Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 41

5149:

extent are inseparable from the inherent problems of any project like ours that operates without editorial control: the need for truly competent referencing, for understandable writing, for balance in coverage between and among articles, for avoiding promotionalism of people's individual viewpoints, and, more especially, the need to update every article in Knowledge in a regular and reliable manner. Certainly we must be careful of what we say, and this applies to every article in the encyclopedia. This is artificially generated hysteria, and the only explanation I can come to is that this is the unthinking reaction of people who recognize they have no hope of dealing with the real issues, and who are over-focussed on the mistakes they made in the past that permitted the out of control situation to develop. It's right that our founder and the other long-term Wikipedians who started a project that had inadequate standards should regret they did not insist on sourcing from the beginning--but their reaction is typical of those who try by harshness to make up for the sins of their childhood. What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages new editors: the entire thrust of Knowledge policy should be devoted to the encouragement of new people, , and the development of them into active and well-qualified editors, to replace the ones who will inevitably be leaving. This is done by helping the articles they write become good content. The proper reaction to an unsourced article is to source it, ideally by teaching the author how to do so, and impressing on them the need to do this in the future. What does not help is to remove it without doing everything feasible to see if it can be sourced, and if it can be considered important enough for the encyclopedia. In particular, the following are wrong:

5683:

best way that I can see to bring clarity to the issue of whether such deletions are appropriate or not is as follows: Figure out which admin is currently using the most extreme interpretation of speedy deletion. Compile a list of several recent, clear-cut examples of their deletion with an outlier interpretation of policy. Ask them to act more conservatively on their talkpage. If they defend their interpretation as correct and appropriate, have others who also find it inappropriate try and politely convince them to compromise. Then wait and see if they continue to actually delete in a similar manner. If they do continue start a user RFC, determine whether consensus finds their interpretation of BLP and speedy deletion appropriate or not. This is a much narrower question than the BLP RFC and clear consensus should be achievable. Everyone should realize however that this is true question, consensus could go either way. And if consensus finds it appropriate, this will not be wrong. And if consensus finds it inappropriate, this will not be wrong. What it will be is resolved. And resolution in either direction is good. It will mean that we all have accurate expectations of what will happen, and we can all make plans to mitigate the surrounding issues with greater confidence and less stress. --

4252:

unsourced BLP's is a conetntious one, the articles generally are not. In its previous motion, ArbCOM referred the issue to the community. The community has repeatedly rejected the notion of wholesales deletions for the sole reason that they are unsourced. This position came through in spades at the RfC, yet we still have people who have threated and/or implied that they intend to do so anyways (including one member of ArbCOM who supports doing so!) The first time, we can say, "OK, this get the ball rolling." But when the community speaks in a loud clear voice, ArbCOM needs to support that position. It doesn't matter what your personal views are on the subject are, the role of ArbCOM is not to override clear community consensus. It doesn't matter if ArbCOM hoped for/expected a different result, you referred the issue to RfC. In doing so, you acknowledged that the issue was beyond the scope of the few members of ArbCOM, and subjected your position to the will of the community. The RfC made certain issues very clear (namely no out of process deletions) now you (ArbCOM) have to support that position (until the community and/or Foundation say otherwise.) If you don't, then it will only be a matter of time before somebody decides to follow-up on Kevin's threat.---

6103:, the preceding would only apply if all other options had been exhausted. As others have said, the removal of contentious material applies to article text, not to entire articles. There is no visible consensus to extend such removal to entire articles (though stubbing BLPs appears to be less controversial than it was). We are nowhere near the stage yet where those pushing for this should feel able to engage in out-of-process deletions, and people should still be actively trying to shape consensus on these matters and continue to reduce backlogs. If there are deadlines in place regarding achieving consensus in the discussions, and there are people actively working towards those deadlines, could that be explicitly stated. If not, that is a priority, and such deadlines are something I think ArbCom could set to help the process along, along with appointing people to oversee the discussions (though I would prefer that such 'leaders' emerge naturally and are accepted by those engaging in the discussions). 4142:

are not by definition contentious except for a small minority of the community whose position was rejected in the recent RfCs. If you review the RfC's, you'll see several threads wherein the notion that an unsourced BLPs equates to a bad/POV articles has been rejected. You would be hard pressed to find any consensus to support the stance that the mere lack of sources makes an article contentious enough to warrant speedy deletion. This is a position held by a small minority of people who contributed to the RfCs. In fact, the reason why Kevin has made this threat, is because the community has roundly rejected that notion, and frankly if you can't see that in the threads, I have to question your objectivity on this subject! In order to be a good judge/arbitrator, you need to be able to put your personal position aside. If you can't do that, then you need to recluse yourself from this case. The fact that you see the RfC as supporting a notion which it clearly doesn't distresses me.---

1918:

standing, it's another. If I violated the spirit, then the appropriate response would be to clarify the ban so that the spirit is reflected in the language (or designate a means for efficient interpretation, like a mentor). If I violated the ban itself, then we have a very difficult problem, and probably I should be site-banned, because I'm unable to understand bans and therefore contain my behavior. This is a request for clarification. It's not a request for advice to Abd to stop him from being disruptive. Such advice, divorced from a deeper discussion of goals and the value of my participation here, is likely to be misplaced. General editing is part of why I'm here, and I was doing general editing, but it's not the most important part. So, if you value my work at all, and it is, indeed, about "parliamentary procedure," which is about what peer groups, in the past, have found necessary for efficient and fair process, you will,

4512:. What could have been a simple solution "prod tags may not be removed from unsourced BLPs unless a source is added" has been frustrated because after the community agreed the principle, most users thought the job was done, and an extremely small group of users (many of whom don't like the basic idea) have spent weeks either disputing the underlying principle or quibbling on the warning tag wording. They wore me down - so I've now withdrawn. The biggest threat to the peace is this process dragging on for any longer. To those who want to avoid irregular deletions, make this process happen NOW - and note how those of us involved in those deletions have a) stopped deleting (months ago) to let this happen b) already indicated that there will be no resumption when this is up and running. 6137:, to the effect that because of the way ArbCom pages are structured and the length of time this request has been open, the back-and-forth has become very difficult to follow. In any event, I am not convinced that action by this Committee is needed at this time. I believe there is a widespread, though not universal, consensus at this time that progress toward better sourcing and quality control is essential but that mass-deletion without the exercise of discretion about each specific article is not the way to go, certainly not at this time, and hopefully progress will continue to be made so it will not be necessary at any time. Continued progress on all BLP related issues (lack of sourcing is but one of these, and probably not the most important one) is essential. 6118:

ArbCom motions to help move such discussions forward is very slow. The question is whether it is slower than community discussions to the same end. If participation in the discussions is declining, that is usually a sign that the discussions should be moved to the next stage or even implemented (if things are clear). To get more participation, consider publicising the discussions in the appropriate venues. The key things seem to be to ensure continued reduction of the backlog (if activity tails off there, that would need to be addressed), and to ensure that the work on the backlog isn't undone by the addition of new unsourced BLPs. As an aside, I came across a BLP today that had not been tagged in any way whatsoever, so that area still needs attention.

2701:

participants in the case are not stepping back and letting others deal with this, but are all perpetuating the battles going on here. Some have asked why Abd can't find innocuous areas to edit? I would apply that to others as well. It tends to be the case that only the original participants in a case can be bothered to request enforcement of arbitration sanctions, but I don't think this is actually healthy. If someone's participation somewhere is truly disruptive, then others will file enforcement requests. However, this would only work if everyone subject to arbitration sanctions were forced to include in their signature and on their talk page a little

2670:

work in until your restrictions expire (or until you have accumulated enough evidence of improved conduct to appeal your restrictions). Find a quiet area to work in and then if others turn up, any dispute is not one that you will have started. Turning up on a page where there is an existing dispute does breach the terms of your restrictions as I interpret them. If you (Abd) or others would like the restriction clarified to make that clearer, that could probably be done. I agree with Hans Adler about the ghosts and pseudoscience matter, but that should be a separate clarification (possibly related to one of the cases that concerned pseudoscience).

2304:(6) If it is Arbcom's intention to prevent Abd from editing any articles where there happens to be content disputes on topics for which he has an opinion and wishes to express it, then I would submit that the current wording of the sanction and the feedback that has been given to Abd is wholly insufficient to have conveyed that particular meaning and intent. Thus, if that truly is Arbcom's intention then they should make that intention clear via this clarification because the existing sanction and the feedback surrounding it clearly do NOT address the simple act of editing and participating in content disputes as we see here. 2808:

cases to pop up and reiterate what happened there. Too many people cluster around controversial articles trying to contribute their bit or to object to what others are saying or to support those they agree with (the agreement and support should be for the content, not for the editors). Sometimes a different approach is needed. If someone finds themselves editing controversial articles all the time, that is not really a good sign, no matter how "right" you think you are (anyone reading this and thinking that it is OK editing controversial articles all the time if your edits are good, the long-term effect is still degrading).

3627:"BUT, the preceding would only apply if all other options had been exhausted. As others have said, the removal of contentious material applies to article text, not to entire articles. There is no visible consensus to extend such removal to entire articles (though stubbing BLPs appears to be less controversial than it was). We are nowhere near the stage yet where those pushing for this should feel able to engage in out-of-process deletions, and people should still be actively trying to shape consensus on these matters and continue to reduce backlogs." 2759:

Suggest that he take concerns about GoRight's conduct (and my conduct as well, if he wishes) to the relevant talk pages. The single unstruck sentence about Abd is relevant to this request, while the concerns about others disrupting enforcement of provisions related to Abd's conduct can be stated in general terms, and arbitrators can request more details and specific names if needed. After that is done, it will then be possible to get back to the point of this thread, which should be making the clarification that Enric Naval asked for.

2744:

arbitrator, not someone involved in the original case (unless a separate request is filed). With the amount of work on ArbCom's desk, I am trying to limit the scope of clarifications so they can be dealt with in good order. By all means file a separate request if you think you have a case to make, but folding it into this one is unlikely to be helpful. Also, the editor would in most cases have to be under current ArbCom sanctions unless the conduct is egregious (according to arbitrators, not according to the filing party).

1894:. That was not a "comment on a dispute," it was a friendly comment, not controversial, a bit jokey, and it caused no disruption at all. SamJohnston's approach is to read "dispute" into everything, because he's clearly looking for mud to toss, and his contributions will show the extent to which he's been tracking me. This is not a comment on his behavior elsewhere, with other editors, and this would be, if I pursued it (I have no intention of that), a dispute between him and me, "originating party," you know. -- 1153:

without discussion. If I had a good source to begin with and my edit is removed without a logical reason I first add a section to the talk page explaining why my edit was valid regarding relevant policies/guidelines and then revert the article (usually trying different verbiage) noting to check talk page in the edit summary. Most people will then proceed to a discussion on the talk page where either I am convinced to remove the edit or the other editor is persuaded my original edit was ok.

2729:(merely seeing it pop up on your watchlist here and deciding to comment is not a sufficient reason to comment). I would apply the same to arbitration enforcement as well. It would cut a lot of the arguments out and allow people to get on with enforcements and clarifications and amendments, without the associated noise. In a nutshell: brief comments that must stay on-topic; no back-and-forth; and step back and let others comment and make the decision. It would make things quicker as well. 39: 4185:@Cofee---we elected the members of ArbCOM because we trusted them to serve the community and to enforce policeis and guidelines as defined by the community. We did not elect them to override the communities wishes when the community explicitly wants something else. The community has spoken loudly and in several different forums, at the current time, it does not want or support the use of CSD to handle articles simply because they are unsourced. THAT is the position held by the 6099:. Trying to work out from deletion logs what was deleted out-of-process is a nightmare. Even if out-of-process deletions do occur, one thing I would be looking for is whether those doing deletions kept a list, or just deleted and didn't bother to organise the way they were doing this, or justify themselves when asked. i.e. are they being disruptive or are they allowing their actions to be tracked and assessed (a standard log entry would probably be sufficient)? 2789:

formally propose a motion to tighten Abd's existing restrictions to remove the clause that allowed him to participate in polls and requests for comments. I should clarify that I'm still only pondering on something further about how to manage the interactions between Abd and those who originally participated at the case - there is no de facto MYOB clause in effect and no-one should interpret my comments that way (that would require full voting on a motion). My

4190:

those of the communities or to recluse themselves if they cannot. When a few members of ArbCOM start to dictate policies, then we get resolutions such as we did in the first phase of the RfC where there was a strong rebuke of ArbCOM's actions. ArbCOM's role is not to supercede that of the community and write policy. You may think that policy is on your side and you may think that this is a justifiable case for IAR, but the community thinks otherwise.---

6455:(which I am also in possession of) shoots holes thru the Committee's accusations against him, and make the suggestion that the appeal be made public, so that the community can judge for itself whether the ban has any merits -- I have permission from Offliner to publicly post his appeal with information refuting the Committee's accusations. The Committee needs to answer the questions raised by Offliner in his appeal, and make the full reasoning public. -- 5237:(i.e. "contentious") was never intended to give carte blanche to delete all unsourced BLPs. ArbCom members siding with a minority interpretation to force a change in policy is disturbing. As we elect ArbCom to decide on behavioural disputes and enforce policy rather than set policy (something only Jimmy and the WMF can do by fiat) it would seem proper that any ArbCom member who uses their position to force a change in policy should be subject to recall. 5166:

that articles should be sourced, should want to source them. To say that I want article to be sourced, and you others go source them, is insolent, and against the egalitarian principles of the project. It's the statement of a boss, of a dictator, of a policeman: let the plebeians do the work, and we will judge it. Rather, the only people qualified to judge are those who are prepared themselves to work, and thus prove they understand what is wanted.

4477:

and there appear to have been numerous attempts to summarise an close, that I've no idea what it is that I'm supposed not to be content with. Can someone actually tell us where this is at, and why a sticky prod isn't running yet? People are speaking about admins not getting their own way, but I've absolutely no idea whether there's a problem or not, the pages just confuse me. There may be no problem here at all. Why is this even at arbitration?--

2721:

haven't found anything in the original case from SamJohnston, so he probably became aware of this another way. But do you see what I mean about how frustrating it can be for arbitrators when a request for clarification just erupts into arguments between those that were present at the original case? Why not just make brief statements and leave us to attempt to clarify things? I would propose to limit previous case participants to making a

4519:- has been true for weeks and no one has said otherwise. However, the "does not currently" is, for me, predicated on the consensus outlined by Maureen being actualised. That's beginning to look like a problem. Arbcom will make this worse if they rule against the threat of resumed deletions whilst not preventing further delays in the agreed alternative. Carcharoth's comments simply confuse me - leaders are not the problem, the problem is 3486:, which say: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a prod tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Knowledge:Articles for deletion." 4556:

who or what I'm responding to, or how to correct some misleading statements of what's happened. I'd strongly suggest that this isn't a discussion that can be handled as a "clarification" or by motion. Arbcom should either reject this, since no current userconduct issues are raised, or (if they must) open a full case. I'm unwatching now, because this is giving me a headache (and that's not a reflection on anyone's good faith).--

1942:

where I asked that I not be repeatedly questioned within the RfC, which would have pushed me closer to the ban limit. And I did answer the question. Had that editor gone to my talk page to raise an issue about the RfC comment of mine, not about the editor's dispute with others, I'd have responded specifically to that. Nobody complained. So "unfair" to whom? I haven't complained about the ban, though some others have.

6528:

of Offliner's responsibility, and if any of you took at least 2 minutes to read his appeal, you will see that the collateral damage you are all charging is bollocks; in the sense that Offliner should not be held to account. I will now be preparing a summary of the actual ban, and the actual appeal that Offliner lodged; of course being very careful at the same time not to breach anyone's privacy. --

2592:

there is no need to name names here). And the first paragraph of what TenOfAllTrades said can go as well. This is not a clarification about other editors at the Ghost article or GoRight. That will help keep this clarification request on topic. If the off-topic stuff is removed, could whoever does that (whether the original editor or a clerk) please leave diffs to indicate what was removed. Thanks.

6504:

asking for clarification, only for them to be ignored, and for him to receive a single email from Lokshin repeating unfounded allegations and stating that the Committee isn't interested in hearing his side (and therefore, logical information). It is absolutely astounding that an Arb (if it is one) is suggesting that Offliner follow due process, but yet they have not done so themselves. --

2177:. From the point of view of my watchlist, around early March the complex battle between fringe fans and pseudo-sceptics has flared up again after many quiet months. As in earlier cases the mainstream is in danger of getting pulverised between two extremist fronts. Since Abd is often vocally painted as being on the fringe side, I want to say very clearly that his unhelpful intervention at 7167:

general principle, I'm not opposed to the lifting of topic bans (or any sanctions) early for 'good behaviour', but there need to be clear statements by other editors saying that they have not seen any problems and that your conduct has been productive, or someone needs to be willing to briefly check your contributions and block log before such a lifting of the topic ban is considered.

1860:

volunteered before and was told, first, that this was not necessary, and then, later, that his arbitrator status prohibited mentoring (the first time I'd seen that -- he was already recusing), and then the provision was removed, so I did not seek another mentor. Fritzpoll has now retired, but a mentor would allow flexibility and a ready path to the ban being lifted. Keep it simple. --

2299:. So, as currently written and clarified Abd's edits in no way violated the letter or the spirit of the sanction as it has been articulated thus far. Abd's edits are completely consistent with any editor who is simply participating in a normal content dispute with a proper focus on the content in question and without extraneous meta discussion of the dispute or its participants. 2426:@Carcharoth. Are you now suggesting that at some point I have edited a contentious article? Is this really what you intended to write? Please remember that the problematic editor here is Abd. You, I and others might hope that his editing patterns will improve; but in the end Abd is the only one responsible for what he chooses to edit. Please be more careful what you write. 1922:(That is, did I violate it where there is difference of opinion, not with the edit where I acknowledged an inadvertent violation?) ArbComm is free to find that I've been generally disruptive, should it choose -- I don't think that's true -- but the ban doesn't prohibit general disruption, nor is a general disruption ban necessary, it's already prohibited. -- 5183:

from improving it. I am probably a little unrealistic to get angry at those in authority who have no better idea than to abet them, for it should not really have surprised me that such is the nature of authority. I have tried not to use names. Too many people are at fault. It would be wrong to criticize only those who have made the most noise about it.

6439:, and I will say that it was based purely on tangental evidence, and this has been noted as such in several emails from Arbs to Offliner (which I am in possession of). Basically, the Committee, driven by one or two particular Arbitrators (it seems), have made Offliner the fallguy for information relating to a particular recent Arbcase appearing on 6375:

the reasons behind his ban. I am not going to ask anybody to go into detail and present evidence, particularly if it concerns privacy violations, but what are the specific charges? The policies he violated should not be kept secret in themselves. As long as he is supposed to return, the community should have a very clear idea of his inclinations.

1848:

eyebrow. I never dreamed that the ban could apply to article space at all. While my edits may have been "unwise" in some way, they were not ban violations. If they were disruptive, I could be dinged for that directly. The original ban purpose seems to have been preventing Wall-o-Text comments alleged to be dominating discussion. In spite of a

7085:), removing a primary source that involved the city and also getting into a discussion in the talk page. My edits were in good faith because Burrel is under the Albania Task Force, not under Kosovo, but since the interpretation of the topic ban can be enlarged, I am going to stop from making any edits that even remotely concern Kosovo. 5411:. Baseless threats like those from Fences & Windows, only show some of the ignorance from that crowd. The community elected these ArbCom members, that means the community thought they could do their damn job. If you don't like their decisions, then that's just too bad, as you and those around you, were not elected to the committee. 2139:

resolved, and has inflamed the situation - making matters worse. This oft repeated pattern reflects on Abd's motivations for being on wikipedia. If he wants to show he is here for the good of the project then he should show that in his editing, and not by testing his restrictions, gaming admins, and making situations harder to resolve.

2546:

attention. I have affirmed that I would support a proper MYOB restriction if brought in an appropriate venue, however I object to Carcharoth attempting to implement one himself on this one page. (I observe that at least one other Request on this page contains an explicit request for a motion to which Carcharoth responded positively.)

6539:

if they really wanted to investigate it...of course, we wouldn't be here if Arbcom did this investigation in the first place, and before they continue to push the line that 2 + 2 = 5. Sorry, 2 + 2 ≠ 5, and I believe that Offliner has a right to publicly put his case, because Arbcom sure as hell don't want to do anything about it. --

2412:@Carcharoth. You seem to be criticizing me below for writing - in a 12 word sentence - essentially exactly the same thing you wrote about Abd's editing. The main point in my evidence to the ArbCom case concerned Abd's return to mainstream content editing. That is still my hope now. Why are you suggesting otherwise? 1856:

and engaged in much back-and-forth threaded argument, which I've also avoided (except for a very minimum of helpful comment, accepted as such, or response to direct question addressed to me). Looking at the RfCs I commented in, I doubt that anyone reasonable would conclude that my comments were a problem there.

7219:

Also agree with those above. I believe that you are on the right track here, and as Jehochman has taken over Moreschi's role, you have the opportunity for guidance. Unless Sulmues has further questions, this section can be archived in 48 hours. Would a clerk please let Sulmues know of this? Thanks.

6476:

that Offliner was responsible for certain things. Yet, when Offliner has asked what this evidence was, the committee sidestepped the issue, and refused to answer. What the committee basically did was decide to hold a secret trial in which Offliner's guilt was obviously predetermined, and they refused

6066:

Response to Balloonman, Calliopejen: I am not sure how it is possible to have followed the recent discussions on this subject, in the RFCs and elsewhere, and conclude that this material is anything but contentious. With respect to Calliopejen's question about IAR and BLP, I cannot see the suggestion

5604:

Does someone care to tell me exactly how a justification for an issue, that has only been slightly dented by article work, somehow disappears because a motion says so? It doesn't. The justification was that nothing was happening to bring those articles to meet the standard. That justification doesn't

5563:

What progress? Start another review? One is highly inaccurate, the other is highly ridiculous. As I mentioned above, the amount of progress on this can be counted in the amount of words of discussion that we've had, no more no less; and having another discussion to see if the previous two discussions

5403:

To insinuate that the Arbitration Committee has in any way violated their seat is trolling in it's finest, and is an attempt to force the view that enforcing our policies using strict measures, is somehow a minority POV that is dangerous to the site. The only thing dangerous going on, is the way that

5399:

I would like to remind everyone that ArbCom is an administrative role, that exists to ensure that the rules (and Foundation standards) are followed and enforced, and to solve any issues that the community at large can't seem to fix (such as BLPs). Any motions they make (including the BLP one) are not

5173:

the view expressed by one of the arbitrators that because the existence of apparently innocuous unsourced material is challenged, it must be removed. I could remove half the encyclopedia that way. Contentious material means material which is contended to be harmful or incorrect in good faith , on the

5161:

the view that WP:BEFORE is unworkable. Making a cursory search in the googles is not difficult, and everybody who works here should be capable of it. the thought that we would want to remove what we have not looked at is about as rational as removing every tenth article from the encyclopedia blindly,

5124:

Natural leaders: Nice in principle, but in this entire saga there have already been too may chiefs and not enough Indians. So who would lead the leaders? Finally, as only FIVE people signed up for the task force, and one has given up in exasperation already, do we need a leader for such

4421:

Reply to several arbiters below. Your first attempt at dealing with this matter attracted well-deserved derision from many well-established Wikipedians. You are going the same way with your response to this request. Several of you are maintaining that you are being faced with a hypothetical situation

4270:

I think that is a large part of the reason why people are reluctant to accept a firm timeline as I proposed. We really don't know how big the issue is. Furthermore, I've seen some evidence since the RfC that some people want to have BLP-CREEP enter the fray. EG define BLPs to include organization,

2849:

I also agree with Carcharoth's clarification about how Abd's sanction is supposed to work and also encourage him to avoid polls, RfCs and the like as well for the time being. Its not fair to "vote" somewhere and then tell editors that you cannot discuss the issue further because of your restriction.

2451:

GoRight has been a consistent apologist for Abd's disruptive conduct since at least the Abd/WMC Arbitration. GoRight's encouragement and endorsement is absolutely the last thing that Abd needs. Further, GoRight has been repeatedly blocked recently for his own counterproductive approach to Knowledge

1890:

This editor brings up the same evidence over and over, and has now claimed a new offending edit. It's all moot here, because I could have offended many times and that would not change the issue here: what is and what is not "offense." SamJohnston did find one edit that I agreed was a violation, and I

1859:

Please take this step by step, there is no emergency. I will suggest one possible improvement: allow a mentor, to interpret the ban for me and for others. It is unclear to me why this provision was removed; instead, it should simply have been required that the mentor be approved by ArbComm. Fritzpoll

1855:

The allegations at AE and here by Enric Naval did not involve poll comments, so removing the poll provision as suggested would fix something that isn't broken. I have avoided using the poll permission as a loophole to allow long comments, and other editors, in those polls, have made much longer ones,

1221:

saying Hubbard was liar. In fact I don't remember stating anywhere in an article that Hubbard was an outright liar in those words, nor did I imply he was somehow mistaken or trying to come up with other explanations why his war claims aren't backed up by any reliable sources. Though I can't argue the

1142:

Summary: When I was topic banned in 2009 I had become accustomed to citing almost every post I made to a Scientology article if I wanted it to actually stay in. The arbcom cited evidence from 2007, when I first started editing as being the reason for the ban. As long as I ensure that any edits I make

6675:

for inserting the link; although it was likely it would be oversighted, I actually inserted the link before the oversight was done. OK, I shouldn't have inserted the link in the first place, and the 1 week block was justified. The diff in question (by Radeksz) was oversighted a good 90 minutes after

6538:

Shelly, I am being very careful not to disclose anything that may be used to identify editors, and that includes arbiters as well. Everything I have posted is already common knowledge amongst many editors. And some of what I will be posting in debunking Arbcom's decision is easy for someone to find;

5924:

With all due respect to Steven Smith, there's nothing in policy that says that. The overwhelming community consensus in the last RfC was against speedy deletions in this context. There's nothing in the wording of BLP that supports your argument. You seem to be engaging in some sort of meta-reasoning

5883:

Third. Regarding the "Sticky PROD"/"BLP-PROD", I don't believe for one second that anyone is "filibustering" or "insisting on delay". There are obviously several very sensitive issues to deal with: libel, newbie-biting, policy procedures, technical issues, etc. These are being debated as we speak

5791:

I worry about SteveSmith's second comment below. He seems to be saying that since the people who want to delete unsourced BLP articles say that all unsourced BLP material should be deleted, then all unsourced BLP material is automatically contentious. That makes the "contentious" qualifier in WP:BLP

5682:

I think asking Arbcom to clarify this motion is very unlikely way to resolve anything. The motion was a messy to begin with and I find it very unlikely to be clarified because doing so would require bringing forward issues that it seems to me Arbcom has taken pains to avoid addressing head-on. The

5293:

You've been running away throughout, but you can't hide from this mess forever, ArbCom. The only question is how much damage are you willing to permit before you actually take the time to mediate a resolution to this, to deal with your terribly short-sighted motion, to decide if you with to further

5236:

In another voting statement, Steve Smith says that "Rules either mean something or they do not." In this case it seems that rules mean whatever Steve Smith wants them to mean. There is a clear community consensus against speedy or summary deletion of unsourced BLPs, and the wording of the BLP policy

5182:

I joined Knowledge to improve its quality. i recognized it would be a slow process. It does not surprise me that it is not faster, and I thus have no reason to get angry because I had misjudged he difficulty. I am , however, beginning to get exasperated at those who would prevent me and the others

5165:

the attitude that other people should do the work of improving Knowledge. For someone to say, all I want to do is mark articles to delete, and I don't care whether they ought to be deleted. Let other people figure that out is irresponsible and unconstructive and uncooperative. Those people who care

5157:

time limits so short they prevent adequate sourcing. Some of those who argue in favor of mass deletions are insistent also on the quality of the sourcing, and they are right to do so, but they then have proposed extending mass deletion to anything that does not meet their standard. And some of them

4959:

While the amnesty may indeed have been the right way to deal with prior rash actions, the RFC consensus is clear: the community does not support out of process deletions as a remedy, the participants know this, and any future actions taken against consensus are incompatible with assuming good faith.

4949:

One thing that seems to have been missing in this discussion is the fact that the out-of-process deletions were held to be more disruptive and harmful than the simple existence of unsourced (vs. contentious/negative unsourced) BLPs. Consensus has quite thoroughly pointed out that the emperor has no

4928:

i agree a process is needed to review BLP's, delete the non-notable and keep the notable. references are part of it. i am concerned that there is a lack of common sense, where clearly notable, but without references are thrown out with the bathwater. a ticking time bomb is not a solution; editing

4618:

The reason that disruptive editors such as Kevin continue to delete articles against our rules is because arbitrration gave them a free pass. We have already been here, this is the third time. First their was the amnesty of disruptive administrators Scott Macdonald, Kevin and Lar, then there was the

4598:

Appending: Maurreens's proposed motion ought to be well considered by the Committee, and adopted. It is provided within the tradional WP processes and procedures, and has strong community support as far as I can determine. It reflects carefully the results of the RfCs held, and seeks to restore

4476:

I'm not sure we're not talking at cross-purposes here. The consensus I thought there was (sticky-prod for new BLPs, a one-year deadline for the backlog, with a review in 3months to see if we are "on target) is certainly one I can live with. The problem is that the RFC pages have become so convoluted

4101:

Lar, there is nothing in WP:BLP or WP:CSD that says that a BLP article without sources is a candidate for speedy deletion. The only way that it is acceptable to speedy delete said article is if it is an attack page or copy vio... an argument could be made for articles about people who are known for

4080:

Should an admin unilaterally decide that an active RfC did not reach the conclusions that said admin desired, and started acting contrary to the consensus (or lack thereof) of the community, then said individual should be stripped of his/her adminship. The threatened action, if carried out, will be

2807:

To GoRight: I meant (a), but only those that were involved in the case. The idea is both that Abd finds somewhere quiet to edit, and also that those involved in the case neither support him nor drag him down. He should stand or fall on his own merits. It shouldn't need those involved in the original

2743:

Thanks for striking that, TenOfAllTrades. Limiting the scope of this request is purely my initiative. Hopefully other arbitrators will comment here at some point to state their views. If they want to widen the scope to include others, that can happen, but I think it should be at the initiative of an

2591:

Could a clerk please either ask the parties above to remove, refactor, or strike commentary about anyone other than Abd, or do so themselves? My reading of the above thread is that this would apply to most of what Hans Adler and GoRight said (a brief comment about the dispute at Ghost will suffice -

1911:

Bans are special sanctions intended to reduce disruption by defining certain behaviors thought to be causing problems, so that they can be efficiently prevented without the inefficiency of arguing each offense. If a ban is not clear, it can cause more disruption than it prevents. Bans should be very

7122:

Sulmues, thank you for the improvements you appear to have made in recent months. You're on the right track. Your blocks occurred during the period August 2009 to January 2010. Habits, both good and bad, are formed by practice. I'd like to see you maintain a clear block log for longer than five

6527:

Shelly, I am in receipt of ALL emails; I have asked Offliner to send anything to me which may help me to understand what the hell this committee is doing. Certain things have been "charged", and Offliner has admitted those things without any pressure; but then other things have been claimed is part

6374:

Back in January Offliner was all of a sudden banned indefinitely by the ArbCom without any explanation. However, he has since appealed his ban and will be a member of the community again in less than a year. Especilly under such circumstances I think it is absolutely vital for the community to know

6094:

Agree with Kirill. It will be difficult to get something that has wide-ranging agreement, but I think progress is being made. What would help, I think, is some set deadlines here, and some people being appointed to oversee the progress of the discussions (it is all too easy for discussions to peter

5829:

The fourth point deals only with out-of-process actions by admins; I should hope that ArbCom would have no problem dealing with those. The discussants most determined to deal with unreferenced BLPs have also written that such actions should be severely dealt with (Scotty has said so repeatedly, but

5727:

Most of what needs to be said here is being said already, so I'm not going to add a huge statement here. All I'd really like to say is that the committee is obviously largely unaware of what brought this here, based on the comments about not being able to "rule preemptively". There would be nothing

5647:

with the BLP issue right now is the filibustering going on to prevent the sticky prod process from being a simple easy PROD tag that can't be removed unless the article is sourced. And that filibustering isn't likely to ever be handled by a motion that does nothing but further some editors' ability

5612:

In summary: This motion is not necessary, and is just an attempt to make the Arbitration Committee backtrack on their previous motion. It is not the ArbCom's job to rule on community consensus when there is no need for them to do so. The only thing the community has accomplished, is a discussion on

5513:

Another disputable claim; we neither can confirm that the 9,000 articles that were removed from the unsourced log, were actually sourced nor if that number has declined from deletions. The other important aspect of this is the brewing thunderstorm of the possibly tens of thousands of articles, that

5311:

This isn't about the RFC, the future of BLPs, how contentious information in BLPs may be, nor hypothetical situations. This is a request for clarification whether or not administrators who have either deleted articles or are threatening to delete articles, without using any of the normal AfD, PROD

5007:

I had hoped that my actions would spur on some real change, even just a sign that Knowledge had turned a corner and was now ready to act in a responsible manner toward BLP subjects. Deletion of the unsourced BLPs is of course only a small step, but it would have been one that showed that change was

4555:

The non-threaded nature of this page is not a successful mechanism for continuing this discussion. We've now got comments from various people, on various topics, arbs comments, and a cycle of disordered responses "@" someone, all over a period of a week or so. I'm thoroughly confused and don't know

4251:

In response to Maureens request on my talk page, which was done at a request here, I do believe ArbCOM needs to make some sort of statement affirming the RfC. In its previous motion, ArbCOM opened a can of worms by praising and condoning the out-of-process deletions. While the subject of deleting

4210:

PS I must compliment those people who personally want CSD to be applied to unsourced BLPs (Z-Man, JClemens, Collect, et al) but respect the voice of the community. My stance here is not based upon my person stance, but rather upon the notion that when the community explicitly and repeatedly states

4189:

of people. It is not ArbCOMs job to dictate policy... members of ArbCOM are free to use their reasoning/rationale as long as it reflects the will of the community. When a member of ArbCOM holds a personal view that is contrary to the community, I expect them to temper their personal position with

4141:

Steve, what is contentious is the careless deletion of unsourced BLPs, not the articles themselves. The "Contetntious Materials" in the policy deals with questionable material within the article itself. An article can be 100% accurate, factual, and neutral without citing a source. These articles

2758:

I've reviewed the statements made above, and all are now on-topic for this request except for the statements and comments from TenOfAllTrades. Others have refactored as requested, while TenOfAllTrades has refactored but followed up by continuing to make off-topic comments on the conduct of GoRight.

2705:

so people editing with them were aware of this. But as you can tell, my use of the term 'scarlet letter' shows that I don't really think it is a good idea. Still, what can be done about the problem where participants to a case watch each other like hawks and call for enforcement of sanctions? Could

2700:

In response to recent comments, it might be simpler to bar all participants to the original case from filing clarification or enforcement actions against each other. It is not just Abd that needs to back off here, but some of the others from both sides as well. It has become clear that the original

2537:

I feel that it is entirely proper for me to comment about the actions taken by Arbitrators as part of their participation in this Request for Clarification. I have struck out any mention of particular problematic editors' conduct, though I do still believe that it is perfectly within scope for the

2212:

Regarding the analysis by SamJohnston above : I wish to thank SJ for providing a thorough recitation of the most pertinent edits which have lead to this request for clarification, however his analysis appears to be flawed on a number of points so allow me to clear a few things up for the benefit of

2138:

Yet again Abd is testing the limits of his sanctions, and clearly not abiding to them. This shows a continuing pattern of continued poor behaviour, and it should be stopped. Abd again injected himself into a existing dispute with which he had no previous involvement, one which had more or less been

1847:

unless I was the originating party (i.e., a single blacklist request was filed with a claim, which I disputed, until then the claim was unopposed), by any reasonable classification (but for one, number 3, an error, acknowledged as a violation). None of them were edits that would ordinarily raise an

1711:

Adendum: read the edit summaries. If Abd had placed them as comment in the talk page, then he would have been in a clear-cut violation of his ban. He has managed to comment on the dispute, while at the same time avoiding a technical violation of his ban. The restriction was intended to keep Abd out

6024:

I'm not going to pre-emptively decide this.. but I stand by what I said previously. A) We need to find a way to deal with the BLP problem going forward. Applying band-aids are not a solution (the problem's too big for that), but B) I'd look dimly personally on attempts to force the issue on either

5546:

Again, this is open to individual interpretation, and in my opinion isn't entirely accurate. The community has once again met at the stalemate that we've run into a billion times before while trying to enforce the standards on BLPs, and that stalemate has prevented any real "addressing" of the BLP

5202:

Response to Steve Smith: I join with the others who are of the opinion that your view that all unsourced BLP articles are inherently contentious is unsupported by evidence, by consensus, by logic, by any special meaning of words as used at Knowledge, by the ordinary meaning of words as used in the

4954:

Knowledge, yet there is a consensus that widespread, out-of-process deletions of unsourced BLP material do no such thing. There is no CSD for "unreferenced BLP", newly created or preexisting, nor will there likely ever be, based on the RFC's consensus. Absent consensus to add a speedy criterion,

4580:

It is clear, moreover, that the RfCs had definitely reached consensus on many issues. That it was not the precise consensus desired by some admins is not a mark of a problem with the process, it is a mark of the use of the ArbCom motion as a rationale to avoid facing the real and proper results of

4402:

this month with the explanation "unreferenced BLP for 2 1/2 years, no one seems able to source. I will undelete if anyone willing)" How people were expected to notice unless they checked for evidence of his carryign out his thrats, I do not know. MacDonald is well aware that the number of labelled

4378:

to start the deletion spree again against consensus and then . The contempt shown by certain admins for process and consensus makes them unfit to hold the tools that they abuse. Firm action is required of arbcom rather than the previous wishy-washy motion which has made the offenders feel they can

3638:

About "If there are deadlines in place regarding achieving consensus in the discussions, and there are people actively working towards those deadlines, could that be explicitly stated" -- There are no deadlines. I think deadlines would not serve consensus or the community. Please correct me if I'm

3374:

I've read sometimes that the community brought this on itself, because it did not rectify "the problem." But the community is all of us. Destructive measures should be a last resort. They should not be used unless substantive productive methods have clearly failed. As just one example, what notice

3213:

One motivating factor for those supporting the out-of-process deletions seems to be the perceived urgent need for such unilateral action, with no oversight or clear record. For the moment, putting aside whether these should be deleted or not -- If they deserve delection, they should go through our

2788:

Thank-you for the further strikes, TenOfAllTrades. I have no objection to you proposing a motion about Abd, but my view is that extending proposed motions to include others should be done by arbitrators (in part because we would then formally notify them). My current thoughts on this matter are to

2720:

Mathsci, have you counted how many of the people who have commented above were involved in the original arbitration case? The arbitrators are well aware of the previous case. Enric Naval, you (Mathsci), GoRight and Verbal made statements and gave evidence. TenOfAllTrades made workshop proposals. I

1941:

Again, this is a Request for Clarification. I am currently avoiding almost all Knowledge editing, due to what seems to be an interpretation that I violated the ban, and there was no controversy from Enric Naval over my RfC !votes, and no instance of refusal to discuss based on the ban, beyond one,

1809:

This request for clarification is becoming a consideration of other response, such as modifying the sanction to address unspecified problems. I advise against this before understanding the current sanction and what has happened with it. I am currently bound to a very tight interpretation, so tight

6503:

is indeed an Arbcom member, then you should be ashamed; isn't it obvious that Offliner wants a public clarification? Why else would Offliner give me permission to forward his appeal email to an admin? In fact, if you look thru your mailing list archives, you will see numerous emails from Offliner

6397:

want clarification on who I and others are going to stumble across in a year. What were the charges? Sockpuppetry, outing? More akin to the latter, as far as I can infer from some of the comments here. But this fact is not personal information by itself. Is it that difficult to announce properly?

6117:

Maurreen, thanks for the proposed motion. I have pointed it out to my colleagues. Do you think you could ask those involved in these discussions to comment on whether they think a motion such as you have proposed is needed, especially those you have mentioned in it? As I said elsewhere, proposing

5951:

justify the summary deletion of unsourced biographical articles. To get this discussion to an end, feet may have to be held to the fire. Those still harboring hopes that Knowledge may be returned, if enough time elapses without agreement, to the feckless, harmful ways of old, should be reminded

5177:

the previous decision of the arbitrators to commend those who removed material without looking at it. This will lead to the tyranny of whatever group among the arbitrators is in the majority among arb com. Arb com has essentially said, do whatever you like, as long as we agree with it. What is

4863:

This is not a matter of "something that hasn't happened yet". As I showed above, at least one administrator speedy deleted an uncontentious unsourced BLP as recently as March 6. Furthermore, it is impossible to compromise when one side holds over the other side's head the threat of not abiding by

4121:

Steve Smith---your statement fails to address a key factor... just because a biography is unsourced does not mean that it is contentious. Kevin et al are not talking about limiting their deletion activities to just contentious materials, but intend to redefine the definition to cover any BLP that

2669:

area where there are no disputes. An editor placed under a MYOB sanction is essentially being told that in general they bring more heat than light to discussions, and even trying to sort out whether they are making useful contributions (as here) is a time sink. Abd, you should find quiet areas to

1912:

specific, and "wikilawyering" may actually be appropriate, i.e., some insistence on the literal meanings of words. That's not the norm on Knowledge. I had come to a settled and simple interpretation of the ban, tighter than I'd thought, but at least reasonable, until the present allegations arose.

1657:

3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at

7166:

who has not edited since 8 February 2010 (I presume you did try asking Moreschi first?). Suggest that going to WP:AE and finding another admin to take over the topic ban and answer your questions is the more "correct" route here. Only if that fails, would you need to take it to us (ArbCom). As a

6804:

Note: It has been correctly pointed out to me, that changing an indefinite block to 12 months is not always a reduction. In many cases, "indefinite" may be a short time—as when an editor is required to respond to a particular request. In this case, I believe fixing the end date was to Offliner's

5476:

Correct, most people don't want mass deletions of articles (the mass deletions were a way to get people's attention). However the more important thing that came out of that RFC was the consensus for a sticky PROD, and any motion or other finding of consensus that does not mention that most vital

5370:

With regard to the motion, I agree with some of the comments by Scott and Coffee. The biggest issue now is a small minority taking advantage of their increased influence in the smaller discussions for the implementation details to try to create compromises on things that aren't really necessary,

5281:

To add: I find the attitude of both Scott MacDonald and Lar utterly disgusting, disruptive and detrimental to the present and future of this project. Honestly, who does Scott think he is to be threatening the community as he does in his comments? I'm sorry, but Scott does not own Knowledge, no

4844:

on March 6 on the grounds that it was an unreferenced BLP. The arbcom's vague motion in the prior case has created confusion and encouraged administrators to violate consensus whenever their views of policy differ from the community's. I encourage the committee to take this case because it would

4735:

so it can be used instead of frittering away time on endless prevarication. Get sticky prod up and running, instead of wasting everyone's time with requests like this one. I urge ArbCom to reject this request for clarification with a clear statement that the matter is not open to further debate,

2364:- I am unclear as to your intended meaning here. Could you please clarify? Do you mean that (a) I and other Abd supporters should also stay away from Abd, (b) I and the others in the original case should stay away from each other (yes please), (c) both, or (d) neither (i.e. something else)? -- 1819:

The goal here should be a clarification that would avoid future disputes. If an MYOB sanction can cause major dispute over interpretation, it's a bad idea for anyone, not just me. (So far, most alleged violations were not found to be so, but that's not a clarification question.) If there were no

5148:

I can not accept the mass deletion of anything that is not proven to be harmful, and I do not think there was every any evidence that the unsourced BLP articles were even potentially harmful in any way more than the rest of Knowledge. We have serious content problems, but they to a considerable

6789:

No, Russavia, I should not be ashamed. BASC did in fact answer Offliner's formal appeal by reducing the ban length from indefinite to 12 months. This happened in February. We have not received anything from Offliner recently, although perhaps it's caught in moderation. If we get something from

5073:

a threat. If anything, it is a perfectly justifiable warning about extremists and what they might do. The BLP RfC was exceptionally confusing, because it tried to address too many BLP issues in one discussion, making any one consensus extrememly difficult to identify. The RfC has been

4164:

A couple of ArbCOM members have asked what actions can they take as a preventitive before creating a whole new slew of ArbCOM cases/issues. Simple. Make it clear that in your previous motion you referred the issue to an RfC, the RfC has happened, and all parties are expected to adhere to the

3427:

If ArbCom allows out-of-process deletions, either explicitly or implicitly, after the committee's original motion, that can significantly decrease incentive for people "to continue working together" (as encouraged by the committee's original motion) whether on addressing any BLP problems or in

2545:

participation in or comment on the extant dispute here was my brief comment above. I have had nothing to do with any of the other discussions in any of the other fora, and I don't believe posting a seven-sentence note – even if arguably tangential – constitutes an abuse of the ArbCom's time or

1760:

P.D.D.: The "commenting at polls" clause seemed to work well at first, but now it's just luring Abd into inserting himself in disputes where he was not an originating party (aka, after commenting in the Ghost RfC, he started inserting himself into the whole Ghost-NSF-pseudoscience dispute that

1152:

I'm really not into edit warring and already practice a version of 1RR: If I add something sans a source which gets removed, I won't try restoring it until a good source can be found (since I don't edit as much as I used to this usually means a day or so.) I'm also not a fan of reverting edits

5449:

There are quite a few problems with this statement. First, "out-of-process" has many different meanings and interpretations, and different people have assessed that different ways. Secondly, "Out-of-process" suggests that the BLP policy, or the Foundation's stance on this issue is in some way

4536:. You say "it is discouraging to work on a compromise if summary deletions continue regardless." Yes, but summary deletions have ceased months ago, and have not continued, precisely on the basis that we had a better way forward. The problem here is the failure to implement consensus which was 3740:

As I mentioned earlier, a few of us had been working to keep the discussion on track and get the most acceptance from the most people. But such major housekeeping can be perceived negatively. That perception can be magnified by the fact that the housekeepers are involved in the discussion and

1917:

Carcharoth has done two things, and you agreed with one, general advice, but also an opinion was given that I'd violated the ban. If Carcharoth means by this that I violated an unstated (and unclear!) spirit of the ban, that's one thing. If it means that I actually violated the ban itself, as

1269:

I totally understand, given the amount of work you do as an arbcom member and the usual attitude of people asking for editing rights who don't seem to think they've done anything wrong must be frustrating. Please understand I can't find anywhere where it says we can't upload primary documents

6095:

out or get bogged down by volume). Would there be any volunteers to oversee the discussions or are there people already unofficially doing this? In passing, I would like to endorse what DGG and Birgitte say above, the only thing I disagree with is that a list of anything that gets deleted is

6894:

Russavia, can I ask if you are in possession of the two emails sent to Offliner since the email you posted? As to your background you are, in fact, missing quite a number of details about the situation with Offliner. Did you not include those on purpose or do you not have all the details?

4447:

In effect, those of us using speedy deletion agreed a voluntary moratorium to allow the community to develop an alternative. In my opinion, there seemed to be an adequate way forward with "sticky prod" for new BLPs and some deadlined for clearing the backlog. If the current rate of sourcing

5925:

under which someone claiming something is contentious makes it contentious. Under that logic, everything in the universe is potentially contentious if a user who happens to say so. That's clearly wrong. Your argument is not supported by the community, by the wording of policy, or by logic.

5825:

Balloonman's and Scotty's proposals are the basis of the present discussions. There is some dispute over one hypothetical point (whether to proceed with sticky prod if the review in June finds the problem has been dealt with without one), but I don't think ArbCom is being asked to decide

5038:

as there is some register or list, so folks can readily review, source and re-add articles. (2) we need to aggressively ensure that a collaborative environment is enforced. Giving one side a free pass and excusing their incivility is extremely bad for morale. Leaders need to be unifiers.

4507:

This is unhelpful. Firstly, on the "out of process deletions" issue, there is no problem to be solved. There have been no such deletions, and there won't be any if those involved stop wasting time at arbcom and get their act together. There is a consensus for "sticky prod" but, frankly,

5286:, and the discussions on getting the sticky-PROD idea are ongoing. His comments make it patently obvious that he is not interested in working with the community, but rather believes he is above it and has no issues with ignoring consensus and violating any policy he wishes to make his 2000:

talk pages et al. That said, the editing restriction is intended to avoid inflaming disputes, not prevent Abd from editing altogether (we have blocks for that). With this interpretation Abd would be able to edit provided he avoided hotspots and raised his own new issues as required. --

5845:

Members of ArbCom have a duty to distinguish their positions as Arbitrators from their advocacy as members of the community. Risker did this in closing the first phase of the RfC on this subject, and I expect to see Risker recuse on this question. Other Arbitrators should do the same.

4271:

clubs, activities, events, etc using the logic that if there is a negative reference to the subject, then we are ultimately inditing the living people who might be involved with said subject! If that position goes through, then virtually every article on WP could be subject to BLP!---

5074:

closed. The consensus has something in it to satisfy all but the most intransigent of extremists of either leaning. Most of us will probably live with the decision and act accordingly although it may be necessary to occasionally politely remind those who go OTT :

4786:

confused on this point that it merits direct refutation. You should stop ranting. It's really rather unbecoming. I am minded to ask ArbCom for a sanction on your actions since you continue to make unfounded and scurrilous allegations even after being repeatedly warned about it.

5400:

an indication of some view point (the very idea of forcing BLPs to be sourced as a "view point", is laughable as is) but are an action to ensure the proper maintenance of this site, and were a result of what the ArbCom thinks is best to resolve the problems they are presented.

6039:

Deletion of unsourced (not unsourceable) contentious material in BLPs is policy. It is desireable for the community to develop a process by which this policy can be fulfilled, but the absence of consensus on such a process does not mean that the unsourced stuff gets to stay;

5169:

the view that "liberal tolerance" of what gets published is counterproductive. It's exactly the opposite. We need liberal tolerance of what gets started , in order that we may improve it. It's the only productive course for making as wide-ranging encyclopedia as we are aiming

1704:

Abd is not an originating party on that dispute, but he is trying to insert himself as the final arbiter of the dispute. It appears to me that Abd is evading the ban restrictions by editing the controversial parts of the article and the talk page without commenting on them.

5840:

material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Knowledge:No original research); or that relies on self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to comply with

5699:

If a process is actually a process, then any reasonable person has to be open to the possibility that he could have input, and still lose. That’s not impossible. . . Losing isn’t proof that your input was disregarded. It may well have been taken seriously. It just didn’t

2793:(per Mathsci) is that Abd and those involved in the original case(s) will stay apart (that includes GoRight and others as well). It is entirely possible that both my proposed motions (one still only being considered) will fail, but that is how I see things at the moment. 4339:

can be upheld without disruptive editing or disruptive use of admin tools. Now would be a good time for Arbcom to remind all editors to inform the creator and other substantial contributors when prodding or otherwise tagging articles for deletion, and to remind editors

1119:

will certainly notice the board's finding and might wonder about my side of the story. In my opinion the other editor was engaged more in defending his faith as a Scientologist than editing according to the rules. In a nutshell I participated in numerous discussions on

5211:

speedy deletions outside of established reasons for deletion is not the way to go. I have never seen nor can I easily imagine an article that would actually need speedy deletion for the sake of the encyclopedia that would not be not covered by existing rationales.

2706:

those who have commented here state whether they have done so because they were involved in the Ghost dispute, or whether because they follow these pages and comment on previous cases they were involved with (hint: the former is OK, the latter is generally unhelpful).

4422:

when both I and others have given you examples of speedy deletes of long existent articles earlier this month. If you are demonstrating that youy have not read properly the evidence with which you are presented, then how can you expect your judgment to be respected?--

6740:

I now must retire to avoid the ungoing outing and harassment (see statement by Vlad at the workshop talk page) and would not be able to represent myself any longer. But I might return back when it is safe. Please do not reveal any personal information. Best wishes.

3366:

has been researching WP. Of 15 BLPs, the BLP subjects were roughly evenly divided as to their opinions on how accurate, complete and unbiased the pages were. At the bottom of the page, in a comment responding to me, the blogger said the sourcing in all articles was

6014:

We cannot really rule on the propriety of something that hasn't happened yet, I think. Beyond that, I would urge everyone involved to work together in pursuit of a generally acceptable path forward, and to avoid comments that might unnecessarily inflame matters.

2664:

How MYOB (mind your own business) sanctions work in practice seems to be problematic. My view is that MYOB sanctions are a last resort, and it is up to the editor under a MYOB sanction to avoid controversial areas and go and find something productive to do in an

7181:

I agree with Carcharoth. In general I dislike giving good-faith requests the runaround by shunting them to another subsection of arbitration, but the administrators who work on enforcement would probably be able to advise whether there have been problems here.

1353:, and getting involved with edit disputes I promise that is definitely not the case because I wasn't doing those things in 2009 when I was banned. (This is why I may come off as arrogant or unrepentant here, being punished for mistakes made two years earlier 3370:

The focus whether the article has *a source* is misplaced. If *a correct source* was added to all our articles overnight, that wouldn't make the articles more accurate or less biased. It would only mean *a source* had been added. This focus whitewashes true

1414:

Was not active on this case, and sufficient numbers of those active on this case are still on the Committee, so leaving it to them to review this (i.e. staying inactive on this one, and noting it here for the purposes of any motions that might be proposed).

5728:

preemptive about a ruling on the threats made my some, on behalf of the committee itself (through it's earlier ruling), in public and to people who have been largely uninvolved in most of this mess (which, incidentally, was created by same said people...).

6647:, he posted some of the contents of his email inbox; which proved that the list was still active during the case, and still participating in the behaviour that they stood accused of. The fact this had happened led another editor to announce this at EEML 1663: 6481:

are sooo-1930s Soviet Union, and you guys are also liable to be held to account for your actions. I suggest that the Committee come clean with the flimsy reasons for the ban, and also admit that they may have just gotten it wrong on this occasion, and

6596:

In response to this email, he has already received a response or two, but none that really clarify 1) the reason for the indef block, and 2) the rationale behind the block supported by evidence. I don't know about anyone else, but my mother tongue is

1199:

The graphics were simply meant to illustrate topics discussed, for example the text referred to two separate DD-214 forms listing two different sets of awards and commendations. We usually list these in articles about military personnel, for example

1338:

I think that's rational, bearing in mind that some use of CoS sources is necessary only to report their major assertions about him discussed in secondary sources. However CoS information which has not been in a relevant secondary source is probably

6837:

Offliner has been given, repeatedly and in detail, the explanation of why he has been banned. This was done at the time of the ban, repeated during his BASC appeal, and has been repeated again as recently as a few hours ago. That he refuses to

5978:

perhaps a community-based solution would be more effective if actual problems arise in future. The community could resolve further disruption (not threatened, but actual) via either conduct RfC or topic banning disruptive individuals from BLPs.

5418:

A motion such as that is attempting to say that the administrative actions taken are not administrative but are instead a view point... which is quite maddening. There are quite a few issues I have with your idea of a motion, so let me list them

6827:

No. Offliner is aware of the reasons, and can seek clarification himself if he feels it required. No other editor has standing to request (let alone demand) that information and we do not divulge private information to third parties, period.

6627:

correspondence to and from Offliner, and am in possession of it so that I was able to see for myself what was being said, and the reasons that were being offered. Arbitrators are able to hereby tell me if I incorrect in my assessment of this?

4540:. The problem is that the agreement has failed to be implemented. The solution is to implement it, not to look to bar hypotheticals predicated on what happens if consensus is not implemented - or continues to be obstructed by prevarication. -- 3888:

I've put a note at the sticky prod pages and the RFC talk page. Also put notes on the talk pages of Kevin, Mr. Z-man, Balloonman, and Kudpung. Should I notify all the people who have commented here? I'm not sure of the ArbCom-related customs.

1128:

on his behavior which was stopped by an involved administrator who said my attempts to go through with it despite their disagreement (I wanted outside comments from non-involved people) were harassment. The arbcom agreed and instructed me

4467:

return to systematic speedy deletion. However, given that it was the initiative of speedy deletion that was the catalyst to the current discussions, I'd strongly suggest that any ban on deletions would allow continued delay and inertia.

5162:

on the grounds that something is probably wrong with them. There are easy ways to enforce it--one is to do delist any deletion request that does not include a search. those who want articles deleted will then search, as they ought to.

4314:, whether it be deleting unsourced contentious articles, tagging, PRODding, and so on. There is still this ridiculous attitude of "let's wait and leave the articles be, someone, sometime will get to them eventually." Enough, already. 2464:)— complaints about other editors' 'harassment' of Abd might be more credible if GoRight didn't seem so prepared to overlook and enable Abd's misconduct. It's well past tiresome; a MYOB restriction on GoRight would not be out of place. 1497: 4231:@Maureen---I would not consider a 61% support to be a sign that consensus has been achieved. A majority yes, but the opposition provided strong rationale reasons for opposing my second proposal that I would not say it is consensus.--- 2553:

give permission or approval for anyone to make edits to my signed comments on this page, however I recognize when I'm outgunned, and I won't edit war with a clerk or Arb — so don't go getting silly ideas about needing to issue blocks.

1250:

I'm not saying I was perfect, I certainly wouldn't add a reference like Admiral Weneker's report about Japanese subs not commerce raiding off the US coast as a response to Scientology claims that the Japanese were in the area often.

4805:

If I may be so bold I would like to suggest that the Committee come to grips with what to do here, even if it is "close no action" or "await further developments in process X" or what have you, as this has been sitting a while now.

2278:(4) It should likewise be plain, and therefore not confusing to anyone, that words have specific meanings which are used, in the case of a sanction, to convey the intent of that sanction. Please note that the meanings of the words 1542: 5467:

In Phase I of the RFC suggested by ArbCom to address unsourced biographies of living people, a proposal to delete on sight "any biography that is poorly referenced or completely unreferenced" was rejected by the community, 157 to

5203:

English language in general, or by anything except your own personal idiosyncratic view. I see that view as so extreme and so extraordinary that you should recuse yourself from this and any future discussions of the general issue.

5090:

WP:BEFORE is a policy that is extremely difficult to enforce, but there are plenty of clear cut examples where many taggers do not even read the first line of the lead. Some form of policy action is required against such

4490:

It is perfectly reasonable for admins to issue reminders that moratoria dealing with BLP problems don't last for ever, and that this one will soon expire. As Lar has said, get the alternatives up and running, and the problem goes

4471:

We hope for an alternative to speedy, but the clock is ticking and patience shows some signs of running out. Perhaps those bringing this case would do better spend their time better seeking a working alternative pretty damn soon.

2487:

I look forward to ArbCom bringing forth a MYOB motion in the very near future. (A further request for clarification — is Carcharoth's request on his own initiative, or is he speaking formally, on behalf of the entire Committee?)

3948:

One way that the motion is helpful is that it gives encouragement to those working on the problem that their work is not in vain. For example, it is discouraging to work on a compromise if summary deletions continue regardless.

5206:

Response to NYBrad: not only is there widespread but not universal consensus " that mass-deletion without the exercise of discretion about each specific article is not the way to go" but that there is similar consensus that

5866: 3053: 2885: 4285:

16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I have to agree with Lar, if the committee isn't going to address the mess they helped create, then we might as well close it now---it's pretty obvious that the committee is unable or unwilling to

3361:

No evidence has been given that unsourced BLPs are otherwise more problematic than sourced BLPs. Limited evidence is available that there is no correlation between sourcing and other aspects. For one external example -- The

1079:

I'd like to resume editing Scientology related articles (most interested in Hubbard's military service but am also interested in unrestricetd editing again). The board found that I was POV pushing in 2007 when #1 I uploaded

2078:

The loopholes used to justify participation in the existing conflicts were a) article edits, b) edit summaries and c) polls. These should be closed by clarification (even if just by requiring Abd to avoid active areas). --

5153:

the idea that maintain a list of articles deleted will help--for how can someone who sees the bare names know what they might be qualified to work on. What will help is keeping the articles until they are properly worked

3089:"The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people." 1944:

Please, do consider the ban itself and whether or not I violated it. If I did or didn't (as to what is in dispute), please so state. If I didn't violate the ban itself, but some unstated spirit of the ban, please clarify

2928: 2628: 1651: 1499: 3666:

We are making progress. Our progress is probably slower han anyone would like. But there's nothing good that can be done about that. As far as I can tell, we're doing the best that is possible under the circumstances.

7114:

I have reviewed sulmues' block log and the arbitration enforcement log. Since the six month topic ban was applied, sulmues subsequently received a civility restriction, a 96 hour block, a 21 day block, and finally a

5290:. The committee may choose not to address the disruption these editors promise to create now, but we all know that we will be right back here when their attitude of "sod the community" once again reasserts itself. 4345: 1143:

to Hubbard's or any other Scientology article are cited by an acceptable source, and include all relevant information from them then NPOV will be maintained. So I'm asking the arbcom to let me edit those topics again.

3610: 2514:

or withdraw your own instructions. Otherwise, you're putting the clerks in the awkward position of acting as your own personal enforcers, rather than as agents of the Committee and (by extension) the community.

1009:(On other wikis and here until I created a super complicated password which I made my browser memorize, and subsequently forget when I forgot to migrate my passwords before moving to a new hard drive I edited as 2883: 2445: 6206: 1810:

that I won't edit Knowledge if it stands, based on Carcharoth's opinion that I'd violated, presumably with what Enric Naval alleged (but Carcharoth indicated that this might be clarified, so it could change).

6884:

Russavia, can I just say that Offliner gave you a very one-sided version of events that doesn't appear to approach reality at any point? Still waiting on clarification from Offliner about what he wants here.

6670:

snapshot of the diff that Offliner took for use in evidence, and which he shared with me. A matter of hours later I removed the link from Giano's talk page, and it was later oversighted. On 5 December, I was

4459:

requirement - which effectively switches the burden back on to the person proposing deletion: if no-one is willing to look for sources, then the article remains (that's the failed eventualist policy again).

1805:

because the examples underlying this request can be seen with evidence and argument regarding each example. My summary there, visible outside collapse, is brief, and even the full discussion is not massive.

5995: 4758:

The allegation that Lar has violated English Knowledge policy and ignored consensus (except in cases where consensus is trumped by Foundation directives) regarding deletion of Biographies of Living Persons.

4875:.) And what on earth is Steve Smith trying to convey when he says "WP:IAR should never override WP:BLP"? I don't think anyone has ever invoked WP:IAR to override WP:BLP. This seems like a total strawman. 1065: 886: 5404:

some members of the community are trying to create a new way to scare other editors, into thinking that deleting articles to maintain the site, is somehow a rouge attempt to overthrow Knowledge policies.

4833: 4829: 3796: 6605: 5231: 4657:

that is why an amnesty was necessary Lar, amnesty is defined as "a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment" you were an offender who the arbitration committee exempted from punishment.

2233:. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls. 1967: 1669: 6653: 4444:

Speedy deletion isn't ideal here. We need a robust alternative that effectively deals with unrefereced BLPs. Speedy deletion is, however, preferable to continuing with a failed policy of evantualism.

4331: 2318:

I apologize if anyone feels that this post is condescending. That was not my intention. I merely seek to highlight some rather straight forward but highly pertinent facts regarding this request. --

1386:

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

4102:

breaking the rules/laws. The notion of speedy deleting BLP articles solely because they do not have sources has been universally rejected everytime it has been brought before the wider community.---

7001: 6549: 5347:

I agree with Balloonman, if ArbCom needs to do anything here, it should be to state that people should abide by the results (few as they may be) from the RFC, as there are still people working on

4439: 3818: 2512:– I don't mind if you tell me to butt out as long as GoRight can be made to stop stirring the pot; his hyperbolic attacks were the only reason I offered a brief, diff-supported, 93-word comment – 6085:

While we are not constrained against advisory opinions, I think it would be unwise of us to try to determine the propriety or not of an hypothetical without the actual context surrounding it. —

4544: 4495: 2159: 6765: 6496: 5696:

If I could give a single piece of advice to the new administrators out there, it would be to pay less attention to what you decide, and more to who gets to decide. And remember that speed kills.

6818: 6799: 2563: 2524: 2497: 1310:

case in July 2007 I thought I had done a good job of editing within policy and put the early 2007 errors behind me. The arbcom didn't seem concerned I was still making the same editing errors:

5806: 3187:-- We agree that the *issue* is contentious. That is not the same as saying that any given article, the specific articles that have been deleted, or unsourced BLPs in general are contentious. 2398:@ Carcharoth: I imagine that most users at this stage, myself included, would avoid initiating any kind of sanction against Abd, simply because of the total drain on time that would result. 2133: 815: 810: 803: 798: 793: 788: 783: 778: 773: 768: 763: 758: 753: 748: 743: 738: 733: 728: 723: 718: 711: 706: 701: 696: 691: 686: 681: 676: 671: 7088:

Is there anything else I should do? Also, since my ban will expire on 5/27/2010 and I have always been compliant with the ban, could the ban be possibly lifted? Please clarify. Thank you! --

5942: 5860: 5493:

Motions don't typically state a timetable to show what has been decided, whereas just mentioning Balloonman's proposal would have been just fine. However, the only thing that matters is the

4823: 3811: 3322: 1098:

Regarding #1: The documents were official USN records which showed Hubbard had misrepresented his naval career during the conflict and claimed awards he did not receive. Since the source is

6917: 6908: 6899: 5251: 4884: 2378: 2193: 927: 666: 661: 656: 651: 646: 641: 636: 631: 626: 619: 614: 609: 604: 599: 594: 589: 584: 579: 574: 569: 564: 559: 554: 549: 544: 539: 534: 527: 522: 517: 512: 507: 502: 497: 492: 487: 482: 477: 472: 467: 462: 457: 452: 447: 442: 435: 430: 425: 420: 415: 410: 405: 400: 395: 390: 385: 380: 375: 365: 360: 355: 350: 343: 338: 333: 328: 323: 318: 313: 308: 303: 298: 293: 288: 283: 278: 273: 268: 263: 258: 251: 246: 241: 236: 231: 226: 221: 216: 211: 109: 101: 96: 84: 79: 71: 4731:

Deletion of unsourced material is entirely within policy. Admins are empowered to use whatever tools are available to do so. If some group wants a particular process used, get the process

4369: 3140:

I agree that the consensus is reasonable, one that most people on both sides of the issue can live with. I think that we ought not let outliers on either side work against that consensus.

6784: 6161: 6076: 6019: 4431: 4416: 4364: 2854: 2127: 2094: 206: 201: 196: 191: 186: 181: 176: 171: 166: 6009: 4075: 2843: 1852:

claiming it, I have not been posting walls of text, no example other than the AE report cited above was given, and if that's an improper wall of text, given the context, I'm astonished.

7200: 6889: 6127: 4872: 4245: 4204: 4156: 4136: 4116: 3788: 2817: 2802: 2768: 2753: 2738: 2617: 1775: 1509: 1455: 1349:

In May 2009, citing my early 2007 errors, the arbcom topic banned me from editing Scientology topics. If the concern is that I'll go back to making the same early 2007 errors, creating

1115:

Regarding #2: I'm not looking to have this changed, but I feel compelled to respond given the way the finding was written. I only mention it here because anyone looking into my part of

141: 7191: 7156: 6928:

Offliner's statements do not match up with what happened in this case. We have a proposed statement on this issue.. the ball's in Offliner's court if he allows it to be posted or not.

6879: 6659: 6146: 6057: 5677: 2643: 7176: 6112: 4527: 4481: 3744:

If appointing any moderator(s) is pursued, I encourage that to be done with consultation of at least one vocal editor from each "side." That should help encourage harmony all around.

2715: 2679: 2477: 1468: 126: 7214: 6937: 6870:

Per Luke and Coren. I will note that do not agree with several aspects of Russavia's characterization of things, but will not elaborate absent a request from Offliner that I do so.

6034: 5342: 5306: 5256: 5029: 4944: 3047: 2869: 1204:. Thanks to Hubbard there can't be only one list, since he claimed to have earned these awards we have to mention that (even the one's which he couldn't have gotten or didn't exist.) 6543: 5780: 4996: 4050: 3994: 3980: 3912: 3898: 3586: 3509: 3437: 3410: 3384: 3352: 3268: 3223: 3196: 3171: 3149: 2659: 1424: 1314:. (It's also relevant to mention I completely refrained from contacting the other editor as mandated by the arbcom in that case.) By mid 2008 I had certainly come to understand how 5966: 5059: 4892: 4565: 3063:

The committe said, "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

1482: 7229: 6532: 5911: 5896: 4938: 3803: 2573: 2541:

I am not comfortable with suppressing mention of what I feel are valid points related to the processes followed by Arbitrators in responding to this Request. I will note that my

2435: 2421: 2407: 923: 6832: 6089: 5722: 5394: 1366: 1303: 1130: 5961: 5670: 4854: 5916: 5855: 5002: 4211:

something, the we have to adhere to those wishes until we can convince them that consensus has changed or an edict from Jimbo/WMF comes down. I think they realize that too.---

1437: 7119:

on January 26, 2010. The good behavior has lasted less than three months at this point. I think there is an excessive risk of further blocks if the topic ban is lifted now.

6863: 6850: 5613:

how to add more adhesive to patch an already corrosive band-aid; and this motion does nothing more than add fuel to the fire of conflict between the two sides in this debate.

4388: 2016: 1770: 1755: 1738: 1721: 5786: 5407:

The Arbitration Committee is doing their jobs, while the only thing some of you commenting here are doing, is attempting to thwart the possibility of stricter enforcement of

4613: 4305: 2242: 6904:

So it seems that the both of you still have difficulty with the concept of privacy. In that case perhaps you should remember that a response you don't like != no response.

6699:, mind you. The information which Radeksz posted into mainspace, and which was alerted to in the evidence pages of the case, appeared on that same website in its entireity. 4716: 4693: 4674: 4300: 4225: 4179: 4095: 3162:

about looking dimly "on attempts to force the issue on either side" -- I think that firmly clarifying that position should efficiently address the immediate matter at hand.

2895: 1291: 845: 6569: 6500: 6369: 5717: 5143: 4726: 2339: 6425: 6407: 6384: 5223: 4799: 4403:

unreferenced BLPs has declined by roughly a quarter so far this year. However, rather than working in a collaborative manner, he is acting in an extremely disruptibve and

2188: 1956: 1931: 919: 911: 6679:

All the while, and basically from the beginning of the case, there was information being posted to another website concerning the case. We can not ignore that it exists;

6430: 1695:. He performed the removals after commenting in the RfC, and he hasn't made any comments on the talk page about any of the two removals. I warned him after his first edit 7127: 6517: 6508: 6490: 6459: 5389: 5365: 5337: 5301: 5276: 5054: 4969: 4560: 3564: 3314: 3120: 3092: 6724: 6696: 6393:

wants public clarification or anything else. I am not a big fan of him at all, to put it mildly, and I readily believe that he might have eaten children for breakfast.

4622:

Arbitration has sent a clear message to the community: If administrators blatantly disrupt and break wikipedia rules, having "utter contempt" for "community consensus"

7150: 7101: 6952: 6750: 5747: 5138: 5110: 4922: 4608: 4590: 3753: 3724: 3705: 3686: 3035: 1681:

However, now he is trying to insert himself into the dispute by completely removing a contentious lead paragraph that has been under heavy discussion, asserting that "

1258:

CHL probably didn't realize when he wrote his reply that the primary docs he points to came from a secondary source Knowledge was using before I even started editing:

123: 25: 6648: 5985: 5580:

I'm sorry, but what motion has ever dictated something like this? If I recall correctly, the previous motion regarding BLPs merely stated that the enforcement of our

1446:(Hubbard said this, but I have primary sources and user-created graphics to advance the position he was a liar). I'm reluctant to lift the topic ban for this reason. 1168: 5934: 5635: 4035: 3958: 2392: 2373: 2351: 2327: 2207: 2154: 1235: 6651: 5974: 5801: 5024: 4631:

I have absolutely no faith that the arbitration committee will do the right thing here and accept the case, because the arbitration committee and Mr. Wales himself

4165:

outcome. Not everybody will be happy with it, but everybody needs to adhere to it. Sir Fozzie's statement would be a good foundation for such a clarification.---

4070: 3938: 3882: 3772: 2601: 1827:

3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes . He may, however, vote or comment at polls.

4517:"Whatever justification that might have existed earlier for out-of-process deletion based solely on lack of sourcing, that justification does not currently exist" 3343:

Especially given that they did not object during the RFC, I see no justification for unilateral contentious behavior, or to condone it, implicitly or explicitly.

3052:

As a minimum, I ask the committee to prevent any out-of-process deletions while it considers these issues with more information and deliberation than involved in

2468:

Finally, Abd's three-month ban imposed in the Arbitration failed to drive home the point, and a longer – if not permanent – ban on Abd would be appropriate now.

6173: 5947:

The best clarification that can be given here is to remind the community that, until a formal process is agreed, the overriding interests represented in the BLP

5596:

Whatever justification that might have existed earlier for out-of-process deletion based solely on lack of sourcing, that justification does not currently exist.

5066: 4640: 4375: 4323: 3864:

Whatever justification that might have existed earlier for out-of-process deletion based solely on lack of sourcing, that justification does not currently exist.

1820:

violations outside the single error, then perhaps the sanction is working, and disruption is coming from other causes, which can then be examined and addressed.

915: 907: 6361: 6332: 5194: 4818: 4748: 3613:

of Balloonman's proposal in the RFC set goals to reduce old unsourced BLPs to zero within a year. That was accepted by the community, with !votes of 52 to 33.

1903: 1869: 1189:

about Hubbard's claimed sub kills. *An exception would be the ASW-1 form I uploaded, which was not found on the site. That was uploaded in case anyone reading

7106: 7065: 6913:

As a side note, if you guys are going to insist on using a diminutive to refer to me, could you at least spell it correctly? It's S - h - e - l - l - e - y.

5371:

delaying the implementation, or people trying to force in things that there was no consensus for in the RFC. I refer to to my comment above for what a motion

1743: 5811:

Maureen is asking ArbCom for four Findings of Fact of the sort ArbCom routinely makes: in this case, that four things are consensus. I believe they are true

3606:

By "It will be difficult to get something that has wide-ranging agreement," were you referring to agreement within ArbCom or agreement within the community?

1674:

Abd has never edited the Ghost article or been involved in disputes there (he is not an originating party of the current dispute there). He has commented in

1379: 7196:

I think Jehochman has some good advice here. You're back on the right path - give it some time before immersing yourself in a difficult environment again.

4845:

prevent drama-causing deletions and allow the community to develop appropriate consensus-backed policies without the threat of rogue administrative action.

5877: 4754:

To Okip... You are confused about who is violating what, or to whom amnesty was granted. ArbCom was specifically asked to comment on (among other matters)

3329:

for three months, so see if the recent falls in the backlog continue," and "If the progress stalls and the backlog stops falling at the current rate, then

3084:

There is indication that other people have done similar deletions since the ArbCom's decision. But this deserves further research before I name names here.

1110:

I felt the records deserved inclusion. (Hubbard claimed to be a naval hero, in order to be truly NPOV the navy's side of things should be represented too.)

1073: 6859:, though I should note that he disagrees with its substance. Nevertheless, that statement explains the incident leading to the committee banning him. — 4599:

the rule of WP consensus being the basis for WP policies and guidelines. My earlier comments in this and other actions apply with full force and vigor.

4041:

A lot is being done to address unsourced BLPs. This motion primarily addresses summary deletions. Thus, concerns of both "sides" are given consideration.

3652:

It also sounds like a demand. Please remember that this is not a job. We have lives outside of WP. Not only is this volunteering, it is trying to achieve

853: 6964: 6805:

benefit, so felt it could be described as a "reduction," but I hope that this perhaps poorly-chosen word doesn't distract from my main point. Namely, we

6746: 4407:

manner which demonstrates him to be someone who should not be trusted with his sysop tools. This needs firm action by arbcom rather than vaascillation.--

4399: 3535: 2538:

ArbCom, as part of a Clarification, to comment on the conduct of editors seeking to enforce (or not) an Arbitration remedy in the lead up to the Request.

1306:

and during the few months made some mistakes based on misunderstanding our rules. (Let's call them the early 2007 errors) By the time I was involved in

903: 6570:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification&action=historysubmit&diff=355372853&oldid=355370019

6522: 4423: 4408: 4380: 3659:

You asked, "Would there be any volunteers to oversee the discussions or are there people already unofficially doing this?" -- For whatever it's worth,

1849: 6755: 6663: 5870: 4666:

on wikipedia would have lost there adminiship a month ago, instead of continually trying to silence editors and rewrite the history of their extreme

2245:

an interpretation of the sanction at a previous request for clarification. The short version of that clarification is as follows (emphasis is mine):

2182: 4448:

continues, then no deletions might be necessary. If not, then some level of sticky-prodding might be. I think there was some consensus around this.

3259:

is a list of Prod'd articles, with the justification. I expect that a sole rationale of "unsourced BLP" is used less than an average of once a day.

1408: 1181:

Actually the docs I uploaded, were for the most part* discussed in this secondary source about Hubbard's service and his claims regarding it called

3577:

I had been away from WP for a few years. I would be interested in learning of what steps, if any, were tried and failed before the mass deletions.

2118: 2085: 2007: 1159:

To sum up: I totally believe 3rr is unnecessary in dealing with good faith editors, but sometimes due to confusion one revert may be constructive.

1800: 1683:

lede should enjoy the highest level of consensus, remove controversial paragraph, not necessary for overview of "ghosts." Lede is fine without it.

6326: 5663: 5628: 2265:(3) It should be plain, and therefore not confusing to anyone, that the operative phrases in both the sanction itself and FP's clarification are 1712:

of disputes where he wasn't an originating party. Abd has found a way to comment about those disputes without violating the letter of the ban. --

7132: 6680: 5971:

This request has been open nearly three weeks and has been quiet for days. In light of what's happened at RFAR during the last two(ish) months,

5316:" as the primary deletion reason, should still be subject to the amnesty of the previous motion or allowed by a selective interpretation of the 5078:

Stricter controls over what gets published in BLP are needed - without interpreting Mr Wales's recent comments comments on it too liberally.

2166: 6742: 4979:, nor has there been. This request for clarification focuses solely on the deletion (specifically, ongoing and threatened future deletion) of 3340:

To the best of my knowledge, no one from the deletion side objected to the suggested three-month wait-and-see period for old unreferenced BLPs.

1790: 895: 6558: 5433:

Yes, but admins aren't being allowed to use said procedures simply because some people favor the possibility of notability over verifiability.

5990: 5758: 4987:

does not allow for the speedy deletion of articles, and CSD criteria G10 and A7 allow speedy deletion of BLPs only in certain limited cases.

4682:

yet more threats from the same group of disruptive bullying administrators. I am so disgusted that the arbitration committee has emboldened

2103: 148: 6587:

3) a coherent block rationale, which does not include any of the false assumptions and false accusations which I have disproven in my appeal

6364: 1891:

promptly struck it as soon as my attention was called to it. Since then, he's brought this edit up over and over. Now he asserts a new one:

3134: 3078: 3041: 1780: 1376:{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.} 5819:

We are making progress, both in decreasing the number of unreferenced BLPs and in coming up with measures to deal with any future problem.

4348:

that would make an exception to the latter, and it would be a great shame if that was derailed by another out of process deletion spree.

3656:

among a group of people with diverse views and schedules and commitments who have been through a very divisive time on the general issue.

4709: 4663: 3375:

was given for deleting said articles? Did the deleters either publicly warn the community or directly warn the specific article editors?

1297: 6135: 2453: 2218: 6856: 6713: 6554:

In order to dispute what the Arbiters are claiming in relation to Offliner not asking for a public clarification, I hereby offer this:

6413: 5485:

In Phase II of the same RFC, Scott Mac (Doc) suggested a compromise. - The suggested compromise led to a formal proposal by Balloonman.

4901:

with references. i would say marginal keep, but process circumvented. i note some earlier examples: a macarthur winner getting proded,

4689:

I strongly encourage them to take this case, instead of giving these disruptive administrators continued amnesty for their disruption.

5530:

This may be the only note that is actually important to an "in light of the following considerations" section, and/or uncontroversial.

4660: 2459: 2037:(so much for a single "inadvertent" violation), removed controversial content actively being discussed from the article and talk page 1977: 6771:

I believe it's in everyone's best interests—possibly including Offliner's—to limit the spread of potentially private information. If

977: 5976: 4765: 4702: 4581:

the actions of such admins who do not accept consensus which is the problem. Impose the penalties apparently sought by such admins.

2456: 2198:

Can Arbcom please put a stop to the abuse and harassment of Abd that this sanction has caused. This disruption is unnecessary. --

1920:

please, attend to Enric Naval's request here, which I join, seeking clarification on a narrow "legal issue." Did I violate the ban?

1570: 4010:

The motion is intended to get the most acceptance from the most people. Thus, it essentially endorses the compromise suggested by

3247:

If deletion of BLPs for the sole reason of having no sourcing was supported by the community, there would be many more of them at

6760: 6350: 5121:

Deadlines: Yes, setting deadlines is essential, but lets us not forget that most of us have full-times occupations as well.

1311: 1134: 2725:

statement narrowly restricted to the clarification request. No arguments, no back-and-forth. Just brief statements that explain

6592:

In case you are unable to provide both 2) and 3), I'm asking you to withdraw the unjustified block and submit a public apology.

6234: 3595: 1245: 1222:

existence of so many contradictions does give one that impression, but remember this isn't my original research, it comes from

1027: 4310:

Reject this as patent nonsense, please. Nothing in the RfC precludes administrators from doing their job, which is to uphold

6338: 6283: 5320:

policy? Or should they be either strongly reminded, or actually held accountable to the existing provisions of the policy of

4636:

have already shown complete contempt for our established rules and established consensus with these bullying editors before.

2956: 1690:

remove pseudoscience arbitration notes, this is not a pseudoscience article by Knowledge standards. Make the cat stick first!

1282:

used on wikis all over the world, are you saying I should put more time into editing articles rather than illustrating them?

4832:). This supersedes whatever policy clarification (or whatever you want to call it) issued by arbcom in its past motion (see 4550: 4342:"When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist" 1675: 7029: 6978: