| Revision as of 15:39, 22 May 2011 view sourceNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 edits →Preliminary injunction: passing injunction← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,349 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| = <includeonly>]</includeonly> = | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| <br clear="all"/> | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| ==BLP and flagged revisions== | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Scott MacDonald}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|Kww}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| *Urgency doesn't really allow this. But see ] () and my talk page. | |||
| === Statement by Scott MacDonald === | |||
| {{hat|too long and perhaps moot}} | |||
| Apparently, the flagged revisions trial is over. This case is not about that. | |||
| However, over the last months, many BLP articles have had flagged revisions set because of violations of the BLP policy. Admins have used it for BLP protection rather than for "trial" reasons. In at least one case I set it because of serious violations and complaints. | |||
| I've not been involved in the ending of the trial, but apparently a decision was taken to remove flagging from all flagged articles. I think that's a mistake - but that's not my complaint. | |||
| The problem is: | |||
| #Removing protection from BLPs because of some new blanket rule. BLPs are an area where admins are enjoined to use all tools at their disposal. Removing FR for ideological or inhouse reasons, and brooking no exceptions, flies in the face of admin care and discretion on BLPS. The arbiter who closed the discussions (Brad) suggested that their might be exceptions on a case-by-case basis for BLPs - but the "blanket rule" approach is being enforced. | |||
| #Far more seriously is the reckless way this is being done. Even if all FR is to be removed from BLPs, each needs looked at to ensure no living person is put at increased risk. It may well be that alternative means may give adequate protection - but that needs weighed in each case. At very lest the admin who placed the FR ought to be notified, in case something is being missed by the admin who is mass removing. | |||
| I had nothing to do with this until admins started removing the protection from articles I monitor, and doing so without any discussion. I asked {{admin|Kww}}, who was undoing flagged protections, to desist. When he refused I raised the matter on ANI. However, that discussion was not allowed because Kww's attitude was "we have consensus for this." There was an unwillingness even to pause and consider concerns. | |||
| I am not asking arbcom to intervene in the ending of the trial. I am asking arbcom for an '''urgent and immediate ruling''' that mass unflagging of BLPs should be paused until a responsible way of doing this is agreed - with proper admin notification and a way to discuss any articles which might prove to be exceptional or particularly problematic. It may be that FR can be safely removed in most or even all cases - but we need to have a way to take care. We don't shoot first and ask questions later on BLP unprotection. | |||
| It may be that this BLP unprotection will prove reasonable, but some discussion is essential. I will withdraw the case if the unflagging of BLPs is paused until this occurs. --] 19:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| @Risker. I'm not claiming he's not reviewing himself (I don't know). But given the number of articles he can't be doing it in depth, nor can he be monitoring the article afterwards for adverse effects. At very least those who have been involved with any BLP problems (and the protecting admin) need to be involved here. No admin is infallible, and this is not an area for gung-ho mass approaches. Each article needs care and each is different. His motivation is obviously to remove flagging, rather than to carefully weigh the article. | |||
| <s>'''Last comment'''</s> Carcharoth's suggestion would be completely acceptable. It allows consensus to have its way, but ensures proper care and attention for BLPs. (As for his gung-ho rant, there's a huge difference between deleting stuff (which can be quickly restored) and doing thinks which may put living people's bios at a risk (which can only be reversed after the damage may be done) Further, an RFC may work out consensus adequately, but it is a rough instrument to balance the particular needs of a sensitive BLP. Misplaced Pages allows ] as a matter of philosophy - RFCs don't change that.) | |||
| I have no issues with Kww's stated aim of "pending changes being removed from virtually all articles within a week". I've never been its greatest fan anyway, and I've always opposed its mass use as pointless - so it isn't that I'm "footdragging on PR". I have a problem with the way this has been handled and with the mantra that there cannot be exceptions. There are exceptions to every rule in wikipedia. The trial is over. Fine by me. I didn't participate in it, and didn't set any protections as part of it. However, I have used FR as one of the tools available to respond to BLP needs on particular articles (as have others). If that's to be removed it needs care. The "well I'm just taking it away from them all now, and someone else can clean up any mess" approach isn't one we need near BLPs. It is dogmatic precisely where care, specific judgement and creative flexibility are needed. | |||
| I suggest the way ahead is for us to list the BLPs that are currently (or were until recently) covered by FR. Then differentiate between those set as "part of a trial" (probably most of them) and those set for specific BLP concerns. We then need to examine those set for BLP concerns (notifying the admin) and ensure that whatever concerns caused it to be set can equally be addressed by other methods. Probably mostly they can be (there may, as always, be common sense exceptions - who knows?).--] 21:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| '''What's for arbcom to do?''' If admin conduct needs looked at (either mine or anyone else's), then I'd suggest an RFC - calm discussion would be a way to start things. Why I came to arbcom was because continued unprotecting of BLPs was continuing despite requests for discussion. I used a short block to get a pause, and then realising that escalation with tools was not the way to go, came here in the hope that would force a discussion. If I'd waited, the BLPs would have simply been unprotected. Things have now paused, so I suggest what's now needed is probably a discussion on the best way to proceed. This isn't foot-dragging, I'm happy that we work towards removing FR from almost all articles (even most BLPs) within a week or so. The number of cases where fuller discussion may be needed will probably be extremely small.--] 22:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| I launched this case because we needed to stop and discuss how, if we were to remove flagging from BLPs, to best do that with due care and attention. I wanted to stop people mass unflagging them without some more thought - and I recognised that me trying to force people to do that was not productive. Everything has paused (just for a bit). We've had wise input from Carcharoth and I now see arbcom considering an injunction. I'm content to leave it at that. I've approached Kww to try to find common ground, and I'm seeking ways to safely remove FR from the articles I'm concerned with . | |||
| I realise my actions are being questioned by some (even Okip who hasn't edit an article in over a year). If they want to come to my talk page or start ] discussion can be taken further. In light of the responsible discussions on flagged revisions and vulnerable BLPs now happening, I undertake not to replace flagged revisions on any article.--] 01:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment on the injunction.''' This is excellent. It allows the removal of flagged revisions immediately and completely, which is what many want. OTOH, it ensure in the rush to do that no BLP is left with lower protection, which has been my concern. Sure, the indef semi or full protection that results is often going to be overkill - but where appropriate that can be later reduced, through the usual means, with no rush or deadline. | |||
| ::Since I've been asked what the harm was in mass unflagging, can I simply point to . No blame to Kww, all admins miss things, but this is why one admin removing dozens of protections from BLPs without seeking input first is a bad idea. | |||
| === Statement by Kww === | |||
| This is really nothing more than heel-dragging ... one more attempt to stretch the trial of PC out indefinitely. I've been stepping through articles individually, evaluating the condition of the articles during the trial. If I see that there has been significant rejection of anonymous edits, or it was indefinitely semi-protected when it was placed on PC trial in the first place, I tend to semi-protect it. I've generally been doing a 3-month semi-protection if it looks like there's been some troubles during the trial, and indef if it looks like a truly intractable situation. If there hasn't been substantial trouble during the trial, and it wasn't semi-protected before the trial, I've been unprotecting it. I think my actions are fully justified by the recent RFC on the topic. | |||
| Scott has strenuously objected. He has reverted other admins' efforts to remove articles from the trial at {{la|Barry Chamish}} and {{la|Dustin Diamond}}. In both cases, another admin had ''already'' removed it from the trial, Scott had returned it to the trial, and, when I once again removed it from the trial, Scott returned it back to the trial a seond time. Edit warring? Wheel warring? Choose your terms. Scott makes no effort to explain ''what'' about the two articles in question makes them so very special that the consensus to remove PC from all articles needs to be unilaterally overridden, but he feels quite comfortable of accusing me of being disruptive for following that consensus. So comfortable, in fact, that he . That block got discussed at ], where his position was soundly rejected. If there's any "emergency" basis here, it's an emergency basis to reject this thing quickly so that the effort to shut this trial off can proceed without the cloud of an Arbcom case hanging over the head of admins that attempt to implement the RFC result.—](]) 19:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :As for my "unwillingess to pause and consider concerns", I have paused since my block. I probably won't resume today, because I have better things to do with my life, and there's no reason for me to shoulder this burden alone. But as for Scott's concerns? I reject them absolutely, in their entirety, and without reservation: there's no need to go through an article by article discussion to remove a protection feature that, by consensus, is not to be used.—](]) 19:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== @Carcharoth ==== | |||
| @Carcharoth: the closure of the RFC mandated that the process of removing protection from all articles was to be completed ''yesterday''. We now have a seven-day extension to get the job done, and Newyorkbrad described that extension as "final". There were over 1200 articles on PC, there are now 165 left (there were 260 this morning: Wizardman and I have been working on it today and got to 95 of them). I'm proceeding under a quite strong consensus and mandate to do this effectively and expediently. Life would be better spent reviewing my decisions and seeing where you disagree. As I've stated numerous times today, I've got no objection to review and adjustment of my decisions, as long as people don't try to extend the trial further by putting the articles back under PC.—](]) 19:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| @Carcharoth (2): I don't know of a breakdown. My estimation would be about half of the PC articles were BLPs, and, looking at the , I would say that about half of them are BLPs. The remainder are fairly random: high schools, web sites, nationalistic disputes, etc. As for my desire to get it wrapped up: yes, for a trial that was supposed to end in August, 2010, I think getting it wrapped up is a priority.—](]) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== @Scott ==== | |||
| You seem to be under the impression that there is some set of articles that were put on PC independently of the trial: there aren't. PC ''itself'' was only enabled on a trial basis. All articles under PC are a part of that trial. And, as I've said over and over again, I ''am'' evaluating the articles before I make any decision about what to do. I'm ''not'' doing this blindly, or with a script. I don't think anyone is doing it blindly. The list of articles under pending changes is readily available: it's right .—](]) 21:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== A note on my results for the day ==== | |||
| I notice that some seem to be viewing me as having blindly removed protection on BLPs. In fact, today, I went to semi-protection today on 29 articles. | |||
| Of the total of 76 articles that I removed PC from, | |||
| * 29 went to semi-protected based on their history | |||
| * 2 BLPs went from an existing semi-protection to unprotected: | |||
| *:{{la|Tony Meléndez}} | |||
| *:{{la|Peaches (pornographic actress)}} | |||
| The following 24 BLPs went from PC to unprotected: | |||
| *:{{la|Aldo Giuffrè}} | |||
| *:{{la|Telat Üzüm}} | |||
| *:{{la|CariDee English}} | |||
| *:{{la|Peter Hart (historian)}} | |||
| *:{{la|Jason MacDonald}} | |||
| *:{{la|Louis Zorich}} | |||
| *:{{la|Eugena Washington}} | |||
| *:{{la|Leanne Dobinson}} | |||
| *:{{la|Nicolas Mahut}} | |||
| *:{{la|Nigel Green}} | |||
| *:{{la|Tam White}} | |||
| *:{{la|Abdul Kader Keïta}} | |||
| *:{{la|Chris Murphy (politician)}} | |||
| *:{{la|Jonathan Penner}} | |||
| *:{{la|Fred Anderson (musician)}} | |||
| *:{{la|Dani Evans}} | |||
| *:{{la|Joanie Dodds}} | |||
| *:{{la|Tom Bellamy}} | |||
| *:{{la|Steven Plaut}} | |||
| *:{{la|Winston Reid (footballer)}} | |||
| *:{{la|Jay Manuel}} | |||
| *:{{la|Ian Martin}} | |||
| *:{{la|Dennis Hood}} | |||
| *:{{la|Meera Jasmine}} | |||
| That's a 29:26 bias in favor of increasing the protection level rather than decreasing it. I think it's also a good sign that I'm not fibbing when I say I looked at the articles in question. As always, if any of you feel like I made a mistake, feel free to increase the protection level on any of them.—](]) 01:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== About that proposed injunction ==== | |||
| Do you ''really'' want to mandate indefinite semi-protection on all BLPs that were in the trial? That's the net result of the language involved: virtually all articles placed under PC were placed there indefinitely. I'll go along with it, because I'm in favor of indefinite semi-protection for Misplaced Pages as a whole, but I really don't think there's a community consensus for it.—](]) 02:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved ] === | |||
| I don't see the issue here, really. There's nothing preventing ] (or any other admin for that matter) from putting up a level of protection as necessary after PC has been removed. For non-admins, that's what ] is for. I understand that we need to be a little careful on ], but by ] own admission, he has been reviewing each page before removing the PC bit, not just doing it as some bot-like operation. Will mistakes be made? Probably. But mistakes happen every day. And nothing can't be undone. We even have ] now so any such unprotected changes that get through due to one of those mistakes isn't even that big of a deal. | |||
| The exact topic of this case is, as far as I can tell, not a dispute that is necessary for Arbcom to deal with. However, if anything is to be looked into, it is the block, which was done by an involved admin in a dispute. However, I choose to ignore this issue myself, as it has resolved itself through typical processes in place. | |||
| That being said, I personally am not opposed to the thought of some kind of arbcom injunction against removing PC from BLPs, perhaps by saying "semi until otherwise determined safe", but PC needs to die sometime. But really, the time for discussion is over. I thought that's what the RFC was for. It seems like Scott disagrees. An arbcom motion to "please build consensus within this timeframe" is really just a waste of time at this point. --] <small>(])</small> 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by more or less uninvolved ]=== | |||
| Any involvement I have is limited to saying that the block should be overturned, disclosing that Kww and I had worked together in the past and that I was his nominator on an earlier unsuccessful attempt at adminship. I just want to say that this issue is not worth ArbCom's time. There were, if I recall correctly from what Kww said, about 300 articles remaining that still had pending changes. Simply look through and see if semiprotection is warranted on the BLPs, which are probably not that many of the total. This should not be a major project.--] (]) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :@arbs, there is little to argue with in the preliminary injunction but what time period is the protection to be set for? Admin discretion, indef, specific time period? Keep in mind that too much discretion might allow your decree to be evaded.--] (]) 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by SlimVirgin === | |||
| Scott has become too involved in this. He wheel-warred against two admins (Ged UK and Kww) who removed PC from ] on May 17 and 21, —this was being done in accordance with on May 7 of the RfC—then blocked Kww for removing it from a number of other BLPs. Though there was no support for his position on AN/I, he then threatened to reblock Kww if Kww continued. In addition, this is an article that Scott has recently edited, edits that did not suggest any particular BLP issue. So I urge Scott to stop using the tools in this area. | |||
| More generally, one of the issues that has harmed BLP policy on Misplaced Pages is this kind of aggressive response. It causes people to push against it, as a result of which consensus goes to the dogs, and BLP policy development is once again stymied. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 19:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd like to draw the ArbCom's attention to comments of Scott's where he seems to justify the block: "The block was regrettable and had its desired effect. We've all put the tools down and have started to talk. ..." | |||
| :And when another admin asked him not to use the tools again in the area of pending changes, he replied: "In the protection on BLPs, I will use the best tools at my disposal. That comes first." | |||
| :It's completely unacceptable for admins to block established users simply because they disagree with them—especially blocking an admin who's carrying out the consensus of an RfC—and given that Scott won't commit not to use the tools in this area again, I feel the ArbCom really needs to deal with it. Scott has developed a god complex when it comes to BLPs, and it's causing damage. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 00:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge=== | |||
| Arbitration is the last resort of the ] process and should only be sought after all efforts by the community to resolve the dispute have been exhausted. As far as I can tell, this dispute is less than a day old and this request is premature. ] (]) 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Note: My above comment is in regards to the case as requested by Scott. After reading SarekOfVulcan and SoWhy's responses, it is clear that Scott ] on ] and blocked Kww with whom he was directly involved in a conflict. Kww also wheel-warred but as SarekOfVulcan points out, that might have been accidental as he went through his list. ] (]) 21:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Carcharoth=== | |||
| I was about to agree with Scott that ''"this is not an area for gung-ho mass approaches"'', but then I remembered how the matter of the deletion of unreferenced BLPs was approached en masse in a gung-ho fashion with no individual checking in each case (Kww says that he was checking here in each case before the protection level was changed). There seems to be a disconnect here between how sometimes a mass approach is good and how it is sometimes bad. I don't think it is possible to generalise, other than to say that usually a mass gung-ho approach needs moderately wide consensus (such as by the RfC in question) rather than being adopted by an individual. Unless you view increasing levels of protection (with deletion and salting being the ultimate protection) as progressive steps on a ladder that can be easily implemented by an individual admin, but need some form of discussion to undo. Having said that, it would have been easy to include bot notification of the protecting admin and also a notice on the article talk page (providing that triggers watchlists - I can never remember), before flagged revisions was removed from articles. Wait a week, then have admins willing to do this remove flagged revisions after careful checking of each article, and keep a list of BLPs for a few weeks more to be on the safe side. Unless there was a reason to remove things quicker that I haven't seen yet. That approach might be over-cautious (and not the usual approach to changes in protection levels), but it would have avoided what happened here. BTW, are there figures for how many articles were placed under flagged revisions and how many of them were BLPs? ] (]) 19:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :@Kww: as far as I can tell, Scott is only concerned about the BLPs that were under flagged revisions. It seems reasonable to make a list of those BLPs that were under (or still are under) flagged revisions, and provide that list somewhere, for the record if nothing else. It also seems reasonable to notify the protecting administrator where that administrator makes a note in the log to be contacted (I don't know if this was done or not). Articles that are not BLPs are not so much of a concern, but I can't find anywhere something that gives the split in numbers involved between BLPs and non-BLPs. Your concern (and that of others) seems to be primarily to get the trial finished and things tidied up. Scott's concern (and Brad's as well) is to make sure that BLP concerns don't get forgotten. Some people are more cautious about BLPs than others (this is an important point). But you are all on the same side here, and are all reasonable people. I understand that the RfC is months old and needed to be closed, but there should have been no expectation that the switch-off would be to a deadline - if it takes another week or so for the last few articles to be sorted out, that shouldn't be a problem. It should be possible to sort something out without what happened here (and for the record, I disagree with the block that was made). ] (]) 20:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by mostly-uninvolved SarekOfVulcan=== | |||
| It appears that Scott Macdonald has definitely ] on ]. There's a case to be made that Kww also wheel-warred on that page, but that appears to me to have been incidental in the course of running through his list.--] (]) 20:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comments by ErrantX=== | |||
| At arbcom already? I fear this will boomerang badly onto Scott. For better or for worse (IMO worse, but there you go) consensus is to turn end the pending changes. There is no caveat in that agreement to allow it on any articles. Caution over BLP's is of course a good idea; but Scott doesn't seem to have shown a problem here (either that kww has not take the necessary review of article history or ). Demanding discussion with every protecting admin is just bureaucracy and largely pointless - if an admin views kww's protection measure as not enough then they can easily tweak it at their discretion. | |||
| The fact that Scott has blocked kww, wheel warred to re-apply pending changes despite the trial being ended and now bringing it before arbcom does not look good. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by uninvolved SoWhy=== | |||
| Arbcom is meant to be the last step of dispute resolution that much is true but per ] it can also be used, when "there is very good cause to believe will not help". I think this is the case here. Scott, as well as a number of other editors, have become very emotionally involved in this conflict and there is nothing to suggest that Scott, who wheel-warred and blocked other admins they disagreed with, will stop acting in this way (having made several statements that suggest this). As such, the best way to resolve this conflict would be for Arbcom to rule clearly what can and cannot be done and to sanction those who breached policy in this case, especially Scott of course who violated both ] and ]. Regards ''']]''' 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Off2riorob=== | |||
| I don't think Scott should be sanctioned for his actions as THE PP RFC closer ( Newyorkbrad ) clearly reflected the position Scott has taken over these two articles in the closure and in his additional closure comments. Scott was requesting discussion prior to removal on a couple or highly sensitive articles for which protection had not been applied as part of the trial but specifically as ''the best'' level of protection available for the situation. As a reply to the users claiming Scott is somehow trying to stop the end of the trial and is specifically involved in pending protection that is simply not true, Scott did not even vote in the poll that resulted in the ''end of trial'' closure by NYB. Scott needs to let this go though. I understand how hard it is to see what you consider to be a beneficial protection tool removed from articles but for better or worse that was the consensus outcome of the discussion. If an article is not protected enough when pending is removed to semi then fully protect it for a month or two. Without letting it go there will not be a chance in hell of getting any consensus for future use. As soon as the trial is ended (and removed as per the consensus) we can re-poll for ''capped'' limited usage which if users can put all this behind them and look with fresh eyes we may just may get a consensus for. ] (]) 20:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Sandstein=== | |||
| As far as I can tell after reading the ANI thread, Scott MacDonald has wheel-warred by pending changes protection at ] after his previous application of this protection was undone by Kww, and then misused his admin tools by blocking Kww, with whom he was by then in a dispute. This is serious misconduct by an administrator and, per ], warrants a desysop (without prejudice to a reapplication to ]). <p>On the merits, I agree with Scott MacDonald that BLPs that have been made subject to pending changes protection should not be taken off protection without an individual review as to whether another form of protection is still needed, but this seems like a problem that can be solved at the community level and, for lack of any dispute resolution efforts to that effect, does not appear ripe for arbitration. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by The ed17 === | |||
| I don't really care about flagged revisions a lot (I think it can be very useful, so I'm pretty sure I voted to keep using it?), but I'm much more worried about BLPs. Since when have they mattered so little? It was only a year and a half ago when all of us endured the massive debates over the status of BLPs, whether they could be deleted for having no references, and ]. I think the main message we took away from that was the defense of BLPs from libelous vandalism should be prioritized. While I think case-by-case discussions are a bit much, I don't see a reason for flagged revisions to not be used on BLPs if there are demonstrated benefits over semi-protection. BLPs have a special status among Misplaced Pages articles, and if flagged revisions can better protect even a small percentage of them, than we need to use the more-effective tool. This is a textbook example (if there can be one) of where to use ]. | |||
| While the conduct of Scott/Kww is obviously in Arbcom's jurisdiction (if that's the right word), the larger issue of flagged revisions is probably not. However, as established by the 2010 Arbcom motion, I believe the status of BLPs is. I urge Arbcom to craft a motion based on that, with wording which will give administrators the leeway to use flagged revisions on BLPs if a benefit over semi-protection can be demonstrated. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 21:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :@DGG, if you are referring to Scott, the quote you cite was written by me (on a user talk page, no less, not in my comment here). If you are referring to me, I have not even mentioned blocking or wheel-warring. Feel free to use the quote, but please don't take it out of context; I was just trying to speak from personal experience as I rarely work with BLPs. Regards, ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 04:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::my error; I redacted below. My apologies. ''']''' (]) 05:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by uninvolved roux=== | |||
| BLP is a non-negotiable policy. Anything that makes it easier for that policy to be violated is self-evidently a ''bad idea''. IAR trumps any 'wheel warring' nonsense when it is in very clear defence of a very clear policy mandated by WMF. | |||
| Shame on anyone saying that BLP articles should be unprotected and/or removed from flagged revisions. (Shame on anyone who opposes flagged revisions, for that matter; it works perfectly fine elsewhere and enwiki is not special). → ] ]<small> 22:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| @Kww: ''"Do you really want to mandate indefinite semi-protection on all BLPs that were in the trial?"'' - sounds like a good move to me. | |||
| @SlimVirgin, regarding Scott's comment about BLP being more important: he's right. BLP trumps all other issues, ''as mandated by WMF.'' What part of that is unclear? → ] ]<small> 02:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ===Comment by uninvolved Jayen466=== | |||
| There is no rush to remove PC. Scott's proposed timeframe of doing it within a week, after careful discussion of problematic cases, strikes me as more sensible and responsible. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 23:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Protonk === | |||
| I'm peripherally involved as a strident opponent of PC, but haven't actually used the tools to remove PC from any article. That said, arbcom should take this case up to avoid wheel warring in the future. In general what we are seeing is a manifestation of the BLP "problem". Admins and editors have fought to grant BLP articles special status. I doubt arbcom wants to re-litigate this and I doubt the community has any willingness to change our stance toward BLPs (which is broadly very reasonable). However we continually fail to understand that the dual of such a rarefied toolkit is the responsibility to use it narrowly and judiciously. Specifically ''because'' BLPs can be protected (or placed under PC) for almost any reason, we need to be cautious in applying that protection blindly or for ideological reasons. It is clear from this issue that this caution has been abandoned. In fact we have an inversion of the expected model for BLP actions where the extended remit offered by WP:BLP is being used not to inform local and judicious action but to ''justify'' broad intransigence. | |||
| Further, Scott's argument that "''Far more seriously is the reckless way this is being done. Even if all FR is to be removed from BLPs, each needs looked at to ensure no living person is put at increased risk.''" is a total canard. I doubt it is politically palatable for the committee to label it as such, but we need to get as far away from this insane magical weighing of potential harm as possible. Every action on the wiki (admin or editor) has the potential to bring harm to a living human being. Some actions have a higher ''probability'' of causing harm than others, such as extant defamation in an article, the attachment of private information to a pseudnymous account or serious vandalism on a prominent page. Treating the removal of protection of a given article ''at random'' as tantamount to inserting defamatory content (which is '''exactly''' what this standard implies) is poisonous to discourse and to action on the wiki. ] (]) 00:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Wizardman=== | |||
| I'll make this short and sweet, since I don't plan to get involved with this case, though as someone who was removing PC without incident, my notes may be useful. The Pending Changes Trial ended a long time ago, and there was consensus on ending it and removing the articles, I was in favor of ending it so that guidelines can be implemented on where PC should be activated, which levels are appropriate, and the like. Once that last step was settled, the many PC issues would finally (mostly) be over, since we would all know what to do with it. | |||
| I want to see PC brought to a wider scale, but that wasn't going to happen until the trial was done, and as a result the articles with PC went from ~1000 to ~200. However, Scott Macdonald had a problem with this, blocking Kww. If the two had warred back and forth on an article, then perhaps a block would have been okay, but Kww never re-removed PC to any article Scott restored, so the block was ridiculous. | |||
| By blocking Kww, bringing this to arbitration, and wasting time, Scott may have, ironically, screwed the process over, since it is going to take this much longer now to get pending changes guidelines finalized. The only way to get PC wrapped up and an ideal part of the community would be for Arbcom to decline this, trout Scott, and for someone to get the wheels in motion on finalizing guidelines, sooner rather than later. | |||
| Because of how this has went down though, there's the chance of a chilling effect throughout the entire process, which I hope doesn't happen... ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by peripherally-involved Jéské Couriano=== | |||
| During this third round of the ] I predicted that the losing side would take it up to the Arbitration Committee in an attempt to cause an endrun around the consensus. One day after the deadline given by Newyorkbrad (May 20) has passed, PC supporters have taken it up to the Arbitration Committee in an attempt to cause an endrun around the consensus. | |||
| Pardon my French... but these people need to man up, stop displaying such bad faith, ], and stop holding the rest of the encyclopedia hostage. (And to you PC supporters, I would be writing this same section had the consensus gone the other way.) The arguments about BLPs needing special protection are a very poor straw man argument, and that's because of this . —<font color="228B22">''Jeremy'' v^_^v</font> <sup><small>Components:] ] ]</small></sup> 03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by very peripherally involved DGG=== | |||
| Like some others, my only involvement has been a certain amount of skepticism regarding the PC trial in general, and a definite support of the decision to end it. The relevant policy here is that we decide things by consensus, and arb com's previous statement that calling out "BLP" is not a free pass to do whatever one wants. We have the BLP policies we do because we have consensus for them, and do not have a variety of other proposals suggested at one time or another (such as having no BLPs at all in the encyclopedia ) because we did not have consensus. In this case we had very clear consensus initially that the trial was to end at a fixed date--without the commitment to end at that time it would never have been adopted. It was continued past that anyway on various excuses, and then in a final RfC, concluded that it was to end immediately without more ado. One admin would prefer to set his own private conditions, unsupported by policy, and insists on blocking to gain his position, and announces his intent to wheel-war if necessary to maintain it. He alleges various problems , none of which can be demonstrated. He alleges in a comment above ''one'' additional problem he found, about a article that wasn't a BLP. Of course BLPs are important but that is why hwe have policy to deal with them, not relying purely on each of 700 active admin's different individual discretion. An admin using his own discretion in direct opposition to policy is a hazard to Misplaced Pages. I am amazed to see the motion below, which I think amounts to an endorsement of his position, a position in defiance of the community. Arb com is here to prevent not encourage behavior non-compliant with community policy. What I would rather have expected , is a summary de-sysop of Scott Mac by motion to prevent his threatened wheel-warring. ''']''' (]) 04:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Sjakkalle=== | |||
| Blocking someone whom you are in a edit conflict with is the clearest possible breach of ], and an obvious case of administrator misconduct. I am puzzled as to why no sanction (at least an admonishment) is being considered. ] ] 07:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Eraserhead1=== | |||
| As a supporter of Pending Changes who wants to see it used more widely this is really a very poor admin decision. An admin making an end-run around consensus is outrageous and needs to be treated severely. -- ] <]> 08:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Tijfo098 === | |||
| I like the new Misplaced Pages policy of having ArbCom mandate semi-protection or '''full protection''' of BLPs. This (previously PC2 protected ) indeed needed no edits from mere editors, only fancy templating from admins ! 11:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Request by Jehochman=== | |||
| For the prevention of feuds would you please accept ths case and sanction any wrongdoing. It's not proper to leave serious accusations hanging. Either sanction, or clear them. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/4/1/2) === | |||
| *'''Comment''': Scott MacDonald, on what basis do you state that Kww has ''not'' reviewed each article individually and made a determination? ] (]) 19:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' (lean '''<s>decline</s> accept ''') -I see alot of good intentions and increasing frustration. We can be retrospective here (a case) or we can be more prospective (a motion and/or injunction) towards finding interim and final answers here. Am leaning towards the latter for reasons of utility of time, but am awaiting further comments. Much as I hate this path because of use of timeand bigger-picture issues, I sense we have to review admin conduct here. ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse'''. I will be submitting a statement above, but am travelling this weekend and probably will not be able to post it until tomorrow night (New York time). ] (]) 21:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''accept''' I was hoping that we were not going to have another "forcing of the issue" here. but it's here, it's done, and I think we're going to have to deal with it. ] (]) 22:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' While noting specifically that we're going to look at ''how'' admins should conduct themselves when faced with a consensus (or as close to one as we're going to get around here) to make large changes which may have BLP implications. The review of the RfC and its closure are off the table, as far as I'm concerned, else almost all of the committee would have to recuse. For full disclosure, I've openly opined that if PC was removed, it would be the removing administrator's obligation to replace level 1 PC with semi and level 2 PC with full on any BLP that had PC enabled. If either party thinks that makes me too wrapped up in the particular dispute to fairly arbitrate how admins should conduct themselves in such a situation, I will recuse. ] (]) 00:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. The proposed injunction should be enough to mitigate the pressing concerns about BLPs losing necessary levels of protection. Beyond that, I see no particular need for a full case at this stage; the circumstances leading to these particular events are rather unique, and we are not at a point where a broader re-examination of compliance with the BLP policy is required. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 01:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per Kirill Lokshin. This situation appears to be on its way to de-escalation. ] (]) 02:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Trout'''; Kww: ''any'' mass action that raises a good faith concern needs to be paused and discussed; to hell with deadlines. The worse that could have happened is a couple of lingering FP for a while. Scott: blocking was out of proportion, and wheel warring is always ''worse'' than whatever it was done for.<p>Otherwise, '''decline''' with the expectation that the injunction fixes the immediate problem and that this kind of misbehavior won't repeat itself. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 05:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' - to look at the conduct of the admins, especially in regard to undertaking mass actions, wheel warring and involved blocking. ] (]) 12:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
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.
General guidance
|
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.