full protection of an equivalent duration. This measure shall be effective immediately, and administrators who have recently removed pending changes from biographies of living persons articles are expected to assure that these protection levels are applied to articles from which pending changes protection has been removed.

This injunction has been enacted. NW (Talk) 15:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

Support As proposer, per my commentary above. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I can go with this.. SirFozzie (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC) This should be sufficient to address any immediate concerns. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC) @Kww: The current wording does not require that the stated protection levels and durations be permanently retained, but only that they be set so when pending changes protection is removed. The intent of the injunction is to ensure that vulnerable articles do not remain unprotected before their status can be adequately reviewed; the community is free to adjust levels and durations in the future, once such reviews have taken place. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support. I am well aware that a significant portion of the articles placed on pending changes were placed there indefinitely without any particular rationale, and that a set period may be more appropriate once returning to one of the classic levels of protection; however, this can be reviewed over the course of the next few months. Several admins make regular passes through the "long term protected article" reports, and that would be an appropriate time for review. Risker (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC) To aid the community in this review function, I have made a request at Meta/Tech for a list of articles that could possibly fit into this category, and have touched base with MZMcBride, who has indicated he will look into this in the next 48 hours. Risker (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Try and nip the concerns right now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Very good idea - was actually going to propose this myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC) This is fine, however this injunction only applies to the protection level immediately after the PC protection is removed; the protection status thereafter is subject to normal consensus practises. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Absolutely. Though, since we now lack PC, there are clearly going to be articles that would have been unprotected but PC1 that will end up staying semi, and articles that were PC2 (with or without semi) that will end up being fully protected indefinitely. Pending changes was fundamentally an attempt to allow pre-approved editing in lieu of those protection levels, and its absence will undoubtedly prompt some changes in how protection is applied. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC) That should do as a stopgap. — Coren (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Should help de-escalate this. PhilKnight (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose Comment Note that as of Coren's vote, half of the active arbs have supported, and as of PhilKnight's vote, half of all arbs and a majority of active arbs have supported, with none opposed. Since the expectation involved covers all recent de-PC'ing of BLPs, admins who have made any relevant changes should feel free to begin implementing it without needing to wait for official certification by a clerk. Jclemens (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)