Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

Statements and comments from uninvolved editors

Statements from the parties involved in this case are located at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war.

Other statements that were provided when this case was originally presented to the committee at wikipedia:requests for arbitration are provided below. A permanent link to the request before the case was opened (in line with the committee's acceptance) is located here.

Changes should not be made to the below statements.

Anthøny ✉ 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved D.M.N.

Please note than MZMcBride has been blocked for three hours, and therefore is unable to answer concerns raised here. Also, MZMcBride has appeared to revert a good faith edit here. D.M.N. (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Is this RFAR going to cover the entire Palin article or just MZMcBride? I just hope someone from the media doesn't notice the contant wheel-war. D.M.N. (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MastCell

I would strongly urge speedy acceptance of this case, as it involved a truly unseemly degree of wheel-warring on what is by far our highest-profile article. This log is a disgrace. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noooooooooooooo.............. Please, please leave IRC out of this. I know it played a role, but, come on folks... don't open yet another can of worms when you're already standing in a heap of compost. Keep the scope as focused as possible. MastCell ^Talk 05:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I fill the gaps? That could be "Nooooooo, please, please leave Wikipedia (the smooth running of the project) out of this. This is IRC and our unofficial and unrecognized consensus here, if taken onwiki, could prompt wheel warring and probably (meaning surely here) lead to a new ArbCom can full of worms (IAR wikilawyering, admin being blocked/unblocked, calls for desysopping, press trying to contact users and make stories out of this mess, etc...)"

Both this case and the one below it have direct links with the IRC admin channel. It is the other way around... asking IRC admins' channel participants to keep us focused on our job here and to save us the troubles. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved krimpet ✽

I feel MZMcBride's unprotection was appropriate, and that this is far too premature for MBisanz to bring to ArbCom. There is clearly a lack of consensus for protection at WP:AE, with several admins wanting to unprotect; MZMcBride, along with a significant plurality, felt that BLP full protection was inappropriate given that many eyes are already watching over the article reverting vandalism in seconds, and that locking all editors out stops the article for further evolving as a wiki should. MZMcBride also courteously tried to reach out to MBisanz to discuss his protection first. However, it seems inapproprate that MBisanz immediately escalated this to ArbCom. krimpet ✽ 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Doc's statement below says things better than I can. I agree 100%. krimpet ✽ 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Kyaa the Catlord

Note: Refactored to mark myself uninvolved in this dispute other than leaving a civil fyi note to MZM and making a note of the continued wheel warring on AN. If someone feels I am involved, so be it.

Despite the claim to the opposite, full protection has nearly unanimous support on the AE thread. MZMcBride's cavalier response to being blocked is also rather troubling. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Seicer

Full protection of the article has nearly unanimous support at AN and AE, despite claims from Jossi and MZMcBride on the contrary. This protection log is downright embarrassing, and shows just how vulnerable we are when it comes to high profile pages such as Sarah's. Administrators know better than to wheel war; administrators know better than to "Ignore All Rules" and engage in purposeful wheel-warring (per one of the rationales given for unprotection); administrators know better to read up on discussions first before coming to a false conclusion. There are administrators willing to block if this wheel warring continues, and quite frankly, it may get the point across because this is not only an embarrassment on the administrators who willfully engage in this careless tactic, but on administrators as a whole. seicer | talk | contribs 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Cdogsimmons

I noticed on my Watchlist that MZMcBride was blocked for 3 hours and I thought to myself: "that can't be right. What's going on?" What it looks like to me is that MZMcBride was blocked becuase he changed the protection of a hot button page after WilyD had thrown down a gauntlet that he would block any administrator who changed the protection on the page. I will note that no consensus was ever reached regarding the level of protection for this page, to my knowledge, despite the fact that certain discussions here and here were treated as if a consensus had been reached (A consensus has now been reached on Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin but no consensus existed at the time of MZMcBride's edits). In many respects I think MZMcBride was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He made a bold edit and was hit by the runaway train that was WilyD's frustration with the Sarah Palin article. The block was unnecessary in my opinion as no consensus had been reached and there was no violation of the 3RR. The suggestion that MZMcBride by desysopped for this is outrageous!

Actually, I was wrong. No consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin. My bad.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Moreschi

Wow, don't you just love wheel wars? They beat the hell out of the Superbowl, Wrestlemania, and the Olympic opening ceremony combined for sheer pyrotechnics. Awesome :)

Looking at the log, it appears as if this was MZM's second unprotection of the article in under a week...looks to me like wheel-warring, particularly with MB having logged his protection at WP:BLPLOG. We can't have admins going at each other like this...please accept. Moreschi (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't do wheel-warring blocks...Moreschi (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've undone the block of MZM. It is long-standing practice not to end wheel-wars with blocks - the correct thing to do is go to arbcom - and 3 hours is a punitive block length anyway: it would hardly stop him continuing to wheel war. Moreschi (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, unblocking seems premature. My take is that MZM still intends to lift protection against consensus. I think the block was preventative until we get such an undertaking. Ronnotel (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think he will - in any case, it's right that he be unblocked to participate in arbitration. Moreschi (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, may I suggest that you make this clear to him at his talk page. Ronnotel (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re to WilyD: the wording of WP:WHEEL is descriptive, not prescriptive - which is, I think, misleading. Moreschi (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cenarium

I would like to point out that several prior protections and unprotections including the protection of MBisanz was part of this wheel warring. Since consensus was more in favor of protecting, they may be more appropriate. This is however not an excuse for wheel warring, nor is the special BLP enforcement. Thus, I think arbitrators should consider and arbitrate the entire protection warring. Concerning MZMcBride specifically, this behavior was completely unacceptable. Cenarium ^Talk 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of the special BLP enforcement, I'd like to hear the view of arbitrators on this matter. I do not think it was an appropriate use, as it was done to revert to one's preferred version during a wheel war. The correct way to proceed was to reestablish a consensus at AN for protection. Concerning the block, it had been announced and not obviously inappropriate in the circumstances, but maybe was not the best option, particularly since the same admin has reprotected the page. Cenarium ^Talk 19:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a temporary injunction that no administrator is to protect or unprotect the article without clear community consensus. Cenarium ^Talk 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AuburnPilot

This isn't the first time MZMcBride has undone another admin's action without discussion. It's not even the first time he's done it on the Sarah Palin article.[1] Just take a look at his protection log and the numerous unprotections he's made with the comment "this is a wiki"; they were all made without discussion. It's time we had one less admin. - auburnpilot talk 18:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous? He's made two edits five days apart. Your accusation seems somewhat overblown. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see your point. That is a lot of unprotections. I still think that the focus of this discussion should be the edits he made to the Sarah Palin article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue at hand is the wheel-warring and his ignoring the community at large. Utan Vax (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not limited to the Sarah Palin article, as MZMcBride routinely undoes the actions of other admins, without so much as an "FYI" on the other admin's talk page. His action on the Sarah Palin article was merely the most visible and blatant abuse. - auburnpilot talk 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ronnotel

Yes, classic wheel-warring, and on one of the most visible pages, too. Consensus was fairly clear to anyone who bothered to read the various discussions, and the actions here were not in keeping with adminship. Unless we see a firm promise to desist in the use of admin tools against consensus I think this process should move forward. Ronnotel (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your statement "(c)onsensus was fairly clear to anyone who bothered to read the various discussions." No definite consensus has been reached regarding the level of protection that would be appropriate for this page to my knowledge. In fact, the discussion at Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin appears to show a lack of consensus. While I agree with the principle that an administrator should not use admin tools against consensus, I do not think it fits this situation. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc glasgow

(Feeling strongly enough about this to come out of retirement, and ignoring all the wonking, wheel warring and IRC allegation crap to get to the real issue)

There is no bigger BLP hawk that me. I am in favour of drastic measures to prevent BLP damage, and I utterly support the new rules arbcom developed for BLP enforcement.

But this protection is ridiculous.

The root of the “BLP problem” is that low-profile people get crap or bias written about them, and Wikipedia has no effective means to maintain their biographies. Such articles affect real people’s lives (they may be the only internet information available about them), and the low-notability means that there will be too few informed eyes to spot and revert the edits of a determined biased editor. Normal wiki checks and balances fail in these cases, and so special provision is needed.

This is not the case with Sarah Palin, Tony Blair etc. We can’t hurt these people (there’s plenty worse about them on the net) and bias and vandalism is spotted and reverted in a second by an informed sympathetic member. There is need for special measures in such cases – our wiki-ness does just fine.

Some will say “surely all living people should be treated the same?” Well yes, no-one should be damaged by a wikipedia article – but the risk of damage and the means to avoid it are different in different cases. The huge problem with applying the full rigour of BLP special protections to Sarah Palin is that it makes it quite impossible to get the community to tighten BLP protections aimed at the articles that cause real problems, because people say “ah but then any admin can delete/protect George Bush”, and what happened to “anyone can edit?”

We need some common sense here. We are a wiki. Normally that is enough – revert bias and move on. In special cases, where that simple mechanism causes problems for living people, we depart from normal wiki-rules and tighten things up – Sarah Palin is not such a case.

I think people are more motivated by the squeals of vandal fighters, and their interest in US politics, than balancing the imperatives of “anyone can edit” with “ and no one should get libelled.”

Comment by almost but not quite involved Barneca

I suggest an immediate desysopping of MZMcBride be requested by ArbCom at Meta, for wheel warring when he knew he was wheel warring (this is a classic, textbook case), and no indication he won't re-do it when his block ends. Then, acceptance of the case to determine the duration of the desysopping, and look at the behavior of other admins that have changed the protection today (most of whom I believe were enacting consensus, and one of whom I think was not, but wasn't as egregious as this). I almost made the full protection that Fritzpoll made, as I believe there was a very clear consensus for it at the time; he was just faster (there but for the Grace of God...).

I'll also mention that this case has really crystallized my opinion about IRC. I've always been slightly sympathetic to Giano's complaints about an IRC "cabal", but felt he was exaggerating and going too far. No longer. Decisions made based on IRC discussions should be overturned until there is onwiki discussion, and people taking actual admin actions based on "consensus" in IRC discussions should be desysopped. Quite a rapid swing in my perception of IRC, but this action has really opened my eyes. A real Road to Damascus moment. --barneca (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

I think there is a case here for MZMcBride to be desysopped. In addition to the comments by MBisanz above, I note that MZMcBride also removed protection on the 29 August with the summary "this is a wiki", leading to large amounts of vandalism and the article having to be reprotected. This reckless attitude to a high profile biography of a living person is totally unacceptable.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident of poor judgment being shown by MZMcBride since he became administrator. Concerns have frequently been raised about the running of an unauthorised admin bot on his account. On the 3rd June, his lack of response to questions about his running of an automated script resulted in his having to be blocked [2]. In particular, I would draw attention to the following discussions:

His talkpage archives are littered with pleas from other editors to cease deleting pages - especially talkpages and redirects - which they find useful. MZMcBride is often dismissive of the concerns raised by other editors and is fairly single minded in deciding that actions he believes to be correct are correct, regardless of the weight of opposition he faces. WJBscribe (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by kmccoy

I've never commented on an arbcom thingy before, but this just disappoints me all around. There's way more focus here on how best to punish people and protect the egos of the admins doing the original action than on what is best for the article and the encyclopedia. Coming to arbcom so quickly, being so quick to block, etc. It's like a game, rather than a project. :/ kmccoy (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that actions on IRC shouldn't be used for or against anyone or in opposition or support of any actions on-wiki. There have been a couple of comments (most notably to me being Ryan Postlethwaite's) which are somewhat insidious, because they're worded in such a way that they paint a negative picture of how one person used the IRC admins' channel, but then suggest that it shouldn't be dealt with here. Well, if it shouldn't be dealt with here, we need to stop making any reference to the actions. Especially since the whole story isn't being told. kmccoy (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by rootology

I encourage the AC to take this case in regards to the validity of BLP special protection in general, but specifically because this is textbook wheel warring. Jossi (twice unprotected and vowed to continue doing so under IAR, see Palin article logs) and McBride both unprotected this article in firm opposition to the overwhelming consensus to protect this BLP from defamation and ongoing BLP violations, after many of us all but begged for protection and consensus supported it. Take it to investigate the behavior of all involved. Admin rights take a backseat to consensus, and always to BLP. Time to remind everyone of that. rootology (C)(T) 18:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CharlotteWebb

I am completely appalled both by the community's willingness to block administrators for reverting page protections not supported by policy, and its abject refusal to block the select few users who have made disruptive edits (amid a sea of pre-dominantly constructive updates). Unless it is willing to look beyond the surface, and investigate the improper use of footnoted special high-intensity "my wheel war is holier than yours" kung-fu quote sanctions as a bludgeoning tool (maybe in 2010 when Hell sends a bobsled team to Vancouver), I encourage the committee to dismiss this case with extreme prejudice. — CharlotteWebb 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today I can wish Doc_glasgow a warm "welcome back" and really mean it. Tomorrow I will play it by ear. Doc has explained the dynamics of this situation much more effectively than any of us could, the two key points being "It's a wiki, get over it" and that Sarah Palin is clearly not an appropriate test-case for footnote-quote <ref>"remedies"</ref>. — CharlotteWebb 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

The issues here are messy; this is the first time BLPSE has really been used, so that ArbComm pronouncement is being called into question. In as much as Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unprotected the article twice this morning, he should be a party also. Discussion of full protection prior to Jossi's actions was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Please help on Sarah Palin and [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)]]. On both pages there was strong support for full protection. Earlier relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sarah Palin and User talk:Kelly#Admin?. Despite whatever pious hopes we might have, we administrators collectively were not attending to the article or situation, and the regular editors were being overwhelmed and unable even to keep track of what was being done by who. GRBerry 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: notifying. I think I've either given notice to or seen a notice already on the talk page of every admin that has a protection log entry from Sept. 3 or 4 or who edited the page while fully protected (the latter through ~~Mr.Z-man's edit of 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC) PhilKnight's edit of 19:20~~ Rich Farmbrough's edit of 19:43 4 September 2008 (UTC). I did ~~17 19~~20 notices, a couple of which were redundant... but might have missed some. GRBerry 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Rjd0060

Simply reviewing the protection log indicates a major problem (even I have an entry there, but I know better than to undo another administrative action). The problems seem to really escalate on September 3. I encourage ArbCom to speedily accept this case, and to address the multiple issues and administrators who were a part of this. Of course, some type of injunction would also help things. — Rjd0060 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad: I thought the same thing, and started a discussion, which looks like won't change anything. See Talk:Sarah Palin#Protection tag. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr.Z-man

Basically what Doc said. Jumping immediately into invoking the special BLP enforcement here was a mistake. The community was actively discussing the matter on AN and there was no reason to think there would not be a resolution. Invoking the special enforcement only served to derail that discussion and make things about a thousand times worse. Mr.Z-man 18:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And based on the number of recent comments to the AE thread, the filing of this RFAR seems to have all but killed that discussion. This is starting to look like an attempt to use non-community controlled processes to force a personal goal (for lack of better words). If this is accepted, the actions and motives of the initiator of this request definitely need to be looked at. Mr.Z-man 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chrislk02

I am here because it was brought to my attention that I edited the protected article. This was not my intent. I had been following a series of edits that had been made to the article regarding religious beliefs. I had been researching the cited references to ensure that the changed content matched up with the source (being the content was change but the source stayed the same). I made the initial undo here before protection. the content was re-added and I re-reviewed it and re-undid the new reivision here. I was unaware that MBsianz had protected the article as I had already opened it for editing before the protection was made. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (somewhat) involved lucasbfr

Since I was pinged about it... I saw the unprotection on my watchlist, and spotted Jossi's unilateral removal of the full protection (to his defense, there was no clear statement on why the article was protected in the first place). I immediately told him that he might have missed the relevant AN thread and asked him to revert his unprotection while the debate was still ongoing.

I decided not to overturn the protection, hoping that everyone would have the sense not to wheel-war on one of the most watched articles on Wikipedia, and merely restored the move protection which was uncontroversial. I hoped everyone would settle down for a couple hours, watching the article intensely and discussing which protection was the most appropriate (the consensus at that time was clearly in favor of a full protection but who knows what happens on WP in a day).

Apparently I held my fellow admins to too high a standard, and in the next 3 hours, 5 admins (including Jossi, again, invoking WP:IAR despite the clear debating that was going on) wheel-warred on that page. I hope the community will consider the actions of every admin involved in this shame. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Phlegm Rooster

I think that it should be taken into consideration that traffic to the article has been slowing in a decaying exponential, and the first period of full protection seems to have broken the fever, as it were. In the intervals today when lowly non-admins like me were allowed to edit, most edits were in good faith. There was less than one edit every few minutes. The infrequent attempts to introduce unsourced BLP material were reverted on sight. As for concerns that wheel warring might make Wikipedia look bad, the huge "disputes" template looked bad, especially considering it was not so much disputes but BLP concerns (the template has just been changed). Wikipedia's role in the Sarah Palin frenzy is receding, and so too should any sense of urgency in this RFAR. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kelly

First, in response to several comments above, there was no other way besides full protection to stop the fire hose spraying of filth on our most-highly trafficked article. I under that the article subject is a well known figure, but some of the edits were blatant libel, in a legal sense, directed not only toward her, but her family. In addition there was a very high volume of SPAs, POV-pushers, and revert warriors. The editing volume was so high that the warn/block system was simply impossible. There were dozens of edits per hour. Simply removing the BLP violations was impossible to keep up with, much less research through hundreds of revisions to see who was making the edits or revert-warring. At any given time there were generally only two or three responsible editors trying to hold back the tide, hardly any of us admins. I begged and begged for help at WP:ANI, WP:AN, and even at Jimbo's talk page. There was no help forthcoming. Finally an appeal last night at WP:AN got the initial full protection instated, and conversation began on the talk page. This was completely disrupted by the wheel-warring over protection. The system really failed here. Kelly ^hi! 19:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion should focus on whether it was appropriate to block MZMcBride for his edit, rather than whether the Sarah Palin page deserved a certain level of protection. It is my understanding that that discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - I'm reiterating the point that MZMcBride (and Jossi, incidentally) overturned the only possible solution for that article at the time, against consensus and the previous actions of other administrators. It wasn't just the wheel-warring, it was the resulting consequences. Kelly ^hi! 20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page views

Just for perspective on how many people are seeing the BLP violations when they get into the article, here are the page view stats, courtesy of Henrik -

Date	Views
August 28	14.5k, pre-nomination
August 29	2.5M
August 30	1.1M
August 31	505.9k
September 1	571.2k
September 2	733.3k
September 3	524.5k
September 4 (4 hours missing)	625.5k so far, ~750k if extrapolated to whole day.

Kelly ^hi! 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the previous 4 days, hope you don't mind. Dragons flight (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contacted by press

Just a heads-up, I've been getting some press requests about the article. Kelly ^hi! 04:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please tell me we have a functioning press relations officer or department at the Wikimedia Foundation? I suppose you could try Wikipedia:Contact us and the press link there. WMF Press room. Looking over that, though, it is more general. Is there not a specific person that can deal with high-profile media attention on specific articles? Carcharoth (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is the business of the WMF but Jay Walsh is the man who may clear this up or help out. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain submissions to the email address listed there go to OTRS people on the press queue, many of whom are members of the communication committee.--chaser - t 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no harm from individual users talking to/going to the press. rootology (C)(T) 12:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by previously involved LessHeard vanU

Disclosure; I semi-protected Talk:Sarah Palin twice on 31st August - first for 15 minutes to allow a break in the vandal fighting to see if there was consensus for an extended sprotect, and then to carry out said consensus.
Prior to my sprotecting the talkpage was, following the sprotect on the article, being inundated by a batch of ip's (likely the same individual or group) attempting to "place" a rumour regarding who may have been the mother of Sarah Palin's last child. By my initial review it appeared that 80% of all edits were either vandalism or reverting same, and it was running at six or more edits per minute. During the first protection, and then during the second until I sprotected my userpages, I was targeted by the same vandals who had been hitting the talkpage, as were any editor who then reverted them. It was disappointing to later find that my actions had been reversed, without any prior consultation with me, on the basis that talkpages needed to be unprotected to allow anons/new accounts to raise queries when they were unable to edit the main page. From subsequent comment it was apparent the overturning admin was not aware of the level of disruption to the page, but was acting upon "principle", and had not noted the earlier consensus for the action.
I would like for ArbCom to accept this request so that they may clarify that once protection (either type) is executed that, unless the action was in clear violation of the consensus (that is, the consensus was to keep the page open rather than some few disputing that it be protected), a consensus to overturn the protection is required - and further that that consensus needs to be in place within WP space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to Doc glasgow: no, we can't truly hurt high profile individuals like Palin, but we can certainly hurt ourselves in allowing policy violating material to keep returning onto high traffic articles - ones that will be noticed for the same reasons why there will be those prepared to keep placing such material until they are blocked or the page locked; high visibility. By allowing edits to push the line on what is acceptable on bio's of major figures we are then potentially allowing the editors of less visible subjects to make judgements of what is acceptable against those standards. There are no differing rules for those who are experienced in being in the public eye, and those who are not. BLP is blind to fame and fortune. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, and another thing, "Hi! Please stay!"[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Fritzpoll is a newbie admin. Go easy on him, please. I don't think he recognized that a wheel war was going on, and the noticeboard consensus (which counts infinitely more than IRC consensus) was in favor of protection, the action he took. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for protecting such an article is that Wikipedia looks bad if we publish rumor and speculation about a living person. The effect on her reputation is separate from the question of our reputation. In this case it's much easier for us to hurt ourselves than to hurt her. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a special award for the administrators who participated in the sequence of sysop actions subject of this case:

		The Sarah Palin Honorary Moosehead
		I, Jehochman, award (drop in your username) The Sarah Palin Honorary Moosehead for contributing to the protection, unprotection, protection, and so on..., of the Sarah Palin article, as indicated on this log. Jehochman ^Talk 02:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bother to hand these out, because I am too lazy to do that much work. Please help yourself to a copy if you deserve one. Jehochman ^Talk 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be a photo of an ass? seicer | talk | contribs 02:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a moose. They are not exactly the most graceful creatures, and they do occasionally run amok, but they are generally likable. This is a special prize given to those who deserve it. Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are also found in Alaska, so there is a link with Sarah Palin, who, our article says, "would sometimes go moose hunting with her father before school". She's also supported aerial hunting of wolves, ultimately intended to control their numbers and increase moose populations. So a moosehead trophy does seem appropriate here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Carcharoth. In light of FT2's comments below about the danger of handing out big hammers without an instruction manual, I invite members of the Committee to take copies of this award. The serious point I am trying to make is that we should not take ourselves too seriously. Does there really need to be conflict, or can we all just take a moosehead and have a friendly case to figure out how to be less clumsy in the future? Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My God, Hochman, I shudder to think what you would have created had you been around for the Pedophila userbox wheel war case… :P Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ryan Postlethwaite

I think this has escalated far more than it should have done. Yes, we’ve had a wheel war and yes we’ve had BLP enforcement used, and undone, without a clear consensus, but the protection tool is the button that does the least damage, especially on a page like Sarah Palin. Unprotection in this case merely allowed the potential for BLP violations to occur, rather than reintroducing BLP content as an undelete would do. I’d hate to see admins lose their bit over something so minor, when it was clear that even if BLP violations and vandalism was introduced, the page was so heavily watched that it wouldn’t last long. I don’t agree with the unprotection one bit, and I think it was very poor form, but the best course of action in this case is trouts all round, rather than a long, drawn out arbitrion case that will most likely end in a ticking off for the participants. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the admins channel should not be used to create consensus, and it certainly shouldn't be used to taunt other admins with threats to wheel war. It's something I consider completely inappropriate from a channel member, let alone a channel operator. This is a seperate issue however, and hopefully can be sorted without the need for the committee to address this - Ideally MZMcBride would voluntarily give up his access to the channel. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to kmccoy, I am hopeing that the issues regarding the admins channel can be dealt with privately, but Jimbo and ArbCom have already stated that have overall control over the channel (and this seems correct given that James is our group contact). If this can't be sorted out privately (and there is a simple solution), then arbcom may wish to look over the logs (there were members of the committee in the channel at the time) and come to their own conclusions. I was maybe unfair to bring up MZMcBrides name individually, because there were a couple more problematic comments from others, but not nearly as bad as MZM's, and he's supposed to be a channel operator. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Professor Marginalia

There are two issues that need to be addressed, both of them recurrent sources of turmoil at WP. The first is that of admins resorting to anarchistic wheel warring to remedy disagreements with fellow admins, and the other is how IRC continues to be a forum for rallying allies in disputes and making decisions that clearly belong on-wiki. These problems recycle again and again. I don't see the problems going away by themselves.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Joshdboz

After the initial long-term block for 5 days, the discussion on WP:AN appeared to support temporary protection to solve the major causes of edit warring and to see if the amount of harmful editing would cool down. However, there were certainly voices (including my own) in support of a quicker downgrade to semi-protection. Over the last day several of the more contentious issues have been solved, and there appears to be general consensus on what would and would not be an appropriate addition to the article based on the variety of new politically charged information. With this in mind, a special BLP block for two weeks seems beyond overkill. Joshdboz (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by not-quite-sure-if-he-is-involved J.delanoy

I made one non-controversial edit to Sarah Palin while it was fully protected, wikilinking her date of birth in the opening sentence. I also copy/pasted the entire article to User:J.delanoy/Sarah Palin and cascade-protected the latter so that no one could vandalize Sarah Palin inconspicuously through template vandalism or by uploading a different image on top of ones included in the article. I do not know if this makes me an involved party or not, as I did not protect or unprotect the actual article. I was going to ask if people thought that I should undo my cascade protection earlier today when I saw the wheel-war beginning, but I had to go to work. Regardless, I believe that my actions were correct, as our article about Sarah Palin is receiving an enourmous amount of interest from the internet in general. Any template or image vandalism could go unnoticed for at least 10 or 15 minutes (as evidenced by the template vandalism on To Kill a Mockingbird that went unnoticed for nearly 20 minutes when that article was Today's Featured Article). Because of the high traffic Sarah Palin is receiving, any transcluded vandalism has the potential to be seen by several thousand people, and in my view, that is an unacceptable risk. However, if anyone feels differently, they may unprotect User:J.delanoy/Sarah Palin at any time, and I will not restore protection to it.

As far as the protection of Sarah Palin goes, I do not really have an opinion on whether it should be full-protected or not. I did not participate in the discussions surrounding the protection, and I have no intention of doing so in the future. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RockMFR

Per WP:BP, blocks should be used to prevent damage to Wikipedia. I don't see in any way how this block helped to prevent damage to the project - did WilyD believe that MZMcBride was damaging the project? If WilyD believed that, then he probably should not be an administrator, as no clear-thinking administrator should believe that. If not, he went against policy for seemingly no reason and should not be an administrator. --- RockMFR 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Jennavecia

As someone who had no idea about any of this drama, and has only read this RFAR, I agree with those who say this is a big mess and disgraceful.... but I think on all sides. Where in policy does it allow for full-protection for vandalism? Since when do we protect article talk pages? Doc g is right, high profile articles are watched by many, so those BLP vios and other vandal edits can be quickly reverted. However, it appears there's a whole lot shoot first and ask questions later going on. Clearly the sheer volume of vandalism to the article was becoming unruly. Semi-protection and some blocks should have been sufficient. Give it a couple days and give the wiki way another try.

Although this was a shameful mess for many involved, I believe calls for desysopping are a bit over-the-top. I urge the committee to accept this case in order to address not only the embarrassing wheel-warring, but also an issue much wider than MZMcBride or this specific incident. Admin actions per IRC are wholly unacceptable. While it's often joked about, everyone knows that you just can't do that. Discussion needs to take place on-wiki if for no other reason than for future reference. Similarly, admin actions per IAR seriously need to stop. It's ridiculous. No admin action should be taken without good reason, particularly controversial ones, and those reasons should be clearly expressed. This is all common sense.

No need to call the stewards, but obviously there's a need to hit the fish market for a case of trout. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 23:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing a concern that has been noted both here and to me in private regarding my comments of per IRC. As I said in the beginning of my statement, I've only read the RFAR, so I based that from MBisanz comment, "MZMcBride subsequently came onto IRC and announced his intention to "wheel war" with me over the protection. ... Other administrators agreed with MZMcBride to unprotect. ... he listed those on IRC who agreed with unprotection and subsequently unprotected the article." That, to me, reads like MZMcBride gained a consensus off-wiki, skipped the on-wiki discussion except to post the names of those from the IRC consensus and then unprotected based on that IRC consensus. If I've misread, then my apologies. However, if it's worded in such a way to misrepresent events and/or intentions, then that's a problem in and of itself. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Physchim62

I agree with Jenna above about the case of trout, although sadly there seem to be enough fishwives around this corner of WP to negate the need for a trip to the market. Nevertheless, I offer the services of the Large Wet Haddock (right) should they be needed.

As ArbCom resources are limited, I suggest that we trade in the red herrings for the trout, notably the issue of IRC in this case. Many, many people complain about the "admins" channel on IRC, but what would happen if it were closed down? Do people really think that admins are going to stop talking to each other in private, using (say) Skype, Yahoo Messanger, MSN or the plain, old-fashioned telephone? #wikipedia-en-admins has the great advantage that a large number of people know what goes on in there. It is a singularly useless place to plot a conspiracy! Many members of this committee are regular visitors to the channel, often present for hours without commenting (private logging perhaps?)

I urge the committee to look at the substantive issue of the rather pathetic wheel-war over page protection (yes, we've sunk that low) rather than being distracted by the politics, of the real-world or on-wiki variety. Physchim62 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Oren0

I must admit that I have been tangentially involved in the wheel warring (I unprotected Talk:Sarah Palin once). We all agree that wheel warring has to stop. As was said above, the protection log is a disgrace and all of us should be somewhat ashamed of it. We need to work towards consensus here one way or the other. I do believe that MZMcBride was out of line to unprotect the page when he did and I do believe that the three-hour block was justified (at least two admins explicitly said they'd block anyone who continued to wheel war). I also believe that the page should be semi-protected and that the talk page shouldn't be protected at all, but that may be a discussion for another forum. Oren0 (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SirFozzie

I'm surprised that this has happeneed. I had great confidence in jossi's and MZMcBride's judgement from past issues. But this is absolutely ridiculous. What I'm hearing from jossi is that if you don't think protecting quite possibly THE most sensitive BLP-related article currently on Wikipedia from BLP violations and vandalism is worthwhile, you can mutter the three magic letters of IAR, and undo other people's actions. That's just shocking. The discussion on AN was quite clear as to consensus, period.

I'm hoping that these decisions were the result of temporary madness and they will realize that these actions at a critical time wasn't "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", which is the requirement for IAR. We can't even claim "well, there should be more eyes on it, rather then protect it." We're talking about an article that was being vandalized/having BLP Violations added to it at the rate of ONE. PER. MINUTE. Let's not forget the 50 or so related articles we have to keep an eye on as well. Several users have done a heroic job at trying to maintain the articles in at least a semi-reasonable state, but they were quite frankly, getting completely burnt out and in need of help.

Finally, I wish to remind everyone who hides behind the phrase "It's a wiki. Get over it." of a more important fact. "It's an encyclopedia." SirFozzie (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Celarnor

I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with someone like Doc Glasgow, but that's the case. Protection of this article at this point is ridiculous, and the fact that there's even the most remote possibility that people are going to be blocked for trying to restore editability to the article on the encyclopedia that everyone is supposed to be able to edit shocks and appals me to no end. We should be working on how we can restore editability to the article, not how we can keep editability from the article and issue the maximum possible penalty to the people who want to restore said editability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved User:Rocksanddirt

I notice several commentors have indicated that some type of activity was taken based on 'irc' discussions/consensus? I havn't seen what actions were taken based on 'irc', but if some was I urge the committee to evaluate the use of 'off site' decision making as part of this likely to be accepted case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fritzpoll

I re-protected the article after what I believe was the first time jossi downgraded it (disclaimer: I just logged on, and am writing this from the perspective of the state of play when I went home early yesterday evening). I noted an on-wiki consensus at AN that jossi seemed to have overlooked, and so I reprotected the article, immediately letting jossi know. The resulting exchange appears on jossi's talkpage, and seemed fairly amiable. Although I disagreed with the subsequent removal of protection, I reasoned that there was little benefit in arguing via a use of the tools, that jossi had been aware of the AN discussion, but had made the decision regardless. Assuming that further discussion on the matter by others would settle the issue, I decided to leave well alone. Although my actions are obviously a precursor to some larger issue (that I have yet to examine at all), I hope they won't be viewed as wheel-warring given the specific nature of my reasoning, discussion with jossi, and the fact that I made no subsequent protections.

That said, if Arbcom is to examine the issue of all involved admins, then can I point out that I don't appear in the list of involved parties, although I do appear in the notification list? Regards, Fritzpoll (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBDunkerson (uninvolved)

Just some data. It looks to me as if the log contains the following 'reversals':

2008-08-29T12:17:41 MZMcBride unprotected (initial semi by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry at 2008-08-29T09:26:53)
2008-08-29T12:39:XX Gogo Dodo/AuburnPilot/Feydey semi-protected within 29 seconds of each other
2008-08-29T14:51:05 Ragesoss unprotected
2008-08-29T15:28:16 Jredmond semi-protected

---

2008-09-04T08:33:01 Jossi downgraded to semi, two entries (initial full prot by Keeper76 at 2008-09-03T19:28:01)
2008-09-04T09:52:21 Fritzpoll upgraded to full
2008-09-04T10:13:06 Jossi downgraded to semi, two entries
2008-09-04T11:02:22 MBisanz upgraded to full
2008-09-04T13:21:08 MZMcBride downgraded to semi
2008-09-04T13:30:12 WilyD upgraded to full

These reversals account for 14 of the entries. I don't think anyone is likely to complain about the other 12 as they involved initial actions, move protection, and/or duration changes which would seem uncontroversial. It breaks down into a wheel-war over unprotected vs semi-protected on 08/29, and another over full vs semi protection on 09/04. --CBD 12:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:J

I believe the scope of this arbitration request is (or should be) the specific administrator actions related to the Sarah Palin article and the clarification or reinforcement of the special sanctions that have ultimately been employed on the article. Everything else (in my opinion, obviously) is noise that takes away from the importance of the real issues here.

With regard to the wheel warring, what has happened surrounding that article is unbelievably disappointing. As a lowly editor of Wikipedia, I think our community should be able to expect more from administrators than entertainment (although harmless entertainment is appreciated). The actions here were not harmless, however. Far from it. The actions here, especially of User:MZMcBride and User:Jossi, undermine the only thing that keeps this project functioning (productively): consensus and respect therefor.

Unprotecting an article, against an already apparent and growing consensus, which a significant number of editors believe is a any "every second counts" wp:blp nightmare, is unacceptable. Doing so with the argument that "this is a wiki" or the belief that wp:iar supports your actions is conduct unbecoming someone trusted by this community to help, not hurt, this project. user:j (aka justen) 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Prom3th3an

Well I must admit im in shock, big wiki drama on one of the highest activity articles for everyone to see yes? NO. All I can see is war mungering and a blood sucking witch hunt by a pack of administrators who are attempting to blow it out of perportion. Grab your torch and pitchforks! Dont forget the wood and oil! She turned me into a newt! sounds all too familar doesnt it? The so called consensus is a farse, Its been said before and ill say it again "A consensus must be accumelated from the vast community, not just who happens to show up". This Arbcom case is premature, which seems typical of its requester. I agree with one thing, MBisanz seems to have lost touch with the goal of wikipedia and this arbcom request is not only a disgrace to wikipedia but is also testimoney to that, its not about the edit warring is is Matthew? Its the fact that MZMcBride disagreed with you and undermined your actions (which I think were poor judgement, your actions that is) Ill continue this when its not 2:25 am «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NonvocalScream

Moved here from the clerks' section.

Not a clerk, but in response to the arbitrator comments below, I have altered the case heading. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ian13

I think users on both sides here are partly at fault, both those removing protection and those reinstating. There was clearly not a consensus, especially with regards to timespan. I think reasoning behind implementing the ‘special measures’ could be one of two things: ending the war in ones favour, or for the good of the encyclopedia. Whichever it may have been, opening an RfAr 9 minutes after someone undoes your action does not reflect well. Regardless, I don’t think any admin acted maliciously against what they believed would help the encyclopedia, so any calls to de-admin seem strongly misplaced especially given the history of thousands of counts of good judgement.

I do call the arbitrators, should they accept, to clarify the implementation of BLP ‘special measures’; maybe with a view to restricting circumstances it can be used, raising the number of administrators required to implement, or its complete abolition. I also ask for clarification on our policy of wheel warring: Wikipedia:Wheel war/Examples (linked from the policy page, and last edited by arbitrator FT2) states it is only wheel warring if you reapply (not just apply) a controversial administrative action (by this reasoning, MZMcBride did not wheel war, and only Jossi did). Ian¹³ /t 18:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by homunq

I can't follow the history of this wheel war, but have been active on this page. As to the actual wheel war, most of this was probably in good faith. What this cries out for is a way to compromise in situations like this. As I see it, the two options which existed a priori were two weeks of protection, with all edits applied only after a full consensus is reached, or just semi-protection semi-anarchy. The gulf between these options is just too large, and the ability of individual administrators to propose a compromise was, um, compromised by the existence of a prior ArbCom decision. Also, the forum for discussion of protection was not clear - it seems to have ranged across at least 3 pages - the article talk page, WP:AN, and WP:AN/AE; there are probably more I am not aware of, because there is less fallout there than here.

I suggest a productive ArbCom ruling will give a more gradated set of options, to allow people to settle on a compromise, and also be clear about the discussion place where consensus should be reached in such situations. I have suggested some creative ideas for the former both here and here, but even just a wider range of times for protection, with the kinds of reasons that would lead to each, would help. Homunq (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion

Comment from Mr. IP - We must repeal BLP, and repeal it now

ArbCom can't make policy, but this case, like so many before it, makes clear that repeal of our BLP policy is necessary to the future health of the encyclopedia. The ever-expanding BLP cancer has created a special class of articles which are placed under unrealistic expectations of accuracy and perfection, leading to vague ArbCom sanctions, strange admin actions, and ever-mounting discord.

BLP policy must be reduced to a stump of its current self and become a mere guideline on the avoidance of libel actions. We have no more moral or ethical responsibility to maintain accuracy and perfection on articles about living people than we do on articles about any other subject. Yes, living people can be hurt by inaccurate information, but inaccurate information — and outright sliming — can happen anywhere on the internet...or in reliable sources, or in Encyclopedia Britannica, or in real life. Moreover, readers can be hurt by inaccurate information on any subject. We cannot protect our readers, or notable people, from all inaccurate information.

We are a wiki with imperfect control of the accuracy of our content. Open editing, and that imperfect control, are the central essence of our project. The artificial creation of a "special class" of articles where wildly-unrealistic demands of accuracy are treated as an enforceable guideline — demands that go far beyond the ability of a volunteer wiki to control its content — was a big mistake.

Because the BLP policy is so stringent and unrealistic, it naturally leads to:

a.) Impossibly vague or simply insane rules offering a broad and massive mandate to anyone to do anything. This all happened because the Arbitration Committee put on the sirens and screamed "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY! SHOOT TO KILL! BURN THE WIKI! DO ANYTHING! EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES! MAN THE DECKS!" How was this not going to create problems?

b.) Controversial admin actions stemming from an unlimited mandate. How are we to say that MBisanz was wrong? He was given an unlimited mandate. In fact, he would have been perfectly justified in deleting the article without discussion.

c.) Wheel wars. Since the ruling is vague, since the mandate is unlimited, and since all of it goes against everything we stand for — against the very structure of our software, even! — any admin is justified in overturning any of the actions from category B. And thus we have wheel wars, a foreseeable consequence of the bizarre BLP policy.

MBisanz committed no wrong.
MZMcBride committed no wrong.
WilyD committed no wrong.

But neither can we blame the ArbCom and its ruling!

ArbCom's mad ruling was a natural result of a mad policy, and their hands, too, were tied. We can only blame the unrealistic, misguided, anti-wiki, special-case, and insufferably self-righteous policy which led to that ruling, to this disaster, and to so many disasters like it. This case should be thrown out, and BLP should be thrown out with it. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: This comment was added after the case was opened, and does not form part of the selection of comments above which are from the initial request for arbitration. Anthøny ✉ 16:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]