Revision as of 20:48, 25 May 2011

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

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Mindbunny's comments on biographies of living persons

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

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• James B. Watson
• Sandstein

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Deleted RFC/U on Sandstein
• ANI discussion:
• My Talk page:
• Stephan Schulz's Talk page:

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

Statement by Mindbunny

Facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked for quoting Misplaced Pages? Abuse.

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by amused bystander roux

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

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

Statement by Sandstein

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

Statement by JamesBWatson

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

Statement by SlimVirgin

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

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

Statment by ErrantX

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

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

Question by Ncmvocalist

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

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

Clerk notes

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

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

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

Motions

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Abstain

BLP and flagged revisions

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

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Kww notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Statement by Scott MacDonald

I launched this case because we needed to stop and discuss how, if we were to remove flagging from BLPs, to best do that with due care and attention. I wanted to stop people mass unflagging them without some more thought - and I recognised that me trying to force people to do that was not productive. Everything has paused (just for a bit). We've had wise input from Carcharoth and I now see arbcom considering an injunction. I'm content to leave it at that. I've approached Kww to try to find common ground, and I'm seeking ways to safely remove FR from the articles I'm concerned with .

I realise my actions are being questioned by some (even Okip who hasn't edit an article in over a year). If they want to come to my talk page or start Requestion for Comment/Scott MacDonald discussion can be taken further. In light of the responsible discussions on flagged revisions and vulnerable BLPs now happening, I undertake not to replace flagged revisions on any article.--Scott Mac 01:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the injunction. This is excellent. It allows the removal of flagged revisions immediately and completely, which is what many want. OTOH, it ensure in the rush to do that no BLP is left with lower protection, which has been my concern. Sure, the indef semi or full protection that results is often going to be overkill - but where appropriate that can be later reduced, through the usual means, with no rush or deadline.

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

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

I am unafraid of the boomerang Brad speaks about, indeed I've invited Requestion for Comment/Scott MacDonald which hasn't happened). However, I have no desire to waste the Committee's time in examining the history of a now dead debate, and a single 3hour block (which I put on ANI for review and was lifted minutes later). There are simply far more important things for this committee to do. So, if the committee has concerns here that can't be sent to RFC etc, then I am content to resign my adminship and quit the field. Perhaps my being an irritant in the system wrt BLP is no longer helpful.--Scott Mac 10:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Kww

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

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

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

@Carcharoth

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

@Carcharoth (2): I don't know of a breakdown. My estimation would be about half of the PC articles were BLPs, and, looking at the remainder, I would say that about half of them are BLPs. The remainder are fairly random: high schools, web sites, nationalistic disputes, etc. As for my desire to get it wrapped up: yes, for a trial that was supposed to end in August, 2010, I think getting it wrapped up is a priority.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

@Scott

You seem to be under the impression that there is some set of articles that were put on PC independently of the trial: there aren't. PC itself was only enabled on a trial basis. All articles under PC are a part of that trial. And, as I've said over and over again, I am evaluating the articles before I make any decision about what to do. I'm not doing this blindly, or with a script. I don't think anyone is doing it blindly. The list of articles under pending changes is readily available: it's right here.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A note on my results for the day

I notice that some seem to be viewing me as having blindly removed protection on BLPs. In fact, today, I went to semi-protection today on 29 articles.

Of the total of 76 articles that I removed PC from,

• 29 went to semi-protected based on their history
• 2 BLPs went from an existing semi-protection to unprotected:

  Tony Meléndez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Peaches (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following 24 BLPs went from PC to unprotected:

• Aldo Giuffrè (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Telat Üzüm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  CariDee English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Peter Hart (historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Jason MacDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Louis Zorich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Eugena Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Leanne Dobinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Nicolas Mahut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Nigel Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Tam White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Abdul Kader Keïta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Chris Murphy (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Jonathan Penner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Fred Anderson (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Dani Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Joanie Dodds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Tom Bellamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Steven Plaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Winston Reid (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Jay Manuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Ian Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Dennis Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Meera Jasmine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

That's a 29:26 bias in favor of increasing the protection level rather than decreasing it. I think it's also a good sign that I'm not fibbing when I say I looked at the articles in question. As always, if any of you feel like I made a mistake, feel free to increase the protection level on any of them.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

About that proposed injunction

Do you really want to mandate indefinite semi-protection on all BLPs that were in the trial? That's the net result of the language involved: virtually all articles placed under PC were placed there indefinitely. I'll go along with it, because I'm in favor of indefinite semi-protection for Misplaced Pages as a whole, but I really don't think there's a community consensus for it.—Kww(talk) 02:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Timeline

Now I'm being described as an "impatient admin unwilling to await community discussion". Wonderful. Here's a timeline of the days.

• 5/21 04:05-04:30 Processed a batch of articles before going to bed.
• 05/21 12:31 (next morning for me) Discover Scott wheel-warring, and tell him to choose an appropriate protection level, but that Pending Changes had to be removed from the article. This was poorly said on my part, and, in practice, I would have gone to ANI to get another admin to actually reset the protection if Scott had refused to concede to consensus on the matter.
• 05/21 12:57-14:01 Process another batch
• 05/21 15:21-15:40 Process another batch
• 05/21 16:25 Scott replies that his personal view of what BLP requires overides the consensus at the RFC.
• 05/21 16:37 I explain that he can put the articles on full protection instead of semi if he wants, but PC is no longer an option.
• 05/21 16:40-16:53 process another batch
• 05/21 16:59 I reply to Scott's block threat, once again informing him that consensus was that PC had to be removed.
• 05/21 17:04 Scott takes me to ANI, without informing me
• 05/21 17:08-17:12 I continue processing
• 05/21 17:12 I notice the ANI thread
• 05/21 17:18 My reply at ANI
• 05/21 17:28 Given that the only concerns raised at ANI were that I needed to examine the articles, and I had explained that I was, I proceeded.
• 05/21 17:28-17:34 Processed another batch
• 05/21 17:38 Scott blocks me

Note that I was discussing. The problem I was facing was not an admin with reasonable concerns: it was an admin that had stated that no matter what the consensus was about PC, it shouldn't be removed without prior, individual discussion on each article. That isn't supported by the RFC, isn't supported by our protection policy, isn't supported by WP:BLP, and was not supported at WP:ANI. —Kww(talk) 11:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

@Iridescent

Are they "behind me?" In the sense that I never undertook to get Scott desysopped, and wouldn't brought this to Arbcom in the first place, yes. The part that isn't really behind me is this lingering sense that a substantial portion of Arbcom sees me as a wrongdoer in this case, and that Scott himself has never fully grasped that my actions were supported by guideline and policy, while his were unjustified. For what it's worth, other admins have now completely removed PC from article space without incident, primarily in batches similar to the size I processed and at similar rates. A quick motion reinforcing that admins are free to protect and unprotect articles within the boundaries of guidelines and policies, and that admins are not permitted to block over personal disagreements would be enough to make me happy. I don't see a need for specific action against Scott.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

@FT2

I'm getting very tired of seeing people portray my behaviour as somehow hasty, and you have written the single longest, and most detailed misdescription and misapprehension of events, so I will go after it one step at a time. Short form for the TLDR people: shouting "BLP!" before you wheel-war and block admins performing routine admin functions doesn't give you protection under policy or arbcom precedents: you have to have a rational basis for believing that there has been a BLP violation,

Detailed breakdown:

First justification for Scott's actions: BLP. This doesn't fly. I made no edits that violated BLP. No one has yet identified a clearly incorrect unprotection that I have performed. I made one identified error by missing an OTRS ticket, and that one was to an article whose edit history suggests that unprotection is a very reasonable choice. Scott neither noticed nor corrected it, so that couldn't have been his justification.

Second justification: emergency. There was no emergency situation. Because there was nothing wrong with me applying standard protection policy to articles, there could not have been an emergency. If the emergency was that BLPs were becoming unprotected, his actions had no particular effect, as Wizardman was going down the exact same list performing the exact same process at the same time I was. There were several times during the day that Wizardman and I edit conflicted on things. I let them all pass, because he had made exactly the same decision as I had.

"Aggressive maintenance of BLP" At no time did Scott act to actually reinstate protection on any article that I had unprotected. In fact, his only protection shift was to reduce the protection I had applied to two articles, so "aggressive maintenance" doesn't appear to be the goal.

"They followed concerns and pleas by multiple admins to desist and discuss, so were not his alone." This isn't correct. He took me to ANI without informing me, and the state of the ANI discussion at the point of my block was this. Hardly "multiple pleas for me to stop". Errant couldn't see a problem, others were concerned only that I should consider articles individually, which I was. Note that I was participating in that discussion as well.

"Kww acted in good faith too, believing consensus had spoken and wishing to avoid interminable rehashing of a long debate, but insufficiently open to concerns." I didn't believe consensus had spoken, it actually had. I don't see where or how anyone doubts that. Was I "sufficiently open to concerns"? I believe I was. The problem here is that Scott had no valid concerns. I believed that then, and I believe it now. This is the crux, here, people: Scott didn't block me because I wasn't listening, he blocked me because I disagreed with him and wouldn't do what he said. Nothing in the BLP policies makes you some kind of superadmin because you say "BLP" before your action. I clearly wasn't "making" BLP violations. If you accept the notion that I was somehow enabling BLP violations, there were numerous options open to him (such as actually protecting something).

So, here's the summary of my objection: I was not rushing. I was giving individual consideration to articles. I was not being sloppy: Carcharoth, for example, describes my judgment on the articles as "exemplary". Contrast that to Scott: He was wheel-warring to reduce the level of protection on two articles, not to increase it. He was invited multiple times to review my actions and adjust the protection level of any article where he believed I had acted incorrectly. He failed to do so. Rather than provide any constructive review, he blocked an admin that was carrying out a necessary chore. He failed to do the rudimentary checks necessary to notice that I was one of a group of admins carrying out the same necessary chore.

The idea BLP can be used as a justification for blocking an admin that is performing routine admin functions is ridiculous. We might as well change policy to state "Any admin can peform any action he pleases so long as he says BLP prior to doing so." There has to be a rational basis for making a charge of a BLP violation, and changing protection of articles wihin the boundaries of guidelines and policies can't be considered a rational basis.—Kww(talk) 11:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@Iridescent 2

I think it's a bit of a shame that you stripped all context from your link to cast my irritation as some kind of disruption: the protection history in full is here. Note that NuclearWarfare, an admin that is sufficiently trusted to be an Arbcom clerk, was forced to go to RFPP to request unprotection for an article that had 1 human edit during the last year. You would really describe that as anything other than a waste of time? Surely that is sufficiently clear-cut case that any admin should be permitted to unprotect it without having to consult with other admins? However, due to the injunction, NW did go to RFPP, and I did unprotect it for him, after having determined that the blindingly obvious was, in fact, blindingly obvious.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@FT2 2

You need to check your timeline: the discussion you point to in your message to Protonk began at 02:11, 22 May 2011. I had already been blocked and unblocked. I had already been in discussion with Scott for hours. The injunction had already been proposed for 90 minutes. I had already posted a complete list of everything I had unprotected. I had already responded to Scott's concerns multiple times. He had been informed multiple times that if he had any objections to any of the protection levels I had set because of BLP issues, he should feel free to do so.

I had addressed Scott's concerns, but "addressing" doesn't mean that I agreed with him. I told him "no", and that's a legitimate response. There was, and is, no need for admins to consult with other admins before adjusting the protection level of an article solely because it's a BLP that was in a trial. The need for such consultation is not indicated in any policy, guideline, or even any kind of general practice. I've said that many times, and there's no reason to expect that I will repeat it in every thread. But I will repeat it again: the level of consultation that Scott demanded is unprecedent, unwarranted, and not indicated in any guideline, policy, or practice. That's why I didn't agree to it then. That's why I still won't agree that it's necessary.—Kww(talk) 20:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Shirik

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

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

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

Statement by more or less uninvolved Wehwalt

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

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

Statement by SlimVirgin

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

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

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

Comment by Carcharoth

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

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

A couple more comments:

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

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

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

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

Comment by mostly-uninvolved SarekOfVulcan

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

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

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

Comments by ErrantX

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

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

Comment by uninvolved SoWhy

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

Comment by Off2riorob

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

Comment by Sandstein

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

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

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

Comment by The ed17

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

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

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

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

Comment by uninvolved roux

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

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

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

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

Comment by uninvolved Jayen466

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

Comment by Protonk

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

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

Question for arbs

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

@ FT2

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

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

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

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

Comment by Wizardman

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

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

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

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

Comment by peripherally-involved Jéské Couriano

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

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

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

Comment by very peripherally involved DGG

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