From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 7:41 PM To: FT2.wiki@gmail.com; wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom Legislation

FT2 a very long reply but I did not see anything in there that addresses head-on the disparity between allowing an admin to do any action they want for any reason or no reason, and then requiring a committee to reverse it.   That is the essential failure of the ArbCom verbage.  Can you address that exactly.

Yes.

It's common agreement that something in BLP has to improve. Whether you take the extreme view that all BLPs are a problem, or the non-extreme view that most aren’t a problem but some are; whether you want higher standards or just less "drama" and warring over them; whether you just want fewer "BLP deletion" problems where deletion is used as a hammer or smoother resolution of BLP issues... the things most of us will agree are that 1/ BLPs have more direct potential for harm if poor quality than most articles as a class, 2/ something about BLP needs to improve, and 3/ it's not happening adequately (or fast enough to do right by our project) the usual way, by communal debate.

Now, an admission:- I was myself, a very strong dissenter on the BLP decision. You can read my view for yourself, on the proposed decision page, if you like, and we strongly debated the steps that might work on the committee mailing list too. I don't like the idea of huge hammers, much less huge hammers to deal with so-called "poorer" approaches when the desired "better" approaches haven't actually been clearly defined yet, and everyone has a different idea.

I understand your puzzlement and concern. As an arbitrator who voted strongly against this, for many serious reasons, I none the less feel it's possibly enough viable to trust my colleagues judgement and decision, and this BLP enforcement regime, enough to give it a serious trial with backing. I think you might want to take a moment and think about that, because I was in the thick of it and a heavy objector, and handled well, I do have to admit (a bit grudgingly!) that it does have enough chance to work, to be worth a good try. Quite possibly it will turn out my colleagues were right after all.

You also need to consider a second factor, that isn't widely being taken into account. This remedy isn't actually all that new. We have built up a lot of experience both as a committee and community now, of "general remedies" as a class, and this builds on our experience of how administrators use those remedies when given. These were remedies introduced in mid/late 2007, where any admin was allowed to take any action (broadly interpreted) in a specific context area (also broadly interpreted), to address a pervasive persistent problem. From a cautious start in the Macedonia case (I think?) we have refined this over a number of cases now, and seen the issues that get passed back to us, using these to improve them further. We use these remedies a lot now for major headache content areas. The community has experience and has shown that contrary to the fears you express, admins do not usually go out and do "any action" for "any reason". The handling settles down and the remedy gets used fairly appropriately to target its intended problems. By and large they improve the contended areas a lot more than detract.

What is missing - and what is needed - is a clear, useful definition of BLP a couple or 3 years on, that we can then expect to follow. If we have that, then stronger enforcement makes more sense - and also we might not need such "special measures" so much. You've been advised that guidance will follow soon. I suggest reading it when it is posted.

That said, I think finally that your understanding of the remedy and your concerns seriously need a re-check. For example, it doesn't require "a committee" to reverse it, as you claim. You should be able to see that yourself. Secondly it is not in the slightest "any action they want for any or no reason". Not only is it not "any action", but it is also not "any or no reason", and attempts to misuse will probably get an appropriate response. (Hopefully you noticed the strong warning and anti-abuse measure in there too.) Thirdly, if you read both "proposed decision" and my email note, you'll see that guidance is being drafted specifically to reflect the definitional issue and provide guidance how the remedy is expected to be used and interpretation in case of dispute.

Hopefully this provides some part of your answer. If you need more, ask please. This is new for all of us, and like many new introductions over the years the community will probably benefit from thoughtful questions.

FT2