Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:34, 17 June 2008

Temporary injunction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inscrutable

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

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

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

How about...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special enforcement guidelines

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

I'm confused, too, but what I think this means are the enforcements listed at the relevant remedy: "Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary." Don't ask me what's special about that, tho. --Conti|✉ 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balance in the system

I am concerned that the admins that generate most controversy with their BLP work, or who do a lot of work quickly and effectively with no controversy (supposedly - sometimes they just fly under the radar on poorly-watched articles), will not bother using this system. I think this system, if it is going to be seen as fair and workable, needs to be a way to review not just articles and sanctions and actions of editors sanctioned, but also the admins themselves. However, this needs to be done fairly, otherwise admins will avoid logging their actions. Per Kirill's statement here: "appeals of actions taken under this remedy go to AN/AE. If an admin takes an action and does not indicate (either at the time, or when subsequently asked) that he was performing an enforcement action under this decision, then his action may be appealed/reversed/etc. via whatever the typical route for such matters is.", it seems that admins can still operate outside this system if they want, but their actions will have more likelihood of being reversed. I think that needs to be made clear in the appropriate places. Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect shortcut

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

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

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

Opposed

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

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

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

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

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

A reason not to codify this . . .

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

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

I had seen the article George Thomas Coker, and edited the article after noticing that he lived in New Jersey, a subject of my editing focus. With the article now on my watchlist, I saw that User:Rlevse removed a link to the article for the film Hearts and Minds (this diff with the rather bizarre edit summary "upon subject request", a rather clear portent of Rlevse's persistent conflict of interest in editing this article. Assuming that Rlevse had an issue with the improper formating of a wikilink as an EL or perhaps with the lack of a source, I edited the article this diff adding the utterly bland neutral statement that "A clip of Coker was featured in Hearts and Minds, a 1974 film that won that year's Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary.^[1]" User:Rlevse promptly removed this neutrally worded, verifiably sourced mention of the film (this diff) with the edit summary of "rm, BLP issue". There was no BLP issue and it is hard to believe that any editor (let alone an admin with a clear conflict of interest) could argue that this presented any genuine BLP issue. It was this same User:Rlevse, the Arbcom clerk who pushed to include the George Thomas Coker article as a subject of the arbitration, who has steadfastly stood in the way of including factual, reliably and verifiably sourced material about the film in this article. Dozens of suggestions were made in an attempt to satisfy Rlevse's demands, but he stood firm in his insistence that supposed BLP issues prohibit any mention of the film. Under the newly-drafted policy that Arbcom is trying to impose, what remedy is there to get properly sourced material when one admin has decided that it won't go in, regardless of sources, circumstances or any other Wikipedia policy? Alansohn (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ [http://www.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA51347-2004Oct21%3Flanguage%3Dprinter&ei=Ha5kR9X2Lcfu6AGyrunDBg&usg=AFQjCNEIZ9pnESv57LkUjmMlvTXbQq4g1Q&sig2=YnqmynPRWT8njMz8hi60RA "'Hearts And Minds' Recaptured", The Washington Post, October 22, 2004.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA51347-2004Oct21%3Flanguage%3Dprinter&ei=Ha5kR9X2Lcfu6AGyrunDBg&usg=AFQjCNEIZ9pnESv57LkUjmMlvTXbQq4g1Q&sig2=YnqmynPRWT8njMz8hi60RA "'Hearts And Minds' Recaptured", The Washington Post, October 22, 2004.

[1]

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 Considering the role of arbcom on en.WP, the way I read the arbcom ruling is this: "We will not desysop or otherwise sanction admins who stray outside of the normal boundaries during the protection of living persons written about on Wikipedia."  Considering that arbcom does not write policy.  Considering that there is no way to desysop admins outside of arbcom and nor a regularly effective way of sanctioning them.  I see this ruling as arbcom attempting to embolden admins to better protect BLP.  Since we do not know how well this will work or if it might have unintended consequences, I would personally like to see no policies written up at this time. I would rather leave things open and give it a chance to work as well as leave abcom an easy opportunity to revisit this if it turns out to be a bad idea.  P.S. I have only read the ruling itself and not the background conversations, so if arbcom members have already contradicted my little theory please disregard this.--<i><font color="#9966FF">[[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
+==A case study: What remedy is there to get properly sourced material when one admin has decided that it won't go in==
+I had seen the article [[George Thomas Coker]], and edited the article after noticing that he lived in [[New Jersey]], a subject of my editing focus. With the article now on my watchlist, I saw that [[User:Rlevse]] removed a link to the article for the film ''[[Hearts and Minds (film)|Hearts and Minds]]'' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Thomas_Coker&diff=177977095&oldid=177976640 this diff] with the rather bizarre edit summary "upon subject request", a rather clear portent of Rlevse's persistent [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] in editing this article. Assuming that Rlevse had an issue with the improper formating of a wikilink as an EL or perhaps with the lack of a source, I edited the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Thomas_Coker&diff=next&oldid=177977095 this diff] adding the utterly bland neutral statement that '''"A clip of Coker was featured in [[Hearts and Minds (film)|Hearts and Minds]], a 1974 film that won that year's [[Academy Award]] for Best Feature Documentary.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA51347-2004Oct21%3Flanguage%3Dprinter&ei=Ha5kR9X2Lcfu6AGyrunDBg&usg=AFQjCNEIZ9pnESv57LkUjmMlvTXbQq4g1Q&sig2=YnqmynPRWT8njMz8hi60RA "'Hearts And Minds' Recaptured", ''[[The Washington Post]]'', [[October 22]], [[2004]].</ref>"''' [[User:Rlevse]] promptly removed this neutrally worded, verifiably sourced mention of the film ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Thomas_Coker&diff=178283923&oldid=178231017 this diff]) with the edit summary of "rm, BLP issue". There was no BLP issue and it is hard to believe that any editor (let alone an admin with a clear [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]) could argue that this presented any genuine BLP issue. It was this same [[User:Rlevse]], the Arbcom clerk who pushed to include the [[George Thomas Coker]] article as a subject of the arbitration, who has steadfastly stood in the way of including factual, reliably and verifiably sourced material about the film in this article. Dozens of suggestions were made in an attempt to satisfy Rlevse's demands, but he stood firm in his insistence that supposed BLP issues prohibit any mention of the film. Under the newly-drafted policy that Arbcom is trying to impose, what remedy is there to get properly sourced material when one admin has decided that it won't go in, regardless of sources, circumstances or any other Wikipedia policy? [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 03:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)