Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only arbitrators or clerks should edit this page; non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 13 active arbitrators, of whom one is recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Biographies of living persons

1) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (made copyedit)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Raul654 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Paul August ☎ 17:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Basic human dignity

2) Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (copyedited)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Raul654 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Paul August ☎ 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Do no harm

3) In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    Raul654 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I have reconsidered my position on this principle. This a very slippery slope, one which we are already slipping down, as illustrated on the talk page by people wanting to apply the biographies of living people to the recently deceased. Furthermore, I categorically reject the entire principle that censoring information that could potentially upset people is a good idea. And make no mistake about it, when you strip away all of the euphemisms, that's exactly what this is, and it runs counter to our fundamental principle that Wikipedia is not censored. To wit - "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE" - Wikipedia:Content disclaimer In And the Band Played On, Randy Shilts notes that AIDS was the first epidemic that nobody died from because newspapers wouldn't report on it, to avoid upsetting people from the stigma attached to the disease. This contributed significantly to the spread of the disease in its early years. Raul654 15:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. I share Raul's concerns, and I have additional reservations about this. Isn't one person's "harm" another persons "help"? Can't the absence of certain content do as much harm as the presence of other content? Can't this principle as written be taken to give an effective veto to any single editor concerning the presence of certain content? While I agree that we need to adopt a strongly conservative approach to articles on living people, I don't think this is the best principle upon which to base such an approach. Paul August ☎ 19:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Summary deletion of BLPs

4) Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Could stand some copyediting Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Mostly right. In general, if the baseline of a living person's biography is set wrong, it is better that the article be deleted and everyone thinks hard about the issue. We only want such articles that are a net plus to the encyclopedia's reputation. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Based on Tony Sidaway's recent BLP spree (particularly in regards to the Bus Uncle featured article) I think this is ripe for abuse. Raul654 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:


[edit] BLP applies only to living people

5) The biographies of living people policy applies only to people who are alive.

Support:
  1. Although at first glance it might not seem necessary, from the talk page of this decision, it appears some people are trying to expand BLP to include the "recently" dead as well (where recently is undefined) Raul654 17:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Kirill 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. As the policy is currently written, this is obviously true. Paul August ☎ 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes. Any extension is policy-making, and not up to us. Charles Matthews 17:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    It appears to me that this principle is attempting to restrict the communities expansion of the policy. Raul654 is arguing that it should not be expanded. That is the reason that he proposed the principle. He does not like the idea that the community is using commonsense and treating the recently dead with same sensitivity as the living. I fear that this principle will be used to argue that the community can not expand it. (Although, your comment and Paul's seems to indicate otherwise. FloNight 18:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Sidenote: such an argument is certainly fallacious. For one thing what constitutes 'encyclopedic tone' is independent of BLP. Someone's death is no excuse to turn an article into an attack piece. But nil de mortuis nisi bonum is obviously incompatible with being encyclopedic, also. Charles Matthews 19:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. It certainly does apply to recently dead. Murder victims, people that die of rare diseases, and such need the protection of this policy the same as the living. FloNight 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    At the risk of stating the obvious - no, they don't, because they're dead. Raul654 18:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    The policy speaks to the harm that comes to the person and their living family members. Drawing a line in the sand about whether the subject of the article is breathing today misses the intent of the policy..."Not to harm living people". FloNight 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree about the purpose of the BLP policy (I've always considered it primarily, if not exclusively, concerned with avoidign a libel lawsuit. For this reason, I've switched to oppose on principle #3.) Here was my explanation, CC'd from above: I have reconsidered my position on this principle. This a very slippery slope, and it's already happening, as illustrated on the talk page by people wanting to apply the biographies of living people to the recently deceased. Furthermore, I categorically reject the entire principle that censoring information that could potentially upset people is a good idea. And make no mistake about it, when you strip away all of the euphemisms, that's exactly what this is. In And the Band Played On, Randy Shilts notes that AIDS was the first epidemic that nobody died from because newspapers wouldn't report on it, to avoid upsetting people from the stigma attached to the disease. This contributed significantly to the spread of the disease in its early years. Raul654 15:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. BLP is about doing harm. If my Dad dies and a Wikipedia editor decides to stick something in his article which wouldn't have been allowed the day before he died under BLP, it's hurtful in much the same way. BLP is about being decent, which trumps everything, including amassing information in the encyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely not. I echo Josh's and Flo's points. James F. (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Not acceptable as written. There are a number of fact situations to be considered, ranging from historical figures, to persons unable to defend themselves from libel now that they are dead to deceased victims of media publicity. Fred Bauder 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Maybe best to leave this up to further discussion at this point. Kirill 20:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators

6) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping.

Support:
  1. FloNight 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kirill 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) The dispute involves the deletion, undeletion, and associated discussion of a number of articles covered by the biographies of living persons policy.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Raul654 15:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Paul August ☎ 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff

2) badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has vocally argued against the deletion of certain articles that were deleted on the grounds of violating WP:BLP. He has explicitly rejected the need for ethical considerations when dealing with such articles (""We should discard ethics in favor of writing an encyclopedia. If we share any ethics as a project, that's it.").

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 15:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Violetriga

3) Violetriga (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has, in a number of instances, undeleted content that was deleted under the BLP policy without a discussion to ensure that such content was appropriate ([1]).

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Raul654 15:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Night Gyr

4) Night Gyr (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has, in a number of instances, undeleted content that was deleted under the BLP policy without a discussion to ensure that such content was appropriate ([2]).

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Raul654 15:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

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

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff banned from BLPs

1) Because of his rejection of the fundamental ethical principles that underlie the BLP policy, badlydrawnjeff is banned from all articles covered by the policy, as well as any associated discussions. In particular, this includes any deletion discussion dealing with such an article, as well as any present or future discussion of the policy itself.

Support:
  1. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Second choice Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fourth choice. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I think this goes much too far. I don't think we've shown Jeff to have behaved inappropriately in terms of editing articles on living persons, and my problem with his behavior in discussions has not been with his fundamental ethical principles, but with his incivility and inability to let a point rest (which latter, it must be said, applies equally to those who insist on debating him in similar fashion rather than ignoring him once the point has been made, repeatedly). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Matt. See 1.1 and 1.2 for alternatives. FloNight 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Jeff is a good editor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. It's just too extreme. Backing off. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Raul654 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Abstain:
  1. I would treat this as the fallback, if the caution proves inadequate. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned

1.1) Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy.

Support:
  1. I feel that a caution and a limited ban for a limited amount of time is better (see 1.2). Gives Badlydrawnjeff a chance to adjust to the principles and findings in this case. FloNight 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sixth choice Fred Bauder 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. First choice. I believe he'll attend to the caution. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely, although this applies to everyone. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Raul654 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 12:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Better than nothing. Kirill 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Pointless when he's essentially told us straight out that he won't. The only way I could see this working is if he explicitly acknowledged his responsibilities under principle 1. Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Give him a chance to internalize the principles and findings after we give him the official caution. He had vocal support for his pov so that I fear he did not really internalize BLP policy, instead thinking that his side would win. He has an overall good reputation as a user even among people that disagree with his inclutionist position. No reason to think that he would do something extreme to make a point. FloNight 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Per Kirill. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff banned from DRVs on living persons

1.2) Badlydrawnjeff may not initiate or reopen any deletion review concerning an article deleted for BLP reasons for three months.

Support:
I fee that a limited ban for a limited amount of time is better. Gives Badlydrawnjeff a chance to adjust to the principles and findings in this case. FloNight 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Think a caution is enough. FloNight 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Fifth choice Fred Bauder 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. He'll just get someone else to open it for him. Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Kirill. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Nah. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions on living persons

1.3) Badlydrawnjeff may not participate in any deletion discussion or review concerning a BLP article for three months.

Support:
  1. Third choice. Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Third choice Fred Bauder 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Second choice jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    IMO, completely restricting him from joining the discussion is very harsh. If it is for only three months I can support this instead of my restriction on banning him from opening a DRV. But, I would like to see a caution passed as well that explicitedly says he should follow BLP policy. We need to make it clear that it is more than being unpolite that caused the ban. FloNight 19:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Striking vote for now. Still hopeful that we can avoid any type of ban that involves restricting thoughtful discussion about BLP matters. I think that this should be an absolute last resort. FloNight 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Second choice. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion reviews on living persons

1.4) Badlydrawnjeff may not participate in any deletion review concerning an article deleted for BLP reasons for three months.

Support:
  1. Fourth choice. Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fourth choice Fred Bauder 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Third choice. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff banned from BLP discussions

1.5) Because of his rejection of the fundamental ethical principles that underlie the BLP policy, badlydrawnjeff is banned from all policy-related discussions covered by it, as well as any associated discussions. In particular, this includes any deletion discussion dealing with a BLP article, as well as any present or future discussion of the policy itself. He is required to avoid interfering with the formation and execution of decisions made by other editors related to this policy. He may perform all normal editing subject to compliance with policy. He may not be blocked for accidentally making a non-compliant edit. He is requested to avoid situations that may bring him into conflict over the BLP policy.

Support:
  1. First choice Fred Bauder 20:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. First choice; clarified wording a bit Kirill Lokshin 20:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC) First choice. This is better.
  4. First choice. We can always review if this proves to be unnecessarily strong. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Based on his comments on this talk page, I feel that this remedy (and the others proposals about ethics) misrepresents his position. I think permanently banning him from all discussions about BLP policy is too harsh also. Strongly prefer to take a wait and see approach here. I feel that he will not be a problem in regard to BLP discussions once our rulings are final. FloNight 01:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Too harsh. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Flonight Raul654 15:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Violetriga cautioned

2) Violetriga is cautioned to avoid undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined above.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. But a bit weak. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Raul654 15:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Paul August ☎ 21:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Violetriga admonished

2.1) Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined above. Any future administrator action that violates the BLP policy will result in her immediate desyopping once it is brought to the attention of the Committee.

Support:
  1. We have no choice based on Violetriga's comments on the talk page of this case. As late as today she says she does not understand BLP policy. FloNight 22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 23:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Cleaned up wording a bit. Kirill 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Seems necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Unfortunately so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Very regrettable that we would have to take such action. James F. (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Per the talk page, I think this is applying a double standard. Raul654 16:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Too harsh. Paul August ☎ 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Night Gyr cautioned

3) Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined above.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Raul654 15:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Paul August ☎ 03:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Users who violate any ban imposed by this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Log_of_notifications.2C_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Although unless I miss something, the only ban imposed by this proposed decision (on badlydrawnjeff) appears almost-certainly to have failed, rendering this point moot. (Noticing 1.3 and 1.4) Raul654 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by arbitrators

[edit] General

I would like to state, for the record, that I object to this decision. I've only felt that way about one prior arbcom decision - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute (specifically, this remedy). In that case, not only did it turn out that I was right, but given WMC's later interview with Nature magazine about Wikipedia, it could have been a PR disaster had William not been as forgiving as he was. In this case, as I said above, we've seen a gradual expansion of the scope and force of the biographies of living persons policy so that (in a feat of logical contortion that would make Houdini proud) it applies to the dead as well. The given reason for this amounts to censoring Wikipedia because it might contain information that could potentially upset people. This goes against our core principles. I wish to state that I feel that the principles endorsed by this decision are extremely unwise, and will ultimately have to be revisited and probably repealed later - if not by the current members of the arbcom, then their successors. Raul654 14:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

All principles and findings of fact pass EXCEPT Principle 6 due to the increased number needed for majority - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Remedy 1.1 Badlydrawnjeff cautioned passes (but no other version) (With my move to active status, the majority is now 7, and this remedy no longer "passes". Paul August ☎ 16:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC))
And 2 minutes after P.A's post, Kirill went ahead and voted yea for 1.1, which has 7 votes currently to pass. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Remedy 2 Violetriga cautioned and 2.1 Violetriga admonished both pass
Remedy 3 Night Gyr cautioned passes
The enforcement provision is moot (no enforceable remedies have passed) Thatcher131 15:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I would think remedy 2.1 supersedes 2, given the overlap and the numbering? Although, 2 has more votes at present. The closing clerk may need some clarification when all the voting is done. Newyorkbrad 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
No harm in both passing since one does not directly counteract the other. Since 2.1 passed second and is more strongly worded, it should be part of the announcement of the case. FloNight 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close. We're done with everything passing that is going to pass. FloNight 15:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Close. Kirill 15:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Close. Charles Matthews 19:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. I want all (or close to all) of the arbitrators on the record on principle #5. Raul654 19:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Close, we've done all we can. Fred Bauder 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose, per Raul. Paul August ☎ 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC) to until I've had time to finish voting. Paul August ☎ 19:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC) I'm done. Paul August ☎ 03:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)