This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 08:11, 31 January 2010 (sorry, it's confusing when the sig and the named party are so different, I should have noticed in the raw edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Jéské Couriano

Initiated by Mbz1 (talk) at 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs), filing party
• Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

link to post at AN/I

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by Mbz1

On January 25/26 I was the subject by 5+ hours of bluing and harassment by administrator Jéské Couriano and some other users. During those 5+ hours administrator Jéské Couriano never assumed a good faith toward me.

Here are only few differences:

1. "Troll-o-meter is thru the roof; maybe I should ask for a CU to see if this is Israelbeach...")
2. Now get off my talk page and stay off; you're trolling.
3. if the CU returns otherwise, Mbz1's done.
4. if you carry on like this you'll end up blocked irrespective of the CU results
5. Chummliechen, you were trolling. And given the totality of the evidence, it was very reasonable to assume you are a sock.]
6. Mbz1, you're hunting for a sanction here

The last one is a bran new threat for me filing the arbitration request.

(everywhere highlighted by me)

I was about to let it go, but I've done some research on administrator Jéské Couriano, and I decided to go ahead with that request because it was not the first time of such a behavior by administrator Jéské Couriano. Administrators work with people. People cannot be undeleted or restored as images or articles could. 5+ hours of an absolutely unwarranted harassment, PA, treating with blocks and bulling cannot be undone or overwritten with an apology. Jéské Couriano cannot be an administrator.

Here's only one recent case of assumption of a bad faith by administrator Jéské Couriano, which actually resulted in the user being blocked.

This message is going to the Committee. I've always thought that administrators should be civil no matter what. Here Jéské Couriano explains why he believed CU was justified in my case "If there's behavioral evidence that an account is compromised (i.e. a sudden and radical change in editing pattern) then it's not fishing to ask a CU to look into it." Let's apply the same rules to administrator Jéské Couriano own behavior. I am of course sure that Jéské Couriano is Jéské Couriano, the account was not compromised, which means that few hours of harassing and bulling me was usual "editing pattern" of the administrator, and I could provide quite a few differences to prove it. But do we really need the differences? IMO a behavior like this one even on a single occasion is one time too many. I assure you that the request I filed has nothing to do with revenge. The only purpose of filing it is preventing other users to be bullied and harassed by Jéské Couriano under the cover of his administrator-ship. Because, and I hope you'd agree with me, it is one matter being harassed by a regular user, and absolutely different being harassed by an administrator. I'm asking you to consider the case please.

Statement by Jéské Couriano

I have already sincerely apologized for this; the revision is in the deleted edit history on her talk page and thus is admin access only, unfortunately. Mbz1 needs to drop it, and I urge the Committee to reject this request as moot. —Jeremy 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mbz1That last diff you just posted cannot be construed, in any way, as a threat, Mbz1. —Jeremy 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, the Sbs101 wasn't "me assuming bad faith" as I got involved after the user was blocked and practically everyone, including CheckUsers, initially thought that he was a sockpuppet. In fact, when proof otherwise came out, I unblocked him. —Jeremy 01:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

WP:PROD wheel war

Initiated by MBisanz at 09:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• OverlordQ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User_talk:Coffee#Your_recent_edit_to_Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Coffee_edit_warring_on_protected_policy_page.2C_now_blocked.3B_please_review
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_by_Sandstein

Statement by MBisanz

Malinaccier (talk · contribs) protected WP:PROD per a request at WP:RFPP for edit warring/content dispute. Coffee (talk · contribs) edited through the protection to include a new paragraph relating to BLPs in light of a recent motion on BLP deletions. Sandstein (talk · contribs) instructed Coffee to self-revert and when Coffee refused, Sandstein blocked him for 24 hours. OverlordQ (talk · contribs) then edited through the protection to revert Coffee's edit citing WP:BRD.

Coffee should not have edited WP:PROD through protection since he was involved per his edits at the original RFAR. Sandstein should not have blocked as he was involved per his comments at the RFAR leading to the motion in question, because he had expressed a view on the motion at an RFC, and because he has been a content editor of the WP:PROD page in the past . OverlordQ was also involved in it and should not have edited WP:PROD through protection because he was involved per his comments on the original RFAR at . Clearly the throwing around of these edits and blocks by involved admins requires Committee intervention. MBisanz 09:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Clerks

Aren't section headings supposed to be delinked? MBisanz 02:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Mailer Diablo

Couldn't you pass a superseding new motion that is "polished" to remove the need for several clarifications to be filed to "define" what the motion means? MBisanz 02:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee

I understand that some of the committee might not like this action on my part, but I don't see how it was problematic. Already we have 114 supports/6 opposes at the RFC, regarding my change to WP:PROD, which implies that the consensus will not change. The recently passed ArbCom motion was in favor of an edit like this, especially when backed by consensus. I wasn't trying to be "rouge", I just didn't feel that it was necessary to wait no telling how many months for that RFC to close; and the change to that policy is far less chaotic then what we've had in the past few days.

I don't like Sandstein's actions here at all, as he was more than involved, yet he blocked without a second thought. True an uninvolved admin could have blocked, but even then I didn't and wasn't intending on re-editing the policy after my first edit. The block was without warrant and was totally out of process. Was my edit the best way to go? Probably not, but I still fail to see what is so controversial about asking for PROD tags to not be removed unless there are improvements made to the BLPs.

@Sandstein: I don't see how it was aimed to prevent anything, considering I never once indicated that I was going to edit the policy page again. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@Ikip:

• Wheel warred with Geni, starting another (This was covered in the last ArbCom motion.)
• Edited a protect page WP:Biographies of living people after arbitrator SirFonzzie said the next editor who edits the page will be desysopped (This was actually an accident, as I said on the talk page, and told SirFozzie off wiki.)
• Threatened to block User:power.corrupts for removing PRODs (Power was being disruptive, especially during the RFC, and this was actually one of the reasons I wanted to change the PROD page.)
• Threatened to block User:Ikip for warning him about his behavior on his talk page. (You have constantly been disruptive in this area, warning admins that somehow you'll get them blocked was the icing on the cake.) — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@ArbCom: I could have and should have handled this a bit better, even though I'm still taken aback at the reaction to the edit, but of course I took the motion in what seems to be a bit of a wrong light. Don't worry my plans on deleting the Main Page are off my list for now, I'll just go run about and do regular adminy stuff while discussing BLP on the RFC. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by OverlordQ

I'd hardly call myself involved. The comments I made on the Motion talk page were simply stating my observations of the situation, I could not care less either way it ends up. I simply reverted what I considered to be an out of process change of policy based on a 2-day old RFC. Considering the dramallama the 7 hour early Shankbone AFD closure caused despite consensus, I couldn't fathom the mutant star goat that would be spawned by closing an RFC 28.5 days early. If it was wrong of me, my bad, I'll go play on the swings and let everybody else fight over the monkey-bars. Q 09:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang

I must say that this is utter bullshit. Since when did we block for one edit, eh? The page might be full protected, but don't we have Bold, Revert, Discuss, and not Bold, Revert, Block? Now really, I've missed a lot in the past few weeks but I think Coffee's block needs to be overturned. that this shouldn't have happened. From what I hear the wiki is approaching a meltdown, but people, get a grip. And you all wonder why people off-wiki are so critical of Misplaced Pages. Look in the mirror, eh? Steven Zhang 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SoWhy

OverlordQ's revert, no matter if they were involved previously, was justified by WP:PREFER, which allows any administrator to revert to a point before the edit-warring if such a point exists - which it did here. On the other hand, Coffee, as previously involved, has misused the tools to edit through protection as WP:FULL clearly says that no edits to a fully protected should be made without prior discussion.

I think the main reason to accept this case was mentioned by Carcharoth (talk · contribs) below: The motion that ArbCom (incorrectly imho) passed instead of a full case has lead to exactly the problems that people warned them about before - i.e. that some users will take that motion as a reason to change policy. Another motion that clarifies that the previous motion is not a reason to justify further changes is clearly in order but the scale of problems caused by the misuse of tools by a number of administrators in this current discussion on BLPs warrants a full case, preferably covering more than only this incident of wheel-warring that is but the tip of the iceberg.

Also, the Committee should say clearly that the current state of any RFC, no matter how clearly it looks as if it will be consensus, cannot be a reason to change policy before the RFC is closed (especially not after only one(!) day of discussion). After all, a significant number of people supporting Jehochman's proposal have indicated that they are uncomfortable with changing WP:PROD for these purposes and proposed a separate policy/process to be created (for example supports #2, #7, #10, #15, #16, #72, #73 etc.) and/or have indicated that they would require additional rules for such a process, like a limit of tagged articles (for example supports #15, #72, #77, #79, #107, #108 etc.), which clearly shows that Jehochman's proposal, even if accepted, will require further discussion on exactly how it should look like and thus can't be a reason to change policy now. Regards SoWhy 11:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scott McDonald

Recommend rejection (for now).

Coffee, knock it off. We used the tools to force a neccessary issue where BLP policy was being seriously ignored. Arbcom and Jimbo recognised that. There's now an RfC to try to find a "process compliant way" of sorting this. Let's give the RfC some time. I'm not optimistic it will succeed and we may be back to tools and arbcom, but hopefully it won't come to that.

In the meantime, everyone put the tools down for a week or two and give negotiations one last try. An arbcom case now won't help, it will just be about winners and losers. Arbcom is (like use of tools) a last resort. Keep both until all else fails. We may be back here in February, but not yet. Dust needs to settle a bit.

If you take this case, what will you do? Like everyone else you can't decide until the RfC succeeds or fails.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As a follow on to the RfC, I have started a policy proposal at Misplaced Pages:Unreferenced biographies of living people.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by DarkFalls

A complete brainfart by Coffee with the edit over the full protection. Wait until the RfC is closed. Sandstein shouldn't have blocked, as he was involved. Overlord acted correctly with the revert; it is, as SoWhy stated above, the norm to revert to the version before the edit warring. That being said, arbcom shouldn't go overboard about the wheel war. Just a few lapses in judgement by some of the involved parties that, in the end, caused minimal damage. Slap involved parties with a trout, and that should be the end of it. A different situation exists with the original motion. It needs, as SoWhy also stated, to be clarified. Hearing a full case about this is a waste of everybody's time, and simply causes meaningless drama we would rather avoid. Remember, this case is about the wheel war, and not about BLP deletions.

Statement by uninvolved HJ Mitchell

This may be nothing more than a comment from the peanut gallery, but I am uninvolved in the incident itself, but have followed much of the goings-on from the sidelines. It is my hope that the committee will accept this case in order, essentially, to put an end, with luck, to the bickering and edit warring. However likely the outcome of the RfC, the policy page page should stay as it was beforehand and should not be altered, however strong the consensus for the change, until after the close of the RfC. My recommendation to the Committee draws on the statements by SoWhy and DarkFalls and would be to reprimand Coffee and issue a firm warning to others involved or considering involving themselves. Other than that, I see little good that could come from hearing a full case and consensus as to what to do with these unsourced biographies of living persons should be allowed to continue to develop.

Statement by uninvolved Collect

An example again of "unintended consequences." I would suggest the committee revist the wisdom of the wording of the "BLP motion" and consider again whether the results of the motion have been beneficial to WP. Already some appear to view the motion as being potentially applicable to all "insufficiently sourced" articles. I would ask that it emend its position to deal only with BLPs and only for those under a certain size (say 100 words) or which contain known problematic words associated with profanity or attack. I would also ask that the committee determine precisely how many libel actions have ever been undertaken as a result of an "unreferenced BLP." Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by DuncanHill

Inevitable and entirely forseeable consequence of the BLP motion. Arbcom's approval of the use of tools and disruptive behaviur to force policy change regardless of the views of the community gave a greenlight to any other admins wanting to establish ownership of policy and procedure. DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Would those Arbs who have issued "clarifications" of the previous motion in various threads on various pages please gather them all up into one place? To pass a motion that has produced such contradictory interpretations, and then to scatter your clarifications to the four winds, is not helpful. Would you also consider the possibility that when so many editors are telling you that your motion does not make sense and has generated more confusion than it solved, they might just be right? DuncanHill (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Cenarium

As I had predicted, this comes back before ArbCom pretty fast, and you can plainly see the devastating effects of your motion on consensus building and how it threatens any progress in the area. Should the case be accepted, that motion should be rescinded because it is a prejudice to the case. Should the case not be accepted, it should also be rescinded, or amended, for the reasons previously given which can now be easily verified. Anyway, you know very well that your motion has no effect whatsoever on the BLP issue, it just stirs controversy and drama among the few of us who care for this political game, much like BLPSE (mass drama, zero effect). It seems that this ArbCom wants to give itself 'good conscience' by seemingly 'acting', or being seen as 'acting', on the BLP issue, even though it's not in its capacity. Because ArbCom has power on users, but has no power on the community. As Carcharoth pointed out, the community of volunteers do all the work after all, and that's the reason we use consensus as decision model for policy (and content), it's the only one that can work, you can't force volunteers in doing things they don't want to, and even less expect it will work in the end. Cenarium (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reply to Mailer Diablo: The motion is inconsistent and open to multiple contradictory interpretations, as had been pointed out repeatedly and is now so plain to see. So people will read it in the way it best fits their objectives. The 'finding' that all the deletions (hard for me to call this finding because I am doubtful that ArbCom really had the time to check them all in such a short time, and in addition, all those which occurred while the motion was voted on) were within admin discretion and the commendation, so implicit endorsement, for those actions not only allows them to continue, as the urging to conduct them in a less chaotic (but still 'reasonable') manner is open to interpretation. But read like this, the motion can be used to force the deletions into policy, which has been attempted and why we're here again, and then the deletions would be within policy and thus no more 'chaotic'. So I would urge ArbCom to revisit the motion, especially in light of the RFC which clearly shows that the deletions conducted were against consensus, and thus cannot be within admin discretion (which stands in the no consensus zone). Cenarium (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

Troutslaps all around, then reject with a warning not to do it again. Let the RfC run for a reasonable time. Waiting till Feb is not unreasonable given that we at last have some forward movement now where before there was none. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Pohta ce-am pohtit

Militantism hasn't been reduced a whole lot by the previous ArbCom motion, particularly after Jimbo personally thanked User:Scott MacDonald for his WP:BOLD actions, just as you did. This ANI thread and illustrate that deletions continued in an acrimonious atmosphere, albeit mainly by prodding. Jehochman's RfC proposal, which seems to have the most support at this time, is purposefully vague about one crucial aspect: the speed with which prodding is going to occur. (Obviously, this lack of detail was interpreted by various participants according to their own cognitive bias.) There seems to be consensus however that BLP articles should not be deprodded without adding references first. It should come as no surprise that User:Coffee concluded from those these events that WP:BOLD itself can be used to change the PROD policy despite WP:FULL protection, because (his interpretation of) WP:BLP, RfC consensus, plus your Jimbo-boosted motion trumps even that.

This case should be closed as "trouts all round" because ArbCom has more guilt here than any of the admins involved. ArbCom members are invited to subscribe to Sandstein's view in the RfC regarding their previous motion. 15:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by J. Hare

Is it so much to ask of our administrators to not act like contentious assholes? @harej 15:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno

This is basically fall-out from the motion passed in lieu of a full case - a case that the committee had already voted to accept. I'd suggest just opening that case and merging this into it. A slow-moving case (possibly with some injunctions) coincident with the RFC should keep folks in line. It may also behoove the committee to make some official clarification of the motion and what it permits. –xeno 15:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

On seeing this request, I was half tempted to add the committee to the list of proposed parties. I can't help but feel that these sorts of disputes (and I fear there will be more) are a result of the knee-jerk motion on the mass BLP deletions, which sent out very mixed signals. WJBscribe (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

I see no reason for this to go to full arbitration, but like others, I will point out that the ridiculously poorly phrased motion has now twice been cited (at least) in support of unilateral actions regarding this mess. This is on your head, ArbCom. You helped create this problem with what has certainly come off as a biased motion that is generating even more drama. Even now, Arbitrators are still trying to clarify the previous motion. Why don't you all just stop wasting our time trying to justify that mistake and draft a new one that more accurately reflects what you are apparently trying to say? Resolute 16:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

For the reasons given in the AN thread, I consider myself sufficiently WP:UNINVOLVED to have made the block. It was aimed at preventing continued violation of the policies prohibiting edit warring and editing protected pages by Coffee, and had nothing to do with the substance of the policy changes being warred over. Moreover, to the limited extent I have participated in the discussions concerning deletion of BLPs, I have (as noted at the AN) actually supported two proposals for a special PROD régime for BLPs, as provided for in Coffee's change. I am puzzled why this 2007 edit by me to the policy page, concerning an unrelated subject, is deemed by the filer to have any relevance at all to this matter. But as a legal professional with considerable experience in matters related to the recusal of officials, I do recognize that the appearance of prejudice is very much in the eye of the beholder, and should the Committee unexpectedly find that there were reasonable grounds to doubt my neutrality in making that block, I will of course recuse from any further administrator actions with respect to WP:PROD insofar as WP:BLP issues are concerned.

The block is unrelated to these issues. I see it as a normal and necessary action to prevent the continuation of an edit war, see the history of Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which had previously been stopped by the full protection of the page, but which was continued by Coffee reverting despite the protection. The policy WP:FULL prohibits editing a fully protected page unless the edit is noncontroversial or has consensus. Evidently, the proposed change is, at least in this form, currently unsupported by consensus at WP:BLPRFC or elsewhere. More importantly, the reference to WP:BOLD is inappropriate, because a page is fully protected only after people have already been too bold. Administrators are not super-editors and have no special prerogative to edit policy pages. By editing WP:PROD while it was fully protected and non-administrators could not edit it, Coffee has misused his administrator tools. His reply to my concerns, in which he announces that he has "no problem" to continue deleting pages without consensus because "the "communities view" doesn't really matter in this case", raises the question whether he has certain basic personal qualities required of an administrator, such as adherence to policy and respect of our consensus-based model of decision-making. It is in view of this that I recommend that the Committee take this case.

As to the motion, I don't know whether it's worth the while to revisit it, since my proposal as to how to interpret it for the purpose of going forward, WP:BLPRFC#View by Sandstein, seems to express a broad consensus. But it would certainly help if the Committee were to also confirm, as Carcharoth and Coren appear to do below, that continued action (especially with administrator tools) unsupported by express consensus is prohibited.  Sandstein  16:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Mailer diablo's question

Yes.  Sandstein  16:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Guettarda

This is almost identical to the last BLP case, except that it lacks the broader-scale disruption. Coffee had a reasonable expectation of being sheltered by the committee from the consequences of his/her actions.

Sandstein's actions were based on Coffee's use of admin tools. His prior edits to WP:PROD are beside the point, as is the whole issue of involvment in the last RFAR. Only Sandstein's prior involvement with Coffee is relevant; it was not raised, and I'm not aware of anything in it that would preclude his block of Coffee. OverlordQ's editing through protection is appropriate. m:Wrong version does not apply to policy pages.

Blocking Coffee for editing through page protection to continue the edit war for which the page was protected in the first place would have been appropriate last week. Have things changed? Coffee's actions were inappropriate, for for this s/he was blocked. Nothing that warrants arbcomm involvement. Same is true for Sandstein's actions and OverlordQ's actions. The only reason to take the case is to clarify changes in the "social contract" (for want of a better word) under which the community functions, stemming from the BLP case. If the committee intends to shelter actions it approves of, then we need an explicit statement. And all admins need to know whether there will be repercussions for impeding editors who engage in otherwise blockable actions, while "doing the will of the committee".

Statement by Ks0stm

I am for the most part uninvolved in this entire situation with BLPs having only made one edit related to the recent BLP drama, albeit with that edit being to indicate my support for unreferenced BLP prodding here. That being said, I observe some key things about this whole wiki-meltdown over BLPs and the situation leading to this RfAr:

1. This BLP situation recently has caused a heavy amount of disruption across the wiki. I count 1, 2a, 2b, 3 ANI posts; 1, 2, 3 Admin's noticeboard posts; one request for comment; two Requests for Arbitration, one of which (MZMcBride 2) has been accepted; and one arbitration committee motion already. If something does not curtail this downhill spiral, a situation similar to a wiki-war could (albeit unlikely) break out.
2. Coffee was within WP:BRD/WP:BOLD when he added the information...however, his actions could be taken as against policy on editing fully protected pages...a viewpoint that depends on whether or not one thinks consensus had already been reached at the RFC.
3. Coffee was involved per involvement at the RFC and was ill advised in editing through the protection on those grounds.
4. Sandstein was involved having expressed an opinion on the PROD issue, per this and support number 19 here. Blocking under such a situation was ill advised.
5. OverlordQ was involved per involvement at the RFAr concerning BLP deletion (as stated by MBisanz) and was ill advised editing through the protection, but he was under the header of WP:BRD when he did so.

--Ks0stm 16:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

I told you so.

Well, perhaps I didn't in so many words, but my statement on the impropriety of the Committee using wording that commended one side's actions lends itself well the conclusion that an inevitable consequence of appeasing one group of partisans leads to continued ill conceived behavior fueled by self righteousness. It seems to me, its hard to approve of one and disapprove here. Coffee has led, and Sandstein refused to get out of his way. Coffee doesn't seem to have much patience for his fellow administrators who disagree with him, and arbcom gave him a pat on the back for it, so I think this sort of thing was a predictable consequence. The only people who had a chance of restraining him are his fellow ideologues, and I'm guessing they weren't around, or simply disinclined to do so.

Scott MacDonald of course, is right in that we should all go away, and that Coffee and those responding to him, and those who agree with any particular group of folks in that mess should sit on their damn hands and chill out. If no action is done however, this will however be the second time the committee has allowed hot feelings about the BLP war to excuse (or, in one case, commend) admins weaponizing their tools in an internal ideological dispute. The committee is not bound by its precedents, but they shape behavior anyway. Don't be surprised if this battle escalates.--Tznkai (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lest I appear that I am trying to take all the credit, there are plenty of statements now lost in the page history that warned of unintended consequences, I believe at least a couple from people nakedly sympathetic to the Committee's concerns.--Tznkai (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

#Opinion by MickMacNee. I for one, think we should be worried about this reaction. I don't know what MickMacNee's history is, or his abilities, but I take his statement at its' face value. With deference to his obvious anger though, I worry more about the people who do, or will feel the same as MickMacNee, but have not and will not make a statement. The shut out, insulted, discarded and trampled in the headlong pursuit towards a single goal. Misplaced Pages is too big to rely on the help of only those who are as gung-ho as you are, and radicals imperil their causes more than their opponents ever will. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" is a bad motto, because to do any of those things, you have to trust whoever is doing the leading, and that trust is not engendered in self righteous fervor, except by those who already agree with you. You say that you want me follow or out of the way? I say you have not yet truly lead.

It is surely inevitable that the Arbitration Committee cannot appease everyone. In fact, it probably can't appease anyone, and there are people that no matter how the Arbitration Committee acts or rules or drafts its motions, that will be upset and feel pushed out - perhaps some that even should be pushed out. That is no reason not to work at the margins to. Those who identify themselves as the (only) group which sufficiently cares about BLPs have in a very real sense, won. A little magnanimity never hurt anyone. You should ask for help. Transform the enemy into the ally. To quote User:Buster7, "Treat other editors like they are in your home, not in your way."

The BLP problem is huge. Unbelievably huge, and all the work cannot be done by a small group. It will take many many hours of work, and the loss of even one useful editor will be a cost that should be only reluctantly accepted. Even if the BLP problem is solved tomorrow in a snap, what then? Is enclyopedia saved, its quality ensured, its content consistent and reliable? How about the constant vigilance required to protect BLPs and the rest of the articles? Play the long game.--Tznkai (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Birgitte SB

Quick and dirty has been the preferred type of action for long enough. I would suggest that this trend stop at Arbcom this time around.--BirgitteSB 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

\

Statement by The Wordsmith

I echo Tznkai's belief that the motion was not the best thing to do. Rather than remain neutral and carefully weigh all considerations, the Committee appeared to take sides with one of the extremes. In doing so, it emboldened that side to continue with a fanatical devotion now that "Arbcom and Jimbo approve." It would have been just as wrong for Arbcom to side with the anti-deletion group. This entire situation has been regrettable, but I feel that the best thing now is to issue an injunction to stop summary deletion of BLPs (unless there appear to be potentially libelous claims), and let the RFC work its magic. We'll get there, we just need some time. The Wordsmith 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ikip

Coffee should be desysopped.

In the past three days Coffee has:

I fear this arbcom will justify the behavior here, so let me preemptively say: There is no mistake on Coffee's part here. Coffee is a veteran administrator, who knows the rules of page protection, wheel warring, and has an understanding of the arbcom ruling.

As mentioned above, this is Coffee's interpretation of the last Arbcom, when he edited a protect page to his own version:

"The consensus has not and will not change, ArbCom passed a motion that tells admins to be BOLD about this. Therefore I'm being bold and putting this back here." 07:55, 23 January 2010.

SirFonzzie wrote below: "certain members of the community mistook the recent amnesty for a license to force an agenda."

As Coffee's comments show, arbcom sent a powerful, empowering message to disruptive administrators like Coffee by giving them amnesty: our community rules don't matter, and administrators will be forgiven and rewarded for blatantly breaking our community rules. This is a sample of the future of wikipedia, a brazen, disruptive, "utter contempt" for all of our community rules. Thank you arbitration committee.

I also note: Misplaced Pages:Petition against Ignore All Rules abuse

Comment by Lara

Poor choice to make the edit on Coffee's part, bad block by Sandstein. I don't see that OverlordQ did anything wrong. Not sure why he's listed. Anyway, we've got momentum now, guys, don't kill it my doing stupid crap. RFC is going well, so wait for it to conclude.

50 lashes for 'em both, then everyone get back to work. We've got a BLP problem to finally get to fixing.

Comment by Seddon

I think we need to see some consistency in the committee, since they are supposed to be the stiching that pulls the comunity together when its tearing itself apart. Considering that we have just let a case go where we had admins self unblocking, mass deletion and discussion to support the BLP policy on wikipedia, you cannot now accept a case and judge an admin who clearly did have a consensus support from an rfc on thier side and respected both the block and the unblock restrictions.

In short:

• The blocks were mildly inappropriate mainly due to the involvement of the blocking admin.
• The original edits made to the protected page were hasty given that the rfc is still ongoing.
• The subsequent edits made after the block were again a bad move but again certainly not without merit based on the support in the rfc.

I'm not saying that anything that occured I support. I just hope that all the admins involved walk away from this realising what each one of did was severly lacking in clue and that it would be in their best interests not to repeat such actions in the future.

I think its safe to say that this can be put to rest, the admins learn a lesson, we all move on, allow the rfc to run its full coarse and finally secure a community supported method of solving the blp issue whilst we endlessly wait for some form of flagging.

Comment by JoshuaZ

There's no justification for this wheel-war in any universe. Even given the most pro-deletion interpretation of the ArbCom's prior motion, modification of a policy page does not in any way remove BLP problematic content. Editing through a protected page thus isn't even akin to the behavior which the ArbCom explicitly labeled disruptive earlier. This is a classic example of an extremely unacceptable wheel-war. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm deeply concerned by the statement by some Arbs such as Mailer diablo that they can't change or modify the prior motion because it would look like they are "flip-flopping." Frankly, this is ridiculous. Decent, mature humans admit when they have made mistakes and change accordingly. It might well be that in some places "flip-flopping" is a bad thing but we expect the people we elect to the ArbCom to have the minimal maturity to admit when they screwed up and act accordingly. It is all the more disturbing given the general pattern of how rarely the ArbCom has ever acknowledged that it has made a mistake (which as far as I am aware is exactly once and even then it was a ridiculous half- apology to the user in question who got screwed over). There seems to be a deep institutional problem here. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cyclopia

Copy-and-paste here the comments by Ikip and JoshuaZ , together. If the ArbCom wants to positively show that, indeed, it didn't gave people a green light to act in complete defiance of policy and consensus, it should desysop whoever continues to be rogue despite the current discussion. --Cyclopia 01:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, I sincerely hope this off-site remark by Scott MacDoc is only a joke. (He redacted it after I posted it here. Funny.) this blackmail-ish kind of comment is only a joke. I know this is not strictly related to the case, but would ArbCom care to clarify that, in general, further "direct actions" "chaos" lacking consensus will not be tolerated? --Cyclopia 16:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dank

Protection policy is not my strong suit, but I'll tell what I know. This is the only discussion I'm aware of where we talked about how protection policy applies to policy pages; it doesn't appear to me that people knew the answer to the question then, or know now. At that time, I searched all the WT:PROTECT archives and found zip on the subject, and I've just looked again and found nothing. I don't have a problem interpreting some of the recent edits through protection at for instance WP:BLP as disagreements and misunderstandings of whether we're supposed to protect a policy page in the "current version" or in the "stable version". It would be helpful to get some clarification on this.

Also see the discussion on WT:PROTECT, here, where we didn't get much farther than stating the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Jayen466

Collect, above, asked 'how many libel actions have ever been undertaken as a result of an "unreferenced BLP."' Given the protection Misplaced Pages enjoys under Section 230, I believe the more appropriate questions are –

1. How many BLP-related OTRS complaints are received each day at info-en-q?
2. How many of these complaints relate to unreferenced BLPs vs. referenced BLPs?
3. How many of these complaints are justified?

In my experience, many libellous or unfair BLPs actually have references. They become libellous or unfair because some of the references are to poor sources (tabloids, blogs, inappropriately used primary sources) or because they give certain sources undue weight. In contrast, completely unreferenced BLPs are often harmless stubs on obscure footballers and the like – of course these would be better with sources, but they may not be the "real" locus of the BLP problem; I simply don't know. If the committee could provide the community with some data on this, it would help inform discussion and focus effort correctly. --JN466 01:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• A couple of OTRS volunteers have provided some complaints figures here. --JN466 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Wikidemon

(nice graphic, Ikip!)

As a nonadmin editor I'm always uneasy when administrators start throwing their weight around outside of the limited realm of defined procedures where they're supposed to be doing so. I really think we need to throttle down on WP:IAR, WP:BOLD, grand pronouncements, and all the things that people sometimes call drama. Current policy is that BLP articles are not deletable solely for lacking a citation, and no pronouncement by Arbcom or capture the flag game to see who can force changes to policy pages will change that. Policy pages are reflections of policy, which is determined by consensus (with occasional interventions from Jimbo, the Foundation, and perhaps Arbcom). They are not embodiments of policy. So this is a silly game. Whatever the policy page says, that does not change policy.

Actually, what a silly issue this all is. Yes, BLP is important and 50K+ untended articles is a problem worthy of resolution. As the committee has noted in its comments so far, after getting a little bit of a kick in the shins we editors are rising to the occaion and doing something about it. Great. So why are the most respected, active leaders in our administrative corps getting in such a knot over this? Best to just take a deep breath, cup of tea, trout, or whatever you call it. The people on both sides are important administrators, whose contributions are very valuable to the project. We shouldn't lose anyone's goodwill or participation over an issue like this. I hope this is clear. I disapprove of some of the behavior here, but I also think it's just not worth making a big deal of it. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hesperian

We have the right to expect consistency from our ArbCom. In order to show consistency with recent rulings, ArbCom must

1. Examine WP:PROD, and decide which version of that page they prefer;
2. Issue amnesties to any users who behaved badly in promoting that version of the page;
3. Issue vague threats to any users who opposed that version, regardless of how they behaved.

Hesperian 05:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user ConCompS

Although I may not be an administrator, almost anyone can voice their opinions/statements. WP:WHEELWARing is not good at all. I really think WP:PROD is the worst form of deletion method (others might say it's useful, but it's just my opinion). If there were to be consensus to completely scrap WP:PROD, then only the two best deletion methods still stand: WP:AFD and WP:CSD. If something is under dispute, WP:RFPP would be that-away. Although there is a slim to none chance that protection would be accepted for any policy page (unless if it's under dispute and except for highly visible policies such as WP:VAND, etc.), it would still be a chance for users to discuss. However, when it comes to administrators, any admin can edit every page.

A possible resolution to prevent such things like this: changing full protection to Administrative protection, where only WP:ADMINISTRATORs, WP:BUREAUCRATS, m:Stewards and the m:Founder can edit pages, and changing full protection to the point where only bureaucrats, stewards and the founder can edit pages. Full protection is not physically "full" because 4 user groups can edit a page. In my solution, full protection would only be accessible to bureaucrats before moving to the WMF levels (stewards and the founder).

If WP:PROD weren't to be in existence today, we probably would've been discussing something else. I also want to emphasize WP:IAR in this discussion. If an editor had been surprisingly PRODding every single page, that would be 3.1 million pages to clean out. In this case, if an unapproved bot decided to slap a WP:CSD or WP:PROD tag on every single page that isn't fully protected, we'd need another bot that has to be approved in order to clear out the mess that unauthorized bot would make. That would be 6 million (wasted?) edits.

Tomorrow, I'm going to make an image depicting the series of events that have happened since the "willing to delete 60,000 50,000 more unreferenced WP:BLPs" controversy (scandal?) started.

@Coffee: you are a very great administrator, and I believe that your contributions are essential to the project. In fact, a couple of months ago, I recall giving you a Real-Life Barnstar for your outstanding work in dealing with legal and suicide threats. (Kanye West alert) I'm gonna let you finish, but I'm going to support you (in serious form: I think what has happened so far has lead to sort of a "disaster". I honestly think that either a) WP:MEDIATION should have came before WP:ARBITRATION or b) you didn't deserve the block, because your actions were to defend the project). WP:STRESS will hit an editor once in a while with a debate like this. I'm mostly leaning towards b) on this one, because defending the wiki is crucial.

@Rdm2376, Lar, and Scott MacDonald: You guys can't just go around and deleting lots of unreferenced BLPs without WP:CONSENSUS. WP:IAR is not your getaway for this. Sure, they may be unsourced, but if there's a next time, you should either:

a) open a WP:RFC to discuss

b) go the old fashioned way by hitting WP:AFD or

c) just ignore it or be WP:BOLD and find some sources.

@Juliancolton: collaborative environment.

Opinions on this statement can go on my talk page, or if it's serious enough to go to email, then email me. ConCompS talk review 05:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Wehwalt

Aw gee. I just love to see what my fellow admins get up to while the rest of us are doing our meager parts in building an encyclopedia, wheel warring yet, and blocking in spite of involvement. No one looks pretty out of this, like a bunch of teenage kids arguing about how to describe the Jonas Brothers or something.

I agree in principle with Lar. Trout slappings are appropriate, if no larger fish is available short of desysoping, which would not be appropriate. ArbCom needs to put out the brushfires caused by its very appropriate motion disposition of the deletions case. It needs to do it fast.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Keegan

Stop.

Everyone. Administrators, editors, volunteers, functionaries, Arbitrators, casual observers: Stop.

It is evident, and has been for years, that biographies of living persons expresses an inherent flaw in our encyclopedic principle, as well as the legality involving libel and defamation. Toss in terrible prose to boot, if you choose.

The WMF is actively seeking to correct some aspects of this. Such action involves an inflexible global BLP policy as well as other recommendations for the English Misplaced Pages.

BLPs are a massive problem.

This action that has been rampant over this month has done well to get the community involved in a discussion. It has also had the detremental effect of making this a political shell game. Turning the BLP issue into wheel wars and arbitration cases do nothing, and I mean nothing, to come up with a comprehensive work plan for the project. I don't say solution, because there isn't one.

I'd like a one week moratorium on the issue in general, and in these requests for arbitration cases and request for comment in particular(s). There are far too many people that are dedicated to this project, with far too much esteem for each other, moving way too fast. We need a break, so let's see a motion on that.

Now that I've been my diplomatic self, let us lighten up the place. <puts on joke hat> Can we not have a motion that is an Arbbot that replies to any post made with a revert and the summary "shut up" for a week?</takes off joke hat> This isn't change we have going on here, this is war. War doesn't resolve conflicts, it just pacifies it for a bit. Pacification is not a solution, and we need to work to that end. If we want to have an open, serious discussion about BLPs and Misplaced Pages there are about a hundred people that we need to get in a room together and have a managed discussion. The format that we enjoy has many benefits and many failures, and this debate is implicite in the current debate we have. Add the WMF's involvement, and it is even slower.

Seriously, everyone stop. Keegan (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

This is what happens when Arbcom, rather than being a neutral arbiter, tries to solve cases by taking one side of the case without sufficient justification, and "commends" disruptive behaviour by one of the parties. Simple psychology would tell one that this would embolden the offenders, and piss off the other side. Hence ArbCom's role in this so far has been inflammatory - I realise that many of the Arbitrators have only just got on the committee a month ago, so in fairness, we should extend to them the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and solve this problem more constructively. In fairness to SirFozzie, there was no "mistake" to make - it was the only valid interpretation of the statement given by ArbCom two days ago.

As for Coffee's action, it was a blatant breach of WP:PROT and the short block on him was entirely correct. Using admin tools to further one's own side in a debate is the most basic violation of the expectations of an admin on this site; however, action should only be taken beyond the short block if it appears he intends to continue misusing the tools. Orderinchaos 07:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Mailer diablo's comment - I can respect that ArbCom does not want to be seen to be flip flopping, but sometimes it's just necessary to say "we stuffed up, sorry about that", and find a way forward which works for everybody. In my state in 1992 there was a piece of emergency legislation enacted to deal with juvenile offenders involved in high speed car chases after a number of news articles over some months, many of which focused on the death of two bystanders, a mother and a baby. The quick response was demanded by the community (including a candlelight "Rally for Justice" and inflammatory comments by a local shock jock), it was enacted in good faith, it had bipartisan support. But it was full of holes and had to be repealed two years later. This happens in the real world, there's no real reason why Misplaced Pages would be exempt. Orderinchaos 09:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion by MickMacNee

Too much Coffee is bad for you. I speak as an editor with vast experience, easily able to 'fix' 100 biographies I never created every single day until the end of time, or until somebody sorts their lives out and produces a proper solution, if only I wasn't being called a fucking moron for not having done it sooner. Not anymore. I told arbcom what kind of shit they were encouraging with their last motion. Well here it is. Sit in it. Smell it. That's not the 'sewers of BLP', that's the rotten stench of cutting off the only people who can fix the 'problem'. Have fun. I'll work on what I want to work on from now on, I'll leave fixing the real problem to you few arbs and the tiny tiny amount of activist admins who think they are the pedia. Get to it, you've got a hell of a lot to do. Although as we have seen for the last five years, you haven't got a bloody clue what to do, let alone what this site is actually for. You might be able to clear the pedia of anything you simply have never heard of, but that's a hell of a different proposition to creating an encyclopoedia of the world's knowledge. MickMacNee (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Peter Cohen

I thought hard about the uninvolved there. I think that arguably most of Misplaced Pages is involved as the actions of a few irresponsible individuals has had repercussions on thousands of editors as Wikiprojects put out panicked warnings ot their members about how much material might be lost.

Policy should be made by the community, not by Jimbo Wales, not by Arbcom, and not by a small number of rogue admins with axes to grind. It needs to be clearly laid down that a deletion procedure already exists, that it can be revised but only by consensus, that serious attempts should be made to involve the whole community in any decision to change consensus rather than to rush through new policies that only the dedicated followers of Wikidrama have a chance to comment on.

Any admins who try to panic the community into doing what they want by taking WP:POINTy actions should have their brooms taken away. Can ARBCOM now please open a case and take its time to consider things properly rather than let itself be panicked into repeating its previous action of passing a motion as crass as the one User:WJBScribe rightly criticises above. --Peter cohen (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A plea for sanity by Nsk92

The august members of the ArbCom should accept this case and try to rectify the grievous error they made in passing the motion in the mass out-of-process BLP deletion matter. By appearing to approve unilateral abuse of IAR in non-emergency situations, rewriting BLP and WP:DEL policies and discarding a basic principle like WP:CONSENSUS, ArbCom gave license to a few militant ideologues like Coffee and other self-appointed oprichniks to run amok and create a tremendous disruption on the project. Before this book-burning campaign drives lots of long-term and hard working content contributors away from Misplaced Pages (I am just about to call it quits myself), and before too many easily improvable articles on notable subjects are deleted, the ArbCom needs to step back, re-examine the situation more carefully than a quick motion allows, and try to contain the damage inflicted by passing of the previous motion. 1) Let us take a look first at the supposed BLP emergency. IMO, the emergency is almost entirely fictitious, manufactured rather than real, and is largely driven by blind ideological fervor rather than by examining the data. Yes, we do have lots of unreferenced and poorly written BLPs. But these BLPs are in general, no more and no less of a problem than poorly written and poorly written articles on non-BLP subjects; both are an eye-sore, both require improvement and some sort of innovative thinking. But the argument that unreferenced BLPs are some kind of a "ticking time bomb" and that the sky is about to fall because of them is completely bogus. The only argument I heard to justify this apocalyptic vision is that in an unreferenced BLP under outwardly benign language something negative may be lurking. But is there any evidence that this is really happening to any substantial degree? Not at all. There is no flood or even a trickle of OTRS complaints about such cases. The only times where I have seen OTRS reports show up in AfDs and at talk pages is if there is controversial or negative material in the article, but it is well sourced, and the article's subject still wants the material or the article to be deleted. The overwhelming majority of unreferenced BLPs are perfectly peaceful and benign, and quite often (probably in at least a half of the cases) are on notable subjects, easily improvable. Deleting these articles because of an irrational fear would be very damaging to the project. In fact, to the extent unreferenced BLPs are more problematic than other unreferenced articles, it is because unreferenced BLPs often tends to be too flattery and self-promotional, not too negative. Let us think about the worst case scenario. Let us say that really, in one out of 500 of these BLPs something negative is hiding behind some benign language, and the subject of the article notices it complains. What would happen then? I am pretty sure that the contentious material would be quickly removed from the article in response to an OTRS ticket, perhaps the article would be deleted, and that would be the end of it. Now, does this justify the massive hysteria-driven book burning campaign we are witnessing right now? Surely not. 2) In the absence of a true emergency, IAR should be treated as an ethos rather than a license to do as one pleases, with no regard for WP:CONSENSUS and for established processed. This is 2010, not 2002. The project has gotten too big, too complicated and it involves way too many people for the Wild West cowboy tactics, like those of Coffee and Scott MacDonald, to work. We have existing well-defined deletion processes, like CSD, PROD and AfD. There is every reason to use them, even aggressively use them if needed, to address the problem at hand. There is an RfC in progress on perhaps revising or expanding the scope of PROD or adding a new version of PROD. This process needs to be allowed to run its course for a sane and acceptable consensus outcome to emerge. Unilateral attempts to rewrite WP:DEL without consensus and without a proper process of deliberation should not be allowed. ArbCom should also get out of the policy-making business. That is not what you were elected to do. Any attempt to run Misplaced Pages by an administrative fiat of a small group of people, and a small group of oprichniks acting on their behalf, cannot possibly succeed and can only drive a great many contributors away from the project. Now, get to work please! Nsk92 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Juliancolton

Say it with me: "collaborative environment". –Juliancolton |  18:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

A reliable measure of prejudice is how many mistakes a person gets forgiven. Durova 20:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Balloonman

I'm with the people who lay the blame on ArbCOM's commendation for blatantly ignoring consensus. They SHOULD have heeded the advice provided by many people. If they felt they had to return the issue to the public for an RfC, that is fine. But by commending the actions of a policy breaker, you've basically said, screw the rest of the world. Is BLP an issue? Yes, but Arbcom's actions are unjustifiable. I am particularly disappointed with the members of the committee who expressed concerns about the speedy deletions, but decided to support a motion that explicitly commended those actions they found questionable. This action is fully expected in light of the committees last ruling which basically said there was no need to let a solution arise, but that BOLD actions would be protected and commended.---Balloonman 02:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fitz writes that the actions here stem from a misinterpretation of the motion. Sorry, but the motion was pretty clear:

The deletions carried out by Rdm2376, Scott MacDonald, and various other administrators are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the policy on biographies of living people. --- EG the people who violated policy, caused disruption, and pissed off the community were right to do so.

The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner. ---EG that these people were not only in the right, but they should be commended for taking this unilateral action---they may be urged to do so in a "less chaotic manner" but the actions deserve commendation and praise, not a real warning.

The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns. ---Eg that people who oppose this motion and tried to adhere to policy/guidelines are in the ones who were in the wrong. That the administrators who insisted on adhering to community consensus, guidelines, an policeis are the ones who are at risk of beeing sanctioned in the future.

The only natural conclusion of this, is that when it comes to BLPs ArbCOM is going to side with the BLP'ers even if their positions is radical and unpopular. That the people who are willing to take extreme actions, even when there is no consensus to do so, will be praised for their actions and the rest of the community be damned. Sorry, this is a natural interpretation of the motion ArbCOM passed. ArbCOM could have passed a motion referring this issue back to the community with stern warnings, but instead decided to dip its feet into judicial activism. Violating the law, even for a good cause, is still violating the law---and can invoke sanctions. Like WJBSCRIBE, I feel like ArbCOM should be listed as an involved party.---Balloonman 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Promethean, that is what the original violations were supposed to be... a wake up call... but with the green light of Amnesty waved in front of them, the actions continued after the RfC was initiated.---Balloonman 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Chunky Rice

@Roger Davies - Yeah, you guys said further disruption would not be tolerated last time. And yet here you are, tolerating it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

Before you passed the previous motion you were warned that it would be viewed as a liscence to continue with similar disruptive editing. You passed it and surprise surprise we have what we see now. Arbcom should not refuse to fix their past mistake just because some of you are afraid to admit you were wrong.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Clayoquot

With respect, the "Hold pending development of the RfC" opinions of some arbitrators would make sense if the RfC was focused on the question of when administrators are entitled to edit through protection in order to change policy. But the RfC isn't going to shed light on that question, so I don't know what you are waiting for. I don't know if this is worth having a full case and I don't know if it's worth desysopping anyone over, but I suggest any "last chance" warnings that you give include names in order to be maximally effective at modifying behaviour. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by largely uninvolved Badger Drink

ArbCom referred the previous case to the community. The community is now handling it with the grace and dignity that any reasonably sentient being would expect at the time of the original request. I feel ArbCom should continue to let the community handle this in the community's low-key, highly-nuanced and eternally-tactful fashion. As Mr. Davies insinuates, opening a case would likely result in ArbCom being required to make some tough decisions, a process which we on Misplaced Pages refer to with the dogwhistle of "drama". Let us avoid such drama. Badger Drink (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Passing thought by Promethean

Whilst I agree that the conduct listed above was outright stupid and beyond the bounds of common sense, I feel that this case has already served its purpose as a wakeup call to those involved, I doubt, in all honesty, that they will be so reckless again and any further action will be punitive and not preventative.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Recused As filer. MBisanz 09:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Recused commented. Seddon | 23:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/8/0/4)

• Accept, irritably. Steve Smith (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - holding off on accepting for a while, but the message needs to get across that the amnesty recently passed was for the actions taken that led to this current sprawling discussion (which needed to happen). However, any actions taken after that point are not covered by the amnesty, and anyone continuing to try and force things through will be removed from the discussions (with or without any tools they have) to allow calmer heads to prevail. Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept - for two reasons: (1) To make clear that we mean it when we say further misuse of administrative tools will be sanctioned. (2) To have an open case available to add people to if they take similar actions. Those wanting to avoid being added to any case that opens know what they need to do - discuss things calmly and don't use admin tools to force the issue here. Even if a case is not opened here, I hope that the comments and trout-slaps here get the message across. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Did the parties involved actually read the motion that was passed yesterday in full? - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • While a "polished" version was discussed fresh from the oven I'm afraid it's moot at this point due to the issue of 'status quo' (referring to none other than the deletion process); All we can only do now is to apply band aid via clarifications, on areas where it may look potentially contradictory. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • To amend the original motion to the a/m "polished" version would be seen now as flip-flopping on the issue - I would like to point out once again ArbCom's stand in that passed motion; An emphasis that the 'status quo' processes at that point of time is manifestly inadequate when dealing with unreferenced BLPs. - Mailer Diablo 21:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline, trout-slap the parties involved in Handbags, and no supper until you all learn to discuss the matter properly. - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• The motion certainly permits nothing, simply noted that deletion of unsourced BLPs in the absence of a proper procedure to do so was a reasonable step at the time. Now that productive discussion is ongoing about how to go about this, further actions outside of consensus is, at best, ill-advised since it can actually harm the chances of solving this properly. I am not ready to sanction anyone yet given how frayed everybody's tempers are but further wheel warring or intemperate use of tools is not going to be tolerated.

  If the current discussion fails, then further action may be needed. — Coren  15:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline Now that a productive community discussion is underway, further silliness in the name of this issue is likely to be looked at very unfavorably. Shell 16:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline, per Scott. Guys, knock it off with the edit-warring and the hair-trigger blocks and let the RFC run its course, okay? Kirill  17:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Accept Comments here and elsewhere give the appearance that certain members of the community mistook the recent amnesty for a license to force an agenda. In my opinon ArbCom missed a chance to prevent that impression. What's done is done, including the amnesty. People who make grand gestures with administrative tools had better be ready to relinquish them. SirFozzie (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Hold pending a couple more days developments in the RfC and related discussions, with the recommendation that everyone display moderation of action, language, and tone in the interim. Meanwhile, every time I think I am getting close to posting my thoughts on this entire situation, I realize I've fallen behind developments once again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline for now. I think that this is indeed fallout from the motion, which left far too much unclear. I think that we should be giving fair warning that the normal rules apply. More silliness should be met with the normal response. Cool Hand Luke 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Hold per NYB. Let the RFC run a bit longer. Anyone acting contrary to allowing its conclusion in any form will be dealt with swiftly. Go look for articles to source instead of wheel+edit warring over policy pages which we can tweak AFTER the RfC's conclusion. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline: Not much will come from this case except as a new focus of drama. That said, further silliness will not be tolerated.  Roger Davies 09:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Accept:Enough is enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline: A matter arising from a misinterpretation of the motion we passed - let administrators be warned that in the midst of community discussion on issues, unilateral amendments to policy are not going to be viewed favourably. Nonetheless, this rebuke notwithstanding, I don't see a matter requiring arbitration Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline at this time. The issue appears to have settled for now, while discussion ensues. Risker (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline for now. I encourage continued community discussion, while noting further silliness will not be looked upon favorably. KnightLago (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)