Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement: Difference between revisions

I like the fourth suggestion, something along the lines of a temporary injunction by the community, suspending the arbitration remedy until further discussion. The trouble is, by the time support for such a temporary injunction has been gathered, the process will likely be up and running. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very sensible. It's just a matter of getting admins on board though, but looking at some of the activity around, this may be more difficult than it seems. Martinp23 22:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need something, because this policy was not approved by the community. Monobi (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider everything listed in that ArbCom page as already in force. Admins already use all measures at their disposal to enforce all the policies on all our articles - I see nothing new that we're not doing already. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the wording "special" should have been removed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is new in this? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its already up and running at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log and you'd need a request for injunction at Wikipedia:RFAR#Clarifications_and_other_requests MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When nothing has changed, why is there a "Special enforcement log" now? --Conti|✉ 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled about this as well. The only thing I can think of is the possibility that may have been raised by ArbCom (although I'm not sure) of deleting non-compliant articles without going through an AfD, but we can already do that if it is a simple attack page and in my reading, deleting an entire article for minor BLP problems wouldn't be "reasonably necessary" when all you need do is stub the article, and protect it if problems continue. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also questioned the use of "special" here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded here can we please merge these talk pages? MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said on the dreaded IRC, this page (or the Wikipedia: page attached) could well serve as a proper set of guidelines, more open to the community than the protected log. That's best? Martinp23 23:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't that special? -- The Church Lady *Dan T.* (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom ruling seems to allow any uninvolved admin to ban an editor from all living person biographies, if they continue to cause problems after being warned using {{SBLP}}.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are people just objecting because they were not included in the decision? The decision does not really seem to be anything new, we can already use all our tools to enforce BLP, and those actions already should not be reversed without consensus. _{1 != 2} 14:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The ArbCom have offered extra powers to admins to read with BLPs". Sorry what? Is that anything like those "read with children" school programs? Please clarify. Skomorokh 22:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected that already. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it was most confusing. Skomorokh 23:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...a solution akin to the one at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges? Arbitrators and bureaucrats can screen and approve administrators for the sweeping authority based on their (a) time served as administrators, (b) proven knowledge of BLP policy and (c) possible prior issues of criticism. Vishnava _talk 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the community has already shown its trust in (individual) administrators; we do not need more bureaucracy and we certainly do not need more hierarchy. Which aspect of the proposal is this supposed to address? Skomorokh 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the sweeping powers and the "any means necessary," which is scaring some people. Vishnava _talk 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's called WP:IAR. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this would allow systematic, de rigeur courses of action (i.e. deleting notable BLP's) rather than IAR. Vishnava raises a good point about sweeping powers; I think the correct response is not to limit those who possess the powers, but to limit the powers themselves and the manner in which they may be used. For example, we could add conditions such as requiring a second admin to sanction a given action, allowing consensus among editors of a particular article that a particular piece of BLP-sensitive content is reliably sourced to overturn "special enforcement" and so on. Thoughts?Skomorokh 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give an example. If I felt that a BLP article was being whitewashed and a living person was being represented in a biased way (biased towards the person concerned), with negative material being removed, would deleting the article as an "emergency action" (ie. no article is better than a whitewashed one) be appropriate? I suspect not, but that is the sort of arguments we will see if people get the idea they can unilaterally delete. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely oppose admins having the power to unilaterally delete articles that were not attack pages. What I might be prepared to support is stub and protect, whereby admins could stub a BLP-related article to its bare/uncontroversial/impeccably referenced and protect it for an explicitly limited time period (e.g. 3 days). During this period, a talkpage could establish consensus on what should be restored to the article i.e. how WP:BLP should be applied. Allowing admins to overrule editors consensus on how policy should be applied undermines the legitimacy of policy itself (i.e. supported by consensus). Skomorokh 23:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting an entire article because part of it might be wrong is an action that verges on the irrational. Let's consider real-life cases, rather than rather such far-fetched hypotheticals. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This BLP was deleted outside of process this very day. Apparently it asserted notability and had five references, but I can't view it. I don't think it at all unlikely that articles on minor figures such as this would be deleted by zealous administrators. In any case, what is your opinion (in terms of policy) on the scenarios and prohibitions proposed above? Skomorokh 00:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into that, it looks like it was created by User:The undertow as part of what has been described as a long-term campaign of harassment against another Wikipedia editor. Not a good example of a BLP this encyclopaedia needs to have. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares why it was created? If it had references, no defamatory material and a claim to notability, it is precisely the type of article that admin's should not be allowed to delete without AfD. Skomorokh 01:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can all find odd deletion like [1] and challenge them at DRV. At least with this page, there is an extra level of protection for BLPs, that requires admins to go to the extra effort of making public their sanction, if they want it to receive the special protection of not being overturnable by any other admin. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens when, monitoring the special enforcement log, I believe an admin is abusing their powers? If I complain on their talkpage, I may be swiftly rebuffed and told that it is policy. I think we need to develop explicit deletion review procedures for these (non-hypothetical) cases, if we are to allow them at all. Skomorokh 00:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you see an entry either in the Deletion Log or in the BLP SE Log and question the admin, and they rebuff you citing the Arbcom case, so you take it to AE for review. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AE states that "This is enforcement, not dispute resolution. The case has already been ruled on. The question here is whether they engaged in conduct that breached that ruling.…If others acted problematically, but did not breach a ruling, then seek normal dispute resolution, administrative action or an extension of the original ruling." The ruling here is prohibitively vague - admins should use any and all means possible to uphold WP:BLP. How am I to argue the admin was not in keeping with that ruling? No, the meat of this proposal will not be in the arbitration decision, but in the policy we develop on this page that has been facilitated by the decision. AE is the wrong forum for deciding whether conduct is within policy created outside of Arbcom. Skomorokh 01:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page says "may use special enforcement guidelines". Where are these special enforcement guidelines? I think people are being confused here. Is this "special enforcement" as in 'over-and-above normal enforcement', or is it "special enforcement" as in 'all enforcement of this important policy is special'? Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, too, but what I think this means are the enforcements listed at the relevant remedy: "Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary." Don't ask me what's special about that, tho. --Conti|✉ 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats special is that you can't appeal such sanctions using an {{unblock}} template or at AN/ANI. Also, other admins on their own cannot overturn a ban, as they normally can. Only a clear consensus at AE or RFAR can overturn admins who place "special" sanctions on people for BLPs. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if you are blocked for "BLP" violations, that's it? SOL? Monobi (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very concerning. Editors in a content dispute over a BLP could be unilaterally blocked by an admin with an opposing POV. Skomorokh 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, until you email arbcom, they review it, and desysop that admin. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we skip down the road towards totalitarianism... Monobi (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, not to be alarmist, but if we desysop'd every admin who made a mistake, the only sysops would be those who never take actions. I hope to fuck that MBisanz's above comments reflect nothing more than a gross misunderstanding on his part. Otherwise, we have an enormous problem. WilyD 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the appeal process is the only thing that changes if somebody is blocked for this reason? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this. It seems that it depends on what the admin claims. If they claim their action falls under this remedy, everything goes very quiet and slow, but at the end of the day, if the admin got it wrong, they will be dragged before arbcom to explain themselves. If the admin doesn't claim the action was under this remedy, the normal processes apply (though presumably admins will still be dragged before arbcom if they wheel-war). Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carc's reading, also I'd say it encourages admins to be less lenient with BLP violation, ie, we won't warn up to level four, then block, then rewarn, etc. It'll be more like warn once or twice, then a lengthy block or broad sanction. MBisanz ^talk 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd say it encourages admins to be less strict, or avoid BLP work altogether, but hey. BTW, about the page merging, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log is currently a soft-redirect here. Any reason why it couldn't be a full redirect? Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, since our history diffs would still work, full direct is fine. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant would the redirect confuse some people, and would some discussion specific to the wording of that log page be needed, or the logging actions taken? The two talk pages need to find their own separate purposes in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's basically another weapon in the massively multiplayer online role-playing game that some people treat Wikipedia as... a very potent one, but one which must be invoked with the proper incantation. It's going to inevitably be used as a bludgeon by admins with an axe to grind in some dispute. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the admins that generate most controversy with their BLP work, or who do a lot of work quickly and effectively with no controversy (supposedly - sometimes they just fly under the radar on poorly-watched articles), will not bother using this system. I think this system, if it is going to be seen as fair and workable, needs to be a way to review not just articles and sanctions and actions of editors sanctioned, but also the admins themselves. However, this needs to be done fairly, otherwise admins will avoid logging their actions. Per Kirill's statement here: "appeals of actions taken under this remedy go to AN/AE. If an admin takes an action and does not indicate (either at the time, or when subsequently asked) that he was performing an enforcement action under this decision, then his action may be appealed/reversed/etc. via whatever the typical route for such matters is.", it seems that admins can still operate outside this system if they want, but their actions will have more likelihood of being reversed. I think that needs to be made clear in the appropriate places. Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If its not in the log, then its not a special enforcement action and its treated like any other admin action, if its in the log, then the AE/RFAR rules apply. MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do need a definition of "special enforcement". Is that any different from "arbitration enforcement" (see WP:AE)? My feeling is that this concept of "special enforcement" does refer to something, but that the term "special enforcement" comes from the remedy title and is being bandied around a bit loosely. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/me points Carcharoth at WP:RFAR to request a clarification.

Seriously though, I think it just applies the arbcom rules to all BLP content and all editors, regardless of their involvement in the case. MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, not special. I think "systematic record of" would have been better than "special". Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only new admin power seems to be the right to impose sanctions on an editor violating the BLP policy. Should this be added to Wikipedia:General sanctions ? This applies to any article related to a biography of living people. Cenarium (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my understanding as well, in the context of previously being able to temporary or indefinitely block editors for BLP violations, the only new power seems to be editing restrictions. If arbcom want this to be on a separate page from the general sanctions, then I guess we could add a 'see also' section. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I probably agree with them, but maybe those opinions could be discussed somewhere instead of expressed in edit summaries? Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea to bring controversial political acts into this. This will end up in a RFD and create drama. There are certainly similarities, but not to the point to create a redirect. I created a neutral redirect, WP:BLPSE. Cenarium (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a relatively minor thing, though. Monobi (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to this, mostly for one reason: we give out admin rights because people were trusted with basic deletion/blocking/etc tools, but not to make this kind of judgment call. Admins are not supposed to hold any greater authority than any other user. If they do it's normally because they, as a user, have a very good repartition, and others trust their judgements on certain things, which is often the same reasons that they get admin rights, but are not a result of the admin status itself. (if I'm making much sense) We're already creeping way too much, IMO, in regards to giving admins "authority", and this is not the direction we should be taking, at least not since we were giving admin rights without considering those same users in these new roles.

I also don't feel this is even necessary. The community has been perfectly able to propose topical bans, short term blocks, etc, when it comes to a problematic editor. To take that and suddenly give that decision making power to a single person, rather than the community, seems like a really bad idea to me. -- Ned Scott 01:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This also goes outside of arbcom's authority, which is limited to the cases they accept. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this last bit, since it's really besides the point I wanted to make, in the interest of keeping this thread on a more specific topic. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to make me find and torture a quote to say otherwise? MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some might feel arbcom needs more authority on BLP issues, and I won't say that I completely disagree. Other than that part of my comment, what do you feel about the rest of what I said? I'm not altogether opposed to the concept, but I think it would be very unwise to grant admins this ability when we made them admins without that task in mind. I've supported a lot of different RfAs, and I do trust those users with tools like deletion and protection, but my support didn't include this role. Sure enough, I can think of a few that I would certainly not trust in this role (but bearing no ill-will). -- Ned Scott 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To address one small part of it, almost all admins passed RFA before they could grant IP Block exempt and Account Creator, most admins passed RFA before they could grant rollback, a good number passed before they could hide revert edits from recent changes, and iirc, some passed before we even had the ability to delete articles. So their job has been expanded before. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point, but I think it would be fair to say that those new abilities were far less controversial than what is being discussed here. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics I guess, but somehow the ability to delete pages and the ability to evade all IP blocks, seem as Big of a Deal as this, and this isn't even a new technical right. MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of powers have been granted to sysops on numerous occasions, they seem to be the best choice for ARBCOM, as entrusted users, to make this kind of decisions. And it's always possible to appeal at WP:AE. But, the difference here is that the scope is much wider, and it's true that it's beyond the "Footnoted quotes" case... So I wouldn't be opposed to a request for clarification. Cenarium (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand arbcom granting these kinds of rights on a case (arb or otherwise) by case basis, but this is extremely broad. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way to make Wikipedia worse is to encourage arbitrary action by admins. This proposal will do that very well. We have over the least two years seem many incidents of drama being caused when admins--including some otherwise good admins--thought necessary to take drastic action on BLPs in non-emergency situations without any approach to determine consensus. Most of those admins are still with us, authority intact. We should be looking for ways to ensure that nobody takes such action on their own personal account, not ways to immunize them. A step backwards in accountability. A typically ill conceived action by a board who have consistently to take decisive action on their own--to tell other people to do it instead. The best way to deal with difficult BLP is that if it will not be a matter for office action, to insist on agreement by the community before the admin action is taken. I endorse what WJBScribe said on another page "This remedy has a feel of, 'We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do it.' " And they used an almost totally unrelated and relatively little-watched case to make this decision. I don;t see how they could have gotten things more thoroughly wrong. DGG (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Office actions should be, and thankfully are, only an utter last resort in cases of serious emergency. We do not want to increase the number of office actions. Your supposition that agreement should be required before an action is taken is a complete reversal of the burden of proof which BLP demands. The burden of proof rests with the person who wants something included - and BLP is there to tell us that in the case of disputed information, we must always err on the side of caution by removing it from the article until it can be discussed and contemplated in a community discussion. FCYTravis (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also opposed to this without full community discussion. I am concerned both at the possibility for abuse within this policy, and the precedent of arbcom taking unilateral policy decisions. Some BLP violations could easily be misinterpreted, and some useful edits could be lost in the process. If "any and all means" are used to remove the content, there is a good chance that this content will be completely lost before a discussion into the issue can be held. Arbcom was elected to deal with single issues, not to unilaterally introduce policies that affect the whole of Wikipedia. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 06:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that while this has potential, it is absolutely imperative that admins be held responsible for their actions. It's true that we all make mistakes, but when in doubt, an admin should never use their powers to push a POV. In addition, I'm not sure Arbcom can introduce policy either. I'd have to say on the whole I'm opposed. -Oreo Priest ^talk 08:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the role of arbcom on en.WP, the way I read the arbcom ruling is this: "We will not desysop or otherwise sanction admins who stray outside of the normal boundaries during the protection of living persons written about on Wikipedia." Considering that arbcom does not write policy. Considering that there is no way to desysop admins outside of arbcom and nor a regularly effective way of sanctioning them. I see this ruling as arbcom attempting to embolden admins to better protect BLP. Since we do not know how well this will work or if it might have unintended consequences, I would personally like to see no policies written up at this time. I would rather leave things open and give it a chance to work as well as leave abcom an easy opportunity to revisit this if it turns out to be a bad idea. P.S. I have only read the ruling itself and not the background conversations, so if arbcom members have already contradicted my little theory please disregard this.--BirgitteSB 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the article George Thomas Coker, and edited the article after noticing that he lived in New Jersey, a subject of my editing focus. With the article now on my watchlist, I saw that User:Rlevse removed a link to the article for the film Hearts and Minds (this diff with the rather bizarre edit summary "upon subject request", a rather clear portent of Rlevse's persistent conflict of interest in editing this article. Assuming that Rlevse had an issue with the improper formating of a wikilink as an EL or perhaps with the lack of a source, I edited the article this diff adding the utterly bland neutral statement that "A clip of Coker was featured in Hearts and Minds, a 1974 film that won that year's Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary.^[1]" User:Rlevse promptly removed this neutrally worded, verifiably sourced mention of the film (this diff) with the edit summary of "rm, BLP issue". There was no BLP issue and it is hard to believe that any editor (let alone an admin with a clear conflict of interest) could argue that this presented any genuine BLP issue. It was this same User:Rlevse, the Arbcom clerk who pushed to include the George Thomas Coker article as a subject of the arbitration, who has steadfastly stood in the way of including factual, reliably and verifiably sourced material about the film in this article. Dozens of suggestions were made in an attempt to satisfy Rlevse's demands, but he stood firm in his insistence that supposed BLP issues prohibit any mention of the film. Under the newly-drafted policy that Arbcom is trying to impose, what remedy is there to get properly sourced material when one admin has decided that it won't go in, regardless of sources, circumstances or any other Wikipedia policy? Alansohn (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fully unacceptable. -Oreo Priest ^talk 07:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log

The current policy as described at WP:BLP has been reached through community consensus. The escalation of this via Arbitration Committee's decision was not. Thus, until such time as community consensus has been reached at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or otherwise, administrative action based upon BLP problems is as reversible as any other administrative action. E.g. Reversal is to be done with caution, but does not requiring further approval. At all. The second administrator need not even communicate before they do so, per Wikipedia:Wheel war.

This is unenforceable under the current policies.

brenneman 02:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee will desysop anyone who reverts an action made per this remedy without consensus, as required by the remedy. I fail to see how that makes this remedy not enforcable. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he means its only unenforceable when we run out of admins to desysop? MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then Wikipedia will definitely be better off. Daniel (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because, under the current behavioural guidelines as agreed upon by the community (also known as "policy") they cannot do that. On a technical note, of course, Arbitration Committee is not able to deadmin at all. meta:Stewards exist for that. If someone who has posted a notice at ANI that they won't repeat the reversal, the likelyhood of finding a steward who will remove the rights is anyone's guess. But that's just mechanics.

The short version: Arbcom don't make policy.

brenneman 02:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards will always desysop if an arbitrator requests it be done per the Arbitration Committee. Daniel (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check that assumption with any Stewards that you are familiar with. I'm doing so as we speak, trust me. - brenneman 02:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did so, about 3 months ago. I didn't recieve one bit of dissent. Daniel (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that it will be done, upon request of the committee--§hanel 02:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I have done so before and would again if the committee requested it. If it was too egregious I would ask that they find another steward to do it but I would not undo a committee action. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(de indent) Per meta:Stewards policy "Their task is to implement valid community decisions." While de facto consensus has been demonstrated for previous action, it has not demonstrated that community consensus exists for the "special" finding. In fact the talk page discussions appear to indicate a _lack_ of consensus. That same policy page says "the steward will not act or make decisions before the uncertainty is eliminated." This is with respect to election, but uncertainty has clearly been demonstrated.

I would not ask any steward to reverse a decision and didn't suggest it. I suggest that before doing a de-sysopping they re-read this policy page and consider carefully the full impications before they act. We're not compelled to do any enforcement, and that applies to stewards as well as admins.
brenneman 02:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your way of saying "Damn, I couldn't find any stewards not willing to desysop per Arbitration Committee request, but please, listen to me now!"? Daniel (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unpopular truth, but the fact is the Arbitration Committees of those projects which have one can make binding, final decisions. _{1 != 2} 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Until, as I don't understand what Daniel said.) They can make the decision. There is question of that. I am questioning the enforcement. As I said, I believe that if they consider carefully a steward will find enough reason to "pass" on performing this action. I haven't checked if there is any steward/arbcom cross-over, but even if there were a member who could perform the change of rights,steward policy states "Don't change rights on your own projects" should stop them from doing the de-admin themselves. The very simple point is that we're not serfs. No one can be compelled to enforce an action that they consider a powerful vessel of fertiliser.
brenneman 03:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But as you can see above, a number of Stewards will. Your protest to this remedy fails on the grounds that, if there's at least one Steward willing to comply with an Arbitration Committee request, the decision will be binding locally (see the link Until (1==2) gives above) and also technically enforced. Daniel (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What that foundation issue is about is that Wikipedia is owned by a 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity and that foundation's committee is the source of the communities freedom to govern itself, and as such it is well within it's rights to appoint an arbitration committee to make binding decisions. The gift of consensus rule is just that, a gift. Enforcement is not an issue, the software is ready for that. I really would not hold out much hope of stewards not enforcing this. _{1 != 2} 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other option is to try and get the Board to remove the authority given to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey for the latest discussion on that issue. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, rather than foam about possible case where a steward cant be found to act on an arbcom request, lets cross that bridge when it happens. If that happens a few times, then you can say that it is unenforceable under the current practises. Wikipedia policy is ever evolving and is descriptive of what has been proven to "work". This may or not work, but we have two stewards indicating that it is workable, with the only caveat being that stewards are going to stew on any invocation (thank goodness), the details of which cant foreseen. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that courteous response. I do hope I'm not foaming already! I am however concerned by the responses to "should this be done." I'm hearing here that since it could be done I, and by extension we, just had better suck it up. Not to go all Karmafist here and talk about revolution, but "the software is ready" is as uninspiring answer as I have ever heard. Wikipedia is not a boss, or an owner, and volounteer effort is a requirement for it to continue.

• There is ongoing discussion over an issue with wide-ranging implications,
• That discussion was effectivly sqashed by an over-abrupt close of the case, in which
• This page was created before the close even took place.

This "special" finding in not an emergancy. There was no rush, and a close in this manner raises some serious questions. There has not been sufficient community input to these changes. Until that occurs, no amount of sticking your tongue out or linking to courtesy blanked pages will suffice. Simply to be utterly transparent: If and when the time comes to "cross that bridge" I am not going to hesitate to do so.
brenneman 03:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End moved from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log]]

(following the thread which is a moving target) There isnt much foam here yet, but the dish-washing liquid has been added and if someone keeps stirring, there will be more foam than water.

Your initial post culminated in the statement "This is unenforceable under the current policies", so it is unsurprising that responses have been to the effect of "yes, it is." If you want debate about whether this change to BLP should be accepted by the community, the correct venue for discussion is on WT:BLP. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Gack! This is the last time I'm going to say this, then I'll give up: I started by saying, as you correctly stated, "This is unenforceable under the current policies." I stand by that statement, having gone back and looked several times. The fact that people are saying they will do it, despite what the current policies say, does not in any way affect my initial statement. I'm now going to stop talking, and hope that instead of simply responding people will actually read what I've written so far.
  brenneman 03:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend you pay attention to what's being said here - you may need to step back and think about it some more (and refamiliarize yourself with Wikipedia norms) to understand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this does apply outside of a case, I would agree that this is Arbcom making policy, something we've always tried to avoid or minimize. Arbcom exists for Arbcom cases, not as a governing body. Maybe Wikipedia needs a governing body, but that's a much larger community issue. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask where it is written in our policy that arbcom cannot make policy? I have heard it said often, but it does not seem to be true. If you look at arbcom cases you will see it is not unheard of that they enforce things unrelated to policy. So, is this really a rule for them, and where is it? _{1 != 2} 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's kind of an unwritten tradition or internal meme based on many arbcom members having said previously that "arbcom does not make policy". As with many "policies", which reflect what is actually done, and may or may not be written down, this "policy" is a policy now because that's what people do. It would not be a policy any more if ArbCom started consistently actually making policy and the policy it made stuck. IMHO anyway. YMMV. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. The thing about unwritten rules that are defined by how people have done things, they can change when people do something different. People could seek to have it codified(see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Procedure for changing this policy), but you will pretty much have to convince arbcom to change their own rules because "Jimbo Wales has also suggested that Arbitration Policy is not open to amendment by the community"(fwiiw). _{1 != 2} 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to the spirit of ignore all rules? Folks arguing over the policy on policy-making would do well to spend half and hour watching Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living_people - and don't just look at the recent stuff, go 1000 entries back to the stuff that doesn't get reverted by RP patrollers. There are bigger things at stake than petty wiki-squabbles and worrying about bruising the community's collective ego. CIreland (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is ArbCom mad? Listen, people. You need to get out and edit more. There is a vast difference between creating special enforcement for local, ethnic disputes and for a vast stretch of the encyclopaedia. A cursory look at the BLP noticeboard shows admins disagreeing intensely on interpretation of BLP all the time. Creating a log of this type also encourages admins to game the system to win content disputes, by re-framing things as BLP issues. This is both not needed and completely and utterly counterproductive.

Way to drop the ball again, folks. Your job is to making editing easier, not more difficult.

Sorry, I'll go back on my wikibreak now. Call me if you want to make any more policy, please? --Relata refero (disp.) 14:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm slightly optimistic about this remedy, I agree there is massive scope to game the system. Enjoy your wikibreak. PhilKnight (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page of proposed decision - these concerns have already been addressed by responses there, including about the log itself. It's come to the point that no one wants to deal with foam anymore, so please stop creating any more. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say they have been addressed, I would say they have been dismissed. There is a difference. I quite concur with Relata refero. Risker (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issues cannot have been addressed in such a short time, I would point out that two arbitrators have opposed the proposed remedy on similar grounds [2]. Arbitrators have jumped on the occasion to "do something" on the BLP issue, while this may be a good initiative, it still needs to be heavily discussed by the community beforehand. Cenarium (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be admitted that heat is greater than light here, and that the noise is drowning out the signal. _{1 != 2} 15:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made specific points above. If they somehow failed to illuminate you, I do not accept responsibility. OK, must ... return ... to ... break.. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concerns of Relato and Risker as to gameability. But ArbCom has made this remedy. We must try our best to make it work. If there is gaming, and it's endemic and consistent, such that it can't be dealt with by the community, we need to bring that to the attention of ArbCom. They have after all said they were trying this to see if it would work. I nodded in agreement when others spoke out against this before it was imposed but now it is, so we should try to make it work. That in no way disparages or dismisses concerns raised. ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also from a wikibreak, I basically agree with Relata refero's comments. I think ArbCom is overreaching its powers here and trying to make changes that should be only be made as a result of a community concensus and through the standard policy change process rather than by an administrative fiat of a small group of arbitrators. ArbCom is simply not the right vehicle for instituting these kinds of changes. I would like to see these new powers curtailed to the extent possible. There is too much possibility for abuse in various BLP content disputes here and there is too much honest disagreement in the community about the meaning of the BLP policy; these radical blocking/banning powers are a good way to produce some sort of WP civil war. I also think that maybe one should revise the arbitration policy itself, WP:AP, and institute some kind of a formal process for overturning ArbCom's decisions by the community in rare cases. This particular case, as well as the proposed "Sourcing Ajudication Board" in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed decision show the need for such a process in cases of ArbCom's overreaching its powers. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely possible (even likely) that I'm just being dense, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between the new ArbCom ruling and the way we've been enforcing WP:BLP in the past. Delete pages over BLP concerns? Check. Protect pages because of BLP concerns? Check. Block users because of BLP concerns? Too many of those to count....

So basically as I read it, the only thing the ArbCom ruling changes is that the undoing of another admin's actions in this area should be supported by consensus obtained on one of the big noticeboards--a practice that has been recommended by WP:WHEEL for as long as that policy's been around. Likewise, admins have always been at risk of losing the tools if they abuse them, including but not limited to engaging in said wheel wars. So since I'm a little surprised to see so many negative responses in the discussions above to what I see as an already-established practice, I was wondering if maybe someone could articulate what exactly has changed? --jonny-mt 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. There's me thinking the old policy was different... Rudget (logs) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, the major change is that non involved admins are authorized to impose sanctions on editors concerning blp articles (e.g. ban an editor from blp articles for some time, or specific articles related to a blp). And such sanctions cannot be overturned, except by community consensus. Cenarium (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our excellent case study, George Thomas Coker, has for years been the subject of efforts to prevent factual thoroughly sourced material about Coker's appearance in the film Hearts and Minds from appearing in the article. While admin User:Rlevse has long led the charge to use BLP to whitewash the article, other users have waved BLP as an excuse for deleting material. The latest, this diff, has User:MBisanz removing thoroughly sourced material with complaints of "UNDUE BLP material remvoal [sic]". We already have a problem in which anyone can use BLP as an excuse to remove anything they don't want to appear in an article. Under the new policy that Arbcom is trying to ram through, how exactly does one break through obstruction when the magic letters "BLP" have been thrown in? Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]