Talk:Pardon of Joe Arpaio

Redirect

@Infamia: I don't want to edit war with you. In my version the article redirects to Joe_Arpaio#Trump_Presidential_pardon, which is a much longer and better written article about the pardon. Can we keep it like that until a better article is created? Galobtter (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I merged that material into the article. Some of it is good, but some should probably be fixed.Infamia (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to side with Galobtter. This is an unnecessary fork from a semi-protected article, likely to add conflicting point-of-view in time (WP:POVFORK). Also, I am not sure if some of the points are actually encyclopaedic on this topic, such as the speculation if Trump will or will not use the same powers in other cases. This is WP:CRYSTAL._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: I'd say it already is quite POVFORKy. His paragraphs seem very negative against trump - "trump and his "henchmen"" seriously?Galobtter (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

How is it a POV FORK? 1) I've never edited at that article, so I'm not forking. 2) The topic is inherently more notable than Arpaio himself, and there is more scope for discussion of the issues here. If you don't like the henchmen comment, delete it. If you don't think speculation on Trump's use of pardons is warranted, delete it (although I did source that one). If you think the article should be deleted or merged, nominate it for deletion, and let's see what happens. Otherwise, suggest contributions or just make them. You don't need my permission to edit the article. This is Wikipedia. It's free for anyone to edit. Just don't blank the article again, please. Infamia (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand what a fork is? A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. and A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies. That's nothing to do with whether you edited the article. I didn't say it wasn't notable. Just because something is notable doesn't mean an article has to be created right now, if the current section on it is better. Which it is. Galobtter (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

agreed. So we have WP:SOAP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:POVFORK. IMO this may warrant a redirect or AfD for now. The topic is notable, but may not require its own article until such a point where it becomes necessary to split the current section out from the main article to aid readability (and protect it equally). _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: I initially created this as a redirect about an hour ago..agree. But I think currently the section in Joe Arpaio is pretty undue, and there should be a separate article. The pardon should only have a few paragraphs on Joe Arpaio, not that huge section. But Infamia will probably revert any attempts to make it a redirect. I was explaining that to him on User talk:Oshwah Galobtter (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm adding a comment as a completely neutral party and in an administrative fashion only. Just make sure that any edits made to this page reflects consensus. It should be noted (and I actually should have mentioned this in the discussion on my user talk page) that this topic (and hence this article) is under discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee per WP:ARBAP2. Infamia has been warned multiple times on my user talk page that edit warring and disruption isn't acceptable, and that discussions here must be a top priority if a dispute comes into motion. I'll take this opportunity to make the warning global to all editors involved here (as to not appear biased or that I'm picking only on one person); don't edit war! Please don't do it! I don't want to have to return here as the bad guy and take actions or enforce any sanctions. Make things easy on me, okay? :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User: Oshwah- an editor has removed more than 50 percent of the page (over 21k of material) without getting a consensus for these edits, despite the warning you give here "make sure any edits you make have consensus." I think the editor should be blocked for violating your clear warning to get a consensus first, and the page should be restored to the clean state it was in before this editor deleted half the page. Thoughts?The Tortfeasor (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Oshwash. I don't think there has been any subsequent disputation since the initial dispute about the merger. I do appreciate your interventions at the talk page though, which were helpful in resolving the earlier matter. Infamia (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Infamia - Awesome! Make sure you keep it that way ;-)! As I said to Galobtter below: If you need my advice or input, you know where to find me. I hope that the input and responses I provided on my user talk page were helpful. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL... "Oshwash"... that sounds like a washing machine cycle. That's funny! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha, oops. Sorry, there. Got it now. Infamia (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to simply work on the article and post on Talk:Joe Arpaio about cutting from the pardon sectoin instead of edit warring. An article anyway needs to be created. Galobtter (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter - Hey, it's your call and your decision. You've been an editor here for awhile; I trust that whatever choice you make will be what's best for yourself. Regardless, just be smart and don't get sucked into anything silly that's going to get you into hot water ;-). If you need my advice or input, you know where to find me. I hope that the input and responses I provided on my user talk page were helpful. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Full text

@Animalparty: I don't think the full text is redundant. The image is very hard to read, and I personally didn't even notice that the text was there. Having the full text there is nice to have for exact context. This is similar to Dismissal of James Comey which has the full text of the termination letter. Galobtter (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, it doesn't say much beyond "Trump pardoned Arpaio", which we already know, along with some additional legalese and court proceedings. Its presence appears decorative, or filler, and nothing within it cannot be paraphrased or adequately described by secondary sources. For scholars looking for the original text, it can be transcribed to Wikisource. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd concur with Galobtter. The full text is short enough that there is little reason not to include it. Infamia (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed noncompliant material

Please discuss before making any further changes to the article. I have removed the statements that were noncompliant with PAGs (like the character assassinations, etc. by detractors). ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Noncompliant material in what sense? You'll have to be quite a bit more specific than that. I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Why are you even here? Your goal seems to be destroy this article by any means necessary. Deleting 2/3 of the article and stating the problem is "noncompliance" is highly unhelpful. Don't do that again. Many thanks. Infamia (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Character assassinations or reliably sourced statements representing the most significant view among reliables sources - both in news and journals? Galobtter (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, Atsme- You said you wanted a discussion on the talk page. Where is the discussion? I've heard nothing of substance or specifics about what you find objectionable from either of you. Infamia (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I do agree that the onus is on her to show the problems with the text. The text had been there for I assume quite a bit of time on Joe Arpaio. So many people have seen the text, especially considering the AfD discussion, and have not seen a big problem. So there is at least a silent consensus (and Infamia and me) against removing the text. Galobtter (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no dog in this either way, it just came up on my watchpage and I make a point of reviewing edit reverts. Not even allowing two hours to go by before reverting his edit is not in the spirit of talking things out peacefully on a talk page. I don't think his intent was to blank the whole page since he didn't just cut away without trying to put some substance back in the meantime. I'm not sure what all the rush is about, wikipedia is intentionally meant to be a slow moving process. Trying to suggest a 'silent consensus' or that the two page creators agreeing one way is substantive consensus without waiting more than a couple hours to hear back from the original complainer is a bit silly. All I've stated, which I will state again is when there is point of view objections, particularly on a political page or a page that involves a BLP (which this is both), the safe bet is to remove the content and discuss it on the talk page. Thus, I'm again restoring his removals. Restoring it without giving him a chance to respond will be seen as continued edit warring. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I said silent consensus because the content was there on Joe Arpaio for I assume at least a month, and had been seen by numerous participants in the AfD. I or Infamia also both didn't even write the content that was removed...so I atleast don't have a huge vested interest in keeping it. I guess the content should maybe remain removed because of the slight chance of BLP violations (though in that case it should be removed from Joe Arpaio too, and she should have explained how it was a BLP violation rather than a short statement in an edit summary considering the controversial nature of it), and agree that more than few hours should be given for discussion (I told Infamia precisely that on his talk page, and warned him about edit warring). Galobtter (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Basically it's extremely irresponsible to drastically remove content from a controversial article and not even have the courtesy of leaving more than a line or two of explanation. (explanation, not just linking policies). Galobtter (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC) That's what I meant by the onus being on her - to provide a proper explanation. 08:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So, essentially, Sulfurboy, you chose to delete 2/3 of a page without having any reason why, in support of an editor who also didn't cite any reason why, and who then elected not to participate in the discussion she asked for? You'll excuse me if I can't quite bring myself to say that makes a great deal of sense. Thankfully, someone else chose to revert your mass-deletion this time, with the portentous threats being thrown around here ("further reverts will be treated as a declaration of war".) As far as the claims of POV objection, to reasonably have a "point of view objection" you'd have to at least tell the editors what you're objecting to. I can't be expected to guess what the objection specifically is from stating "character assassination' and then deleting 2/3 of the page. You've also ignored the fact that there is a deletion discussion pending right now, which has a strong consensus for keep. Infamia (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, the page has now been locked by Oshwah, after being restored to the previous state by Softlavender, so if anyone wants to raise objections or propose improvements, we should discuss them here in the interim. Infamia (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I fully-protected the article. This article topic is under discretionary sanctions; this means that an acceptable and collaborative editing environment is expected by all editors and under strict and heavy scrutiny, and uninvolved administrators have the ability to apply administrative actions and impose unilateral sanctions in order to keep things that way. The recent edits made to the article were clearly going down the path of becoming an edit war by multiple users and over content-related disputes. Hence, I applied full protection in order to set an "all stop" and put an end to it all and before it had a chance to get worse. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Noncompliance with NPOV and BLP

Oshwah, you have the article PP apparently because of the editing disruption that was initially caused by a now blocked editor. Can you please remove the protection so we can clean-up the policy violations, and make the lede compliant with WP:MOSLEAD, etc., which is what I had accomplished before the disruptive sock reverted? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Atleast two people - Me and Softlavender - have agreed to keep the content. The sock being blocked has absolutely nothing to do with this. If you're going to gut an article in the middle of and AfD it has to be for properly explained BLP reasons. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 17:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like there's some more collaboration and discussion to be done ;-). Let me know when a resolution and a consensus has been reached with everything, and (provided all editors involved endorse the request) I'll be happy to change or remove the protection as requested. I wish you both a peaceful and positive collaboration. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop referring to my edits as "gutting". I removed BLP violations. Further, you and Softlavender are not consensus, and based on my unpleasant history with Softlavender and our stark differences, I don't feel optimistic that the right choices are being made here, and I'm concerned they are not based entirely on WP:PAG. Jake Brockman, Sulfurboy, Animalparty and I have also been editing this article. Our part in local consensus is just as important as anyone else's. And the sock being blocked actually does have something to do with it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was consensus. What I meant was that it was more than the sock who was involved in keeping the content. removed BLP violations I think this is third time I've asked you to explain why the content a BLP violation. It's all cited to RS - so there has to be a very good explanation. I highly doubt the entire thing is so - if it is only certain sentences remove only them. I hardly think that analyses of the legality of the pardon are "BLP violations." I don't even know who the living person is- is it Arpaio or is it Trump who the violations are against, let alone how the statements are BLP violations. the sock being blocked actually does have something to do with it. Again why? Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 08:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dealing_with_sock_puppets#Cleaning_up_after_a_sock_puppet_is_blocked - a sock farm was actually involved which usually indicates advocacy and disregard/disrespect for PAGs and other editors. His "violent opposition" as evidenced in his edit summary from AfD and PAs are another indication of advocacy and noncompliance with NPOV. I also recommend that you obtain a more thorough understanding of BLP, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:NOT, WP:V, and the use of liableous and/or derogatory "opinions" against a BLP. Review some of our GAs, FAs and other articles about highly controversial persons where one would expect to find all kinds of "opinions" starting with Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler, and past presidents, specifically the scandals they've been involved in. Not everything published in MSM is worthy of inclusion in WP. I challenged the material because the parts I removed were noncompliant, and BLP specifically states: The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. The policy noncompliance I discussed above and in prior discussions still stands. I did not remove all criticism, only that which were noncompliant. BLP requires a level of conservatism and I can assure you that almost all of the quoted material was neither conservative nor acceptable per our BLP policy. Furthermore, the references to the white supremacist rally has no relevance to the pardon and again, is based on unsupported opinion while the decision to include it is POV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Poll/Request for Comments: Should the recent deletion of more than 50 percent of the article be reverted?

Same sock farmer Atsme📞📧 14:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

* Yes, revert the recent changes back to clean version of the article Changes are uniformly unhelpful, deleted sourced material, and appear to be slanted towards minimizing the notability of the pardon and the unprecedented legal crisis it has engendered. If there are sources supporting an altenerative view of the pardon, they should be added, rather than massively deleting the well-sourced material here.The Tortfeasor (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC) No - The edits I made removed BLP vios, brought the article up to compliance with NPOV & Weight, eliminated the trivial opinions and redundancies, followed MOS, removed Opinion pieces (not RS) that denigrating statements about a BLP were sourced to, and the list goes on. Local consensus does not trump policy and in order to trump it, you'd have to change the policy which means community-wide consensus. Any editor can add relevant information to the article and improve it as needed, but restoring any of the material that was challenged as noncompliant with BLP and that sourced to Opinion pieces will be immediately removed per policy. Furthermore, the bulk of the noncompliant material that was challenged and removed was written by a blocked sock master who also reverted compliant material and replaced it with more of the same noncompliant material. Atsme📞📧 05:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC) I think some of the changes are improvements (definitely better than removing the whole thing as a BLP violation, and I did have a few issues with the text before) and some of the text should have remained. However it's definitely 100% incorrect to say that "the bulk of the noncompliant material that was challenged and removed was written by a blocked sock master" as most of the material you removed was taken from Joe Arpaio where the sock had not edited. In fact, I believe you actually kept a lot of the sock's text - and removed other's text. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 05:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC) :: This article is not a Biography. This is a Law article. In a law article, opinions of legal Academics are not trivial. I believe that your interpretation of the policies you cite is wrong. There is nothing NPOV about citing experts in law who have a negative opinion of the pardon. There is nothing wrong with citing the opinions of experts. It is the opinions of editors and laymen that we avoid citing. There is nothing NPOV about saying that experts have said something negative about a living person. Your edits appear to confuse neutrality with the notion that we should have something good to say about everything, even if the experts do not. That is not what neutrality is. The Tortfeasor (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Agree. Also how is In a statement several days later, Trump said that he had timed the issuance of the pardon to gain maximum television views during Hurricane Harvey coverage, stating, "in the middle of a hurricane, even though it was a Friday evening, I assumed the ratings would be far higher than they were normally." a problem? And remember that we should our content should reflect reliable sources. Also remember that WP:CRYSTAL says: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 05:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC) I'm a bit dismayed that you're agreeing, Galobtter, especially in light of BLP policy: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR) This is about more than one BLP, namely Arpaio & Trump. Atsme📞📧 06:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Because you attempted to connect it to the whole reason Trump pardoned him when he did, and that's not accurate. He pardoned him before sentencing which was most important so he wouldn't serve any jail time. Trump thinking there would be more of an audience has nothing to do with actual timing of the pardon, and everything to do with Trump grabbing airtime like he always does. The sock reverted your redirect Galobtter, so he actually was responsible it being in mainspace. You already know what we do with articles created by blocked socks, and this guy was a sock master. We have WP:BMB for just that reason. We also don't need to bludgeon this BLP with non-stop negativity based on opinions and speculation per WP:BLPREMOVE which states: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. Opinion pieces by lawyers working for a left leaning network brings in WP:BLPCOI, information in primary sources (some news sources), quoting the opinions and speculation of academics in primary sources must be handled and chosen carefully. A RS can quickly become a questionable source when there is an apparent conflict of interest and we already know there are quite a few sources in MSM who hate Trump which brings in the BLPCOI factor. Bottomline, we're talking about 6 months of jail time that was pardoned, not Chelsea Manning's 35 year prison sentence for putting our national security at risk. We've had presidents pardon some really bad criminals and if you can find a standalone article about their pardons, let me know. We need to keep things in perspective, maintain consistency in MOS and make sure that what we include is factual, NPOV, stated in a dispassionate tone, and properly cited. Atsme📞📧 06:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC) :::::: "Opinion pieces by lawyers working for a left leaning network " - this is an incredibly inaccurate description. One, these are not mere "lawyers;" these are professors of law. Show some respect, please. Two, none of the "lawyers" you are speaking of work for these networks (networks generally hire journalists, not lawyers). Three, these networks are not "left-leaning". Please stop throwing around acronyms without explaining how they apply. There is no contentious material about living persons in this piece; it is not about a living person at all. It is about a legal case. "A RS can quickly become a questionable source when there is an apparent conflict of interest and we already know there are quite a few sources in MSM who hate Trump which brings in the BLPCOI factor." We know this how, exactly? The "mainstream media" as you disdainfully call it, indicating your lack of objectivity, does not have a "conflict of interest" with Trump. If you'd like to show some evidence for that claim, please do so, otherwise drop it. " Bottomline, we're talking about 6 months of jail time that was pardoned, not Chelsea Manning's 35 year prison sentence for putting our national security at risk. We've had presidents pardon some really bad criminals and if you can find a standalone article about their pardons, let me know. We need to keep things in perspective, maintain consistency in MOS and make sure that what we include is factual, NPOV, stated in a dispassionate tone, and properly cited." This sentence indicates you don't understand what the pardon is about. It has nothing to do with the amount of jail time that was given- it's about respect for the judiciary and whether judicial orders are going to be followed. If the judiciary doesn't have the power to enforce its orders via contempt, you might as well not have courts to begin with, since they can't make anyone do anything. It's also unprecedented to pardon a criminal prior to their sentencing. The only other instance of this happening was Nixon. Your comparisons with Manning indicate you don't really understand what the article is about, and you should probably edit elsewhere on an article you understand better. The Tortfeasor (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC) And where did all your experience come from considering you're a brand new editor who just started your account this evening, and the first edit you made is here. Would you like to explain how you became so proficient as an editor? Atsme📞📧 06:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC) ::::::::: Personally, I'd prefer to confine discussion to the topic at hand, namely, the value of the edits in question, rather than have a discussion of why my edits on this topic are more proficient than yours. (It may have something to do with the fact that I know something about this topic.) To get back to the point, you are exhibiting fundamental misunderstandings of the topic by comparing it to the Chelsea Manning pardon, or dwelling on the fact that the penalty is "only 6 months." Have you read the sources you deleted? The notability of the pardon has absolutely nothing to do with how long the sentence for Criminal Contempt is (which is statutory, in any case.) The Manning pardon is not independently notable, and would not have enough content to fill an article. This one does. The Manning pardon did not spawn thousands of law review articles. If you would read some of the articles by experts you keep deleting, you would learn that in a typical pardon, the person being pardoned has served at least some of their sentence, has expressed remorse for their crime, has applied for a pardon by the President, is not closely related to the president politically where the pardon could be perceived as a conflict of interest, and is not themselves a member of government whose crime involved failing to uphold the constitution. What makes the Arpaio remarkable and unconstitutional in the eyes of most con law scholars is that the Arpaio pardon ignores all of these things. The sentence could have been 10 days and the foregoing would still be true. You keep giving us your opinions about the pardon and about what's due, and whether they are not neutral, but you haven't supplied any sources to back these opinions up. So why exactly should we care about your opinions? You're not an expert in law, and you haven't cited any experts in law. Experts in law think this is a notable topic, and disagree with your man-on-the-street analysis "this is just like the Manning pardon, so it's ok!". It's not. Come back after you've read some of the sources, and you'll know why. Learning is good for you. The Tortfeasor (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC) References

Break

@Atsme: I was mainly agreeing on the fact that NPOV doesn't mean that false-balance has to be created. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 12:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC

Also, the similar material in Joe Arpaio should also be removed..it has a lot of the material that you have removed here (and it definitely needs shortening) Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 12:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Because you attempted to connect it to the whole reason Trump pardoned him when he did, and that's not accurate. He pardoned him before sentencing which was most important so he wouldn't serve any jail time. Trump thinking there would be more of an audience has nothing to do with actual timing of the pardon, and everything to do with Trump grabbing airtime like he always does. He could have done it weeks before AFAIK. So it's a relevant fact - doesn't really matter all that much, but still relevant. I wasn't attempting any sort of connection. You can add the fact he wanted to do it before sentencing. I still think it can be kept in the article. Maybe under a different heading. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 12:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter - first, I'm going to hat the "poll" above this break because it was more of the same sock activity. I am happy to collaborate with you and other GF editors and discuss anything you believe is worth adding back to the article. Give me a bit of time to find the sources that present the events with the least sensationalism and bait and click hype. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. I'll wait. The current article is fine. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 15:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

For consideration

Galobtter and Softlavender, I would very much appreciate your input regarding the following proposal to update named section with a bit more clarity regarding the events as they occurred. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Subsequent proceedings

After the August 25, 2017 pardon was issued, Bolton requested legal arguments from attorneys on both sides regarding how they wanted to move forward since the pardon was issued before Arpaio was convicted. Bolton also requested a response from prosecutors with the Department of Justice, who stated in a court filing dated September 21, 2017, that Arpaio "is entitled to have the guilty verdict and all rulings in his criminal contempt of court case formally nullified by the court as a result of the pardon." They also acknowledged in their statement the absence of any legal precedent in the Arpaio case which could answer "what should happen when someone receives a pardon after a verdict is reached (in this case by a judge) but before the conviction is officially entered." Several organizations, individuals, and members of Congress had petitioned the court asking the judge "not to accept the pardon or not to dismiss the finding of guilt", several of whom considered the pardon Trump's affront to the judiciary. Kathy Brody, legal director for the ACLU of Arizona said, “From our perspective, it’s very important that the findings of fact remain.”

At the October 4, 2017 hearing, Bolton held the position that "she had no choice but to validate Arpaio’s Aug. 25 pardon by President Donald Trump and throw out the finding of guilt in his criminal contempt case because he had not yet been sentenced and was not afforded an opportunity to appeal the verdict." Arpaio's attorneys filed a motion to "formally dismiss Arpaio's criminal case" which included removing Bolton's reasoning for the guilty verdict in her ruling. With the guilty verdict dismissed, Bolton agreed to carefully consider her decision on the other rulings.

On October 19, 2017, Bolton issued a 4 page order including her reasons for not vacating all the rulings in the case, including the fact that Trump's pardon did not "revise the historical facts" of the case, even though the pardon may have eliminated the possibility of punishment. She wrote:

“ The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial recordkeeping.” United States v Noonan, 906.F2d 952, 955 (3d Cir. 1990). To vacate all rulings in this case would run afoul of this important distinction. The Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt. ”

ACLU-AZ deputy legal director, Cecillia Wang, attorney for the plaintiffs agreed with Bolton's denial of the motion stating, "The court made detailed findings after a bench trial about Joe Arpaio's criminal conduct. The court’s findings and documents in the record of the case should stand and now will stand."

References

Discussion

The weekend is upon us - I added the clarification, so let's discuss if you believe there is anything noncompliant with our PAGs. Please feel free to copy-edit as needed. I worked diligently to arrive at the most neutral, dispassionate tone stating only the facts. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Are you sure "pardon was issued before Arpaio was convicted." in the first line is correct. Did it not happen after he was convicted but before he was sentenced? Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 04:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay so the source says, "Trump issued his pardon in August, before Arpaio had technically been convicted." Yet elsewhere in our article it says prior to sentencing and after the verdict was handed down. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 04:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed it for now until clarified/corrected. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 07:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Clarified it, I think I understand it now, do you think its good? Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 07:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've also removed a lot of material from Joe Arpaio#Presidential Pardon, and added some of it to here plus the full text of the pardon. What do you think of the changes? Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 08:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Law professor Josh Chafetz quote from Washington Post

[1]

@Softlavender: I don't know if the material should be kept or removed but BLP applies to any statement anywhere that talks about living persons. Galobtter ::(talkó tuó mió) 12:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter - I've been going through the changes you made, some of which I removed as noncompliant because it created BLP and UNDUE issues. I'm still going through the changes but was interrupted by Softlavender's edit warring, despite me asking her to discuss restoring noncompliant material before reverting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Actually, the only removal you've made of something I added (that was not there elsewhere) was that of some groups challenging it as unconstitutional. The opinion statement from Chafetz about Arpaio I did not add. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender - please stop edit warring. The material you keep restoring are violations of BLP - particularly the allegation of racism which is a blatant BLP violation, regardless of whose opinion or analysis it happens to be. It is defamatory and unwarranted. I have challenged its inclusion as a BLP violation, and it is up to you to seek consensus, not me for removing it. Read BLP. Also see the USA article. Now please self-revert. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

According to this and this guardian articles, "That judge later ruled the patrols racially profiled Latinos." and "convicted of contempt of court in July for defying a judge’s order to stop racially profiling Latinos." and wapo article "the Justice Department concluded that Arpaio’s deputies had engaged in the worst pattern of racial profiling that the DOJ had ever investigated." So at the very least it's something significant about the contempt of court conviction and about arpaio and so is relevant to the pardon. Our article for Joe Arpaio mentions racial profiling throughout the article. I don't think it is too much to have some opinions talking about Arpaio's "claim to fame being.."Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 12:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC) However I'll amend this to say that perhaps this specific piece can be replaced by another one that talks about the racial profiling in relation to the contempt conviction and thus pardon rather than labelling Arpaio as being a xenophobe. That'd be more relevant too. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 12:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I support Softlavender's edits and no, they are not WP:BLP violations by any reasonable interpretation of our policies.- MrX 12:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a opinion piece that talks about how the pardon is possibly unconstitunioal and about racial profiling. Remember that significant opinions should be included. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 12:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, you need to gain consensus before continuing to remove RS-cited analysis of the pardon. Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, you are edit warring and have refused to discuss anything with others before reverting and restoring noncompliant material. Worse yet, you are accusing others as not gaining consensus when it is you who needs consensus.

1. The material you restored has been challenged as a BLP vio per WP:BLPSOURCE. BRD does not trump BLP policy. Editors should avoid tendentious editing and BRD edits for articles that are as highly volatile as this one, especially when it involves a BLP and is subject to DS per AP2.
2. The reason this edit has been challenged as a BLP vio is that while it is cited to a RS, the article is a "Perspective"; i.e., the author's POV about Joe Arpaio, and is not about the pardon. The headline substantiates the latter: The problem with Joe Arpaio’s pardon isn’t the process. The problem is Joe Arpaio. The inclusion of the author's unsupported allegations are defamatory and denigrating which leaves little room for doubt that a BLP vio exists.
3. Statements that are noncompliant with balance and UNDUE have also been restored to the article by your reverts, and you did so without seeking consensus after those statements were challenged and removed. The onus is on the editor who wishes to restore challenged material, and again, we're subject to BLP and DS-AP2, which discourages BRD style editing while encouraging discussion on the article TP. You have refused to discuss anything, and have written others off with fallacious claims that this is not a BLP, and that you are employing BRD.
4. Racial profiling is not illegal in Arizona. Arpaio was not found guilty of racial profiling, he was found guilty of criminal contempt, so the allegations of racial profiling are unsupported allegations and subject to compliance with V, NOR, NOTNEWS, BLP, BALANCE & UNDUE.
5. The orphan sentence that keeps being reverted back into the article under the section "Legal and political analysis" reads: Some legal groups challenged the pardon as unconstitutional as it "undermined the power of the federal judiciary" which is redundant to "affront to the judiciary" and already included in the section "Subsequent proceedings". We only need to include that allegation once, and yes, it is an allegation; therefore, subject to UNDUE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Atleast I never said he was "guilty of racial profiling". I said "defying a judge’s order to stop racially profiling Latinos." So there was a judge's order about racial profiling. So that still says he racially profiled. Regarding the some groups challenged, you can remove the "undermined the power of the federal judiciary" while keeping the statement about the groups challenging the constitutionality. I think one significant opinion missing from this article is about some (Feldman, those groups and others) calling it unconstitutional. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 14:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Also, yes there is no law against racial profiling in Arizona but that's because there doesn't have to be - it's covered in the constitution, and the judge ordered him to stop violating fourth amendment rights. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 14:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter, I trust you will make the corrections you deem proper, and compliant with PAGs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

---

• I see absolutely no problem with the law professor's quote, which is attributed and is proper weight. Neutrality^talk 03:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Law professor or not, it's a Perspective which means POV. We don't call people xenophobes and racists in WP without substantial proof - verifiability - and opinion pieces don't fit that bill. Xenophobe? That's laughable considering his own parents were immigrants from Italy (Latino). Racist? smh - his 4 grandchildren are mixed ethnicities, including African-American and Latino; his son married a Mexican woman. Regardless, even if he was a xenophobe and racist, how does that relate to the pardon? Cherrypicking disparaging comments from opinion pieces is BLP coatrack and a big no-no. We're treading into POVFork territory now. Is the subject Joe Arpaio, or the pardon? Opinions don't trump policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, bizarre & absurd claims that having mixed-race relations renders one unable to be racist aside, the standard isn't "prove it", the standard is if it is a reliable source quoting a noted person. The source is the W. Post, the person is a constitutional law expert with a J.D. at Yale, a Rhodes Scholar, and an 2nd Circuit appeals court clerk. It is also presented as Dr. Chafetz's opinion, not presented in Wikipedia's voice. I'm seeing a rather stark lack of merit to your argument. TheValeyard (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Show me the policy that says we can disparage a living person using inline text attribution cited to an opinion piece by an author who has a COI with the subject, and then explain how Arpaio being called a xenophobe and racist has anything to do with the pardon. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Arpaio is well-known for his unlawful and disproportionate targeting of Hispanics for law enforcement actions, his anti-immigrant stances have been criticized as racist, and he was found in criminal contempt in a case involving his department's immigrant round-ups. Donald Trump's pardon of the criminal contempt charge is seen as tacit endorsement of Arpaio's actions, especially as Trump campaigned on the same anti-immigrant sentiments. Thus, Arpaio's xenophobia and racism has rather everything to do with the pardon. TheValeyard (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX which is policy - there is a lot of material in that opinion piece that better suits inclusion in this article without the need for disparaging a living person with unsupported value laden labels: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion #2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP/N discussion

I recently opened a discussion at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP_vio regarding this edit. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm including the explanation provided by Masem at BLP/N: ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sourced and attributed criticism of Arpaio is perfectly valid on the biographical page about Arpaio. But it is inappropriate when it is not central to the point of the page about the pardon, which is more an issue due to criticism of Trump and the pardoning process, rather than Arpaio himself. It's a coatrack issue. Per BLP we are meant to write impartially and that means in this case avoiding quotes that coatrack unnecessary opinions that are not essential to Chafetz's argument. --MASEM (t) 10:30 am, Today (UTC−6)

Are you also going to include the explanations of the nine experienced editors (Neutrality, Softlavender, MastCell, SPECIFICO, TheValeyard, Nomoskedasticity, Kendall-K1 , Fyddlestix, and MrX) who disagree with you and Masem?- MrX 17:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

MrX, are you counting "votes" or trying to arrive at local consensus based on policy? The latter is what I'm doing. I don't count votes to arrive at a consensus; rather I evaluate what our policies say and make a determination. All editors have the opportunity to see the BLP/N discussion for themselves. This is not an RfC and certainly not one that was initiated at VP, but that can happen if needed. What we have are two different opinions from two different admins, both of whom I respect and trust. My suggestion is for you to draw your own conclusions, and if need be, we can take it to VP and whatever the result is, I will honor with the utmost respect. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course I'm not counting votes. I'm weighing the policy-based arguments from editors who know what their talking about. By the way, admins' opinions about content have no more weight than those of other editors. I do not support forum shopping to VP or anywhere else. I do support honoring the clear and obvious consensus that was achieved on this page and at WP:BLPN.- MrX 22:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you implying that I don't know what I'm talking about? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's just say that I have concerns about the extent of your understanding of some of our content policies.- MrX 23:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enuff - I have concerns about yours. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

OK.- MrX 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)