Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:09, 23 March 2010 editSamJohnston (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,963 editsm →Statement by SamJohnston← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,013 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>


= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} = <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
{{-}}{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>

]
== Request for clarification: ] ==
]
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Enric Naval}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Abd}}

]

{{quote|1=3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.}}

*]

=== Statement by Enric Naval ===

Abd has never edited the Ghost article or been involved in disputes there (he is not an originating party of the current dispute there). He has commented in ], which is correct and allowed by his ban conditions.

However, now he is trying to insert himself into the dispute by completely removing a contentious lead paragraph that has been under heavy discussion, asserting that "''lede should enjoy the highest level of consensus, remove controversial paragraph, not necessary for overview of "ghosts." Lede is fine without it.''", and removing the talkpage box that warns about the Pseudoscience arbitration restrictions "''remove pseudoscience arbitration notes, this is not a pseudoscience article by Misplaced Pages standards. Make the cat stick first!''". He performed the removals after commenting in the RfC, and he hasn't made any comments on the talk page about any of the two removals. I warned him after his first edit, and he replied that it was the first time that his ban was applied to article edits (as opposed to being applied only to talk pages).

Abd is not an originating party on that dispute, but he is trying to insert himself as the final arbiter of the dispute. It appears to me that Abd is evading the ban restrictions by editing the controversial parts of the article and the talk page without commenting on them.

This seems to be an attempt to evade the ban. Please advice if this is a ban violation or not.

Adendum: read the edit summaries. If Abd had placed them as comment in the talk page, then he would have been in a clear-cut violation of his ban. He has managed to comment on the dispute, while at the same time avoiding a technical violation of his ban. The restriction was intended to keep Abd out of disputes where he wasn't an originating party. Abd has found a way to comment about those disputes without violating the letter of the ban. --] (]) 21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Adendum: Well, damn, I hadn't noticed , which is a straight-forward violation of his ban. I'll make a separate request in AE for that diff. --] (]) 06:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

] for other diffs. --] (]) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

P.D.D.: The "commenting at polls" clause seemed to work well at first, but now it's just luring Abd into inserting himself in disputes where he was not an originating party (aka, after commenting in the Ghost RfC, he started inserting himself into the whole Ghost-NSF-pseudoscience dispute that spawned the RfC). --] (]) 12:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Abd===

The Request here was filed prior to an () over the same issues. '''I request that () be reviewed first,''' because the examples underlying this request can be seen with evidence and argument regarding each example. My summary there, visible outside collapse, is brief, and even the full discussion is not massive.

This request for clarification is becoming a consideration of other response, such as modifying the sanction to address unspecified problems. I advise against this before understanding the current sanction and what has happened with it. I am currently bound to a very tight interpretation, so tight that I won't edit Misplaced Pages if it stands, based on Carcharoth's opinion that I'd violated, presumably with what Enric Naval alleged (but Carcharoth indicated that this might be clarified, so it could change).

Until that is clear, other measures are probably moot, a waste of time.

'''Outside the single acknowledged (inadvertent) violation, number 3 in the list, did I violate the sanction?''' The goal here should be a clarification that would avoid future disputes. If an MYOB sanction can cause major dispute over interpretation, it's a bad idea for anyone, not just me. (So far, most alleged violations were not found to be so, but that's not a clarification question.) If there were no violations outside the single error, then perhaps the sanction is working, and disruption is coming from other causes, which can then be examined and addressed.

The sanction as it stands is this (I've summarized a piece that is not in contention):

'''3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes . He may, however, vote or comment at polls.'''

What is prohibited with this ban? It's clear: only ''discussion'' of a certain kind (outside of polls). ''Not any other kind of editing.'' The edits claimed to be violations were not ''discussion'' of a ''dispute'' unless I was the originating party (i.e., a single blacklist request was filed with a claim, which I disputed, until then the claim was unopposed), by any reasonable classification (but for one, number 3, an error, acknowledged as a violation). None of them were edits that would ordinarily raise an eyebrow. I never dreamed that the ban could apply to article space at all. While my edits may have been "unwise" in some way, they were not ban violations. If they were disruptive, I could be dinged for that directly. The original ban purpose seems to have been preventing Wall-o-Text<sup>TM</sup> comments alleged to be dominating discussion. In spite of a claiming it, I have not been posting walls of text, no example other than the AE report cited above was given, and if that's an improper wall of text, given the context, I'm astonished.

The allegations at AE and here by Enric Naval did not involve poll comments, so removing the poll provision as suggested would fix something that isn't broken. I have avoided using the poll permission as a loophole to allow long comments, and other editors, in those polls, have made much longer ones, and engaged in much back-and-forth threaded argument, which I've also avoided (except for a very minimum of helpful comment, accepted as such, or response to direct question addressed to me). Looking at the RfCs I commented in, I doubt that anyone reasonable would conclude that my comments were a problem there.

Please take this step by step, there is no emergency. I will suggest one possible improvement: allow a mentor, to interpret the ban for me and for others. It is unclear to me why this provision was removed; instead, it should simply have been required that the mentor be approved by ArbComm. Fritzpoll volunteered before and was told, first, that this was not necessary, and then, later, that his arbitrator status prohibited mentoring (the first time I'd seen that -- he was already recusing), and then the provision was removed, so I did not seek another mentor. Fritzpoll has now retired, but a mentor would allow flexibility and a ready path to the ban being lifted. Keep it simple. --] (]) 00:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Responses to SamJohnston, Newyorkbrad, Shell}}
*'''@SamJohnston:'''This editor brings up the same evidence over and over, and has now claimed a new offending edit. It's all moot here, because I could have offended many times and that would not change the issue here: what is and what is not "offense." SamJohnston did find one edit that I agreed was a violation, and I promptly struck it as soon as my attention was called to it. Since then, he's brought this edit up over and over. Now he asserts a new one: . That was not a "comment on a dispute," it was a friendly comment, not controversial, a bit jokey, and it caused no disruption at all. SamJohnston's approach is to read "dispute" into everything, because he's clearly looking for mud to toss, and his contributions will show the extent to which he's been tracking me. This is not a comment on his behavior elsewhere, with other editors, and this would be, if I pursued it (I have no intention of that), a dispute between him and me, "originating party," you know. --] (]) 19:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''@Newyorkbrad:''' Bans are special sanctions intended to reduce disruption by defining certain behaviors thought to be causing problems, so that they can be efficiently prevented without the inefficiency of arguing each offense. If a ban is not clear, it can cause more disruption than it prevents. Bans should be very specific, and "wikilawyering" may actually be appropriate, i.e., some insistence on the literal meanings of words. That's not the norm on Misplaced Pages. I had come to a settled and simple interpretation of the ban, tighter than I'd thought, but at least reasonable, until the present allegations arose.
:Carcharoth has done two things, and you agreed with one, general advice, but also an opinion was given that I'd violated the ban. If Carcharoth means by this that I violated an unstated (and unclear!) spirit of the ban, that's one thing. If it means that I actually violated the ban itself, as standing, it's another. If I violated the spirit, then the appropriate response would be to clarify the ban so that the spirit is reflected in the language (or designate a means for efficient interpretation, like a mentor). If I violated the ban itself, then we have a very difficult problem, and probably I should be site-banned, because I'm unable to understand bans and therefore contain my behavior. This is a request for clarification. It's not a request for advice to Abd to stop him from being disruptive. Such advice, divorced from a deeper discussion of goals and the value of my participation here, is likely to be misplaced. General editing is part of why I'm here, and I was doing general editing, but it's not the most important part. So, if you value my work at all, and it is, indeed, about "parliamentary procedure," which is about what peer groups, in the past, have found necessary for efficient and fair process, you will, '''please, attend to Enric Naval's request here, which I join, seeking clarification on a narrow "legal issue." Did I violate the ban?''' (That is, did I violate it where there is difference of opinion, not with the edit where I acknowledged an inadvertent violation?) ArbComm is free to find that I've been generally disruptive, should it choose -- I don't think that's true -- but the ban doesn't prohibit general disruption, nor is a general disruption ban necessary, it's already prohibited. --] (]) 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''@Shell''' Again, this is a Request for Clarification. I am currently avoiding almost all Misplaced Pages editing, due to what seems to be an interpretation that I violated the ban, and there was no controversy from Enric Naval over my RfC !votes, and no instance of refusal to discuss based on the ban, beyond one, where I asked that I not be repeatedly questioned within the RfC, which would have pushed me closer to the ban limit. And I did answer the question. Had that editor gone to my talk page to raise an issue about the RfC comment of mine, not about the editor's dispute with others, I'd have responded specifically to that. Nobody complained. So "unfair" to whom? I haven't complained about the ban, though some others have. '''Please, do consider the ban itself and whether or not I violated it. If I did or didn't (as to what is in dispute), please so state. If I didn't violate the ban itself, but some unstated spirit of the ban, please clarify it.''' General editing advice does not clarify the ban at all. --] (]) 20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

=== Statement by SamJohnston ===
If you break it down this appears to be fairly straightforward:
* Was there an existing dispute?
* Did Abd discuss the dispute? (unsigned)
* Was Abd an originating party? No.
I don't believe that confining commentary to edit summaries and/or new threads evades the restriction because it ''includes, '''but is not limited to''''' talk pages et al. That said, the editing restriction is intended to avoid inflaming disputes, not prevent Abd from editing altogether (we have blocks for that). With this interpretation Abd would be able to edit provided he avoided hotspots and raised his own new issues as required. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 02:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
: Again boiling it down to basics, Abd ], contributed to existing content disputes and (so much for a single "inadvertent" violation), removed controversial content actively being discussed from the article and talk page and and the article was for ] the very next day. He then made a similar to the ] article, where the same topic was also an . To Hans Adler: "''He tried to help, but he wasn't helpful''".

: The loopholes used to justify participation in the existing conflicts were a) article edits, b) edit summaries and c) polls. These should be closed by clarification (even if just by requiring Abd to avoid active areas). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

: <small>GoRight's condescending "" doesn't warrant further comment - he won't ] it anyway.</small> -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 08:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Verbal ===
Yet again Abd is testing the limits of his sanctions, and clearly not abiding to them. This shows a continuing pattern of continued poor behaviour, and it should be stopped. Abd again injected himself into a existing dispute with which he had no previous involvement, one which had more or less been resolved, and has inflamed the situation - making matters worse. This oft repeated pattern reflects on Abd's motivations for being on wikipedia. If he wants to show he is here for the good of the project then he should show that in his editing, and not by testing his restrictions, gaming admins, and making situations harder to resolve. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 12:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Comment by Hans Adler ===
:''''
I am commenting here because I am heavily involved in the situation at ]. From the point of view of my watchlist, around early March the complex battle between fringe fans and pseudo-sceptics has flared up again after many quiet months. As in earlier cases the mainstream is in danger of getting pulverised between two extremist fronts. Since Abd is often vocally painted as being on the fringe side, I want to say very clearly that his unhelpful intervention at ] was an attempt to support the mainstream against the very real danger of being marginalised and treated as fringe. ] ] 10:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Comment by GoRight ===
Can Arbcom please put a stop to the abuse and harassment of Abd that this sanction has caused. This disruption is unnecessary. --] (]) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the analysis by SamJohnston above : I wish to thank SJ for providing a thorough recitation of the most pertinent edits which have lead to this request for clarification, however his analysis appears to be flawed on a number of points so allow me to clear a few things up for the benefit of all:

: (1) As the arbiters are no doubt aware, the most recent version of Abd's sanction can be found , and it currently reads (emphasis is mine):

:: ''Abd is indefinitely prohibited from '''discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party'''. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.''

: (2) Future Perfect had an interpretation of the sanction at a previous request for clarification. The short version of that clarification is as follows (emphasis is mine):

:: ''The rule is simple: '''never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you'''.''

: (3) It should be plain, and therefore not confusing to anyone, that the operative phrases in both the sanction itself and FP's clarification are ''"discussing any dispute"'' and ''"comment about any conflict"'', respectively.

: (4) It should likewise be plain, and therefore not confusing to anyone, that words have specific meanings which are used, in the case of a sanction, to convey the intent of that sanction. Please note that the meanings of the words ''"discussing any dispute"'' and/or ''"comment about any conflict"'' are distinct and non-overlapping with the words ''"participating in a dispute"''.

: (5) Even a cursory review of the edits highlighted by SJ above clearly demonstrates that Abd was merely ''"participating in a dispute"''. So, as currently written and clarified Abd's edits in no way violated the letter or the spirit of the sanction as it has been articulated thus far. Abd's edits are completely consistent with any editor who is simply participating in a normal content dispute with a proper focus on the content in question and without extraneous meta discussion of the dispute or its participants.

: (6) If it is Arbcom's intention to prevent Abd from editing any articles where there happens to be content disputes on topics for which he has an opinion and wishes to express it, then I would submit that the current wording of the sanction and the feedback that has been given to Abd is wholly insufficient to have conveyed that particular meaning and intent. Thus, if that truly is Arbcom's intention then they should make that intention clear via this clarification because the existing sanction and the feedback surrounding it clearly do NOT address the simple act of editing and participating in content disputes as we see here.

Hopefully this helps to clarify some of the facts in this case for anyone who may have been confused by them. --] (]) 01:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


: @Carcharoth : The edits that refactored my section are . --] (]) 09:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

: @Carcharoth : ''"... that Abd and those involved in the original case(s) will stay apart ('''that includes GoRight and others as well''')."'' - I am unclear as to your intended meaning here. Could you please clarify? Do you mean that (a) I and other Abd supporters should also stay away from Abd, (b) I and the others in the original case should stay away from each other (yes please), (c) both, or (d) neither (i.e. something else)? --] (]) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

===Comment by Mathsci===
Why can't Abd find something innocuous to edit just for once? ] (]) 02:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
:@ Carcharoth: I imagine that most users at this stage, myself included, would avoid initiating any kind of sanction against Abd, simply because of the total drain on time that would result. ] (]) 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
::@Carcharoth. You seem to be criticizing me below for writing - in a 12 word sentence - essentially exactly the same thing you wrote about Abd's editing. The main point in my evidence to the ArbCom case concerned Abd's return to mainstream content editing. That is still my hope now. Why are you suggesting otherwise? ] (]) 02:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
:::@Carcharoth. Are you now suggesting that at some point I have edited a contentious article? Is this really what you intended to write? Please remember that the problematic editor here is Abd. You, I and others might hope that his editing patterns will improve; but in the end Abd is the only one responsible for what he chooses to edit. Please be more careful what you write. ] (]) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Observation by TenOfAllTrades ===
<s>GoRight has been a consistent apologist for Abd's disruptive conduct since at least the Abd/WMC Arbitration. GoRight's encouragement and endorsement is absolutely the last thing that Abd needs. Further, GoRight has been repeatedly blocked recently for his own counterproductive approach to Misplaced Pages editing. His attacks on Enric Naval isn't pretty, either (, , , )&mdash; complaints about other editors' 'harassment' of Abd might be more credible if GoRight didn't seem so prepared to overlook and enable Abd's misconduct. It's well past tiresome; a MYOB restriction on GoRight would not be out of place.</s>

Finally, Abd's three-month ban imposed in the Arbitration failed to drive home the point, and a longer &ndash; if not permanent &ndash; ban on Abd would be appropriate now. ](]) 04:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

:Comments struck at Carcharoth's request. <s>My concerns about GoRight's role in disrupting enforcement of provisions related to Abd's conduct remain, however, and </s>I look forward to ArbCom bringing forth a MYOB motion in the very near future. (A further request for clarification &mdash; is Carcharoth's request on his own initiative, or is he speaking formally, on behalf of the entire Committee?) ](]) 21:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

::Carcharoth, don't you realize that you've just declared such a MYOB restriction here, by personal fiat and in an entirely ''ad hoc'' manner? Either get the Committee on board with you and make a formal statement <s>&ndash; I don't mind if you tell me to butt out as long as GoRight can be made to stop stirring the pot; his hyperbolic attacks were the only reason I offered a brief, diff-supported, 93-word comment &ndash; </s>or withdraw your own instructions. Otherwise, you're putting the clerks in the awkward position of acting as your own personal enforcers, rather than as agents of the Committee and (by extension) the community. ](]) 04:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

:::I feel that it is entirely proper for me to comment about the actions taken by Arbitrators as part of their participation in this Request for Clarification. I have struck out any mention of particular problematic editors' conduct, though I do still believe that it is perfectly within scope for the ArbCom, as part of a Clarification, to comment on the conduct of editors seeking to enforce (or not) an Arbitration remedy in the lead up to the Request.
:::I am not comfortable with suppressing mention of what I feel are valid points related to the processes followed by Arbitrators in responding to this Request. I will note that my ''only'' participation in or comment on the extant dispute here was my brief comment above. I have had nothing to do with any of the other discussions in any of the other fora, and I don't believe posting a seven-sentence note &ndash; even if arguably tangential &ndash; constitutes an abuse of the ArbCom's time or attention. I have affirmed that I would support a proper MYOB restriction if brought in an appropriate venue, however I object to Carcharoth attempting to implement one himself on this one page. (I observe that at least one other Request on this page contains an explicit request for a motion to which Carcharoth responded positively.)
:::I do ''not'' give permission or approval for anyone to make edits to my signed comments on this page, however I recognize when I'm outgunned, and I won't edit war with a clerk or Arb &mdash; so don't go getting silly ideas about needing to issue blocks. ](]) 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
{{collapse top|Original request by Carcharoth - no longer needed}}
*Could a clerk please either ask the parties above to remove, refactor, or strike commentary about anyone other than Abd, or do so themselves? My reading of the above thread is that this would apply to most of what Hans Adler and GoRight said (a brief comment about the dispute at Ghost will suffice - there is no need to name names here). And the first paragraph of what TenOfAllTrades said can go as well. This is not a clarification about other editors at the Ghost article or GoRight. That will help keep this clarification request on topic. If the off-topic stuff is removed, could whoever does that (whether the original editor or a clerk) please leave diffs to indicate what was removed. Thanks. ] (]) 20:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
:Update - no longer needed, parties have largely redacted or struck the off-topic comments themselves. ] (]) 13:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Recused from all Abd. ] (]) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
*Recuse. -- ] - <small>]</small> 08:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
*How MYOB (mind your own business) sanctions work in practice seems to be problematic. My view is that MYOB sanctions are a last resort, and it is up to the editor under a MYOB sanction to avoid controversial areas and go and find something productive to do in an ''uncontroversial'' area where there are no disputes. An editor placed under a MYOB sanction is essentially being told that in general they bring more heat than light to discussions, and even trying to sort out whether they are making useful contributions (as here) is a time sink. Abd, you should find quiet areas to work in until your restrictions expire (or until you have accumulated enough evidence of improved conduct to appeal your restrictions). Find a quiet area to work in and then if others turn up, any dispute is not one that you will have started. Turning up on a page where there is an existing dispute does breach the terms of your restrictions as I interpret them. If you (Abd) or others would like the restriction clarified to make that clearer, that could probably be done. I agree with Hans Adler about the ghosts and pseudoscience matter, but that should be a separate clarification (possibly related to one of the cases that concerned pseudoscience). ] (]) 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Comments related to keeping the request on-topic}}
:*In response to recent comments, it might be simpler to bar all participants to the original case from filing clarification or enforcement actions against each other. It is not just Abd that needs to back off here, but some of the others from both sides as well. It has become clear that the original participants in the case are not stepping back and letting others deal with this, but are all perpetuating the battles going on here. Some have asked why Abd can't find innocuous areas to edit? I would apply that to others as well. It tends to be the case that only the original participants in a case can be bothered to request enforcement of arbitration sanctions, but I don't think this is actually healthy. If someone's participation somewhere is truly disruptive, then others will file enforcement requests. However, this would only work if everyone subject to arbitration sanctions were forced to include in their signature and on their talk page a little ''scarlet letter'' so people editing with them were aware of this. But as you can tell, my use of the term 'scarlet letter' shows that I don't really think it is a good idea. Still, what can be done about the problem where participants to a case watch each other like hawks and call for enforcement of sanctions? Could those who have commented here state whether they have done so because they were involved in the Ghost dispute, or whether because they follow these pages and comment on previous cases they were involved with (hint: the former is OK, the latter is generally unhelpful). ] (]) 17:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
:*:Mathsci, have you counted how many of the people who have commented above were involved in the original arbitration case? The arbitrators are well aware of the previous case. Enric Naval, you (Mathsci), GoRight and Verbal made statements and gave evidence. TenOfAllTrades made workshop proposals. I haven't found anything in the original case from SamJohnston, so he probably became aware of this another way. But do you see what I mean about how frustrating it can be for arbitrators when a request for clarification just erupts into arguments between those that were present at the original case? Why not just make brief statements and leave us to attempt to clarify things? I would propose to limit previous case participants to making a ''brief'' statement narrowly restricted to the clarification request. No arguments, no back-and-forth. Just brief statements that explain ''how you got involved in the present dispute'' (merely seeing it pop up on your watchlist here and deciding to comment is not a sufficient reason to comment). I would apply the same to arbitration enforcement as well. It would cut a lot of the arguments out and allow people to get on with enforcements and clarifications and amendments, without the associated noise. In a nutshell: brief comments that must stay on-topic; no back-and-forth; and step back and let others comment and make the decision. It would make things quicker as well. ] (]) 19:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
:*::Thanks for striking that, TenOfAllTrades. Limiting the scope of this request is purely my initiative. Hopefully other arbitrators will comment here at some point to state their views. If they want to widen the scope to include others, that can happen, but I think it should be at the initiative of an arbitrator, not someone involved in the original case (unless a separate request is filed). With the amount of work on ArbCom's desk, I am trying to limit the scope of clarifications so they can be dealt with in good order. By all means file a separate request if you think you have a case to make, but folding it into this one is unlikely to be helpful. Also, the editor would in most cases have to be under current ArbCom sanctions unless the conduct is egregious (according to arbitrators, not according to the filing party). ] (]) 22:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
:*:::I've reviewed the statements made above, and all are now on-topic for this request except for the statements and comments from TenOfAllTrades. Others have refactored as requested, while TenOfAllTrades has refactored but followed up by continuing to make off-topic comments on the conduct of GoRight. Suggest that he take concerns about GoRight's conduct (and my conduct as well, if he wishes) to the relevant talk pages. The single unstruck sentence about Abd is relevant to this request, while the concerns about others disrupting enforcement of provisions related to Abd's conduct can be stated in general terms, and arbitrators can request more details and specific names if needed. After that is done, it will then be possible to get back to the point of this thread, which should be making the clarification that Enric Naval asked for. ] (]) 13:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*Thank-you for the further strikes, TenOfAllTrades. I have no objection to you proposing a motion about Abd, but my view is that extending proposed motions to include others should be done by arbitrators (in part because we would then formally notify them). My current thoughts on this matter are to formally propose a motion to tighten Abd's existing restrictions to remove the clause that allowed him to participate in polls and requests for comments. I should clarify that I'm still only pondering on something further about how to manage the interactions between Abd and those who originally participated at the case - there is no de facto MYOB clause in effect and no-one should interpret my comments that way (that would require full voting on a motion). My ''hope'' (per Mathsci) is that Abd and those involved in the original case(s) will stay apart (that includes GoRight and others as well). It is entirely possible that both my proposed motions (one still only being considered) will fail, but that is how I see things at the moment. ] (]) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
**To GoRight: I meant (a), but only those that were involved in the case. The idea is both that Abd finds somewhere quiet to edit, and also that those involved in the case neither support him nor drag him down. He should stand or fall on his own merits. It shouldn't need those involved in the original cases to pop up and reiterate what happened there. Too many people cluster around controversial articles trying to contribute their bit or to object to what others are saying or to support those they agree with (the agreement and support should be for the content, not for the editors). Sometimes a different approach is needed. If someone finds themselves editing controversial articles all the time, that is not really a good sign, no matter how "right" you think you are (anyone reading this and thinking that it is OK editing controversial articles all the time if your edits are good, the long-term effect is still degrading). ] (]) 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
*In general, I agree with Carcharoth's advice to Abd. ] (]) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC) <small>Noting that Brad is talking here about the first comment I made. ] (]) 17:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)</small>
*I also agree with Carcharoth's clarification about how Abd's sanction is supposed to work and also encourage him to avoid polls, RfCs and the like as well for the time being. Its not fair to "vote" somewhere and then tell editors that you cannot discuss the issue further because of your restriction. Find some nice quiet articles where you can participate fully. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: ] ==

'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 08:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Maurreen}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Kevin}}, and anyone who follows his example with such out-of-process deletions --
=== Statement by Maurreen ===

As a minimum, I ask the committee to prevent any out-of-process deletions while it considers these issues with more information and deliberation than involved in ].

In short:
* The committe said, "The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to '''conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.'''" And "Everyone is asked to '''continue working together to improve''' and uphold the goals of our project." (Emphasis added.)
** ] recently wrote that ].
**There is indication that other people have done similar deletions since the ArbCom's decision. But this deserves further research before I name names here.
* "The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people."
** ].
** ]s are being ].

I might or might not add more to my statement. That depends on factors on- and -off wiki. ] (]) 08:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:'''Reply to Doc''' -- About why this is at arbitration: Mainly because ] recently wrote that "."
:I agree that the consensus is reasonable, one that most people on both sides of the issue can live with. I think that we ought not let outliers on either side work against that consensus. ] (]) 15:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

::If ArbCom agrees with '''SirFozzie''' about looking dimly "on attempts to force the issue on either side" -- I think that firmly clarifying that position should efficiently address the immediate matter at hand. ] (]) 05:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

:::'''Reply to Steve Smith''' -- We agree that the *issue* is contentious. That is not the same as saying that any given article, the specific articles that have been deleted, or unsourced BLPs in general are contentious. ] (]) 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

::::One motivating factor for those supporting the out-of-process deletions seems to be the perceived urgent need for such unilateral action, with no oversight or clear record. For the moment, putting aside whether these should be deleted or not -- If they deserve delection, they should go through our standard processes. Why do something drastic and contentious, when a routine method is available? ] (]) 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::Administrators have special tools, not special authority.
:::::If deletion of BLPs for the sole reason of having no sourcing was supported by the community, there would be many more of them at ]. There are very few at ]. ] is a list of Prod'd articles, with the justification. I expect that a sole rationale of "unsourced BLP" is used less than an average of once a day. ] (]) 19:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (Added two sentences, forgot sig earlier.)

{{od}}
A little elaboration on '''Baloonman's''' suggestion of how ArbCom might handle this efficiently -- In a nutshell, the result of the RFC is:
# The community supports sticky prods for new unsourced BLPs.
# In general, the deletion side is willing to wait a few months to see if they believe further action is necessary.
I believe that people on both side will agree that this is the result of the RFC, regardless of how much they like it.

Work on the sticky prods is ]. ] (]) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (Forgot sig earlier.)

:During the RFC, Doc (from the "deletion" side) suggested a . That compromise included "'''Do nothing''' for three months, so see if the recent falls in the backlog continue," and "If the progress stalls and the backlog stops falling at the current rate, then '''in three months we ''may'' need to start discussing deadlines.'''"
:To the best of my knowledge, no one from the deletion side objected to the suggested three-month wait-and-see period for old unreferenced BLPs.
:Especially given that they did not object during the RFC, I see no justification for unilateral contentious behavior, or to condone it, implicitly or explicitly. ] (]) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

::No evidence has been given that unsourced BLPs are otherwise more problematic than sourced BLPs. Limited evidence is available that there is no correlation between sourcing and other aspects. For one external example -- The has been researching WP. Of 15 BLPs, the BLP subjects were roughly evenly divided as to their opinions on how accurate, complete and unbiased the pages were. At the bottom of the page, in a comment responding to me, the blogger said the sourcing in all articles was poor.
::The focus whether the article has *a source* is misplaced. If *a correct source* was added to all our articles overnight, that wouldn't make the articles more accurate or less biased. It would only mean *a source* had been added. This focus whitewashes true problems.
::I've read sometimes that the community brought this on itself, because it did not rectify "the problem." But the community is all of us. Destructive measures should be a last resort. They should not be used unless substantive productive methods have clearly failed. As just one example, what notice was given for deleting said articles? Did the deleters either publicly warn the community or directly warn the specific article editors? ] (]) 05:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:::And do the deleters source any of these articles, or do they think they have to ]? ] (]) 09:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

::::If ArbCom allows out-of-process deletions, either explicitly or implicitly, after the committee's original motion, that can significantly decrease incentive for people "to continue working together" (as encouraged by the committee's original motion) whether on addressing any BLP problems or in whether and how they contribute to encyclopedia more generally. ] (]) 06:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::Some people are trying to work together. Some people on both sides push boundaries.
:::::] has re-] articles after the tag has been removed. Coffee has changed the instructions on some ] tags to indicate that the tag is to stay on until references are given. and
:::::This is explicitly against instructions at ], which say: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a prod tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion."
:::::I would like to clarify to ArbCom that the purpose of my request for clarification is not to support either side.
:::::I am asking the committee to '''firmly support''' the middle ground -- the '''compromise by the community''' found in the result of the RFC. ] (]) 16:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

{{od}}
;Related
A number of issues are related to the larger "BLP problem."

We could be working on more-effective steps than just adding a source.

A number of options have come up in other discussions. One of those possibilities is ]. The details of the template and any views on it are not my point here. My point here is that:
#The positive effect of just ''adding a source'' is minimal at best.
#The community is distracted from working on more-effective solutions while it focuses on whether BLPs have ''a source.''
#The occurrence or threat of summary deletions is discouraging. ] (]) 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

:'''Scott or anyone''' -- I keep hearing that "the community failed."
:I had been away from WP for a few years. I would be interested in learning of what steps, if any, were tried and failed before the mass deletions. ] (]) 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


==== Reply to ] ====

Your response is confusing to me.

By "It will be difficult to get something that has wide-ranging agreement," were you referring to agreement within ArbCom or agreement within the community?

About "What would help, I think, is some set deadlines here" -- Point 4 of ] of Balloonman's proposal in the RFC set goals to reduce old unsourced BLPs to zero within a year. That was accepted by the community, with !votes of 52 to 33.

Some of your statements concerning out-of-process deletions seem to go back and forth.

Should the following be understood to best represent your view on out-of-process deletions?
:::"BUT, the preceding would only apply if all other options had been exhausted. As others have said, the removal of contentious material applies to article text, not to entire articles. There is no visible consensus to extend such removal to entire articles (though stubbing BLPs appears to be less controversial than it was). We are nowhere near the stage yet where those pushing for this should feel able to engage in out-of-process deletions, and people should still be actively trying to shape consensus on these matters and continue to reduce backlogs."

If so, thank you.

About "If there are deadlines in place regarding achieving consensus in the discussions, and there are people actively working towards those deadlines, could that be explicitly stated" -- There are no deadlines. I think deadlines would not serve consensus or the community. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding. But any deadlines for discussion suggests that "If you don't decide this by x date, we will."

That seems like a threat. And I can't fathom how you expect to encourage people by using a threat.

If ArbCom is going to take over ], it might be better to do that sooner rather than later. That way, the rest of us won't waste our time.

It also sounds like a demand. Please remember that this is not a job. We have lives outside of WP. Not only is this volunteering, it is trying to achieve '''consensus''' among a group of people with diverse views and schedules and commitments who have been through a very divisive time on the general issue.

You asked, "Would there be any volunteers to oversee the discussions or are there people already unofficially doing this?" -- For whatever it's worth, <s>I and</s> a few others have been trying to keep things on track in a way that gets the most acceptance from the most people.

We are making progress. Our progress is probably slower han anyone would like. But there's nothing good that can be done about that. As far as I can tell, we're doing the best that is possible under the circumstances.

Those of us working to build the encyclopedia, whether through the ] or by sourcing the BLPs, would be encouraged by substantive support from ArbCom.

By "substantive support," I mean a clear declaration against the out-of-process deletions. ] (]) 08:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

;Reply to Balloonman
OK, point taken, majority but no consensus about deadlines to reduce number of old unsourced BLPs to zero within a year. ] (]) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

;Housekeeping update
For various reasons, I am taking an indefinite break from the sticky prod workshop. ] (]) 04:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

;About any facilitation of the ]
The short answer is that it might be best to get help from one or more impartial moderators.

As I mentioned earlier, a few of us had been working to keep the discussion on track and get the most acceptance from the most people. But such major housekeeping can be perceived negatively. That perception can be magnified by the fact that the housekeepers are involved in the discussion and apparently are on the same side in the "fix vs. delete" debate.

If appointing any moderator(s) is pursued, I encourage that to be done with consultation of at least one vocal editor from each "side." That should help encourage harmony all around. ] (]) 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

==== Proposed motion ====

I propose the following draft. ] (]) 09:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Committee has examined this matter. In light of the following considerations:
* The community has well-established procedures for deletion.
* Out-of-process deletions have led to divisiveness in the community.
* In ] of the RFC suggested by ArbCom to address unsourced ], a proposal to ] "any biography that is poorly referenced or completely unreferenced" was rejected by the community, 157 to 54.
* In ] of the same RFC, ] suggested a .
* The suggested compromise led to a ] by ].
* The community has ] the number of unsourced BLPs.
* The community is developing a system to ].

The Committee has determined that:
* The community is progressing in addressing the issue of unsourced BLPs.
* The community should start a review of that progress in June.
* The community should strive to meet the goals outlined by ] and ].
* Whatever justification that might have existed earlier for out-of-process deletion based solely on lack of sourcing, that justification does not currently exist.

;Reply to Carcharoth

Will do. Thank you. ] (]) 05:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

:I've put a note at the sticky prod pages and the RFC talk page. Also put notes on the talk pages of Kevin, Mr. Z-man, Balloonman, and Kudpung. Should I notify all the people who have commented here? I'm not sure of the ArbCom-related customs. ] (]) 06:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
::I also notified Coffee. ] (]) 07:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

;Reply to Coffee
People keep bringing up policy and the foundation. Where do either support deletion for the ''sole reason'' of lack of sourcing? ] (]) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

;Reply to Scott
One way that the motion is helpful is that it gives encouragement to those working on the problem that their work is not in vain. For example, it is discouraging to work on a compromise if summary deletions continue regardless. ] (]) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
:Clarifying -- it is discouraging to work on a compromise when summary deletions ''have taken place'' after the original mass deletions that started this kertuffle.
:Those deletions have been indicated elsewhere on this page. ] (]) 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
::And knowing about any further such deletions might require either happenstance or an inordinate amount of detective work. ] (]) 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

;Reply to anyone who disagrees with my proposed motion
I am open to moderate suggestions. Specifics could be helpful.

The motion is intended to get the most acceptance from the most people. Thus, it essentially endorses the compromise suggested by ], formalized by ], and supported by a large segment of the community. I note here that ] and ] are on opposite sides of the "fix vs. delete" debate. ] (]) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

:A lot is being done to address unsourced BLPs. This motion primarily addresses summary deletions. Thus, concerns of both "sides" are given consideration. ] (]) 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Balloonman===
Should an admin unilaterally decide that an active RfC did not reach the conclusions that said admin desired, and started acting contrary to the consensus (or lack thereof) of the community, then said individual should be stripped of his/her adminship. The threatened action, if carried out, will be a willful premeditated action that could not be tolerated.---''']''' '']'' 08:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:Lar, there is nothing in WP:BLP or WP:CSD that says that a BLP article without sources is a candidate for speedy deletion. The only way that it is acceptable to speedy delete said article is if it is an attack page or copy vio... an argument could be made for articles about people who are known for breaking the rules/laws. The notion of speedy deleting BLP articles solely because they do not have sources has been universally rejected everytime it has been brought before the wider community.---''']''' '']'' 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:Steve Smith---your statement fails to address a key factor... just because a biography is unsourced does not mean that it is contentious. Kevin et al are not talking about limiting their deletion activities to just contentious materials, but intend to redefine the definition to cover any BLP that lacks sources.---''']''' '']'' 15:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
::Steve, what is contentious is the careless deletion of unsourced BLPs, not the articles themselves. The "Contetntious Materials" in the policy deals with questionable material within the article itself. An article can be 100% accurate, factual, and neutral without citing a source. These articles are not by definition contentious except for a small minority of the community whose position was rejected in the recent RfCs. If you review the RfC's, you'll see several threads wherein the notion that an unsourced BLPs equates to a bad/POV articles has been rejected. You would be hard pressed to find any consensus to support the stance that the mere lack of sources makes an article contentious enough to warrant speedy deletion. This is a position held by a small minority of people who contributed to the RfCs. In fact, the reason why Kevin has made this threat, is because the community has roundly rejected that notion, and frankly if you can't see that in the threads, I have to question your objectivity on this subject! In order to be a good judge/arbitrator, you need to be able to put your personal position aside. If you can't do that, then you need to recluse yourself from this case. The fact that you see the RfC as supporting a notion which it clearly doesn't distresses me.---''']''' '']'' 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple of ArbCOM members have asked what actions can they take as a preventitive before creating a whole new slew of ArbCOM cases/issues. Simple. Make it clear that in your previous motion you referred the issue to an RfC, the RfC has happened, and all parties are expected to adhere to the outcome. Not everybody will be happy with it, but everybody needs to adhere to it. Sir Fozzie's statement would be a good foundation for such a clarification.---''']''' '']'' 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
*@Cofee---we elected the members of ArbCOM because we trusted them to serve the community and to enforce policeis and guidelines as defined by the community. We did not elect them to override the communities wishes when the community explicitly wants something else. The community has spoken loudly and in several different forums, at the current time, it does not want or support the use of CSD to handle articles simply because they are unsourced. THAT is the position held by the ''minority'' of people. It is not ArbCOMs job to dictate policy... members of ArbCOM are free to use their reasoning/rationale as long as it reflects the will of the community. When a member of ArbCOM holds a personal view that is contrary to the community, I expect them to temper their personal position with those of the communities or to recluse themselves if they cannot. When a few members of ArbCOM start to dictate policies, then we get resolutions such as we did in the first phase of the RfC where there was a strong rebuke of ArbCOM's actions. ArbCOM's role is not to supercede that of the community and write policy. You may think that policy is on your side and you may think that this is a justifiable case for IAR, but the community thinks otherwise.---''']''' '']'' 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
PS I must compliment those people who personally want CSD to be applied to unsourced BLPs (Z-Man, JClemens, Collect, et al) but respect the voice of the community. My stance here is not based upon my person stance, but rather upon the notion that when the community explicitly and repeatedly states something, the we have to adhere to those wishes until we can convince them that consensus has changed or an edict from Jimbo/WMF comes down. I think they realize that too.---''']''' '']'' 23:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
:@Maureen---I would not consider a 61% support to be a sign that consensus has been achieved. A majority yes, but the opposition provided strong rationale reasons for opposing my second proposal that I would not say it is consensus.---''']''' '']'' 20:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
In response to Maureens request on my talk page, which was done at a request here, I do believe ArbCOM needs to make some sort of statement affirming the RfC. In its previous motion, ArbCOM opened a can of worms by praising and condoning the out-of-process deletions. While the subject of deleting unsourced BLP's is a conetntious one, the articles generally are not. In its previous motion, ArbCOM referred the issue to the community. The community has repeatedly rejected the notion of wholesales deletions for the sole reason that they are unsourced. This position came through in spades at the RfC, yet we still have people who have threated and/or implied that they intend to do so anyways (including one member of ArbCOM who supports doing so!) The first time, we can say, "OK, this get the ball rolling." But when the community speaks in a loud clear voice, ArbCOM needs to support that position. It doesn't matter what your personal views are on the subject are, the role of ArbCOM is not to override clear community consensus. It doesn't matter if ArbCOM hoped for/expected a different result, you referred the issue to RfC. In doing so, you acknowledged that the issue was beyond the scope of the few members of ArbCOM, and subjected your position to the will of the community. The RfC made certain issues very clear (namely no out of process deletions) now you (ArbCOM) have to support that position (until the community and/or Foundation say otherwise.) If you don't, then it will only be a matter of time before somebody decides to follow-up on Kevin's threat.---''']''' '']'' 14:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: ''I came across a BLP today that had not been tagged in any way whatsoever, so that area still needs attention.'' I think that is a large part of the reason why people are reluctant to accept a firm timeline as I proposed. We really don't know how big the issue is. Furthermore, I've seen some evidence since the RfC that some people want to have BLP-CREEP enter the fray. EG define BLPs to include organization, clubs, activities, events, etc using the logic that if there is a negative reference to the subject, then we are ultimately inditing the living people who might be involved with said subject! If that position goes through, then virtually every article on WP could be subject to BLP!---''']''' '']'' 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Tarc===
Reject this as patent nonsense, please. Nothing in the RfC precludes administrators from doing their job, which is to uphold ], whether it be deleting unsourced contentious articles, tagging, PRODding, and so on. There is still this ridiculous attitude of "let's wait and leave the articles be, someone, sometime will get to them eventually." Enough, already. ] (]) 12:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


===Statement by WereSpielChequers===

] can be upheld without disruptive editing or disruptive use of admin tools. Now would be a good time for Arbcom to remind all editors to inform the creator and other substantial contributors when prodding or otherwise tagging articles for deletion, and to remind editors ]. I think that the BLP RFC is ] that would make an exception to the latter, and it would be a great shame if that was derailed by another out of process deletion spree. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 13:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

===Statement by Peter cohen ===
The RfC has reached a conclusion. Some of us are prepared to live with it even though we did not like it. Others have to start the deletion spree again against consensus and then ]. The contempt shown by certain admins for process and consensus makes them unfit to hold the tools that they abuse. Firm action is required of arbcom rather than the previous wishy-washy motion which has made the offenders feel they can get away with more of the same.--] (]) 13:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
*Reply to Kirill. This is not something that ahs not happenned yet. ], for example, has deleted ] this month with the explanation "unreferenced BLP for 2 1/2 years, no one seems able to source. I will undelete if anyone willing)" How people were expected to notice unless they checked for evidence of his carryign out his thrats, I do not know. MacDonald is well aware that the number of labelled unreferenced BLPs has declined by roughly a quarter so far this year. However, rather than working in a collaborative manner, he is acting in an extremely disruptibve and ]y manner which demonstrates him to be someone who should not be trusted with his sysop tools. This needs firm action by arbcom rather than vaascillation.--] (]) 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
**Reply to several arbiters below. Your first attempt at dealing with this matter attracted well-deserved derision from many well-established Wikipedians. You are going the same way with your response to this request. Several of you are maintaining that you are being faced with a hypothetical situation when both I and others have given you examples of speedy deletes of long existent articles earlier this month. If you are demonstrating that youy have not read properly the evidence with which you are presented, then how can you expect your judgment to be respected?--] (]) 13:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Scott MacDonald===
Speedy deletion isn't ideal here. We need a robust alternative that effectively deals with unrefereced BLPs. Speedy deletion is, however, preferable to continuing with a failed policy of evantualism.

In effect, those of us using speedy deletion agreed a voluntary moratorium to allow the community to develop an alternative. In my opinion, there seemed to be an adequate way forward with "sticky prod" for new BLPs and some deadlined for clearing the backlog. If the current rate of sourcing continues, then no deletions might be necessary. If not, then some level of sticky-prodding might be. I think there was some consensus around this.

Unfortunately, as the weeks have gone on, there seems to have been a tendency either to talk this to death (see ]), or to add a ] requirement - which effectively switches the burden back on to the person proposing deletion: if no-one is willing to look for sources, then the article remains (that's the failed eventualist policy again).

There certainly should be no ''immediate'' return to systematic speedy deletion. However, given that it was the initiative of speedy deletion that was the catalyst to the current discussions, I'd strongly suggest that any ban on deletions would allow continued delay and inertia.

We hope for an alternative to speedy, but the clock is ticking and patience shows some signs of running out. Perhaps those bringing this case would do better spend their time better seeking a working alternative pretty damn soon.

:I'm not sure we're not talking at cross-purposes here. The consensus I thought there was (sticky-prod for new BLPs, a one-year deadline for the backlog, with a review in 3months to see if we are "on target) is certainly one I can live with. The problem is that the RFC pages have become so convoluted and there appear to have been numerous attempts to summarise an close, that I've no idea what it is that I'm supposed not to be content with. Can someone actually tell us where this is at, and why a sticky prod isn't running yet? People are speaking about admins not getting their own way, but I've absolutely no idea whether there's a problem or not, the pages just confuse me. There may be no problem here at all. Why is this even at arbitration?--] 15:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

::It is perfectly reasonable for admins to issue reminders that moratoria dealing with BLP problems don't last for ever, and that this one will soon expire. As Lar has said, get the alternatives up and running, and the problem goes away.--] 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


'''Comment on Maureen's motion''' This is unhelpful. Firstly, on the "out of process deletions" issue, there is no problem to be solved. There have been no such deletions, and there won't be any if those involved stop wasting time at arbcom and get their act together. There is a consensus for "sticky prod" but, frankly, '''weeks turn to months, and we have no sticky prod'''. What could have been a simple solution "prod tags may not be removed from unsourced BLPs unless a source is added" has been frustrated because after the community agreed the principle, most users thought the job was done, and an extremely small group of users (many of whom don't like the basic idea) have spent weeks either disputing the underlying principle or quibbling on the warning tag wording. They wore me down - so I've now withdrawn. The biggest threat to the peace is this process dragging on for any longer. To those who want to avoid irregular deletions, make this process happen NOW - and note how those of us involved in those deletions have a) stopped deleting (months ago) to let this happen b) already indicated that there will be no resumption when this is up and running.

Why is this at arbitration? I have no idea. But the statement that ''"Whatever justification that might have existed earlier for out-of-process deletion based solely on lack of sourcing, that justification does not currently exist"'' - has been true for weeks and no one has said otherwise. However, the "does not currently" is, for me, predicated on the consensus outlined by Maureen being actualised. That's beginning to look like a problem. Arbcom will make this worse if they rule against the threat of resumed deletions whilst not preventing further delays in the agreed alternative. Carcharoth's comments simply confuse me - leaders are not the problem, the problem is ].--] 09:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

*'''@Maureen'''. You say "it is discouraging to work on a compromise if summary deletions continue regardless." Yes, but summary deletions have ceased months ago, and have not continued, precisely on the basis that we had a better way forward. The problem here is the failure to implement consensus which was '''not to use summary deletions because we had an agreed way forward'''. The problem is that the agreement has failed to be implemented. The solution is to implement it, not to look to bar hypotheticals predicated on what happens if consensus is not implemented - or continues to be obstructed by prevarication. --] 15:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

====Point of order====
The non-threaded nature of this page is not a successful mechanism for continuing this discussion. We've now got comments from various people, on various topics, arbs comments, and a cycle of disordered responses "@" someone, all over a period of a week or so. I'm thoroughly confused and don't know who or what I'm responding to, or how to correct some misleading statements of what's happened. I'd strongly suggest that this isn't a discussion that can be handled as a "clarification" or by motion. Arbcom should either reject this, since no current userconduct issues are raised, or (if they must) open a full case. I'm unwatching now, because this is giving me a headache (and that's not a reflection on anyone's good faith).--] 17:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Collect===

"Isn't ideal"?

The use of this threat of speedy deletion goes specifically against the ArbCom motion as elucidated, ''and against the letter and spirit of WP policies and guidelines'' at this point.

It is clear, moreover, that the RfCs had definitely reached consensus on many issues. That it was not the precise consensus desired by some admins is not a mark of a problem with the process, it is a mark of the use of the ArbCom motion as a rationale to avoid facing the real and proper results of the actions of such admins who do not accept consensus which is the problem. Impose the penalties apparently sought by such admins. ] (]) 14:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)



Appending: Maurreens's proposed motion ought to be well considered by the Committee, and adopted. It is provided within the tradional WP processes and procedures, and has strong community support as far as I can determine. It reflects carefully the results of the RfCs held, and seeks to restore the rule of WP consensus being the basis for WP policies and guidelines. My earlier comments in this and other actions apply with full force and vigor. ] (]) 12:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Okip===
The reason that disruptive editors such as Kevin continue to delete articles against our rules is because arbitrration gave them a free pass. We have already been here, this is the third time. First their was the amnesty of disruptive administrators Scott Macdonald, Kevin and Lar, then there was the arbitration request for disruptive wheel warring editor Coffee, and now this.

Arbitration has sent a clear message to the community: If administrators blatantly disrupt and break wikipedia rules, having "utter contempt" for "community consensus" ''(deleted from talk page with a rationale for behavior)'' it is okay as long as the majority of the arbitration committee supports their disruption.

I have absolutely no faith that the arbitration committee will do the right thing here and accept the case, because the arbitration committee and Mr. Wales himself have already shown complete contempt for our established rules and established consensus with these bullying editors before. ] 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:Response to Lar, one of the three original <s>rule breaking</s> administrators who received amnesty by the arbitration committee:
:<S>Deleting full unsourced articles is not within policy, such as you did Lar: that is why an amnesty was necessary Lar, amnesty is defined as "a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment" you were an offender who the arbitration committee exempted from punishment.</s> I grow extremely tired of these disruptive administrators who, if there was actually any on wikipedia would have lost there adminiship a month ago, instead of continually trying to silence editors and rewrite the history of their extreme <s>contemptible rule breaking</s> behavior. ] 17:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::Lar continues to attempt to silence me with threats, yet more threats from the same group of disruptive bullying administrators. I am so disgusted that the arbitration committee has emboldened to continue to threaten, bully, and silence other editors.
::I strongly encourage them to take this case, instead of giving these disruptive administrators continued amnesty for their disruption. ] 18:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::In Lar's continued threats, he pointed out something I was not aware of, that the arbitration committee found that
::::"The Committee has found that Lar's actions during the BLP deletion incident were entirely supported by policy."
:::The same arbitration committee which gave Lar amnesty, now ignores the community's rules and states that . I strongly disagree with this arbitration decision. ] 18:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Lar===
Deletion of unsourced material is entirely within policy. Admins are empowered to use whatever tools are available to do so. If some group wants a particular process used, get the process ''done'' so it can be used instead of frittering away time on endless prevarication. Get sticky prod up and running, instead of wasting everyone's time with requests like this one. I urge ArbCom to reject this request for clarification with a clear statement that the matter is not open to further debate, either develop a process, or get out of the way. ++]: ]/] 17:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:To Okip... You are confused about who is violating what, or to whom amnesty was granted. ArbCom was specifically asked to comment on (among other matters)
::''The allegation that Lar has violated English Misplaced Pages policy and ignored consensus (except in cases where consensus is trumped by Foundation directives) regarding deletion of Biographies of Living Persons.''
: Their was
::''The Committee has found that Lar's actions during the BLP deletion incident were entirely supported by policy.''
: In other words, I didn't ''need'' an amnesty since I violated no policy. Sorry if that's "arrogant" of me to point out, but you're '''so''' confused on this point that it merits direct refutation. You should stop ranting. It's really rather unbecoming. I am minded to ask ArbCom for a sanction on your actions since you continue to make unfounded and scurrilous allegations even after being repeatedly warned about it. ++]: ]/] 17:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Calliopejen1===
Even if summary deletion were an appropriate action at one time, it has now been rejected by the community (see ]). This supersedes whatever policy clarification (or whatever you want to call it) issued by arbcom in its past motion (see ]). The problem of summary deletions is not merely theoretical at this time. ] speedy-deleted ] on March 6 on the grounds that it was an unreferenced BLP. The arbcom's vague motion in the prior case has created confusion and encouraged administrators to violate consensus whenever their views of policy differ from the community's. I encourage the committee to take this case because it would prevent drama-causing deletions and allow the community to develop appropriate consensus-backed policies without the threat of rogue administrative action. ] (]) 18:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:To respond to arbitrators' misconceptions:
:*This is not a matter of "something that hasn't happened yet". As I showed above, at least one administrator speedy deleted an uncontentious unsourced BLP as recently as March 6. Furthermore, it is impossible to compromise when one side holds over the other side's head the threat of not abiding by consensus.
:*This is not a dispute about "contentious material", as Steve Smith writes. This is a dispute about ''uncontentious'' BLPs being deleted simply because they are unsourced. (No, not everything unsourced is contentious--see ].) And what on earth is Steve Smith trying to convey when he says "WP:IAR should never override WP:BLP"? I don't think anyone has ever invoked WP:IAR to override WP:BLP. This seems like a total strawman. ] (]) 12:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Pohick2===
i resurrected the article ] with references. i would say marginal keep, but process circumvented. i note some earlier examples: a macarthur winner getting proded, ; president of vassar geting Proded ; a guggenheim getting a speedy ; a guggenheim getting prod'ed it would seem there is a process problem. ] (]) 19:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:i agree a process is needed to review BLP's, delete the non-notable and keep the notable. references are part of it. i am concerned that there is a lack of common sense, where clearly notable, but without references are thrown out with the bathwater. a ticking time bomb is not a solution; editing is. ] (]) 04:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Jclemens===
One thing that seems to have been missing in this discussion is the fact that the out-of-process deletions were held to be more disruptive and harmful than the simple existence of unsourced (vs. contentious/negative unsourced) BLPs. Consensus has quite thoroughly pointed out that the emperor has no clothes: IAR involves ''improving'' Misplaced Pages, yet there is a consensus that widespread, out-of-process deletions of unsourced BLP material do no such thing. There is no CSD for "unreferenced BLP", newly created or preexisting, nor will there likely ever be, based on the RFC's consensus. Absent consensus to add a speedy criterion, and absent agreement that deleting unreferenced BLPs out of process is improving the encyclopedia, '''there is absolutely no justification for further out of process deletions.''' While the amnesty may indeed have been the right way to deal with prior rash actions, the RFC consensus is clear: the community does not support out of process deletions as a remedy, the participants know this, and any future actions taken against consensus are incompatible with assuming good faith. ] (]) 22:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:Response to Steve Smith: There's no objection to deletion of unsourced article '''content''', nor has there been. This request for clarification focuses solely on the deletion (specifically, ongoing and threatened future deletion) of '''entire articles''' using criteria that do not exist as part of CSD, and that have been specifically rejected by the community. ] does not allow for the speedy deletion of articles, and CSD criteria G10 and A7 allow speedy deletion of BLPs only in certain limited cases. ] (]) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Kevin===

I had hoped that my actions would spur on some real change, even just a sign that Misplaced Pages had turned a corner and was now ready to act in a responsible manner toward BLP subjects. Deletion of the unsourced BLPs is of course only a small step, but it would have been one that showed that change was taking place.

Rather than force ARBCOM to once again deal with this, I shall <s>withdraw from the project</s> desist from deletions in line with Scott. ] (]) 22:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Casliber===
Two things - (1) as a staunch inclusionist, I can now admit I can live with mass deletion of unsourced BLPs ''as long'' as there is some register or list, so folks can readily review, source and re-add articles. (2) we need to aggressively ensure that a collaborative environment is enforced. Giving one side a free pass and excusing their incivility is extremely bad for morale. Leaders need to be unifiers. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Kudpung===
I thoroughly support Casliber's statement above.<br> is clearly '''not''' a threat. If anything, it is a perfectly justifiable warning about extremists and what they might do. The BLP RfC was exceptionally confusing, because it tried to address too many BLP issues in one discussion, making any one consensus extrememly difficult to identify. The RfC has been closed. The consensus has something in it to satisfy all but the most intransigent of extremists of either leaning. Most of us will probably live with the decision and act accordingly although it may be necessary to occasionally politely remind those who go OTT :
*Stricter controls over what gets published in BLP are needed - without interpreting Mr Wales's recent comments comments on it too liberally.
*Mass, arbitrary, or out-of-process deletions of a backlog are not a solution.
*Speedy deletion should be used with extreme discretion and only in non contentious cases (spam, hoax, vandalism, etc).
*Liberal tolerance of what gets published is definitely counter productive to the making of an encyclopedia.
*WP:BEFORE is a policy that is extremely difficult to enforce, but there are plenty of clear cut examples where many taggers do not even read the first line of the lead. Some form of policy action is required against such taggers.
*A sticky PROD will both educate and encourage new users to provide sources and continue editing.
*Some positive action has been done, such as the creation of workshops to address the separate issues.
--] (]) 00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

*'''Reply to Carcharoth'''
*Deadlines: Yes, setting deadlines is essential, but lets us not forget that most of us have full-times occupations as well.
*Natural leaders: Nice in principle, but in this entire saga there have already been too may chiefs and not enough Indians. So who would lead the leaders? Finally, as only FIVE people signed up for the task force, and one has given up in exasperation already, do we need a leader for such a small group?
--] (]) 09:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by DGG===
I can not accept the mass deletion of anything that is not proven to be harmful, and I do not think there was every any evidence that the unsourced BLP articles were even potentially harmful in any way more than the rest of Misplaced Pages. We have serious content problems, but they to a considerable extent are inseparable from the inherent problems of any project like ours that operates without editorial control: the need for truly competent referencing, for understandable writing, for balance in coverage between and among articles, for avoiding promotionalism of people's individual viewpoints, and, more especially, the need to update every article in Misplaced Pages in a regular and reliable manner. Certainly we must be careful of what we say, and this applies to every article in the encyclopedia. This is artificially generated hysteria, and the only explanation I can come to is that this is the unthinking reaction of people who recognize they have no hope of dealing with the real issues, and who are over-focussed on the mistakes they made in the past that permitted the out of control situation to develop. It's right that our founder and the other long-term Wikipedians who started a project that had inadequate standards should regret they did not insist on sourcing from the beginning--but their reaction is typical of those who try by harshness to make up for the sins of their childhood. What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages new editors: the entire thrust of Misplaced Pages policy should be devoted to the encouragement of new people, , and the development of them into active and well-qualified editors, to replace the ones who will inevitably be leaving. This is done by helping the articles they write become good content. The proper reaction to an unsourced article is to source it, ideally by teaching the author how to do so, and impressing on them the need to do this in the future. What does not help is to remove it without doing everything feasible to see if it can be sourced, and if it can be considered important enough for the encyclopedia. In particular, the following are wrong:
*the idea that maintain a list of articles deleted will help--for how can someone who sees the bare names know what they might be qualified to work on. What will help is keeping the articles until they are properly worked on.
*time limits so short they prevent adequate sourcing. Some of those who argue in favor of mass deletions are insistent also on the quality of the sourcing, and they are right to do so, but they then have proposed extending mass deletion to anything that does not meet their standard. And some of them do so without in the least being prepared to do any actual work on them.
*the view that WP:BEFORE is unworkable. Making a cursory search in the googles is not difficult, and everybody who works here should be capable of it. the thought that we would want to remove what we have not looked at is about as rational as removing every tenth article from the encyclopedia blindly, on the grounds that something is probably wrong with them. There are easy ways to enforce it--one is to do delist any deletion request that does not include a search. those who want articles deleted will then search, as they ought to.
*the attitude that other people should do the work of improving Misplaced Pages. For someone to say, all I want to do is mark articles to delete, and I don't care whether they ought to be deleted. Let other people figure that out is irresponsible and unconstructive and uncooperative. Those people who care that articles should be sourced, should want to source them. To say that I want article to be sourced, and you others go source them, is insolent, and against the egalitarian principles of the project. It's the statement of a boss, of a dictator, of a policeman: let the plebeians do the work, and we will judge it. Rather, the only people qualified to judge are those who are prepared themselves to work, and thus prove they understand what is wanted.
*the view that "liberal tolerance" of what gets published is counterproductive. It's exactly the opposite. We need liberal tolerance of what gets started , in order that we may improve it. It's the only productive course for making as wide-ranging encyclopedia as we are aiming at.
*the view expressed by one of the arbitrators that because the existence of apparently innocuous unsourced material is challenged, it must be removed. I could remove half the encyclopedia that way. Contentious material means material which is contended to be harmful or incorrect in good faith , on the basis of reason., not blind assertion.
*the previous decision of the arbitrators to commend those who removed material without looking at it. This will lead to the tyranny of whatever group among the arbitrators is in the majority among arb com. Arb com has essentially said, do whatever you like, as long as we agree with it. What is called for now is for them to repudiate that view. I hope they pronounced it because they did not realize the consequences.
I joined Misplaced Pages to improve its quality. i recognized it would be a slow process. It does not surprise me that it is not faster, and I thus have no reason to get angry because I had misjudged he difficulty. I am , however, beginning to get exasperated at those who would prevent me and the others from improving it. I am probably a little unrealistic to get angry at those in authority who have no better idea than to abet them, for it should not really have surprised me that such is the nature of authority. I have tried not to use names. Too many people are at fault. It would be wrong to criticize only those who have made the most noise about it. ''']''' (]) 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

**Response to Steve Smith: I join with the others who are of the opinion that your view that all unsourced BLP articles are inherently contentious is unsupported by evidence, by consensus, by logic, by any special meaning of words as used at Misplaced Pages, by the ordinary meaning of words as used in the English language in general, or by anything except your own personal idiosyncratic view. I see that view as so extreme and so extraordinary that you should recuse yourself from this and any future discussions of the general issue.
**Response to NYBrad: not only is there widespread but not universal consensus " that mass-deletion without the exercise of discretion about each specific article is not the way to go" but that there is similar consensus that ''any'' speedy deletions outside of established reasons for deletion is not the way to go. I have never seen nor can I easily imagine an article that would actually need speedy deletion for the sake of the encyclopedia that would not be not covered by existing rationales. ''']''' (]) 22:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Fences and windows===
In another voting statement, Steve Smith says that "Rules either mean something or they do not." In this case it seems that rules mean whatever Steve Smith wants them to mean. There is a clear community consensus against speedy or summary deletion of unsourced BLPs, and the wording of the BLP policy (i.e. "contentious") was never intended to give carte blanche to delete all unsourced BLPs. ArbCom members siding with a minority interpretation to force a change in policy is disturbing. As we elect ArbCom to decide on behavioural disputes and enforce policy rather than set policy (something only Jimmy and the WMF can do by fiat) it would seem proper that any ArbCom member who uses their position to force a change in policy should be subject to recall. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:grey;">&amp;</span>] 14:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Resolute===
With all due respect Steve, ArbCom specifically invoked ] to overrule ] as a means to justify that asinine motion. You can't make sacred today what ArbCom trampled yesterday. ]] 14:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To add: I find the attitude of both Scott MacDonald and Lar utterly disgusting, disruptive and detrimental to the present and future of this project. Honestly, who does Scott think he is to be threatening the community as he does in his comments? I'm sorry, but Scott does not own Misplaced Pages, no matter that he has deluded himself into believing otherwise. The unsourced BLP backlog is down '''twenty-five percent''', and the discussions on getting the sticky-PROD idea are ongoing. His comments make it patently obvious that he is not interested in working with the community, but rather believes he is above it and has no issues with ignoring consensus and violating any policy he wishes to make his ]. The committee may choose not to address the disruption these editors promise to create now, but we all know that we will be right back here when their attitude of "sod the community" once again reasserts itself.

You've been running away throughout, but you can't hide from this mess forever, ArbCom. The only question is how much damage are you willing to permit before you actually take the time to mediate a resolution to this, to deal with your terribly short-sighted motion, to decide if you with to further corrupt the purpose of ArbCom itself and to decide if you are willing to respect the voice of the Misplaced Pages community. ]] 02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by The-Pope ===
This isn't about the RFC, the future of BLPs, how contentious information in BLPs may be, nor hypothetical situations. This is a request for clarification whether or not administrators who have either deleted articles or are threatening to delete articles, without using any of the normal AfD, PROD or CSD processes, specifically if they use "" as the primary deletion reason, should still be subject to the amnesty of the previous motion or allowed by a selective interpretation of the ] policy? Or should they be either strongly reminded, or actually held accountable to the existing provisions of the policy of ] and the almost 3-to-1 rejection of MZMcBride's proposal of immediate deletion in the ]? ] (]) 18:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Mr.Z-man ===
I agree with Balloonman, if ArbCom needs to do anything here, it should be to state that people should abide by the results (few as they may be) from the RFC, as there are still people working on ] to prevent the sticky PROD process from accomplishing its goal by restricting its use to only unverifiable articles. <span style="font-family:Broadway">]]</span> 04:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the motion, I agree with some of the comments by Scott and Coffee. The biggest issue now is a small minority taking advantage of their increased influence in the smaller discussions for the implementation details to try to create compromises on things that aren't really necessary, delaying the implementation, or people trying to force in things that there was no consensus for in the RFC. I refer to to my comment above for what a motion ''should'' include. <span style="font-family:Broadway">]]</span> 15:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Coffee ===
I would like to remind everyone that ArbCom is an administrative role, that exists to ensure that the rules (and Foundation standards) are followed and enforced, and to solve any issues that the community at large can't seem to fix (such as BLPs). Any motions they make (including the BLP one) are not an indication of some view point (the very idea of forcing BLPs to be sourced as a "view point", is laughable as is) but are an action to ensure the proper maintenance of this site, and were a result of what the ArbCom thinks is best to resolve the problems they are presented.

To insinuate that the Arbitration Committee has in any way violated their seat is trolling in it's finest, and is an attempt to force the view that enforcing our policies using strict measures, is somehow a minority POV that is dangerous to the site. The only thing dangerous going on, is the way that some members of the community are trying to create a new way to scare other editors, into thinking that deleting articles to maintain the site, is somehow a rouge attempt to overthrow Misplaced Pages policies.

The Arbitration Committee is doing their jobs, while the only thing some of you commenting here are doing, is attempting to thwart the possibility of stricter enforcement of ]. Baseless threats like those from Fences & Windows, only show some of the ignorance from that crowd. The community elected these ArbCom members, that means the community thought they could do their damn job. If you don't like their decisions, then that's just too bad, as you and those around you, were not elected to the committee.

:''@Maurreen:'' A motion such as that is attempting to say that the administrative actions taken are not administrative but are instead a view point... which is quite maddening. There are quite a few issues I have with your idea of a motion, so let me list them all:
{{quote|''The community has well-established procedures for deletion.''}}
::Yes, but admins aren't being allowed to use said procedures simply because some people favor the possibility of notability over verifiability.
{{quote|''Out-of-process deletions have led to divisiveness in the community.''}}
::There are quite a few problems with this statement. First, "out-of-process" has many different meanings and interpretations, and different people have assessed that different ways. Secondly, "Out-of-process" suggests that the BLP policy, or the Foundation's stance on this issue is in some way contrary to removing unsourced and '''potentially''' contentious information from this ''encyclopedia''. Third, that "divisiveness" was only caused because the idea of verifiability > possible-notability made several people worry what the future of article acceptance would be.
{{quote|''In Phase I of the RFC suggested by ArbCom to address unsourced biographies of living people, a proposal to delete on sight "any biography that is poorly referenced or completely unreferenced" was rejected by the community, 157 to 54.''}}
::Correct, most people don't want mass deletions of articles (the mass deletions were a way to get people's attention). However the more important thing that came out of that RFC was the consensus for a sticky PROD, and any motion or other finding of consensus that does not mention that most vital point outright, isn't placing weight in the right places.
{{quote|''In Phase II of the same RFC, Scott Mac (Doc) suggested a compromise. - The suggested compromise led to a formal proposal by Balloonman.''}}
::Motions don't typically state a timetable to show what has been decided, whereas just mentioning Balloonman's proposal would have been just fine. However, the only thing that matters is the '''closure''' of that RFC... individual proposals carry no weight in ArbCom motions.
{{quote|''The community has significantly reduced the number of unsourced BLPs.''}}
::Another disputable claim; we neither can confirm that the 9,000 articles that were removed from the unsourced log, were actually sourced nor if that number has declined from deletions. The other important aspect of this is the brewing thunderstorm of the possibly tens of thousands of articles, that are neither tagged as BLPs or tagged as unsourced, or even more important: articles that aren't sourced properly.
{{quote|''The community is developing a system to delete new unsourced BLPs.''}}
::This may be the only note that is actually important to an "in light of the following considerations" section, and/or uncontroversial.
{{quote|''The community is progressing in addressing the issue of unsourced BLPs.''}}
::Again, this is open to individual interpretation, and in my opinion isn't entirely accurate. The community has once again met at the stalemate that we've run into a billion times before while trying to enforce the standards on BLPs, and that stalemate has prevented any real "addressing" of the BLP issue, and has instead just created loads of circular discussion that leads to nowhere.
{{quote|''The community should start a review of that progress in June.''}}
::What progress? Start another review? One is highly inaccurate, the other is highly ridiculous. As I mentioned above, the amount of progress on this can be counted in the amount of words of discussion that we've had, no more no less; and having another discussion to see if the previous two discussions did anything, is just a bucket of nails dumped on the road to fixing the BLP issue.
{{quote|''The community should strive to meet the goals outlined by Scott Mac (Doc) and Balloonman.''}}
::I'm sorry, but what motion has ever dictated something like this? If I recall correctly, the previous motion regarding BLPs merely stated that the enforcement of our '''polices''' should not be thwarted by over-process. To require people to do something not implemented whatsoever in ''any policy'', is ridiculous.
{{quote|''Whatever justification that might have existed earlier for out-of-process deletion based solely on lack of sourcing, that justification does not currently exist.''}}
::Does someone care to tell me exactly how a justification for an issue, that has only been slightly dented by article work, somehow disappears because a motion says so? It doesn't. The justification was that nothing was happening to bring those articles to meet the standard. That justification doesn't stop becoming a justification until the problem with every single article is fixed.

:In summary: This motion is not necessary, and is just an attempt to make the Arbitration Committee backtrack on their previous motion. It is not the ArbCom's job to rule on community consensus when there is no need for them to do so. The only thing the community has accomplished, is a discussion on how to add more adhesive to patch an already corrosive band-aid; and this motion does nothing more than add fuel to the fire of conflict between the two sides in this debate. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 09:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

:''@Scott: I couldn't agree more. The main '''problem''' with the BLP issue right now is the filibustering going on to prevent the sticky prod process from being a simple easy PROD tag that can't be removed unless the article is sourced. And that filibustering isn't likely to ever be handled by a motion that does nothing but further some editors' ability to filibuster. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 09:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Comment by Birgitte SB ===
I think asking Arbcom to clarify this motion is very unlikely way to resolve anything. The motion was a messy to begin with and I find it very unlikely to be clarified because doing so would require bringing forward issues that it seems to me Arbcom has taken pains to avoid addressing head-on. The best way that I can see to bring clarity to the issue of whether such deletions are appropriate or not is as follows: Figure out which admin is currently using the most extreme interpretation of speedy deletion. Compile a list of several recent, clear-cut examples of their deletion with an outlier interpretation of policy. Ask them to act more conservatively on their talkpage. If they defend their interpretation as correct and appropriate, have others who also find it inappropriate try and politely convince them to compromise. Then wait and see if they continue to actually delete in a similar manner. If they do continue start a user RFC, determine whether consensus finds their interpretation of BLP and speedy deletion appropriate or not. This is a much narrower question than the BLP RFC and clear consensus should be achievable. Everyone should realize however that this is true question, consensus could go either way. And if consensus finds it appropriate, this will not be wrong. And if consensus finds it inappropriate, this will not be wrong. What it will be is resolved. And resolution in either direction is good. It will mean that we all have accurate expectations of what will happen, and we can all make plans to mitigate the surrounding issues with greater confidence and less stress. --<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 18:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Side note: I recommend people involved in this issue read the following And I highly recommend Arbcom members study this one .--<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 18:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Comment by Ohms law ===
Most of what needs to be said here is being said already, so I'm not going to add a huge statement here. All I'd really like to say is that the committee is obviously largely unaware of what brought this here, based on the comments about not being able to "rule preemptively". There would be nothing preemptive about a ruling on the threats made my some, on behalf of the committee itself (through it's earlier ruling), in public and to people who have been largely uninvolved in most of this mess (which, incidentally, was created by same said people...).<br/>—&nbsp;] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">(]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;])</span> 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:I agree with ]'s , above.<br/>—&nbsp;] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">(]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;])</span> 07:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Comment by GRuban ===
I worry about SteveSmith's second comment below. He seems to be saying that since the people who want to delete unsourced BLP articles say that all unsourced BLP material should be deleted, then all unsourced BLP material is automatically contentious. That makes the "contentious" qualifier in WP:BLP meaningless. I'm sure that wasn't the intent when it was added to the policy. --] (]) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
===Comment by Septentrionalis===
Maureen is asking ArbCom for four Findings of Fact of the sort ArbCom routinely makes: in this case, that four things are consensus. I believe they are true ''and'' consensus:
*We are making progress, both in decreasing the number of unreferenced BLPs and in coming up with measures to deal with any future problem.
*There is agreement to review this progress "in three months" which would mean late May or June
*Balloonman's and Scotty's proposals are the basis of the present discussions. There is some dispute over one hypothetical point (whether to proceed with sticky prod if the review in June finds the problem has been dealt with without one), but I don't think ArbCom is being asked to decide that.
*The fourth point deals only with out-of-process actions by admins; I should hope that ArbCom would have no problem dealing with those. The discussants most determined to deal with unreferenced BLPs have also written that such actions should be severely dealt with (Scotty has said so repeatedly, but there are others.)

I regret Steve Smith's comments below. That is not policy; BLP reads, as it long has, ''Remove any '''contentious''' material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research); or that relies on self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to comply with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.''

Members of ArbCom have a duty to distinguish their positions as Arbitrators from their advocacy as members of the community. Risker did this in closing the first phase of the RfC on this subject, and I expect to see Risker recuse on this question. Other Arbitrators should do the same. ] <small>]</small> 06:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Comment by Jubileeclipman ===
My very first thought is that the "the Badlydrawnjeff case" in the present version of ] needs to be linked to the actual "case". (Presumeably ]? It took me an age to figure out what was being referenced.)

Second. ] seems sensible as it is a very useful summary of events, proposals/counter-proposals and followups.

Third. Regarding the "Sticky PROD"/"BLP-PROD", I don't believe for one second that anyone is "filibustering" or "insisting on delay". There are obviously several very sensitive issues to deal with: libel, newbie-biting, policy procedures, technical issues, etc. These are being debated as we speak on both ] and ].

Fourth. It might be useful to remind editors of the ]. They are doing fantastic work at the other end of the spectrum while also catching several new articles in the process.

Hope my thoughts help. --]] 00:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Comment by ] ===

With all due respect to Steven Smith, there's nothing in policy that says that. The overwhelming community consensus in the last RfC was against speedy deletions in this context. There's nothing in the wording of BLP that supports your argument. You seem to be engaging in some sort of meta-reasoning under which someone claiming something is contentious makes it contentious. Under that logic, everything in the universe is potentially contentious if a user who happens to say so. That's clearly wrong. Your argument is not supported by the community, by the wording of policy, or by logic. ] (]) 16:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* I almost forgot that I was '''recused''' on this motion. - ] 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
* We cannot really rule on the propriety of something that hasn't happened yet, I think. Beyond that, I would urge everyone involved to work together in pursuit of a generally acceptable path forward, and to avoid comments that might unnecessarily inflame matters. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
*I'm not going to pre-emptively decide this.. but I stand by what I said previously. A) We need to find a way to deal with the BLP problem going forward. Applying band-aids are not a solution (the problem's too big for that), but B) I'd look dimly personally on attempts to force the issue on either side. ] (]) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
*Deletion of unsourced (not unsourceable) contentious material in BLPs is policy. It is desireable for the community to develop a process by which this policy can be fulfilled, but the absence of consensus on such a process does not mean that the unsourced stuff gets to stay; ] should never override ]. ] (]) 06:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
:*Response to Balloonman, Calliopejen: I am not sure how it is possible to have followed the recent discussions on this subject, in the RFCs and elsewhere, and conclude that this material is anything but contentious. With respect to Calliopejen's question about IAR and BLP, I cannot see the suggestion that this contentious unsourced material should be allowed to remain as anything but an invocation of IAR. ] (]) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
*While we are not constrained against advisory opinions, I think it would be unwise of us to try to determine the propriety or not of an hypothetical without the actual context surrounding it. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
*Agree with Kirill. It will be difficult to get something that has wide-ranging agreement, but I think progress is being made. What would help, I think, is some set deadlines here, and some people being appointed to oversee the progress of the discussions (it is all too easy for discussions to peter out or get bogged down by volume). Would there be any volunteers to oversee the discussions or are there people already unofficially doing this? In passing, I would like to endorse what DGG and Birgitte say above, the only thing I disagree with is that a list of anything that gets deleted is ''essential''. Trying to work out from deletion logs what was deleted out-of-process is a nightmare. Even if out-of-process deletions do occur, one thing I would be looking for is whether those doing deletions kept a list, or just deleted and didn't bother to organise the way they were doing this, or justify themselves when asked. i.e. are they being disruptive or are they allowing their actions to be tracked and assessed (a standard log entry would probably be sufficient)? '''BUT''', the preceding would only apply if all other options had been exhausted. As others have said, the removal of contentious material applies to article text, not to entire articles. There is no visible consensus to extend such removal to entire articles (though stubbing BLPs appears to be less controversial than it was). We are nowhere near the stage yet where those pushing for this should feel able to engage in out-of-process deletions, and people should still be actively trying to shape consensus on these matters and continue to reduce backlogs. If there are deadlines in place regarding achieving consensus in the discussions, and there are people actively working towards those deadlines, could that be explicitly stated. If not, that is a priority, and such deadlines are something I think ArbCom could set to help the process along, along with appointing people to oversee the discussions (though I would prefer that such 'leaders' emerge naturally and are accepted by those engaging in the discussions). ] (]) 13:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
**Maurreen, thanks for the proposed motion. I have pointed it out to my colleagues. Do you think you could ask those involved in these discussions to comment on whether they think a motion such as you have proposed is needed, especially those you have mentioned in it? As I said elsewhere, proposing ArbCom motions to help move such discussions forward is very slow. The question is whether it is slower than community discussions to the same end. If participation in the discussions is declining, that is usually a sign that the discussions should be moved to the next stage or even implemented (if things are clear). To get more participation, consider publicising the discussions in the appropriate venues. The key things seem to be to ensure continued reduction of the backlog (if activity tails off there, that would need to be addressed), and to ensure that the work on the backlog isn't undone by the addition of new unsourced BLPs. As an aside, I came across a BLP today that had not been tagged in any way whatsoever, so that area still needs attention. ] (]) 02:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
*Noting Scott MacDonald's most recent comment above , to the effect that because of the way ArbCom pages are structured and the length of time this request has been open, the back-and-forth has become very difficult to follow. In any event, I am not convinced that action by this Committee is needed at this time. I believe there is a widespread, though not universal, consensus at this time that progress toward better sourcing and quality control is essential but that mass-deletion without the exercise of discretion about each specific article is not the way to go, certainly not at this time, and hopefully progress will continue to be made so it will not be necessary at any time. Continued progress on all BLP related issues (lack of sourcing is but one of these, and probably not the most important one) is essential. ] (]) 17:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: ] ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Tenmei}} (initiator)
*{{admin|John Carter}} --
*{{userlinks|Jmh649}} --
*{{userlinks|Kraftlos}} --
*{{userlinks|Leujohn}} --
*{{userlinks|McDoobAU93}} --
*{{userlinks|Robofish}} --
*{{userlinks|Taivo}} --
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by Tenmei ===
:ArbCom decisions in December set in motion a slow process which now calls for further ArbCom action. Relevant excerpts from amended remedies include:

:::1.1) Tenmei is restricted as follows:
::::(A) Tenmei is topic-banned from ] for a period of six months, ''to begin <u>when a mentor is located and approved by the Committee</u>. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion'' .... (underline emphasis added)
::::''Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC), amended as indicated with italics 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)''

:::3.1) ] <s>shall be assigned</s> is required to have one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary. ''While Tenmei is without a mentor, Tenmei is prohibited from contributing except for the purpose of communicating with potential mentors'' ....
:::''Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC), amended as indicated with italics 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)''

:::3.2) The mentor must be publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately.
:::''Passed 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)''

:ArbCom remedies required that I locate a mentor or mentors. This is a list of volunteers:
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
:* ]
:* ]
:* ]
:* ]
{{col-2}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
{{col-end}}
:ArbCom "approval" or confirmation is anticipated.<br>
:<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::A. No procedure tells me how to elicit ArbCom "approval" or confirmation. If mailing the list to ArbCom members individually and posting the list at ] is sufficient, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::B. No protocols explain how these mentors will know that he/she has been approved or confirmed. If it is sufficient for someone to post "approved" after each name listed at ] or here, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::C. Nothing guides me in knowing when I may re-commence normal editing. If "A" is sufficient or if "B" is required, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::D. If this is not the correct venue to address these matters, what venue is preferred?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

====Response to Steve Smith====
Each name is presented for individual confirmation as an independent mentor. They will function as co-mentors in the flexible manner which appears to be playing out amongst those who are working with ]. Some have agreed to participate only on condition that he/she is part of a group, e.g.,
* ] --
* ] -- .

Anticipating time constraints and other burdens, ] asked specifically, "How available will ... co-mentors need to be?" My response summarizes a fundamental assumption: "I anticipate that everyone's availability will vary and that the interest in issues which arise will also vary. To the extent that I can exert control over any situation, I project that no issue involving me will be limited or burdened with time constraints. I predict that, in general, only one or two at any one time will be involved in any one issue/dispute/event/topic, etc."

Another relevant factor is suggested by threads at ]: I was alarmed to read about situations in which mentors confronted role-related abuse; and I won't be alone in defending those whose only motivation is benevolent.

In the planning period, I from ] which arose as these mentors worked with each other, reinforcing a comment or observation with different words or a slightly different emphasis.

The group also encompasses non-public advisors who remain unidentified. In the preliminary period of organizing, an anonymous leader was pivotal in the process of distilling a plan drafted to be less than 200 words; and in this context, ]'s comments about counting words were rephrased and refocused by ]. Although unconventional in this ArbCom setting, the word counting illustrates an arguably constructive experiment already initiated by the Mentorship Committee. --] (]) 02:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
:<u>Bottom line</u>. Please do not undervalue a core factor affecting the prospective success of wiki-mentorship -- that <b>volunteer mentors need <u>your</u> ] and ] and ] along with mine</b>. --] (]) 03:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

====Response to Coren====
] is the only one of us with ] experience. He has been off-wiki since late December; and it is unlikely that he will be able to add his voice here. A brief note from ] suggests that computer-hardware problems may explain and excuse this absence. I urge confirmation or "approval" as a mentor in anticipation of his return.

You will know that ] is one of ]'s mentors. His early advice was informed by what seemed to have worked well in that unique setting. For example, and were created as a result of his suggestions.

]'s early involvement doubtless influenced others in their willingness to join my mentorship group. For example, when ] agreed to join, he wrote, --] (]) 05:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

:In the contexts of ]' question and ]'s question below, it seems timely to recite something Coren explained in an e-mail: "Actually, mentorship is exactly ]: good counsel ... experienced editor familiar with the intricacies of how Misplaced Pages works." --] (]) 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
::<u>Bottom line</u>. Please do what you can to ensure that your colleagues do not overlook an essential factor -- that <b>volunteer mentors need <u>your</u> ] and ] and ] along with mine</b> --] (]) 03:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

====Response to RogerDavies====
How this will work has been made explicit -- expressly provided for by ArbCom or created in order to facilitate the implied Tang Dynasty objectives. I cast a wide net as part of an ] search for a ] of co-mentors. My best interests are fulfilled only if their investments of time and thought are made easy and effective.

<u>Principles</u>. In circumstances which are impossible to foretell, the analysis of ] functioning in a ]-like role will be informed by principles adduced in the Tang Dynasty case; that is, ensuring the purpose of creating "a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among editors." (''See'' Principle 1, "Purpose of Misplaced Pages") This means that "the ] of our content is extremely important ..., requir that article content that is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributed to a published ] supporting the information presented." (Principle 3, "Reliability and verifiability of sources") In the same way that "t is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors," neither is this an arguable burden of the mentors group. (''See'' Principle 5, "Role of the Arbitration Committee")

<u>Remedies</u>. Consistent with the remedies ArbCom has mandated, the mentors are "publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately." (''See'' Remedy 3.2, "Tenmei Restricted") For redundant clarity, ArbCom has said the same thing in different words -- that "ditors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email." (''See'' Remedy 9, "Editors who come into conflict") These complementary remedies mirror a unique principle -- that "ditors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help ... in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought"; and "his particularly applies to editors whose native language may not be English." (''See'' Principle 4, "Non-] language sources")

<u>Non-English language</u>. Preliminary decisions in Tang Dynasty inform expectations about which may become problematic in the future. <s>e.g.,
* "... Some of the issues may be a bit complicated and/or require a bit of expert assistance, but in the scheme of things that can be said about quite a large portion of the topics we cover. I'd encourage ... seek out the input of one or more uninvolved ]-speaking editors." &mdash;&nbsp;] 05:49, 24 March 2009
* "Some input from a ]-speaking administrator or experienced editor on the sourcing/verifiability and related issues might be helpful here." &mdash;&nbsp;] 03:48, 19 March 2009
* "I'm going to second that request from an uninvolved ]-literate editor; it does appear that any case would revolve around the sources, and a good interpretation of them appears indispensable. &mdash;&nbsp;] 00:40, 20 March 2009
* "I think Wikisource can be of assistance here as a scratch pad to record the sources ]] and translations. Wikisource has an Author page ... here are no limitations on the amount of detail that can be recorded on Wikisource Author pages ... if no public domain translation is available, a collaborative translation can be created on English Wikisource." &mdash;&nbsp;] 00:20, 26 March 2009
* "I see that we are stuck here. Has any ]-speaking editor who would help been found?" &mdash;&nbsp;] 18:46, 25 March 2009</s>
] is ], living in ]; and if he should be unavailable, ] has agreed to assist the mentors as needed. An anonymous ]-literate editor has agreed to assist the mentors if asked to do so. In addition, other East Asian language resources will be developed over the coming weeks, so that the potential range of back-up sought by the mentors will have depth.

<u>Communciation</u>. The Mentorship Committee exists to help ameliorate communication-problems and/or to mitigate communication-barriers, e.g.,
* "When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication."
* "An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution."
To this end, ArbCom-approved "public" mentors will be available to help editors recognise communication-related issues and to encourage "steps to address the problems." (''See'' Principle 6, "Communication").

From time to time, ]'s background in East Asian matters may be helpful for the mentors. ]'s professional and scholarly background in language and linguistics may prove to be useful to the mentors. Other area-related or subject-related expertise can be developed when the mentors perceive the need for <s>other context-related</s> back-up.

<u>Working venues</u>. As a result of ]'s suggestions (developed from what seemed effective or useful in ]'s mentoring process), <s>the following</s> a bold orange Notice/navagation bar was posted near the top of the page at ]:
:'''Mentorship Committee &ndash; for issues requiring mentors' involvement, <big>→&nbsp;→&nbsp;→&nbsp;→</big> click <big><u><i>]</i></u></big>

This notice bar links to . The "public" mentors are identified on this "Alerts" page. Links to their talk pages and links to e-mail are posted. Instructions about how to use this alternate venue are provided; and a suggested format is offered for those who may want to make use of it. Principles and remedies adduced in Tang Dynasty are made specific and tangible in this on-wiki venue.

In addition, private e-mail communication between members of the Mentorship Committee is enhanced by off-wiki mentoring sites which have been established at ], ] and ].

<u>Other mentors or advisors</u>. If other "public" mentors are to be added, the names can be submitted for ArbCom confirmation. <s>in a manner similar to this thread</s> Additional advisors or non-public mentors will be added in a manner which the Mentorship Committee deems appropriate and convenient. Such additional names will be made public or kept confidential depending on individual preferences.

<u>]</u>. If this response is deemed too long, I am ready to strike any parts which are considered superfluous or unwanted. I prepared this without consulting anyone else; and therefore, I remain solely responsible for any flaws. --] (]) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

:<u>Bottom line</u>. Please do not overlook the crucial factor which makes this workable -- <b>volunteer mentors need <u>your</u> ] and ] and ] along with mine</b> --] (]) 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

====Response to Risker &ndash; <u>]</u>====
]'s enquiry strays outside the scope of A + B + C; and in this way, it becomes like ].
:A. ArbCom told me to locate a mentor or mentors.
::Yes &mdash; I did just that.
:B. ArbCom explained that Tenmei is "required to have one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary."
:: Yes &mdash; the volunteers are ready to do just that.
:C. ]'s questions are like ].
:: No &mdash; paraphrasing ]'s words: "... mentorship is exactly ]: good counsel ... experienced editor familiar with the intricacies of how Misplaced Pages works."

In this circumstance, I feel awkwardly compelled to intervene to protect and preserve those who I have asked to help me as mentors. Is it not seemly for me to demonstrate in this way that I value them?

<u>What respects volunteers</u>? This confirmation process can be moved forward by repeating a fundamental axiom: "My best interests are fulfilled only if these volunteers' investments of time and thought are made easy and effective." ]'s questions are not easy; and whatever time volunteers might invest in answering would likely produce little more than ineffective guesswork.

In part, mentorship was proposed by ArbCom as a remedy because, ]. In contrast, the wide-ranging search for volunteers ensured that a broad range of tools are available.

In part, the group-structure was necessitated by the problems which flow from the ArbCom ]; and this explains why my Mentorship Committee is comprised of (a) "mentors", as described at ]; and (b) "mentors", as conventionally understood and described at ].

No one has volunteered to investigate the conceptual flaws in ArbCom's terminology nor in devising flexible mentoring group structures; rather, each has expressed a willingness to invest a limited amount of time in helping me improve how I participate in our encyclopedia-building project. I construe my responsibilities to -- which means paying attention to a changing ] which encompasses each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do.

<u>What is the main thing</u>? At , the main objective was clarified: "... a mentor is like a coach mostly." In this explicit context, words from the userpage of ] offer a succinct response to ]'s three questions and any corollaries:
;<center><b>The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.</b></center>

In June 2009, ] restated <b>ArbCom's objectives</b>:
:A. <b>rbitration requires that you work with one or more users to help you communicate better</b> and gain a better understanding of how to work through editing disputes.
:B. Speaking on behalf of the members of the Committee that I directly talked with about your participation in the dispute and the case, I say that we very much do appreciate that you have legitimate concerns and questions.
:C. The main issue continues to be that your style of communication is a barrier to you working collaboratively with other people.
:D. You need to focus on changing the things that you can change.
:E. <b>ur interest is not in criticizing you but finding ways to enable you to better edit the encyclopedia</b>. There is a general view that when you get into editing conflicts that your communication style makes it difficult for you to work through the issue. Our goal is to assist you in working that problem.

Now is the time to let these volunteer mentors get to work.

<u>]</u>. As ] explained in June 2009, As succinctly expressed by ] , " ...this is encyclopedia-bulding project, not an experiment in virtual governance ...."

<u>]</u>. If this response is deemed too long, I am ready to strike any parts which are considered superfluous or unwanted. I prepared this without consulting anyone else; and therefore, I remain solely responsible for any flaws. --] (]) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

:At best, ]'s reasoning illustrates a ] which is inapposite in this unique case. --] (]) 18:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

::<u>Bottom line</u>. Please do not forget that <b>volunteer mentors need <u>your</u> ] and ] and ] along with mine</b>. --] (]) 03:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

====Response to ] &ndash; <u>]</u>====
The re-statements in reply to ] + ] + ] + ] are comprehensive and clear. ]'s words are like ], which here takes the form of "]" as objectives are redefined. According to the Misplaced Pages article about the phrase "]":
* The term is often used in business to imply ] on the part of those setting goals for others to meet, by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met.
* This form of abuse tend to occur when there are unstated assumptions that are obvious to one party but not to another.
At best, ]'s reasoning illustrates a ] which is inapposite in this unique case.

In a context ArbCom has created, it is seemly to adopt the words of ] as my own. Having been identified as a , ]'s words resist being devalued with ].

I adopt ]'s words as if they were my own:
:A. ] asserts, "I joined Misplaced Pages do improve its quality. I recognized it would be a slow process. It does not surprise me that it is not faster, and I thus have no reason to get angry because I had misjudged he difficulty. I am, however, beginning to get exasperated at those who would prevent me and the others from improving it." .]
:B. ] asserts, "We have serious content problems, but they to a considerable extent are inseparable from the inherent problems of any project like ours that operates without editorial control: the need for truly competent referencing, for understandable writing, for balance in coverage between and among articles, for avoiding promotionalism of people's individual viewpoints, and, more especially, the need to update every article in Misplaced Pages in a regular and reliable manner." .]
:C. ] asserts, "The only explanation I can come to is that <u>this is the unthinking reaction of people who recognize they have no hope of dealing with the real issues, and who are over-focussed on the mistakes they made in the past that permitted the out of control situation to develop</u>. It's right that our founder and the other long-term Wikipedians who started a project that that had inadequate standards should regret they did not insist on sourcing from the beginning--but their reaction is typical of those who try by harshness to make up for the sins of their childhood. <u>What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages</u> ...." .]

]'s diff discourages me.

This is truly harmful when it is perceived as discouraging by others. --] (]) 18:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

: <b>]</b> -- ], this term is apt. The work completed thus far has been onerous and needlessly isolating.<p>Your newly contrived insistence on <u>hypothetical issues is divorced from anything to do with ] or ]</u>. This illustrates a story of ArbCom's self-created problems; and it becomes unseemly to ].<p>Some questions are unanswerable. No salutary purpose is served by further theorizing and indecision.<p><u>Bottom line</u>. I need to return to editing. No less important, <b>volunteer mentors need <u>your</u> ] and ] and ] along with mine</b>. --] (]) 03:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

As requested by Tenmei I will provide some oversight over his editing. I hope that this will allow everyone to get back to what we are here for, writing an encyclopedia.] (] · ] · ]) 22:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC) (jmh649)

I as well have volunteered to provide some oversight. Arbcom said that he is topic banned, does that mean he can contribute to those areas while under oversight, or does it simply mean he needs to be observed in all his edits? --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to help Tenmei learn to be concise when posting comments. Based on my observations, he has a tendency to be excessively wordy in his posts, which in turn lends itself to people having a tl;dr reaction to his posts. As long as there are several people on this "mentorship committee", I'm willing to help out. I have a lot of other things I do here, and I'd like this to have only a small impact on that. I think Tenmei can learn and improve (and he has in many ways), so hopefully this mentorship will be deemed unnecessary at some future point. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small><font color="blue">]</font> · ]</small> 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

::Tenmei has not made an article edit for three months this after he was consistently making a thousand a month. I would recommend he resume editing slowly so that we may have time to adjust or edit a different topic areas. Will be happy to look at concerns. I do not believe a formal process is required.] (] · ] · ]) 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm continuing to provide Tenmei with advice by email as I had offered . <span style="color:Purple; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
:I try to provide advice in such a way as to support and supplement the approach of those who have agreed to be mentors. I would like to see Tenmei back to editing articles: I think Tenmei has a great capacity for providing referenced material to build articles. <span style="color:Red; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 19:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

::May Tenmei have permission to return to editing? I will keep an eye on things this week and provide feedback. As it has been more than 3 months I think it would be reasonable to move forwards.] (] · ] · ]) 04:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite some prior discussion with Tenmei about being a mentor, I chose not to be in this group because i thought the process more complicated than necessary, and there were already quite enough other people. But I can't see any objections if Tenmai wants to try it, since there are willing mentors of high editing quality and proven responsibility. ''']''' (]) 20:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

::I think for starter Tenmei should be allowed to edit in topic areas far removed from what his arb com revolved around. Preferable I would like too see him expand what type of work he does but of course we are all volunteers and no one really has any binding obligation. To give all a heads up I am leaving reasonable computer access on March 16th and not back until April 11th.] (] · ] · ]) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

:::But I agree that we should hammer something out before we move forwards.] (] · ] · ]) 05:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to assisst Tenmei in oversighting his edits. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 13:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

* So what's happening now? --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

* My position is similar to DGG with one exception that my reason for not being directly in the group is not because of the complexity, but rather because of uenxpected periods of inactivity that are forthcoming. I have to note that I have flatly declined mentorship invitations by others without such reasons, but I actually considered this one - purely based on (what appears to be) Tenmei's determination and enthusiasm on trying to make this work somehow. This matter should be dealt with efficiently because any stalling or inefficiency is likely to affect Tenmei's determination/enthusiasm/faith, which will have a direct effect on the generous users who are willing and able to spend their time on/with Tenmei (which will of course affect the prospects of any system working). It took far longer for him to try to devise a system than it does to read his thoughts, ask ''direct'' questions, and receive answers (be it to/from Tenmei or mentors). Being cryptic would be counterproductive here. ] (]) 04:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Tenmei, is it your plan for all of these people to be your mentors, or are you presenting a range of options in the hopes that ArbCom will designate which are acceptable? As well, your concision is appreciated, but there is no need to post word counts along with each of your comments. ] (]) 22:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
:*This looks to be at least worth a shot. ] (]) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
*It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made; but I'll point out that a return to editing suitably assisted is a desirable outcome and would be looked upon favorably. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*I also welcome suggestions from the suggested mentors about how this will work in practise. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
*I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. ] (]) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
*This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. ] (]) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
**Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at ] is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. ] (]) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
***Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. ] (]) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131
Categories: