Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:06, 16 January 2022

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Blnguyen
2. FayssalF
3. FloNight
4. FT2
5. Jdforrester
6. Jpgordon
7. Kirill Lokshin
8. Newyorkbrad
9. Paul August
10. Sam Blacketer
11. Thebainer
12. UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:

1. Charles Matthews
2. Deskana
3. Matthew Brown (Morven)

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Request for guidance

I recently closed the 3rd AfD debate for this article, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matt Sanchez (3rd nomination) Per that, the consensus of the decision was both to keep the article, but alleviate BLP concerns, by taking a hard look at the sources involved, and make sure the article complies with WP:BLP. When I attempted to do this (full admission, the article is fully protected), I was convinced to self-revert, as I was told that this fell under the perview of the ArbCom. Can ArbCom please provide guidance on how best to implement the AfD consensus? Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP within its limits, is fairly non-negotiable. We do not allow unsourced negative material to stand for example, and biographies should be written with an eye to being conservative if there is doubt. I can understand why editors might be hesitant to deal with it if it's protected and at Arbcom, but if there is a consensus at BLP/N or its talk page that there is a genuine or probable BLP violation, I would consider that appropriate to deal with whether or not the page is protected or being discussed at Arbcom. Take it there and if there is consensus, deal with it.

(The emphasis here, lest anyone take this to extremes, is if there were consensus in an appropriate forum that there is indeed a probable BLP problem, then we deal with it appropriately. It's not a green light to edit war, edit over protection, or such during arb cases, it's a one way ticket that communally agreed decisions on BLP concerns are a bit more important than edit wars and arbcom cases. They can more easily affect people in real life. Thus recognizing the importance of BLP when rightly used.) FT2  05:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why I was under the impression that the biographical article in question was protected pending outcome of this arbitration. Since it is not, and given the furor surrounding the subject, perhaps it should be.Typing Monkey - 06:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article to prevent disruption and unnecessary aggravation of the situation. If there are problems with the content, these can be discussed on the talk page, and {{editprotected}} used to request that an admin attend to the changes. Due to WP:BLP and arbcom, editors should be focusing on removing problematic content rather than trying to write an extensive biography, as the latter does not need to be finished immediately. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Some clarification needed

Are the arbiters aware that Bluemarine was blocked indefinitely, and was unblocked only to participate in this case, after which he violated the terms of unblock and was reblocked indef? What is happening to Bluemarine's community ban? Is it being tossed in favour of the one-year ban from arbcom? --Maxim_(talk) 14:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right that the wording should be clarified here. I will make a note on the proposed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with harassed editors

I'd like to offer a few observations based upon field experience. It's not particularly uncommon for a person to begin editing because a Misplaced Pages biography article about him or her (or an organization this person runs) has been given an unfavorable slant. In Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate, for instance, the newcomer made an early effort to seek the help of an administrator, got rebuffed, and then tried to take matters into his own hands. Months of edit warring followed. That fellow is actually a pretty good editor now, and if the community were encouraged to become more responsive to this type of situation in its early stages then perhaps we'd resolve more of these problems before editors draw battle lines.

So per WP:BITE, it would make sense to have a ruling that understands newcomers don't always behave perfectly, especially when they have very real concerns about the content of a top Google return on a search for their own names. At some point reasonable people seek normal venues to address persistent grievances and act upon commonsense advice and options. A key problem in this case was that Matt Sanchez rejected the options that normally resolve these problems after several experienced people stepped in politely and tried to help. Instead he behaved in a way that can only be termed abusive and inflammatory. Yes, he was provoked - and up to a point that's a mitigating factor. I'm not sure precisely where the dividing line is, but he was definitely on the wrong side of it at the point where he insulted people who had never been rude to him and instead tried to help, per his own requests for assistance. Durova 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

In the Proposed enforcement section, Sam Blacketer has struck his support of "Enforcement by Block", noting that he has changed his vote in line with remedy 2.2. However, there is no remedy 2.2. To what is he referring? Horologium (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It means 2.1 - that has its enforcement provisions within the remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wider Role for ArbCom?

Considering my comments on the proposed decision talk page for the Matthew Hoffman case, here is a clear example where ArbCom adding some obiter dictum comments in guidance would be really valuable. The decision, as it stands, offers little useful guidance on how to resolve the BLP issues that have fueled a lot of this discussion. For example, is an unaltered video of a TV interview a reliable source for a person's statements? Does "said X but later said Y" meet NPOV? I understand not wanting to take a side in a content dispute, but that doesn't mean that a general discussion of circumstances when such things are or are not acceptable would be helpful. ArbCom decisions often touch on the intent and meaning of policy, and editors are looking to ArbCom for guidance in these areas. As this decision stands, the same back-and-forth debate will continue on the Sanchez talk page, just without his involvement. If the view is that ArbCom does not want to provide such guidance, then please consider a statement (somewhere) to that effect. The proposed homeopathy case is looking for policy guidance (albeit on different policies) suggesting such issues are likely to recur if the present approach is maintained. Should editors be going to article RfC's? or policy talk pages? or village pump? The community is looking to ArbCom, and some response is surely warranted. EdChem (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)