Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:29, 16 June 2008

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Deletion review

Does remedy number one mean that where an admin has used the ".... deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance" with the BLP policy, an appeal cannot be taken to deletion review? The remedy as worded at the moment seems to suggest that instead it must to taken to one of the noticeboards or to the committee. I hope this is not what is intended and that the remedy could be clarified to show this is not the case. Davewild (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Arb count

Since arb FayssalF is inactive, should the arb count be 13/7 and the list on this talk page list him as inactive? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to Fayssal's directions, I don't believe so:

I'll be inactive until May 18th, 2008. Remaining active on cases i participated in.

— FayssalF, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard

My interpretation of that (original comment) is that he wishes to remain active on cases he has already participated in (ie., cases he is already listed as active in), and be put to inactive on any cases accepted after he has announced his inactivity. There are, of course, alternative interpretations that one could draw; for example, that "already participated in" is a reference to his actual editing of the case pages (eg., proposing via the workshop, voting, etc.), rather than simply being listed as active.

It remains something of a "grey area", and it may be useful to have Fayssal clarify the matter himself.

Anthøny 11:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I read it that precise alternate way though, meaning cases he'd actually edited. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For the public record (Rlevse is already aware of this); per the following email, from FayssalF:

I am sorry for the confusion. I mean I'd still participate on cases I have voted on. I'll be back soon on mid-week i believe.

It has been interpreted, that Fayssal will be marked as inactive on this case. I have adjusted the majorities as necessary; see and . Regards, Anthøny 17:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

An abysmal decision

Decisions by the Arbitration Committee should consider the behavior of all involved parties. The current proposed decision, however, is highly inadequate in this respect, as it sanctions Alansohn in part for alleged incivility against the abusive sockpuppet account Runreston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see the sixth diff in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Alansohn), while completely failing to even mention Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the sockpuppeteer who operated the account Runreston, as described in my evidence. By sanctioning good-faith, highly productive contributors such as Alansohn for six instances of alleged incivility over the course of 45000 edits while ignoring blatant, bad-faith abusive sockpuppetry, this decision has the destructive effect of encouraging good editors to leave while rewarding abusive sockpuppeteers with an apparent immunity to sanctions. John254 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That would presuppose Alansohn's sole instances of incivility were against that one account, a breathtakingly revisionist view of the situation. Unfortunately for your premise, Alansohn has has hundreds of breaches of civility and WP:AGF violations against dozens of editors. The RfC alone documented one hundred and twenty violations, a total the tenth of which would have gotten any novice editor blocked. If there is a failure in the process, it is in that Alansohn has gotten away with too much for too long, at the cost of many editors who either no longer wanted to deal with him or who wanted nothing more to do with a project that demonstrably had little interest in enforcing its civility rules.  RGTraynor  12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The case of the coatrack arbitration

So, a case was accepted for arbitration on "quotes in footnotes", and the decision was to make no decision on "quotes in references". Why accept the case? It just seems to have been a coatrack to punish the behavior of Alansohn and ignore the behavior of RedSpruce. Wouldn't it have been easier to not accept the case? Why is calling someone an "idiot" and a "moron" acceptable. Is that where the bar now stands for incivility? Why is an admission of edit warring to make a point, by RedSpruce ignored? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I interpret the lack of ruling on such quotes as a sign that it is a content dispute, not a behavior one, and one that the AC won't touch. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Question to Arbitrators/Sam Blacketer about Finding 2.1

Can you please clarify? You've said it's a legitimate disagreement over content, only in the absence of unambiguous guidance from the guidelines. Then after that, you say it should be decided by consensus after wide consultation. So consensus against the guideline in that article isn't a legitimate disagreement over content? Or is that a restatement of consensus for making the guideline to begin with?

I didn't think guidelines were enforced as the be-all and end-all, except at GA/FA levels. There have been cases where consensus was unclear on which formatting to use - both sides wanting their preferred style. In such cases, I don't think this is helpful either. And effectively insisting they be followed means that whenever a change is made to the style guidelines, all articles have to constantly be changed. I'd rather a finding 2.2 be made -

The question of what material—such as quotes—should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content, and should be decided by consensus after consultation with the wide community. Guidance may be sought from relevant style guidelines including Manual of style and in Misplaced Pages:Footnotes.

Wouldn't this be more accurate as an absolute principle? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your first paragraph is suffering from a confusion over its object. The issue of whether, in a particular article, a footnote should contain a quote, is a legitimate disagreement over content unless and until there is a clear and unambiguous statement in the Manual of style. The decision of whether there should be such a statement in the Manual of style, and if there is, what it should say, is something on which widespread consultation must take place before it is added. Not everything about article style has to be laid down in the Manual of style. American English vs. British English is one issue on which there is quite deliberately no guideline per se.

Of course revert-warring over whether footnotes should include quotes is always going to be wrong. Unless there is a clear style guidance on whether footnotes should include quotes, then both positions are on equal footing with regard to policy. I would also say that in the event that guidance was made which said that footnotes should not include quotes, there would still be individual cases where exceptions should reasonably be allowed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for clearing it up - Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion and the proposed finding of fact are straying from the actual issue. The issue is not "whether quotes should be included in footnotes." The issue is about irrelevant and redundant quotes being included in the footnotes of a vast number of artricles. Obviously, there shouldn't be anything in the manual of style that says "quotations should/shouldn't be used in footnotes." Quotations are entirely appropriate in some footnotes under some circumstances. But at the same time, I'm not sure the MOS should be modified to say "Material in footnotes should be not be irrelevant or redundant." This is common sense; obviously (to most of us) all material in an article should be relevant and not redundant.

Under more normal circumstances, this would be an ordinary content-dispute issue rather than an issue for the ArbCom. There are two factors that make the circumstances unusual: First Richard Arthur Norton is making very similar detrimental edits to literally thousands of articles. Second, most of these edits are--taken individually--only mildly detrimental, and are made to obscure articles. Thus, while other editors have occasionally objected to the damage he is doing, there usually isn't sufficient opposition to overcome his relentless stubbornness and his refusal to listen to reason. At best, he gives up on one article and moves on to wreak his little dis-improvements on a dozen or so other articles before the day is out.

RedSpruce (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved and ongoing issue

Re. the issue described in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Evidence#User:Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) "stonewalling" on G. David Schine, RAN is resuming his edit-warring at G. David Schine and in a few other articles (Elizabeth Bentley, William Remington). In the G. David Schine article in particular, the issue is not so much redundant footnote content, but rather the blatantly obstructionist pretense of "discussion" that RAN and Alansohn engaged in. As seen in User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#G. David Schine, I have proposed mediation, but RAN (as of this writing) hasn't responded.

If RAN is going to continue making indefensible edits while refusing to engage in real discussion or mediation, and if this RfAr doesn't deal with this issue in some way, then I don't see what course of action would be open to me other than to make a new RfAr as soon as this one closes. RedSpruce (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Remedy 2: Alansohn restricted

"Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith..."

Can we start reporting violations, such as this and the edit summary here, now, or do we have to wait until this case is closed? RedSpruce (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does bolster the premise that Alansohn does not and will not ever get it. One would think that an all-but-unanimous Arbcom sanction against him would get his attention and be a clear "Cut this out right the heck now" signal, as opposed to him presuming that Should make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith (unless some idjit has it coming to him) ... is what the ruling really means. (By contrast, the edit summary, added after my comment, does not strike me as out of line.)  RGTraynor  05:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's out of line. With "the customary and arbitrary removal of sources" Alansohn is referring to my edits; he is saying that it's "customary" for me to make "arbitrary" edits, despite my extensive explanation and justification for my edits. That covers all three items: uncivil, personal attack and assumption of bad faith. RedSpruce (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Arbcom has ruled that calling someone an "idiot" and a "moron" was acceptable behavior. If those words didn't trigger an incivility ruling, the incivility must now have to be stronger than calling someone an idiot and a moron. Using the term "arbitrary" doesn't appear to me to be a stronger epithet than idiot or moron. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope Alansohn agrees with that clever little theory, RAN. It will be interesting to see how far it gets him. RedSpruce (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Special enforcement on biographies of living persons

I strongly suggest you unwikilink the wording "the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard" from the appeals section. If the administrative tool used was protection, the appropriate location is WP:RFPP. If the tool used was deletion, the appropriate location is WP:DRV. For blocks, bans, and topic bans the appropriate location is WP:AE. There is no one link that fits all possible appropriate locations, so a wikilink is a bad idea.

You may, given these circumstances, be better off expanding the wording so that you can link all of the currently relevant locations. GRBerry 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, looking over this further, this case does not merit this remedy. The evidence and workshop pages of the case simply don't merit a broad-reaching policy rewrite such as this. This effectively rewrites policy for all editors without notice or community input. While we might find a case that merits such a remedy, it seems clear to me that this should not issue as a remedy in this case. GRBerry 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(separate ?, same topic)

Currently, it says "any means necessary". That's a _bit_ too broad, as it explicitly authorizes admins to do anything to uphold BLP. I'm sure people can think how that wouldn't work well... ffm 00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If by "wouldn't work well" you mean "awesome", then I agree. I just think it's very appropriate that something as damaging and pernicious as the BLP policy is being fixed with an irresponsible and tossed-together remedy like this. It's poetic.

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log is now created

I note that MBisanz has now created this page. I am not so sure it's a good idea to create a log based on an Arbcom decision that has not yet closed and is still under discussion in the community, as it may give some individuals the impression that they should jump the gun and proceed as if their actions are authorised. While some of those actions—standard page protection, deletion of inappropriate content, and blocking—are all within the scope of any administrator regardless of the article type, unilaterally imposed sanctions without community discussion/consensus that require "clear community consensus" to modify or override are new authorities for administrators, and are not in effect until such time as the Arbitration Committee closes this case. Risker (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP goes nuclear

I confess to not having been following this case. "Footnoted quotes" sounded likely to be a bit dry and technical - a bit of an automatic "nothing to see here" stamp on its forehead. But it seems that actually this case contains a pretty surprising remedy likely to have fairly dramatic consequences for the future. I realise that this case is about to close but offer some thought on the "Special enforcement on biographies of living persons" provision as it stands:

Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Misplaced Pages article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy.

This will I suspect be one of the most quoted passages of an ArbCom decision for a long time. What does "any and all means at their disposal" actually mean? There is far from a consensus on what exactly BLP requires in specific cases. The use of the words "letter and spirit" paves the way for a lot wikilawyering... Baby 81 incident saw an instance where administrators differed sharply over how to apply to Badlydrawnjeff decision, I shudder to think of the extra heat that would have been generated had those administrators wishing the name of the baby removed from the article on BLP grounds been given ArbCom's blessing to use "any and all means necessary". I do not believe such a blanket proposal will actually improve Misplaced Pages's BLP problems - the fighting likely to result may well eclipse the actual issues. The provision feels like to blunt a tool, potentially lacking the finesse necessary to be effective.

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

This seems to qualify the above - it must be "believed" to be reasonably necessary, but apparently does not have to be reasonably necessary. The two qualifiers trouble me: surely it should either be "must be believed to be necessary" or "must be reasonably necessary"? Also, page protections and deletions must be so believed, but there is no similar provision for blocks?

...administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary.

The worry with these sorts of provisions is that they allow blanket actions there must be a consensus to overturn, rather than requiring discussions first to establish consensus as to appropriate remedies. Different administrators will favour different remedies, some taking a more Draconian approach to others and the enforcement is likely to be uneven.

This remedy has a feel of, "We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do it." It is being implemented through a case which has had little community attention - the most hits the proposed decision has had in one day seems to be about 100, whilst the workshop has been one of the quietest ones for a while. This remedy is going to come as a surprise to many and its implementation is in my view going to generate more heat than light. The creation of Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log for targeted sanctions aimed at those who frequently create issues on BLPs is a good move, but I think there should be more of an emphasis on the need for consensus for imposing such sanctions and I would suggest the removal of language such as any and all means at their disposal. I simply cannot see any situation in which it could be beneficial for someone to be able to say, "I have authority to use all means at my disposal..." WjBscribe 13:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. I wasn't even aware of the existence of this case until pointed here by one of those "evil" attack sites. Inserting this remedy into an otherwise dry, technical case regarding WikiWonkery about footnote format seems like a complete non-sequitir, and would seem to be an attempt to not only have the ArbCom effectively make policy (something it's not supposed to do), but to do this in a sneaky, underhanded way by tacking it onto a case that few are paying attention to, so that as little as possible community comments are made before it's made a fait accompli. It reminds me of how the U.S. Congress sometimes sneaks controversial measures into law by tacking them onto unrelated bills that few congresspersons themselves even bother to read. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan T., Signpost regularly reports on arbitration cases. I find this a reliable source of information about our cases. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that the case, and its proposed remedy relating to BLP, did indeed get some coverage, which I somehow escaped noticing (perhaps distracted by all the drama surrounding some other ArbCom cases going on concurrently, making this wonky-named one seem tame and uninteresting in comparison). Still, I remain unconvinced that this remedy has any logical relation to the subject matter of the case, and it seems to be an indication that ArbCom is willing to use any case on any subject to legislate on whatever other topics they wish; it would be like if the U.S. Supreme Court took a case regarding the applicability of parking fines and then issued a decision that included a section which empowered policemen to seize allegedly obscene books on their own initiative. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Typical. From Wickard v. Filburn: “In the wake of Jones & Laughlin and Wickard v. Filburn, it has become clear that Congress has authority to regulate virtually all private economic activity.” - WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WJBscribe as well. This is a terrible remedy and will only cause drama all over the wiki. The standard civility paroles that the committee keeps insisting on including in cases are already troublesome enough. It is not acceptable to impose a remedy that applies to roughly a quarter of our content—at a time when the policies covering such content are in flux—without direct and requested input from the community. Deleting, blocking and page protection are fine and are all within the basic tool set of any administrator; but sanctions such as page/topic bans should be discussed by the community before they are imposed, not afterward, and consensus reached before their imposition, not having to be developed to lift the arbitrary decision of a single administrator. This has the potential to create an enormous rift within the community, and within the administrative ranks as well. Current policies do not support this remedy; it is not even an interpretation of existing policy, but policy de novo. Please reconsider. Risker (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree any more, myself. This process was supposed to address the use of brief quotations in footnotes, yet Arbcom has determinedly refused to leave this issue unaddressed while tackling numerous issues utterly unrelated to the subject at hand. User:Rlevse, an admin who describes himself as the clerk of this entity, decided to drag in an issue with George Thomas Coker, an article in which he has stubbornly refused for a period of years to include details about the subject's extensive appearance in the Academy Award-winning film Hearts and Minds, abusing the clearest possible conflict of interest to satisfy the subject's demands to remove references to the film from the article. Ample evidence documenting User:Rlevse's abuse of Misplaced Pages policy has been provided here, but the only apparent response from Arbcom is to create a remedy that allows any admin to wield the claim of supposed WP:BLP issues as a club to remove any content that the lone admin has decided doesn't belong. We have already harmed the Misplaced Pages community by granting near unlimited power to admins. This proposal only compounds the clear potential for abuse that User:Rlevse has amply demonstrated. That this "remedy" has been dragged in here on a totally unrelated matter, that the abusive admin who inserted this subject here appears to have manipulated process to insert an issue on which he has already abused Misplaced Pages policy and seeks a "solution" to fit his personal bias, that this is a matter on which Arbcom lacks any authority and that this is a matter that should be addressed by the community as a whole, clearly demonstrates that this matter has no place here whatsoever for Arbocm to be addressing this matter. Alansohn (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, ArbCom, for taking a strong, unequivocal stand on behalf of those administrators and editors who work to ensure that the project complies with its legal, moral and ethical responsibilities toward living persons whose lives we attempt to chronicle. While the precise wording might be helped with some tweaks, the concept is right on - we have to make it more difficult to push POV on BLPs. FCYTravis (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As was done with Rosalind Picard? Oh wait...

Seriously, I agree that the BLP policy needs to be changed and strengthened. This proposal, however, gives carte blanche to administrators to do as they wish with any information involving a living person. The Picard article, however, is an excellent example to discuss. It sat in a clearly biased state for months because ordinary editors had been kept at bay (a newbie indef blocked too) by a group of administrators. It was only when an another administrator challenged the status quo on that article that anything happened, and even she was threatened. Anyone who has edited here for any length of time knows that touching such articles is tantamount to wiki-suicide. Gary Weiss, anyone? Patrick Byrne? In each of these cases, the administrators defending the status quo, blocking newbies and threatening established editors with blocks, believed honestly that they were doing the right thing. Each of these cases created huge drama, because many people knew instinctively that those articles were not BLP-compliant, but there was no effective way of changing them short of major upheaval. Arbcom is supposed to address problems, not create them, and this is going to be an absolute nightmare. Risker (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to comment at length here, but I think that this principle and its consequences should be followed very closely by the arbitration committee. They would be abrogating their responsibility if they did not do so. They should also be prepared to modify it or withdraw it if it is clear things are not working out. My immediate reaction is, sadly, not to think "let's start cleaning up BLPs", but to think "ooh, better avoid BLPs now". The presumption, maybe, is that only those that care about specific BLPs will now edit them. Is that a good thing? I also second the comments that I nearly missed this because I was not following the case. There was also something somewhere about a "sourcing noticeboard". Are these proposals by ArbCom getting enough scrutiny from the community? Carcharoth (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The proposal that begins "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal" is a poorly worded, extremest, unbalanced, against community consensus, unjustified by evidence, policy creation proposal that will cause disruption, drama, and POV articles far more than actually solve anything. Balance of goals is necessary. NPOV and BLP must be balanced. Arbcom does not have the authorization to make BLP overrule NPOV. You do not have the right or the power to implement this god-awful proposal. Crafting an excellent encyclopedia requires thoughtfulness, carefulness, study, evaluation, civil communication, and caring about things like usefulness and human feelings. Giving the police bigger guns is not helpful. Everything looks like a nail when you are walking around with a (ban) hammer? WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP does not conflict with NPOV. In fact, BLP can be seen as an extra-stringent demand that, in particular, biographical articles must be in full compliance with NPOV at all times. At its core, BLP is a restatement of all the major policy provisions, plus a rebuttable presumption that we should err on the side of privacy and discretion when making decisions about including or excluding pieces of content. FCYTravis (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP is widely misunderstood. Even by admins. People claim "do no harm" is paramount. It is not. It is one important consideration. People claim it is only a tough assed implementation of our other rules. It is not only that. It is also a rule that says to treat people like people and not like some building. That common sense idea was not part of our content policies until BLP. Some claim the motivation for the policy is libel. It is not. We already have a WP:LIBEL policy. The motivation for BLP is the same sense of morality and ethics that cause many of us to contribute in the first place. Asking individual admins (some teenagers) to use their personal judgement concerning content on wikipedia claims about living people (not just BLP labeled articles, but any claim anywhere, even on talk pages) is to create trouble. Arbcom will be Misplaced Pages's greatest drama creator and should be abolished if it insists on this terrible terrible ruling. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

But what people are discussing here is not the BLP policy itself, but this new attempt by the ArbCom to impose sweeping new enforcement powers that will give every admin carte blanche to insist that everybody abide by his/her own interpretation of BLP, on threat of being blocked. Some rouge admin thinks that mentioning that somebody is "blonde" is an intolerable assault on BLP? They're the sheriff in town, and the judge, jury, and executioner too; their word is law unless a firm "consensus" develops against it (and they can do their best to prevent this from happening by intimidating opponents into silence with threats of blocks and bans, full-protecting discussion pages where such a consensus might develop, etc.). The ArbCom must have known that this would be highly controversial, which is why they're trying to sneak it in by adding it as a remedy in what would seem to be a thoroughly unrelated case that seems so un-interesting that almost nobody even noticed it. Thank goodness for the "attack site" which drew my attention to this. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• So far, attempts (by administrators) to take action on BLPs have not been effective enough - this gives admins both the assurance and tools to use more effective measures. Prevention is key in relation to BLP articles - it's a special category of articles which is why a special policy applies to them. Various formalities have made it impossible to focus on this in taking effective action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is "making policy", at least in the pejorative sense. This reads to me like the approach that already has been taken by a small but active subset of the admin community; I suspect that there is a larger subset who would be prepared to take such aggressive action should an appropriate situation arise. Of course, at the present time this is being done with a heavy dollop of IAR; this ArbCom remedy would, it seems to me, simply be describing and hence disseminating current best practice. All that having been said, I don't really think tinkering like this will have much effect; truly radical change is needed to address the BLP problem and I don't see that happening without a serious media or legal incident to drive it - even then community inertia will probably mean a solution will have to imposed from above. CIreland (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What WJBscribe said. What has this case to do with BLPs in the first place, anyhow? The only principle and finding of fact are general ones, while the other finding of fact ("Alansohn has repeatedly engaged in unseemly behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith") does not mention BLP problems at all. I'm confused. --Conti|✉ 13:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add my dissent here - while BLPs need a few exemptions here and there, I really do not like the idea of sweeping powers being accorded to admins, as there are plenty of admins who I don't trust with such power. Sceptre 02:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions

I recommend that Arbcom implement Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions on BLPs instead of this. There are numerous parameters that can be played with and we can use the BLPs in Misplaced Pages to figure out what those parameters should be. Start with some medium-security set of parameters and then tweak one way or the other. Then when it seems about right, we will have had enough experience to know what to implement in the rest of this wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. --Conti|✉ 13:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It might well be a good idea to implement flagged revisions on BLPs, but in what sense would it be ArbCom who would be implementing it? Has someone staged a coup here? 87.254.84.198 (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom's "Remit"

Has the AC overstepped the mark here? What exactly is the mark? What recourse is there for the community if this proposal is passed? I remember Jimbo saying on his talk page that the community could not overrule ArbCom decisions. Thoughts? Do we need a discussion on this? Martinp23 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Our remedies are done collaboratively with the community. As always we need to work together to figure out the best manner to impose the sanctions. Your comments are always welcome. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case then might I suggest that given there is community concern over the idea, a move is made by the AC to either defer the proposal to the community (which is obviously preferred - it's a policy statement and last I checked AC don't make policy) or delay the closing of the case to allow people to comment. I can't help but wonder how "collaborative" you are when I see you supporting the closure of the case even after having seen some community feeling here. For what it's worth, I think I'd support the proposal with some tweaking - the sort that would be achieved through a community discussion - not a decision brought down from the mailing lists on high. Martinp23 16:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If remedies are done collaboratively with the community, then based on the response here from the community, at this point proposed remedy 1) needs to be shelved, and the arbitrators arguing in its favour, and for closure of this case, need to revisit their votes. Neıl 龱 16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that I see the objections spelled out, I more convinced that we are not changing policy. In fact eliminating this wording would weaken the existing policy, I think. Think about it a bit more, okay? FloNight♥♥♥ 16:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if I, or another "critic"-type, were to use the word "impose" in reference to what the ArbCom is doing, I'd be upbraided for using loaded, incendiary language and urged to describe it in "fairer" terms, like "The ArbCom is clarifying policy". Anyway, if the aim was to encourage community participation, then the worst thing the ArbCom could possibly have done was to introduce this sanction in the middle of a seemingly unrelated and little-noted case, and then swiftly vote to pass the sanction and then move to close the case before any community comments from outside ArbCom circles had shown up. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This case has been open for a long while. I'm on the 3rd week of an extended break (I'm not really here :-), and was quite surprised that the case had not closed in my absence. Kirill is right on that this case is very much related to BLP issues. He does excellent investigation of the cases, and experienced in writing our cases. Nothing unusual is happening in this case, truly. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

FloNight, you are completely out of your mind if you think that sneakily dropping this whopper of a policy change in wikiwonkery like Footnotes is going to be widely accepted. BLP is being used to POV push, edit war, and filibuster attempts to make the encyclopedia better. People are frustrated precisely because some administrators are not using BLP in good faith. Giving broad discretion like this to override consensus is wrong and those who keep on saying that we must be sympathetic to our subjects are wrong. NPOV IS THE POLAR OPPOSITE OF SYMPATHETIC POINT OF VIEW. This project's future depends on the idea that NPOV IS NON-NEGOTIABLE, we cannot allow POV pushers and white-washers to have free reign over the project. That is why it is so controversial. How a subject feels is totally irrelevant, because we are here to write a verifiable, reliably sourced, neutral encyclopedia. While it is true we aren't a tabloid, it is also true that we aren't Pravda. Whitewashing BLPs causes us great harm in not being neutral and appearing inaccurate. Everyone has negative aspects, it is a fact of life. Stop giving the whiners, revisionist historians, and trolls ammunition to further cause harm to the project. That some crybabies can't handle the truth being in their biography is just too fucking bad in my opinion. The first amendment broadly protects publications to the point that few libel lawsuits ever are successfully argued to the court, especially if the subjects haven't even tried reasonable measures to get the publisher to remove inaccurate or poorly sourced information. We already have a policy for dealing with legal challenges, it is called WP:OFFICE. That is where the authority must remain, out of the hands of biased and involved administrators. Community consensus is required for a policy change of this magnitude. Get your collective heads out of your asses and understand that just because we have a couple hundred or a couple thousand poorly written BLPs does not entitle you to compromise on NPOV!!!! --Dragon695 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice rant. Where's the evidence? Which articles do you suggest are now out of compliance with NPOV because of BLP-related intervention?

The First Amendment is not particularly relevant here. We are not a free speech forum. We are an encyclopedia. Freedom of the press inevitably entails a heavy burden of responsibility, and includes not only the right to print, but also the right not to print. We have a responsibility to be fair, neutral, accurate and non-invasive in our biographical coverage. We are not a tabloid and we are not an investigative journalism outlet. FCYTravis (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The per BLP issue is a common one, that pops up over and over again but. Fortunately, those who oppose arbitrary and capricious use of per BLP can contest and revert improper applications of this policy. There is one example that comes to mind. Currently, there are some group of folks running around whitewashing the criminal records of some BLPs. A criminal record is very relevant information and should not be excluded to hide misdeeds. The are many examples, but I don't want to rehash what has already been pointed out time and again on WT:BLP. What is of concern is the potential to abuse this remedy. Leaving everything at the discretion of administrators and their judgment, who would only need cite per BLP, is a recipe for disaster. Do you think these actions are going to be reserved only for BLP violations? I doubt it, they'll just go around ignoring consensus and the refrain will be per BLP. Dare to speak up about the problem and bam you get blocked. I can almost guarantee that it will be used in editing disputes and other such conflicts. We saw the massive bad judgment with the MONGO external links fiasco, I cannot even begin to think what trouble this will cause. Do you think they are going to just limit themselves to problematic BLPs? What is funny is how the BLP proponents are trying to extend BLP to articles that have nothing to do with BLP. We have way too many administrators who lack good judgment to implement this properly while still respecting NPOV. What I am most concerned about is us being manipulated and turned into a spin machine by political and notable figures. Don't like something in your article? Call OTRS and get it sent down the memory hole. We simply cannot exclude the negative aspects of peoples' lives just because they don't like it. To be fair and NPOV we should include both the good and the bad, but be respectful by not allowing undue weight in the amount of space that is given to such information. Would this policy help in Rosalind Picard? Doubtful. Being credible and NPOV is more important than doing no harm. There are always people who feel harmed by one thing or another, we can't possibly please them all. The only consistent thing is to be NPOV, which means we don't take sides in how a particular individual is viewed in light of their history. Here is an excellent quote on the matter:

I couldn't agree more. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Point by point

(quote)

Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Misplaced Pages article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy.

The "letter and the spirit of the BLP policy" is not defined. This is grossly subject to varying interpretation. Already we see poor blocks justified by "BLP" by admins who understand neither the spirit nor the letter.

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

This needs to specify "on articles in which they are fully uninvolved", in some way, to preclude conflicts of interest and suchlike.

Administrators should counsel editors that fail to comply with BLP policy on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area, and should ensure that such editors are warned of the consequences of failing to comply with this policy.

This is fine, and obvious.

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.

What point is there in specifying solutions when you conclude it with "any other measures necessary"? The other measure will be indefinite blocks, and you will see more of those than of anything else.

This does not preclude the use of emergency measures where necessary, and all administrators are explicitly authorized to take such measures at their own discretion.

This is as bad as the first sentence - it's grossly subject to interpretation. This would almost be fine if all Misplaced Pages admins were competent and fair minded. Unfortunately, there are admins I would not trust to open a door unsupervised, and they will drive away hundreds of good faith contributors.

(end quote) This is, in effect, a change in policy. Arbcom does not create policy; it enforces it. By rewriting BLP, without allowing the community to make this decision, Arbcom is prescribing policy. By effectively giving admins carte blanche to do what they like, we will see a cavalcade of preemptive and/or ill-thought-out page protections, blocks, and deletions. I could even guess the names of some of the admins who will start rampaging through Category:Living persons as soon as this "decision" is passed. Please, please, allow the community to determine policy - this is not your job. I also strongly object to the way this was tagged on to a low-publicity Arbcom decision about minor misconduct. It reminds me of a Simpsons episode about Krusty running for Congress ... "Now your job is to attach Krusty's bill to a more popular bill, one that can't fail." Neıl 龱 16:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not see this as a significant change from the current BLP or admin policy. From my perspective, the Committee is restating existing policy in a manner that draws attention to the matter while spelling out some safeguards such as warnings, central logging, and requiring careful review before acting. The problems mostly occur because admins are acting in isolation. By implementing the sanctions in this manner, we are likely to get more attention to off the mark actions, and therefore will prevent them, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, that at the very least, the "any other measures necessary" and "emergency measures at their own discretion" clauses need to be removed, because otherwise the safeguards you list will be habitually bypassed. What are "off the mark actions", please? Neıl 龱 16:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

the "any other measures necessary" and "emergency measures at their own discretion" clauses need to be included so that the BLP is not weakened. If we always require a community discussion prior to blocking or banning on BLP content, then the Committee will be re-writing policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops - I just noticed the initial reply by FloNight which addressed most of it anyway. Sorry for some of the repeats below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To Neil - I think you've missed the point completely.

• If there are admins who are consistently making blocks in the name of a certain policy, without understanding it, then it makes sense that they should not be allowed to use (or have) administrative privilleges until they do - this remedy may help identify such administrators, if this is such a significant regular problem. There is no change to the treatment of consistently ill-considered administrative actions. (Hint hint - admins will be suspended or desysopped if they do)
• There is no need for nitpicking - the entire provision only operates on administrators who are uninvolved. If an administrator insists and acts as if they are uninvolved when there is evidence that they are involved, then it will carry the same treatment as ill-considered admin actions.
• It is not fine and obvious enough perhaps - some administrators have done a very poor job of ensuring this is done properly.
• Blocks can be appealed, as usual. Indefinite blocks, like anything else imposed under this provision, are recorded at the log - and again, there is no change to the treatment of ill-considered administrative actions.
• Emergency measures has been aptly explained by FloNight above.

There is no rewriting of policy - it's just similar to discretionary sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You say "(Hint hint - admins will be suspended or desysopped if they do)" So this is a honeypot? WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a restatement of basic admin policy, which I'm suggesting Neil already knows or should know - that's all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncm - this remedy states admins should use their judgment and act strongly, strictly and harshly, using whatever means they deem fit in their judgment. Indefinite blocks placed under BLP will no doubt have to be appealed via email to arbcom-l (like the pedophilia ruling a few admins keep using to justify overzealous blocks out of the blue. This will further obfuscate what should be a clear and straightforward process, by pushing it into the hands of a select few, only four or five of which ever bother to communicate with the masses, and - worse - a number of whom were voted off Arbcom yet retain sway, on a closed mailing list. No thanks. Neıl 龱 21:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really hard to credit that you thought there was nothing new here. When you voted in favor of principle 5 "The apparent failure of Misplaced Pages's traditional dispute resolution system—including the Committee's traditional past approaches—to resolve the conflicts plaguing certain problematic areas within Misplaced Pages forces the Committee to adopt novel approaches and methods in order to work towards the resolution of these conflicts.", did you think it was just a random observation with nothing to do with this case, or were you thinking it was directed at footnotes? 87.254.84.198 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom, deciding to inject itself on an issue improperly inserted by its clerk and not the subject of this arbitration, is legislating from the bench, defining a standard that any admin has veto power over any statement in any article for a living person for any reason, as long as one admin waves the BLP flag. This arbitrary veto power overrides any and all other Misplaced Pages policies regardless of the sources. The article that User:Rlevse used as an excuse to have Arbcom improperly address the subject, , is one in which Rlevse abused Misplaced Pages policy to claim a BLP issue for mentioning that Coker appeared in the film Hearts and Minds, in which Rlevse acceded to the subject's demand to remove reliably and verifiably sourced material solely because the subject wanted it removed. When the clear conflict of interest was exposed, the admins swarm to the rescue waving the BLP flag, demanding removal of the most neutrally worded reference to Coker's appearance in the film. This whole process stinks, and it could not be any clearer that the Arbcom process is being abused to allow legislation from the bench. When BLP can be abused to mean anything any one admin decides it means, we can throw consensus out the window. Alansohn (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Either this provision doesn't change any policy, or it does. If it doesn't, then it's unnecessary, unless needed to resolve a specific case that has been brought before the ArbCom, with remedies specific to that case; that does not seem to apply here given that the remedy is written in broad and general terms and does not seem to relate directly to the subject matter of this case. If it does change policy, then it is out of the remit of the ArbCom, and the issue should be brought for community consensus like all policy changes. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Remedies can be specific to an area and don't need to be specific to just one case - in this case, to prevent problems arising on other BLP pages. This is necessary given the principles and findings about BLP problems, and has not gone out of the ordinary in terms of previous arbitration cases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

But the "area" of this case, as originally brought, seems to be nitpicky details about the formatting of footnotes, the presence of quotes from the source material in them, and alleged edit warring between a few specific people on those issues. BLP only comes in peripherally, in that some of the articles in which the reference format was being fought over were about living persons; rather than trying to drag that issue into this case, it would have been better to start a more specific other case and seek relevant evidence and discussion on that issue rather than trying to sneak the decision in here. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter - edit-warring (among other things) are one of many severe problems that BLPs are facing. The current system has not been working, with many difficulties in actually taking action. It needs to be dealt with so that action isn't taken so so reluctantly by admins, and the community (inclusive of other users) in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• There were no BLP issues whatsoever in any of the articles that were the ostensible subject of this arbitration. User:Rlevse cleverly inserted the George Thomas Coker article, in which he has persistently attempted for over two years to keep out any mention of the film Hearts and Minds in the article as part of a rather blatant conflict of interest with the article subject. Rlevse, and a gaggle of admins, have wielded supposed BLP issues as an excuse to keep out reliable and verifiably sourced material out in an effort to whitewash the article. Now this tangential connection is being used to justify granting every single admin veto power over any article by simply typing the three magic letters "BLP". We already have a problem of admins abusing their authority; This "solution" grants carte blanche veto power to override consensus and every other relevant Misplaced Pages policy. I could not imagine a worse solution to the supposed problem. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll: Did the community get fair notice of the BLP remedy in this decision?

Since the issue has come up, and some have argued that this case has been extensively noted in places like Signpost, so anybody interested in commenting on the proposed BLP sanction has had plenty of fair chance, I'd like to know how many of the people commenting now were aware before June 1 (the date of the last arbitrator's vote on enacting this sanction) that the issue was even being raised in a current ArbCom case? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Note, the voting on the case started on 17 May 2008, FloNight♥♥♥ 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note: this proposal was discussed in the workshop between 12 May 2008 and 18 May 2008. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps the date in this poll should be moved back to May 17 or May 12? That would only increase the number of people who weren't aware of the case by the relevant time. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you want - a daily publication of what's being proposed at an open arbitration case to be sent to all users? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What I want is (1) for ArbCom not to act like a legislator; leave the making of policy to the community, and only rule on the application of policy to specific cases brought before it; and (2) the rulings on specific cases be relevant to that particular case and aimed at its named parties, so you don't have, in effect, a judge issuing a ruling on John Doe's unpaid parking tickets that includes declaring Mary Roe guilty of murder (when she wasn't even informed of any charges against her, and nobody was notified that murder, rather than unpaid parking tickets, would even be the subject of a pending case). *Dan T.* (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Flo, what has that got to do with the price of beans? Of course a case as innocuous and sleepy as something called Footnotes is not going to invite much examination. Quite frankly, it sounded like the same nonsense that was going on over at Episodes and Characters. It was a dispute about some boring part of policy, not about BLP. I would argue that is how most saw it. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of it before June 1.

1. Yep, I knew about it and was cracking jokes about its wording long before June 1. MBisanz 02:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of it before June 1, and I wish better notice had been given.

1. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Dragon695 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
3. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC) (did not know about this attempt to write policy til today)
4. I was only made aware of it when someone posted a note to WP:AN - few people make a habit of reading every Arbcom case, particularly ostensibly lower-profile ones such as this. Neıl 龱 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
5. brenneman 01:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I noticed it about a week ago while bored and looking at ArbCom cases. The other day, I checked back to see if it had received wider notice, and it really hadn't, so my first thought was of course to tell a badsite about it. --NE2 01:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
8. giggy _(:O) 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
9. I just heard about it, and I think that ArbCom has grossly exceeded their authority. ArbCom's job is to resolve disputes brought before it. Issuing a statement that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Misplaced Pages article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy." is setting policy, which ArbCom is not authorized to do. See WP:AC. --John Nagle (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
10. I normally try to avoid straw polls and votes, but this one is important. There should also be a list somewhere of the various "boards" that Arbcom has set up, has proposed, or is proposing. I know of at least three (nationalist, sourcing, and another one I've forgotten). Those interested in the history might want to look at how the Arbitration Enforcement board and the BLP noticeboard were set up. Sometimes things happen very fast with little objection. At other times there is lots of objection. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
11. I noticed on June 4, when I posted above about it. The first thing I saw was that the committee obviously hadn't thought about it much, because they wrote it as if there was only one proper noticeboard, when there are at least 3 proper noticeboards to use depending on which tool the admin used. Then I thought about it myself, and saw that it was a terrible idea, so commented again. GRBerry 13:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of it before June 1, but I don't care anyway.

Question on what is to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log

As I have noted in a few places on this page, many administrative actions are taken on a daily basis with respect to BLP violations: people are blocked, inappropriate content is reverted or admin-deleted, pages are protected. Is there an expectation that all of these routine actions are to be logged on this page? Is someone writing up a special blocking template that all admins can use to indicate that the block is being made for BLP reasons? In particular, is someone creating a block template that specifically identifies that the usual {{unblock}} is not applicable for any BLP blocks, and that requests for unblock must be forwarded directly to Arbcom? Will someone be updating the block messages to include specific language for admins to select so that any reviewing admin will see it is a BLP block? For that matter, exactly how is a blocked editor going to appeal their block to WP:AE? While I am not a fan of this proposed remedy, I realise it is unlikely to be set aside at this point; therefore, the practicalities of how this will be effected must be considered.

Given the current wording of the proposed remedy, it appears that all actions taken under this provision (including blocks and page protection) must be logged, not just additional sanctions; and that the avenues for appeal of any administrative actions taken with respect to BLP are limited to WP:AE or the Arbitration Committee. If that is not the intention of Arbcom, then they should fix the wording. Risker (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

These are important points. They need to be addressed before the case closes, otherwise there will be chaos. Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, they're already fully adressed: yes, all actions done under this remedy must be logged (otherwise, it becomes very difficult for us to monitor how the remedy is being used), and yes, all appeals go to AN/AE (and may be copied there in the case of block appeals, etc.). Kirill 13:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there is something to clarify, actually: 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. Kirill 13:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A hypothetical question

Should (or, rather, when, as nobody other than Flonight seems remotely interest in reading the community's concerns and broad opposition to this proposal) Arbcom succesfully sneak this rewriting of policy into effect, then Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log will become active, presumably.

Hypothetically, what would happen if I or any other user were to send it to Miscellany for Deletion for the very valid reason that it is a policy page that has not been determined or accepted by the community? It does, at the moment, seem like the only way the community (who makes policy, not Arbcom) will get a say on this. Neıl 龱 09:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's not going to be deleted unless Jimbo decides to get rid of this step in dispute resolution - it is part of a binding arbitration decision. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That would be correct if Arbcom were mandated to decide policy. However, they are not. The community decides policy, and if an arbitration decision is strongly enough dissented, it could, in theory, be shot down. It hasn't happened yet, as Arbcom are (were?) usually sensible enough not to implement something that would not fly with the community. Neıl 龱 10:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Prior to reading this I put a delete tag on it because there is no "Special enforcement" in any policy and those supporting this claim it also will not be creating policy. For "Special enforcement" to exist the community must create it in policy. Jimbo does not own wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I suggest putting a "proposed" or "disputed" tag on it. MfD might get the message across, but I suspect some "strong arm" admins will remove and close MfD discussions. A proposed tag might have some chance of staying in place while making clear that it is disputed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
        • A proposed tag was added earlier, and was met with "This is not a community decision" (). I didn't think a speedy tag was the best way to go with this, rather MFD, to enable the community to deliver their verdict on this miraculous policy. I would very much hope no admin would be numbskulled enough to remove and close an active MFD discussion. No doubt someone would prove me wrong, of course. But MFD is the way to go here. Neıl 龱 11:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Given that the log is not a policy page—it's a log—I would expect that the effects of deleting it would be rather less significant than one might think. We could just as easily have specified that actions be logged on the case page itself, but I thought that a prominent central log would provide for more transparency. In either case, the remedy would still be active with or without the log's presence. Kirill 13:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)