Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

Uninvolved statements

The following statements were offered by "uninvolved editors" when this case was in consideration at requests for arbitration. For transparency purposes, they are located below; additionally, the originals can be viewed here. Please do not make any adjustments to these statements.

Thank you, Anthøny 16:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit this text, regardless of whether the statement is your own or not. Further discussion is welcome on other mediums.

Statement by Norton The quote function is a part of the all the citation templates. Quoting the actual text in the article aids the researcher and the fact checker, thats why the snippet view of Google is so popular, you can see the text in situ in the sentence that was used. If they appear to clutter the article in larger articles, we can always write a few lines of code that can suppress them from displaying, but still allow them to be seen in editing. We could also have the reader choose in preferences if they want them displayed or not. It allows many useful things for both the casual reader and for the serious researcher: 1) Allows for reconnection of broken links to a newspaper article. For example: if the title is: "Scientist killed", and the quote is "Today, John Bacon, a New Jersey scientist was killed when his car overturned". A Google search for the title may not find the article, its too general. Using the text string from the quote will find it. Broken links that can't be reconnected are usually deleted. Even if an external link for the citation is broken, and no other version of the newspaper article appears online, a fully-quoted reference can stand on its own. 2) It provides the actual information for fact checking the citation. It makes it easy to double check references that are already in place. You no longer have to have the attitude "trust me" it is in the book, or it is in the article. The actual in situ quote supporting the citation is displayed with the actual wording by the original author. The Wikipedia trend should be to make it easy to fact check an article, not harder. You shouldn't have to get a book from the library or purchase an article to find out the exact wording used by an author to see if it actually supports the text in the Wikipedia article. 3) It is not a copyright violation, the source is attributed, and the quote is usually a single sentence, well within the confines of "fair use". In the Tom Wolfe example, which has been deleted multiple times, the article is 4,254 words and my quote uses 43 of them, or 1%. Whole paragraphs can be used in citations with the blockquote parameter in the body of the article without being considered an abuse of fair use. The titles of the articles, which in newspapers can be longer than the quote, are not considered a violation of fair use. 4) Redspruce himself quotes text in some of his notes and references. See below where he writes "On the other hand, author Tom Wicker refers to Schine as 'Cohn's boyfriend'". It takes up a little less space, because he only encloses two words from the text in the quote, but the reader, including me, is still left to wonder what preceded 'Cohn's boyfriend'. "[He had wild animal sex all day and night as] Cohn's boyfriend" is very different from "[He was derided by his enemies as] Cohn's boyfriend". Which is it, if any? I looked up the ones I quoted because I wanted to see the exact wording. Others shouldn't have to repeat the effort to find out the exact, non-truncated, single-sentence quote. 5) It doesn't add to clutter, any more than inline citations do already. No one forces a reader to scroll down to the reference section in an article, any more than one is forced to read the endnotes in a book. In scholarly books they can be between 25-50% of a book's pages. Just a few years ago no citations were required in Wikipedia articles. Here is a good example of using quotes in citations and how they clear up what is in the article, and how it aids the researcher: Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual. Well, what exactly do people have to say about whether Schine was gay or not, how strongly did they word it, and what words did they use. For instance the Tom Wolfe article up to a month ago required a paid subscription to the New York Times, but now is a free link, but you still can't just do a control-f and search for "gay" or "homosexual" because Wolfe doesn't use any of those words. You have to read the whole article to find the single sentence where Wolfe says: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." For a book you would have to get the book at a library, to look up the text. If the quote parameter is used and the exact wording for the sentence is known, it can be searched in Google Book. 6) Editors are skeptical of new information added to articles, so the best effort should be made to persuade them that the information is legitimate, and make that vetting process as easy as possible. For example: Here a skeptical editor reverts corrections in an article to dates of birth and death. If the references were clearer, it would be easier for the skeptical editor to see which information was correct. The dates that were deleted by the skeptic were the correct dates. Here again the skeptical editor reverts changes in an article to a correct school attended by the subject (the subject switched schools, so attended both) and labels it vandalism. More easy to read references, with the quoted text may persuade the editor that the information is indeed correct and not vandalism. Here a skeptical editor removes the subject years of birth and death, maiden name, and place of death. Again, to persuade the skeptical editor, easy to vet, fully quoted citations should be used to persuade them that the information is real and not vandalism. A good editor should always be skeptical, and that why the best references are complete, and easy to verify. Here the skeptical editor removed information on the subject's job, husband's name, and where they were buried. Again, if the references were clearer, and the quote function used to it's fullest, perhaps the skeptical editor would be persuaded that the information comes from a reliable source. Here a skeptical editor removes the names of the subject's children and other information involving their role in a Senate subcommittee. If the original editor had supplied better information, I am sure the deleter would have been less skeptical of the information and it would have remained. The quote function makes for a complete reference, and takes less effort to verify the facts. I only blame myself for the deletions for not providing more complete information, all new information should be treated with skepticism, and I applaud skeptical editors. Here a skeptical editor removes the names of two people involved in the Army-McCarthy Hearings that were mentioned in their obituaries in the New York Times. Again the burden is one me, the person adding the information, to persuade the skeptic that the infomation is factual and verifiable. Although I thought they were well referenced, I should have been even more clear in the sources and quotes so that the information could stay in the article. I should never overburden the fact checker, it should be as easy as possible to confirm with clickable links, and quoted information. As the skeptical fact checker points out, the burden is on the person adding the fact to the article, to show that is comes from a reliable source. As RAN knows, I am the "skeptical editor" in all of the above cases. As RAN knows, in two of these I RVed technical changes made without comment by an anon editor. As RAN knows, in the other cases I was reverting for reasons that had nothing to do with skepticism. As RAN knows, in no case did "clarity of references" have anything to do with anything. RAN is playing games with the Arbitration Committee here. RedSpruce (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC) If anyeditor, including myself, is reverting correct information and restoring back to an error, and the reason is not "clarity of references", then the remaining choices for deleting are: lack of research, or the editor is displaying article ownership. Anon is not equal to incorrect, there is no need for kneejerk deletions of material you didn't add to an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Here are the references with the actual quotes Past efforts at mediation ANI against RS RS ANI against Norton Second ANI against RS Third attempt at RS Norton mediation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) Note: The first of these predates any interaction between myself and RAN. RedSpruce (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Comment by User:KrakatoaKatie I have had the same problem with Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). In October 2007, I was asked, on my talk page, by User:Wildhartlivie to give an opinion about the use of long quotes in the cited references of Dan Antonioli, a stub article created by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). This is the last version of the article prior to Wildhartlivie's addition of the copyvio template. I investigated, scoured the WP:RS and WP:CP talk archives for previous discussions, and spent an entire afternoon on it. In the end, I concluded that it is/was a copyright violation of four different websites, including one site with a strongly worded copyright statement. Since there were no clean revisions (and the paragraphs/quotes in the cited references were longer than the article itself), I made a case for deletion under WP:CSD#G12 as a blatant copyright violation. I had no objections to recreation of a new article in original prose, and I probably should have made that clear. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Alansohn disagreed, as did Woohookitty. I was not very experienced or assertive as an admin, and I was intimidated, quite frankly, by the in-your-face, long-winded approach I faced on that talk page. When Woohookitty voiced her opinion, I dropped the issue, and the article remained as it was. The quotes in the references have been shortened somewhat in the current version of the article. I think Alansohn's allegations about RedSpruce are intended to draw attention away from the core of this request, which is the use of long quoted statements or even paragraphs in cited references and the actions of two editors who almost always act as one. They use a tag team approach to buttress each other's arguments, introduce irrelevant subjects or fallacies into discussions, and bully other editors. I feel there are user conduct and encyclopedia content issues here that ArbCom should investigate. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Comment by User:Wildhartlivie I am commenting mostly to reinforce that in my view, this is not an issue of attempts at ownership of an article, or articles. The practice under discussion here is pervasive with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and has been at issue in the past. The question of the appropriateness of use of the quote function and how this user has been utilizing it has been at issue well beyond the ones under discussion. As noted by KrakatoaKatie above regarding the Dan Antonioli article, large blocks of quotes were used in the absence of them being incorporated into articles. At no time during the Antonioli discussion was any attempt made by the author to incorporate and expand the article with the use of those sources. This particular article had been under question for deletion and my involvement came from supporting the retention of the article, with the caveat that it needed a LOT of work, and in trying to urge its expansion, was met with the lack of response and the uptake of the argument by Alansohn, the same circumstances indicated by RedSpruce above. One argument at the time from User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) was that it was preserving the quote in situ, to which I counter argued that inserting a block of text via copy and paste was not in situ preservation at all, and there were archive options available to be used when sources were in danger of being lost online. What I have seen is often copy and pasting of the opening paragraphs from, for example, New York Times archives. That particular method links us to a page at the Times website that purchase is required to access the rest of the article, which may or may not contain the material actually being cited. I took it to WP:Citing sources, the entire discussion of which can be seen here. The overall consensus at that time was that this practice violated the intent of the use of the quote function, as was summarized on that page by User:John Broughton. That discussion was obviously ignored and rejected, which brings it to issue yet again, with the same issues. I truly believe a ruling by ArbCom is necessary in this case since efforts at resolution over a variety of articles with a variety of editors has been the case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Note: Here is the article in question: Dan Antonioli Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Antonioli --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Comment by User:John Broughton As noted, this issue was discussed in October 2007 at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 19#Quotes in references. My final comment in that section was: at this point Wildhartlivie, IvoShandor, Arnoutf, qp10qp, SallyScot, AndToToToo, CBM, Shirahadasha, and I have expressed opposition to the practice of putting chunks of text into footnotes, a practice that is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and that is in no way the norm at Wikipedia. I think that's about as close to consensus as most discussions get, and I suggest that the practice stop. Wildhartlivie added one more comment to that section; then nothing happened until it was achived in January 2008. Given that the opposed practice has continued, this seems to me a clear case of defiance of consensus. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I find it telling that Mr. Norton's statement, at the moment, is to argue the merits of his approach to footnotes. I have seen these arguments before, and continue to find them unconvincing; he both overstates the advantages and fails to consider the disadvantages, which I consider more significant. But this arbitration case, of course, is not the place to debate the merits of such a change - the point is that Mr. Norton is unwilling to abide by the rules, which say that if one is unable to convince (the majority) of other editors of the merits of one's position, then it is unacceptable to continue on as if a negative consensus did not exist. Mr. Norton's editing is disruptive; his pattern of ignoring the opinions of other editors should be considered unacceptable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit this text, regardless of whether the statement is your own or not. Further discussion is welcome on other mediums.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Footnoted quotes

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

This page is presumably meant to stand for all time. As it is effectively new policy, I would request that it be declared a {{howto}}, {{guideline}}, or {{policy}}, and have the arbcom's explicit approval of it being treated like any other policy, e.g. it may be edited, adapted, or, (in extreme cases), voted down by the community?

This is based on two bits of logic: Editing and improving is the Wiki way; having a policy page noone could edit, and having this page "fixed" for all time with whatever the Arbcom came up with in a few days' discussion goes against this. Secondly, it's basic five pillars logic: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules, besides the five general principles presented here."

I also feel this change would remove most of the controversy surrounding this case.

Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz: User:RegenerateThis, one of the Arbcom clerks, claims that any changes to WP:BLPSE requires appeal to arbcom: Wikipedia_talk:BLPSE#Policies_must_be_editable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Clerk note: User:RegenerateThis is not an Arbcom clerk. — Coren ^(talk) 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist

As in the previous request for clarification, I don't see how the response would be different - no, this is a remedy (not a new policy/guideline), and no, it cannot be voted down by the community. Basically, an area of the encyclopedia is now under a type of discretionary-sanctions-remedy - the mere fact that it applies to a wider area, or has more specific requirements (such as, in terms of logging) does not change the effect of the remedy. Persistently insisting it is new policy or against Wikipedia norms does not make it so.

The only real controversy here, I think, is the same sort that was experienced when discretionary sanctions were enacted for the first time by the Committee. But even then, I wonder how/why it is that much of the community have, particularly in recent times, come to favour the discretionary sanctions type remedies for areas constantly encountering problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

If Shoemaker could specify which page he is referring to, we have WP:BLPLOG and WP:BLPSE. One, WP:BLPLOG was created by an arbcom decision, so presumably, they own that page, the other WP:BLPSE was created by the community to discuss how it views WP:BLPLOG, so I'm not sure it needs any other tags. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well I think Tony was de-clerked, so he probably shouldn't be considered a binding expression of arbcom intent. But since I really never worked at WP:BLPSE (I'm a template gnome of sorts), I don't have a view on that page. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some Arbs or other involved parties might care to weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement#Let.27s_mark_this_historical. It seems to be conflicting with the below statements. MBisanz ^talk 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Barberio

Just a note, to state that this is pretty much moot.

The ArbCom RfC No New Policy statement and View by Celarnor statement has given a clear expression from the community that 'general sanctions' of this kind, and policy, pseudo-policy, and new processes by arbcom fiat are not allowed. Policy creation, and ability to apply a 'general sanction' to the entire community, are powers never delegated to the Arbitration Committee. Please note, the Arbitration Committee were given full time to make the case for why they should have this power, but don't appear to have made it to the satisfaction of the community.

While the below Arbitration Committee members may say otherwise, this 'general sanction' is not in effect, and will not be enforced. --Barberio (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to this.

I am quickly approaching formally requesting that the arbitration revoke this 'remedy', and lift the threat of desysopping admins who refuse to accept it. Both of the above RfC statements had strong consensus support and endorsement. You're really not empowered by the community to act in the way you have.

I would suggest that if you are still going to ignore the community consensus on what ArbCom may and may not do, you should consider your positions. --Barberio (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that the view of Jimbo as 'God King Emperor' of the project is highly disputed these days. I also note that Jimbo did not create the Arbitration Committee from whole cloth and by fiat. The Arbitration Policy did have to be agreed with by the community as with any other policy.

Frankly, Jimbo's opinion of how the Wikipedia policies should work are worth exactly as much as the next guy's. Wikipedia is not a top-down authoritarian organisation. --Barberio (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Observation by Mackensen

Constitutionally speaking the Arbitration Committee derives its power from Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs), who wields absolute power as God-King of the project, understood to be separate from whatever Foundation responsibilities he might have. The community has no powers to "delegate" to the committee; there is the right to vanish and the right to fork. The community is always free to elect arbitrators who take a less expansive view of Arbcom's role but until such time it has authorized this body to act on its behalf.

All this is a way of saying that arguments over this remedy should turn on whether it's a good idea, not whether Arbcom can do it or not. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chime in by Alecmconroy

Jimbo is not a god-king, he's a very influential editor who has historically been granted certain roles by the community and the foundation. His 'powers' are whatever the community and the foundation collectively give him. If the community and the foundation disagree with Jimbo, the community and the foundation win.

I'm amazed to see anyone even espousing the notion of an absolute power over any group of humans in the 21st century (even if it is just an encyclopedia-making project). That's just not the way humans do things anymore-- ESPECIALLY not on a Wiki.

Mind you, I'm not expressing any Anti-Jimbo sentiments at all. I'm not trying to attack Jimbo himself in the slightest, and the statements I say above are, as best I can tell, entirely consistent with how Jimbo views himself-- not as a god-king, but as a UK-esque constitutional monarch whose role diminishes over time. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• You are requesting a clarication regarding the "special enforcement on biographies of living persons" wich concerns the footnoted quotes' case. Biographies of living people are subject to a strict policy. Special enforcements are part of Wikipedia's general sanctions. If we had had a "footnoted quotes" case where no problems with biographies of living persons were noted then this special enforcement remedy wouldn't have existed. Similar remedies were applied to other cases but policies are created following a process --not specific arbitration remedies. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Logging case sanctions on ArbCom pages is the norm. It makes it easier to locate blocks or bans that are the result of a ruling. Additionally, a page was started to explain the logging requirement. If an actual problems arise from this requirement to log or the page explaining the ruling then we can look to make at change. I'm not seeing a need for any action by the Committee regarding this case at this time. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Flo that no action is needed, and with Mackensen in his comments re. the applicability of transitive devolution and delegation. James F. (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Footnoted quotes

Initiated by Ncmvocalist (talk) at 07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Case affected 

Footnoted quotes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Good Olfactory (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Postdlf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[all listed users are aware]

Amendment

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Alansohn restricted
• to remove the "for one year" part, and in addition to that, impose a ban, probation, or any other remedy that will put an end to the problems, and subsequently act to ensure that they do not recur.

Statement by Ncmvocalist

ArbCom's finding in 2008 stated: ""Alansohn has repeatedly engaged in unseemly behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith". Unfortunately, this finding continues to hold true today. The remedy that was enacted at the time of the finding was invoked several times as the case log indicates; Postdlf and Good Ol'factory whom invoked this remedy in 2009, have since been repeatedly subject to uncivil and unseemly conduct by Alansohn, including personal attacks (including in the form of very serious yet unsubstantiated allegations), as well as other inflammatory commentary and assumptions of bad faith. Allegations made in the heat of the moment is one thing, but this involves repeatedly making the same allegations, yet refusing to provide any evidence to substantiate them (despite being requested to do so).

Good Ol'factory has in good faith, followed the dispute resolution process - opening a WQA which summarises one of the main incidents [1]. During this WQA, I also provided input as an uninvolved user. However, Alansohn has now attempted to involve me in his conflicts by filing a retaliatory WQA over something for which he was not a party to. The community is reluctant to say any further, when this intimidation tactic shall be employed by Alansohn against any user whom strongly makes a finding against him. The improvement in his conduct has, therefore, been so marginal that it has dismally failed to adhere to Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Plenty of evidence is available to substantiate this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence/Alansohn's_conduct_post-case, which should also paint a clear picture of any further voluntary dispute resolution on the matter. I request ArbCom to put an end to the unfortunate effects of Alansohn's disruption and gross misconduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A CFD restriction would address the first type of problematic behavior that Good Olfactory has pointed out; but if that's all that ArbCom is willing to do, the other two types would still remain a problem...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Kirill

Well, looking at Alansohn's lack of responsiveness to the clerk's request, I'm not sure if there would be sufficient evidence from both sides for the case to proceed. I don't have anything further to contribute myself, except possibly at workshop-pd stage. My primary concern was Alansohn's conduct during WQA, and the evidence I had to submit has already been submitted in the links in my initial statement here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Good Olfactory

The most recent incident is just the latest in a long history of incidents involving Alansohn's behavior at CFD and CFD-related DRV discussions. As a regular participant at these discussions, I can attest that Alansohn's behavior has not substantially improved since the conclusion of his editing restrictions. I would classify the latest incident as relatively minor in isolation, but the accumulated history of his behavior makes it perhaps the straw that is breaking the camel's back.

(Parenthetical:I will state that prior to the editing restrictions being lifted, I did block Alansohn twice for incidents of trolling, assuming bad faith, and making personal attacks. The first block was made in response to this personal attacks and feuding with User:Kbdank71 and User:Otto4711: [2], [3], [4], [5]. The second block was made in response to a continuation of the behaviour, and in particular the following attack on User:Jc37, which was made after he had been warned to temper his comments: [6]. Since these blocks were imposed I have been one of Alansohn's more popular targets of attack, so I have not considered blocking him further, but have made good faith efforts to discuss with him some of the problems that continue.)

Since the editing restrictions were lifted, I would categorize the general problems with Alansohn's edits into the following types of problematic behavior:

1. He users his opportunity to present arguments in CFD and DRV as a vehicle for personal attacks against editors who disagree with him (or, often, against editors who have attempted to intervene with him or have blocked him in the past, including me and User:Postdlf);

2. He repeatedly mischaracterizes arguments he disagrees with and claims that users who choose to propose deletion for categories are engaging in "disruption" (recent e.g.);

3. When concerns about his behavior are brought to his attention, I have found he uses one of three approaches to avoid taking responsibility for his misbehavior: (a) he accuses the person who is bringing the behavioural problems to his attention of "trolling" or of manufacturing a problem in an attempt to get him blocked or disciplined; (b) he suggests that the complaints are invalid because the user bringing it to his attention is in a conflict of interest; (c) he attempts to shift the focus of the discussion to what he views as procedural deficiencies in Wikipedia processes (which apparently are intended to act as a justification for his behavior). These methods can be observed in the following recent discussions and the most recent WQA, where a number of users tried to make progress on dealing with some of his problems: [7]; [8]

I have and I have seen other users attempt the following ways of dealing with the problems:

1. Engaging in good faith discussions in an attempt to resolve the disputes;

2. Using humor to point out the absurdity of his behavior;

3. Ignoring it, in the hope that it would cease;

4. Issuing warnings that continued behavior could result in sanctions against him;

5. Formal WQA.

From my perspective, no progress has been made with any of these approaches. The problems associated with Alansohn's behavior have been consistent and relatively unrelenting, with the diffs provided by Ncmvocalist just the latest examples from months of similar behavior. I didn't encourage the filing of this request for amendment and I wished this latest incident could have been resolved via regular dispute resolution channels. The only solution that I personally think would solve the CFD/DRV problem completely would be banning Alansohn from CFD/DRV participation (though I do worry that he would then create the same problem in another discussion area of Wikipedia). It's gone on a long, long time and many editors have shown a lot of forbearance. It needs to be resolved. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: Normally I wouldn't have minded doing this, but I think I'd better not in light of his recent reaction to my posting on his talk page: [9]. It might be more likely to promote a response if a non-involved user were able to remind him. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@Orderinchaos: User:Orderinchaos's comment below contains some interesting allegations that suggest to me that he may not be assuming good faith about those who have already posted here. I'll let most of his comments suggesting conspiratorial undertones and sneaky cabals speak for themselves. However, it's probably necessary that I respond directly to the following: "Good Olfactory's admission above that he has used his admin tools to further his position in a dispute to protect friends - something which he should most definitely have taken to AN/I instead - is also an issue." I want to be clear that I made no such admission, and that is Orderinchaos interpreted my comment in this way, he is mistaken. At the time the blocks were performed, I hardly knew User:Kbdank71, User:Otto4711, or User:Jc37. The only one of those three that I would even currently consider "a friend" would be User:Kbdank71, but it is purely a Wikipedia association and is entirely the result of our interactions at CFD that have taken place since this time. This is exactly the same tactic that Alansohn has adopted in alleging that I had a conflict of interest in performing those blocks—he has taken events and relationships that have developed after the block was performed to retroactively assume that such a relationship pre-existed and thereby created a conflict of interest. It's cute, but it's a misrepresentation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And yes, the blocks were in 2009, not 2008. My mistaken dating/typo on your talk page in that regard doesn't change anything I've said above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

@Kirill: I understand the concern regarding the "dregding up" of an old case—if nothing had happened regarding the case for 18 months, I would agree. But this is not the first time a user has brought the case before the Arbitration Committee again for clarification or further action; see here. This is because the problem with Alansohn's behavior has been consistent. It didn't end during his year-long sanction period, it didn't end when the year-long sanction expired in June 2009, and it hasn't stopped since. In the June 2009 clarification linked to, when concerns were expressed that Alansohn's behavior had not improved, the arbitrators strongly encouraged Alansohn to render moot the question of how this case should proceed by improving his behavior. Other than saying that, no one answered the question of what we do next, and no one clarified the question of what should be done if the behavior doesn't improve: [10]. The behavior has not improved, and I feel that multiple requests to the committee by different users should be a signal that something further needs to be done. The question has not been rendered moot, as hoped for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Postdlf

The fundamental issue is that Alansohn has a recurring problem with turning content disputes into personal ones, by making attacks on contributors in the course of disagreeing with their arguments or policy/guideline interpretations. I have tried repeatedly to address this with him through explanations and pleas, assuming his good faith throughout, but he has turned his sights on one contributor after another at CFD, and those who try to change or sanction his behavior in turn get subject to his attacks as well.

I've been personally trying to address Alansohn's incivility at CFD for over a year and a half now (for example, this thread, involving his feud against User:Kbdank71, then a frequent closer of CFD discussions). Alansohn was civil and even complimentary towards me at the time (though persisted in attacks on others). I even tried to address others' incivility towards him as well.[11] Though in my view, Alansohn generally bore more responsibility for initiating the hostile exchanges and escalating and continuing them by baiting. In that particular instance, Alansohn was continuing a feud with yet another frequent CFD contributor, User:Otto4711.[12],[13] And I went out of my way to be nice to Alansohn when I saw him doing good things in other contexts.[14]

His conduct towards me changed starkly once I blocked him myself, in January 2009, for his comments towards User:Good Olfactory.[15],[16]. I have always been reluctant to block someone for conduct other than repeated vandalism. But given Alansohn's very clear editing restrictions, the extreme nature of his comments, and the fact that this was part of a pattern on his part that I had already tried to address with him on multiple occasions, I thought (and still think) a block was very appropriate. I logged it pursuant to his editing restrictions.[17] And I politely explained the block to Alansohn on his talk page.[18]. Alansohn responded with even more incivility and personal attacks, now towards myself as well.[19] Another admin reviewed and denied Alansohn's unblock request, finding that even that request itself contained further incivility.[20]

In the year since, I have periodically tried to bring his uncivil conduct to his attention, and Alansohn has periodically accused me of having abused my admin powers, alleging a conflict of interest on my part as some perception of his that I was acting only pursuant to a "friendship" (as he stated at the time in his response to my block notice). He has never elaborated or supported this accusation. Alansohn has gone so far as to take my words entirely out of context right below my own post, claiming that I myself had described my block of him as "taking the side of a friend";[21]; I corrected him[22] and still have not seen any acknowledgment of this.

Often Alansohn's most inflammatory comments do not expressly identify individuals, but are still understood as attacks on others with whom he disagrees. At a minimum, the heated rhetoric is disruptive.[23],[24],[25] As before, I tried to point this out to him, losing patience.[26] His response was to blame others for starting it.[27] I told him this was non-responsive and pointed out, again, that it was part of a longstanding pattern.[28] I did not receive a further response.

The most recent incident between Alansohn and myself began with me addressing his incivility towards User:BrownHairedGirl, yet another regular participant at CFD that Alansohn has targeted,[29],[30] and who has also tried to address the tone of Alansohn's comments at CFD.[31] Alansohn responded by attacking me out of the blue in a completely unrelated CFD,[32], and by calling me a troll when I asked for an explanation,[33] and by calling me a troll again when I posted a question about a comment of his at yet another CFD (in which he had been uncivil yet again towards BrownHairedGirl.[34]

I responded on his talk page, in which I complimented him as an editor, and pointed out exactly what I had a problem with and what I hoped for going forward.[35] As that thread shows, his response was to call the incidents "trivial," again accuse me and Good Ol'factory of trolling, and of trying to "manufacture knowingly false disputes." When User:BrownHairedGirl also joined in that thread as well and asked Alansohn to explain a comment about policy violations, he responded not with anything relevant to the conduct issues, but rather with issues of policy and guideline interpretation at CFD.

I was shocked recently to realize just how long this was going on, and I am disappointed in myself for not being able to bring about a resolution. But I cannot make any progress with someone who dismisses complaints as "trivial," and labels responses to his personal attacks as "trolling." Anyone who cannot participate in a forum without turning discussions personal, and who cannot respond to complaints about their own conduct without escalating the hostility, does not belong there. postdlf (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

Noting that I have been a past focus of his attention in 2007, and supported all of the previous ArbComs, RfCs, etc as a strong opponent of Alansohn, my observation was (and is) that his behaviour significantly improved after the original ArbCom limitations were put in place and any time I have seen him on the project since, he has been contributing constructively and, in particular, making useful contributions to CfD and other areas. On looking at the evidence in this case, I am not seeing the problems which led to the Footnoted quotes case manifesting themselves, so it should not be treated as a "request for amendment" of the previous case.

On the other hand, my observations of some of the editors Good Olfactory names in his statement above are quite negative indeed - they have acted at times in a hostile, inflexible and provocative manner towards good faith editors in the CfD area at times, and if this goes to an actual case, I'll be happy to spend some time at that point finding examples of this for the evidence pages as it would be a great opportunity to fix CfD. It's an area of the encyclopaedia which has been a problem for a long time, mainly due to WP:OWN problems associated with a very small number of editors who have very strong ideas on How Things Should Be around here - some of the ideas are good, but others are utterly illogical, and these guys brook no criticism and carry grudges, sometimes for years, against editors who take them on. One could be forgiven for thinking this amendment motion, and the stages which led to it, are an orchestrated campaign by the members of that group to silence an opponent.

Good Olfactory's admission above that he has used his admin tools to further his position in a dispute to protect friends - something which he should most definitely have taken to AN/I instead - is also an issue. (Read in connection with 2nd note below) Orderinchaos 12:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ncm: I certainly didn't have you in mind in my comments above - I apologise if I gave that impression. I think you've likely been caught in the crossfire actually - there is a lot more to the disagreement between these parties, in my view, than first appears. The CfD crew's modus operandi is clear to anyone who gets in a dispute with them. Granted, it appears Alan did not handle this particularly well, but the real aggressors should be targetted for action here, not someone they provoked into a predictable response given his past history. Orderinchaos 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Olfactory has asserted to me, and may well be right, that he was not friends with those involved at the time he made the block on Alansohn, which was April 2008. My project's first run-in with the CfD group was possibly (by memory) in August or September 2008 23–30 September 2008, by which stage they were a functioning and tightly-knit group of coordinated editors and any action taken would in that context be thoroughly compromised as per above. Were it a year rather than a few months I'd strike my comment; as it is I'll leave it, with this qualification attached. Orderinchaos 21:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the blocks were performed in 2009, not 2008 (I had been led astray by this comment by Good Olfactory). There may be argument for a reprimand with relation to abuse of admin tools here - it was a clear conflict of interest situation in the terms I outlined in my first post in this comment. Orderinchaos 05:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by [insert user name]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• For the record, in line with Roger Davies request below, Alansohn was reminded at 03:35, 16 February 2010, by one of the clerks. [36].

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I am seeing some problems here. I would be willing to see a motion which partially or fully restricts in the areas of CFD and CFD at DRV. SirFozzie (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Could Alansohn be reminded that this is underway? I'm seeing lots of edits from them but no input here and I'd like to hear their side of the story.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not particularly enthusiastic about dredging up a two-year-old case (and a remedy that's been expired for the better part of a year) to sanction someone, even if they do need sanctioning. This would be better framed as a new case request, in my opinion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• If there is enough substantive matter to justify it, then a new case request might be appropriate. Otherwise, a dead case resuscitation doesn't seem appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse due to involvement in first case. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• I've got to agree with Kirill and Coren, if there are continuing problems that haven't been resolve through the usual channels, a new case might be appropriate, but I don't believe that this can ride on the tailcoats of the old Footnote case since even the restrictions have been expired for most of a year. Shell ^babelfish 02:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm also not very excited about resuscitating a really old case where the area in which the dispute took place had shifted (from BLP to deletion process) - particularly so when there is a landmark decision right above it. I recommend filing a fresh new case if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

---

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Notified

Question by jc37

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes

Due to this case, User:Alansohn received a restriction.

In the time since then, though he apparently has done good work in vandal patrol, and elsewhere, he simply hasn't followed the restriction. And though he hasn't been blocked (or even warned) for "every" violation, this section at least lists blocks related to these issues.

I therefore have a few questions:

The first is whether the 1 year restriction was to restart at the occurrence of each block (something I've seen done in other arbcom cases).

The second is to ask: if it is determined that User:alansohn is not following the restriction, what would/should be the next course of action (if any)?

The third is (if the answer to my first question is "no"), does the committee feel that the 1 year restriction should be lifted at this time?

I feel that these are timely questions since, in roughly 2 weeks, it will be one year since the closure of the case.

Thank you in advance for clarification on this. - jc37 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not sure that you (the arbitrators) have answered my second question.

The simple fact is that User:Alansohn isn't following the restriction, and hasn't been throughout the timeframe of the restriction.

The block log aside, one need only look at my talk page (and related links there) to see recent evidence of that.

From what I can tell, the biggest problem is the presumption of bad faith of other editors (often magnified with incivility). A look at his statement below even shows indications of this.

I hesitate to add diffs showing examples of this simply due to the large volume of examples.

So no, this really isn't, and shouldn't be considered, "moot". It's a constant, ongoing problem, and one that I believe needs to be resolved.

So please clarify what you feel the "next step" should then be? - jc37 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Alansohn

A year was mandated and a year will end in two weeks. Now Jc37 appears to be trying to maintain this "Footnoted Quotes" beyond what was determined and agreed upon. In the past 12 months, I have made somewhere around 150,000 edits (I haven't counted), added tens of thousands of references to a few thousand articles, expanded articles for every one of the 566 municipalities and 120 state legislators in New Jersey and almost all of its school districts and high schools (I think I've missed a few), written from scratch over 300 DYK articles (the most of any Wikipedia editor) and been one of the most prolific vandal fighters in my spare time.

Enough is enough. While I still maintain deep concerns regarding the manner in which the original decision was reached, I've done my time and that time is over. I look forward to the end of these restrictions, after which Jc37 will be free to use whatever legitimate administrative measures are necessary to deal with any future perceived problems -- real or imagined -- once these "editing restrictions" are over. Only now they will have to be weighed against real standards with proper oversight, and applied under the same standards that should be applied to all editors with (hopefully) a small measure of the consistency that has been absent over the past year.

That I have been able to accomplish so much in this past year given the undue harshness of these restrictions is a small miracle. I look forward to accomplishing that much more in the next year without the claim of "editing restrictions" being waved as a threat. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• "So please clarify what you feel the "next step" should then be?" Evaluate all users fairly and objectively, both for those who agree with your personal interpretations of policy and especially those who don't where your judgment may be clouded. Avoid using administrative measures with editors where there is a clear conflict of interest. Resist the urge to use "special enforcement" (Wikipedia's own version of Double Secret Probation) as a crutch or to prolong a process that was already arbitrarily long and been remarkably disruptive. Join me in counting down the days to freedom. Move on. Alansohn (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• (Caveat: I was inactive when this case was decided.) In general, sitebans and blocks are restarted when violations (typically socking) are detected. However, the clock on other types of sanctions, such as the civility restriction imposed in this case, typically is not automatically reset upon a violation. I very strongly urge that Alansohn render this discussion a moot issue by adhering to a reasonable level of civility both before or after the one-year period expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Newyorkbrad's comments. With the expiry of the extension, nothing is stopping an administrator from using the restriction, and violations thereof, in considering whether a block is appropriate and if so of what length. If problems are persistent, the community is also free to (re)impose an appropriate restriction. Reiterating NYB, if Alansohn adheres to a decent level of civility, this will be entirely moot. --Vassyana (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Per both preceding. Alansohn, please contact us if there are any concerns of baiting (which can happen with editors who have been subject to civility sanctions). Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Newyorkbrad and Vassyana. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion to rename the Footnoted Quotes arbitration case (January 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes is renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons. The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Footnoted Quotes decision do not need to be updated. The central log page of discretionary sanctions, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years the new name should be noted along with the old one. The rename of the Footnoted Quotes case to Editing of BLPs is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Copyedit as needed. Simple housekeeping for a still-relevant case with an arcane name. Courcelles 11:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Okay,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Good idea to make the scope of the case more explicit. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
4. There have been recent complaints about the transparency of the name of this case, this is a good way to respond to that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

   I've made the copyedit suggested by NE Ent below ("BLPs" → "Biographies of Living Persons"). Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

5. Please. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
6. Sadly, yes. Baroque Arbcom case names are part of the colour and novelty of Wikipedia. But I agree this new name has greater clarity. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
7. I agree with Euryalus the name is rather cute, but alas. LFaraone 13:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
8. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
9. to reduce confusion DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators

Proposed. The problem is that we have a broad, active DS recorded on one of the more arcane case names I've seen. Courcelles 11:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Community comments

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of BLPs -> Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons. In case a non-Wikipedian real person stumbles upon it. (Wikinsiders will just use whatever shortcut is provided anyway). NE Ent 13:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think that's a good idea, but I'll wait for other committee members to comment as well. Whichever title is chosen the other should be a redirect to it as they are both logical and useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a good point. We have a tendency for succinctness when possible (see the recent "Interaction at GGTF" for one even more obtuse to outsiders)... but in this one, you're right. It's likely to get shown to a lot of newer editors due to its breadth. Fine with this being made as a copyedit, we hardly need a formal alt for this. Courcelles 13:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer "Biographies of living people",  Roger Davies ^talk 13:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It should match the name of the policy that it is intended to support. Risker (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Simpler and clear. I agree. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've now made this change as a copyedit, thank you for the suggestion NE Ent. When this is enacted I also recommend creating redirects for "...People" and various capitalisation alternates. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• My objections: Redirects are cheap and renames cause backwards compatibility issues. The chosen name is too close to the Manipulation of Biographies of Living Persons case. If we are going to move it, why does it use the old naming convention? --Guerillero | My Talk 22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Does it really matter if it's called "editing of BLPs", "of biographies of living persons", or "of biographies of living people"? Just create redirects from the other two. Ditto the naming convention (requests for arbitration/ versus arbitration/requests/case/). The important thing is not what, precisely, it's called (bearing in mind that cases are very rarely cited by their full name, but by the applicable shortcut) but that the title is not ambiguous. The reason for the change is that possibly the broadest set of discretionary sanctions we have is authorised under an obscure case from seven years ago and under a name that gives no indication of its scope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (February 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by EvergreenFir at 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• HJ_Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• East718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• EncyclopediaBob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Retartist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification NorthBySouthBaranof
• diff of notification HJ_Mitchell
• diff of notification East718
• diff of notification DHeyward
• diff of notification EncyclopediaBob
• diff of notification Retartist

Notification of other potentially interested users

• Notice to the BLP talk page
• Ryk72 notified as they were mentioned in my statement
• Masem notified as a potentially interested user added by Ryk72
• ColorOfSuffering notified as a potentially interested user added by Ryk72
• Risker notified as a potentially interested user added by Ryk72

Statement by EvergreenFir

There is apparent disagreement among users and admins on the interpretation of WP:BLPTALK. This stems from the removal of a link on Talk:Gamergate controversy by NorthBySouthBaranof that was originally added by Retartist. Because NorthBySouthBaranof is topic banned from Gamergate, this removal resulted in an Enforcement Request against NorthBySouthBaranof that was closed by HJ Mitchell with no action per WP:BANEX. The basis for the removal was WP:BLP because the link contained very problematic content, the nature of which can be seen in the enforcement request. There was also an Enforcement Request against Retartist for posting the link that was closed by HJ Mitchell with a topic ban. As a result of this enforcement request, the link and other links were REVDELed by East718 per WP:BLP and REVDEL guidelines.

As a direct result of these enforcement requests, a discussion on BLP's talk page (link to specific section) was opened by Ryk72 not named as party due to max of 7 parties, but will be informed of this ARBCOM regarding the interpretation of WP:BLPTALK.

Current wording of BLPTALK for reference

BLPTALK currently says Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion. The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here. Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks. References

Despite the actions of the admins HJ Mitchell and East718, users DHeyward and EncyclopediaBob expressed in my understanding; please correct me if I'm mistaken strong disagreement with the use of BANEX in this manner, suggesting that any links should be allowed to be posted on article talk pages if they are being discussed. I expressed the belief that BLPTALK need tweaking and that not all links are allowed to be posted on non-article spaces (e.g., links from Stormfront should never be posted as they violate BLP policies).

Exact wording of my interpretation and suggested tweak for reference

BLPTALK needs tweaking. The link that prompted this on GG was not just "contentious", it was libel. BLPTALK should reflect that discussion of RS or at least something that approaches RS (which is also key as the link from GG was not RS) is fine. If, for example, HuffPo has an article with some claims about a politician committing fraud, then the talk page is the right venue to discuss that article. However, not all links are covered by BLPTALK, or shouldn't be. Links to Stormfront would never be acceptable. Links that contain libel or highly disparaging content should never be allowed. Folks seem to be misunderstanding "contentious material" and misrepresenting the example in BLP. Let's clarify it so that if (1) matches the rest of the BLP policy's intent and (2) matches how BLP is being enforced.

Interpretations of this portion of the BLP policy are clearly divergent. Admins and REVDELers appear to interpret the language differently than some experienced user. Specifically, the current wording of BLPTALK does not explicitly state if some links that would be excluded from articles as BLP violations are also excluded from non-article space. Moreover, it's unclear if BANEX covers the removal of links from non-article spaces. I request that the ARBCOM clarify this issue as part of the BLP decision for the sake of users and admins.

Edit: In response to HJ Mitchell, I wish to be clear that I 100% agree with his and other admins' assessments of the situation and reading of the BLP policy. However, BLPTALK is still rather ambiguous and given the push back from other users I feel that ARBCOM weighing in on this issue and/or suggesting clarified wording of BLPTALK is needed. I chose this venue because of the past ruling and felt an RfC would not be the appropriate way to address this.

Rhoark's statement is an example of exactly why this needs clarification. It seems the arbs feel that some links are clearly not okay (which I agree with), but the "cut off" is what's blurry here. If arbs are unable to rule on this, what course of action would be recommended? An RfC invites all users to comment, including inexperienced ones. Given that this topic is (1) one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, and (2) the subject of an ARBCOM ruling, it seems that ARBCOM should be the one to clarify it and make substantial changes to it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

I think it's fairly apparent what the letter and spirit of the policy are intended to do — prevent the encyclopedia from being used as a weapon of character assassination or a tool of online trolls. To that end, policy demands that we treat all matters relating to living people with the utmost sensitivity and care. A hopelessly-unreliable source (such as, for instance, a wholly-anonymous webpage, a personal blog or a series of putative screenshots) that contains or is intended to present highly-negative claims, allegations or inferences about living people has no business anywhere on the encyclopedia. It cannot possibly aid the writing of the encyclopedia in any way, because it is categorically forbidden from use in any way. Anything which even stems from it is effectively fruit of the poison tree. Suggesting, as one editor did, that an inflammatory, anonymous screed full of unsupported attacks, disproven allegations and outright lies about living people (the so-called "dossier") is good background reading (for editors) evinces a clear and present misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. This sense is longstanding and core to our policy's ultimate goal: ensuring that what the encyclopedia publishes about living people is well-supported, fair, sensitively-written and unsensational — all stemming from the use of highly-reliable sources and the avoidance of slander, gossip, whisper campaigns and rumormongering. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio Giuliano: You are asking me to give in to an off-wiki-coordinated harassment campaign because it's apparently inconvenient for Wikipedia to deal with the ramifications of the committee's actions. Sorry, but no, I will not just shut up and go away, as you and the endless string of trolls demand. I apologize if it's inconvenient for you to be continually exposed to a reminder of how unjust the decision was and how precisely I predicted what would happen in its wake — a continual series of SPAs appearing and reappearing to demand that, in this topic area, reliable sources be ignored, BLP violations be accepted and living people be slandered. That is, as it happens, exactly what is going on now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Salvio, if you truly believe that an editor's refusal to give into an anonymous harassment campaign aimed at forcing them out of a topic area is "battleground behavior," then you have laid the foundation for the destruction of the project, because there will come a tipping point at which time there will be more anonymous trolls than there are good-faith editors and admins left to defend the project's basic principles in contentious topic areas. The goal of these trolls is simple: raise the personal cost of defending the project's basic policies beyond that which anyone wants to bear. Already I have been subjected to numerous attacks, death threats and harassment methods on and off the encyclopedia, for doing little more than demanding that our articles adhere to what reliable sources say, and that our articles reject anonymous attempts at assassinating the character of living people. ArbCom has taught the trolls that all they have to do is depict those who stand up against them as engaging in "battleground behavior" and they win. Already we've seen them come after JzG and others. If you don't think they'll keep going after every single person who tries to enforce the policies against them, you're delusional. And at some point, everyone with a shred of sanity will throw up their hands and give up — even the redoubtable HJ Mitchell, to whom I will entrust any future BLP violations I identify. ArbCom has written the textbook for destroying Wikipedia from within. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement from Harry Mitchell

I have little to add here. I closed two AE requests where the result was astoundingly obvious (and have been taking flak for it on my talk page since). Posting links to obviously inappropriate material, especially where the source couldn't possibly be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes is, at best, grossly negligent. I note that Retartist says they did it in good faith and I have no reason to doubt their word, but that's not the sort of conduct we need in difficult topic areas.

I don't see anything to clarify. Four admins (@Gamaliel, East718, and Timotheus Canens: and I) were in agreement that the material in question was a BLP violation. I asked whether this was an isolated incident or a pattern of mis(conduct|judgement) and was presented with evidence of the latter. It would have taken something miraculous for that thread or the one against NBSB to have been closed any other way.

That will probably be the extent of my comments here unless somebody asks me a direct question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In light of EF's reply and DHeyward's comment, I'll add: I'm not sure this is within the jurisdiction of ArbCom, but if it were my thoughts are that if something couldn't possibly be considered a reliable source, and it contains potentially defamatory claims, it has no business being linked to from Wikipedia. Especially not from an article or its talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Protonk: [37]. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by East718

Statement by DHeyward

The enforcement request for BANEX is a red herring. The issue is whether links, without any statements about the link content (i.e. "Please look here") are BLP violations in and of themselves on a talk page - WP:BLPTALK. No one is repeating the claims on-wiki. There is a very obtuse view that a link can, by itself, be a BLP violation. That's nonsense. We have much stricter policies regarding links in articles, but links provided for discussion can be ignored, or archived without affecting the encyclopedia. There is more disruption by deleting links on talk pages than by ignoring them. Revdel's are even more asinine. The reality is that a talk page discussion that says "Does this link have anything we can use [wwww.example.com]?" is not the same as saying "This link says Person X did Y, can we use it [wwww.example.com]?". The latter should be redacted if the claims are BLP violations, the former should be ignored or commented on but it need not be removed. We can't even control secondary content in sources in articles, so why stifle discussion (or worse, punish editors for trying to start a discussion? If we source NY Times in an article and they decide to have an inline link that leads to characterizations that WP would not publish (i.e. say a criminal charge), that doesn't forever invalidate the source. Papers like the guardian have second level links that are "NAtional Inquire"ish type stories on celebrities.

We don't regulate offsite content or links that are twice removed from articles. This is where talk page links are. No one is reading WP and following the link to validate a claim made on WP. If simply following links were bad, without claims, we would need to guard against the side bar content of sites like The Daily Mail that have a number of "Don't miss" articles. The fact is, if he claim isn't made on WP, the link is immaterial and certainly not a BLP violation. This is longstanding policy to allow for collegial discussion of subjects without fear. That should continue. Those that only delete links on talk pages are being disruptive, not collaborative. Ignore it per WP:BEANS. WP is not responsible for what others say offsite nor is a link any kind of affirmation. We've learned this with links to articles about the ArbCom committee itself. The stories were false. Portraying them as true on WP is problematic. Linking to them without judgement is not. Witch-hunting for those that dared add the link is disruptive.

The sole exception is "outing" and the simple rule of thumb is if the Oversight committee is not going to remove it, it's not a policy violation and it should be left alone. --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EncyclopediaBob

Just a quick clarification and summary: I have no position on WP: BANEX and whether NBSB's actions complied. I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of that policy. My disagreement with EvergreenFir (and others) seems to be in the application of BLP policy, whether on talk pages under WP:BLPTALK or in article space under WP:BLP. As I understand it, non-BLP-compliant sources may not be used to source BLP material. As it's been applied by a number of admins, non-BLP-compliant sources may not be used to source any material, even non-BLP material, and the linking of such sources is sanctionable. I joined the discussion on WP:BLPTALK in an attempt to bridge the significant gulf between my reading of the policy and its current application. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Retartist

All i want to say is that i posted the links in good faith and was stupid in posting so many links without checking each one --RetΔrtist (разговор) 02:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72

I am working on a statement, which not only addresses all of the principle & policy aspects, but is also below the 500 word limit; in the meantime...

Thanks to:

EvergreenFir, for raising this in this forum;

respected ArbCom members, for their time & consideration of this matter;

all other editors responding either here or at WT:BLP;

and especially, HJ_Mitchell for his tireless efforts in administration in contentious areas.

Clarification:

The discussion initiated at WT:BLP stemmed from my noticing a number of instances of removal, reversion, and revdeletion of links to sources containing contentious material from article talk pages, citing WP:BLP. It is not based on one set of deletions claiming WP:BLP. See: [38]

I am not concerned by any one instance of this type of removal, reversion or deletion nor by the editors involved. I am concerned by the pattern, and the implications on consensus building if it is to become an accepted practice. I ask those commenting and the Arbitrators to focus on the relevant principles, policies & guidelines. See: WP:5P, WP:CON, WP:BLP (incl. BLPTALK), WP:TPG (incl. WP:TPO) & WP:CRYBLP.

Statement: (placeholder)

The concern is that this type of invocation of WP:BLP is being used to suppress the normal working of the Wikipedia Project; preventing discussion of sources, and improvement of the encyclopedia through consensus. Editors are leveraging WP:BLP to remove good faith links to potential sources (and good faith, sourced, discussion of existing sources). Editors should be able to point (link) to a source, and discuss it's appropriateness without fear of sanction. If a source is not reliable, or not usable for any other reason, that should be decided by consensus, which requires that the source be identifiable (linked) for discussion.

In summary:

"the purpose of the biographies of living persons policy (WP:BLP) is not to protect living persons (although this is a pleasing side effect); but to protect Wikipedia from slandering or libeling living persons (and the consequences thereof)" - WP:BLP (as understood by Ryk72) See:[39]

"links to contentious material do not violate BLP; unsourced contentious material violates BLP"; - WP:BLP (as understood by Ryk72),

"invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion" - WP:CRYBLP

W.r.t ArbCom action on this request, I would ask no more than the committee affirm that WP:BLPREMOVE, as it applies to non-mainspace pages, covers only contentious material, not links to external websites (where the contents are not repeated on Wikipedia).

Thanks again for your consideration of this matter. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

The attention of the Arbitration Committee is drawn to the circumstance that, last night, this page was widely extolled on Twitter by a variety of anonymous accounts bearing GamerGate regalia and celebrating the expected further sanctioning of User:NorthBySouthBaranof which is and has long been their stated goal and plan. There, @theWTFMagazine links to an 8chan thread on that distinguished contributor which begins:

His persecution delusions are flaring up

His inner white knight is gleaming

He changed into new diapers

It apparently began twelve hours ago, attracting some 50 posts overnight.

You will be pleased to know that @PalinFreeborn is cheering you on, @FortunateCat is calling on your vigor, @ED_Updates -- doubtless that same people who were so very eager for you to take action against Ryulong that they needed to tell you all about his religious background (avaricious Jew!) and sex life -- is asking User:Jimbo to stiffen your resolve. All are eager to see that you continue steadily on your course and remain firm in your intention.

Look at the progress you have made! Yesterday, a vigorous and lengthy debate on the Talk page has proceeded through an additional 8,000 words of discussion devoted to whether WP:RS shall be disregarded for GamerGate because the entire press is biased against #GamerGate, 2,500 words revisiting the much-discussed question of whether actions associated with the GamerGate hashtag may be excluded because someone says "they were not really GamerGate supporters" and whether GamerGate is a "movement". One of the GamerGate victims had a 550 word libel revdel'd again; as you know, this is hardly a rare occurrence.

You could (and should) have stopped this; instead, you have encouraged it.

I concur with User:NorthBySouthBaranof: GamerGate has handed every little PR shop a textbook on how to pervert Wikipedia. ArbCom has written the textbook for destroying Wikipedia from within.

This flagrant effort to pervert Wikipedia's disciplinary mechanism is not likely to arouse your notice or evoke your concern. The standard discussed below -- that some BLP-violating links are OK on talk pages, some are not, and that the encyclopedia's defender should be less vehement in upholding its rules -- is risible. After all, the matter is a small content dispute: some editors want to use Wikipedia to spread claims appearing in unreliable sources that specific women in software development are sluts and whores. Others think this is clearly prohibited by policy. ArbCom in its majesty, it seems, believes that Wikipedia will be served well by exhaustively and repeatedly discussing the matter on talk pages, on drama boards, and here.

After all, what's the harm? Just a content dispute!

Wikipedia talk pages are a weapon against GamerGates’s victims. Those who object to this continuing outrage are necessarily and inconveniently guilty of battleground behavior and must be driven from Wikipedia, leaving the way clear for the trolls.

Meanwhile, the world awaits a sign of your care for the editors who served this project, or for its victims. http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html MarkBernstein (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dealt with, hatting as it doesn't make sense now, feel free to unhat/remove this if you want Mark. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@62.157.60.27 takes me to task for "spreading misinformation about the ArbCom case even in his statement above" and for various other high crimes. If 62.157.60.27 has some particular correction to offer, 62.157.60.27 might be so good as to identify it. In the same jeremiad, 62.157.60.27 is apparently outraged that Brianna Wu expressed an opinion in the pages of Bustle with which 62.157.60.27 does not agree and wants ArbCom to do something about it. Like the flowers that bloom in the spring (tra la!) this has nothing to do with the case. The paragraph bearing my name is irrelevant, uncivil, and assumes no good faith; it is also very interesting that its “uninvolved” author is so well acquainted with the topic and with intricacies of Wikipedia procedure but does not possess (or does not desire to use) a Wikipedia account. I request it be hatted or deleted by the clerk.MarkBernstein (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark’s standard of imminent harm creates a new "extra-special BLP" for talk pages. Would (to choose a pertinent example) saying that a software developer has prostituted herself rise to this standard? Would saying that she had slept with more than five men rise to this level? Would saying that the software developer had faked threats of assault, rape, and death qualify? These are three of the BLP violations in question here; they have been discussed many times and at great length on the talk page, as ArbCom members (all of whom have, I am sure, read the entire talk page archives with care and attention) well know. But of course the separate, vague, higher standard for BLP on talk pages is precisely what is wanted here by those who have so successfully exploited -- and continue to use -- Wikipedia's talk pages to punish their enemies and all who stand in their way -- now including, as mentioned above, User:NorthBySouthBaranof. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk

This isn't helpful at addressing the central issue here (clerk action). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason we didn't topic ban retartist for three months and block them for 24 hours? Protonk (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: It's still more time than you apparently took before topic banning an admin in good standing for stating the central known fact of the gamergate controversy (a statement which was at the time of the block printed in the signpost, FFS). Sorry if my disgust at your appallingly poor block upsets you. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved IP-editor

If you are not going to clarify the issue in regards to WP:BLPTALK violations, can you at least explain why it is allowed to be one-sidedly used as some sort of hammer to punish ideological opponents?

There seem to be constant revdels and topic-bans for what seems to be some of the most innocuous thing like posting a link to any articles or trying to discuss something on talk pages regarding certain people (Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn for instance), but there seems to be a double standard when this applies to other living persons, for instance this personal opinion article from Bustle: [40] accusing someone of criminal behavior of the most vile kind and calling on the Obama administration to arrest and prosecute them has not been interpreted as a BLP violations against living persons.

Not helpful (clerk action). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You also have User:MarkBernstein who has previously been blocked due to statements he made, but was apparently allowed back and is blatantly spreading misinformation about the ArbCom case even in his statement on this very page and has called other editors "rape apologists" on the site he identified as his own [41][42] and called for sanctions against them before [43] and yet he is still somehow allowed to offer his input, while others are topic-banned or blocked for much less? Is there some sort of stipulation that some people or groups of people deserve protection against any kind of violations of these policies, while other living persons or groups of people don't enjoy the same privileges and can be called anything one wishes without recourse or penalties?

62.157.60.27 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad

I understand why EvergreenFir brought this here, but the arbitrators have said what needs to be said, and nothing else useful is going to come out of this thread, whether it is closed promptly or a week from now. I suggest the former. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

BLP is for the most part a policy about claims, not about sources. I've brought this up before at the noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive213#Contentious_BLP_content_in_sources_that_are_cited_for_other_reasons. I think everyone should be advised to wait for consensus before redacting links - excepting where the content is illegal or in some way liable to cause imminent harm. Rhoark (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: I have not proposed a weakening of BLP for talk pages, rather a common-sense concession towards strengthening it. Otherwise the content of a link has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia outside those portions that are discussed on this site. Rhoark (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Clerk notes

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

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'd say changing the wording of BLPTALK is fully ultra vires of the Committee, but I do think the AE admins got this one right, the link served no useful purpose, and BANEX was correctly (and even if you disagree, in good faith) invoked. I'm just not seeing anything for ArbCom to do here. Courcelles 05:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• BLP applies everywhere; however, it applies to different degrees depending on the location of the offending material.

  While its application needs to be very strict and proactive in mainspace, which is where most people end up looking and where an allegation may sound like it's made in Wikipedia's voice, its application on talk pages and on WP:BLPN needs to be less strict. The policy indirectly acknowledges this, when it says [w]hen material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Since to restore what someone else has flagged as a BLP violation you need a consensus, it follow that it is permissible to discuss in good faith possible BLP violations in talk space and on the appropriate noticeboard; after the discussion is over, if it's determined that the material was indeed a violation, then the discussion may be hatted or purged of the offending material, but, again, there needs to be a place where such a discussion can be had without hindrance.

  Removal of material without discussion from talk pages or from the relevant noticeboard should be reserved for cases of egregious and uncontroversial BLP violations. This appears to have been one such case. That said, NBSB, you were right on the merits, but your approach still leaves much to be desired. Please move on. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • NorthBySouthBaranof, that's exactly the kind of battleground attitude I was referring to by "your approach still leaves much to be desired". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• As Courcelles says, it's not our role to change the wording of BLPTALK, nor do I think we should be mandating a specific interpretation, which would have the same practical effect. AS Salvio says, the application of BLPTALK outside of article space isn't as cut and dried as it is in an article, and I agree with his comments on material on a talk page or BLPN - it needs to be possible to discuss at least most suggested BLP violations, which might mean including a link. Hatting or purging may be required after a discussion is concluded. I don't see a role for us here. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Courcelles and Doug. Firstly, BANEX was correctly applied in this case. On the broader point, a blanket statement is not going to help here. It is perfectly legitimate, in almost all cases, to discuss on a talk page whether source X is a BLP violation or not (if consensus is that it is, then some or all of the discussion may need to be hidden or removed). In a minority of cases though, and this is one of them, the BLP violation is so clear and/or so gross that even including it on a talk page is not acceptable. Every case is different though, so it needs to be left to individual judgement as to when this applies. So beyond reminding everybody to err on the side of caution with BLPs there is nothing more for us to do here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• As pretty well always, there's no blanket ruling to make here. Appropriateness of material is on a case by case basis, though I would say that discussions as to whether or not certain material is appropriate at all should generally be given relatively wide latitude to take place, certainly more latitude than use in an article due to the difference in visibility. But "wide" doesn't mean "unlimited", and if someone is using such a discussion as a coatrack to push BLP violations or the material is egregiously bad, that is not acceptable and someone is right to stop it. In this case, I think NBSB had a good faith belief enforcement was necessary, and that assessment clearly was not way out of line with consensus on the matter. I therefore see no reason to overturn HJ Mitchell's decision that a legitimate exemption to a topic ban applied here. However, NBSB, I'd strongly advise you to take Gamergate related items off your watchlist. You were quite properly warned that while this instance fell under a topic ban exemption, your ongoing discussion of the matter after the topic ban was in place was clearly not allowed by it, and while that's stale for enforcement at this time, I think you could expect enforcement action if that continues. Topic bans apply to user talk pages as surely as any others. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.