Revision as of 19:03, 3 March 2014

• WP:ARCA

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
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.

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-llists.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

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek

Initiated by Someone not using his real name (talk) at 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Link to relevant decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motion_regarding_the_Toddst1_request_for_arbitration

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

• Someone not using his real name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Holdek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Someone not using his real name

Apparently Toddst1 was desysopped in some drama I have not followed closely, and consequently Holdek (originally blocked by Toddst1) was unblocked (by Worm that Turned/ArbCom). Holdek now seems to claim that his block for socking was overturned . Has the committee decided that Holdek was not socking? Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Writ Keeper

Looks like. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Clarification request: BLP special enforcement

Initiated by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? at 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

this display of infinite wisdom

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

• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notified)

Statement by Harry Mitchell

I would like clarification of the above linked decision, in which five arbitrators, demonstrating their apparently infinite wisdom, declined a case regarding Kevin Gorman's application of an active arbitration remedy, BLP special enforcement. Specifically, I would like ArbCom to clarify:

• Whether all the sensible arbs are on holiday, and how future such holidays affect case requests;
• whether it finds Kevin Gorman's invocation of BLP special enforcement acceptable;
• if not, why it saw no need for even so much as an admonishment of Kevin Gorman;
• why it felt that a novel interpretation of one of its own remedies did not merit even a motion, much less a case; and
• how your failure to act regarding the invocation of an active arbitration remedy affects future enforcement of that remedy,
  • specifically whether admins are entitled to make up policy as they go and expect their actions to enjoy the protections afforded to arbitration enforcement actions.

On Kevin Gorman

I've seen a lot of absurd decisions in my time, but Kevin's warning to Eric Corbett, citing the BLP special enforcement remedy, is the single most ludicrous interpretation of an arbitration remedy by an admin I've ever seen; similarly, ArbCom's abdication of responsibility for the actions taken in the enforcement of its remedies by refusing to accept the case is possibly the single worst decision I have ever seen from that body. Both titles have no end of competition. Although Kevin has since admitted that he erred, I do not feel that he fully understands what a monumental lapse in judgement his actions were (for the record, I made some stupid decisions when I was a baby admin, but none of them to do with arbitration remedies) and so a desysop or at least formal, severe admonishment is necessary. By refusing to promptly acknowledge his error, and by repeatedly insulting and attempting to denigrate the subject of his action, Kevin failed to adhere to the policy on admin accountability—a policy which, unfortunately, only ArbCom has the power to enforce—and arguably brought the entire admin corps into disrepute.

On BLP special enforcement

Leaving the admin accountability issue as an entirely separate matter (perhaps this should be treated as two clarification requests arising from the same demonstration of infinite wisdom?), Kevin explicitly invoked BLP special enforcement, an arbitration remedy, which puts disputes over the propriety of such action squarely and unambiguously within ArbCom's remit; the only explanation I can think of for your failure to accept a case so obviously within your remit is that the five of you have taken leave of your senses. BLP special enforcement is an active arbitration remedy, so allowing novel interpretations to pass without so much as a bat of an eyelid is bound to lead to creep by encouraging other admins to make similar novel interpretations to shoehorn their actions into the protection of arbitration remedies. I note also that it is in contrast to the actions of your more sensible colleagues at the discretionary sanctions review, where arbitrators have made a conscious effort to prevent such creep and to narrow the gulf between the admin corps and the community as a whole. ArbCom needs to clarify its position, not give one message in one forum and a contradictory message in another, and most of all, it needs to clarify the bounds of admin discretion on BLP special enforcement as sane arbs are trying to do with discretionary sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: I'm not upset (though that's the wrong word) about Kevin's actions, but unfortunately about yours and your colleagues'. Regardless of the merits of Kevin's actions and his fate, we can't have admins just making things up as they go and using arbitration remedies to protect their actions. Your answers to my questions are, of course, the answers I hoped I'd hear, but without a motion or similar, what's to stop another admin doing the same thing in a fe moths' time? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Roger et al, would you consider adding a clause like "admins are expected to exercise care and judgement in the enforcements of arbitration remedies" or word to that effect? Personally, I'd like to see ArbCom expressly state that shoddy enforcement in general will not be taken lightly rather than just noting that Kevin's interpretation in particular was shoddy. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Writ Keeper

In brief: what Harry said (though maybe not quite as emphatic?)

At length: well, I'm not going to rewrite this whole thing, so I'll just copy and paste my comment from last time: The...thing, which is one that I really do wish Arbcom would take on, is the fact that Kevin invoked BLP, and particularly the AE sanctions around BLP, to make his sanctions on Eric "stick". For my part, I can't see any plausible way that Eric's original comments are in any way a BLP violation, as he said nothing about the subject of the thread. The (mis)use of BLP and AE sanctions to make one admin's actions stick and exempt them from the usual processes of review is cynical, misguided, and (to me) deeply arrogant, and I think that, if nothing else, it alone warrants some kind of response from Arbcom. Admin authority is enough as it is; apparently calculated maneuvers to further increase one admin's authority without cause needs something. I understand the desire to make a sensitive topic go away, but I don't think this angle of it is a good one to go uncommented. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

It is hardly mystifying why BLP was invoked. BLP covers controversial, unsourced statements about recently dead people. The admin evidently thought in a conversation that prominently involved thinly veiled referrals to a recently dead person, that the statement was in that vein (controversial and unsourced), others disagree that it was in referral to the recently dead - but the objected to comment actually invoked an action (placing a mental health template) that the recently dead was explicitly said to have taken. So, a discretionary warning was issued, and as far as tools are concerned, it went no further. A problem with discretion is that others will see it differently, and even if "wrong" to others that does not mean a warning was not in discretion. As for the subsequent incivility of the admin, multiple users have rightly admonished the Admin, but a clarification request won't clarify that the admin was incivil and that he and all admins should not repeat such incivility. If this committee wants to own the admonishment or defer to a lower level of dispute resolution, like an RfC/U or RfC on BLP discretionary warning, well and good, but as it has already essentially done the later, then what more is there to do.

Leaky Caldron is making a category error, along with his accusation of bad faith. The only post that could be said to be critical of the dead was the one objected to. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever this commitee does, it cannot endorse the illogical notion that a statement that an edit violates a policy is an impermissable insult. Otherwise, we can never discuss breaches of policy. Criticisms of edits (no matter how much a person invests themselves in them) is the way the Pedia developes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Roger Davies:; @LFaraone:; @Salvio giuliano:; @GorillaWarfare:; @Carcharoth:: To avoid having to open another clarification request per Nuclear Warfare's comment - what do you mean, here? BLPBAN links to BLP which contains WP:BDP, so recently dead people are covered by its terms - but are you saying you are amending it to give BLPBAN a new meaning? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• @AGK: You made the rather dramatic and as far as your statement went utterly vague and unsupported claim that "real damage could be done to the project if last week's decision stands." So, the case has been "reopened" to pass an "admonishment", which because of the way that reopening has turned out literally no one respects, nor will ever respect -- now, that's damage to the project. So, in the future, you should consider the wisdom of the ancients: 'let sleeping dogs lie.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

I wasn't overly concerned with the decline.

Neither you, Simon, 
nor the fifty thousand, 
nor the Romans,
nor the Jews, 
nor Judas, 
nor the twelve, 
nor the priests, 
nor the scribes, 
nor doomed Jerusalem itself 
understand what power is, 
understand what glory is, 
understand at all.

Tim Rice, Jesus Christ Superstar lyric.

The simple fact of the matter is that, following Kevin's misjudgement, and more so the bobbing and weaving non-apology apologies which followed, he has painted a huge wiki-target on his back, and if he ever tried to pull another stunt like that again, the reaction from the community would be rapid and extreme, regardless of what the committee did or failed to do.

And I had decided to sit this one out -- until I saw the first arb comment.

Give the committee Scope and responsibilities explicitly states it's the committee's duty to "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons." (emphasis mine), Carcharoth's explanation "there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic." is inadequate. You could have easily directed Kevin and all editors wishing to submit evidence to do by email and hold discussion off-wiki. Concurrent with your claim of "admonishment in all but name" is an arbcom clerk arguing 'it's important to announce motions ... and cases being closed as they change or introduce arbitration policy or restrictions on editors or pages. However declined cases and requests for clarification and amendment don't. ' (emphasis mine). Being listed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee#Members isn't like being listed at Misplaced Pages:Editing Restrictions "following discussion at a community noticeboard." Ya'll volunteered and campaigned for this -- so do your job already. NE Ent 14:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

So are ya'll seriously gonna to announce that "an out of process sanction which has no effect is rescinded?" You might want to think this through before wrapping this this up. NE Ent 21:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem

I'd like to thank Harry Mitchell for raising this clarification. I was appalled by the Committee's handling of the request and see that there are unresolved issues which it is the Committee's, as well as the community's, best interests to handle. These include:

• the claim that secret evidence provided to the Committee justifies Kevin's actions – obviously you cannot (and will not) reveal private communication but you can (and should) tell us whether it influenced your decisions and whether there are facts not publicly known which are significant in evaluating this request.
• the block on Giano – yes, he was edit warring, but he was asked by arbitrator NuclearWarfare not to revert again, responded (so he clearly knew of the request and that he had been reverted again) and as requested did not revert, instead retitling the thread on his talk page but was still blocked by arbitrator Seraphimblade shortly afterwards. Blocks are supposed to be preventative. Giano had not acted to revert after NW's request, and indeed had responded to it. His response clearly communicated his irritation but did not indicate any intention to revert again, nor did his actions – certainly he had time to revert again and knew his change had been undone, but this he did not do. NW would have been acting within administrator discretion by imposing a block as preventative, but given the subsequent events I feel that Serpahimblade's actions in usurping NW's discretion and imposing a block after Giano did not respond with a revert feel much more punitive than preventative. What was going on here, and has there been discussion amongst the Committee of one arbitrator overruling the discretion of another in their respective exercises of administrator discretion?
  • Addendum: I had forgotten that NW is actually a former-arbitrator rather than a current one, which significantly reduces my concern over Seraphimblade's decision and eliminates the inter-arbitrator conflict issue. I am adding this rather than just editing my comment in case it has been read, it seemed more appropriate to acknowledge my mistake. EdChem (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Kevin Gorman's comments subsequent to the case decline are quoted here "After two ANI's without action taken, and an RFAR as well, I think it's reasonable that I request you be productive and truthful here or elsewise go elsewhere" – to me, these torpedo any suggestion that Kevin really does believe that he has been admonished in all but name. Kevin sees an RfAr declined "without action taken", as do I and many others, I suspect. You can state that you do not endorse his actions, but that is how it looks in that you declined to take action, just as happened with Philippe and in pretending that FPaS did not clearly breach INVOLVED by reverting to a preferred version before fully protecting.
• This request does not only reflect on the actions of Kevin and on the freedom of administrators to act as they please and without serious restraint (especially against editors like Eric and Giano), but it also reflects on the Committee that took this decision and it discourages editors who feel issues of fairness are important. Eric has left over this, a valued content contributor. Kevin asserts that Eric does more harm in chasing away editors but I vehemently disagree, I for one am far more discouraged by admins treating editors poorly and ArbCom acting poorly and I become disillusioned and quietly depart for some months over issues like this. You should act to protect the integrity of the community, and if not for that reason, at least to protect your own reputations.

@Carcharoth: I was very disappointed that you would instruct archiving of the Kevin and FPaS requests, both raised important questions which you chose to dodge. You wrote that "we all have better things to be doing"; I disagree. ArbCom should not view misuse of its own procedures to threaten an editor and then refusal to really engage with what he had done wrong and to offer a sincere apology by Kevin as unworthy of its attention. As for "admonishment in all but name", look at the subsequent comments by Kevin (he has not archived them, you'll have to look in his user page history)I do mean "not" here, Kevin has a selective approach to archiving, which is allowed under policy but leaves an archive that is incomplete and potentially misleading. Adding this comment following this discussion EdChem (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC) and the 'apology' he quoted from another user. I do agree though that declining a case "means things are obvious enough already that no further action is needed", but I suspect we disagree about what is obvious. To me, it is that this ArbCom is unwilling to say that Eric was mistreated and that Kevin deserves sanction. Worse, it says that poor behavior from administrators will continue to be tolerated. If you want the things that are obvious to be different, then the community will need to see actions, not words.

@Roger Davies: I am encouraged by your comments, they remind me a little of the election platform which persuaded me to vote for you. The two aspects that you would seek to address in a motion certainly do need to be addressed, and beyond that if possible.

@Salvio giuliano: Your comment at the case request indicated that Kevin's actions were problematic, and so you voted to decline a case, a decline that allowed Carcharoth to direct the request be archived. Your reasoning was supported by other arbitrators to take no action. If you really wanted a motion, you needed to act as Seraphimblade did in stating a motion was needed prior to decline and archiving. You could have objected during the four hours after Carcharoth issued the instruction (assuming you were active in that period). A motion now is better than nothing, but only arbitrators could propose a motion and none did; it certainly appears that there was a view that comments are enough, and they are not.

@AGK: You state that the reasoning at the case request from some arbitrators was unsound. Your reasoning that acting now might be capricious is equally unsound, though Kevin might see it that way. It would, in fact, be good for the Committee to openly declare that they had made an error in judgement and were acting to correct it. I would also prefer that you feel equally appalled by the poor actions of Kevin both in invoking special BLP protections and then accusing Eric of grave dancing as you are by your colleagues implications of your own insensitivity towards the deceased.

@Newyorkbrad: as probably the most respected arbitrator and one with a reputation for sensitivity towards issues, I was shocked and disappointed by your vote to decline the case. Your reasoning was unsound, there was much that the Committee could have done that would have been positive, and the focus on the request name was legalistic. Yes, the name was non-neutral, but was that really the only issue you saw as warranting comment? Before you comment here, please, stop and think carefully about what Kevin did to Eric and what that means for Kevin's judgement, for Eric, and for everyone watching who has taken a view following the events. Did Kevin's use of special BLP meet the Committee's expectations? Were his gravedancing comments and subsequent refusal to respond adequately consistent with expectations of administrator behavior? What does the Committee doing nothing signal to the community? How will declaring that there is secret evidence available only to ArbCom, coupled with ArbCom saying nothing and doing nothing, be seen? Does the project need more editors who see administrators acting as a privileged and unaccountable class? Yes, my questions reflect my view and sure, there are others worth asking. Please, answer some of them.

Just to conclude: I have a mental health condition. At times, my ability to edit is not good which is one reason for taking breaks. I disagree with Eric that I should stay away from Misplaced Pages and I think the community can do much better in supporting editors who have difficulties. That said, making a disclosure is also difficult as it reveals a weakness that can be exploited. Also, I agree with Eric that Misplaced Pages is not the place to get medical help; for that, I go to medical professionals. I can contribute here at times I cannot handle working full-time, and I do think Misplaced Pages is important. I am far far more likely to leave over poor treatment by administrators and ArbCom refusing to act in such cases than I am over robust (and even Eric's brand of sometimes over-the-top) discussion / debate. I am certain that I am not alone. ArbCom have mishandled the FPaS, Philippe, and now the Kevin Gorman case requests. You need to do better. You can start by fixing one mistake and prove that administrator mistreatment of editors is unacceptable – no matter who the editor is – and that the Committee will not reflexively support administrators invoking its procedures in unjustified (and worse, in unjustifiable) ways. EdChem (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Gorman

• EdChem's quote from Giano's talk is taken out of context. You can see most of section that EdChem's quote is from here. User:Ihardlythinkso used half-quotes from previous posts of mine to try to show that I was not being truthful. I replied pointing out that IHTS was taking half-quotes out of context and that my comments when taken in full were true. After IHTS continued using half-quotes from me, I asked him to stop or leave my talk page. I do not believe that asking someone to quote my comments in full indicates in any way that I don't realize my initial actions were inappropriate.

I made large mistakes and would not handle the situation in anything approaching the same way again. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Participants please note that the RFAR has been reopened out of process, so there are currently two pages discussing this - here and here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• IHTS: you had plenty of time to respond to me pointing out that your comments were not accurate representations of what I said, given that I pointed that out almost immediately after your first post and left the thread intact for more than an hour. If you cannot figure out how to reply to someone asking you to stop misrepresenting what they've said in less than an hour, something is off. Almost every single statement you made contained direct misrepresentations of what I said, which you still continue to make. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to Kevin by Ihardlythinkso

Oh that is totally wrong, Kevin. The fact is I had no opportunity to address or discuss with you your complaint about quotations being misinterpreted because 1) Cullen328 zoomed into that thread from nowhere then and started criticizing me, causing deflection to the topic and delay in my ability to respond to you since I had him to respond to as well at that point (I'm only one person with one keyboard and one set of hands), and 2) even as quickly as I responded to Cullen I found it was impossible to post a prepared response to you, since one minute after my response to Cullen you deleted the entire thread and gave editsum instructions to the world to delete any further posts of mine on your user Talk .

I can't believe the dodgy and manipulative way you handle things, Kevin, including your pat "no good will come from this" when you delete editors' valid concerns as a way to sweep away criticism and maintain your false posture of being "right". The fact that you have chosen to bicker with me dishonestly over irrelevancies when you have many more serious issues to deal with in this important RFAR shows a continued thin-skinned brittleness and lack of judgement on your part that demonstrates your unsuitability to hold the title of admin.

I would like to know from User:Cullen328 if he is one of the admins who adivsed you that spurred you to take action at Jimbo's Talk against Eric Corbett, since Cullen was both quick to defend you both at Jimbo's Talk and at Eric's Talk, and quick to get involved with me (chiding me to "move on" and "work on improving the encyclopedia" and "What is accomplished by continuing to question Kevin on this?") when attempting to followup with you at your Talk after the previous RFAR had been closed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen, I made it clear to Kevin at the outset of the thread opened at his Talk, and to you in the same thread, that my focus was on the on-wiki part of "flood of comments I've received, both on and offwiki". There was only one admin who gave criticism that Kevin potentially took to heart, not the five admins he implied by listing in the previous RFAR. In spite of limiting my focus and making the limitation painfully clear, you choose to "not understand" even into this RFAR?! (That's amazing.) The one of the five (User:Writ Keeper) admins whom Kevin potentially took criticism to heart, detailed to Kevin how his reasoning was a misapplication of BLP . In subsequent comments Kevin has still insisted that his BLP concerns were consistent with "the spirit of BLP/BDP and the WMF resolution on BLP" , so, I guess that leaves 0.5 admins out of the 5 admins Kevin listed at the previous RFAR. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to Ihardlythinkso by Cullen328

I am not an administrator, and have never been one. I am proud to be an experienced editor on this project and hope that my peers consider me a productive one. I commented on Jimbo's talk page early in the disputed thread, before either Eric or Kevin got involved. My comment was in favor or kindness and compassion in the interaction between all editors. In no way, shape or form did I encourage Kevin to intervene. When the dispute between Kevin and Eric developed, I stepped back, though I did remind Eric that BLP applies also to those who have recently died. I have known both editors for several years. Eric gave me great help bringing an article I worked on to Good Article status. I have met Kevin at several Edit-a-thons, and encouraged his Misplaced Pages participation. I am not taking sides in the dispute, and wish both editors well. Kevin approached me on February 11 to discuss the matter off-wiki, through a Facebook private message, and I advised him to take it easy and not escalate matters. I was advising caution and restraint, gently criticizing some of what Kevin had done. When Ihardlythinkso came to Kevin's talk page and said that Kevin had been misleading when he said a "flood" of editors had offered critical advice to him on and off-wiki, I stepped forward to confirm that I had myself offered such advice off-wiki. Ihardlythinkso seemed to argue that any off-wiki advice was irrelevant. I simply responded that I thought it was relevant to the substance of Kevin's quoted words that I had offered Kevin off-wiki advice, and that pointing that out was both logical and fair, and that analyzing what a "flood" was in this context was not helpful. Ihardlythinkso was, shall we say, unpersuaded by my attempt at logic and reason. Others can read the exchange and judge for themselves. Thank you. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Cas Liber

My piece I said here. I understand Kevin has now apologised but it was such a prolonged and destructive (and entirely avoidable) train-wreck of an interaction on his part that at minimum I think there has to be an official admonishment (sorry Kevin, but the whole episode really sucked). If this place acts on precedents etc. then there needs to be some sort of consistency and line drawn in the sand. Salvo or AGK, or whoever, just make a motion already. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Leaky Caldron

Between Kevin and Arbcom. the processes for regulating behaviour and adhering to policy have been brought into disrepute. Some clear, simple and definitive action is required to begin to restore confidence. In particular this applies to Arbcom 2014 who's multiple decisions last week in dealing dismissively with unacceptable behaviour by Admins. sets a worrying trend.

Leaving aside the added complexity of the quoted BLP special enforcement, Kevin's first and most serious lapse of judgement and a question he is still yet to answer, is why he thought Eric's comment in the original discussion was the appropriate target for Admin. action. It was the original post by an anonymous editor that violated WP:BDP. BDP affords BLP style protection where "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide.." That thread on the founder's page infringed BDP in that the person referred to was readily identifiable from immediately available resources here on WP and subsequently on the wider www. It takes less than 2 minutes and the attempt to disguise the identity of the deceased using a pseudonym was fatuous. Blaming Eric for a serious BLP/BDP violation while ignoring the same clear behaviour by the IP made no sense then and despite numerous attempts to justify it, will never make any sense. The fact that in some people's view Eric walks around with a large target on his back in no way justifies the action pursued by Kevin, and allegedly supported by other Admins and Arbcom. members off-wiki.

The allegations of tacit support by other functionaries must also be explained. Frankly it looks like a simple attempt to deflect blame and have not been satisfactorily explained despite repeated assurances by Kevin that he would do so.

Finally, the case request was declined was because there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic. is just plain unacceptable, as is Decline expeditiously. Every aspect of this situation is unfortunate, but it is undesirable to publicize it further, and there is little value we can add. Arbcom was not (re-)elected to abrogate responsibility because matters are "sensitive" and "unfortunate" and while some matters might be "undesirable to publicize further", you need to be careful that you are not open to the accusation of just brushing unpalatable matters under the carpet. Leaky Caldron 11:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker:. Well I have no idea what a "category" error is and I have made no bad faith accusations. I have pointed out that the original post enabled the family and friends of the unnamed victim to be readily identified, an action which could lead to implications for them and therefore a breach of the WP:BDP extension to WP:BLP. The sort of implication I'm thinking of is unwanted attention, possible contact from the media, etc. Unless they had provided express consent for that discussion to take place on the founder's page they might have every reason to distressed. I would be. To be clear, our words here do not need to express hostility to cause an adverse implication on close friends and family. Simply raising the subject, even in an indirect fashion, may cause distress if (a) the subject is identifiable and (b) the subject matter contains details that refer to events that the friends and family would prefer not to be discussed here. We don't know, we must assume that distress would be caused. Maybe why Eric was appalled by it? Leaky Caldron 15:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by 188.30.20.92

@Carcharoth. Let's look at the comments of the arbs who voted to decline the case.

• For NewYorkBrad the whole thing was "unfortunate".
• For David Fuchs Kevin deserved a "trout-slapping".
• For you the actions of several "were not ideal" but it was best to move on.
• For Salvio, Kevin had made a personal attack and doubled down on it. That, for Salvio, amounted to "conduct unbecoming".

You inform us that it should be obvious to anyone reading those comments that Kevin will be desysopped if he pulls a stunt like that again. What! Whatever you're drinking, I want one.

The message you sent to the community, and especially to the admins, was not that Kevin would be desyssoped; it was this: We reaffirm that you are free to make personal attacks on editors and to subsequently double-down on those attacks. In the extremely unlikely event that you are brought to account for such an attack, we might say that it was unfortunate, we might make hilarious jokes about trout-slapping, but under no circumstances will take any action against you, nor make any official, on-record criticism of your attack.

And all this stuff about Kevin being a hapless newbie admin is nonsense. He picked a fight against Eric Corbett on Jimbo's talk page. He knew exactly what he was doing. In fact, given his fantastic interpretation of BLP, it's difficult not to believe that he thought he'd found a loophole which would allow him to deal once and for all with the editor he habitually refers to as Malleus, and was looking for an opportunity to exploit it.

188.30.20.92 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute. It's true that had Kevin picked on a low profile editor, or an ip, it's unlikely he would have ended up here. That doesn't excuse his behaviour. This is about cavalier admin action, and arbcom's distaste for addressing it. It doesn't have much to do with Eric. 94.116.160.101 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC) (aka 188.30.20.92)

@Resolute: I don't want to get dragged in to the Eric saga. Eric is one editor. The real issue here is that Kevin could do what he did and very nearly get away with it. It's not about Kevin vs Eric. It's about ArbCom failing yet again to get a grip on the loose cannon admins. They're a minority, but they're a significant minority. They're the ones who damage the project. They're the ones who drive away editors. Even if Kevin does finally get a slapped wrist, the take-away for the admins is that even if you go bezerk on Jimbo’s talk page, ArbCom will still do its best to look the other way. Anyway, as this is probably not the venue for you and I to discuss this, I probably won't respond further here. 94.116.160.101 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by NuclearWarfare

The BLP policy is quite explicit about whether it should apply to the recently deceased:

Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. In the absence of confirmation of death, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless listed at oldest people.

Now, it is true that WP:BLPBAN is a rather useless policy. Regardless if the remedy is repealed or not, I would, in some circumstances, be OK with blocking and wheel warring with another administrator who overturned my action with regards to a biography of a living person. But if we are going to have it, there is no good reason to use this one hard case to make a bad divergent exception from the status quo. Review the whole policy, yes, but don't make this piecemeal change. NW (Talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Snark from Resolute

I think 188.30.20.92 inadvertently hit on Kevin's biggest mistake. He ended up in a fight with Eric. That never ends well because of the number of enablers and hangers-on Eric has. As Roger's motion on the case page shows, even several members of Arbcom will act to enable Eric's behaviour and placate him any time he runs off in a huff. Resolute 20:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin did not act in a vacuum, 188. Eric's own behaviour was dramatically poor in this, and he has a far longer history of similarly poor behaviour. But it looks like ArbCom has chosen to not only continue it's head-in-the-sand routine on that front, but to double down and reward an editor who pulled a WP:DIVA act. In my view, both should be sanctioned/admonished, or neither should. What is happening right now is Arbcrom, led by Roger Davies, playing favourites to the detriment of this project. Resolute 21:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, 188. The takeaway, as these motions are currently framed, is that you can do what ever you want if you have enough friends. You can drop as many vulgar personal attacks as you want and pull a ragequit Diva routine - and ArbCom will not only turn a blind eye to your behaviour, it will go out of its way to soothe your ego. Can't wait to see this happen again the next time Eric pretends to quit because he didn't get his way. Resolute 21:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Resolute. I've seen some questionable behavior by admins that never made it to AN/I, much less ARBCOM. I can't help but think that this case wouldn't have even been brought if it hadn't been action against a long-time, high-profile editor. But Kevin was in a fight with Eric and so this ended up at ARBCOM. He was admonished and life goes on. Liz 23:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Tryptofish

I think that Gorilla Warfare's comment at 01:26, 24 February 2014, about declining the case, gets it exactly right. I feel like some of you on the Committee are letting yourselves second-guess yourselves too much. It sounds like you are getting so wrapped up in parsing the boundary between BLP and BDP that you are losing sight of the fact that wanting to see a dead editor spoken of with sensitivity is not exactly a high crime. I'm not defending everything that Kevin did, please understand, but as cases of administrative overstep go, this is a borderline one. Unfortunately for Kevin, his minor oversteps stepped into the buzzsaw of those who are looking for an administrator to make an example of. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Given how the motions are going, my suggestion would be to stop making motions, and just close this without a motion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

Regarding Motion #3 - shouldn't any re-evaluation of WP:BLPBAN come from the community, and not ArbCom, or have I misunderstood the extent of the committee's remit? BMK (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to associate myself with Dennis Brown's second comment below - there is no overwhelming need for BLPBAN to be overhauled, but if it is going to be re-examined, I'd much prefer that it be done by community discussion and consensus, and not by the committee, which is charged, I believe, with interpreting policy, and not making it. In any case, the rush to "fix" BLPBAN appears to be an over-reaction to the re-opening of the original case. I urge the committee not to adopt any of these motions. BMK (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth - The problem is that the "implicit" involvement of the community is not spelled out anywhere in any of these motions, and because of that the motions appear to be reserving to ArbCom the authority to overhaul the BLPBAN policy, a power that I do not think the committee has. It may act to help prompt or goad the community into taking action by setting up the circumstances of a discussion, or even initiate one and then back away (to comment as regular editors) but I don't believe it can set-up a committee-run and -regulated review of a policy, and relegate the community to second-class participants or, worse, observers. BMK (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Since I was in error about the provenance of WP:BLPBAN, as pointed out by T. Canens, I have struck out my comments about it, which are clearly in error. As a remedy created by ArbCom, it is obviously within the committee's remit to re-examine and alter if they feel it necessary. BMK (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Motion by Court jester NE Ent

I'd noted this many days ago, but refrained from bringing it up 'cause no one likes a wikilawyer. But since ya'll seem to be in wikilawyer modality, here's a motion:

"The BLPBAN warning by Kevin doesn't count because he didn't RTFM and log it on WP:Editing Restrictions, it just doesn't count, it didn't happen, we're done with this morass, and we hope to hell March is kinder month to Arbcom '14" NE Ent 12:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note by Dennis Brown

Motion 2, section i is fatally flawed. If BLPBAN only applies to mainspace, then articles in user space, at WP:AFC or other quazi-article locations would be wide open. Articles/pages outside of mainspace are implied to be covered by BLPBAN as it is worded, but this motion would remove that protection by setting a clear precedent that removes BLP protection for those pages. I encourage the Arbs to strike their support and instead oppose Motion 2 based on this flaw. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Afterthought: Is any motion really necessary at this point? Arb doesn't need to demonstrate that it is "on the ball", I just don't see the utility of a motion after the RFAR, and knowing many of the details are understandably private. Everyone knows his evocation of BLPBAN is null and void, no one is even arguing otherwise. Worse, redefining BLPBAN via a motion here isn't a good idea. The cliche "Bad cases make bad law" exists for a reason. Fix it outside of a case, not during. Kevin more or less gets it, and a motion isn't going to improve his comprehension nor do anything for the community. Maybe it is time to drop the stick and just move on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I recused on the case request, and I probably should here as well. --Rschen7754 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Harry, I appreciate you are upset at what Kevin Gorman did, but the reason the case request was declined was because there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic. This is the sort of thing where what would normally be done is taking someone to one side and privately admonishing them. This has in effect happened. Kevin has been left in no doubt, by comments made on-wiki and elsewhere, that if he pulls a stunt like this again (in particular, the misuse of BLP special enforcement), he will be desysopped. That should have been obvious to anyone reading the comments made by the arbitrators who declined the case request. It was an admonishment in all but name. To specifically answer your questions: No, Kevin Gorman's invocation of BLP special enforcement was not acceptable. No, admins are not entitled to make up policy as they go and expect their actions to enjoy the protections afforded to arbitration enforcement actions. Does this warrant a formal motion, admonishment or case? In some cases, yes. In this case, no. Declining a case does not mean that the committee is endorsing the actions that were taken. It means things are obvious enough already that no further action is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  @BMK - all three motions neglect to specify that such a review would be done in concert with the community. The point I made here (before your comment above) was intended to make clear that community consultation is implicit. The current discretionary sanctions review are being carried out in consultation with the community. If community members have strong views on the current BLPBAN provisions, they can start a discussion right now (at the appropriate talk page, providing a courtesy link from here to the discussion) without waiting for the committee to start a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Simply put, the community does not expect the committee to toss seemingly straightforward cases which fall squarely within its scope. In this instance, the issues embrace four of the five prime areas of committee responsibility. While the tragic event which triggered this dispute requires handling with sensitivity and circumspection, that is not alone a good reason for sweeping the whole thing hurriedly under the carpet. It is well within the committee's ability, for instance, to put restrictions in place, reinforced by robust sanctions if ignored, to enable a case to proceed without visiting inappropriate areas. That said, the essential facts do not seem to be in dispute and the committee can discharge its obligations to the community in full by handling this by motion. As a minimum, the motion must clarify the BLP issues raised and also comment on the actions of the administrator at the eye of the storm.  Roger Davies 22:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • NOTE: I shall be proposing motions shortly both here and on the case request itself,  Roger Davies 14:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• I've long thought we should substitute standard discretionary sanctions for WP:BLPBAN, which is a relic of the past and which, technically, only applies to mainspace (although I believe that the remedy in question has also been invoked – correctly, in my opinion – with regard to edits made elsewhere, such as WP:ANI, cf. teleological interpretation), whereas WP:BLP applies everywhere. This, however, can be done by motion, if there's any appetite for it. I also still support an admonishment for Kevin and believe we should have admonished him before declining the case request. Salvio 23:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @EdChem: had I seen my colleague's instruction to the clerks, I'd have acted (either by striking my decline vote or by proposing a motion), but it all happened while I was asleep and by the time I woke up the request had already been archived. I probably should have proposed a motion myself earlier, but didn't get the chance, because quite frankly, sometimes, life gets in the way. Salvio 10:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • @T. Canens: yes, I was thinking something along the lines of "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all edits concerning living people across all namespaces"... Salvio 10:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
      • There is a potentially cataclysmic unintended consequence of that. It would mean that users editing under their own names would be able to claim BLP protection and DS enforcement for anything detrimental said about them anywhere on wiki that wasn't supported by RS. While I agree that WP:BLPBAN needs updating, we need to move carefully on this to avoid paralysing the encyclopedia.  Roger Davies 11:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Whoa, you're right. I hadn't thought about that. Salvio 11:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• While I cannot claim to be "sensible", I was an "arb on holiday" during the original RFAR. I disagree with the committee's decision to decline the case request, and agree action ought to have been taken against Kevin Gorman.

  A couple of arbitrators deployed a shocking piece of casuistry which wormed its way into the rationale for a number of other decline votes: that we should not act due to the nature of the incident giving rise to the dispute. The case could have been easily handled without further exposing the original incident. Moreover, these arbitrators were implying, deliberately or unthinkingly, that the rest of us who would have acted on the request demonstrated a lack of respect for the victim. This appalled me. Those particular arbitrators know who they are, so I will merely say that this line of the committee's thinking at the RFAR was completely unsound. The other major line of thinking was that Kevin's action was a one-off mistake unlikely to be repeated. This ignores the danger posed to the project when an administrator illegitimately claims special enforcement protection for a wrong action. The committee cannot overlook such a breach of policy, even if the administrator himself promises it was a one-off mistake.

  These were the two major lines of thinking in last week's RFAR; both appear unsound, and ideally the decision would be overturned. However, the moment for action may now have passed, and the good we could do may be outweighed by the drama/confusion overturning the decision to decline might generate. Also, if we overturn last week's decision, Kevin Gorman could accuse us of acting capriciously (with some justification). As none of this changes the fact that real damage could be done to the project if last week's decision stands, I am nonetheless willing to open a case. AGK 00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Carcharoth (talk · contribs)'s statement that declining a case does not constitute approval of the actions at issue per se, however it certainly does give that appearance. I feel that at a minimum an admonishment was warranted in this circumstance; enforcement actions were taken by an administrator incorrectly in the name of the Committee. I apologise to the community for not being an active participant in the discussion of the case, as I believe a more correct action could have been taken then. We do have the opportunity to fix this now, however, in a way that is appropriate given the sensitive nature of the incident. LFaraone 00:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• I think declining the case was the correct decision, and I would have voted accordingly had I been able to finish looking through it before the case was closed. I believe that Gorman was truly acting in an effort to protect the subject of the discussion, which I respect. He definitely stepped over the line when he tried to apply BLP special enforcement to the issue, and I am also convinced that he knows that. I don't think a formal admonishment is necessary to drill that in further, and I have no concerns that people will forget this issue should Gorman make a similar misstep in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• The Clerks should not have been directed to remove the request as declined, as Salvio's decline vote, necessary to make acceptance mathematically impossible, was implicitly conditioned on a motion being proposed. (Maybe we should make "deal with by motion" a separate category of votes, to avoid future confusion.)

  I agree that WP:BLPBAN could use updating, but if we are updating it to standard DS, what's the area of conflict? All BLPs? I'd welcome comments on whether BLPBAN should be updated and what the updated version should be.

  I still think that a case is unnecessary, and I assume that, based on Roger's comment above and the original votes in the case request, that a majority of the committee not recused in this matter is still of this opinion. Under these circumstances, I think the best way forward is simply for us to propose and vote on the necessary motions in this request. T. Canens (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: Can you explain why reviewing WP:BLPBAN is outside our remit? It's a remedy passed by arbcom in the Footnoted quotes case, not a policy or process created by the community. T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Motion 1 (Kevin Gorman)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 4 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed

Further to the current Request for Clarification, the committee notes that:

1. WP:BLPBAN does not apply to recently deceased people;
2. the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect;
3. the provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be urgently reviewed by ArbCom and where necessary updated.

Support

1. See also the companion motion at the case request page,  Roger Davies 17:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   LFaraone 17:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   Salvio 17:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   (moving to oppose, per Seraphimblade and others - leaving original comments in place. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) Noting in passing, FWIW, that Kevin did strike his formal warning. Roger is right that WP:BLPBAN does need to be urgently reviewed. I hope he will take the lead on this and ensure it is done in a timely manner, co-ordinating with the rest of the committee and the editorial community as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As NW points out, WP:BLP is quite clear that it does apply, in some circumstances, to the recently deceased. I see no justification why we should single out this one aspect of the BLP policy and declare it to be unworthy of the protections afforded by the special enforcement provision. If we have to limit BLPBAN before the review takes place, I'd rather limit it to article space and discussions directly related thereto, consistent with the original case's concern about the impact of BLPs on their subjects. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   That is certainly another approach and I did consider it but went for the simpler option. BLPBAN is not the most used of our sanctions, and the circumstances under which the recently deceased are covered are limited, the change is probably academic. That said, if you want to put up an alternative motion, I'd probably support it. HJ Mitchell has suggested some additional text above, which could be usefully incorporated. On the whole though, this is probably all best left to be thrashed out in a thorough review.  Roger Davies 00:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

2. I perceive no need for us to "urgently review" the availability of special authority for administrators to deal with BLP policy violations, unless it is to consider reasons why the authority may have been underutilized over the years. The two recent instances in which this authority was misapplied were immediately recognized as outliers and widely criticized as such, and they no more impugn the general validity of BLP special sanctions authority than they do of the BLP policy itself. Any appropriate tweaks to the scope of the BLP policy, if desired, can be addressed through ordinary community discussion. (See also my comments on the motion in the Kevin Gorman case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

   In a few weeks, NYB, it will be six years since the enforcement remedy was put in place. The community expects us to review our sanctions from time to time to ensure they're still needed and still fit for purpose. As this one is clearly being underused/misused/misunderstood, it could well need some updating. What's more, in the intervening six years, much has changed: for a start, we now have "Draft" namespace. Does WP:BLPBAN apply there? (Yes, it should as it's for articles in the making.) Should WP:BLPBAN apply also to the talk pages of articles within main namespace? (Less obvious, but worth considering.) For the existing remedy, does par. 2 apply only to the defined area in par. 1, or is it a separate broader restriction? Is there anything from the current in-depth review of WP:DSR which could usually improve WP:BLPBAN? In short, I suggest there is much to review, and no time to lose in doing so ;)  Roger Davies 10:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

   We can certainly discuss whether this sanction should be modified in some way at the appropriate time, either by us or even better in a community discussion. Although I understand the concept of including the special BLP enforcement authority created in Footnoted quotes in the ongoing discretionary sanctions review, I wouldn't want substantive discussion of BLP policy enforcement to be swallowed up in the largely procedural (albeit important) discussion of DS procedures. What I really oppose more than anything in this motion is that some urgency about reviewing the entire BLP special enforcement authority has been created by the isolated misuse of that authority in one or two instances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
4. The wording of BLPBAN is that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Misplaced Pages article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy....". As the biographies of living persons policy does specify that under certain circumstances it can apply to the recently deceased, I think this would create an inconsistency. Admins enforcing in that manner would be following both the letter and spirit of BLP. Seraphimblade 06:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Indented original support and moved to oppose. Seraphimblade (and others) are correct, though given the disagreement among arbs I still think a simpler motion 3 (proposed below) would be best. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Switching to oppose per comments by others above. LFaraone 20:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

1. To add to the confusion, unlike Newyorkbrad I do agree with iii (it'd be convenient to tack BLPBAN onto the back of our DS review). ii is fine with me too. However, I don't comprehend point i of the motion. BLP covers many recently deceased people, including the subject of the original incident here. If BLP covers them, why are we saying BLPBAN does not? The inconsistency in i doesn't compel me to oppose, as BLPBAN is so underused, but I can't endorse this. AGK 10:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

Motion 2 (Kevin Gorman)

Proposed

By way of clarification:

1. WP:BLPBAN applies only to articles within the main namespace; and
2. Accordingly, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect.

The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be urgently reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

Support

1. Different approach, but equal to #1,  Roger Davies 10:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
2. AGK 10:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Only choice. T. Canens (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Weak support; as Kevin removed the restriction himself I don't see the need to mention it here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
6. WP:BLPBAN makes clear that it applies to "articles", not all pages. Therefore, this clarification is in line with how the remedy is in fact worded. Seraphimblade 06:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It is not at all clear to me that "WP:BLPBAN applies only to articles within the main namespace," or, for that matter, that it should apply only to articles within the main namespace. To be sure, this authority is not intended to limit legitimate discussion of contributors, sources, and so forth, and I imagine that its primary impact will and should be felt within the article space. However, for example, a few months ago I invoked the special sanctions authority to stop an editor from repeatedly inserting the false allegation that a BLP subject gave the order to destroy one of the World Trade Center buildings. When I did so, I meant that the editor had to stop making that assertion anywhere on Misplaced Pages, not that he had to stop doing it in the BLP itself but was free to continue making this defamatory claim in his userspace or on the noticeboards. In another context, I imposed a BLP restriction that prohibited an editor from (among other things) uploading files concerning a given individual, which I found were being used to harass that individual, and I think that was also within the scope of the authority. It is true that the actual remedy language from Footnoted quotes, referenced in the administrator instructions, refers to "articles," but that remedy was written at a time when topic-bans often used the phrase "article" rather than "page" and were later clarified to mean any page in Misplaced Pages (excluding special contexts such as appeals from the topic-ban itself). Most important, if we are going to have a review of the BLP special enforcement authority as both this motion and motion 1 suggest, I don't see why we want to prejudge the outcome of it with respect to this issue. Finally, as has been noted, Kevin Gorman struck the wording he purported to impose against Eric Corbett several days ago, and it was clear even before that that the consensus of uninvolved administrators had rejected it, so we don't need to clarify that it has no effect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

   Firstly, even if "article" has that very broad meaning the fact that the language has moved on so much that needs reflecting in the text. Apart from the ambiguity you highlight what about "article" means, the word "warning" has also become both charged and ambiguous. Your argument, it seems to me, strongly reinforces the opposite of what you say and that, in fact, this provision really does need urgently reviewing. Secondly, the warning needs to be formally withdrawn because KG's striking through of the warning has no effect. WP:BLPBAN does not recognise administrative discretion to withdraw warniongs or sanctions. What it says is: "Where an action has been reversed or modified, this should be clearly marked, and must be accompanied by evidence of explicit approval from the Committee, or of clear consensus from the community". This motion provides that explicit approval. Thirdly, it is unfair on our administrators, and on the community, to leave in place enforcement provisions that leave so much to individual interpretation. (I think this covers David's point as well). Finally, if it is meant to be applied much more broadly than just articles, it raises all sorts of interesting points. If it applies also to userspace, do the users have to prove that they are who they claim to be (for instance if I started editing as User:Reginald Davis) to be covered by the provisions or is mere assertion enough? And may editors seemingly editing under their real names claim BLP protection during AN discussions and insist everything not covered by RS is deleted? This one could keep us and the community busy for decades. Nope, it all needs sorting out.  Roger Davies 16:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

   Your questions about scope would apply equally to the BLP policy itself. See also my added comment on motion 3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

2. Salvio 22:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Switching from abstain to oppose. Per below, this needs discussion to work out exactly what BLPBAN means in today's editing environment. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

Not happy with the changes made to part (i). Proposing third alternative below. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Switching to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

Motion 3 (Kevin Gorman)

Proposed

By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman under WP:BLPBAN is rescinded. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

Support

1. Proposing third alternative, since there is disagreement among arbitrators as to the scope of BLPBAN. Better to hash it out at a review than at these motions. I've not explicitly stated that the review will be in consultation with the community, as that should be implicit and obvious. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Yep.  Roger Davies 11:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Equal choice with M2, but I take Salvio's point below and would prefer we reword from "rescinded" to something like "overruled" or "invalidated" (as warnings cannot meaningfully be rescinded in this way). AGK 14:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Support, although I too would prefer the reword. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
6. I don't see the need for this with 2 passing, but also don't see any harm. Seraphimblade 21:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
7. LFaraone 20:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. On second thoughts, let's not start rescinding warnings: in the DS review we are currently saying that warnings/alerts can't be appealed. Rescinding Eric's warning now can only send a mixed message and we'll end up with more appeals of warnings/alerts. Let's just close this and review this remedy along with the other discretionary sanctions. Salvio 12:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Prefer M2. T. Canens (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

   In reply to @Dennis Brown's comment above: there is no doubt that BLP policy applies across the whole project and all namespaces. BLPBAN, however, is a grant of extraordinarily broad powers to administrators (beyond even the normal discretionary sanctions), and how such broad and difficult-to-overturn individual admin authority would interact with a policy that applies to every page in every namespace in the project was never fully considered when BLPBAN was originally written, as the present case demonstrates. The committee that passed BLPBAN seemed to be primarily concerned with the harm done to article subjects, so it makes sense to limit the extra tools granted by BLPBAN to mainspace, where BLP violations can do the most harm, until the review is complete. Administrators are still able to enforce BLP outside of mainspace with their normal tools. That there are only two dozen or so admin actions logged under BLPBAN clearly demonstrates that the normal tools are generally effective for BLP enforcement. T. Canens (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

   In my administrator capacity, I invoked the BLP special enforcement authority three times last year. I've described two of the instances above. The third was a topic ban of User:Qwerty from commenting about BLP subjects (before additional bad behavior was discovered and led to the community ban). Do you, or anyone, question the validity of these actions because they extended beyond article-space? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

   I remember at least two of those, NYB. Though I think you mean User:Qworty, not User:Qwerty. And I can't find any log you made of your topic ban against User:Qworty at the sanctions log. One of the reasons for that log is to enable 'big picture' review of the special enforcement authority. Was your sanction against Qworty logged somewhere else? Are there other unlogged sanctions that should be logged there? Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC) OK, my mistake. I see the Qworty sanction there, but logged by NE Ent, not by Newyorkbrad. I was searching on NYB's username, rather than on Qworty. Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

   BLPBAN, as it is currently worded, allows admins to ensure BLP compliance of articles by, among other things, banning editors from pages. In other words, misconduct in mainspace is required for sanction, but the sanction imposed can go beyond mainspace. T. Canens (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I can live with this per Douglas Adams, but I really perceive no need to adopt any motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators