• MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• WilyD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin

I invoked BLP special sanctions on Sarah Palin as a result of continued BLP violations that blocking and content removal could not resolve. I reported such protection at the article talk page, the WP:BLPLOG, the WP:AN thread, and the MediaWiki edit notice for the page. Subsequently a discussion began at Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin that seemed to indicate a consensus for immediate full protection with further discussion as to the length. MZMcBride subsequently came onto IRC and announced his intention to "wheel war" with me over the protection. I informed him of the dicussion at AE and that it was done under the special sanctions. Other administrators indicated the same and that the consensus at AE was to leave protected for the time being. Other administrators agreed with MZMcBride to unprotect. After I listed those on AE who had agreed to with protection, he listed those on IRC who agreed with unprotection and subsequently unprotected the article.

I file this case as under the Footnoted Quotes ruling requiring a clear consensus at AE to overturn a special sanction and under the Durova ruling against private consensus being the basis for on-wiki actions.

• Just a note that it appears MZMcBride has been blocked by WilyD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for wheel warring over page protection for three hours, so an immediate response from him may not be possible. MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Newyorkbrad's instructions, I've notified all admins listed in the protection log from Sept 3 to present who have not yet commented here. MBisanz ^talk 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• @MrZ-man: Given I did not re-protect the tempalte after MZMcBride unprotected it (it was another admin who I have never intereacted with who was not on IRC) and that several other admins who I rarely if ever have interacted wtih announced that they would block anyone attempting to change the protection, I do not see how I had any personal gain or expectation that protection would be resumed if I filed an RFAR.

• @Newyorkbrad: Yes, a variable on the protection template can be set to make it a small gold padlock in the upper right corner, which will remove the large bar from the top of the screen. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• @MZMcBride, from the big red box at the top of this page "You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail." If accepted, I will of course post evidence to the /Evidence section and proposed remedies and solutions to the /Workshop page. At this point in time, IMO, the question is whether there is something Arbcom feels the need to have a case, not which party is culpable or to what degree. MBisanz ^talk 08:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I will apologize in advance for the lack of brevity and the somewhat poor organization of this statement. There is an awesome amount to respond to and I will try my best to address all the points that have been raised in an orderly fashion. One of the key issues causing such a lengthy response is that this case lacks a clear scope. I will attempt to compartmentalize my statement so that irrelevant portions may be later removed (or skipped) if the scope is later more clearly defined.

Regarding the scope of this request

It's unclear to me what exactly is being brought before ArbCom, and I believe a similar confusion is present in other members of the community. I see four possible options (though they are not mutually exclusive): (1) I, as an administrator, am being brought forward; (2) my specific actions, the unprotections, with regard to the article in question ("Sarah Palin"); (3) the article itself; (4) clarification of previous ArbCom rulings, specifically the decision that created the special BLP sanctions. Or, I could be completely missing the target and this case could be about something else entirely.

Regardless of the specific scope of this request, the entire affair could be accurately described as a tempest in a teapot. That isn't an attempt to shirk responsibility for my role in this mess; it's merely an attempt to point out that this request for arbitration is much ado about very little. Though it would seem it has become a coatrack of sorts where people have decided to throw on whatever they please, regardless of whether it is related to this request or not.

Regarding my past admin actions

Focusing on a specific facet of this request, a number of my past admin actions have been called into question and so I will attempt to explain them below. I've previously explained them in other forums, however that has apparently been missed by at least a few people.

First, it's important to recognize that I do far more administrative actions that almost any other admin on any Wikimedia project. Quite frankly, any time I log-on to this site and don't have an orange bar, I'm surprised, as there are always new users or confused users who have a question about a particular action of mine. This is entirely understandable and I do my best to reply to each and every thread. (Note: In the past, I always responded on the poster's talk page. My practices have since changed.) So any assertion that my talk page is overrun by people upset and distraught is simply silly. Given the volume of work I do, it's expected that my talk page will be posted to at least once or twice a day.

The second point that is important to note is that with regard to page unprotections specifically, I personally would not consider almost any of them to be wheel warring. Most of the page unprotections that I did were reversing a poorly-run script that fully protected hundreds of templates, some of which were literally used on only one or two pages. There was never (to my knowledge) any previous discussion or consensus to fully protect any of these templates indefinitely. So to claim that I'm ignoring the people or unilaterally acting or any such thing is silliness.

And, I will note here that if you have an issue with some of my unprotections, my talk page is the appropriate forum for that discussion. If you feel neglected at my talk page, file an RfC. But the manner in which some people are choosing to air their grievances currently is petty and unnecessary.

Regarding my recent actions

I think why I acted is sufficiently clear, but there always seem to be lingering ambiguities, and so I will try to clarify somewhat. In short, what Doc glasgow said aptly describes my view on the issue. We have thousands of biographies of living persons, some of which are wholly neglected for weeks at a time while libel and other defamatory statements sit on them. With a case like Sarah Palin, the "rules of the game," so to speak, are a fair bit different. Tens of people are watching the article and are able to revert vandalism and deal with BLP-related issues. While there has been talk about the 'few' people who have been working hard to revert the nonsense (and they've been doing excellent work), the reality is that thousands of people who are viewing the article are also watching and editing and removing the nonsense edits and the uncited garbage that is being reverted. We could only be so lucky to have so many people watching our other articles.

Articles like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and John McCain are indefinitely semi-protected from editing. That has been our consensus regarding high-profile pages. That is our current practice for high-profile articles that are vandalized regularly. And that is what I implemented on the Sarah Palin article. As has been stated many times on this page and elsewhere, pages that are incredibly high-profile have a lot more people watching them and can be reverted more expeditiously. Additionally, people who are high-profile are not as open to libel or defamatory remarks.

We are a wiki. That is the game that all of you signed up to play. There are a variety of other projects that work to create free content that don't involve wikis, but you all chose this project. To needlessly fully-protect articles goes against the core values of this project. Our default is openness, and only in extreme cases do veer from that course. As for WJB's assertion that I am somehow liable for the actions of others when I unprotect an article, that type of attitude leaves me speechless and so I won't comment further on it.

I will use this opportunity to state that at times, it's unclear what the right decision is and what the wrong decision is. And most of the time, there isn't a clear answer. But the good Doctor came out of retirement to say that people are missing the point, and that should say a great deal to everyone. The people who have been around a long time I hold in very high esteem and I respect their views; listening to them should be a priority for a lot of users and it currently isn't.

Regarding calls for my de-sysopping

Several users have called for me to be immediately de-sysopped, and quite frankly, that idea is patently absurd. A bit of perspective all around would be a great thing.

I've contributed a great deal of time and energy to this project. To casually dismiss it with immediate calls for my head based on an action or two is short-sighted and incredibly disappointing.

I will note here that I am open to recall and any admin is free to begin the procedure at any time.

Regarding this specific request

There are number of very disappointing and confusing aspects with regard to the filing of this request and some of the actions preceding it.

MBisanz implemented an arcane measure, the special BLP sanctions, unilaterally on the "Sarah Palin" article. This action, as many have here and elsewhere, was entirely inappropriate, excessive, and unnecessary. It also created a great deal of confusion with regard to how unprotection was to be appealed for, with users flocking to WP:AE, an obviously inappropriate forum. Not only is it an obscure page that few people watch, the article in question was only under "ArbCom sanctions" because a trigger-happy admin unilaterally declared it so.

And so, after declaring this particular (high-profile) article to be under special sanctions by himself, MBisanz then decides that if his action is overturned, ArbCom is the next step. For those of you who read the "Prior dispute resolution" section for this request, I urge you to. It's a good laugh.

We have a process for dealing with administrative actions that are seen as inappropriate, unwise, abusive, or what have you. You contact the administrator. If that proves fruitless, you file an RfC. You don't run off to ArbCom, no matter the size of your ego. The manner in which this case was filed seriously suggests that MBisanz is attempting to use ArbCom as a personal battle axe. It's disgusting. And in the haste to file the ArbCom case as quickly as possible, MBisanz created further confusion as to both the scope of this request and he neglected putting forth any proposed remedy or solution he has to offer.

To call his behavior as of late an overreaction would be a painful understatement.

I strongly urge rejection of this case as it seems premature and unnecessary given the other forums and outlets available to the community. I'll also note that having Arbitrators vote to accept or reject this case before all party statements have been submitted (as though there's some sort of rush to handle cases) is rather close-minded, rude, and unnecessary given the particular circumstances of this case.

If accepted, the case should be renamed as it (obviously?) isn't simply about my actions, though it would seem that this has already been done.

I also see a definition of the scope of this case as crucial. As enjoyable as witch-hunts are, if this case is merely about the actions surrounding the Sarah Palin article, there's no need to bring up every past 'bad' act by me or any other administrator involved.

Regarding the minutiae

IRC is not evil and there is no cabal. I respectfully urge everyone involved in this request (and in general) to calm the hell down.

Anyone who feels that my conduct in the -en-admins channel was inappropriate is free to speak with one of the SuperOps (listed here). Though, ideally, you would come to me first (courtesy and all that). I will state unequivocally that I won't be removing my own access as the merits of any argument presented here have been horrendously weak. Though it does amuse me to see that quite a few people have taken this opportunity to take entirely unrelated jabs at me. The revelation of the true colors of some of the people I used to hold in high esteem is disappointing.

Final thoughts

Lastly, I apologize for the mess that has been created. It was somewhat avoidable and lessons have certainly been learned by the people involved (I hope). Going forward, I have a sincere wish that people would not be so quick to try to de-throne the nearest person in an attempt to feel in control, but I fear that this wish will never become a reality. I echo kmccoy and others when I say that some people seem far too focused on power-grabbing and drama-mongering than doing what is truly best for the encyclopedia.

--MZMcBride (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second Doc Glasgow comments. Protection of this article is utterly ridiculous and consensus for protection is non-existent. Granted, there are some people that thing that protection is needed, but that does not cut it. The default state of an article is "free to be edited" and if protection is required, there needs to be wide consensus for that measure --- in particular an article about a subject that is in the front pages of all newspapers around the world and about which new information is surfacing by the minute. If there are BLP violations, remove them on-sight. If there are vandals, block them, but let the editing continue unimpeded but what seems to be politically motivated POV pushing, pro or con. This is the first time in 4 years that I have invoked WP:IAR, and I stand by my action of unprotecting this article: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. and that is exactly what I have done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for this RFARB, I think it is unnecessary: Bring this back to WP:AN and get a wide number of editors to comment on the need or lack thereof for protecting this article. Dispute resolution has yet to be exhausted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there: Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may behoove the committee to expand a bit to look at everyone involved in this fiasco (which yes, would include me). The issue is a bit broader. WilyD 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and as the person blocking MZMBride, I'd have no objection to him being unblocked to participate here. Seems only sensible. WilyD 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Although it's been suggested otherwise, WP:WHEEL explicitly says temporary blocks are a normal response to wheel warring. I don't think BLPLOG is necessary or particlarly relevent. I'm also not sure what my frustration is with Sarah Palin's article, beyond the inappropriate behaviour by so many admins. If someone is trying to imply I have a political stake in it, I'll happily provide a list of elections I've voted in and defy them to guess who I voted for. WilyD 18:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• With all respect to Flonight, I don't think that characterisation is accurate. Blocking each other for disagreements would be abusive. Blocking each other for wheel warring would be no different than blocking for regular edit warring. WilyD 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Although it seems likely I'll soon be keel-hauled, I would like it noted that Chillum has changed WP:WHEEL per Flonight's statement, and the wording when I took action was Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents.. WilyD 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision, accept. Anthøny ✉ 20:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept to examine the conduct of all involved administrators. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good grief, blocking an admin to end a wheelwar! All admin stop using your tools to enforce your view of the proper decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The wording of WP:Wheelwar describes the sanctions made by Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee in past incidents of wheelwars, I believe. It is not an invitation for administrators who think that they are correct to raise the stake in the conflict even higher by blocking other admins that reverses another admins use of tools. Think about what a mess we would have if admins that disagreed with each other started blocking each other. Admins need to set a better example in conflicts by using more discussion to settle conflicts not rushing to use tools to settle them. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Every admin that used their tools thought that they were correct, right?. And used them believing that they were helping the situation. No admin was acting to hurt Wikipedia. We all can agree on that point, right? Please understand that my intent is to stop admin from wheelwaring, now. This includes admins invoking IAR to unprotect a page. And admin re-re-protecting claiming to have consensus on their side. As well, this includes an admin blocking an admin and then reversing that admin action because of disagreement with that admin action. I do not think we can have one admin judging another admin use of tools and applying blocks if they disagree with them. It is highly unlikely that the block will stick because the blocked admin will undo it or some other admin will. That makes the situation worse, not better. And whole mess will end up in front the Committee with more people involved. So blocking an admin for their use of admin tools is pointless, and will only cause more disagreement or drama. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning toward acceptance, but awaiting statements from MZMcBride and others involved before reaching a final conclusion. I am tempted in any event, however, to propose an injunction compelling Doc glasgow to stay unretired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide notice of the case to Jossi and to any other administrators who might be deemed involved in today's events. Still not opining on the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not asked in my capacity as an arbitrator, but without changing the status quo, is there any way we can live without the huge template at the top of Sarah Palin, particularly now while the article is on DYK? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to address all issues raised. I was waiting for MZMcBride's statement, but enough of the other parties have weighed in to suggest that this matter requires our attention. I agree with Sam Blacketer regarding the casename. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further comment: The filing (and likely acceptance) of this request should not pretermit the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement regarding whether the article should remain protected or whether a consensus to the contrary emergences at some point pursuant to RfAr/Footnoted quotes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. I think this can fairly be called an unusually divisive dispute between administrators. Without attributing blame I agree with the comment that the logs for Sarah Palin are a disgrace. Suggest to clerks that the case, if accepted, is titled 'Sarah Palin' or 'Sarah Palin wheelwar'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, per Sam Blacketer. The scope here should be all administrative actions made with respect to the article since the nomination, and all related discussions (even if only to provide necessary context for later administrative actions). I also agree with Sam's suggestion as to the case title; "Sarah Palin protection wheel war" would be consistent with, eg, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. --bainer (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that should this case be accepted, one useful avenue of inquiry for those submitting evidence would be to look into the sources of vandalism to the article, particularly the proportions of vandalism coming from IP editors and non-autoconfirmed accounts on the one hand, and autoconfirmed accounts on the other. I note that some of our more statistically minded editors have taken interest in this request so far, perhaps they would like to assist in this regard. --bainer (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to review the actions of all involved sysops. There are many issues which need to be examined; we got the wheel warring, we got the IAR application, the admin blocking, and of course the troubling issue of taking decisions at the IRC admin channel. I agree with a temporary injunction. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. (This is exactly the result I stated would happen from providing big hammers and no instruction manual, and I take no pleasure in it coming about. I'm just surprised it took this long. No actual harm has been done, but we must now accept.... not least 1/ because we do have to provide that guidance to our previous ruling in light of an actual wheel war that resulted from it, 2/ because of the risk that a number of administrators may now have ended up with reputations tarnished and in dispute, or not know where they stand, for trying to follow it.

The above should be read along with these comments...

In the previous case, my colleagues and myself formed a consensus view that BLPs should have enforcement through exceptional measures. We jointly authorized "emergency use" of tools, to deal with all BLP issues if needed, using any measures necessary. As we authorized, so a bunch of admins have precisely done, each according to their own beliefs on what the "letter and spirit of BLP" means. Concerns about the proposal led to myself and one other dissenting at the time. That said..... comments on the case: This is a high profile political BLP undergoing rapid change due to sudden news. In fact it is likely that for a while to come, this will be one of the highest profile BLP on the entire project. Everyone and their neighbor will try to edit it, and whatever is edited will be widely seen and re-edited. Plausible views are given both ways why protection for a while is needed, and also why it is not needed. Administrators are trusted for their judgement, and have to balance delicately in this case. All actions were in good faith, in a contentious area. All admins involved were under great pressure to get it right, but with "what was right" being left to them individually (biographical article policy is not obviously clear on this, however much some may claim it is). Whatever view one admin could cite from WP:BLP, another could highlight a different conclusion. In that context, we gave the admin community a heavy duty tool - do no harm, at any cost, including extreme measures. That guidance was also faithfully followed - by people on both sides who honestly felt they were right. So come what may, I don't at first glance see the kind of "beyond doubt completely wrong" wheel warring that routinely has led to a desysop of the parties. (I strongly reserve the right to change my view on this, and may well do so once I look at the case in detail.) My immediate impression, to give something concrete to the community at an early stage, is that we emphasized heavily to adopt an approach of caution on BLPs when there were doubts as to quality or other issues. I would tentatively say that full protection - possibly with brief unprotects every few days - was more cautious. Not that it was right or wrong, but that this was undeniably within the spirit of our previous guidance and hence an admin who tried in good faith to follow it should not then be hit over the head for doing so, in an area where even my colleagues and I had declined to provide further clear guidance. My hope for this case is that we will perhaps go lightly and understandingly if there is no evidence of genuine misjudgement or bad faith use of tools, since it's new for everybody. In parallel with this case I will try to refine some guidance and present it for comment, that hopefully will help the community avoid such matters in future. Unfortunately this is likely to recur and we probably have a lot of communal learning to do about the higher standards of editing we need to be moving towards, and how we can best recognize and handle lapses.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Red herring. After reading through the discussions, I do not see how invoking the ArbCom BLP Special Enforcement provision really mattered in this situation. There was disagreement between sysop about the appropriate level of protection for the article. The purpose of the BLP policy and ArbCom BLP Special Enforcement sanctions is to give sysops the tools to better manage content about living people. If there is disagreement between sysops to the point that they are claiming IAR to unprotect, threatening to block each other, then it is not surprising that a sysop decided to raise the stakes by calling for BLP Special Enforcement to achieve their desired outcome. As noted in other discussion, ArbCom BLP Special Enforcement does not dramatically change the management of BLP content. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

2) Administrator status or tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content or policy dispute.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

3) Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is one of the project's oldest policies and advises users: "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This advice can be helpful when addressing uncontroversial or unanticipated situations in which the project can best be helped by avoiding the unintended consequences that would occur by applying the literal wording of a policy. However, "ignore all rules" should not be used to circumvent a consensus decision about the application of a policy.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

4) Administrators are expected to act collegially and to respect one another's decisions. If one administrator disagrees with an action taken by another, then unless the situation is an emergency, he or she should seek to discuss the matter with the second administrator or to raise the issue on a noticeboard and seek consensus. "Wheel warring", in which administrators reverse one another's actions multiple times, is especially inappropriate and may result in substantial sanctions, including desysopping.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

5) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of thoughtful discussion. The dispute-resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Administrators, as experienced and trusted users, are expected to fully embrace and follow our custom and practice of working toward consensus on difficult issues and respecting consensus when it is reached. Except where privacy or similar considerations are involved, the primary venue for consensus-building discussion about content and policy should be on-wiki discussion, rather than other venues such as IRC or mailing lists.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

6) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia has become one of the most prominent and visited websites in the entire world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking pages to turn up in an Internet search for that individual. The contents of these articles may profoundly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards. All biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. See generally, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy").

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

7) Our policies and standards for biographies of living persons apply to all articles or discussions containing factual assertions regarding any living individual, regardless of his or her level of prominence or notability. However, the nature and extent of an individual's prominence, the reasons the individual is notable, and the type of specific BLP concerns affecting a given page may affect the choice of the specific methods by which the BLP policy may best be enforced regarding that page, such as whether protection or semiprotection is appropriate and for how long.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

8) The norm against wheel-warring especially applies where an administrator has acted under the "special enforcement" authority for BLP articles that was recognized by this Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes. That decision authorized the use of "any and all means at [administrators'] disposal," including page protection, "to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the BLP policy." These enforcement actions may be appealed to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, but the Committee specifically stated: "administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations."

Passed 7 to 1 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

9) Because Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit," the vast majority of articles and other pages can be freely edited by anyone (except for blocked or banned users). However, where necessary as the result of vandalism, edit-warring, BLP violations, or other good cause, an administrator can protect a page for a given period of time, restricting users' ability to edit that page. An administrator who protects or semiprotects a page is expected to explain the reason for this action in a log summary and (unless obvious) on the talkpage. The duration of protection should be no longer than reasonably necessary to address the specific concern that prompted it. Templates have been created to designate pages that have been protected, and to explain what this means for the benefit of new editors. Procedures also exist for users to request the lifting of page protection when they believe the need for it has expired.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

10) Whether and how to page-protect BLPs and other articles of unusual prominence can be a controversial matter, for both "wikiphilosophical" and pragmatic reasons. On the one hand, prominent articles are among the most likely to be viewed by Wikipedia readers who have not yet become editors. Many readers first become editors by editing these articles, and it is feared that if they are unable to edit them, an opportunity to introduce readers to editing may be lost. On the other hand, if an article attracts an unusually high number of readers, then that many more people will be exposed to any vandalism or BLP violations contained in it, which may unfairly affect both the subject of the article and the reputation of Wikipedia. Whether to balance these considerations in favor of or against protecting a given page at a given time is a matter of administrator discretion, not governed by hard-and-fast rules, but subject to discussion and the consensus process in cases of disagreement.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

1) This case concerns disputed administrator actions and a "wheel war" concerning the repeated protection and unprotection of Sarah Palin, a BLP article concerning a prominent American political figure which was, for about two weeks, the most widely viewed article on Wikipedia.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

2) The Sarah Palin article became very prominent when the subject was named as a major-party candidate for Vice President of the United States. Upon the announcement of the subject's selection, the article was semiprotected to address vandalism from IP editors. After several days of edit-warring and alleged BLP violations on the article, an administrator increased the protection to full protection.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

3) At 12:32-12:33 on September 4, 2008, Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reduced the protection of Sarah Palin from full protection to semi-protection, with the log summary "High traffic articles should not be protected." There is no evidence that Jossi consulted with the protecting administrator or sought consensus anywhere before making this change. By the time Jossi modified the protection, he had already made a series of substantive edits to Sarah Palin and related articles and their talkpages, so that he should not have taken contentious administrator actions concerning this article. Jossi's action was discussed on the administrators' noticeboard and based on that discussion, another administrator restored full protection at 13:52.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

4) At 14:12-14:13 on September 4, following the noticeboard discussion that had led to a consensus in favor of continued full protection at that time, Jossi again downgraded the protection of Sarah Palin from full protection to semiprotection, with the log summary "WP:IAR - There are times in which IAR is a necessity. This is a highly trafficked page AND a current event. Unprotected". This action, by an administrator who was also involved in editing the article in question, was against consensus and was an instance of wheel-warring. Jossi has subsequently acknowledged that this was not a beneficial use of "ignore all rules" and has pledged not to use IAR this way in the future.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

5) At 15:02 on September 4, 2008, MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) restored full protection to Sarah Palin, for a designated period of two weeks, and announced that he was acting under the "special enforcement authority" provisions of this Committee's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes. This was an acceptable use of the special enforcement authority, although reasonable administrators could differ as to whether this step was warranted or whether the two-week protection was too long. Following MBisanz' action, the protection status of Sarah Palin continued to be discussed on-wiki, now at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. As with all administrator actions including those taken under the special enforcement authority, the protection remained subject to change based on new developments and evolving on-wiki consensus.

Passed 7 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

6) At 17:21 on September 4, MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reduced the protection of Sarah Palin from full protection to semiprotection, with a log summary stating solely "this is a wiki", even though:

(A) The ongoing consensus on both WP:AN/I and WP:AE continued to support full protection as of that time, so the action was against consensus;

(B) Based on the number of protection and unprotection actions that had recently taken place on the article, the action was an instance of wheel-warring;

(C) MZMcBride had not participated on the noticeboard discussion of the protection issue and offered no reason why his judgment on this issue should supersede that of the many other administrators and editors who had participated; and

(D) MZMcBride, apparently knowingly, ignored that the most recent protection had been made under the special enforcement authority for BLPs and that this Committee emphasized in the Footnoted quotes decision that such actions must not be reversed unilaterally.

Passed 7 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

2) Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for his conduct in this matter and is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or taking administrator actions with respect to disputes in which he is involved as an editor (such as changing the protection status of an article he is actively editing). Jossi is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of his administrator privileges.

Passed 7 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

3) MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for his conduct in this matter and is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or deliberately disobeying decisions of the Arbitration Committee. MZMcBride is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of his administrator privileges.

Passed 7 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

4) The community is strongly urged to continue ongoing discussions at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons regarding how the BLP policy and its enforcement can be further improved, with a view toward continuing to mitigate the harms caused by BLP violations while also reducing any negative impact created by the necessary enforcement measures themselves. The developers are urged to give priority attention to any needed software enhancements that may be needed to implement new features recommended by consensus of the community with respect to these matters.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.