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.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

It looks like this case really will lead nowhere. Now they have proposed decisions which say basically that editors should all follow Wikipedia policies and if there is a problem, they should use the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. That's quite remarkable -- right back to square one.

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank: Mon 29th August 2011, 5:06pm

[NuclearWarfare]

It looks like this case really will lead nowhere. Now they have proposed decisions which say basically that editors should all follow Wikipedia policies and if there is a problem, they should use the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. That's quite remarkable -- right back to square one.

I take it you read Brad's comments about this, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb..._by_Arbitrators

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare: Tue 30th August 2011, 4:17pm

[Cla68]

Here, Newyorkbrad expresses concern about me starting an RfC draft on Will Beback. I'll explain my rationale below:

1. Will Beback, by his statement here still just doesn't get it about BLPs. In beginning research for the RfC, I see that Will has what appears to be a years-long, ongoing approach like this towards BLPs.

2. After a recent content RfC in one of the LaRouche articles returned an almost unanimous response to remove a bunch of pejorative material from the article that Will had been trying to keep in, he keeps trying to find a way to keep it all somehow. So, his war on LaRouche is ongoing.

3. After asking all those confrontational questions in the Cirt RfC about editors' religious beliefs, he has kept at it with other editors. This battleground, win-at-all cost mentality towards imposing the content he wants to impose just isn't compatible with what is supposed to be Wikipedia's collaborative model.

4. His attempts on the talk and workshop pages of this ArbCom case and the Jayen/Cirt case to manipulate the scope and results and spin the decisions to fit his editing agenda show that he has no intention of stopping what he is doing.

5. Of all the Wikipedia admins who were notorious for treating Wikipedia as their personal property back in 2005 and 2006, banning editors at will (WordBomb, for example), and using off-wiki mailing lists to coordinate their actions (such as my RfA and the Cyberstalking/Durova fiasco), Will Beback is the only who doesn't appear to have altered his behavior one iota. Most, if not all, of the others, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, JzG, etc have amended their editing and administrative behavior in response to demands from the community. Will Beback appears to be the lone holdout.

6. Judging by the response here, the community is tired of Will's battleground, wikilawyering, win-at-all cost approach to participating in Wikipedia. He hasn't listened and responded to previous attempts at dispute resolution. Perhaps this RfC will do it. I should have it ready and posted in a month or two.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Fri 2nd September 2011, 11:25pm

[Mathsci]

Here, Newyorkbrad expresses concern about me starting an RfC draft on Will Beback. I'll explain my rationale below:

What was is that prevented you posting this on wikipedia?

This post has been edited by Mathsci: Sat 3rd September 2011, 12:17am