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)[reply]

@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.

If flagged revisions is to be removed from all BLPs without exception (and there are doubts as to whether we do anything without common sense exceptions!!) then I'd suggest that all flagged BLPs be listed somewhere so a number of admins can review them. Perhaps the vast majority will be straightforward - but some may need some discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Carcaroth: the closure of the RFC mandated that the process of removing protection from all articles was to be completed yesterday. We now have a seven-day extension to get the job done, and Newyorkbrad described that extension as "final". There were over 1200 articles on PC, there are now 165 left (there were 260 this morning: Wizardman and I have been working on it today and got to 95 of them). I'm proceeding under a quite strong consensus and mandate to do this effectively and expediently. Life would be better spent reviewing my decisions and seeing where you disagree. As I've stated numerous times today, I've got no objection to review and adjustment of my decisions, as long as people don't try to extend the trial further by putting the articles back under PC.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, [1] —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. [2] Though there was no support for his position on AN/I, [3] he then threatened to reblock Kww if Kww continued. [4] In addition, this is an article that Scott has recently edited, edits that did not suggest any particular BLP issue. [5] [6] [7] 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 go to the dogs, and BLP policy development is once again stymied. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

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)[reply]

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

Initiated by Wayne (talk) at 17:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

WLRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Apostle12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bilby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by WLRoss

This case revolves around some disputed edits, the behaviour of Phoenix and Winslow specifically and to a lesser extent the behaviour of editors WLRoss (myself), MONGO and Apostle12. The edits in question can be seen here and here. The dispute has gone on since January and there have now been three noticeboards instigated by Phoenix and Winslow to have the edits excluded as conspiracy theory and despite all failing, partly due to the low number of uninvolved editors and partly due to a general rejection of the edits being conspiracy theory, he continues to reject the edits in their entirety. Bilby has been included despite minimal involvement as he has commented in support of the edits and Phoenix and Winslow has since specifically accused him of stalking and giving such support in that context.

Phoenix and Winslow’s behaviour throughout the dispute, his behaviour since the closure of the WP:FTN, the canvassed support of MONGO; who has just posted: You've repeatedly attempted to turn this article into some delusional fantasyland of far out bullshit...it is a HOAX…that sort of misuse of Wikipedia ultimately will get you blocked or topic banned or both (with the edit comment “Get lost”), along with their repeatedly stated intention to delete and rewrite the article to also exclude long standing material added by other editors, has indicated that Arbitration may be the only way to resolve whether the proposed edits (and also related current content) are conspiracy theory or legitimate context and also determine what is acceptable behaviour by the involved parties. If this case is accepted for arbitration I will supply specific diffs to illustrate Phoenix and Winslow’s behaviour and of editors attempts to work with him.

Response to statement by Phoenix and Winslow: Although I will participate if required and abide by any findings if my behaviour is in any way at fault, I do not believe mediation will resolve this dispute as Phoenix and Winslow's editing behaviour indicates he is unwilling to accept that he has in any way been unreasonable. Content is only peripheral to the main dispute which is Phoenix and Winslow's behaviour. Phoenix and Winslow's refusal to accept reliably sourced content on the basis it "may" be used by conspiracy theorists (see examples here), editing against consensus when it is gained, his adding at least two outright lies to the article and reverting to keep them in, adding unreferenced text to unrelated articles to support edits in this one and his insistance that edits have 100% consensus with the exception of deletions for what he considers are policy violations has led to his effective ownership of the page. As shown by my diffs above, editors have attempted to accomodate Phoenix and Winslow's concerns and work with him without success. I was hoping that a decision on content would lead to constructive collaboration. I do have to respond to several claims Phoenix and Winslow has made here. To my knowledge I have not reported this case to the NPOV noticeboard (or any other). The claimed unanimous support from previously uninvolved editors at the WP:RSN was not unanimous and resolution was only achieved after Phoenix and Winslow canvassed editors, who unanimously support him. I accepted that they were responding in good faith and accepted the resolution. In regards to my favorite source, I rarely used it and then only when supported by primary sources (Phoenix and Winslow has even claimed that this source has added material to the primary sources to support his case). I am not familiar with Arbitration and if this is the wrong venue for editor behaviour, please suggest an appropriate solution.

Response to statement by Bilby: I agree with his statement. I recognise his minimal involvement but felt the stalking accusation was serious enough to require attention. Please accept my apology if inclusion was not warranted.

Response to statement by MONGO: I fail to see what my 911 editing articles has to do with this case when my editing in that area has never been an issue. Did I upset someone by being a NPOV editor who often wins 911 content disputes? Is this why MONGO has developed an interest in other articles I edit? I also fail to see how the Grand Jury findings, the state government investigation findings and the working brief given to the Franklin Committee can be considered disinformation, fringe or undue weight. I have gone out of my way to exclude fringe material no matter how well sourced, even when it meant agreeing with Phoenix and Winslow. MONGO has even personally checked the sources and found them to be legitimate yet he still refers to garbage sources I have not used to discredit through misdirection. I also fail to see how my making two more edits in four years than Phoenix and Winslow has made in five months indicates ownership on my part, I made 57 edits in those five months compared to Phoenix and Winslow's 103 edits. Wayne (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]; I have no problem with verifying the sources and encourage it, what I object to is continuing to falsly claim I'm using unreliable sources when you have personally checked their legitimacy. Wayne (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by uninvolved NuclearWarfare: Agree, a mediation Cabal may be able to give direction. I understand the WP:TLDR issue. I bent over backwards to keep this a content issue to avoid getting Phoenix and Winslow sanctioned but I find it impossible to ignore continual accusations and misdirection directed at me in place of intelligent discussion regarding the problems with or merits of edits. Failure to respond could be taken by some to be an admission of guilt. Unfortunately I also have a passion for detail and as I am used to proof-reading University papers, find long detailed replies easier to understand than short replies. I do try to be brief and always cut down my drafts before posting, for example my original opening statement was 2,497 words so I had to trim it a bit. Wayne (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by Arbitrator Jclemens: I'm unclear on the reference to problematic BLP content. Virtually all the disputed edits are sourced from the Grand Jury presiding judges decision, The findings of the States investigative committee and from legal affadavits. I believe these comply with Wikipedia's three core BLP content policies. While the reference actually used is a self published website that has scanned copies of the originals, the original sources are available and have been checked for accuracy by an editor (MONGO) who opposes the edits but are not available to read online unless individually purchased. The self published source is only used to allow the originals to be read for free. If the self published source is unacceptable, then the originals can be linked to again, as they were before an opposing editor (Phoenix and Winslow) introduced this website to support his own edits. Wayne (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by Arbitrator SirFozzie: There has been no finding on whether there actually is a WP BLP issue. Legal advice is that there are none in regards to Bryant but WP has not even addressed whether a higher standard applies to it's own policies. Now that the article history has been deleted, which prevents the BLP problems being seen, this will result in the original issues not only flaring up again but becoming worse now that another problematic editor is involved. If BLP is the problem it must be addressed. Wayne (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by Arbitrator John Vandenberg: In light of statements by "those responsible for this mess", it is clear that they have no intention of modifying their behaviour and will continue to delete material they do not like. Editors need a clear guideline. Wayne (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phoenix and Winslow

The Arbitration Committee cannot resolve content disputes. Essentially, this is a content dispute. WLRoss has also skipped some intermediate steps in dispute resolution, notably mediation. While I would welcome the committee's attention to the tendentious editing, POV-pushing, WP:WEIGHT violations and general WP:FRINGE behavior on the part of Apostle12 and WLRoss, I do not believe this case is yet ready for the committee's attention. I'm not sure what it is that WLRoss finds objectionable about our behavior, other than protecting Wikipedia from becoming a resource gathering point for WP:FRINGE theorists, which is apparently where he's trying to go with this article.

WLRoss has also reported this case to at least one noticeboard (the NPOV noticeboard), where he got no support. I reported it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, where I got unanimous support from previously uninvolved editors to disqualify the favorite source being used by Apostle12 and WLRoss. Since then, they have done their very best to introduce the same material in support of WP:FRINGE theory by other means.

I've also reported it to the Fringe Theory noticeboard, where both WLRoss and Apostle12 have responded with such an enormous torrent of obscuring details that no uninvolved editor wants to become involved. I suggest that mediation is the best step at this point and if WLRoss refuses that, or refuses to comply with the results, we can move to the next step in dispute resolution. This is premature. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bilby

I'm very surprised to see myself listed as a party here - my limited involvement came through WLRoss, who I had interacted with on Hey Dad..! and still had his page watchlisted [8]. When I saw the RFC/U request on his talk page I had a look, as it didn't seem to fit with the WLRoss I'd spoken to before, and I knew the editor who raised it. I chose not to get involved, as I didn't feel I would be helpful due to an ongoing low-level dispute with Phoenix and Winslow. After it was closed as uncertified and moved to the Fringe noticeboard, I checked in.

As no substantive comments by anyone beyond the involved parties had been made, I made a total of three comments: [9], [10], [11]. My concern was that there were extensive accusations, but that there was no evidence provided. The only diff was from WLRoss [12], and it seemed insufficient to prove anything either way. So I asked for diffs in the hope of having something concrete for editors to discuss. None were provided.

I have not edited the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article, and have no intention of doing so. I had no involvement in the RFC/U, and no involvement on any talk page related to this - the three diffs constitute my full involvement.

However, as I have been included here I will note three things.

The lack of diffs will make this very difficult to evaluate. This may be because this sort of problem doesn't come down to isolated points, and is instead an issue of emphasis, which makes it difficult to show individual problematic edits.
At the end of the Fringe noticeboard discussion, it seems the issue from P&W was that WLRoss and Apostle12 relied on the same sources as those used by conspiracy theorists, although the sources themselves seem to be mainstream.
I'm not sure where this can be solved. An RFC/U was not possible. I'd be concerned that uninvolved editors would be unwilling to take it up in an RFC, for the same reason that they didn't take it up at the Fringe noticeboard [13]. But maybe we'd be lucky. I'd expect formal mediation to be worth a shot, though - my one experience in that process was positive. My main concern, per NewYorkBrad, is that this seems to be a significant BLP problem - thus extensive delays in process may not be in anyone's interest.

I suppose I should respond to the stalking allegations: as can be seen here, I have never edited any article where P&W was involved outside of the ugg boots topic, except some anti-vandalism work on Barack Obama. Outside of mainspace, [14] the only non-ugg boot related discussion in which I am aware of having made comments connected to P&W is this one . My dispute with P&W is entirely centred on the one topic, and I have no desire to see that extended.

Statement by MONGO

WLRoss (talk · contribs) and Apostle12 are facinated by fringe theories. I thought this facination was limited to 911 related articles, where WLRoss has for years been an advocate for increased coverage of fringe topics in violation of the undue weight clause of NPOV. Phoenix and Winslow must have tracked WLRoss's contributions and seen the many disputes WLRoss and myself have had on 911 articles, and contacted me asking for my assistance on the Franklin article. It was a revelation to see that WLRoss was POV pushing fringe material in violation of undue weight at an area outside the realm of 911. WLRoss and Apostle12 have made the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article a coatrack for their conspiracy theories. One has no idea where the reality is and the vast majority of (dis)information available is from self published books (that consequently fail to be reliable), self published websites and unauthoritative works much akin to the type of disinformation books that are written to pander to those that wish to believe in the preposterous, or at the very least, unsubstantiated....seemingly not caring that these sources are unreliable overall, they have insisted they be used for the references in this article nevertheless. The have cherry picked the flimsy evidence to ensure their conspiracy theories are vastly overrepresented beyond the weight they should be given, and buried this article with nonsense, violating our BLP policy and a few others. However, what you have here is a content dispute and besides a few heated exchanges and accusations, nothing severe enough to warrant arbcom action. I would think that the best thing for this article would be to delete it and start over.--MONGO 07:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone OWNS the article, the edit count indicates who that might be here--MONGO 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)...WLRoss claims Phoenix and Winslow is trying to OWN the article...baloney...until Phoenix and Winslow tried to clean it up, WLRoss and Apostle12 had their coatrack the way they wanted it. The uptick in WLRoss's edit count on the article since the beginning of this year was because he knew his and Apostle12's page was being questioned by Phoenix and Winslow, and they moved to block any alterations that would lessen where they wanted the emphasis to go.--MONGO 01:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLRoss...is unable to read...I stated it was a revelation to me he has been promoting fringe theories at an article unrelated to 911...if I was wikistalking his edits I would have already known that. WLRoss just doesn't seem to get it...verifying the sources was standard operating procedure since the sources he was using were alledged newspaper copies posted at a blog that has helped to perpetuate the fringe material he supports...so naturally Phoenix and Winslow and I wanted to make sure the newspaper sources were the same, comparing the blogs to the originals. The issue is still the problem with weight...he wants more weight given to fringe theories while myself and Phoenix and Winslow want less or zero...thats why this is a content dispute. However, if arbcom opts to take the case, this will prove an interesting learning lesson for those that persist in engaging in efforts to perpetuate mythology over reality....something WLRoss has done now at at least 2 different and unrelated articles.--MONGO 01:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking that with the deletion by Flonight, and the recreation of a stub by NW that if there are now enough watchful eyes on this article, arbcom isn't needed. I'm not interested in providing much if any diffs showing behavior issues of anyone, including myself, since I have limited time and want to spend it editing elsewhere. Is the goal possibly to set some sort of generalistic principle on COATRACKING...if so, then there must be a 100,000 articles that could be impacted.--MONGO 04:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLRoss doesn't seem to realize why the article was deleted and recreated as a stub...does arbcom need to explain this to him? The issue with SPA's in the past has primarily been centered on a series of related articles...what needs to be said about SPA's that promote fringe material over multiple and unrelated article space? I suppose the latter wouldn't make that account an SPA, but does the website support fringe material by sole editors in numerous and varied articles?--MONGO 10:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Apostle12

I have not commented to date because, frankly, I find it emotionally draining to respond to the repeated, unwarranted accusations made by Phoenix & Winslow and Mongo, many of which are repeated here. My interest in this subject has never been directed by a desire "to right great wrongs," nor am I "fascinated by fringe theory." My sole desire is that the several facets of the Franklin case be accurately represented in the Wikipedia article so that readers might gain some appreciation for what transpired--to create, in other words, an NPOV article.

Toward this end, I have attempted to edit the article without any presumption that I know exactly what happened in the Franklin case, or that my own personal leanings are necessarily correct. I have not seen this dispassionate approach mirrored by Phoenix & Winslow and Mongo, who repeatedly insist that they DO know exactly what happened. I am particularly at odds with their self-righteous tone, their accusatory manner and their willingness to distort the record whenever their version of what occurred in the Franklin case is challenged by indisputable facts.

Writing the article properly can only be accomplished by referencing articles from the Omaha World Herald, the newspaper of record for the State of Nebraska. This newspaper followed the Franklin case from beginning to end, and the content of its articles constitutes the most reliable source for writing the Wikipedia article. Unfortunately roadblocks exist that prevent easy access to these articles. They cannot be accessed directly online, to purchase copies of the articles (especially if one were to desire a complete set of the 700 or so that were published) would be inordinately expensive, and the only website that has posted complete texts (or actual photocopies) of the most relevant articles has been disallowed.

I cannot justify the expenditure of thousands of dollars to purchase a full set of the relevant Omaha World Herald articles. I also cannot afford to make the writing of this article my full-time job, nor do I possess the emotional reserves for unending conflict with editors who are committed to preventing full exposition of the complexities that attend the Franklin case.

I may check in from time to time, however my involvement in writing the article must be significantly curtailed for the foreseeable future. Apostle12 (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Might I suggest that a referral to the Mediation Committee/Cabal might be appropriate if Arbitrators are unwilling to take this case? I have glanced over the discussions a couple of times, and one of the key issues is that several of the parties have become expert at making tl;dr statements at the drop of the hat, which prevents meaningful outside input. If outside input is going to be impossible, guidance from a mediator to cut to the heart of the matter (in less words) might be useful, both for the parties and for uninvolved editors looking to comment. NW (Talk) 17:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of administrators (FloNight, Jehochman, Will Beback, and myself) over the past week or so have taken appropriate action, I think. The article has since been deleted and recreated as a stub. I think the dispute has simmered down for the time being because of that, and no Committee action is necessary for the time being. NW (Talk) 06:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

In relation to the comments above by NuclearWarfare, I confirm that the Mediation Committee would accept this request if a majority of arbitrators had recommended that it be referred to mediation, and if the parties consented to mediation. As an obiter, I would add that this is a very worrying and potentially incendiary matter. If I were the Arbitration Committee, I would handle this request very carefully.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

As an interim measure I've attempted to clean up the article of BLP violations by removing any content that appeared to lack reliable sources. Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Even if this appears to be a "content issue" I suggest that ArbCom seriously discuss the point at which an article becomes such a morass that it ought to be placed as "hidden" until such time as the content clearly becomes entirely proper per WP:BLP rather than have improper content hang on in public view. I further suggest that this is the precise type of article for which such a Coventry-solution might be reasonably imposed (that is to say, placing the article "in Coventry"). I realize that this position is neither "inclusionist" not "deletionist" but is rather one of establishing a Hippocratic basis for the project which can be placed as a new guiding principle for committee decisions. The potential wording would be on the order of

Biographies of Living Persons and articles which specifically relate to living persons should under no circumstances be used as a means of improperly damaging any person. Such articles damage not only the person so attacked, but also the encyclopedia itself. In general, it is better to be cautious in placing damaging claims in articles than to include every damaging claim available about any person or impacting any living person or persons. Collect (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

Overall, this may be one of those cases where well-intentioned people are trying to right great wrongs, perhaps forgetting that we're just here to write an NPOV encyclopedia. This topic is marked by passionate editors. I commend Jehochman's stubbing, which could have gone even further. There are some reliable newspaper sources for this topic, but also some unreliable sources including a self-published book, a book from a dubious publisher, and a documentary which was never aired possibly because it's so defamatory. I've repeatedly recommended mediation, and I don't see any other solution aside from remedies like 1RR. Will Beback talk 03:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FloNight

I first took notice of the Franklin article approximately a week after the request for review was made on the FNB. The discussion was long and topic was too complicated to understand with a quick look but there seemed to be serious problems. Yesterday and today, I finally had time to do a more extensive review of the current version of the article, recent versions, and the earliest ones. I found that there were too many instance of inaccurate statements when compared to the references for the article to remain on site. It was too difficult use a conservative method of cleaning up the article history so I deleted the article as enforcement of the BLP policy. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Recuse. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/9/0/0)

I see we had a RfC/U that was deleted for lack of certification, although the admin who deleted it reminded a party that they should still take on board the suggestions therein. Looking for thoughts (both from parties and those uninvolved in the larger dispute) if this could be solved short of Arbitration (say on a wide-ranging article RfC), or if Arbitration is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking of a radical idea here. Complete stubbification of the article, with the case being accepted, with a view to rebuilding the article post case. SirFozzie (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, I applaud the actions taken by Jehochman and FloNight. On articles that have the potential to do such harm as this one, I vastly prefer NO article to one that does not comply with the letter and the spirit of our BLP policies. As things stand, I am going to vote decline. SirFozzie (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into this in more detail tonight or tomorrow. My initial reaction is that this article is an open invitation to an ongoing BLP disaster, and that I'm tempted to summarily delete the whole thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Accept~~ to consider all aspects of the matter. The user-conduct on this article raises some significant issues on which we can provide guidance. Based on the history, I see little likelihood that any other form of dispute resolution will resolve this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - At this point I can live with the consensus to decline, per subsequent events and per Iridescent, Coren, and John V. below below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can see it is a vexed area definitely.Neutral eyes are good. We do have a some noticeboards which might cover the area, including Content noticeboard and Reliable sources, the latter might be good to give a flavour of weighting etc. Given lack of wider input thus far, I'm leaning decline for the time being. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the nature of the content issue, I'm not seeing why the committee needs to be involved here. The committee's previous messages regarding problematic BLP content should provide enough guidance for uninvolved administrators to deal decisively with inappropriate content and its contributors. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline per the intervention described below. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, pretty much per both Brad's comments. This may offer a good opportunity to examine the "trial by Wikipedia" aspects of some BLPs. Roger Davies ^talk 07:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Appears to be a standing behavior issue and an opportunity to examine a recurring BLP theme. Cool Hand Luke 03:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as a consequence of the intervention by NuclearWarfare and others. Hopefully those responsible for this mess dont repeat it on this article or on other articles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline; in light of the successful efforts of NuclearWarfare and the others. — Coren ^(talk) 13:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Enough has changed that if the situation flares up again, it would be less confusing to open a new case from scratch. Hopefully, it won't. – iridescent 14:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Iridescent. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]