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:

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

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)



I think the question is whether it exists yet.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

That's not actually what BLP policy says. For example, some opinions of David Duke or David Irving by others certainly belong in the respective articles - just not any old opinions. In fact even for boring ol' researchers that no one's heard of, criticism of their research by others certainly belongs in the respective article (in some cases its inclusion is essential for neutrality). It's just that all of this has to come from "high quality sources" and if there's a question as to a source's reliability then one should err on the side of caution. And attribute.

Will is clearly hoping to shape the way the case is heard.

John and Kiril have been silent for a while. I wonder if the Arbs are discussing this on the mailing list, trying to come up with a coherent plan of action here. (I don't suppose Malice has current list access? Oh well.)

McWhiney should have been banned years ago. You know it and I know it and everyone
on this forum knows it.

So here's the rub: I predict that Arbcom will flop around like a dead fish for a few weeks,
and someone will close the case as "unresolved" or slap his wrist ever-so-lightly.

They are only "useful" when the miscreant has no extra-sleazy admin buds to back him up.
That should be posted on the top of the arbcom page, if there is any truth in advertising.

Wait, who is McWhiney?

Look it up on the Hive-Mind (Hersh missed an "m", though)

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Will_McWhinney_Jr.

I beg your pardon?

My bad! Sorry for my lacking English; I didn´t get the pun at once.
Now back to school.

Ach, so. But it was EricBarbour's pun, not mine.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course. I knew Mr. Ed. Mister Ed was a friend of mine. And Will is no Mr. Ed.

The sheer scale of the anti-cult, anti-demogogue, and other activist activity that Will has been involved with over the years in Wikipedia will take a lot more than 500 words and 50 diffs to show in an evidence section. I get the sense that WP's administration is just waiting for someone to put it all together to justify a topic ban for Will on everything but basket weaving and Norteño music (no offense to the editors who edit those topics).

Incredibly, he's still at it, even when facing an ArbCom case clearly requested with him in mind. When this sketchy BLP material was removed from the LaRouche article, Will immediately added it to a another LaRouche article. His attempts to manipulate the ArbCom case remind me a lot of how Mantanmoreland used to act whenever admin spotlight was shown on his actions.

OT, but WTF is that?

It's my brother-in-law.

A seahorse, of course.

That sounds about right. This case isn't just going nowhere it already has gone nowhere. Note the confusion around its drafting (which remains), the feet dragging to get it going, and once it did get going the case was graced with a newbie posting evidence right off the bat. Nobody seems concerned about this one, including the otherwise ever so mindful HersfoldArbClerkBot. But in all seriousness how likely is it that this person also contributes here? Congratulations whoever you are ...

This is shaping up as a standard arbcom matter with a popular (in some circles) senior editor.

Cirt has gone to ground and hasn't edited since July 25. He'll stay quiet until about a month after the arbcom cases are over. Arbcom will get played with the, "but Cirt hasn't edited..it's just not fair to pass judgement...I sure hope he doesn't leave...we should just close these cases while doing nothing..." card.

It's so often repeated it's gone beyond a cliche.

I would venture a guess that there is an implicit arrangement, a hidden social contract, wherein the editor in trouble goes away for a bit and the arbcom can play a bit ignorant and the problem just ... goes ... away.

The editor doesn't get any severe sanctions for showing up and arguing (creating drama and strife are always bad) and the arbcom doesn't have to be the big meanie (aka, do their fucking job for a change) and everyone who matters (not the great unwashed masses, heaven forbid) walks away satisfied by the kabuki theater.

That's where my money is.

So what you're saying is that Cirt is Cbrick77. Ding, ding, ding.

Wouldn't that be fun.

So is Cirt just laying low, or is he starting to develop a new account like he did when he switched over from Smee? I mean maybe his life is in danger again. I'm still not certain I believe it ever was. Malice, aren't there any emails from the list discussing Cirt's off wiki problems when he was Smee? There just has to be.

Something definitely fishy about it for sure.

The Cirt case was hived off, and also has its own thread here.

It would be funny, but there's no need for it.

Cirt keeps quiet for a month and nothing comes of this.

Disclaimer: I've never had any contact/conflict with Cirt of any kind. I'm just watching from the sidelines and eating popcorn.

The thing that's really funny is that, from any reasonable outside perspective, Cirt is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
* He OBVIOUSLY wrote political hit pieces with an eye towards attempting to move the debate on the ground.
* He is clearly writing promotional articles about businesses either for money or for other considerations.
* He is so, so clearly an edit warrior with honed skills at wikilawyering who has driven multiple editors from the site with his "dispute resolution" skills (laughably named).

Any of these would be enough to indef/community ban a lesser editor. Will Beback is pulling out the stops to make sure that whatever lands on Cirt is full of feathers instead of the much deserved lead.

The sideshow here is the dancing around the topic of admins/senior editors and the extra privileges and consideration they are accorded.

I may die from a popcorn overdose in the next few days.

Not much to add to that summary, except that there has been a very slow, but steadily growing crowd of people who are fed up with this. Back in the early days it was pretty much just Cirt against a bunch of NRM members and maybe a handful of concerned citizens. That handful does seem to have grown. Jimbo, quite notably, got involved in a couple of these situations, including the Daryl Wine Bar incident, and it wasn't to support Cirt. DGG seems to have turned firmly against Cirt's activities despite being an inclusionist. And so on. This current situation is just a teaser though. I think you'll be able to get even fatter off of popcorn when the sequel comes out, whenever that is.




There is nothing quite as embarrassing as sticking your hoof in your gills.

Cirt knows how to play possum, which is a clever tactic. I don't think Will Beback is capable of pulling that off. When challenged, he gets more manic, more fanatical, and more territorial about the articles he WP:OWNs.

Yeah, Will Beback probably even struggles to pull himself off.

I think what Jehochman says here is actually correct.

Jehochman is correct? Time to build that bomb shelter.

Multiple choice question: Why is Arbcom unable to examine the BLP issue, and should disqualify itself as utterly incompetent, and admit that the BLP issue cannot be solved given the nature of Wikipedia specifically, and Web 2.0 crowdsourcing in general?

A. The Brandt case is too embarrassing for Wikipedia and would invite adverse publicity.

B. Brandt is banned and everyone on Arbcom is prohibited from mentioning his name.

C. The Brandt bio is scraped and still available all over the web, which means that any BLP remediation efforts by Wikipedia, at any given time, cannot solve the problem for the BLP victim. Wikipedia does not claim copyright on the defamatory and/or privacy-invasive information it publishes, the Foundation disclaims all responsibility, and no one can stop the scrapers even if the article is deleted.

Can someone tell me what is meant by "SEO-like activities" in this post?

Search Engine Optimization