Manipulation of BLPs, now open Options Rating

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The aptly named "Manipulation of BLPs" case is now open. Since Cirt has his own case, I predict that the star of the show will be Will Beback. The issue is described as follows:

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs (that is, the use of articles to enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals prominent in a particular area of conflict); to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs; to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia; and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

[SpiderAndWeb]

The aptly named "Manipulation of BLPs" case is now open. Since Cirt has his own case, I predict that the star of the show will be Will Beback. The issue is described as follows:

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs (that is, the use of articles to enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals prominent in a particular area of conflict); to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs; to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia; and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

How do I access the mailing list mentioned in Motion 2?

[-DS-]

I wish I had started my latest "good hand" sock earlier. Now I can't do a goddamned thing about this without drawing suspicion. (I attracted enough of that just by voting in an AFD, and I don't want anymore thank you very much. I want to get this one to admin)

The aptly named "Manipulation of BLPs" case is now open. Since Cirt has his own case, I predict that the star of the show will be Will Beback. The issue is described as follows:

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs (that is, the use of articles to enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals prominent in a particular area of conflict); to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs; to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia; and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

How do I access the mailing list mentioned in Motion 2?

I think the question is whether it exists yet.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

The aptly named "Manipulation of BLPs" case is now open. Since Cirt has his own case, I predict that the star of the show will be Will Beback. The issue is described as follows:

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs (that is, the use of articles to enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals prominent in a particular area of conflict); to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs; to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia; and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

What about SlimVirgin? I think she has been lying low, because she can smell the climate of outrage over the BLP abusers. If this arbcom case doesn't address her past activities, she can just start up again after the dust settles.

[No one of consequence]

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs (that is, the use of articles to enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals prominent in a particular area of conflict); to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs; to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia; and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

What about SlimVirgin? I think she has been lying low, because she can smell the climate of outrage over the BLP abusers. If this arbcom case doesn't address her past activities, she can just start up again after the dust settles.

It sounds like they are not looking to punish any particular person for past activities but to examine past editing practices and set new best practice guidelines for the future. If you have an account and want to participate in the case, go ahead and post some diffs against SV, or any other editor engaged in the same thing. But don't expect any sanctions to arise out of this case. Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

It sounds like they are not looking to punish any particular person for past activities but to examine past editing practices and set new best practice guidelines for the future. If you have an account and want to participate in the case, go ahead and post some diffs against SV, or any other editor engaged in the same thing. But don't expect any sanctions to arise out of this case. Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

What, the BLP policy as it stands is considered unclear?

[Detective]

Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

What, the BLP policy as it stands is considered unclear?

ArbCom will not be modifying the BLP policy, or any other policy. It is not within their remit to do so. What they can and probably will do is make up a set of guidelines for their own benefit when considering future cases where BLP is an issue. These guidelines may or may not be consistent with the current BLP policy, or what people think that the policy is (not always the same thing). If they're inconsistent, well, that's ArbCom for you.

[No one of consequence]

It sounds like they are not looking to punish any particular person for past activities but to examine past editing practices and set new best practice guidelines for the future. If you have an account and want to participate in the case, go ahead and post some diffs against SV, or any other editor engaged in the same thing. But don't expect any sanctions to arise out of this case. Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

What, the BLP policy as it stands is considered unclear?

Obviously there is nothing unclear about BLP policy. The statement of scope, as written, suggests that they do not intend to hand out sanctions in this round, but rather to examine BLP editing in general. I hope I have read it wrong. Otherwise this exercise will be a profound waste of time.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Obviously there is nothing unclear about BLP policy. The statement of scope, as written, suggests that they do not intend to hand out sanctions in this round, but rather to examine BLP editing in general. I hope I have read it wrong. Otherwise this exercise will be a profound waste of time.

What makes this case tricky from the Arbs' point of view is that the alleged chronic POV-bashers are admins. Admins represent a privileged caste. If the BLP abusers were from the proletariat, they might be banned without a second thought. But when admins are caught violating policy, the unconscious reflex is to accuse the whistle-blowers of being stalkers, harassers, and so forth. The Arbs are trying to resolve what is for them a delicate situation, where the evidence of malfeasance on the part of Cirt, Will Beback, SV etc. is very strong, and the Arbs need to make it appear like they are taking it seriously without intruding upon the privileged status of the admins. This will be a test of whether we are dealing with the "old," Fred Bauder-era ArbCom, or a new, reformed ArbCom that will actually respond to demands from the "community" for uniform enforcement of existing policies.

Some of the admins in question have made no effort to disguise their hostility toward the BLP policy. Here are two helpful examples:

1. The news and entertainment media frequently mix editorial commentary with their news coverage of controversial persons. This practice is questionable in a newspaper, but antithetical to the writing of an encyclopedia. The pro-defamation faction, however, relies on this sort of thing, and they react with outrage if its inclusion is challenged under BLP. SlimVirgin: "The BLP policy was never intended to mean that we can't repeat what multiple reliable sources say about such figures, and indeed it's that sort of extreme interpretation that has caused the policy to acquire a bad reputation with some editors." diff

2. The BLP policy explicitly discourages the use of allegations against public figures that are made by anonymous sources. See WP:BLPGOSSIP. However, when Will Beback is called on his incessant use of such material, he takes evasive action:
Will Beback: "It's standard across Wikipedia to use reports in reliable sources, even when those reports use anonymous sources." diff

[No one of consequence]

Admins represent a privileged caste.

Not to me. (I think I'm wholly or partly responsible for 5 or 6 desysoppings, I forget.)

I wonder what would happen if I re-engaged on WP and decided to police BLP complaints. Do I have enough hit points to make a block against an admin stick? But it's a thought experiment only, I have no intention of re-engaging to the level needed for such a trial.

[lilburne]

It sounds like they are not looking to punish any particular person for past activities but to examine past editing practices and set new best practice guidelines for the future. If you have an account and want to participate in the case, go ahead and post some diffs against SV, or any other editor engaged in the same thing. But don't expect any sanctions to arise out of this case. Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

What, the BLP policy as it stands is considered unclear?

Obviously there is nothing unclear about BLP policy. The statement of scope, as written, suggests that they do not intend to hand out sanctions in this round, but rather to examine BLP editing in general. I hope I have read it wrong. Otherwise this exercise will be a profound waste of time.

Of course it is a waste of time. To change anything would result in ... changing something, and the site is incapable of doing that. There are far too many wikifiddlers looking to add their regurgitated little bit of current news to some article or other.

The BLP problems can mostly be sourced to polemical news reporting as entertainment. Whilst there is a system where editors think that "If its sourced somewhere I can add it" there will be BLP concerns. A simple rule that the only RS with respect to controversial facts or opinions about BLP are those sources published 12 months after the event described. The bulk of the BLP horrors would disappear at a stroke. That means all TV and newspaper chatter contemporaneous with an event are unreliable and cannot be used. Contemporaneous sources maybe be used for undisputed matters of facts.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

A simple rule that the only RS with respect to controversial facts or opinions about BLP are those sources published 12 months after the event described. The bulk of the BLP horrors would disappear at a stroke. That means all TV and newspaper chatter contemporaneous with an event are unreliable and cannot be used. Contemporaneous sources maybe be used for undisputed matters of facts.

Interesting idea -- you can only use material that has "stood the test of time." It would probably get rid of "the bulk," but not all. The BLP-bashers invest ungodly numbers of hours searching old archived press coverage to try to find the really nasty, inflammatory stuff. The problem is that there are increasingly tertiary sources that do that work for them, and publish compendia of old defamations. And since these are books, they have been sanctified as RS.

[lilburne]

A simple rule that the only RS with respect to controversial facts or opinions about BLP are those sources published 12 months after the event described. The bulk of the BLP horrors would disappear at a stroke. That means all TV and newspaper chatter contemporaneous with an event are unreliable and cannot be used. Contemporaneous sources maybe be used for undisputed matters of facts.

Interesting idea -- you can only use material that has "stood the test of time." It would probably get rid of "the bulk," but not all. The BLP-bashers invest ungodly numbers of hours searching old archived press coverage to try to find the really nasty, inflammatory stuff. The problem is that there are increasingly tertiary sources that do that work for them, and publish compendia of old defamations. And since these are books, they have been sanctified as RS.

If the Daily Post article of June 1 1976 is not a reliable source for a controversial fact or opinion, having it quoted in a book of published on June 1 2011 does not suddenly make it a reliable source for the controversial fact or opinion.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If the Daily Post article of June 1 1976 is not a reliable source for a controversial fact or opinion, having it quoted in a book of published on June 1 2011 does not suddenly make it a reliable source for the controversial fact or opinion.

I can think of a few admins who can filibuster for weeks on that topic, until you find yourself exhausted and off editing some list article.

[Abd]

If the Daily Post article of June 1 1976 is not a reliable source for a controversial fact or opinion, having it quoted in a book of published on June 1 2011 does not suddenly make it a reliable source for the controversial fact or opinion.

I can think of a few admins who can filibuster for weeks on that topic, until you find yourself exhausted and off editing some list article.

A lot of mischief is done by failure to understand RS and notability policy. If something is quoted in independent RS, it's been "noticed." There is now secondary source. That increases its potential usability on Wikipedia. It's a complex issue.

The nature of the book would matter, for example. That something appears in reliable source does not make it a "fact." Usually it will establish it as the notable opinion of the one issuing the opinion, or at least as something alleged to be that person's opinion.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Abd, I think you are sort of missing the point here. BLPs are held to a different standard than other sorts of articles. For example, opinions about living persons, by other persons living or no, may not belong in BLPs. Rumors definitely do not belong in BLPs, although in other sorts of articles, they may be entirely appropriate if they meet the notability threshold. A published rumor about an episode of "Family Guy" may be just dandy in the relevant article.

BLPs, on the other hand, are supposed to be "written conservatively." The BLP manipulators, however, argue that the same standards that are used for other articles ought to apply to BLPs as well, opening the door for the rumors, gossip, opinion, and so forth that are their stock in trade.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

What, the BLP policy as it stands is considered unclear?

ArbCom will not be modifying the BLP policy, or any other policy. It is not within their remit to do so. What they can and probably will do is make up a set of guidelines for their own benefit when considering future cases where BLP is an issue. These guidelines may or may not be consistent with the current BLP policy, or what people think that the policy is (not always the same thing). If they're inconsistent, well, that's ArbCom for you.

There is a big debate about this now on this page. Kirill says "The likelihood of sanctions is implicit, I think. If there is evidence of substantive, actionable violations of policy, then appropriate sanctions will obviously be considered." Will Beback seems very nervous and asks several times "Which BLPs do you think have these purported disputes that we're here to resolve?" But then it goes into a fog of bureaucratic proposals.

[No one of consequence]

There is a big debate about this now on this page. Kirill says "The likelihood of sanctions is implicit, I think. If there is evidence of substantive, actionable violations of policy, then appropriate sanctions will obviously be considered." Will Beback seems very nervous and asks several times "Which BLPs do you think have these purported disputes that we're here to resolve?" But then it goes into a fog of bureaucratic proposals.

Call me foggy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

The problem is that Arbcom does not have a meeting of the minds about what the case is for. Kiril has a different goal than JV and whoever drafted the "scope" statement. I would prefer that they march right in and bust some heads (which apparently makes Will nervous). If they want to do a fact-finding mission and bust heads later, I can live with it, as long as they actually follow through with the head-busting. The worst option would be to try and do both at the same time, with two factions of Arbitrators pushing different agendas.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

There is a big debate about this now on this page. Kirill says "The likelihood of sanctions is implicit, I think. If there is evidence of substantive, actionable violations of policy, then appropriate sanctions will obviously be considered." Will Beback seems very nervous and asks several times "Which BLPs do you think have these purported disputes that we're here to resolve?" But then it goes into a fog of bureaucratic proposals.

Call me foggy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

The problem is that Arbcom does not have a meeting of the minds about what the case is for. Kiril has a different goal than JV and whoever drafted the "scope" statement. I would prefer that they march right in and bust some heads (which apparently makes Will nervous). If they want to do a fact-finding mission and bust heads later, I can live with it, as long as they actually follow through with the head-busting. The worst option would be to try and do both at the same time, with two factions of Arbitrators pushing different agendas.

The problem is that they bought the initial formulation from ResidentAnthropologist, which coyly says, "This group of editors is abusing the hell out of BLPs, and this other group is being mean to them by calling attention to it. Which group do we like?" Unless they just admit that BLP abuse is going on and proceed with a normal case, this will be a profound waste of time, as Thatcher/No One put it.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Will has his undies in a bunch and is agitating for them not to do that.