From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Recusal request 1.2 This workshop to be blanked until the parties have had a chance to present their evidence 1.3 Template 2 Motion/request by non-party 2.1 Protect QZ from search engines 2.2 Rename the case to include WP:BLP 3 Proposed temporary injunctions 3.1 Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions 3.2 User:Violetriga added to case 3.3 Moratorium on DRVs of BLPs 3.4 Real names 3.5 Template 3.6 Template 3.7 Template 3.8 Template 4 Questions to the parties 5 Proposed final decision 5.1 Proposed principles 5.1.1 Disputes 5.1.2 Interpersonal communication 5.1.3 How to handle disputes 5.1.4 Consensus 5.1.5 Biographies of living persons 5.1.6 Biographies of living persons 5.1.7 Deletion review 5.1.7.1 Deletion review (2) 5.1.7.2 Deletion review (3) 5.1.8 Early closures 5.1.8.1 Early closures (2) 5.1.9 Early closures (3) 5.1.10 Inclusion and exclusion 5.1.11 Speedy deletion 5.1.12 Wheel warring is disruptive 5.1.13 Ethics 5.1.14 Treatment of editors 5.1.15 Adminship is no big deal 5.1.16 WP:BLP is a policy about ethics 5.1.17 Sensitive matters 5.1.18 Primum non nocere 5.1.19 Persons of minor interest 5.1.19.1 Articles about living people notable only for one event 5.1.19.2 Internet memes 5.1.19.3 Some article subjects are more important than others 5.1.20 Minors 5.1.21 Privacy 5.1.21.1 Privacy 5.1.22 Requests for comment 5.1.23 WP:BLP is not a show of force 5.1.24 Ownership of WP:BLP 5.1.25 BLP and ethics 5.1.26 Ethics count 5.1.27 Wheel-warring 5.1.28 Wheel warring 5.1.29 WP:BLP does not apply to dead people 5.1.30 No rush to undelete 5.1.31 No rush to delete 5.1.32 Discussion of WP:BLP deletions 5.1.32.1 Reviewing WP:BLP deletions 5.1.33 Discuss the issue, not the action 5.1.34 Basic human dignity 5.1.35 Do no harm 5.1.36 Insensitivity 5.1.37 Badgering 5.1.38 Principle of implied consent 5.1.39 No original research 5.1.40 Neutral point of view 5.1.41 Courtesy 5.1.42 Wikilawyering is harmful to the encyclopedia 5.1.43 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy 5.1.44 Don't Disrupt Wikipedia To Make A Point 5.1.45 WP:POINT and DRV 5.1.46 WP:POINT and deletions 5.1.47 Precedential value 5.1.48 Deletion review is a discussion, not a vote 5.1.49 Obduracy is harmful 5.1.50 Enforcing BLP 5.1.51 Enforcing BLP 2 5.1.52 Enforcing BLP 3 5.1.53 Reasons for deletion 5.1.54 Reasons for deletion 2 5.1.55 Encyclopedia more important than rules 5.1.56 Administrative actions are subject to review. 5.1.56.1 Administrative actions are subject to review (1) 5.1.57 History undeletions 5.1.58 Beating a dead horse 5.1.59 Criteria for Speedy Deletion 5.1.60 Admins do not have special authority 5.1.61 Limits on BLP 5.1.62 Argumentative and repetitive demands 5.1.63 Wikipedia:Ignore all rules 5.1.64 No one is infallible 5.1.65 Consensus and policy 5.1.66 Role of articles named for people 5.1.67 Wikipedia is here to be factual, not nice 5.1.68 Assuming good faith 5.1.69 Involved editors and administrators and the BLP 5.1.69.1 Involved editors and administrators and the BLP (1) 5.1.70 Consensus and BLP 5.1.71 Precautionary principle 5.1.72 The penumbra of BLP and blocks 5.1.73 Rollback 5.1.74 Rollback in conjunction with BLP 5.1.75 BLP disputes are content disputes 5.1.76 Criticism 5.1.77 Being upset 5.1.78 Disruption by administrators 5.1.79 Courtesy 5.1.80 Discussion of controversial decisions 5.1.81 Baiting 5.1.82 Requests for deletion 5.1.83 Administrators 5.1.84 Optimum leadership 5.1.85 Neutral Point of View 5.1.86 Verifiable information 5.1.87 Writing style, biography of a living person 5.1.88 Deletion of pages 5.1.89 Attack pages are subject to speedy deletion 5.1.90 Essays are not policy 5.1.91 Wheel warring and the BLP 5.1.91.1 Enforcement of BLP deletions 5.1.91.2 0RR applies in the case of BLP deletions 5.1.91.3 0RR applies in the case of BLP deletions (2) 5.1.91.4 Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. 5.1.92 Burden of proof 5.1.93 WP:BLP is ambiguous 5.1.94 OTRS 5.1.95 Speedy closure of articles for deletion discussions listed as the result of a deletion review 5.1.95.1 Speedy closure of articles for deletion discussions listed as the result of a deletion review 5.1.96 User blocks are not weapons 5.1.97 Neutral point of view is an infrangible principle 5.1.98 Wikipedia is not censored 5.1.99 Restoration of admin privileges 5.1.100 Template 5.2 Proposed findings of fact 5.2.1 Wikipedia's growth and status 5.2.2 Effects of Wikipedia's growth and status 5.2.3 Biographies of living persons is policy 5.2.3.1 People notable for a single event 5.2.3.2 The example of Rachel Marsden 5.2.4 WP:NOT 5.2.5 WP:BLP 5.2.6 Deletion review has not reflected community ideals regarding consensus 5.2.7 Deletion review has not resulted in the proper results at an acceptable rate 5.2.8 Consensus and deletions of articles 5.2.9 Moral and Ethical nature of the project and expectations of participants 5.2.10 Badlydrawnjeff 5.2.10.1 Badlydrawnjeff and BLP 5.2.10.2 Badlydrawnjeff 5.2.10.2.1 Badlydrawnjeff 5.2.10.2.2 Badlydrawnjeff 5.2.10.3 Badlydrawnjeff's participation in deletion discussions 5.2.10.4 Badlydrawnjeff Block Inappropriate 5.2.10.5 Unjustified block of badlydrawnjeff disapproved, disregarded 5.2.10.6 Badlydrawnjeff actively promotes the misunderstanding and misapplication of WP:BLP 5.2.10.7 Badlydrawnjeff's stance on his opposers 5.2.11 Tony Sidaway 5.2.11.1 Tony Sidaway has a long history of incivility 5.2.11.2 Tony Sidaway has closed AFD and DRV discussions improperly 5.2.12 Doc glasgow 5.2.12.1 Doc glasgow has made a number of improper deletions 5.2.12.2 Doc glasgow blocks under BLP 5.2.12.3 Doc glasgow improperly uses the rollback tool 5.2.12.4 Doc glasgow improperly closes deletion discussions 5.2.12.5 Admin rights 5.2.13 JzG 5.2.13.1 JzG has made a number of improper deletions 5.2.13.2 JzG has made improper protections 5.2.14 H 5.2.14.1 H has been incivil 5.2.15 Violetriga 5.2.15.1 Violetriga has wheel warred 5.2.15.2 Violetriga has wheel warred 5.2.15.3 Violetriga has demonstrated a high degree of insensitivity with respect to the Biographies of living persons policy 5.2.15.4 Violetriga restored BLP deletions 5.2.15.5 Violetriga abused her admin tools 5.2.15.6 Violetriga has abused her admin tools before 5.2.16 Swatjester 5.2.16.1 Swatjester wheel warred 5.2.16.2 Swatjester redeletes under the BLP 5.2.17 Nick 5.2.17.1 Nick wheel warred 5.2.17.2 Nick redeletes under the BLP 5.2.18 Night Gyr 5.2.18.1 Night Gyr 5.2.19 Phil Sandifer 5.2.19.1 Phil Sandifer wheel warred 5.2.19.2 Phil Sandifer redeletes under the BLP 5.2.20 QZ Article 5.2.20.1 The use of WP:BLP 5.2.20.2 Qian Zhijun 5.2.20.3 Status of Qian Zhijun at the time of deletion 5.2.20.4 Early closures were improper 5.2.20.5 QZ 5.2.20.6 Deletion rationale 5.2.20.7 Additional recent examples 5.2.20.8 The "Do no harm" concept is often flawed in use 5.2.20.9 Deletion of Qian Zhijun was proper 5.2.20.10 QZ 5.2.20.11 QZ 5.2.20.12 First AfD Closed Validly 5.2.20.13 First DRV Closed Unclearly 5.2.20.14 Second AfD Closed Defensibly 5.2.20.15 Complete Chaos 5.2.20.16 Deletion processes inadequate to handle issue 5.2.21 User:^demon 5.2.22 User:Daniel 5.2.23 Allison Stokke 5.2.24 Making Sausage 5.2.25 Deletion process needed 5.2.26 Administrative 1RR 5.2.27 Change of policy in the middle of Arbitrations 5.2.27.1 Tony Sidaway changed BLP in the middle of this arbitration 5.2.27.2 Consensus on this is debatable 5.2.28 The recently deceased 5.2.29 Template 5.3 Proposed remedies 5.3.1 Badlydrawnjeff 5.3.1.1 Badlydrawnjeff placed on civility parole 5.3.1.2 Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned. 5.3.1.3 Badlydrawnjeff is warned 5.3.1.4 Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions 5.3.1.5 Badlydrawnjeff banned from Wikipedia:Deletion review 5.3.1.6 Badlydrawnjeff restricted 5.3.1.7 Badlydrawnjeff admonished 5.3.1.8 Badlydrawnjeff restricted to one DRV nom per article 5.3.1.9 Badlydrawnjeff placed on discussion parole 5.3.1.10 Deletion participation 5.3.1.11 DRVs on living persons 5.3.1.12 Badlydrawnjeff banned from BLP discussions 5.3.1.13 Disruptive editing of BLP debates 5.3.1.14 Disruptive editing of BLP debates (2nd version) 5.3.1.15 Badlydrawnjeff commended and thanked 5.3.2 Tony Sidaway 5.3.2.1 Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole 5.3.2.2 Tony Sidaway placed on discussion closure parole 5.3.2.3 Tony Sidaway is cautioned on closures 5.3.2.4 Tony Sidaway is cautioned on closures 5.3.3 Doc glasgow 5.3.3.1 Doc glasgow desysopped 5.3.3.2 Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR 5.3.3.3 Doc glasgow placed on administrative restriction 5.3.3.4 Doc glasgow placed on civility parole 5.3.3.5 Doc glasgow strongly cautioned 5.3.3.6 Doc glasgow admonished 5.3.3.7 Doc glasgow placed on discussion closure parole 5.3.4 JzG 5.3.4.1 JzG admonished 5.3.4.2 JzG placed on administrative 1RR 5.3.4.3 JzG placed on adminstrative restriction 5.3.4.4 JzG desysopped 5.3.4.5 JzG placed on civility parole 5.3.4.6 JzG placed on discussion closure parole 5.3.5 H 5.3.5.1 H placed on civility parole 5.3.6 Violetriga 5.3.6.1 Violetriga desysopped 5.3.6.2 Violetriga desysopped for 10 days 5.3.6.3 Violetriga desysopped for 5 days 5.3.7 QZ Article 5.3.7.1 The QZ article shall be restored 5.3.7.2 The QZ article shall be relisted at AfD 5.3.7.3 Keeping of status quo on QZ 5.3.8 Other articles 5.3.8.1 The Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parkers articles shall be relisted at AfD 5.3.8.1.1 The Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parkers deletion shall be reviewed 5.3.8.1.2 The Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parkers deletion may be reviewed 5.3.8.2 The Tanya Kach article shall be relisted at AfD 5.3.8.2.1 The Tanya Kach deletion shall be reviewed 5.3.8.2.2 The Tanya Kach deletion may be reviewed 5.3.8.3 The Allison Stokke article shall be restored 5.3.8.3.1 The Allison Stokke deletion shall be reviewed 5.3.8.3.2 The Allison Stoke deletion may be reviewed 5.3.9 General caution 5.3.10 Admins blocking Jeff admonished 5.3.11 Policy development 5.3.12 Speedy closures 5.3.12.1 Speedy closures 5.3.12.2 Speedy closures 5.3.12.3 Temporary measure for closing of BLP DRV discussions 5.3.12.4 Temporary measure for closing of overturned AFD discussions 5.3.12.5 Temporary measure for closing of overturned AFD discussions (2) 5.3.13 Precedence 5.3.14 Technical investigation 5.3.15 Execution of policy 5.3.16 All parties are reminded to use editorial discretion 5.3.17 Making Sausage, part 2 5.3.18 Certain admins banned from blocking badlydrawnjeff 5.3.19 Wikilawyering 5.3.20 Parties requested to CHILL OUT 5.3.21 Template 5.4 Proposed enforcement 5.4.1 Template 5.4.2 Template 5.4.3 Template 5.4.4 Template 5.5 Analysis of evidence 5.5.1 Template 5.5.2 Template 5.5.3 Template 5.5.4 Template 5.5.5 Template 5.5.6 Template 5.5.7 Template 5.6 General discussion 5.6.1 Unilateral 5.6.2 Deletions under the BLP 5.6.3 Sensitive material 5.6.4 Two different types of BLP material

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Recusal request

1) Per the statement here, it appears Fred Bauder has already made a determination on my behavior before seeing any evidence. I request Bauder's recusal on this case based on his statement as I do not believe he will be able to examine this case properly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Let's all recuse. Could simplify matters. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I can consider this case fairly. After I figure out what the issues are. Which is quite unclear at this point. Fred Bauder 11:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not needed. FloNight 20:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

So Fred has a view before this case opens? Actually I doubt any arb doesn't. Convince him he's wrong.--Doc^g 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If every arbitrator who'd made an utterance on this case was recused we wouldn't have any arbitrators left. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with an "utterance." Plenty of utterances have occurred that I'm not concerning myself with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems silly - that's hardly a predjudicial statement. Phil Sandifer 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He's made his initial opinion public - that makes it easier for you to address his concerns. I would be more worried about the arbitrators that have formed an initial opinion but have kept quiet, there is no way for you to know what issues you need to address to persuade them. --Tango 10:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This workshop to be blanked until the parties have had a chance to present their evidence

2) As a practical expedient to ensure that this workshop page remains useful, it is to be replaced with a blank template and protected until the parties have had the opportunity to add their evidence to the evidence page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not aware of any precedent for this sort of thing; and, frankly, I don't see the point. Certainly the principles of the case can be discussed without a need to refer to evidence. Kirill Lokshin 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Disagree. I've presented my evidence, and I've presented my commentary around it, I simply put it all togther when I had the time. No one's saying the arbs have to comment on it right this second. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This page is a bit of a mess already, and most of the comment does not relate to any evidence presented. It may help to wait a few days for the evidence to be presented. Then the evidence can be discussed here with a view to arriving at proposals for the arbitration committee to consider, based solidly in evidence. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I support that, we should reconvene in a week or so. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the examples in which there is say a proposed remedy and no supporting diffs, etc. The rest can stay.--MONGO 22:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see how this could be helpful in the context of remedies and findings of fact, but principles have less to do with evidence and more to do with policy. Sean William @ 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Per MONGO. Otherwise this page would end up right back the way it was (or is now), either gradually or by blanket reverts. — CharlotteWebb 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Motion/request by non-party

[edit] Protect QZ from search engines

1) All places in this RFAR where QZ's name is written out should be edited to just have his initials, as was done in the title and (as far as I can tell) the content of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this is wise in the long run. This case is part of a internet wide discussion regarding this sort of matter and should be available for consultation by others (and by QZ himself, should he ever investigate his "fame" and the issues surrounding it.) Fred Bauder 12:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. QZ full name need not be used to discuss the issue. Including his name here after it was redacted in other places on sight is a bad idea. FloNight 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'll put documentation into the evidence section later of where leaving something like this in a Wikipedia process page has caused high search hits that are probably unwelcome to a different former BLP subject. We may even want to think about using robots.txt tags to shield pages like this from searches. 75.62.6.237 06:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. See also newly proposed temporary injunction #4 ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename the case to include WP:BLP

2) From my evidence here, throughout, but just from looking at the other sections in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence, and this page, without making any judgment about their merits, it should be clear that this case isn't solely, or even primarily, about Badlydrawnjeff. A large number of sections or proposals are about people who have had minimal interaction with him, and articles that he has not come close to. Keeping it named solely after him, is not only prejudicial and a disservice to him, but a disservice to anyone looking for this case later; and I strongly suspect people will want to look at this case later, since WP:BLP is a very important policy and will continue to be controversial, so any decisions made or precedents set here will be invaluable. I suggest either renaming this case to either the longer "Biographies of living persons", the shorter "WP:BLP", or at least "Badlydrawnjeff and WP:BLP".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. I would observe (although I realise some people hate drawing parallels between Wikipedia and RL legal systems) that this is rather like a US Supreme Court case; the court is ostensibly deciding between the merits of the plaintiff's and defendant's cases, but in reality it is determining the application of a point of law. So it is with this case; the duty of ArbCom here is to clarify the hopelessly ambiguous wording of WP:BLP and establish the boundaries of its application. Walton^Assistance! 17:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions

1) Badlydrawnjeff is, for the duration of this case, banned from deletion discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Nah. If he needs to be hung (which I am utterly neutral on at this point), this would be the right time for the rope to be available. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong time. He's thinking about these issues and we need to be able to monitor his behavior, especially if it changes due to this discussion. Fred Bauder 12:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I have never once been disruptive during a deletion discussion. This is not at all supported by any evidence, contrary to Phil's diffs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Too harsh. However, Jeff's habit of injecting himself into every deletion dispute is problematic. But at most I'd support asking him to step back a bit, and not to open DRVs as kneejerk. The problem is that Jeff is now playing a role - making it his personal mission to crusade on this. That's not good for him, and certainly not good for the project. If a deletion needs challenging, someone will do it - it doesn't always need the white/?black knight. Jeff, step back a bit, cool off, and go write some articles. (Advice I should heed too)--Doc^g 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an opinion, and I say it. I'd love to write some articles, but... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's go ahead and make it crystal clear that BDJ's inclusionist madness is in no way hindering him from being an effective and valuable article writer. He's got two featured under his belt already, which is approximately two more than several of the people mixed up in this. Saying that he needs to "step back and write some articles" is deceitful. Milto LOL pia 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - I'm not being 'deceitful'. I'm well aware of Jeff's article prowess, and have congratulated him on it before. He's an asset to the project in that regard. I just wish he'd spend more of his time doing it.--Doc^g 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me. Jeff is a tremendously disruptive presence on deletion discussions, as can be seen with his comment spamming [1] and incivility [2] [3]. More to the point, Jeff does not recognize the fundamental fact that BLP is a policy about ethics. In doing so, he necessarily disregards the heart of the policy. That he does so loudly and disruptively is inexcusable and needs to stop immediately. Phil Sandifer 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Or Jeff holds an opposition view and you wish to silence him. That is how it can appear - I have not looked through all his comments but I think that removing him from discussions will bias the proceedings. violet/riga (t) 19:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's fanaticism causes him to be disruptive to reasonable discussion on issues like this. This problem has been ongoing for quite some time. Friday (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. It's no secret that I have been frustrated with this user too from time to time, not least when he's challenged my own closures and deletions, and I'm sure that his conduct is going to be a major focus of this case (hence the name). The proposed provisional remedy, however, is overbroad and excessive. It would also be counterproductive: quite apart from this arbitration case, this is a critical time for the community in refining consensus on application of BLP and related issues through a whole series of discussions on policy pages and in relevant deletion debates, and it would be a poor time indeed to jeopardize the perceived legitimacy of whatever policies or consensus may evolve by silencing one of the key players in the debates. Newyorkbrad 19:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be unwise to lock out a user who has been a major force of sanity checking in recent discussions. At a glance I was able to find at least three articles which would probably have been deleted if not for his participation in the discussion: [4], [5], [6]. One can only speculate how many dodgy AFDs or speedy deletions will happen in the next 2-4 weeks. One less person willing to say "you're joking, right?" could only lead to worse results. — CharlotteWebb 20:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether he is being disruptive is part of what's at issue here. The proposal, and the way it is worded, is prejudicial & assumes that he's in the wrong. DGG 06:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I often disagree with Jeff, I don't believe this would be a good idea at all. If having a strong opinion on this issue means that one needs to be banned from discussing it, we'll have no one left to discuss it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose muzzling him. We are all held to certain standards of decorum in every action on Wikipedia, and he can continue to be subject to the same rules as everyone else. This proposal presupposes a finding of guilt. As for "fanaticism," a fanatic is often just someone who holds strong opinions and expresses them forcefully and who disagrees with you. Edison 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Violetriga added to case

2) User:Violetriga is added to the case as a party to look at her overturning of deletions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems unnecessary; we don't normally use such things (as Thatcher highlights, below), but just take it as read were an editor's actions to be referenced in evidence/workshop. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Violetriga is clearly aware of the proceeding and is participating in the discussion, an explicit addition probably isn't necessary. Kirill Lokshin 22:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is Ok, we are addressing an issue to a certain extent, not necessarily the behavior of one or two individuals. Fred Bauder 12:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is custom and practice that all users that are involved are potentially part of an ArbCom case. As Kirill Lokshin say above, Violetriga is aware of the case and her mention in proposals. FloNight 20:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Deletions of articles about dead people; deletions based on notability; deletions of referenced articles; deletions with the inadequate summary "eak, no WP:BLP". I reversed some of Doc glasgow's deletions based on all of these. Several of these articles are now at AfD and going through a sensible process - at least one is heading to a "merge" decision clearly showing that numerous people see the worth of some of these articles. This issue of wheel-warring is down to interpretation of Wikipedia:Wheel war which implies repetition and not just one action. violet/riga (t) 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You reversed six of my BLP deletions. Which you can only have identified by going through my logs. You did it without any discussion (despite the fact I was on-line). And with a clear conflict of interests, since two of the offending articles you created (as you later admitted). Many of the things you undeleted have since been re-deleted by other admins or shortly will be. One you have even refused to defend yourself, you undeleted it only for 'process reasons'. (Hey, an out of process undeletion to enforce process - that's great). I can supply diffs if required.--Doc^g 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I created one article and significantly rewrote the other. Two articles have since been deleted (now that is a wheel-war) and the others are heading to a merge, which is significantly different to deletion. I have provided evidence on the appropriate page.

I feel that you deleted articles without acceptable justification. I strongly believe in 1RR and by undoing your action (acceptable as per the wheel war policy page) and restoring the status quo we could then engage in discussion. You refused to engage in any discussion of these articles. violet/riga (t) 21:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reading of that page is not supported by a previous arbcom finding. A finding of which you are well aware.--Doc^g 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That arbcom finding did not change the official policy which still reads that one undo is acceptable. violet/riga (t) 21:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me, as this is a related matter. Violetriga overturned a number of User:Doc glasgow's deletions of BLP-concern articles without any discussion with him. [7] This is, obviously, a huge problem. I have notified Violetriga of this motion on her talk page. Phil Sandifer 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also that VIoletriga undeleted articles that she had previously created without first discussing with the deleting admin. [8]. This is a serious issue of wheel warring, and is germaine to this RFAr. Phil Sandifer 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sensible choice if arbitrators are going to investigate wheel-warring. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga, you were a party to Pedophile Userbox wheel war case, and at one point sanctions were considered, but dropped [9]. Did you ignore that case or forget? Mackensen (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just what I was about to link here - David Gerard 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My actions were common sense and were very appropriate given the situation. I am happy with the end result there and it was a massive and important step that this project had to undertake. violet/riga (t) 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're happy with the end result but when we talked earlier you endorsed a view of wheel-warring completely contrary to the decision the Arbitration Committee arrived at. My question stands. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Current policy as per the policy page shows that one undo is acceptable. violet/riga (t) 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then the whimsical deletions will be looked at as well? Or will Doc g get a pass for being the first to strike? Milto LOL pia 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no basis for the word "whimsical" as applied to Doc's deletions. On the conservative side and sometimes worth discussing, possibly. "Whimsical," no. Newyorkbrad 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same deletions? I'm talking about the speedy "per blp" ones that violet undid. Doesn't exactly give a lot of detail... was there a discussion he didn't link to? Milto LOL pia 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The implication being that an administrator has no judgement save what he's told? Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want them speedily condemned either. I'm just wondering whether it/they will be examined. Critically, I mean, as in with the idea that maybe possibly there is a chance that they weren't a good idea. Perhaps I'm asking for too much. Milto LOL pia 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not asking for anything unreasonable; it's the specific word "whimsical," meaning resulting from whim or whimsy rather than from more substantial motivations, that I am suggesting be dropped. Newyorkbrad 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues the arbitrators might want to consider; whether Doc inappropriately deleted articles and whether Violet wheel-warred by restoring a bunch of Doc's deletions without discussing it with him or going through proper channels. Either or both could be true and one is not dependent on the other (i.e. Violet could be sanctioned for wheel warring even if the committee also rules against Doc's deletions.) At this point the evidence page has not kept up with the workshop. Thatcher131 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is a motion to add Violet to the case. Evidence seems premature until this motion is taken up. Phil Sandifer 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, parties are almost never added by motions. In quieter cases, editors add evidence and make proposals, and if it looks like someone not orginally named is likely to be looked at seriously by the arbitrators, either an arbitrator or clerk will formally notify the editor. In most cases, the arbitrators go where the evidence takes them. I would normally suggest that if Doc or Mackensen wanted to add evidence of violetriga wheel-warring, he should go ahead and do so, and let the arbitrators decide whether or not to include him in the proposed decision. Thatcher131 21:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: VR is saying that "1RR" means "if someone deletes an article stating that there is something dangerously wrong with it, that article can be undeleted in the said-to-be-dangerous state but not re-deleted to remove the stated danger"? This is like switching on a bright light whilst saying "I know you said there was a light-sensitive explosive in the room, but I just want to get a good look at it first before I call in the bomb squad, we don't want to bother them without reason" and then insisting that the light can't be switched off again without a lengthy debate. OK, so I'm exaggerating somewhat, but the analogy stands: if someone says they have removed something dangerous, you don't put it back so everybody can have a good gawk, you discuss whether it's safe first. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that is a rather poor statement. Of course I checked the articles and they did not fall foul of BLP. As previously stated I did not restore the ones that were acceptably deleted using the BLP rationale. So for your analogy I checked the bomb and realised that it wasn't, in fact, light-sensitive so I turned the light back on so that everyone could see what we were dealing with - it never should've been switched off in the first place. violet/riga (t) 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Of course I checked the articles and they did not fall foul of BLP" Are you a member of OTRS? Members of OTRS are, by the fact of being in OTRS, trusted by some subset of the community, including the foundation, which ultimately owns their appointment and removal, to have good judgement, more so than those who have not yet been approved for membership.Have you had extensive experience dealing with BLP matters? I think some people's judgement about what does and doesn't fall foul of BLP is better than other people's and frankly, I trust Doc's judgement in this. I also think that it is better to be safe than sorry. The analogy Phil gives is overdramatic, but nonetheless apt. If there is no harm from an article being missing for a few days, and even a small chance of harm from it being around during those few days, the prudent thing to do is to keep it deleted and discuss... the fact that there was only a small chance or that the article had been around for a long time before does not mitigate that one course is riskier than the other course. That said, I don't think there is a need to explicitly add you to the case, violet/riga... ArbCom has shown no reluctance in the past to address issues related to people not explicitly named. If I may be so bold, administrative actions around one's own articles which are then defended by apparently arguing with ArbCom about what ArbCom meant when they said something may not be the best defense strategy to use. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If it is deleted for an OTRS reason he should have included that in the deletion summary and would have been able to cite that as a reason for his deletion when I asked. As I was trying to discuss it with him it would have meant that the article would have only existed for a few minutes more before I apologised and re-deleted the article(s). The fact that he deleted several unrelated articles in the space of a few minutes showed that it was not an OTRS procedure and was a personal push to remove the articles. The reason for that push is still not clear but could not have been OTRS considering that he was linking to WP:NOT as a reason. Sadly, and Doc glasgow continues to refuse to say on what grounds he deleted them.

If objectionable content is found in an article it is prudent to remove the offending parts rather than delete the entire article. He could even have deleted it but left a note on the talk page. violet/riga (t) 07:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was OTRS related. I asked if you are a member of OTRS. Since you are presumably not, your judgement, in my judgement, is not as good as his judgement, with respect to what might be an issue in this area. Especially since you claimed ownership of at least one of the articles. That you insisted he follow some particular process before you undid your unwise action is worse than that he insisted that you undo it before he would talk to you (although neither stance is very good, really, one is worse, yours). First, do no harm. Err on the side of caution. This seems lost on you. People need to internalise that when BLP is invoked, merely insisting that something is not BLP is insufficient reason to undo the judgement of the person who asserted that there is an issue. Leave it deleted, and discuss, carefully, and with avoidance of using any more identifying terms than absolutely necessary. That should be clear to all by now. Better safe than sorry. The risk from a temporary deletion is nil, the risk from undeletion is not nil, even for a few minutes. A no brainer, really. ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moratorium on DRVs of BLPs

3) Due to the high amount of controversy surrounding this and the widespread disagreement as to what the policy actually says, articles deleted for reasons related to our policy on biographies of living people are not to be listed for deletion review until the conclusion of this case. Any administrators making BLP-related deletions should log them at create an appropriate page for this so that they can be reviewed after the case is resolved. Administrators are warned not to use this latitude to make deletions that violate or push the limits of policy and good practice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this proposal assumes a conclusion. The issue is avoiding extensive discussion of harmful information. Should a DRV involve such discussion, it too is subject to speedy deletion under BLP. Fred Bauder 12:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I encourage editors to think twice before bringing articles about living people to DRV for further debate since the debate can be harmful in and of itself. But a moratorium is overkill, I think. FloNight 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Only if a moratorium of the speedy deletion of BLPs that do not fall under CSD G10 is instituted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It does Wikipedia no harm to not have an article for a few weeks, and it can do considerable harm to have a bad one. Phil Sandifer 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It does great harm to our coverage and the concept behind what we do here. Removing an appeals process because you don't like the fact that people disagree with you is absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way does not having an article on some child who has been a focus os some media attention, do "great harm" to the concept of building a reputable free-content encyclopaedia (the "concept")? The problem I've had with this all along is that the principle of having a process sounds fine and noble in isolation, b ut it falls rather flat when confronted with the harsh reality of something like the fat Chinese kid or Brian Peppers, where "keep for great lulz" appears to override any kind of humanity. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everytime I come back to this discussion I remember the dark old times when our encyclopedia contained an article calling some poor kid "overweight and not particularly graceful" and linking to a video of him released to humiliate him before the world. Oh, wait - it's still here. Haukur 10:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a removal of information that is useful to the public, and can be presented in a way that's neutral, fair, and palatable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me. This is getting to be a mess. Losing a bunch of articles for a month or so while we sort out the mess isn't going to harm anybody, and is something we can easily recover from after a cooling down period and some clarifications of the basic issues. Phil Sandifer 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the bulk of this, but logging BLP-related deletions for review (by default) would be a step in the right direction, as these are more likely to be controversial than any other admin action, and as Jeff says, they do directly affect the quality of the encyclopedia. The big challenge would be getting random admins to follow that procedure. — CharlotteWebb 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea, only because it stifles legitimate discussion and I'm opposed to blanket measures as each case has its own merits. DRV is only, as I understand it, for discussing situations where the closing admin erred in their judgement of the consensus and relevant policies. If someone was to repeatedly bring up DRVs that got rejected on the basis that the closing admin correctly interpreted consensus and policy, there may need to be some limitation or parole enforced on that person to prevent disruption. Orderinchaos 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real names

4) Real names shall not be used if previously challenged. For the duration of this case, if any article, or its redirects, or merges, being discussed as part of this case on any page, has had use of a pseudonym or initialism, or other technique, to obscure the identity of a real person, all editors are enjoined from changing the headings or other references back to the real name. This may be enforced by short blocks to editors who change pseudonymous names back to the real ones in headings or references, by any administrator not otherwise named in the case, after warnings have been issued. This may be interpreted broadly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree that edit warring to include a name on arbitration pages was a very Bad Idea! Think that users have already figured it out and stopped without a formal motion. FloNight 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No. That places an unnecessary presumption on the articles in question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Er? what presumption? That MAYBE there is merit in the need to obscure the name because at least one person (assume good faith) thought so? That's not an unnecessary presumption, that's prudent caution. And edit warring over this stuff is just Not On. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How about assuming good faith that the names AREN'T problematic? How silly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"How silly?" If they aren't and we hide them, no harm done to anyone at all. If they are, and we don't hide them, some harm is done. First, do no harm. I am amazed you don't grasp that. What I find silly is your disregard for the chance that there might be something to what others say about the harm that can be caused, or, your disregard for erring on the side of caution. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. We have had edit warring over the use of the real name of Baby 81 and other real people. I feel it is better to err on the side of caution, we don't really have to use the real names do we? People edit warring to set the names back are being a bit POINTy... The wording may not be the tightest and I welcome smithing, but I hope the intent is clear. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Would piping the links be a compromise? Like if my privacy was an issue and somebody wrote [[Charlotte Webb|C.W.]] it would avoid over-reliance on winking and nudging but still not be obviously visible. Would search engines still pick it up? I don't know. — CharlotteWebb 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They would find them just the same, so it's not a good compromise. I applaud your willingness to at least think of ways to solve potential problems instead of just declaiming "How silly", though... ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the unpiped version only shows up as text in "edit page" or "view source", which are served with a meta noindex tag (see robots.txt) so they're ignored by search engines. They don't appear in the regular page at all. And they don't add link weight to the target page because we serve all links with m:nofollow. 75.62.6.237 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I grasp it fine. The idea that the use of these names will cause harm is ridiculous, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That you think it is ridiculous is a big part of why we are here. Your judgement is apparently flawed, or you are so blinded by the "information has to be free" mantra that you don't admit that there is such a possibility. I believe you are in a small minority in that view. Most people are reasonable. ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, thirdly, there's no problem. Yes, most people are reasonable. Thus why we shouldn't be censoring anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks silly, smacks of Harry Potter's He Who Must Not Be Named with some editors trying to make sense of a deletion review, AFD, or RFC left guessing who QZ is, while his actual name shows up 20,000 times in Google. It's right up there with euphemisms like "the F word." The only exceptions would be situations where it had not appeared in very many other places than Wikipedia, such as if a Wikipedia editor had picked up the name of a minor rape victim from a blog where it was subsequently removed, so we were the primary source. Edison 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is unenforceable, and if followed literally would mean that we couldn't discuss deleted material. Self-censorship is good discipline in these cases, but it would be wrong if at some time in the future someone reading this discussion could not understand what we're talking about. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Disputes

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See evidence section.--badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, but this applies to everyone. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For this case, assuming good faith is probably the most important of these points. Judging by how many times the phrases "good faith" and "bad faith" appear on this page I don't think this can be said loudly enough: Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it! — CharlotteWebb 07:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interpersonal communication

2) Insulting, intimidating, or acting in a condescending manner toward other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. WP:RPA is an essay, not a guideline, and as it turns out, removing personal attacks on sight tends to escalate rather than reduce hostilities. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC) NPA stuff stricken, so comment too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See evidence section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note, I removed the RPA section. I didn't mean for that to be included here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Civility enforcement is effectively a dead letter and rarely stands by itself. I welcome the sentiment though. Mackensen (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but should stay without that RPA stuff. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to handle disputes

3) The Wiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. When disputes arise editors are expected to engage in research, discussion with other users, and make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

BLP policy suggests that a different approach may be appropriate for content about living people. Material that is deemed harmful can be removed for the best interest of all involved and added back later if harm is no longer seen as the most important factor. Compromise about harmful material for the sake of settling a dispute is never appropriate, though. FloNight 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Based on long-standing principles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK as it goes. Except we don't 'compromise regarding the wording' of an attack article - we delete it. Compromise is fine when there are no fundamental issues (e.g. NPOV BLP etc) at stake.--Doc^g 08:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Get back to a position of least harm, and work from there. We do this all the time in response to OTRS complaints. Delete copyvios but allow them back if permission is granted; delete attacks but allow reworking into neutral articles; remove uncited criticism but allow it back in if well supported and neutrally stated. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Consensus

4) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Prolonged discussion about sensitive material is part of the problem here. Discussing the same material again and again hoping to get a different outcome is not acceptable with biographies of living persons because harm comes from the attention brought by the discussion. Awareness of this and self censorship by experienced editors/admins is needed to get the full benefit from our BLP policy. FloNight 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Self-explanatory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By consensus we have also trusted certain people to take judgements in certain areas - admins, Arbitrators, FA selectors (?), 'crats. Not everything needs talked to death. And not every deletion can wait till the Jeffs agree.--Doc^g 08:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, can you please explain what you mean by "the Jeffs"? I suspect I (and others) may be being unfairly grouped into a single unit by your phrasing. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

True, but see proposal "Sensitive matters" below. Phil Sandifer 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Consensus can only be established through discussion, and admin judgment does not supersede consensus. Where consensus is not clear, the default should generally be to keep content, not delete it. OK, so this doesn't apply to dubious and/or potentially libellous content about living people, but it does apply to content where the only reason for deletion is "it might hurt someone". Walton 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but see for instance the presumption in favor of privacy section of the BLP. This means we can exclude unnecessary private information. It would take a very strong consensus to incorporate private information into an article if the article is perfectly good without it. The BLP makes us interpret all of our policies, including consensus, differently. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The default should be to remove contentious content unless and until there is consensus to include it, otherwise you end up with a POV-pusher's charter where every piece of crap has to be argued out line by line instead of being removed, debated, and only included if it can be properly shown to e relevant. There is absolutely no sane reason to continue to include content which editors have identified in good faith as a possible source of concern on the basis that we have not yet all come to agreement. Why would we do that? Guy (Help!) 11:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Support as a general principle per Walton: individual invocations of BLP should not override consensus. That said, I see no inherent conflict between BLP and consensus. If there is a conflict between an admin invoking BLP and consensus, the problem probably lies with the admin. I also see no inherent contradiction between Walton's comment and those by Tony and Guy. Good-faith opposition to the inclusion of specific content in BLPs should be given significant weight (per the presumption in favour of privacy enshrined in WP:BLP), but should also be considered in light of the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons

5) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons specifically refers to the removal of negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden#Biographies_of_living_persons_2.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a too narrow reading of the policy. FloNight 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Really speaks to the crux of this discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a mindset not just a rule. That's the nub of the problem here. Not all BLP issues can be described so that a rule rather than judgement can be applied. We need though, digression, common sense, and a little ethics. That can't be worked into a rule formula, process or all-encompassing formula. Part of the problem has been a conflict of ideology from those who say "no BLP problem" meaning it doesn't technically violate a rule - and those who think less structurally and realise that it is there is a huge "biographies of living people problem" here. We can't do this with arithmetical formulas, we need empathy, decency, reason and gut instinct.--Doc^g 08:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, why is there still a Daniel Brandt article? Why was the unilateral, empathetic, bold decision a brave administrator made overturned and resulted in his desysopping? Doesn't this make this RfAr a bit hypocritical? —M (talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is nothing to say to this other than that Wikipedia:Biographies of living people is a very, very different guideline from the one that Jeff describes here. Among its statements that flatly contradict this reductive reading: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion." "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, this can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Phil Sandifer 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

At no point does anything you've posted here related to the topic at hand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And our policy on undue weight does not apply to BLPs? Moreschi ^Talk 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does. There's a minority rumbling about a new way of interpreting how, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP applies to "negative, positive, or just highly questionable" material and has for quite some time. Negative material is emphasized, of course, but the policy does not only apply to it. Marskell 10:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I second Marskell. Any unsourced content in a BLP may be removed on sight (of course, one shouldn't automatically assume that any sentence lacking a "ref" tag is unattributed). However, I see a fundamental distinction between removing unsourced content per BLP (i.e., paring back an article) and wholly removing an article's history from view. The latter is only justified if content is unsourced and negative. In my view, the latter is the "crux of this discussion". -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons

5.1) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect subjects' lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, with emphasis on undue weight of an single event on our ability to write a balance biographical article. FloNight 21:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative to 5. Taken from WP:BLP. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

6) Wikipedia:Deletion review is the proper forum to review the decision to keep or delete material via policy or consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Generally true, but not in the case of libelous or malicious material. Fred Bauder 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Contentious debates about BLP needed to be avoided if at all possible. Bringing an article to DRV when the answer is likely to be no consensus should be avoided since this potentially harms the subject of the article and spreads ill will between users. Looking out for the best interest is called for in these cases. FloNight 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Evidence suggests that many administrators, former admins, and arbiters believe that DRV is not the proper forum for some deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it is not appropriately to extensively discuss libelous or malicious material in a public forum. Fred Bauder 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I wouldn't go so far as to call it "proper" but until we come up with something better it must suffice. — CharlotteWebb 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not the only forum for such review - the closing/deleting admin's talk page is much easier in many cases. --Tango 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussing on the talk page of the closing/deleting admin implies that it is up to that one admin to reverse their own decision, rather than, say, the community. That's giving a lot of power to one admin who has already strongly expressed an opinion. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing admins often give no reply or a dismissive reply such as "If you don't like it, take it to DRV" to comments questioning their action. How often do they see sufficient merit in someone's posting to reverse themselves? Edison 00:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be a very interesting statistic to try to distill from Wikipedia. I suspect that some administrators' personalities allow them an easier time with being convinced to reverse a bad decision. I find a great unwillingness to be reasonable in that way in ongoing discussions with many of the strongest voices against Jeff in this case in other entanglements. Whether this is a positive or negative trait should, I think, be left to the admins themselves or the Arbitration Committee to decide, but I sure as heck find it a bit frustrating. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Talk page discussion with the closing admin should always be the first step. However, if that fails, deletion review is the only other appropriate venue. The concern about bringing contentious BLPs to DRV is easily addressed if editors are careful about what they write. As DRV is primarily about the validity of the close, one can review a deletion decision without delving into sensitive personal details of an article subject's life. The issue should be one of cautioning editors, not making BLP deletions exempt from review. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review (2)

6.1) Wikipedia:Deletion review is not well suited to handling debates in respect of some material, particularly where it may be defamatory or malicious. Editors are encouraged to seek a more nuanced approach in such cases, and to remember that the onus is on those who wish to include content, to justify its inclusion and demonstrate that it complies with policy.

Comment by arbiters:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This appears to eb the sense of the comments to 6 above. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Worthless unless there's some sort of alternative appeals process. DRV currently isn't well-suited not because of the material, but because of the way DRV has typically handled itself. DRV has never had a problem with being a forum for appeals until recently, and almost entirely due to the disruptive speedy closures and lack of consensus results. The latter has been dealt with, we simply wait patiently until ArbCom deals with the former. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disagree (see my comment for #6 above). Besides, it's a moot point as long as it is the only venue for reviewing closures. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review (3)

6.2) Wikipedia:Deletion review is the proper forum to review decisions to keep or delete material via policy or consensus. When the material in question concerns a living person, and especially if it is potentially harmful, editors should be careful about what information they bring up. Sensitive personal information should not be mentioned unless it is critical to the review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as a compromise between the two versions above. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't address the issue of repeated requests for review. The problem with QZ was the false assertion of an invalid closure of the debate; the question is how long we allow people to keep making the same arguments that failed to persuade at AfD in the context of a review which rapidly identified that the close was valid in the first place. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it have to address that? There are other points/proposals about that issue. Also, your logic doesn't leave much room for discussion as you seem to presume, in advance, that the close was valid ("failed to persuade") and that no one could disagree with it in good faith ("false assertion"). As regards QZ in particular ... you closed Jeff's DRV 5 minutes after he started it. I hardly think that's enough time for someone to "rapidly identif[y] that the close was valid" or invalid, especially when that someone was not a neutral party – you participated in the second AfD. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early closures

7) Early closures of discussions are harmful. (per [[10]])

Comment by Arbitrators:

A sound general principle but not applicable to public discussions of libelous or malicious material. Fred Bauder 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes early closures are the best action so no. FloNight 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per linked ArbCom principle. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. This serves as a good guideline to help administrators understand cases where protocol may be more important than personal opinion. If you're about to use WP:SNOW to justify an early closure, please remember the opposing voices when you think about it or actually do it. Those voices will undoubtedly feel at least somewhat slighted. In other cases it can cause or perpetuate bad blood that was avoidable and could last for a long time (depending on the personalities of those involved). If your goal is supportiveness and growing a community where people can work together without fear that they'll get railroaded, early closures are a good way to sabotage your ideals and priorities. Follow protocol/process to ensure that everyone who's reading the policies feels like they got a fair shake. Also, if you're going to claim consensus, then consider not using supermajorities or WP:SNOW. If you want everyone to feel like they've been heard and you're in a contentious discussion of any kind, WP:SNOW and WP:IAR will be your worst enemies. In contrast, if it's clear that everyone agrees, maybe WP:SNOW/WP:IAR aren't such a bad idea, but remember you're risking railroading a potential 11th hour objection/opposition you didn't even know was out there. That's what early closures risk. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose; overstated and oversimplified. The paraphrase above exaggerates and oversimplies the quoted principle from the Brandt case. There are certainly circumstances in which early closure of an XfD or DRV discussion is completely appropriate. Incidentally, that includes early closures in favor of keep as well as delete results. Newyorkbrad 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oversimply. Check DRV today (Wayne Crookes): stub recreated, DRV closed early, history gone, everyone's happy. No harm done. Moreschi ^Talk 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the title of the principle; you'll note the wording is more complicated. You're free to assert that if you like but don't point the finger at the committee. Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think early closures are harmful, even those "based on WP:SNOW" as claimed in the committee's previous decision. The Daniel Brandt situation was not WP:SNOW at all, it was two significant and otherwise reasonable groups of people disagreeing with each other as to the best result, with each even disagreeing within itself as to the best way to achieve that result. Obviously WP:SNOW should not be applied to discussions that you and everybody else know are going to be controversial. However, WP:SNOW can be helpful when used properly. I know Jeff will disagree with me on this, but please... not here, not now. Change it to "early closure of heated discussions" and you might gain some traction here, Jeff. — CharlotteWebb 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Far too generalised. --Tango 10:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The most I could agree with would be "can be harmful", but Fred's point is spot on. ElinorD (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. The administrators can't have their cake and eat it too. You can't argue in favor keeping of an article of a marginally notable person that includes negative information just because you don't like him, but then support the speedy deletion of neutral well sourced yet negative articles of people involved in very public events. Policy, even if broadly interpreted, must be consistent. —M (talk • contribs) 01:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early closures (2)

7.1) Early closures of heated and/or controversial discussions are harmful. (per [[11]])

Comment by Arbitrators:

A sound general principle but not applicable to public discussions of libelous or malicious material. Fred Bauder 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally yes. But repeated discussions of the same topic may be are harmful to the site as well. Self censorship is needed here. An early close of the discussion may prompt users to reflect if further discussion is needed in that forum. FloNight 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per suggestion above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Support per my comments above in Early closures (1). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would prefer to say "may be harmful and can result in the escalation of a controversy" with perhaps an admonishment to avoid doing so in cases where there is sincere disagreement and a wish to discuss the issue further. FrozenPurpleCube 07:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There are cases where it being heated/controversial is the main reason for closing early - if it has degenerated into some kind of wikibrawl (have I coined a new word?) it's often best to close it early and find some other way to resolve the dispute. Brawls don't generally result in meaningful consensus. --Tango 10:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true in most cases. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The most I could agree with would be "can be harmful" (as I said above), but Fred's point is spot on. ElinorD (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree that they are harmful when they have been up for 48 hours and almost all comments have been keep or all delete. It just looks like piling on and humiliates the (sometimes) one or two people who feel the other way. Snowball closes are appropriate. Early closes with actions opposing the views of most of the posters when the tide is running the other way are very harmful, and hurt the project by the assertion of one admin that his moral compass is correct and that of everyone else is defective. Edison 00:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think one that's been running 48 hours and has 30 people all saying the same thing would be considered "controversial", and in that case it generally would be acceptable to say "Alright, that's enough piling on already." On the other hand, what this principle is saying (if there's significant disagreement over what should happen, don't speedy close), I agree with entirely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. If there is genuine good-faith disagreement about an issue, it's best to let it play out. In the long-run, an early close will only create more controversy, consume more time and effort, and produced more ill will. In response to Fred's point: if there is "libelous or malicious material" involved (which was not the case with the QZ and Allison Stokke debates), blanking the page and perhaps adding a note to the effect of "Please think twice before reposting harmful content" or "Don't repost harmful content" should suffice. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early closures (3)

7.3) The Committee notes that the "Snowball clause" is not policy, and also recognizes that there will be some cases where the benefits of early closure outweigh the drawbacks. However, in general, early closure of discussions on WP:SNOW grounds denies some Wikipedians the opportunity to comment and can lead to escalation due to the lack of a discussion venue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Support since it recognizes that it is beneficial in some cases. FloNight 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See 6.1 above. It seems to me that the real problem here is that a number of us want to take these debates out of the glare of publicity, sit down and think about them more carefully, exploring possible ways of dealing with whatever underlyign encyclopaedic concepts might be involved, often in isolation from the individuals concerned. For example, and drawing on the Evidence page, a number of articles on extreme preterm infants and conjoined twins have been quietly merged, preserving, in my view, the encylopaedic material while quietly dropping the pretence of biography. Such an approach has the potential to resolve a significant proportion of these contended articles. So the problem is not the snowballing, which is often a very good idea, especially where there is a suspicion that one side or the other is exploiting the difference between AfD (default keep) and DRV (default endorse). Guy (Help!) 20:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How long is it going to take before Wikipedia realizes that early closures have no benefits? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A quick drive-by proposal from an utterly uninvolved party, taken straight from the Brandt wheel war case. The wording worked then, it should work now. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair to everyone involved. — CharlotteWebb 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Outsider comment: of the three, this is the best worded, and most logical. There are cases in such where WP:SNOW would be effective, such as apparent/obvious hoaxes, articles that violate WP:CRYSTAL, or similar clean cut reasons. In response to Badlydrawnjeff, how is an early close of an obvious hoax "having no benefits", I'm curious as to how. Whsitchy 05:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion and exclusion

8) Differing views on inclusion/exclusion exist on this project, and deserve mutual respect, even in disagreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I really don't want to do anything to make the concepts of "inclusion/exclusion" anything remotely resembling part of Wikipedia policy, even in the form of acknowledging the existence of the concept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A particular expression of the general principle of civility. Fred Bauder 12:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jpgordon. I do not think that inclusion/exclusion ideology is the main issue we need to address in this case. FloNight 21:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Much of this could have been avoided with this simple principle in mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I dispute that. The issue here seems to have been more about the title at which something is covered, and the inclusion or otherwise of personal details on a person asserted not to be a public person. There was not much opposition to a brief mention in the list of internet memes, which is still inclusion. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but also irrelevant. I'm somewhere in between. And Arbitrators with a knowledge of the parties will know that some of our most inclusionist and deletionist admins are in total agreement here on the fundamental importance of protecting living people. This is NOT an inclusionist vs deletionist squabble.--Doc^g 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it has its roots in it. See the initial statements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As I say, the fact that Tony Sidaway, and Phil Sandifer, both of whom are generally caricatured as 'inclusionists' are against you here, speaks of this not being related to that rather tedious and unhelpful distinction.--Doc^g 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not relevant. I am I suppose a deletionist, I nominated Jeff for adminship way back. This dispute was never about inclusionism versus deletionism, it was about how to handle contentious biographies or faux-biographies. Much of the content is included right now, in wider articles, but we still have some people agitating for its inclusion in a specific form. Numerous editors proposed ways of including the contested content while addressing the policy concerns raised. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I haven't found the terms "inclusionism" and "exclusionism" useful. To be as useful a resource as it can be, Wikipedia needs to cover a multitude of subjects in considerable depth. But, for instance, it doesn't need to have an article about the time 14-year-old Fred Blogs pretended a vacuum cleaner nozzle was a sword, even if the resulting video became a craze on the internet. It may cover the craze, but not at the expense of hanging that incident like an albatros around Fred Blogs' neck for the rest of his life. Do no harm. --Tony Sidaway 03:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would go with something about differing views in general, no need to pick out two of those views in particular. --Tango 10:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To an extent I agree that this is not a simple inclusion-deletion case. I'm not hugely inclusionist, but I am totally, totally against the idea that admins should unilaterally delete sourced, verifiable, neutral BLP articles in order to "protect" people from unwelcome publicity. That's nothing more than censorship. If the community consensus determines that such articles should be deleted, then they should. But the BLP Police need to realise that they do not have the right to circumvent policy and ignore differing views in the pursuit of their moral crusade. Walton^Assistance! 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

All deletions are unilateral. We have no mechanism for anything else. The rest of your statement is just one massive piece of assuming bad faith. You might want to consider if you can phrase it in less inflammatory terms. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All deletions are not unilateral. Although all are performed by one editor, any deletion endorsed by more than one editor is, by definition, not unilateral (e.g., all AfD deletions). Also, though Walton's wording may be somewhat "inflammatory", I cannot but wholeheartedly agree with his central point: no admin should unilaterally (i.e., without discussion) delete sourced, verifiable, neutral articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell me the process workflow which prevents a deletion from taking effect until a second administrator confirms it? Everything on Wikipedia is, in the end, unilateral. Such actions may be supported by a greater or lesser degree of consensus in debate, but only one person gets to click the button, and in closing an AfD we make it very clear tha the AfD closer uses their own judgment in weighing the arguments. Exactly as stated: the word "unilateral" is a pejorative term used to characterise those actions which somebody does not like. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you really see no difference between my deletion of this article at AfD and my hypothetical deletion of any pages affiliated with this ArbCom case? Sure, in both cases it's still just one person clicking the "delete" button, but is that all that matters? "Unilateral" is not a pejorative term; a "unilateral" action is simply one that is taken without direct or indirect discussion. AfD closures are generally not unilateral. Deleting expired {{prod}}s and speedy candidates is generally not unilateral (at least two people agree with deletion: the tagger and the deleting admin). I'm not saying that your actions with regard to the QZ case are unilateral, but only asking that you not deny the existence of an entire class of actions. In most cases, unilateral actions are good and necessary (as they save time). In some cases, they overstep their bounds (such as speedy deletions of pages that do not meet the criteria). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

While I can't disagree that differing views exist and should be respected, I don't think this is relevant. As I see it, the issue in this ArbCom case is the handling of BLPs, BLP-related deletions, and BLP-related deletion discussions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

9) Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is the document that governs the deletion of material without discussion, and is expected to generally be followed as written except in extraordinary situations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is official policy, also governs. Fred Bauder 12:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Both are official policy. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is the general policy while Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons deal with a specific problem. Should there be conflict the provisions of the more specific policy should rule. Fred Bauder 12:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP policy intends to modify all policy and guidelines as they relate to living people. This includes encouraging administrators to use their best judgment to remove problematic material related to living people. Really folks, having deletion debates to satisfy policy should be avoided if harm will come to the subject of the article and the outcome is inevitable based on policy. FloNight 20:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per discussion at WT:CSD, per long-standing practice, per the amount of improper speedies that are overturned, and per the fact that, again, if this were followed, this could be avoided. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP clearly states "see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details" which implies that the CSD page contains the important information to consider when deleting an article. violet/riga (t) 12:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to run wikipedia in a process-wonker's straight jacket. It is not possible to legislate for every eventuality. Actually a whole lot of stuff is deleted outside or on the margins of the CSD, 90% of it without quibble. If the rules stop you improving wikipedia, ignore them. Although I'd add "reflect on the spirit of them, and then ignore them". --Doc^g 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a significant problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To Fred, BLP policy does not govern speedying of well-sourced, neutral material. This is a very necessary distinction to be made - the type of stuff BLP does cover is adequately described as "extraordinary situations." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Flo, you've really reached the heart of this matter - the problem here is that the BLP deletion did not help "avoid any harm," nor do they prolong the inevitable. Why disenfranchise large groups of editors for a predetermined result that may not even be correct? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this may safely be translated as "however bad an article is, and however serious your issues with it, you must slavishly follow process to the letter". I suspect from that summary that I make my view on this propsal pretty clear. From my last investigation, well over half of all new articles are speedy deleted, bad tagging of articles for speedy is much more of a problem than bad speedy deletion because most admins don't get the bit unless and until they demonstrate that they have enough intelligence to weigh up a deletion decision. Anyway, was QZ speedily deleted? I don't believe it was. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jeff, please proofread this; I think you may have inadvertently left something out (maybe "except in"). Newyorkbrad 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Duly modified. Probably he was going to say "with few exceptions". — CharlotteWebb 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A ruling of this kind would be unhelpful at the current rate of article growth. Admnistrators use their discretion and the vast majority do a good job of it. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They are very narrow for a reason. You want to change them to cover more ground, propose the change at the relevant place - until then they stand. Viridae^Talk 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, and BLP's are part of WP:CSD too. If an article does not meet a criterion for speedy deletion, such as A7 or G10, there are plenty of things that can be done rather than go for an out-of-process deletion; edit and improve it by adding/removing information and/or making it more balanced, rename in case the article is more about an incident than about a person, perhaps merge somewhere, propose or nominate for deletion, et cetera. Prolog 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If we are speedy-deleting any significant amount of articles without following CSD, then either the rules need to be changed or our practice needs to be changed. IAR is for exceptions, not the basic working principle. DGG 06:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this proposal. An article should only be speedy-deleted if it meets the CSD criteria, and/or there's an obvious and non-controversial reason for deleting it. If there's any likelihood of the deletion being controversial, then it should be taken to AfD. Period. Any admin who consistently deletes articles out-of-process and circumvents policy should be desysopped. Walton^Assistance! 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. If the criteria for speedy deletion need changing, then go and be bold and change them. Do not just act peremptorily and assert that your personal values amd understanding of ethics, fair play, taste, and fairness are superior to those of other editors. Edison 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A backdoor attempt to make BLP subordinate to CSD. Strong oppose. Marskell 10:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with this proposed principle. The only pages that are speedyable are those that fall under one or more of the existing speedy deletion criteria. WP:BLP has jurisdiction over the removal of content from articles, but not over the deletion of articles in entirety. BLP is based on a noble principle; we shouldn't make it a loophole for avoiding discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel warring is disruptive

10) Wikipedia:Wheel warring is disruptive to the project, whether by an administrative act or a non-administrative act.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wheel-warring by definition involves administrative actions. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring is about administrative actions. FloNight 21:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Again harkening back to the Brandt case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Jpgordon. This is effectively an attempt to re-write a long-standing definition in order to condemn something new. If non-admin acts are wrong, let's work that out in a separate finding. anyway, by this definition, Jeff's activities on four DRV (re)-openings would be wheel warring.--Doc^g 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would. I was very aware of that when proposing this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider Violetriga's actions to be wheel-warring so I don't see the relevance of this point, but if ArbCom does determine that bold-revert-discuss does not apply to administrative actions (leaving aside the special considerations of WP:BLP) then this may be necessary to discuss Violetriga's undeletions. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wheel-warring refers specifically to administrative actions. The term you're looking for is 'edit-warring'. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There's some discussion elsewhere about "non-administrative" wheel warring that may be worth looking at here. The concept of closing discussions being adminstrative acts that non-admins can accomplish is related to this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like bdj is taking a non-technicality look at an issue, maybe this should be embraced and not written off?  ;) Warring over an administrative matter is wheel warring whether or not you actually go to Special:Undelete or not. Arbitrators can't desysop someone, only request it from stewards, so what would you call it if an arbitrator posted as a final decision that Admin X was to be desysopped, and another kept reverting him? Merely edit warring, or some sort of "arbitrator warring"? Milto LOL pia 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but it looks more to me like I'm the only one reading the policy as written: "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins." What you're talking about is edit-warring. Mackensen (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So you don't suppose Jimbo would bat an eye at two arbitrators edit warring over at meta over a desysop request any more than he would at any other pair of edit warriors? Milto LOL pia 20:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, we're discussing an arbitration case, not what happens the if sky falls in. I'll take your absence of a response to the substantive question as a concession of the point--you either haven't read the policy or don't care what it says. Mackensen (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sense of scale - work with me here. The point here is that "authority warring" of any kind in spirit is about repeatedly reversing actions regarding administrative task, whether the delete, protect, or edit buttons are used. This arbitration situation is the same as closing a deletion discussion, only magnified. Milto LOL pia 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're making a distinction separate from the one policy makes. While this is interesting from an intellectual standpoint (and I'll happily debate it on my talk page later), it isn't very helpful for arbitration. Wheel-warring is recognized, specifically, as edit-warring involving the usage of administrative tools. Now, two arbitrators edit warring over a de-sysop request ought to send chills down everyone's spine, but that raises other issues: 1) Meta requests have to be confirmed at the local wiki; 2) locally requested involuntary de-sysopping only happens as the result of a vote by the Arbitration Committee; 3) there are defined rules about how remedies pass during an arbitration case; 4) most arbitrators are not sysops on meta, only editors (I have perhaps a dozen edits there); 5) the actual act of arbitration rarely requires administrator tools (checkuser is a complicated exception); 6) the actual act of de-sysopping is performed by a steward, who will only act on a legitimate request. While edit-warring between arbitrators would be a bad thing, it would not constitute wheel-warring, and we don't de-sysop for edit-warring alone. Mackensen (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is like saying arguing on a talk page is edit warring. SakotGrimshine 21:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly seen new editors (mis?)read policy as saying exactly that. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics

11) Wikipedia is not an experiment in ethics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That's for the community, not for ArbCom, to establish. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, this is not the case. I strongly disagree with Josh's implicit comment, above, that it is not an established driver of our policy formation and modification over the years; if nothing else, I would point to Wikipedia:Use common sense and meta:Don't be a dick, underpinings of much of our policy base. James F. (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In this context, where profound ethical concerns are involved, many of which have been codified into law, this principle is simply false. Another problem with it is that the ethical principles are not at all experimental but based on centuries, even millennia of distilled human experience. It is profoundly conservative to counsel against speaking ill of others. To discourage stirring up trouble. Fred Bauder 12:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with the purpose of this proposal. BLP and other Wikipedia policy is clearly based on ethical principles. FloNight 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. To clarify, we don't have an ethical base, as we are an encyclopedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Even a tabloid newspaper has ethics. "When in doubt do no harm" in WP:BLP is an ethical reflection. We use judgement in wikipedia not rules, and judgement is always informed by values. Sure values differ - but that's where consensus comes in. We have some shared values. We are here to do good not bad.--Doc^g 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. And how we do good is what's causing these problems. It's one person's set of ethics against anothers, and Wikipedia is not an experiment in that. We are an encyclopedia.--badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How we do it will always be a matter for negotiation, however that we do it is not. You seem to think that because individual ethics vary, then we should discard ethics for, what? something else? Rules? Counting sources? Shared vales isn't just a dream, it is necessary in any human community.--Doc^g 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We should discard ethics in favor of writing an encyclopedia. If we share any ethics as a project, that's it. Personal ethics on the matter are irrelevant, and those irrelevant ethics are part of the problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's you personal (un)ethical philosophy. I suspect it is shared by few.--Doc^g 21:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from being uncivil. Your comment can be written in a more civil way. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. You know nothing of my personal ethics. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think this is incivil, then I've expressed myself badly. Sorry. It was not meant to be. What I was trying to say (in my post-structural analysis) was this: we all come at Wikipedia with slightly differing values - we reach a common value (a community ethic) by the interaction of these. That's messy - but it works. Your notion is that "we don't do ethics we write an encyclopedia" is not an alternative - because it is in itself simply another philosophy to interact with all the others. What is "writing an encyclopedia"? - that too will be a somewhat subjective decision. Your view of what belongs in an encyclopedia will be coloured by your values and philosophy - just like mine. Why should your anti-ethical (and I use the word simply because of your pretence to reject ethics) approach have some pretence to objectivity that you deny mine? "We should discard ethics in favor of writing an encyclopedia" is simply a non-statement. It assumes there is a clear, objective, value-free, yet shared, definition of what "writing an encyclopedia" means. Ah, the joys of post-modernism. I think it is far more honest to say "I am coloured by my values and assumptions of what an encyclopedia should be - so are you - let's interact".--Doc^g 08:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not an experiment in ethics, but the idea that we have no ethical basis or code is flatly contradicted by WP:BLP, WP:NPOV is also at root an ethical code (we do not promote agendas or particular points of view) and includes ethical considerations in the undue weight clause. The commitment to free content is also an ethical judgement. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a poor proposal. Wikipedia is a project about improving the world. You can't do that without an ethical base. That said, it is true that we are not an experiment in ethics. There is no novelty to our ethics - they are things that virtually anyone should be able to understand intuitively. Phil Sandifer 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Plain silly. If you're an encyclopedia, of course you have ethics, those of giving knowledge to the world. In addition, what ethics we do have are hardly "experimental" in any sense of the word. They're just ordinary man-in-the-pub common decency. Moreschi ^Talk 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is shockingly bad. We agonize sometimes over these issues because there are hard ethical problems, not because there are no ethical problems. Newyorkbrad 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a policy proposal on "ethics" a while back. It was summarily rejected and the proponent of this page is now banned for edit warring, personal attacks, and sockpuppetry. I realize that drawing conclusions at face value might not be appropriate here but it's the first thing that came to my mind. — CharlotteWebb 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, all those who support the idea of ethical considerations should be banned. Please, ban me first. FCYTravis 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the banning isn't really relevant. Of greater interest are the reasons it was rejected, the fact that no attempt has been made to salvage it. — CharlotteWebb 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody who disseminates knowledge gets to dodge ethical questions about the process. --Tony Sidaway 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd encourage ArbCom to endorse a rather different proposed statement of principle: While Wikipedia is not an experiment in ethics, it is a project with such a large and likely lasting impact on the lives of others that it is the duty of all project participants in good standing to act in accordance with generally accepted ethical principles ... this is worded so as to disallow both "we are not ethical" and "I'm acting in accordance with MY ethics" defenses. Most large publications (news organizations and the like) or organizations (corporations or trade associations or what have you) have statements of ethical principles and ask their participants to subscribe to them. We should be no different. What the principles are, exactly, may be debatable and should be subject of a different statement of principle, if any, but starting from "ordinary man-in-the-pub common decency" (per Moreschi) or "things that virtually anyone should be able to understand intuitively" (per Phil) seem good places to begin. ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I realise I'm in the minority here, but I strongly agree with the proposed statement of principle. Ethics are subjective. A neutral, factual encyclopedia cannot be run according to someone's ideas about what is "right" and "wrong". Nor is there any such thing as a "generally accepted" ethical principle. We're here to report the facts, in an objective, neutral and verifiable manner; our only responsibility beyond that is to comply with the law. Wikipedia should be governed according to policy and process, not the moral beliefs of admins. Walton^Assistance! 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Walton is incorrect that there's no generally accepted ethical principle. And Wikipedia set out to be ethical from the very beginning. In some sense there's an experimental question of whether it can stay that way. But if the answer turns out to be "no", the remedy is not to keep editing while disregarding ethics. Rather, the remedy is for the Foundation to announce that Wikipedia has failed, unplug the servers, and tell everyone to go home. 75.62.6.237 22:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a research tool. Some feel that access to accurate, referenced, NPOV articles is a way to improve the world. I disagree that granting self-appointed moral censors the right to remove well-sourced NPOV info they feel is distasteful improves the world. Thomas Bowdler thought he was "improving the world" by removing distasteful content from the works of Shakespeare. and others sought to improve the world by painting fig leaves over the naughty parts of classic nude paintings. Conservapedia tries to improve the world by deleting and salting articles on naughty body parts. We are not Conservapedia. Some info should be deleted. The policies and guidelines should state the basis for such deletions, and it must not be a right immune to DRV or other review process. If we uphold the inherent right of an admin to delete without review material he finds distasteful, because he feels his sense of ethics is perfect and cannot be questioned, the shortcut to the policy provision might well be given the shortcut WP:BOWDLER. Edison 00:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. An encyclopedia project with millions of users and millions of ethical point of views can not have a few users set up an ethical base they like, and then enforce it through the use of admin tools. Since we write from reliable sources, we do not leave out relevant, neutral and notable information because someone considers it "disgusting" or "inhumane". Prolog 14:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge is neutral; ethics and censorship are not. Any action taken on the basis of an ethical principle is sure to be met with disagreement. What if an editor suddenly decides that all images of dead animals (or parts of them) are immoral. Should they be deleted? How about images showing any uncovered part of a woman except her eyes? What if someone values privacy above anything else and believes it is unethical to have an article on any living person? What makes one ethical principle more deserving of consideration than another? I personally have not objected to the "ethical responsibility" espoused by WP:BLP as it happens to be one with which I agree. However, the range of actions that can be justified by one group's ethical principles should be severely limited and "ethics" should never be invoked to override consensus or bypass discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment of editors

12) Attempting to drive people off the project by using false statements, nasty statements, or derogatory statements intended to diminish an editor's reputation is harmful to the project and inappropriate behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

WP:DICK, in other words. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant to this case. FloNight 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence and the concept behind the Giano case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is unethical.--Doc^g 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, in many organizations were being policy/process oriented is not a black mark against you, those organizations often rely on consistently followed/enforced policy/procedure to try to reduce this kind of inappropriate behavior, especially when social issues get escalated to higher authorities. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how this isn't relevant, Flo - it's been systematic, and the evidence has continued to come flowing in since the initial proposal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't think that this is relevant. Sean William @ 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you haven't been a target. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, harassment should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment should not be allowed, but this provision is using loaded language which presupposes the person criticizing someone is doing wrong. Edison 00:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Calling people liars because they differ with you, for example, is hugely detrimental to any attempt at collegiate working, impugning their honesty rather than engaging with concerns raised in good faith is utterly destructive. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Like everyone else, I agree with the general principle but would rather not see this in the ArbCom's findings ... not due to any consideration of its relevance or irrelevance to the case nor due to any moral factors, but because I feel that this is an emotionally-charged powder-keg that is best left alone. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Who gets to judge who is attempting to drive people off the project? That is far too subjective. But the use of derogatory epithets is clearly unacceptable. I suspect that a general civility finding will make the cut. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship is no big deal

13) Adminship is no big deal. Having the extra tools does not give weight or precedence to a specific opinion or point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This one's almost "duh", and might be useful here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We can not have it both ways. We expect our administrators to use sound judgment in their decisions because they understand Wikipedia policy and culture. We also expect them to politely discuss their decisions with users that have specific questions. These expectations are based on the idea that administrators are more clueful than some users and at least as clueful as the average users. This means that they are given some expectation by the community that they know what they are doing. Because of this, their opinion will hold more weight than the average user in most debates. FloNight 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, and one often missed. Correlation versus causation: admins' opinions do not get more weight because they are admins, people whose opinion is given more weight become admins. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence that suggests that many administrators attempt to claim that their opinion holds more weight due to the role they serve in the community. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sort of agree. But then. Admins are chosen for, and to exercise, good judgement - as are crats, Arbitrators, stewards, and others. Due weight has to be given, and in reality is given, to that recognition of judgement, to trust, and to experience. Of course, non-admins can earn that weight too. Of course, that's not infallibility - and good reasoning is more important than anything else. But to pretend Wikipedia is a democracy where every voice is listened to with equal weight and precedence, and Jimbo and IP 20472334 have the same standing is patent nonsense, and would make for a terrible encyclopedia.--Doc^g 09:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

While pragmatically, any system where different folks have different powers and some of those power differences translate to authority and ease-of-operation of the resources is going to generate power gradients between the different populations of folks who have different powers, I've seen it stated in many places on Wikipedia that the goal for admins as well as other specially-chosen folks for special roles should be to reduce that gradient where possible. It's a common remedy to this kind of system (wherein it's assumed that all parties are in good faith trying to defuse the power gradient and the advantages the gradient implies) that folks with the power assume additional cloaks of responsibility and of humility. All that said, when tempers flare here, I see very little of that humility expressed, and I see very few admins' compatriots trying to insert a little sanity into the equation. Humility, responsibility and sanity are essential to the equation of defusing the power the admins have and keeping mere editors from being afraid of potential power abuse. Whether or not power abuse is actually happening, I think admins in general and as a community could do a lot more to defuse the perception that they are capable (as a group or as individuals) of abusing the powers they have. Case in point was that very short block bdj was subject to that was completely out of process, and for which there may be some reason to believe not just one admin was really responsible. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of this finding is, since Tony, for example, is not an admin, and I don't recall anyone seriously claiming that being an admin changes the value of their arguments. All the sysop bit does is demonstrate that the community has, at some time, expressed a level of trust. OTRS volunteers are not "special" either, although we do quite quickly come to realise that the rather self-involved world of Wikipedia has a much bigger impact outside than some would realise. We can't help it if some people to interpret the sysop bit wrongly, it is pretty much inevitable that such a conclusion will be drawn since an editor who is active, thoughtful and has a sound understanding of the project's aims and policies is very likely to end up nominated for adminship sooner or later. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with both jpgordon and Jeff in that this is sort of obvious, but a precedent needs to be set given that users with extra buttons sometimes use this supposed "status" to give added weight to their views gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No argument from me. It's what's inside that counts. --Tony Sidaway 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think arbcom should endorse this phrasing. The operative difference between admins and regular users is not "having the extra tools", it's having had their experience and cluefulness recognized through RFA. It's semi-formally recognized in some situations, like Benjamin Gatti's general probation which says Benjamin Gatti can be banned based on the opinions of any three admins, not any three regular users. An actual ban just resulted from that remedy [12]. The reality on Wikipedia seems to be that admins don't get extra respect regarding article content, but they do tend to get some deference on issues of policy and conduct. The deference and recognition isn't (and shouldn't be) itself codified by any policy and Arbcom might say something to that effect, but I don't see what the point would be. I think Jeff's proposed principle here may be partly a pushback against FloNight's comment at the QZ RFC. 75.62.6.237 05:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Having the extra buttons may not be a big deal, but being given them by community consensus is. Adminship is more than just a set of tools, it's recognition by the community of someone's trustworthyness and judgement. Non-admins can be trustworthy and have good judgement, certainly, but admins have been explicitly determined to, and that is significant and should be given due weight. --Tango 10:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Adminship is not supposed to be a big deal. It has since become one. This is a problem. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I strongly disagree with Doc's comments above, which have overtones of elitism. The opinion of admins does not outweigh anyone else's. Admins exist solely to carry out decisions made by community consensus. The opinions of all established users acting in good faith should be given equal weight; as such, it is almost always wrong for an admin to override the wishes of the majority in a discussion. Walton^Assistance! 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy - majorities are irrelevant. Weight is given as arguments are intelligent and clueful. Admins are chosen as we reckon that their judgements are generally clueful. However, wisdom (from whomever it comes) is valued over folly. Is that elitist?--Doc^g 23:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have seen a growing trend to equate 'Admin in good standing' to be better than 'Editor in good standing', and all decisions should be deferred to admins over regular editors. --Barberio 15:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Admin apparently means "automatically good judgement". This case would indicate that that was not correct. Viridae^Talk 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In reality, Adminship has been a BIG DEAL for quite a long time. I still stick to my own beliefs on RFA that adminship isn't a big deal, but when many voters oppose because they "do not see a need for the tools", or year old grievances, then it obviously has become a big deal. The more powers that the administrators wield, such as a more liberal use of the delete key due to flimsy "ethical" BLP deletes, the bigger a deal it is going to become. - hahnchen 00:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I really can't disagree with this proposal, but I oppose it as irrelevant. Opinions of admins should not inherently be given more weight, but RfA standards (about which this proposal seems to have become) shouldn't be within the scope of this arbitration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP is a policy about ethics

14) Our policies on biographies about living people exist so that we can be sure to behave in an ethical manner appropriate to our status as a top ten website.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Also involved is the fact that many of the ethical principles involved are codified into law which give offended parties the right to damages or other remedies. This is true regardless of the ability of the Foundation or involved individuals to mount successful defenses. It is simply a duty to follow the law. Fred Bauder 11:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. BLP policy is about ethics, yes. FloNight 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As ethics are not shared by any particular group (see the discussions revolving around suicide method, for an example), this is basically untrue in practice. In reality, as well, the timing of the creation of BLP does not match up with ethical situations as much as a possible legal one. If the Siegenthaler issue never comes up, BLP doesn't until one like Siegenthaler does. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The ethics of "don't put material that intrudes on people's privacy on one of the largest websites in the world" do not seem to me as arcane as Jeff suggests. Phil Sandifer 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the idea that widely-reported information "intrudes on people's privacy" is hardly universal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Simple and to the point. Also true, as clearly stated in the policy. This is the single most important principle in this case, as it gets to the heart of what is wrong with Jeff's actions - that he follows process with no pause to consider the ethical mandates involved. Note that this is clearly stated in the first paragraph of the "rationale" section of the policy: "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominance comes a measure of responsibility. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding." Phil Sandifer 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the BLP policy only says this after your edit on May 24 2007. [13]. Before this the BLP policy did not mention "ethics". Catchpole 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The edit summary is "Add a few words about ethics that are throughout the policy but need to be emphasized" yet the words ethics, legal, and moral (or derivatives of each) do not appear anywhere else in the policy. violet/riga (t) 13:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Do no harm. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not at all what it says. It says the sourcing/attribution must be strict, not that it must not do any harm to the subject (DANIEL BRANDT and any other folks who don't want their bios up) Milto LOL pia 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the "top ten website" bit. If some unforeseen event, some deus ex wikia, moves us up to #1 or down to #94, our content standards should be firmly based on principle and remain the same unless there some reason (unrelated to popularity), to change them. Ethics? Alright, but I don't see how ethics and page rank have anything in common. Is Myspace more ethical than Craigslist? YouTube more ethical than flickr? Don't answer that. — CharlotteWebb 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If a site is the first to come up in a web search, whatever that site says will more easily enter the public consciousness. If that site is forked by many other sites, such that the first three pages that come up in an internet search all originated with that site, whatever that site says will be further impressed upon the public consciousness. Wikipedia has become an instrument not simply to record information, but to disseminate it. Once something is put into Wikipedia, it will be elevated into a notability it might not otherwise deserve. Being in Wikipedia creates notability. Many from outside Wikipedia have recognized this and have been using Wikipedia to deliberately spread content for a long time. This was true long before the top 10 rank was reached. It was a problem two years ago when I started here; it's just a bigger problem now. -Jmh123 07:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Do no harm. All the rest is wikilawyering. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

With great power comes great responsibility. It DOES matter that we're one of the highest-traffic sites and our articles are in the top search hits for practically everything. If Jeff really thinks publishing something on Wikipedia is no different than putting it on a Geocities page, I have to wonder why it's so important to him to publish stuff here instead of on Geocities. 75.62.6.237 06:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt, do no harm. If there is no reasonable doubt, it can be appropriate to do something harmful. If the court records say someone was convicted of murder, we can say in their article that they are a murderer - that's harmful, but perfectly ethical. Ethics are specific to a particular group, certainly. Wikipedia is such a group and we, as a group, have certain ethics and values. The love of free information is one of the those values, and BLP is one of those ethics. If anyone doesn't agree with those, they are always free to fork. --Tango 10:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Do no harm. Be ethical. Or fork. ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is considerable room for principled disagreement about whether particular actions do harm, or substantial harm.DGG 06:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This may be true, but there's still a lot of debate over what does in fact do harm. Fred's assertion about legal action would only hold true if we knowingly published something false. Publication of something demonstrably true but negative violates no law. Of course, that doesn't mean we should always do so. We don't need articles on every person who was convicted of drunk driving, even if it is true and the records are publicly available, and it would be perfectly legal for us to do so. But we also should not be too hesitant to publish true but negative information, if it is genuinely encyclopedic. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this phrasing because it is the simplest, and most accurate, of the phrasings about BLP. Nandesuka 12:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If legal records and multiple reliable sources proved that a candidate for high national office or a religious leader had been arrested for drunk driving, drug possession, or soliciting prostitution, or had been a member of the Ku Klux Llan. it would cause him real and substantial harm and embarrassment for us to publish it. But if it was well sourced, it would violate NPOV for us to omit it and only print positive information. "Ethics" means far more than suppressing accurate but embarrassing information. If a crime is notable, then the victim may be notable, and if the name has been widely reported (not always the case) then it is not unethical per se to include it in an article on the crime or the criminal. We should probably not have a stand-alone article on an otherwise non-notable victim. Edison 00:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Edison: stuff like that is important for some subjects and not others. That's what the inclusionists don't seem to get. Suppose some person has an extramarital affair and almost gets fired from their job because of it, and the incident is reported in the newspaper. If the person is a random restaurant chef (but meets Wikipedia's minimalistic notability guidelines for some reason), the incident isn't significant on an absolute scale and NPOV doesn't require including it (if a person isn't significant, then viewpoints about the person are even less significant). If the person's job title is President of the United States, the person is very important, the info in question has had a significant impact in the real world, and we do in fact document it extensively. Wikipedia is a screwed-up place because it's usually ducked questions about importance by trying to substitute supposedly-objective standards like "notability". That immediatism is catching up with it now. We have to bring real-world importance back into this type of question. 75.62.6.237 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. It isn't just importance that should be the determining factor, but yes, "notability" could use some clarification. The New York Times and the New York Post are not the same, and even the Times gets it wrong sometimes, but what makes the Times different is its standards. One "side" says ethics; the other censorship. Behind either is the question of what role should Wikipedia play on the internet. I think Wikipedia should play a role that is different from what everyone else on the internet does, or else what is the point of having a Wikipedia? Wikipedia should have a different standard than just "it's all over the internet" or "it's all over the news". To fail to include something that is "all over" is not censorship. Wikipedia should aim for more demanding standards in terms of its content (as well as greater literary sophistication), and policy is changing reflecting a desire to do so. Regardless of whether this is happening due to respect for the law, fear of lawsuits, or just waking up and looking at some aspects of what Wikipedia has become and finding them wanting, embarrassing, or even illegal, the goal is to improve the quality of Wikipedia. -Jmh123 07:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This holier-than-thou "do no harm" crap is really patronising. Of course we try and "do no harm", but to which parties? Deleting verifiable sourced articles on notable subjects because of your flimsy moral values harms the encyclopedia, and harms the readership. I recently removed phrasing to this effect from WP:NOT, inserted by editors who felt that all BLP was for was to protect victims. No, BLP is to protect against libel and unsourced statements, not for any user to impose their own moral code upon what harms others and what doesn't. - hahnchen 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the distinction between legal and ethical issues, in this context, are largely artificial. There is significant overlap and they are based on the same principles. There is a huge degree of distinction between public and private persons. Lack of malice and good intent are not acceptable defenses regarding defamation and invasion of privacy in relation to private persons. A large concern expressed regarding BLPs is the privacy of the individual. While I believe libel and defamation are the primary concern, certainly privacy is also a major legal and ethical concern. Vassyana 21:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sensitive matters

15) Although we have a number of processes for dispute resolution, issues surrounding material that is harmful to real-world people are sometimes not suitable for these avenues, and are especially unsuitable for protracted discussion in these avenues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is the current situation; that's why ArbCom sometimes processes cases completely off-Wiki - such as (indeed) Nathanrdotcom. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the issue here. FloNight 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Nothing in the policy notes this, and the idea that we're not equipped to discuss these issues is completely contrary to our principles as a project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Common sense really.--Doc^g 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is not common. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I assume people have it until the prove otherwise.--Doc^g 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of assuming good faith, in my eyes, is that your idea of common sense may not match mine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That too is common sense.--Doc^g 23:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A vital point regarding BLPs. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not just BLPs, surely Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom was an example of this? Moreschi ^Talk 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't know, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why we have a trouble ticketing system manned by trusted volunteers, many of whom, I notice, are taking a keen interest in this case. --Tony Sidaway 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I find this proposal too vague to know what to say about it. The inclusion of "sometimes" essentially ensures that most people will agree with it, but it doesn't say much until it answers the question: at which times? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primum non nocere

16) Biographies concerning living persons that are well sourced, but exist only to document a misfortune in the subject's life, should be avoided if all possible. Such articles have the potential to cause harm to the subject, due to the creation of a technically permanent documentation of a traumatic or embarrassing event.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think it would be really nice if we did this. I don't think ArbCom can establish this. "Don't add to the dickishness of an already churlish world" is how I think of it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Already policy? Well cool! (I think I pointed out in my candidates statement in the last ArbCom elections that BLP was one of my weak points...) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is part of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. FloNight 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

ArbCom doesn't make policy. If they decided to, however, this certainly wouldn't preclude the discussion thereof, which is what's at issue here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not deleted, necessarily, but they are inappropriate as faux-biographies. If the case itself is a notable example of its type then we can cover it appropriately somewhere, and if the person is prominently identified with that case (e.g. Megan's Law) then a redirect may well be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Far too strong. Such articles probably should not exist as pseudo-biographies - but the information can exist, where appropriate, elsewhere.--Doc^g 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sean William @ 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What JzG said, almost always these are not appropriate as stand-alone biographies. Moreschi ^Talk 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed "articles" to "biographies" and "deleted" to "avoided if all possible". Sean William @ 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but this proposal's extent should only cover living persons. We have many articles on victims of famous murders. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is ironic that the murderer (the person causing the situation that all the news agencies pick up on) is almost always considered less notable, (unless he is a serial killer). I can see the AFDs now: "*Non-notable one-time murderer. Delete or merge to the article about the Missing White Woman he killed. ~~~~ " Huh? Does BLP, or something similar to it (journalistic ethics?), protect him more than his victim? And if so, is that really the way we want to do things? — CharlotteWebb 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is already Wikipedia policy [14]. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we had an article about Terry Schiavo for quite a while before she died. We still properly have one about Elián González. Basically we should apply a lot of sensitivity to the question of whether to include such an article, however there are some that are appropriate. It gets outside the scope of this case but IMO for this and other reasons, the WP:N threshold of notability for living persons should be increased drastically. I think Jimbo has made similar proposals. 75.62.6.237 06:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And there I was thinking that Wikipedia is not censored. Perhaps we need a Wikipedia:Do no harm. But this rather begs the question of what is "harm", and how cautious we should be to avoid it. There are bound to be hard cases, but how, in general, is it "harmful" to repeat easily-available information? Do we censor information about explosives or improvised weapons in case someone uses them? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I always understood it as being not censored for minors. I don't take that as a commentary on our article-level inclusion policy. Mackensen (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored - "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive... Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." - that is, Wikpedia may contain articles that some would consider "harmful" (for some measure of "harm". Would this proposed new "do no harm" principle be applicable only to biographies of living (and, see below, recently deceased - query how recently - last month? last year?) persons, or more widely to other sorts of articles that may by some measure be considered "harmful"? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is far too broad. Sometimes, it may indeed be encyclopedic to document an unfortunate or embarrassing event, even if that would cause distress to someone. That doesn't mean we need to document all such events, certainly, and it's likely that over 99% of such events would prove not to be encyclopedic. But we shouldn't preclude the remaining ones which genuinely are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This proposed principle is absolutely wrong. The only valid criterion for determining inclusion is the presence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Everything else is irrelevant, including the subjective "encyclopedicity" or otherwise of an event. We're not here to avoid "causing harm to the subject"; that's censorship. The reason for having BLP is to prevent the spread of untrue and libellous information; if the truth hurts, it's not our problem. Walton^Assistance! 16:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, sometimes "do no harm" just doesn't work. Often, if we want to "do more good than harm" we must publish information which could damage the reputation of its living people subjects. There are quite a few highly encyclopedic articles that simply can't avoid being primarily about a single or several related negative events in a living person's life. John Hinckley, for example - that's an article we do absolutely need, and there is no way for it not to be highly negative. Basically anyone primarily known as a criminal would fall into that category, and we have plenty of articles about those, some of which are quite important. Richard Colvin Reid. Zacarias Moussaoui. Omar Abdel-Rahman - we can neither delete those, nor make them more positive, without major damage to the encyclopedia. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculously vague, I'm surprised that two of the arbitrators feel that this wishy washy nothing is part of BLP. There are an incredibly amount of follies and idiocies to have happened throughout history, to whitewash these because of some ill defined moral framework would do harm, to the encyclopedia. - hahnchen 01:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of this stuff has happened throughout history. I'm talking about biographies of living persons. Sean William @ 14:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So we're to ignore follies and idiocies happening in the now? We wait for the guy to die before we record their stunning incompetencies? - hahnchen 12:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persons of minor interest

17) In many cases, multiple, non-trivial sources such as newspapers will create timely reports of murders, rapes, kidnappings, medical oddities and other news items. However, these stories do not constitute biographical treatments of the subjects of the reports, and the fact that the events relating to these persons have been reported upon in newspapers does not necessarily support the existence of stand-alone Wikipedia biographies of persons involved. It follows from Wikipedia is not a newspaper that merely being in a newspaper does not make someone encyclopedic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not sure of the wording; agree with the point. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the point of the principle. FloNight 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Maybe this is true, but see above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, so it can go through the proper AfD channels and discussed to check that other people agree. violet/riga (t) 21:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, because it makes sense. FCYTravis 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's not that we can't or mustn't cover such things, but that covering them in the form of stand-alone biographies of individuals who have no real claim to encyclopaedic notability is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, to the letter. Moreschi ^Talk 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent summary by FCYTravis.--MONGO 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia policy, elaborated the other night be User:Jimbo Wales and immediately accepted with a huge sigh of relief by the community. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because Jimbo supports it doesn't immediately make it incontrovertible policy. Neither is it a license to delete the article without a full and proper AfD process. Walton^{alternate account} 09:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if those who wish to keep the article present a more nuanced argument than "in the newspapers once, notable forever, keep." That's the point behind this finding. It's no longer acceptable to write "biographies" on every single person who ever gets mentioned in a newspaper article. FCYTravis 23:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that "merely being in a newspaper does not make someone encyclopedic", I must oppose this principle as worded. "These stories do not constitute biographical treatments of the subjects" ... how do you know? Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. This should be judged on a case-by-case basis. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This argument has been repeated abused by saying that an articles about a person with major news coverage for current events must be removed. That isn't what it says--it says it doesn't automatically mean coverage--which is OK. Whether it means coverage in any particular case is for AfD. The dispute is between those who think it means keep in WP 1% of the time, and people who take a more flexible view. I think bdj's views on articles proposed for deletion under this rule would be keep half the time. Individual people might themselves think differently, but that's still a reasonable stance.DGG 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles about living people notable only for one event

17.1) Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry. In many cases it will be difficult or even impossible to write a fair, neutral and encyclopedic article about a person's life if the person is notable for a single event, no matter how well that event may be documented. [15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. FloNight 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a core part of this case, and this principle is what motivated most of the actions taken by me, Doc and several others. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved up and renumbered. Same idea, alternate wording. Thatcher131 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging has long been an uncontroversial fact of life on virtually all wikis. Resistance to merging as a covert form of resistance to established policy one doesn't like, well that's disruption. --Tony Sidaway 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But deleting based on this without any form of discussion, and removing sourced articles, is not a good thing. violet/riga (t) 08:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if it's established that the argument to keep must be more nuanced than "in the newspapers once, notable forever, we have to have a bio, period." That's no longer valid. FCYTravis 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD clearly says:

Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject".

This is relevant to many of the articles that were deleted. For example the deletion of an article that clearly states that the child is the smallest surviving baby on record is wrong because it asserts its notability. violet/riga (t) 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Violetriga is absolutely right. Walton^{alternate account} 09:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest using the shortcut WP:NOT#NEWS? Carcharoth 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments above about BLP as an ethical concern and my recent comments on WT:BLP explain my thoughts on this matter.[16] I would like to see this principle frame the concern around "private persons" for the sake of clarity, since someone notable for single or limited events could still be a "public person" (and therefore subject to less stringent standards of privacy). Vassyana 21:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia definition of "public person" is likely to be much more parsimonious than the legal definition. Public personhood can be visited upon someone in US Federal and Florida state law in quite capricious and anomalous ways. Here a simple "folk definition" is more likely to be useful and is likely to discourage lawyerly hair-splitting. --Tony Sidaway 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I find the wording of "memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry" to be overdramatic (no offense to Thatcher, as I realise that this was copied from WP:BLP). I do, however, agree with the general principle. I also agree with Violetriga that this is not and should not become a speedy deletion criterion. Each case should be considered individually at AfD (or prodded if it's an uncontroversial case). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps add this: If the event is notable but the person is only notable for the event, report on the event not the person. I think this should satisfy the inclusionists and the proponents of a stricter BLP policy. —M (talk • contribs) 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet memes

17.2) Wikipedia is not Google. The fact that someone has achieved notoriety as an Internet meme does not automatically mean they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry. In many cases, the subjects of "memes" are in fact the subject of derision and ridicule. They may be innocent or at least basically good people who had the misfortune to be caught doing something stupid in front of a camera. Although exceptions may exist, the principle "Do no harm" embedded in WP:BLP generally requires that Wikipedia not maintain articles about such people, even if the meme can be documented by reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Endorsed Fred Bauder 20:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. FloNight 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Not sure what this has to do with anything, really. We already cover this in many other places. This seems like a veiled reference to the continued persisting thought taht I somehow really favor internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Meme articles are a specific subset of the type of article that is at issue in this case. The issues of sensitivity, recentism, newspaperism, etc that surround an article about "John Smith" who was the victim of a crime that happened to attract media attention are magnified greatly when John Smith is merely some guy who was caught on a cell phone oe web camera just being a dick, or is a school kid who gets pranked and embarassed by his classmates. Thatcher131 17:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse; will address in my evidence if any opposition develops. Newyorkbrad 00:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Code for "we don't need an article on QZ". Actually he's covered in List of Internet phenomena under "Images", with two references, and I don't see why we need any more. --Tony Sidaway 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Notability, and therefore inclusion, is defined by one thing only: the presence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. If an Internet meme has been covered in the news media, then it should have an article. Wikipedia has no room for moral crusades; censorship in order to protect "innocent or basically good" people (a subjective term) has no place in a neutral, factual encyclopedia. Walton^Assistance! 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither has it time for counting sources to determine what's encyclopedic. Notability is not a matter of arithmetic - it is, by its very definition, subjective.--Doc^g 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is from a current LA Times article. Keith Richmond, chief executive of Break.com, has a term he uses for the instantly famous: "e-lebrities." His site bills itself as an "entertainment channel for guys fueled by user-created media." "It's amazing how quickly someone can go from obscurity to fame," Richmond said. "Most of the time those becoming e-lebrities are seeking the publicity. But sometimes it's accidental." Whether accidental or deliberate publicity seeking, this does not make a subject encyclopedic, (but especially if it is unwanted). Thatcher131 13:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is true, then editors who share this POV are encouraged to change our guidelines on the matter. It's worth noting that the same editors who support this sort of ideal are the ones who supported a rather drastic and unsupported change to our notability guideline that has since been entirely reformed. The "encyclopedicness" of a subject (which is defined by our policies and guidelines since we're a general interest encyclopedia, not paper, etc) is defined by those guidelines, not by one or two people who think they know better than the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Memes are essentially a subset of "notable only for one event". So, I'll reiterate my beliefs that these should be judged on an individual basis. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some article subjects are more important than others

17.3) Numerous Wikiprojects have ongoing programs to assess the importance of Wikipedia articles in their subject areas relative to each other. These assessments currently have no official standing in Wikipedia policy, but they do indicate the community's recognition that not all subjects are equally important to document, and its ability to (usually) agree on importance criteria within subject areas and on assessments for individual articles. See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography's importance grading scheme which describes biography importance criteria in terms of the person's impact in and out of their main discipline, in and out of their country of origin, and durability of impact (e.g. across multiple generations).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree that thoughtful editors have made this distinction for awhile now. This type idea also weighs in decisions about whether an article subject is encyclopedic or not. Or if the subject needs a stand alone article. FloNight 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I want to use this in another section to help deal with the tension between NPOV (present all significant points of view) and BLP (be gentle with the subject). 75.62.6.237 23:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is not helpful and will only serve to further cloud the situation. Some is either a "public person" or a "private person". Additionally, either someone is notable, or not notable. If someone is non-notable, they simply don't meet the standard for inclusion. If someone is public and notable, outside of the basic rules, it is not a concern. If someone is a private person and notable, we must take great care regarding such subjects. Vassyana 21:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minors

18) Particular care should be taken where article subjects are minors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

In which jurisdiction? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is based on custom and practices in journalism. FloNight 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement, but that doesn't excuse heavy-handed action. Note that the article that brought this situation to ArbCom dealt with an adult. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

(Ethically) true but not relevant as per Jeff. — CharlotteWebb 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly appropriate, although I may take a crack at rephrasing it. To Jpgordon, I don't think the precise age of legal majority is the real issue here. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we can take 18 as a rule of thumb. Even Badlydrawnjeff recently accepted this principle, albeit briefly. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this may create a standard that is potentially discriminatory. I'd say any particular care that should be applied, should be applied equally. If there are specific legal requirements, those are an entirely different matter. FrozenPurpleCube 02:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There may be specific legal requirements as to this. (I would presume the jurisdiction would be the US, since that's where the servers are located, so "minor" would be anyone under 18.) If this were to be adopted, however, it should be clarified whether it covers "someone who was a minor at the time of event(s) written about in the article" or "someone who is still a minor at the time the article is written." And sometimes, it is indeed encyclopedic to write about a minor. However, even in those cases, we should take special care to ensure that BLP is enforced strictly and immediately on any such articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy

19) As a matter of course Wikipedia should not include private information about living individuals which is not commonly included in mainstream coverage of those individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Hm. I don't like limiting reliable sourcing to "mainstream coverage" at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is informed by, for example, the grade point averages which were added to Crystal Gail Mangum. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Private information about living persons that is found only in obscure sources should be avoided. We are writing about notable events in a persons life and these will usually be found in the mainstream press. FloNight 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty standard - we write from sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed.--MONGO 21:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what the proposer is driving at, but this is poorly worded. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony except I'm not sure what the proposer is driving at. Maybe Guy could try again. 75.62.6.237 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

But what is mainstream coverage? Isn't Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources (and to some degree WP:RS) enough? --Tim4christ17 ^talk 10:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy

19.1) The biographies of living persons policy imposes a presumption in favor of privacy. The onus is on those wishing to include information about private individuals to show that it is necessary to do so. 'In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".'

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is simply an affirmation of the WP:BLP section cited. The key is the word "presumption". The final sentence is a direct quotation from the policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I'd like to note that the presumption in favour of privacy should be balanced against an adherence to neutrality. Also, it is not a carte blanche for speedy-deleting any articles that present personal information, even if they are sourced and neutral. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for comment

20) WP:RFC is not a pre-requisite for arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seems to be the case. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but attempts to resolve the dispute are usually a pre-requisite. Lack of a RFC often shows that serious attempts at dispute resolution have not occurred. Often we suggest mediation or a RFC to the parties in a case before we will consider a case. FloNight 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per practice and per a lack of an actual required process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the relevance? In this case, for example, the original request for arbitration was rejected as lacking evidence of any credible attempt to resolve the dispute - any reasonable attempt at resolution, or at least clarifying the nature of the problem - would probably have been fine. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Irrelevant. Arbitration is the method of last resort. We urged an RfC because earlier steps in the dispute resolution process hadn't been tried and the matter was so fresh. Of course, that you regarded the RfC as a joke from the outset guaranteed that we'd arrive here. Mackensen (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a principle, should be moved. Thatcher131 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Move per Thatcher, and then reject as overstated. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved. This is a proposed principle, not a finding of fact. Thatcher131 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be relevant to the case. While requests for comment isn't a prerequisite for arbitration, the committee can and should redirect disputants to other forums if they think it would help to illuminate or resolve the dispute. --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything is specifically a prerequisite, the arbitrators can accept any case that's brought before them if they feel it would be warranted, and have accepted cases where no RFC has taken place (the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan issue being an example). Still, I see nothing against them saying "Try a different form of dispute resolution first, if it doesn't work, come back here." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP is not a show of force

21) WP:BLP is not a tool to bludgeon other editors with, or to delete sourced material that individual administrators deem improper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True, but that is not what was happening here. BLP gives administrators the leeway to first delete articles or content that is harmful and then discuss or restore later if it is in the best interest of the parties involved. FloNight 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. BLP is clear on how it should be used, even with recent changes. Abuse of BLP helps no one, and harms the community as a result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the wording of this proposal embodies an assumption as to the underlying issues, i.e. begging the question, I suggest this proposal lacks merit. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a principle, should be moved. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved. This is a proposed principle, not a finding of fact. Thatcher131 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this would be better stated as something like "if there is a consensus to keep something despite BLP flavored arguments for its deletions, it can be concluded that there is no BLP-related problem"? Unless I'm missing the point. But I think the people who say "BLP trumps consensus" aren't getting that if there's a consensus that there is no BLP problem, then BLP isn't a, um, problem. Wish I could word that better, but you know what I mean. Milto LOL pia 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, because that's totally wrong. Consensus doesn't get to decide whether or not there's a BLP problem. If there is one, it goes, whether or not there's any community consensus to the contrary. FCYTravis 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's scary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good deal less scary than the alternative, which posits a world in which Wikipedia is a law unto itself and actions taken here don't have real-world consequences. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not scary, Jeff, it's a fact. You can have all the !votes you want establishing a "consensus" to undelete a potentially-libelous article, and it won't be undeleted, because it violates policy. FCYTravis 20:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, that's not what you're saying. You're saying "BLP problem." People also erroneously thought that Qian Zhijun was a bLP problem. We have one person asserting that an article on a dead person is a BLP problem. I agree on the libellious portion, that's not what we're discussing here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation: Anyone who says there is a BLP problem is right, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. What I think you're failing to take into account is that the person crying "BLP" might be wrong. Milto LOL pia 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to Jeff's view, where there isn't a BLP problem because he said so? Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging by your replies here and elsewhere, I'm probably not showing that I know what a gray area is. I'm not saying Jeff was definitely right in all this, I'm just saying that the idea that one admin, anywhere, can say "BLP" and have something stay deleted under penalty of the banhammer despite any sizeable consensus that BLP is not an issue to that particular article is... bad. Milto LOL pia 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

When the administrator is a long-time veteran of OTRS, in which he handles requests from aggrieved parties, I'm prepared to trust his judgement on the question a good deal more than I am Jeff's. It's not as though the admins screaming BLP, as it were, have been unsupported. Mackensen (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess we differ in that I wouldn't trust an arbitrary admin's judgment more than I'd trust the judgment of of several, sometimes dozens, of his equally arbitrary co-editors. Milto LOL pia 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. How friggin' rude. Unlike many administrators during this affair, I've made it a point to discuss exactly why an article is not a BLP violation, by pointing out number of sources, tone, etc. Contrast that with the people who simply yell "BLP" and get trigger happy with the delete button. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On present evidence I'd say that it's both a useful cluestick and a handy way of taking problematic material out of sight, at least temporarily. So if this is what Jeff meant then I disagree with the proposal. --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One admin think something is BLP so can delete the article even if it is fully sourced, not defamatory, mirrored around the net over three years, and all the information is available from other first-page Google hits? You don't have to delete first - a prod could work far better. violet/riga (t) 08:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors may delete inappropriate sourced material from any article per Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:NOT. Just because something is true and sourced doesn't mean it should be included. That said, I find the notion that consensus is right only when it favours one's own position to be rather chilling. WP:TRUTH, anyone? If consensus determines there is no WP:BLP problem and the project's lawyers don't view the content as problematic, then there is no BLP "problem". To insist otherwise is to fail to consider the possibility that one is not always right. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership of WP:BLP

22) WP:BLP is not owned by anyone, and the interpretation of the policy is subject to discussion. (See [17] for an example) and suggest that their interpretation is not subject to discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Administrator are expected to understand policy in the areas where they use their tools. I assume that administrators understand BLP when they delete articles and cite it. Repeatedly going to DRV to get a different outcome for borderline cases sows ill will between users and should be avoided. FloNight 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per link and evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a principle, should be moved. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved. This is a proposed principle, not a finding of fact. Thatcher131 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Linked to WP:OWN since this has support in urrent practice/policy. Milto LOL pia 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally, the Arbitration Committee reserves for itself the final word on interpretation of policy. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP and ethics

23) WP:BLP deals with the way we handle articles of living persons. It is not designed to allow for any specific editor's ethical base to take precedent over another's.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That's correct. The policy speaks to universal values. Fred Bauder 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence and continuing use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it reflects a composite or community ethic, not that of any individual - but still an ethic.--Doc^g 09:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a principle, should be moved. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant - the case is not about specific editor's ethical bases, but about an ethical base that is inscribed in policy and left to the judgment of specific editors to implement. In this regard, it is like all of our policy. Phil Sandifer 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved. This is a proposed principle, not a finding of fact. Thatcher131 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Prefer the next one, which recognizes that ethical responsibility is in fact a driving force behind WP:BLP. Nandesuka 11:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support. Some people in this case use BLP as a springboard for pursuing their own ethical goals. Interpretation of BLP should be determined by consensus, not by one admin's view of ethics. As I keep saying, Wikipedia should be governed by policy, not pure ethics; there is no such thing as a "universal" ethical value, and interpretation of such values on Wikipedia should be by discussion, consensus and compromise. Walton^Assistance! 19:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics count

24) The Biographies of living persons policy gives Wikipedia an ethical compass for its biographical coverage of living people. For this reason, the policy is not only necessary from a legal standpoint, but desirable insofar as it improves the quality of our encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree. FloNight 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, because Wikipedia is supposed to be a force for good in the world. Without an ethical footing, we are destined to fail. FCYTravis 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Literally, says who? Is the arbcom really going to support such a moralistic principle as this? This may sound nice, but the notion that ethics improves the encyclopedia has no real concrete support - it's just another opinion. Milto LOL pia 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's part of everything we do. If we are not ethical at our core, we do not deserve to exist. FCYTravis 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Says who, though? You? God? That's what I mean - what is the support for these assertions? They may be in Jimbo's principles, I've read them but couldn't count them off. Elsewise, what is supporting this idea that Wikipedia must be ethical in order for it to "desere to exist"? Milto LOL pia 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a principle, should be moved. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved. This is a proposed principle, not a finding of fact. Thatcher131 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Another expression of Wikipedia's aspiration to have a negative suckage quotient. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The basic idea is good but the suggested wording is weak. (Expanded below) 75.62.6.237 05:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The "in a nutshell" summary of WP:BLP explicitly invokes ethical responsibility. This is straightforward and correct. Nandesuka 11:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The principle is on the right track but the phrasing needs work. BLP is not necessary from a legal standpoint; it's about how we're trying to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the law requires. Also, whether acting ethically improves the quality of the encyclopedia is irrelevant--we should act ethically because that's the right thing to do by definition. If we could somehow improve the quality of the encyclopedia by murdering people and sprinkling their entrails into the servers, ethics should nonetheless prevent us from doing that. There's no need to seek utilitarian rationalizations for acting ethically and doing too much of that has led to Wikipedia's current unhealthy state. 75.62.6.237 04:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. BLP is necessary from a legal standpoint - if unsourced negative information is released, Wikipedia could get sued. However, "ethics" are subjective, and entirely a matter of opinion. They therefore have no place in Wikipedia policy. Walton^Assistance! 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a distinction between the direct BLP violations and the general penumbra around BLP may be in order. JoshuaZ 03:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, BLP doesn't given any sort of "ethical compass" or framework upon which to base our decisions, we don't apply Kantian rules. Instead, the incredibly lax wording at BLP gives administrators the right to flex their powers whilst claiming that their moral standard (not yours) is backed up by the "non-negotiable policy" which is BLP. - hahnchen 00:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel-warring

25) Wheel-warring is a Wikipedia term of art defined in Wikipedia:Wheel war, and in the encyclopaedia as wheel war. It is defined as follows: A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article. A conflict in which non-privileged actions are repeatedly reversed is an edit war, as defined at Wikipedia:Edit war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree and applies in this case since admins undid other admin actions. FloNight 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Moved. This is a proposed principle, not a finding of fact. Thatcher131 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So hard to keep track :-) Guy (Help!) 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. No additional comments or disclaimers this time. :) -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel warring

25.1) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable. Administrators that wheel war may be desysopped.

25.2) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."[18]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Deliberately undoing another administrator action that you simply disagree with without discussion is wheel warring and can result in desyopping. It applies in this case to several administrators. Warning and sanctions may occur in this case unless administrators make it clear that they will not wheel war in the future. FloNight 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Undoing an action is not wheel warring - repeating the same action again is. violet/riga (t) 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's taken from another arbitration case. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But you link to Wikipedia:Wheel warring which supports my view. That is the policy that we follow and the definition we should use. If it is going to be changed then so be it, but as it stands now I did not go against policy. violet/riga (t) 12:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose 25.2, taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Wheel warring 8.2.--Doc^g 02:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just after that sentence it states "improve the edit, rather than reverting it" but you cannot improve something that is deleted. violet/riga (t) 09:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed to go with remedy 14. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Merely "undoing an administrative action by another administrator" is not wheel warring. Clear-cut examples of actions that are not wheel warring: unprotecting an old protected page, blocking a user who after being previously unblocked has turned to blatant vandalism, deleting a copyvio despite the page being restored on other grounds. An admin who does such an action is "undoing an administrative action by another administrator" without contacting the other admin or anyone else at all, but is not wheel warring and the action is not an action for which they may be desysopped. Less clear-cut examples also may still not be wheel warring. Wheel-warring is specifically a "struggle" and the mandate is "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." See this older version of the page for clarity, when it was generally a guideline and had a specific well-defined "policy" section. There might be evidence that some admin wheel warred in this case, or there might be evidence that some admin did something that warrants desysopping, but this principle here is unsound, or dangerously vague, and does not follow from policy. —Centrx→talk • 02:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't give a fuck whether we're going to call this or that action "wheel warring". The point is that if someone makes an administrative action to delete an article and cites the BLP, then you shouldn't undo it without consulting him. Full stop. No excuses. --Tony Sidaway 04:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Then the principle would be related to BLP. The principle above simply boils down to 'undoing any administrative action whatsoever without discussion is unacceptable and is grounds for desysopping'. —Centrx→talk • 06:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Centrx and Violetriga and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. If this applied only to BLPs, I would agree. Then again, "per WP:BLP" is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that one is exhorted to follow process to the letter in the matter of deletion of faux biographies of non-public individuals, but to be bold in undoing another administrator's actions because "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". It seems to me that this is arse about face: using bureaucracy to allow the inclusion but not the exclusion of content identified as problematic by editors n good standing is a reversal of the clear intent of WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, my comment was not about undeletion of BLPs. In fact, as I've said elsewhere (below), I think that's bad practice. However, this proposal applies to all administrative actions. I am opposing it on its broad wording and because "wheel-warring" requires some sort of struggle rather than a mere undoing of an action. I seriously hope that the admin who undeleted the main page after Robdurbar deleted it won't be desysopped as that's what this proposal currently implies. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP does not apply to dead people

26) WP:BLP cannot apply if the subject of the article is dead and no other people are named

Comment by Arbitrators:

Nah. The principle is that of doing no harm, BLP is an extension of that. The intent is more important than the letter here; if someone dies, we don't get to suddenly change their article into a perhaps well sourced slimefest. Be decent. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jpgordon. The idea behind the policy is what is important not whether the person is still breathing. Besides, there is usually living family and friends that need to be considered as well. FloNight 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. If BLP applies to the dead then it needs to be renamed. violet/riga (t) 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This completely misses the point of WP:BLP, which is about more than just avoiding defamation, it's about respecting the impact Wikipedia can have on real people's lives and being duly sensitive of that; in the case of the recently deceased (e.g. Jerry Falwell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)) defamatory edits can be more harmful than to the living, coming as they do at a time of immense emotional distress. And trust me, I speak here from personal experience of just how gut-wrenchingly awful a careless or malicious comment on websites can be to the family of a recently deceased individual. Endorsing an approach of "hurrah, X is dead, now we can put the boot in" is probably the single worst idea I have seen in this case. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the current wording is very clearly talking about living persons, and several of the articles deleted were of people that died three years ago. Obviously we still apply the principle to the recently deceased but how do we measure "recent"? Are we therefore saying that "living persons" refers to people that were alive at some point? If so then we need to alter the policy. violet/riga (t) 08:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not true. Dead people can still be libeled. Sean William @ 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not under U.S. law they can't. *** Crotalus *** 00:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, articles on the recently dead may still hurt the living, making the policy germaine. Phil Sandifer 20:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per JzG. FCYTravis 21:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per [19]. — CharlotteWebb 22:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose BLP is partly about good taste and not causing distress to living people who may be hurt by our articles. Obviously, BLP doesn't apply to Nero or Elizabeth I of England (though NPOV and NOR still do). But the principle behind it should certainly apply to recently-deceased people, and we should be mindful of the possible distress of bereaved relatives if we engage in a tabloid-style free-for-all as soon as someone dies. ElinorD (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Paradoxically, I think it may well apply to the recently deceased, in that such cases should be approached with care for the feelings of the living survivors, particularly their children, wives, husbands, siblings and parents. --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth rethinking the Tron (hacker) controversy from a while back (see that article's talk page). 75.62.6.237 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP was created for legal reasons not for ethical ones. It was later rationalized by Jimbo that it exists for moral reasons. It should be obvious that this would be unworkable for deceased infamous people (i.e. Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, etc.). The policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V should be sufficient for dead people. —M (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Dead People can be libeled and can have living relatives with attorneys and lots of money. "Undue Influence" is a valid tort here, as well as Invasion of Privacy. Successors of their estate can bring costly legal action under a variety of torts. WP:BLP applies to not only living persons, but deceased users who may have living heirs or executors. The same rules should apply to both. If they have been deceased for over 50 years, I think the liabilities may be a lot lesss. Whether deceased or not, their Children or anyone else with a first degree of relationship may have valid claims for defamatory materials or invasion of privacy torts. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is something to be said for the idea of renaming BLP, for reasons above and because it reaches into non-biography articles. 75.62.6.237 04:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Apply it to the dead means that any one admin can force the removal; of an article about anybody, and, under the opinion above, about anything. The controversies that have already arisen show that this will not always meet with general approval and will be used when not appropriate. Absolutely wrong to extend already overextended arbitrary power. I take this proposal as proof that the original BLP proposal will be misused. DGG 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If somebody does something you disagree with, it doesn't mean he's "forcing" it. All actions are reversible. Recent reviewed have confirmed repeatedly that there is a consensus on Wikipedia for removal of very harmful articles. --Tony Sidaway 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No rush to undelete

27) With a few exceptions, Wikipedia does not suffer greatly if an article is 'missing' for a while.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This fits with one of my basic Wikipedia principles: "What's your goddamn hurry?" --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree that this fits with the thinking behind the BLP policy. FloNight 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed: it seems to me what lies behind wheel wars is the notion that if something is, in someone's opinion, wrongly deleted, that the deletion must be reversed IMMEDIATELY. Generally, that's untrue. If George Bush or the mainpage go red, that's different. But if some marginally notable biography, or internet meme is deleted, there's not great rush. Put a note of query on the deleter's talk page, wait for an answer (it might be something you have not though of) discuss it with others. If there's no resolution, then head to DRV. Keep cool. Libellous articles may need killed ASAP, bad blocks may need lifted swiftly, a redlink for a bit does no real harm.--Doc^g 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But apparently it can be harmed by having a discussion on an article already deleted remain open for a time? I assume you believe so by your multiple speedy closes. Milto LOL pia 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"What's your goddamn hurry?" What's your goddamn hurry to delete it? Will removing the article suddenly bring Google to a standstill and mean that the subject cannot be found at all? Not a chance - mirrors and our web sources are all high on the list. When there is doubt about deleting a biographical which is not defamatory in any way and is fully sourced it should not be speedied. violet/riga (t) 08:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The difference is there's no danger George W. Bush or the main page will be accidentally forgotten about. Judging by Special:Log/delete there have been about 4,000 pages deleted or undeleted in the last 24 hours and I have no clue what percentage of them were so bad they needed it. You said "for a while" which I assume means you are referring to the more classical type of BLP issues that can actually, in your opinion, be remedied. Ones where "an immaculate article about this person would be the best result" as opposed to other cases where you feel "no article should exist, regardless of its quality". I realize bad articles can be very slow to improve, but keeping them deleted in the mean time will make that process slower and less likely to ever happen. — CharlotteWebb 22:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If a topic is of such marginal significance that it is simply forgotten about after a few days, isn't that indeed a good indicator that it wasn't encyclopedic? Nandesuka 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that is a poor indicator. A good indicator would need to take the quality of content into account. — CharlotteWebb 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of "a few" . I would suggest modifying this to say an article on a subject of minor importance/notability. FrozenPurpleCube 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! It's still in Wikipedia, but our servers aren't serving it because there are unresolved doubts about its suitability. This is normal practice on nearly all websites. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, most web sites have a finite amount of content and are significantly less... busy. That is why I'm worried that there will be sharply diminishing returns on content that is "temporarily" deleted due to problems that could be easily be remedied editorially, such as negative tone and sparse referencing; often sources can be found which support the bulk of statements as true, but the author for some reason failed to cite them. The other type of problem is an article which is considered "beyond help" because it invades a reasonable definition of the subject's privacy. I think it's an unfortunate mistake that these two scenarios are conflated into one policy page. As long as the same three-letter acronym is used as a deletion reason for all of these situations, how is the average user supposed to know which is which? — CharlotteWebb 04:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See my comments on the "Enforcing BLP" principle. But the general principle is valid: there is no rush to undelete. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure! There's no rush. Of course, this goes both ways. There's also no rush to delete articles if they can be easily remedied (by, for instance, blanking most of its content). There's also no rush to end discussion about a particular deletion. Still, I support the general principle. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No rush to delete

28) With a few exceptions, Wikipedia does not suffer greatly if an article remains on the site for a while during a discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Oh, I dunno; every day a piece of crap is on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is weakened. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, this runs contrary to the idea behind BLP policy. FloNight 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Our policies handle situations where we must be rid of articles quickly. In the situation such as this and the recent deletions noted at the evidence page, these articles have remained in place in an unproblematic state for, in many cases, years. To simply delete them suddenly without discussion, when they are well-sourced, not negative in tone, and meet all relevant standards, is a slap in the face to all contributors. There's no hurry in either direction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Especially when the article is over three years old, mirrored across the net, and all the other non-mirror hits on the first page of Google are news sites fully detailing the person/event. violet/riga (t) 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally agree. But there is always more potential for harm in having a bad article, than having no article at all.--Doc^g 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed; the exceptions should be cases where the article, by its very existence, has immediate potential for harm to the subject (i.e. not cases where the perceived harm stems from the longevity and prominence of the article rather than actual libellous, defamatory or privacy-violating content). It makes it very hard for non-administrators to disagree with a "sort-of-BLP" deletion if the article history is inaccessible. --YFB ¿ 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I largely disagree. Most of our articles are seen by few people. Temporary gaps in our coverage, with few exceptions, are not that big a deal. Phil Sandifer 22:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Editing out the offending portions should always be the first (and most urgent) step. Sometimes it's as simple as reverting the most recent edit. From there, see what's left and whether it's salvageable. IF nothing, THEN delete. Otherwise, do make sure all remaining all content is properly referenced and presented in a neutral manner. Recruit some fellow editors to help keep an eye on it when you're asleep. — CharlotteWebb 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this, except I would point out that those exceptions are very important. FrozenPurpleCube 01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If Biographies of living persons (BLP) is cited by a deleting administrator, it means that at least one trusted Wikipedian believes that the article has a strong potential for harm. It's a way to say "whoa! somebody could get hurt here!"

If he's always doing this for no reason, he shouldn't be an admin and you can take him through dispute resolution if he won't stop. On the other hand, our admins seem to be alarmingly good at working out what is and isn't deletable crap. I should know, I used to root through the logs to find speedied stuff that shouldn't be, and I looked at many, many thousands of deleted article histories without finding much that I thought belonged here. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Utterly agree. This is part of what sparked off this shitstorm Viridae^Talk 07:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim is true but useless, because of "with a few exceptions". The few exceptions are concentrated in the specific area of already-flagged problematic BLP's, the area under discussion. Those articles are far more likely to be among the exceptionally disreputable ones that need urgent deletion, than an equivalent-sized random sampling of general Wikipedia articles are likely to be among the exceptionally important ones that need urgent retention. 75.62.6.237 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree in general and as applied to the case here. Obviously, if an article is a legal liability issue (copyright infringement, unsourced or badly sourced negative material) it needs gone as of right now. But if the concern is ethics of having an article that is well-sourced (and therefore not potentially libelous), we can certainly take a few days to have an open and frank discussion on the matter, rather than "I know what's ethical, and anyone who disagrees with me does not, so let me hit the delete button here." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree in general and as applied to the cases under consideration in this arbitration. In most cases, leaving an article an extra 5 days is not going to make any difference ... well, it might help avoid an arbitration case. If there is any BLP problem, consider just removing the problematic content instead of deleting the article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

every day an important article is not on WP, the encyclopedia is weaker than it should be. Every time an article is removed without adequate reaspon, trust in the NPOV of WP as a whole is lessened. DGG 22:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of WP:BLP deletions

29) If any editor believes an deletion performed under WP:BLP may be improper, the first step should be to ask the deleting admin for a rationale, and await an answer.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree. Undeletion of articles citing BLP without discussion is usually improper. Admins that do this risk sanctions or desyopping. FloNight 23:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Again, stop rushing to DRV or worse undeletion. The admin may have a reason that the contester is not aware of. Actually, assuming good faith, means that you should consider that your judgement may be wrong and the other party's correct. You may have missed something.--Doc^g 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this. As a matter of courtesy, all deletion challenges should at least be discussed first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hmm, while it's often a nice courtesy to talk to another person first, I don't believe that it needs to be enshrined as the first step. FrozenPurpleCube 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is already part of Wikipedia policy concerning deletions:

"If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page."

Although sadly this is more honored in the neglect than the observance. The arbitration committee should recommend that this important part of the deletion policy is observed. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch by Tony. 75.62.6.237 06:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I think this especially important in the case of biographies of living persons, I have added a new section to the Biographies of living persons policy.

Disputed deletions

When a page is deleted by an administrator citing this policy, other administrators should beware of reverting it if they disagree. Always consult the deleting administrator first if this is at all possible, because he may be aware of issues of which you are not. Deleting administrators should fully explain all deletions on request. Where appropriate, disputes should be taken to Deletion review

It seems to have been well received. It's really just a commonsense recommendation. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we want to encourage BLP deletions that aren't self-explanatory, though? We've seen both deletions and undeletions that were undiscussed and un- or under- justified in edit summaries. Both sides of this are bad for the project. Georgewilliamherbert 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes BLP deletions will not be self-explanatory. I can say "WP:BLP, serious defamation, no valid version" but I cannot say "WP:BLP, all versions say he embezzled from his former employer." --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. An excellent addition by Tony to the BLP policy. On a side note, I think this should be a first step for any deletion, whether it is related to BLP or not, unless the deletion was obviously out-of-process (e.g., deleting a featured article or the main page). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewing WP:BLP deletions

29.1) Administrators who dispute a deletion of a page where the Biographies of living persons policy has been cited by the deleting administrator should beware of reversing the deletion before contacting the deleting administrator. The deleting admin should be willing to explain the deletion to other admins, by email if the material is sensitive. Administrators who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. If the deleting admin doesn't agree to restoration, the dispute can be taken, if appropriate, to Deletion review. However public discussion of sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if the material is negative, should be avoided, so it may be better to ask other administrators to review the deletion and decide together whether to undelete.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is an elaboration of my thoughts, after some considerable discussion of the question of disputed deletions on the talk page of the BLP. There seems to be a considerable lack of imagination on the part of some administrators when faced with a deletion they don't like. The feeling is that if they don't restore then there is no alternative. The alternative is to review the deletion, in private conclave if necessary, unless a consensus arises that the deletion is suitable for public review. --Tony Sidaway 03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss the issue, not the action

30) If an action of yours (administrative or otherwise) has been reversed, it is more productive to discuss the actual issue straight away, rather than insisting on self-reversion before any further discussion can take place or bickering about whether or not the reversal was an act of wheel-/edit-warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No, this undermines the spirit of BLP that empowers admins to delete problematic material about living persons and users not be held to 3RR policy for repeatedly removing such material. FloNight 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Not helpful. There is a very important issue in ensuring admins understand they must not undelete BLP deletions without discussion. That isn't just a squabble on a point of process, it is critical. In undeleting a BLP deletion you may be recreating a libel you've missed - it is absolutely basic that you ask the deleting admin for comment before jumping on the tools. If I went on a bit it was because of that. The action was the issue.--Doc^g 22:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, based particularly on the discourse between Doc glasgow, violetriga and others regarding violetriga's undeletions. If anyone can think of a better title for this, feel free. --YFB ¿ 20:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, hence my continued "please talk about the issue" comments to Doc glasgow in response to his refusal to discuss it. violet/riga (t) 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The squabbling over "it was wheel-warring/no it wasn't" is not helpful. Friday (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't regard a bad deletion as disruptive because it can be discussed and then reversed if necessary, whereas wheel warring is regarded as one of the most serious forms of disruption. It follows that the substantive issue in such a case is the undiscussed reversal, and this should take precedence in subsequent discussions. A request to undo an undiscussed reversal should not just be brushed aside. --Tony Sidaway 04:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic human dignity

31) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some notes. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

True. FloNight 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Nothing wrong with this in theory. However, we should not strive for a greater sense of dignity than our subjects pursue themselves - to go after articles on self-promoting entities because we believe them to be in poor taste when those subjects participate is not good practice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Absolutely...we are not a tabloid.--MONGO 21:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Primum non nocere. Sean William @ 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse; consonant with my own remarks on various other pages, although Kirill, as usual, is more succinct than I. Newyorkbrad 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per all above. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"We make the internet not suck." --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Because others (even reliable sources) have repeated it, doesn't mean wikipedia does. Wikipedia need not become the least common denominator of information. wikipedia standards of publishing should strive to exceed the standards of any given source of information and not fall to the lowest standards. --Tbeatty 08:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. However, this does not apply in most of the cases of deletion as they were/are not disparaging to their subjects. violet/riga (t) 08:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I imagine it's possible to add to people's distress without disparaging them. Say you're a fairly ordinary, perhaps shy person. Your daughter is murdered, and then, in addition to the anguish that causes, you find that when you walk through the street, people start gawking at you. You're in a public place, buying an ice cream for your remaining child, and a photographer suddenly snaps you. You come out of your front door, and a journalist sticks a microphone in front of you and says, "Mrs. X, how are you bearing up?" You switch on the television, and you see your grief being exploited for the entertainment of the masses. Wikipedia editors should not engage in any parading of victims or any unnecessary intrusion of the privacy of ordinary people who became notable because of someone else's crimes. ElinorD (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's all true, but articles cannot be speedy deleted because of this. There should be discussions as to the encyclopedic worth of the article. I'm sure many people would want to totally forget about something bad that happened or that they did, but it does not mean that it should be removed from history if it is notable. violet/riga (t) 08:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it my comments above show that I endorse this principle. ElinorD (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. 75.62.6.237 04:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but this is already covered by CSD G10, so I don't see that it is especially relevant to this arbitration. Of course, interpretations of something as subjective as "basic human dignity" should never be used to override consensus or to bypass discussion. As a general principle, I support it. As a tool to gain advantage in disputes, I strongly oppose it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do no harm

32) The humanitarian goals of Wikipedia and the principles of its founder are incompatible with an amoral, "anything goes" approach to the potential for harm inherent in its open editing philosophy. The correct balance must always be sought, and the highest ethical standards are an important part of Wikipedia's ultimate goal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong support. And this is not an invitation to Arbcom to 'create policy'. It is an invitation to Arbcom to remind the community of the way things are. This is foundation policy and the Wikipedia world-view. No consensus in the community to do things in violation of this is possible.--Doc^g 09:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. But this is simply another empty proposal in the context of this dispute among others. I know of no one involved who's attempting to do harm. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Please fix the wording if you can do so by minor tweaks that retain meaning, or else propose an alternative. I'm trying to delineate the motivation for an ethical dimension to policy in our ultimate humanitarian goals. Even well sourced public information can cause more harm if presented out of context or given undue weight. --Tony Sidaway 07:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's humanitarian aims are amply demonstrated in the statment on the front page of Wikimedia's website:

The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge [20] --Tony Sidaway 08:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously well beyond the appropriate scope of this RfAr (ArbCom does not make policy, to say nothing of broad principle-articulating pronouncements), but inasmuch as that's an objection that will have to be levelled against all save three or four principles proposed here, I suppose one ought to consider this on its merits. It is not at all clear that there is a consensus for this view, and so it ought surely not to be adopted by the Committee as reflective of the stance of the community. Do no harm as codified in BLP has been in effect for a relatively insignificant amount of time, and strident debate about the proper breadth in which we ought to interpret do no harm is ubiquitous; to conclude that the question is well settled within the community (since ArbCom is asked here, I gather, to draw a descriptive conclusion about where a consensus for the operation of the project lies) would be erroneous. Whatever may be Jimbo's views on whether ours is at its heart a humanitarian project or whatever may have been the genesis of the project is altogether irrelevant to our present inquiry; this is a wiki, after all, and (essentially) nothing is immutable. I don't believe, though, that there has ever been a consensus for the view that this is predominantly a humanitarian project and that those partaking of it do so for humantiarian purposes. I edit (a) in order to create content that will encourage other individuals to edit and contribute content that will be of interest to me and (b) in order to provide myself some light intellectual stimulation, and I believe the majority of users hold some variants of those as their primary motivations for editing. Even if one images that our purpose is exclusively humanitarian, it must be observed that a particularized, discrete, and discernible harm to a specific individual cannot categorically be understood as more pernicious than a generalized, less palable harm to our prospective readership (even assuming that we ought to be concerned that our writing about an individual notable only in view of his/her bein raped, for instance, will cause or has caused significant harm to that subject IRL, we must also be concerned that such an article might have been of interest to a certain portion of our readership, for whom it is suggested we understand we edit). Again, that there remains such dispute over these issues strongly counsels that the AC not involve itself here and continue to act to apply ministerially to specific situations policies and guidelines to which the community has formally or informally given its assent. Joe 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would take it further and say that bios should be written from a sympathetic point of view. And the decision to keep or remove bios should be done from that view as well. --Tbeatty 08:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not Arbcom's purview to change NPOV, that's a Foundation-level issue, whether that's for some articles or all. If you want that changed, you'd have to talk to Jimbo or the Foundation. That being said, I think that brings another dimension to this-an amoral approach is generally inappropriate for academic endeavors (there are ethical standards for every academic field that I can possibly think of, and I'd be quite scared to find out that there's one there are none for), but Wikipedia's humanitarian and ethical mission is also served only by being neutral and fact-based. Sometimes, that will mean we need to write an article on a bad thing that happened to a good person, even if that causes that person distress. In that case, the best thing we can do is ensure that the article is absolutely accurate and neutral in tone. If it's a marginally-notable person who really isn't all that necessary to cover in an encyclopedia anyway, we probably ought to delete it, but that's not always going to be the case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Support, though it's a little vague. Re Seraphimblade: NPOV is part of our ethic of responsibility to our readers, providing them with neutral and accurate information in our articles, with all significant viewpoints represented. BLP is part of our ethic of responsibility towards article subjects, avoiding causing them unnecessary injury or distress. Especially with less important subjects, NPOV can come into conflict with BLP, sometimes to the point where it's impossible for an article to satisfy both policies at the same time. When that happens, the necessary recourse is to delete the article, as took place with QZ. The current (i.e. nonexistent) state of the QZ article fully satisfies both policies. 75.62.6.237 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I realise that, by opposing this proposal, I may risk being painted as some kind of amoral pantomime villain. But I argue that Wikipedia's goals are not "humanitarian" - the purpose of Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias and reference works, is to provide an accurate, factual and neutral portrayal of how the world is, not how we think it should be. Terms such as "ethical", "decent", "dignity" and "kindness" are subjective, and therefore have no place in Wikipedia policy. What is inherently "right" from one editor's perspective is not necessarily so to another. I can tell you that I personally have never lost any sleep over the idea that a Chinese teenager, or anyone else, might be hurt or humiliated by their Wikipedia article. That's just how the world is, and we're not here to pursue a moral crusade. As I've said many times before, Wikipedia isn't here to be nice to people. Walton^Assistance! 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither are we here to encourage, promote and prolong harm to people. If we are, let me know and I'll quit now. FCYTravis 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Walton's pretty much hit it bang on the head. "an accurate, factual and neutral portrayal of how the world is, not how we think it should be". This wishy-washy vague "do no harm" mantra is a gross oversimplification and entirely unworkable. I'm sure Wikipedia is harming Shit eating Oaten's chances of a political career by including his sex scandal in his biography too. - hahnchen 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I get what Tony's trying to say, but I find myself agreeing with Jeff, Seraphimblade, and Walton. Under no circumstances should we sacrifice neutrality by trying to create the impression that every living person is holier than Mother Theresa. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly object. In the past few weeks several people have mistakenly attributed this credo to me. In my actual view, this maxim has considerable danger for misuse toward whitewashing and censorship. One undoubtedly good faith example has already appeared at my user talk page.[21] My actual view is ethical decisions where good people disagree should be placed in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. In other words, the subjects of WP:BLP articles deserve considerate weight when they make a request to have their article deleted. I consider it inappropriate - even arrogant - for Wikipedians to speculate how much supposed harm is or is not done in such circumstances. The logical consequence of a do no harm precept is to demand evidence of harm, which a BLP subject may prefer not to provide since the evidence and any onsite analysis of it could defeat the purpose of courtesy deletion (such disclosures and related analysis would be indexed on Google with a prominent page ranking). It's safe to conclude that silence from a BLP subject implies no objection; those who do object deserve to be treated with dignity. Durova^Charge! 06:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  Since posting the above I received an additional e-mail, which I am willing to forward to the Committee upon request, that advocated the proposed do no harm principle as policy basis for removing all mention of a famous vocalist from the list of converts to Christianity. This reinforces my very serious misgivings about a chilling effect. Durova^Charge! 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insensitivity

33) Editors who in the opinion of the Arbitration Committee fail to show due sensitivity in areas of policy where this is a prerequisite may be admonished to modify their behavior. If their behavior continues to cause concern they may ultimately be sanctioned as the Committee sees fit for the good of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Speaking as an editor, I hope that admins and other editors will show similar degrees of sensitivity while dealing with fellow editors, and I hope that this statement isn't designed to sanction just one part of the whole group involved in this mess without also sanctioning other folks involved in it for similar violations of the statement. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, this is probably a great admonishment for administrators and people who don't understand the policy to stop being disruptive and deleting/nominating for deletion articles that don't fit the bill. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. The problem here seems to be a failure to recognise that people can be harmed by the words we put on our site. --Tony Sidaway 07:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, sensitivity should be a fundamental human ethical value. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a tautology. Does it really need stating as an arb principle? 75.62.6.237 07:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no way we can arrive at a definition of what constitutes "due sensitivity". Editors are only required to abide by existing policies and aren't obligated to do anything beyond that. I also want to note that out-of-process deletions and closures can be viewed as "insensitive". -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badgering

34) Use of hostile rhetorical techniques such as badgering, repeatedly demanding an answer, and expressing incredulity, are unfortunate. While the occasional lapse is understandable in robust debate, habitual and deliberate use of such techniques may constitute chronic incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Observable in all parties to some extent, but the repeated badgering, after satisfactory explanations have been given, is worrying. Querulous challenging of comment after comment at deletion review is not compatible with maintaining a sober and deliberative atmosphere. --Tony Sidaway 07:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principle of implied consent

36) When considering inclusion of biographical articles, it is proper to consider the distinction between those who knowingly and deliberately choose to place themselves in a position which attracts attention, and those who do not. In the case of Daniel Brandt, given as an example by Jeff, the article subject is an adult who has chosen to engage in campaigning against a number of high profile websites, including Google and Wikipedia; he has sought to pursue this campaign through a variety of media. In the case of individuals such as Brian Peppers and Qian Zhijung the subjects were not willing parties to their exploitation, and may have been incompetent to give informed consent even had it been sought.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jeff keeps raising the Brandt case; I do not believe this parallel holds up. As a principle, the subjects are fundamentally different and our handling of them should be as well. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand the parallels. The only parallel to the Brandt case is the way that administrators seem to think they know better than anyone else as to what's appropriate, which is bad. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Brandt case there were just as many arbitrators and long-standing editors on both sides of the debate, and the debate hinged very much on this principle. In this case, most of the admins and long-standing editors were on the side of not including QZ, at least in the form of a biography, and this, too, hinged on precisely this principle. So perhaps you are the one mis-identifying the parallels? Guy (Help!) 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, no one's more weighted than anyone else here. You may be right in the case of Peppers in your analogy, but not of Zhijun. And no, I'm not misidentifying the parallels at all - there really aren't any outside of rampant abuse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you can't see the difference between someone who sets themselves up to attack Google, Yahoo and Wikipedia, and someone whose picture, taken without their knowledge or permission, is made an object of derision on the Internets. We'll just have to agree to differ on that. Guy (Help!) 06:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the difference, it's simply irrelevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think there's some tit-for-tat going on in the Brandt situation, since Brandt continues to attack Wikipedia and Wikipedia contributors in far more invasive ways than Wikipedia has every done to anyone (at least on purpose). "Live and let live" (one way to look at BLP) is one thing, unilateral disarmament when someone is actively trying to injure you is quite another. 75.62.6.237 20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

37) The Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research prohibits novel syntheses from published sources. Where an individual is covered by the sources solely in respect of a single incident, to present this as a biography of the individual is a violation of this policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a novel interpretation of the policy to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It's sort of vacuous that articles like that aren't really biographies. It probably describes 10,000's of articles about both living and nonliving people (defined as any article whose title is the person's name). Our article Jean Charles de Menezes is large and important; it is entirely a result of his getting shot into Swiss cheese by police while innocently trying to take the subway to work one morning, and has a "biography" section that's just a few paragraphs out of a much longer article. We won't accomplish anything if we start calling those articles "!biographies" (analagously to AFD !votes). I think these sorts of principles should stay with taking values to heart, rather than codifying what to do in zillions of different specific instances. See Charles Matthews law, WP:RAUL#Laws by others item 18. 75.62.6.237 06:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Kind of a stretch. Not a newspaper, not google, "Do no harm" and undue weight would seem to take care of most of the problem. Thatcher131 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Jeff. To present the news sources as "biographies" may constitute original research, but a short article on "John Doe" that focuses only on one event is still an article on John Doe. I'm not saying that such short articles should remain, but to present their creation as "original research" compromises the actual meaning of Wikipedia:No original research. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view

38) The Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contains a clause, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Where an individual is publicly known only in respect of a single incident, a biography based on sources related to that incident (rather than an article discussing the incident itself) violates this principle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But this does not mean that it can be speedy deleted on sight when a simple change to "an article discussing the incident itself" would be the correct option. violet/riga (t) 09:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Still novel. We write from sources - if most of the sources document a negative situation, we're require to write in a NPOV based on those sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Crystal Gail Mangum. Classic case. --Tony Sidaway 12:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See above Menezes example. 75.62.6.237 06:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Counterexamples - living: Elian Gonzales. John Hinckley, Jr.. Sara Jane Moore. ... Dead: Christa McAuliffe. Terri Schiavo. John Wilkes Booth. Charles J. Guiteau. Leon Czolgosz... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I have seen extensive biographical sources about both Booth and Schiavo, and I strongly dispute that the Gonzales custody incident should be treated as a biography. Guy (Help!) 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Schiavo was notable for exactly one thing. It's reasonable to claim that the current Gonzales article is in fact not a biography, but so what? Are you proposing retitling it and leaving the content pretty much the same? If yes, why not leave the title alone as well, since it's about events associated with Gonzales's name, but it doesn't seriously pretend to be about his life? If something else, maybe you could explain more clearly what you have in mind. 75.62.6.237 20:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And anyway, it really doesn't matter from a BLP point of view whether we call these articles biographies or not. What matters is what we say about people. 75.62.6.237 00:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Jeff's right - if someone is notable for one particular negative incident, and all the sources on them are about that incident, then obviously it's going to dominate their biography - as it should. "Undue weight" means that the coverage in the article should reflect the coverage in external sources, not our own opinion about what constitutes "fair" coverage of a person. Walton^{alternate account} 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem: what that actually means is almost certainly that the event is notable, but not the individual. we can't write a biography based on tidbits from the tabloids about one event. 80.176.82.42 21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The solution to this may lie addressing the Manual of Style, not BLP. The article about Elian Gonzales was (until recently) at Elian Gonzales because that is the most reasonable point of entry for readers. Certainly, we could (and perhaps should) create a naming convention for these sorts of topics (I personally strongly object to having murder articles, including the victims' information, under the murderer's name). But right now, we don't have such an advisement; as a result, there is currently no safe presumption that an article titled with a person's name is, strictly speaking, a biography. And irrespective of the final names of these article, redirects will be needed. Serpent's Choice 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy

39) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per remedies/fof's so far talking about civility problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilawyering is harmful to the encyclopedia

40) Wikilawyering, in the sense of abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit, is poisonous to the work of building the encyclopedia and should be strongly discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikilawyering, as a principle, is quite rightly simply an essay and does not enjoy wide support. DRV, being about process, may lend itself to such accusations of "wikilawyering." The intent, however, as detailed below, is based on a false premise - while I would never say I've never done it, I can't recall a situation where I've raised a procedural objection for content I didn't think belonged here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sound principle. Among our first ever rules was "ignore all rules"; it is clear from that and from so many other cues that Wikipedia is supposed to run on Clue, not on slavish devotion to rules. We are supposed to exercise judgement, not build a vast monolithic bureaucracy. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think bdj or I are arguing for slavish devotion to rules. I'm personally arguing for compassionate devotion to rules, in that I think the rules help protect us all from escalations of social issues like this one. When the community is this big, just going on clue and common sense will reliably cleave the community into smaller cliques who share the same sets of clue and common sense and will reveal the deep seated divisions you have between those cliques. My experience says your best and only option to avoid unpleasantness like this current issue is to compassionately devote yourself to following the rules everybody knows, not just the ones that exist in your head and heart. Until universal telepathy happens, you and I simply will not understand the other's position fully. The rules act like a neutral compromise area that we can all agree on and all rely on, if everyone agrees to play by them. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I believe this is self-evident, and strongly relevant to this case given Jeff's ongoing behavior on WP:DRV, where he raises procedural objections to articles that no one believes belong in the encyclopedia for any non-procedural reason. Nandesuka 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't concur with this as written, since this will likely lead to people just using it to attack others. In any case, some people will say that violating the policy is violating the spirit, where others see following the process as an important part of keeping the spirit and avoiding suspect judgments. There's just too much room for disagreement and misinterpretation here. FrozenPurpleCube 21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The principle is correct but I'm not sure what specific evidence in this arb case it's supposed to be connected to. 75.62.6.237 07:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A finding on this isn't necessary. Wikilawyering is only damaging when it's an attempt to excuse some damaging activity or to prevent beneficial activity. In such cases the rules are bent into unusual shapes or an exceptionally rigid interpretation is insisted upon, but the underlying problem should be addressed rather than the symptoms. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"wikilawyering" is inherently an accusation of bad faith. Invoking it in the decision is not going to be helpful. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to tag all Jeff's usage of claiming things to be improper etc. also as inherrently an accustation of bad faith. Suggesting that in a dispute trying to skirt the issues and avoid mentioning other peoples perceptions of the parties actions (just in case it's perceived as an accusation of bad faith) seems more likely to be unhelpful. Besides this is a general principle, acting in bad faith would in itself seem to be unwelcome here, so I'm not sure of the objection. If in the findings of fact someone is believed to have been wikilawyering and that is backed up by the evidence then I guess by your understanding that means they were acting in bad faith. --pgk 10:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. As Jeff points out, WP:LAWYER is an essay, not a policy. It's a term that's often used unfairly; following policy and process is not a bad thing, and it's unfortunate that so many admins use IAR to circumvent consultation, then slam anyone who disagrees with them as a Wikilawyer. Unfortunately, "ignore process" all too often means "ignore other people's opinions". Walton^{alternate account} 13:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - AGF. Georgewilliamherbert 01:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an acceptable principle. Yes, Wiki-lawyering is harmful, but any debate about whether or not Jeff is guilty of it belongs in a different section, as a "finding of fact". — CharlotteWebb 09:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per FrozenPurpleCube. Wikilawyering is something that we should prevent ourselves from doing. It shouldn't be an accusation against the actions of others as it assumes bad faith ... maybe there just is a genuine disagreement as to the "spirit" of a policy or guideline. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

40.1) WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, part of a policy, states "Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Consensus based discussion? Yes, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. 75.62.6.237 20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Disrupt Wikipedia To Make A Point

41) Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (even a noble point) is impermissible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Judging by the commentary below, it appears that challenging improper deletions is considered disruptive by some. This should be rejected outright. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing that the principle "Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is impermissible" should be rejected outright? Seriously?

Reasonable people can disagree on whether your behavior is disruptive or not; that can be discussed in the findings of fact. It seems to me, though, that as a principle, this is utterly beyond dispute. Your alternative versions, while amusing, attempt to roll up findings of fact into the principles, and are thus not really terribly useful. In my opinion. Nandesuka 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that it appears that this point here is being proposed to make a point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that every principle being proposed here is being proposed to make a point. It is only when the way one makes a point is disruptive that it becomes a problem. Nandesuka 02:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd hope not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Slavish devotion" (per JzG's wording above) to WP:POINT can sometimes serve to disenfranchise (or leave them without a voice, if not a "vote") editors who find they have no other recourse. On Wikipedia, where simply following the rules is counted against you if you do it too often or for too long, it can be nearly impossible to find a consensus-supported (i.e. valid) path through the bureaucracy to get a real answer to your questions about, for instance, deletions that the admins think are self explanatory. The simple act of asking (per my initial conversations with Slim Virgin and later my DRV for Darvon Cocktail not so long ago) can stimulate completely unexpected hostility from folks who, upon taking the office of admin have actually promised in one way or another to be supportive and not bite the newbies. If you want to retain folks devoted enough to read policy and interpret it on their own in the community, you'll want to give them some way that they can effectively navigate the procedure without feeling like they got slapped for their care and trouble. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT is meant to target those who, in anger over something, set about an attempt to parody the decision by doing something which they know is wrong. For instance, at the risk of spilling the beans, a WP:POINT reaction to these deletions would be to delete George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy and Vladimir Putin, citing "WP:BLP concerns" as the reason. This is something different, Jeff truly and sincerely believes that some of the articles which were recently deleted ought not to be deleted, and should be restored with a full discussion, and he has not started disrupting other parts of the encyclopedia to illustrate anything. While you might argue that the DRV nominations are irritating, annoying, etc. (I would not argue that, I find the whole thing more distressing than anything else), they do reflect Jeff's serious opinion, he is arguing for what he does want done, and as such WP:POINT is one thing I think he has not violated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Obviously, Jeff doesn't feel that his war of attrition on DRV, constantly nominating completely hopeless cases over a long period of time, is disruptive. Just as obviously, others feel that his behavior is disruptive, and that many of his nominations are made in bad faith; that is to say that they are only made because of some love of procedure rather than a good faith belief that the content is valuable to the encyclopedia. Nandesuka 15:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sense of this, but it could be put better. The guideline you cite here is about people who conduct breaching experiments--for instance demonstrating the problems of a proposed or existing policy by "following it through to its logical (and absurd) conclusion." Any disruption Jeff may be engaged in is not of that type, but rather a result of a sincere belief that his actions are not disruptive in any way and that, moreover, he's doing the best thing for Wikipedia. His evidence section is very much an apologia for his actions and demonstrates his sincerity.

Of course it's also usually wrong to disrupt Wikipedia to achieve a desirable end, or at least to fail to take reasonable steps to minimise avoidable disruption, both before and after a potentially disruptive action. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT is meant to target those who, in anger over something, set about an attempt to parody the decision by doing something which they know is wrong. For instance, at the risk of spilling the beans, a WP:POINT reaction to these deletions would be to delete George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy and Vladimir Putin, citing "WP:BLP concerns" as the reason. This is something different, Jeff truly and sincerely believes that some of the articles which were recently deleted ought not to be deleted, and should be restored with a full discussion, and he has not started disrupting other parts of the encyclopedia to illustrate anything. While you might argue that the DRV nominations are irritating, annoying, etc. (I would not argue that, I find the whole thing more distressing than anything else), they do reflect Jeff's serious opinion, he is arguing for what he does want done, and as such WP:POINT is one thing I think he has not violated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT and DRV

41.1) Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is harmful to the project. Good faith challenges to administrative action are not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as one alternative to above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Of course depends on what 'good faith' means. And, I think it is, in fact, possible to be disruptive even if you are attempting to act in good faith.--Doc^g 23:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Support per my comment above. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Requires a finding of fact to support, and is incorrect to boot. Some of our most disruptive banned users were acting in what they thought was the most sincere good faith. Prefer the much simpler, and more accurate, principle 41. Nandesuka 02:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated non-success of one's good faith challenges to other user's actions is a sign of persistent bad judgement in choosing what to challenge. The remedy is to leave such challenges to other users for a while. 75.62.6.237 07:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT and deletions

41.2) Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is harmful to the project. Out of process deletions regarding articles that clearly do not meet the criteria are often disruptive, and cause more problems than they would if the proper actions were taken instead.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as one alternative to above. What was more disruptive - the challenges to the speedy deletions, or the speedy deletions that caused the challenges? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Of course disruption is harmful. Of course not following 'the proper action' can cause problems and can be (and sometimes is) disruptive. But deleting 'our of process' (whatever that's supposed to mean) may well indeed be the 'proper action'. Policy, good judgement and common sense are much more valuable than process. As much as Jeff hates it, policy says: "If the rules prevent you improving the encyclopedia, ignore them".--Doc^g 00:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Begging the question. Guy (Help!) 06:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yeah agree with this one. Viridae^Talk 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Out of process deletions...cause more problems than they would if..." is a finding of fact, not a principle. Prefer the much simpler (and more accurate) principle 41. Nandesuka 02:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Support, with a slight modification: replace "often" with "usually". Out-of-process actions on controversial issues for the sake of "saving time" or putting "product over process" often backfire and end up consuming a lot more time. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Precedential value

42) Statements of principles by the Arbitration Committee summarize and clarify extant policy consistent with the consensus of the community. Such statements ought not to be relied upon when the community has made substantial changes to the letter or spirit of the policy or policies underlying those statements.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Because so many of the proposed principles here advance (properly or not) rather broad understandings of the spirit of BLP and NOT, it is likely that they will be applied rather broadly in the future to guide us relative to controversial issues. The community might later decide, though, that the do no harm ethical spirit that some suggest is inherent in BLP, for instance, is inappropriate and might return BLP to a much less restrictive form (I'm sure some see this as exceedingly unlikely, but it can't hurt to accept it as a possibility); it is important that we make clear that, inasmuch as this is a wiki and (almost) nothing is immutable and inasmuch as ArbCom does not act to make policy, any significant changes to BLP (or any other policy, to be sure) render certain descriptive statements of principle without force, lest editors should subsequently wield them as controlling pronouncements. Separately, If someone can conceive of a better title for this one (which I can't imagine should be very hard), he or she should of course feel free to substitute it for mine. Joe 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No harm in using arbitration rulings as guidance, but they're not gospel. Of course the same can be said about written policy, which is why the committee often has to draft its own interpretations. --Tony Sidaway 03:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary principle. No binding decisions is already policy. (Heh, it got turned to a redirect). 75.62.6.237 07:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's true, but NBD doesn't really apply precisely to ArbCom rulings, which are generally understood as binding and final. NBD principally concerns itself with the fiundamental principle that consensus governs our work here and that consensus can change, but since an ArbCom ruling is agreed to only by arbitrators, consensus hasn't really changed until a ruling has been explicity overruled; if underlying policy changes, though, a ruling ought not to be understood as retaining force. I raise it as necessary because many of the questions the Committee is urged to reach here are broad, and I can easily foresee a scenario in which, for instance, the community might decide to narrow the scope of BLP/do no harm, rendering conclusions drawn here about the nature of BLP out-of-date, and in which other editors might then object, arguing that the ArbCom, for instance, has ruled that our first imperative is to do no harm, even if the community has acceded to policy changes to the contrary. 68.248.229.154 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (That was me, not logged in for some reason. Joe 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

I've always taken NBD applied to arb cases to simply mean there that is no obligatory stare decisis from one case to another, which I think is what you are saying with this proposed principle. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration policy which says similar things. 75.62.6.237 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not precisely what I mean. I don't think there is any question that the ArbCom need never be bound by a previous ruling (although it can surely cite a case it thinks to have been rightly decided in disposing of a similar case), but I think there may be a question (at least in the minds of some) over whether the community need be bound by an ArbCom case that interprets policy that the community have elected to change. To be entirely clear, I envision that there may come a time in the future when the community think us to have gone too far on the BLP issue and might narrow the scope of BLP, and I fear that in such a circumstance other editors may say oh, but the ArbCom said that do no harm is paramount, contrary, of course, to the idea that ArbCom does not make policy and only interprets and applies that policy to which the community has given its assent (a real-world situation, for instance, would be one in which the United States Supreme Court interprets an act of the United States Congress and the Congress, either disapproving of that interpretation or determining the original act to have been wrong, rewrites the underlying legislation). Joe 21:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review is a discussion, not a vote

43) In closing deletion reviews, administrators are encouraged to ignore the results of votes, and to listen to thoughtful discussions. Relevant arguments should be considered by the closing administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Deletion review only recently became a discussion, and even then, there has been significant resistance to any change at DRV. And, it's worth noting, if DRV was actually handled like a discussion, we wouldn't be here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It always was, in practice, in that any closer of any debate on Wikipedia has always been able to ignore "votes" which are stupid or irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at DRV. --badlydrawnjefftalk 20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I do. Paticuarly because DRV is not abotu content. Viridae^Talk 23:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the strength and weight of the arguments, look at policy, consider the content - screw the rest.--Doc^g 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From Jimmy Wales' edit summary in this edit in which he removed the clause "after which the earlier process is overturned if a majority of qualified votes so indicate." To date, no objections to this change have been registered on the talk page, and it has not been reverted (the page is now protected over a separate dispute). --Tony Sidaway 12:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Occurs to me that in its current form this is actually a proposed principle. I'll leave the move up to the clerks. --Tony Sidaway 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I think that the determining factor is that this proposal would proscribe policy, rather than merely describing a state of affairs. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the wording here. Deletion reviews aren't a just a vote, but the numbers mean something and should not simply be "ignored." Mangojuice^talk 17:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All "votes" should be ignored. Sensible, sober arguments should be considered, and the closing administrator must decide whether a deletion was consistent with the totality and sense of Wikipedia policy. The recent change in deletion policy was made avowedly to thwart the vote packing. --Tony Sidaway

Mine is a wording objection. I agree that comments that are merely votes are very weak arguments and don't add much. I agree that the reasons given are more important, and that DRV is not a vote. But "encouraged to ignore the results of votes" is very strong wording, especially if embraced by ArbCom, implying that consensus is irrelevant on DRV, which really isn't the case. Consensus is not the only issue, but it is relevant. Mangojuice^talk 11:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. — CharlotteWebb 00:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, although this is *way* too vague to be useful in practice. I don't quite understand what is meant by "ignore the results of votes" and I forsee problems with determining what constitutes a "sensible" or "thoughtful" argument. I think my position is best expressed by Doc and Mangojuice: evaluate arguments in context of existing policy, but keep in mind that you may be wrong; don't just ignore 20 editors because you disagree with their interpretation of policy. Ultimately, the consensus reached is what matters, not one's own thoughts on the matter. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obduracy is harmful

44) Repeatedly insisting on a given outcome in the face of widespread reasoned opposition is harmful and disruptive. It is preferable to seek a compromise. Thus: "A biography of X is problematic; I consider X is notable due to Y event; can we document Y event without insisting on doing so as a biography of X?"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Oh I know it won't fly but this really is the root of the QZ problem. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the root of the QZ problem is the continued attempts (and this is another one) of the unwilingness of certain administrators to a) disallow discussion on articles some deem problematic, and b) make damn sure that the article that some deem problematic never see the light of day. That's what's disruptive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Provably false. The RFC was allowed to go ahead, and comments there made it clear that a distinction is drawn between the meme and the person; the meme is also currently included in List of Internet phenomena. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bull. The RfC went ahead because it had to - the problematic admins weren't that dumb to kill an RfC about it knowing that Arbcom would be the next step otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• And the reason it had to go ahead was the obduracy of those who refused to view it in any ocntext other than "we must / must not have an article on QZ". Which is rather the point I was making. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

On the subject of the RFC, I think Jeff is badly misreading the situation. Jeff himself was extremely reluctant to start the RFC, despite being asked to do so by me, Drini, Stifle, Johnleemk. Mackensen and David Gerard, and he did so only when asked to by arbitrators who rejected his earlier application for arbitration, and even then described it as "a charade", with "zero value," a "song and dance" [22]. The RFC vindicated the position of the administrators: JzG's refutation of Jeff's case against the admins won 30 endorsements, and a move to have yet another rerun of the QZ deletion, which was Jeff's main goal, was roundly rejected. No, Jeff has forgotten: the admins wanted that RFC and he didn't want it. Jeff's wishes were rejected by the community. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary - I wanted the ArbCom case. The RfC was a means to an end, and the ArbCom case is here, so I got exactly what I wanted. And the RfC didn't really vindicate anything in either direction - it was as pointless and as wasteful a time as I expected, and it did not establish that the administrators in question interpreted policy correctly or anything else. So no, Tony, I haven't misread anything, and you seem to think things went in a direction they didn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence of your proposals here and your comments elsewhere is that what you wanted (and still want) is to force your preferred outcome, which is a "biography" of QZ. Compromises have been discussed, you have flatly refused to countenance any of them. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the opponents of the articles have certainly shown a wide variety of compromise ideas. Oh, wait, they haven't - they all involve being rid of the article entirely, or redirecting it to a place that doesn't make sense. Let's put it another way - you don't ask for compromise with people after you've belittled them and made wide attempts to tarnish their reputation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcing BLP

45) Any administrator, acting on their own judgement, 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 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 the policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Cut to the chase here; we must err on the side of caution when dealing with potential BLP violations. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The side of caution is not the side of lunacy. Deletion of a neutral, well-sourced biography on BLP concerns is not cautious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeeeeessssss--Doc^g 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The onus is always on the editor seeking to include content, to justify that content. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No its not allt he time. Had you per chance noticed that an afd the results in no consensus is kept? Viridae^Talk 12:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

An arb case can't decide it but maybe that practice should not apply to BLP's. 75.62.6.237 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Another note on this - the problem that caused this issue is that certain administrators simply have not shown an adequate ability to judge articles in the context of BLP. If this passes, it simply gives them an even greater charter to ingore policy in favor of articles that say things they don't like. Apply this in the context of Qian Zhijun - deleted even though it did not violate policy and evidence was provided to back that up. This doesn't work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This proposal approaches to the heart of the issue, once the proposals for desysoppings, civility paroles, and topic-bans (none of which should pass) are put to the side. It is not clear from the wording of the proposal, though, whether it addresses are the types of articles that the community is currently split upon. I think that at this point there is a firm consensus of administrators and serious users that articles that contain inadequately sourced negative or controversial allegations about a living person must be removed (or at least edited to delete the problematic material). The present case deals primarily, though not exclusively, with a different, though related and overlapping, class of article: articles that may be adequately sourced, but which publicize events that some of us do not feel should be given prominence, such as details of the lives of children who are crime victims or subjects of custody fights, people harassed by "Internet memes," and the like. The assertion is that in certain circumstances, article content can violate the spirit and the "do not harm" clause of BLP or allied policies even if adequately sourced and true. The core basket of questions here is when that rule is to be applied, and who decides, and how; and the principles and remedies in the decision in this case need to address that type of article as well. If articles that invade the privacy of otherwise non-notable people without sufficient encyclopedic purpose are included within what you are referring to as "the relevant policy," it would be good to make that explicit. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the ArbCom acts only to apply and enforce, rather than to write, policies and guidelines and interprets policy or restates the spirit ostensibly underlying policy only toward the former end and even then consistent with the consensus of the community, this principle would only be adopted in should one conclude that it accurately reflects the present state of BLP (even if the Committee thinks community consensus to be different from that which codified it policy, it is preferable, IAR notwithstanding, that the Committee and community treat policies as reflective of the considered judgment of the body of editorship until such time as they should be clearly edited or rejected); one cannot, of course, reach such conclusion, and so this would be a disfavored policy pronouncement from the Committee. There may, I observe rather sadly, be a consensus amongst the community for the proposition about which Brad writes (although I would suggest that this RfAr, for one, makes clear that there is no clear community consensus here), but it is does not follow that the community believe that those articles that are not unsourced or plainly and irredeemably POV should be deleted first and discussed second. There is a presumption, even relative to BLPs, against speedy deletion except where an article fits strictly under a specific criterion for speedy deletion and where there is unlikely to be dispute amongst the community about the applicability of a given criterion. IAR is generally understood as inapplicable to CSD, and until such time as a BLP-specific criterion to the effect of Kirill's suggestion is clearly adopted by the community, this principle should not be understood as in any way descriptive of extant policy. Joe 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If by "any previous version", you meant "all previous versions" I can almost agree with this. However it does not address the solution of creating a new, more responsible article from scratch. — CharlotteWebb 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that probably should be "every previous version" instead. Kirill Lokshin 11:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see what other arbitrators think of this, but it does seem to be moving in the right direction. But this is something to be used with caution and restraint (which in the current climate admittedly isn't easy). --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Tony on this point. A major problem with the feuding that has taken place in the past couple of weeks is that it has encouraged everyone to look at this problem as a stark matter of black-and-white: either one agrees that "bad" articles (for some value of "bad" beyond blatant BLP violations) must perforce be deleted instantly because "crap dies," or one points out that Wikipedia covers everything and that deletion and censorship are the enemies of a compendious free-content encyclopedia. My own (overlong) introspection on these issues, in the context of an actual pair of articles and with an effort to respond to concerns on both sides, is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 28#Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby and especially below the /Arbitrary section break. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad. My overall predisposition on these issues is well known, but in general, I find that neither side of these debates has even yet fully engaged the issues and concerns raised by the other, either in the deletion debates or on the policy pages or thus far in this arbitration. Newyorkbrad 03:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is too extreme, that type of deletion shouldn't happen unless the article is unreformable without a fundamental rewrite, or the article really has no business existing, or there's stuff in it so damaging that it can't remain in the history. Most commonly it's a legitimate article that has some bad stuff, and the fix is to remove the bad stuff through normal editing. 75.62.6.237 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense whatsoever. How are non-admins supposed to discuss the article at DRV if it's been deleted? If disputed, it should be restored and AfD'd. Walton^Assistance! 13:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as a universal no-exceptions policy. Merely tagging a deletion as BLP should not exclude it from a proper, reviewed and discussed undelete by another admin. Some deletions may require more caution - I suspect there are some we wouldn't want restored - but the universal policy is a bad idea. It also limits review discussion to those with the admin bit. Georgewilliamherbert 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. BLP is not a speedy deletion criterion, except as already covered by existing criteria: CSD.G10 (attack pages) and CSD.A7 (no assertion of notability) among them. In response to Guy, it's somewhat hard to try to justify content after it's been speedily deleted. There is absolutely nothing wrong with prodding articles or sending them to AfD. If a BLP contains objectionable material, delete that, but don't delete the whole article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcing BLP 2

45.1) Any administrator, acting on their own judgement, 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 the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with the policy. In case of controversy over a deletion, no administrator should either undelete or re-delete the article more than once. Any administrative action following the first deletion should be discussed with the original deleting administrator and announced on the WP:ANI noticeboard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert 01:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Misses the point. We don't want people arbitrarily overturning BLP deletions, and if they are overturned in this manner they may be redeleted unless and until consensus to undelete, on the basis of proof that the article complies with all relevant Wikipedia policies, is demonstrated. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't; there's plenty of pro and con discussion on wikien-l on both sides on this one. I disagree with your (and others) interpretations of BLP enforcement - it should be a "presumption of" not "absolute case of", at most, in my opinion. Absolute encourages sloppy and un-explained or un-justified BLP invocations, which are bad. Georgewilliamherbert 05:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcing BLP 3

45.2) Any administrator, acting on their own judgement, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) contains significant unsourced negative information ad described at the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means and should not be undeleted by any admin without a clear agreement from the previous admin that there is not a sourcing problem. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with the policy. Articles should not be speedily deleted in this manner if the contested content is reliably sourced. In such cases, it is best to go through the standard AFD procedure. If there is any doubt about the reliability of the sources in question, they should be assumed to be unreliable until demonstrated otherwise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. If the content isn't sourced there's no need to undelete under pretty much any circumstances. if the content is sourced we should throw it to the community as a whole. JoshuaZ 02:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure with presuming sources to be unreliable unless demonstrated otherwise, but this is better. Georgewilliamherbert 05:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

By treating BLP issues as solely a matter of sourcing, goes against the sense of current practice. The recent case of an article about a pole vaulter comes to mind. --Tony Sidaway 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's sourced, but still in violation of BLP elsewise, perhaps one should edit rather than deleting the whole thing. I don't want to set a "source it well and you can defame someone" policy in stone either, but I do want to make it clear that we should not be arbitrarily and without process deleting articles which are sourced and likely truthful. Changing something to not be libelous is a lot less controversial than nuking the article, and allows for more reasonable review of the specific problems. Georgewilliamherbert 17:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, The Stokke article wasn't closed as a BLP isse but a somewhat more complicated reasoning. Please read the close. Furthermore, this doesn't treat BLP as a matter solely of sourcing but makes unsourced different than sourced. As far as I can tell, this is a reasonable compromise and closest to both the spirit and letter of BLP. JoshuaZ 18:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for deletion

46) When requested, administrators should be able to cite the part of policy under which they made an administrative action. This includes WP:BLP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikilawyer's charter.--Doc^g 00:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

At no point despite multiple requests was the reason for QZs deletion under BLP stated - BLP is not a club to whack articles you don't like with. Viridae^Talk 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for deletion were, in fact, repeatedly given. They just didn't live up to the wikilawyers' wonking standards, so they dismissed them. Good grief, we debated this for eight days - you lost.--Doc^g 08:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the reasons given simply did not hold up to any sort of scrutiny. The only reason anyone "lost" was because those who wanted it deleted didn't allow anyone to discuss it. That's a great way to do things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Largely because despite multiple rebuttals of the deletion certain admins refused to indicate which part of WP:BLP QZ failed. Just saying "Its a BLP vio" did not help the situation, and caused problems. Also somewhat hampered attempts to provide a reasoned argument against the deletion because no one was quite sure under what rationale it had been deleted. Viridae^Talk 23:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A license for sterile wikilawyering. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, this means: if requested, admins should explain why they deleted an article beyond a broad "it violates policy". ... Hell yes! This is essential for transparency and if administrators are not to become an untouchable and unquestionable elite. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for deletion 2

46.1) When asked to, an administrator should provide detailed reasons as to why they performed an administrative action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No reason why not, if they are asked. It's noticeable that Violetriga, for example, did not ask. And some others demand rather than asking... Guy (Help!) 06:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect - I did not ask before I restored the articles. Attempts to discuss it with Doc glasgow fell flat on their face because he refused to comment on the articles or his reasons for deletion. violet/riga (t) 07:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As me evidence shows[23], I'm always happy to do this, and even discuss other options. However, I refuse to offer moot defences of actions that have been reversed, to someone who wasn't even interested in asking me before determining that I needed undoing. What's the point, when they've made up their mind?--Doc^g 08:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should I try and discuss it with you when you've already made your mind up that an article needs deleting? Because I assume that you have reasons and I want to hear them, that's why. You are implying that the person that disagrees with you is incapable of saying "Actually, you're right", but in reality you've never given that opportunity (at least to me). violet/riga (t) 08:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Softer than the above one, to reduce the "wikilawyering" aspect of it. Providing the rational for an adminsitrative action is very much an admins job - we do the work for the community, and it is the community we report to. Providing the rational for an action to someone who is unhappy with said action is far more likely to help diffuse a tense situation/calm an unhappy editor than telling them to "just deal with it" or in this case "Its a BLP vio, its gone and isn't coming back". This is not meant to apply to trolls however - just good faith editors. (however careful in characterising someone as a troll - Assume good faith)Viridae^Talk 02:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In cases like these, they should "provide detailed reasons" before being asked to do so. — CharlotteWebb 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what "detailed" means. In sensitive cases relating to OTRS and BLP issues, sometimes the only thing which can be said is that there has been an OTRS action taken. To disclose the reasons behind the action would disclose the very problem which is being removed, which is not acceptable. FCYTravis 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that should be sufficient by anyone's standards. But in all other cases providing more detailed reasons - ie "It was an unsourced attack article" is far better than "It was a BLP violation". Similarly, "It was speedy deleted because it had no assertion of notability" is better than "It was a speedy candidate". Explanation would have stifled the uproar to a certain extent and fostered more productive discussion. Viridae^Talk 05:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. At an absolute minimum the general nature of an article's BLP problem, and an estimate of whether it could be corrected, should always be given. — CharlotteWebb 06:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Doc's What's the point, when they've made up their mind? - A: because the discussion is not just for the benefit of admins A and B, but also to inform others who are interested in the topic, and others who may come later. Admins A and B playing uncivil to each other on a private matter is one thing; on an administrative action is affecting the encyclopedia, and any other interested editor or admin we need to expect better. The community writ large can and should demand individual action accountability. Even if another admin is snippy or grumpy or doesn't explain in full, best practice for everyone should always be to explain if something has become controversial. Georgewilliamherbert 05:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. I actually like this better than the one I above, although I support both, if only because this one has a better chance of passing. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia more important than rules

47) Although great care should be exercised and sufficient reason exist, in principle, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" applies even to the deletion process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Self explanatory, and obviously policy. We are not a bureaucracy, and cluefullness is, and always has been key to our procedures. This is, and always has been, an absolutely necessary counter-balance to process wonking.--Doc^g 08:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Some actions require you to be bold and to ignore consensus, but that does not give people carte blanche to enforce their own views. Undoing an action and then discussing it is appropriate if the original action is founded on false policy or principles. violet/riga (t) 08:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom have already rejected that opinion as regards undeletions.--Doc^g 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that the rules help us make a great encyclopedia. Image - if we followed the rules in this case, we wouldn't be here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If we'd followed the 'rules' (at leas as you interpret them) we'd certainly not be here. But I hate to think where we would be.--Doc^g 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Misses the essential consensus understanding of IAR (on fairly recent talk page archives) that IAR should not be used in cases where clear consensus to ignore does not exist. QZ deletion was clearly contested, there was no consensus, and not clear to me that there was even supermajority. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 05:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Pointless without greater context; even jeff agrees with this (I think), it's whether or not his actions show reasonable application of rules or not that's the dispute here. Of course if Jeff is actually advocating what he knows is harmful behavior for the sake of rules then I'm mistaken, but I doubt an editor as effective as jeff would insist on process he believes himself to be harmful. Milto LOL pia 09:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, especially because this is susceptible to misuse. IAR isn't a carte blanche to ignore consensus or to carry out actions that one knows will be controversial. In general, it's best not to carry out an IAR action that is controversial unless the benefits are substantial. Not having to wait an extra 5 days for an article to be deleted does not constitute a substantial benefit. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative actions are subject to review.

48) Administrators should understand that no administrative action may be unilateral, and that any action by a single admin or plurality of admin may be overturned by consensus. All administrators should expect to have their actions reviewed by others, and review of an administrator's actions is not a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Factually inaccurate premise. Every action - administrative or editorial - is unilateral. It may or may not be informed by prior discussion, but we are not and explicitly never have been a democracy. Equally, all actions - administrative or editorial - are open to review and possible reversal, with the onus firmly on the person seeking to include content, to justify it per policy. However, review does not mean bowing to vocal minorities, or even vocal majorities, where that conflicts with fundamental principles. One of the most depressing aspects of this case is the flat refusal by some parties to even consider whether this subject can and should be better covered in some form other than as a faux-biography. And a faux-biography is what it is; we know next to nothing about this kid, and never will know much from independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone deleted the Tom Cruise article the onus would not be on the person restoring it. I know that the articles we are talking about are not really in the same league here but it is an example that your point is not entirely correct. violet/riga (t) 15:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This, of course, is dangerous. For instance, take a look at Qian Zhijun or the latest casualty, Allison Stokke. One person gets to cry BLP, and that's it - article's gone. And at no point does the deleting administrator need to prove that there was a BLP issue, even though numerous people - who JzG claims the onus is on - demonstrate easily that there is not. This is problematic if administrators think that their improper interpretation of policy is beyond the scope of community review - the onus is on the administrators to either properly justify their action when challenged or prepare to have that action overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. From the comments on the evidence page, there seems to be a large amount of hostility from some towards having their actions reviewed or potentially overturned. --Barberio 11:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken at face value this statement is reasonable, but in practice there is disagreement over many of its assertions. What constitutes a unilateral administrative action? How may an action be overturned? How is consensus to overturn determined? Should admins expect all of their actions to be subject to review or to actually have each one of their actions reviewed? Everyone has their own answers to these questions and that's why a statement such as this doesn't accomplish too much. ChazBeckett 11:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement does reflect a base level of 'review happens, deal with it'. The specifics of when review happens are situation specific rather than a general principle. --Barberio 12:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The onus is on the person performing the action to justify it, not those who take issue with it. This strikes to the heart of all these speedy deletions: "Its gone and it is never coming back, deal with it." By taking the action first and then telling the community that they had to justify why it shouldnt have happened (to that admins highest standards) it was ensured that the action stayed. Viridae^Talk 00:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as worded. Firstly, I disagree with Guy that "Every action - administrative or editorial - is unilateral". Any deletion that has been endorsed by more than one person (i.e., the deleting admin and someone else) is not unilateral. However, I disagree with this proposal as some admin actions should be unilateral (e.g., blocking persistent vandals, on-sight deleting pages that meet the speedy deletion criteria, and so on). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative actions are subject to review (1)

48.1) All administrative actions are subject to review and may be overturned by consensus. Administrators should be prepared to explain their actions when requested.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as a more moderate version of the one above per my comments. Please edit it as you see fit as long as the general meaning is preserved. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History undeletions

49) In the case of articles at deletion review that are not deleted due to copyright, possible libel, or other legal issues, a history undeletion upon request is generally appropriate in order to give all users an opportunity to accurately judge the merits of an administrative action, especially regarding issues such as sourcing and tone and where a Google cache may have at one point existed earlier in the discussion.

49.1) In the case of articles at deletion review that are not deleted due to copyright, possible libel, other legal issues, or possible Biographies of living persons problems, a history undeletion upon request is generally appropriate in order to give all users an opportunity to accurately judge the merits of an administrative action, especially regarding issues such as sourcing and tone and where a Google cache may have at one point existed earlier in the discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Based on the continued struggles at DRV and the inane position that non-administrative users should be able to justify the existence of an article they can't see. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of exceptions in 33 is incomplete because it doesn't include all possible Biographies of living persons concerns. I have drafted 33.1 to remedy this. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Too broad, doesn't sit well with deletion review not being AFD part 2. Non-administrative users generally aren't being asked to justify the existence of an article they can't see, in fact they are very much being asked not to do that. Though in some cases the process is of course tied to the content (A7, G11 deletes etc.) in which case this is often done, however doesn't override the requirement for any admin doing this applying some descretion/common sense. --pgk 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is so broken that this type of exegesis is near-counterproductive. WP:DRV is seeming more and more like an MFD candidate to me. 75.62.6.237 02:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beating a dead horse

50) Editors who contest the outcome of Wikipedia processes are encouraged to pursue the multitude of paths in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Repeatedly trying to restart a process that has failed is unproductive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. It very soon became apparent that the venue being pursued was the wrong one, and the blind focus on a specific result was impeding any rational discussion of more creative solutions. Guy (Help!) 06:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What a pile of crap, really. Take a look at the timeline of this article - administrators can't act disruptive and then call the challenges to that disruption unproductive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Might be good advice to those repeatedly trying to appeal deletions. They're using the wrong process. --Tony Sidaway 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It didn't fail it was "murdered". Viridae^Talk 01:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

With the caveat that 'failed' here means the process 'failed' in a way normal and accepted as a resolution of that process. Not where a process was prematurely halted, or resolved in contradiction to expressed consensus. --Barberio 01:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I support, as long as "failed" actually means "failed" rather than dismissed out of process. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This refers to the numerous ultimately futile attempts to drag dead articles back through deletion review and through the deletion process. Enough is enough. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the purpose of DRV to determine whether an article is indeed "dead". This doesn't occur when an editor concludes in advance that an article is "dead" and speedily closes a discussion, thus denying the opportunity to find out if consensus indeed deems the article "dead". I don't support weekly reviews of closures that have been endorsed by consensus, but this assumes that consensus was allowed to form and discussion was allowed to take place. Also, since consensus can change, it is probably premature to diagnose an article as fully "dead" and to immediately reject any additional discussion on it. Running out of patience is not a good reason to prevent good-faith discussion from occurring, especially considering that the other dispute resolution steps involve escalation and are generally more time-consuming than a DRV. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This case was brought to stop the repeated abuse of process to inflict pointless bureaucratic pain in the absence of any realistic chance that a dead article could be revived. In the context of the BLP, that's unacceptable. In a case like this, dispute resolution is the only solution. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the abuse of process occurred when individual editors speedily closed deletion reviews, thus barring the possibility of discussion. Repeated nominations would not have occurred if discussion was actually allowed to take place. Technically, dispute resolution is the next appropriate step, but it seems like "pointless bureaucratic pain" when there are the simpler solutions of reverting an obvious out-of-process close (to be done with *extreme* caution, of course) or starting a new review with a request that discussion not be stifled. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for Speedy Deletion

51) Speedy deletion should be applied only in circumstances where consensus has already been established to support it, as outlined in the criteria for speedy deletion. Deletions likely to be controversial should be taken through an XfD process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is very much a "duh" moment, although there are very, very, very, very few exceptional cases (OTRS, for example) that this isn't true for. Then again, we could probably work in an OTRS exemption by consensus, but that's a different discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If something egregiously violates policy, leaving it hanging around for a week while we gaze at our collective navels is stupid. Admins are supposed to exercise Clue. Rule no. 1: ignore all rules. This finding seems to me to seek to prevent admins from following their conscience and judgment; if their conscience and judgment is genuinely far out of line with consensus they should simply not be admins. No evidence has been presented that the admins deleting these articles are, in fact, far out of line with consensus. What we do have is a wilful refusal to treat the issue of inclusion separately from ideological commitment to "biograpies" of individuals not socially or culturally significant outside of a single event (if that). Placing barriers in the way of removing "biographies" of people mocked for their appearance, subjected to obsessive attention on Teh Internets without their consent, premature births and the like, misses the point by quite a wide margin. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're quite obviously out of line with consensus. Policy, being reached via consensus, does not support the recent activity, and the heavy-handed attempts to force their collective will is not condusive to further consensus building. Consensus is not the goal of those people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"No evidence has been presented that the admins deleting these articles are, in fact, far out of line with consensus."

Please look at the evidence page where it details two articles that are to be kept/merged by AfD, one that has undergone a merger, and one that has been renamed. These four articles are showing that the deletion was against consensus. Further, while BLP might allow speedy deletions if BLP does not apply then the deletion was not appropriate. violet/riga (t) 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, these articles are not fit subjects for a biographical treatment. I have already made several suggestions for ways of handling this type of thing that are more nuanced. Badlydrawnjeff seems to think the solution is to stop trying to rid the encyclopaedia of problematic biographies - i.e. to assert once again that the problem is everyone else - but I am hopeful of some rather more constructive input as well. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not - would violate policy. Unprecedented for arbcom to find something should only be done when the pre-set rules allow. Total process wonkers charter. This would be a change to policy - as it would effectively restrict the use of IAR - which is fundamental policy. Even if arbcom were stupid enough to agree - they lack the competency to change fundamental policy.--Doc^g 09:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that IAR is already restricted, and if you don't understand the bounds within which IAR is restricted you should review your understanding of it. One general and unarguable restriction of IAR is 'rules should not be ignored where it would be disruptive'.--Barberio 01:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is at the heart of a number of huge disputes in our history. (Userbox war for one) We need to establish consensus first if the issue is going to be controversial. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a proposed principle, not a finding of fact. And I have to say, I think the community decides the ground rules for deletion. The community tolerates administrators who exercise discretion over deletions; indeed it would be impracticable to try to police the thousands of speedy deletions performed every day. I should know. I've scanned a day's worth of speedies myself, and it was not something I'd wish to do again. --Tony Sidaway 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The community expects that the speedy deletions of administrators will reflect consensus (even if it isn't formalized). I think the most important part is that deletions likely to be disputed should not be carried out speedily. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Support per Night Gyr. OTRS is included in community consensus. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose proposed principle, endorse JzG's comment. 75.62.6.237 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What? The proposed principle is just common sense. Speedy deletions are for non-controversial deletions, cases where any Wikipedian in their right mind wouldn't question the deletion. Basically, speedy is for pages like "FRED SMITH IS A PENIS LOL" or "Dynamic Fastrack Solutions Ltd is a fast-growing and exciting business, click here to see our full product range". If there is any chance that the deletion will be disputed, or it doesn't fit the speedy criteria, then it should go through AfD. I wouldn't advocate DRV for such wrongfully-deleted articles - they should instead be undeleted and put through a full AfD, in which everyone's view will be taken into account. Walton^{alternate account} 08:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm depressed that this is even being debated. IAR is not a carte blanche to override consensus or bypass discussion. As for JzG's comment that "Admins are supposed to exercise Clue", I'd like to note that there are probably as many variations of "Clue" as there are editors. There are plenty of other opportunities to exercise clue that do not involve going against consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admins do not have special authority

52) As expressed in the essay Wikipedia:What adminship is not, adminship does not confer any "Sergeant-like authority". Admins' opinions do not carry any more weight than those of other users. In making decisions and evaluating consensus, admins should factor in all opinions offered in good faith by established users, and all such opinions should be given equal weight. Admins should not make unilateral decisions or exercise their admin powers without consultation, except in cases where policy explicitly permits them to do so (as with CSD).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is true, but when an action has already been done, admins tend to get a bit more presumption that they knew what they were doing. See FloNight's comment about AfD closings in the RFC and imagine how it would apply if the AfD had been closed by someone editing from an IP address. 75.62.6.237 02:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limits on BLP

53) The purpose of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy is to prevent the spread of false and unsourced information about living persons via Wikipedia, especially where such information is potentially libellous or otherwise harmful, and to prevent attacks being made against living persons through a Wikipedia article. By definition, an article written in a neutral tone, in which all information is sourced and verifiable, does not violate BLP. The BLP policy should not be used to censor Wikipedia in order to remove unwelcome publicity about a living person.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Somebody doesn't understand. The purpose is, and always has been, to limit the very real harm Wikipedia can do to real people's lives. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I think this gets to the heart of the matter PERFECTLY. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, this is not the case and never has been. An article written in a neutral tone which is sourced and verifiable can still violate BLP by its very existence, being an out-of-context snapshot of someone's life, giving undue weight to whatever negative incident happened to make the news that day. FCYTravis 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a lot more to NPOV than taking a "neutral tone." Christopher Parham (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The concerns raised above are already covered in the "Undue weight" section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. However, I cannot support this exact wording, mostly because I think it misinterprets the ppurpose of the BLP policy. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argumentative and repetitive demands

54) The Wikipedia community makes decisions by civil discussion. While occasional lapses may be understandable, egregious cases of argumentative, repetitive nay-saying, repeated demands for justification once a party has given one to the best of his ability, and similar behavior damage the atmosphere of debate and constitute examples of uncivil conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In other words, people aren't comfortable with the facts being presented to them over and over again, so it's easier to quiet the people who present the facts than start working with the facts. Good job, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a tricky one and I'm trying to find the right wording. I'm trying to bring a case that Badlydrawnjeff's common habit of following up an argument with a dismissal and a demand for further justification is a severe problem for debate. There are numerous examples on this workshop, although I haven't yet drawn up an evidence section to support a finding of fact. --Tony Sidaway 17:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur where you're going with this, and yes, finding the right words may be difficult. This repeated "Yes it is/no it isn't" is disruptive to useful discussion and a finding on this issue may be helpful. Friday (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need to present any proposed finding of fact. Either the arbitrators get the point or they do not. I won't bring this up again on this page. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd change to reflect it as Tendentious editing--MONGO 06:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Per MONGO. I described it elsewhere as POV-pushing in project space. 75.62.6.237 07:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've given an example of the kind of thing I mean, see here. I'm not satisfied that I've caught the breadth and scale of the querulous, and perhaps yes, tendentious approach Badlydrawnjeff takes to discussion. I'd say that perhaps there is an element of War of attrition here, whereby an editor repeatedly challenges an opinion by stating its opposite, as if hoping to "win" by wearing out or simply disgusting those who share that opinion, who proceed to ignore him lest they be sucked into a flame war. Wikipedia lacks killfiles which proved to be of some use against querulous and tendentious argumentation on Usenet. --Tony Sidaway 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Here's a hint - the bad guy isn't the one looking for evidence when such evidence is lacking. You call it querulous and tendentious - I call the type of "trust me, I'm right and you're wrong" activity that you've been taking part in much more problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those instances where the workshop page becomes the evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

55) Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies only where the rule prevents improvement or maintenance. It is not licence to be disruptive or ignore consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unortunately untrue based on the reality of the situation, but simply another example as to how much of a relic IAR is, and how it needs to be depreciated yesterday. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Begging the question. I think you will find that people who advocate nuking articles like QZ are pretty convinced that this does improve the encyclopaedia, and the existence of a few vocal hold-outs does not equate to "ignoring consensus". Guy (Help!) 06:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of vocal holdouts in this one. Maybe you would be kind enough to point out that they are in a minority and shall therefore be summarily ignored... Viridae^Talk 09:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Barberio 02:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "all" means what it says. Larger departures require more cluefulness and people who do them better turn out to be correct. 75.62.6.237 02:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Unfortunately, some admins seem to think that "consensus" means "the point of view which I agree with, forget the rest, even if they're in a majority" and cite IAR whenever anyone criticises them. Walton^Assistance! 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is the definition of IAR: ignore rules only when they prevent improvement, but not when doing so is merely convenient. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No one is infallible

39) While in many cases, a person may be sincerely and earnestly convinced that he or she is absolutely right, that does not necessarily mean that he or she actually is, nor even that there is only one right answer. This applies even to those who are generally known for good and sound judgment. Submitting decisions for community review, and entertaining the possibility that one may be wrong even when convinced one is right, is a critically important part of collaborative work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Actually I think that something about open-mindedness should be included. I note that we saw several suggestions for compromises and ways of handling what encyclopaedic matter might exist in the Little Fatty meme; the major problem as far as I can tell was with those who insisted on it being documented in the form of a biography and would not accept any other suggestion; I also saw several suggestions of ways to handle cases like this, which have been rejected by the same group on the grounds of an apparent ideological commitment to presenting certain content in a certain way. The evidence and much of the debate on the Workshop page supports that view, I believe. "Obduracy considered harmful" or words to that effect. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Really, I think this is just part of assume good faith—assume the other guy isn't just arguing to be obstinate, he's as convinced he's right as you're convinced you are. Discussion and debate are the way to resolve it when genuine good-faith disagreement occurs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(First comment at this RfAr): Love it! Kla'quot 16:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(In response to Guy) I certainly did intend that to indicate both sides. There was quite a bit of obduracy and talking past each other going on with the whole scenario. "If you support having this kind of thing you're unethical!" "If you don't support having this type of thing you're censoring!" "No, you!" "No, you!" (repeat several hundred times until any hint of a constructive suggestion has no hope of being heard.) Usually, if everyone can stay calm and keep talking, a solution that's at least acceptable to everyone can be found, even if it wouldn't necessarily be their first choice. It's when people get stuck on "There is one correct answer, I know it, and anyone who thinks otherwise be damned" that things wind up, well, here in arbitration. (And that's not to say I'm not guilty of that sometimes too, but I think it's a good thing to try and avoid.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus and policy

40) Discussion or action on a specific matter cannot overturn policy that is widely accepted by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed due to evidence being provided regarding the alleged situations at RfC. It doesn't matter if 70 people endorse an inappropriate early closure - the closure is still inappropriate. Policy isn't changed by individual action or discussion - a small number of administrators who inappropriately delete content do not have the ability to act as if policy has changed to accept that if the decision to keep articles deleted are upheld at DRV (also a violation of deletion policy). --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right, so consensus is only to be respected when it supports you? Guy (Help!) 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, consensus is to be respected. End statement. Policies and guidelines have wide consensus and enjoy such support, and individual activity alone cannot trump those. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Based on a misreading of the RFC--which is extraordinary because it's being misread by the guy who brought it. In his RFC, Jeff called for accountability for wheel warring and incivility, and "The allowance of a consensus to be reached regarding the article (per the first DRV, there is not currently a valid AfD to point to)". He failed in achieving these outcomes, and the very account of the dispute itself was roundly rejected, with JzG's comprehensive refutation receiving 31 endorsements to date. --Tony Sidaway 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be contrary to the way that policy and process develop around here. --pgk 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, this is policy too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role of articles named for people

41) Not every article under the name of a person need be considered by the standards of a full biography of that person, especially if only limited aspects of their life have been documented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It seems a bit odd to me to hear people arguing that if we can't have a full biography under a person's name, we shouldn't have anything. Many articles are best not structured as a biography, but in some cases there are numerous aspects of a person's life that deserve documentation, even if they are not a particularly public figure. Examples would be authors or musicians or artists, whose articles might focus entirely on documenting their works, with only minimal mention of personal facts, and appropriately so since these are the aspects of their life that have been noted in our sources. In the same way, articles about people who present a limited public face may still be under the name of that person, even if they're limited to the publicized aspects of that person's life. Articles should not be accepted or rejected based on whether we know everything about a person. While narrow articles may stand to be merged or deleted, the question of what to do with them is far from unambiguous and should be handled with a eye towards consensus and the potential for improvement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a judgement call, if the primary focus of the article is the person, then naming it after the person maybe appropriate (I don't think you can legislate it, too many options). In the case of a musician (say) where the focus is their music, then surely you would title it as "music of x", or under the name of the composition being considered (if they only had one significant composition etc). Use of redirects maybe appropriate, but titling something as a bio then focussing primarly on something other than the person would seem "silly". --pgk 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it really make sense to move Michael Andrews (musician) to Music of Michael Andrews, even though it only talks about his music career rather than his personal life? MC Hammer is only focused on his music career, but that's perfectly acceptable because that's what's notable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a judgement call to be made, but if you want an accurate title which defines the articles content then yes quite possibly(Or rather there is quite possibly no detriment to it) (Other than not really liking the form of the title I suggested, it merely being an example). As I said redirects to help things out can be useful. And yes the MC Hammer being given the stage name would suggest that the coverage is biased towards the stage career of the individual. Realistically it's a judgement call, if someone is going out of their way to carve a career as a musician using there own name and all the publicity around it then it's probably a non-issue, if on the other hand someone is thrust into the spotlight over a specific event then the opposite is probably true. --pgk 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Biographies of living persons policy is a bit vague on this:

If the reliable sources only cover the person in the context of something else, then a separate biography is probably unwarranted. Court cases, crimes, and natural disasters, for examples, should be presented as unified articles that involve all sides, based on reliable secondary sources, and not primary-source material interpreted only by Wikipedia editors. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, and create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead. In such cases, a redirect is often the best option.

I think it would be fair to say that consensus is moving away from support for individual biographies of people unknown outside a limited context, especially where their primary material is duplicated in other articles. See for instance the cleaning up of the mess of the old Anna Halman article, which eventually found its place (thanks to amazingly swift work by Jimmy Wales, Thebainer and others) as a section on Poland in School violence. --Tony Sidaway 13:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair judgement of consensus at all. Again, the action of the few is not an example of consensus, and the fact that people are relatively uneasy toward rocking the boat while this is ongoing doesn't help. Disruptiveness is not an indication of consensus change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, one of those irregular verbs: I represent consensus, he is a POV warrior, you are disruptive. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the merit of this. An article which is about an event should be clearly identified as such, an article which is a biography should be under the name of the subject, an article which is not a biography should not be under someone's name because it's not a biography, it's about something else. This is before one even begins to consider whether the subject can be covere din a depersonalised way without significant loss of encyclopaedic value, as wit the variuos conjoined twins and extreme preterm births. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course this final sentence represents your view that such things are covered by BLP, and I still fail to see the part that explicitly states that we should remove their names. violet/riga (t) 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles on living individuals are by definition covered by WP:BLP, and the idea that articles on news events should not be represented as biographies achieved wide support as an addition to WP:BLP and was added to WP:NOT by Jimbo. Yes it's my view, but it's not just my view, it represents my understanding of the intent of WP:BLP as clarified over time. I fully understand that others (thank you, Violetriga) disagree. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take a moment to realise what I actually wrote rather than think that I'm disagreeing. I was clearly refering to your final sentence and not the rest of what you said. violet/riga (t) 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is here to be factual, not nice

42) Wikipedia is a reference work. Its principal aim is to compile an accurate, factual compendium of sourced and verifiable knowledge. Where disagreements arise between editors in the pursuit of that goal, they should be settled through normal processes and discussion. Individual editors' ethical principles, however strong, do not override community decision-making, nor do they supersede Wikipedia's obligation to report the facts as they are. Nor is "it could hurt someone" a reason to censor Wikipedia by arbitrarily deleting content. Wikipedia isn't here to be nice to people.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Bah. "censor", "arbitrary", ptui. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but how is that a constructive comment? This is not the sort of thing that aids any resolution on this matter. violet/riga (t) 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No way. This is in direct opposition to the Wikipedia BLP policy which ask editors to be sensitive to living people as we write about them. FloNight 20:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Pretty much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement contains the word "censor". That is almost without exception an indication of blatant trolling in any deletion-related debate, and probably grounds for immediate removal by this stage, but that aside, this is yet another way of Jeff saying that it's everybody else who is the problem. I am beginning to wonder how many people have to tell him before he starts to accept that even if the problem is not solely him, which it may or may not be, it unequivocally is significantly down to him, and his own actions have played a major part in escalating this dispute and obstructing any attempt to find a resolution which satisfies the concerns voiced in good faith (despite strident assertions by Jeff to the contrary) by numerous experienced and committed members of the project. I would go so far as to say that this proposed finding can be placed in the Evidence section as evidence of Jeff's continued failure to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the dispute. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck... --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jeff didn't write this principle. I did. Walton^{alternate account} 10:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I was obviously not clear: the proposed finding is "ZOMG! Censorship!" which is far too simplistic to have any chance of passing, but Jeff's comment, as with his other comments, indicates a refusal to accept anyr esponsibility whatsdoever for the problem. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

False dichotomy. The community as a whole is an ethical one and is bound to heed ethical considerations. It's not productive to present ethical objections as those ones pertaining solely to individuals. The golden rule is universal, and obviously we shouldn't go out of our way to do harm where we can avoid it by being a little more thoughtful. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There can be genuine issues about where lines should be drawn, but the proposed repudiation of all sensitivity to the subjects of our articles is deeply troubling. "Wikipedia," as Jimbo once put it, "is not here to make people sad." Newyorkbrad 16:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Given how well IAR works as a succinct and infinitely reinterpretable 1-sentence policy, why don't we make more 1-sentence policies that are so open-ended that they can be used to justify anything. This sentence works as well as any other. I think that's an excellent idea. Sure it's long on deep meaning but really short on helpful advice. Can't put news on Wikipedia, it'll make people sad. And no negative things allowed at all either. Better remove Wiki News, the medical project, history needs to go too. How about pop culture? Is anyone sad about Britney? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much a fair summary of what I said and meant, I don't think. Newyorkbrad 20:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Newyorkbrad. (I couldn't have said it better myself.) ElinorD (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Tony. Malcolm has a point that Jimbo's statement is too short to be meaningful, but Tony's is clearer. Sometimes we can't be nice and fulfill our primary mission, but if we can be nice, we should. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - sensitivity and censorship are not synonyms. There is, and ought to be, healthy debate about where the line is, but there is a line. FCYTravis 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While it's true we shouldn't gratuitously hurt people's feelings, there will indeed come times when NPOV obligates us to report things that may shock, enrage, offend, or upset people. I don't think "we shouldn't care at all" is the way to go, but I also think recently we've been going too far the other way. The solution lies somewhere between "We'll do whatever we want and not care a bit" and "It might hurt someone's feelings is a speedy deletion reason!". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think for a long time Wikipedia went too far the other way. People got used to it. Now that things have changed, there's a lot of confusion, and while it's possible that things go too far the other way sometimes, I think it's also true that the old "as long as it's in the paper or you can google it, it belongs here" way of doing things was very wrong. -Jmh123 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assuming good faith

43) Wikipedia:Assume good faith requires editors to assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, but does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. At no point am I required to assume good faith of many of the parties involved when they make blatantly false statements about my actions, my motives, the motives of others, or policy/consensus decisions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jeff, it's nice to see a bit of self-awareness creeping in: you are right that several people who have tried very hard to assume good faith on your part have come to the conclusion that we may have been wrong. Or is this just special pleading? Because I can tell you from many very lengthy and detailed conversations with several of those involved that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind as to the good faith of several of those about whom you have been extremely rude. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe it's time for them to start showing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And maybe you should occasionally permit of the possibility that the actions of others in this case are motivated by something other than evil. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Involved editors and administrators and the BLP

44) Under the Biographies of living persons policy, Administrators may enforce the removal of harmful material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. That is the policy. Of course, an admin actions are always up for review so abuse for the tools with be noted and dealt with if necessary if a pattern of abuse is noted. FloNight 20:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Not sure if this is completely smart as written, especially regarding blocks. Protection is supposed to be temporary (although that's a separate problem), but for a single administrator to be judge, jury, and executioner if they have it wrong is only going to heat up the already tenuous situation. This may be a situation that should be rectified at the policy, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable to clarify this; it prevents gaming of the system as we saw previously in the case of Lance Armstrong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Socafan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I note with regret that the Armstrong article is now back to including the laundry list of unproven doping allegations, an indication to me of how persistent those determined to bring The Truth (TM) to Wikipedia can be. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly policy supports this, but in addition consensus exists for this see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow.--Doc^g 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. From the policy itself. Needed for clarification because we're seeing even admins challenging blocks on grounds of involvement in a dispute (the dispute often being over whether the material is harmful). --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Support with a caveat: after blocking and/or protecting as necessary, get someone else to review the situation. Blocking/protecting in disputes in which one is involved is acceptable only with egregious BLP cases and only as a temporary measure. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved editors and administrators and the BLP (1)

44.1) Under the Biographies of living persons policy, administrators may enforce the removal of harmful material with page protections and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Such actions should be used with care, and should serve only as temporary measures. Administrators in such situations are encouraged to seek informal third-party input.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to the version above. I think the addition of the last two sentences is mostly uncontroversial and goes a long way toward preventing possible vested interest problems. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus and BLP

45) A claim of consensus cannot overrule a reasonable action under the biographies of living persons policy. Editors and adminstrators alike disputing an action taken under this policy are expected to use the dispute resolution process, and those who repeatedly make bad decisions under the guise of this policy may be subject to sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Entirely reasonable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think it's time to pull out the big guns, otherwise nearly every remotely controversial action under the BLP will end in an edit war or wheel war and a call for some administrator's head. We need to trust our administrators when they act under the BLP. "Mostly good eggs, and deal with the bad eggs one by one" is the best principle here. --Tony Sidaway 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly, strongly oppose. All controversial decisions on Wikipedia should be made by consensus. BLP is not a license to be authoritarian. Walton^{alternate account} 08:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose per Walton. BLP cannot override consensus and the fact that "reasonable action" is so subjective means that this principle could be used to justify any action. It it too susceptible to misuse and abuse; in the long run, I think it will only create more problems and bureaucracy (deletion reviews, RfCs, arbitrations, and so on). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Precautionary principle

46) When material is disputed under the Biographies of living persons policy (BLP), it is necessary to proceed with caution. In some cases, open discussion itself may cause harm. It is appropriate to raise reasonable doubts about the appropriateness of an action taken under the BLP, but not appropriate to act summarily, even in the presence of apparent consensus, to reverse such an action. Wikipedia can wait.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, absolutely. Wikipedia can wait. It is wrong to insist on the inclusion of content credibly identified be experienced editors as problematic, while the validity of that content is debated. A concern raised in good faith must be taken seriously, and taking it seriously means talking about it not edit-warring to include it again, as has happened with Allison Stokke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and other articles. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Time to lay down the law. --Tony Sidaway 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Only in the case of clear violations - when it comes to "It is ethical to remove it" despite there being reliable sources, and there is or is likely to be issue with the action then allowing the community as a whole to make up thier mind is a far better way of going about it. When it breaks the word of policy (not reliably sourced, not neutrally presented) no admin should ever be punished for its removal - but when that is NOT the case, ie it is reliably sourced, and it is written from a neutral point of view noone has the right break 3rr to force its removal/block those who insert it and a discussion as to its fate can/should be conducted. BLP should not be used as a get out of jail crad for bad behaviour. Viridae^Talk 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got to disagree with this; sometimes NPOV and reliable sources aren't enough. Some of these internet memes are not encyclopedic even if the mainstream media does use them for a little entertainment feature. It's Warhol gone absolutely mad. Everybody gets their 15 minutes enshrined forever in Wikipedia. Don't disagree on "get out of jail" for bad behavior; however, many of these contested issues have only to do with being caught on camera doing something embarrassing which makes it to YouTube and gets a lot of hits. -Jmh123 20:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why I call this proposal the "Precautionary principle". Where reasonable people believe that material about living people is harmful, and other reasonable people disagree, this is an attempt to provide guidance in how we proceed. Wikipedia can wait, but in the meantime damage may be being done. So if someone takes it down while we decide, that is a reasonable thing to do and it isn't to be undone simply because we disagree with them. --Tony Sidaway 02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's probably a good idea in general anyway (things shouldn't get played tug-of-war over while they get discussed, and that most certainly goes for BLP), but only provided that said discussions are actually allowed to take place and don't have a predetermined outcome regardless of what's actually said. Sometimes, people will go too far on enforcing BLP (just like sometimes people will go too far enforcing anything), or will deliberately and maliciously use it as a bludgeon to get their way on something else, and some mechanism needs to exist to rein them in. On the other hand, it is in general a good idea, and one we have to be careful of. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Seraphimblade. It's good in principle (really, what's the rush?), but should be used with extreme care. In can have an overall positive effect only if discussion actually occurs and is not suppressed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The penumbra of BLP and blocks

47) When enforcing a strict BLP violation such as the addition of unsourced potentially negative material an involved admin is more than welcome to block. When there is a disagreement about whether reliably sourced information should be included in an article based on the general principles behind BLP, involved admins should not block and all normal rules of editing such as the 3RR restriction apply. JoshuaZ 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is relevant mainly to Doc Glasgow's block and going over 3RR despite warning. JoshuaZ 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree - I am assuming this has been added to evidence? Viridae^Talk 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be something, like this, to address what to do in situations where there is a disagreement over BLP problems. Milto LOL pia 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't compatible with the BLP, because if someone disagrees then anyone who performs a BLP action is perforce in dispute. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, you're missing the point. There are two classes of BLP issues. The first one is for lack of a better term the classical BLP problem, unsourced or poorly sourced potentially negative information. Obviously such information should be removed and kept by any means necessary by any editor. The second type is the penumbra case where the information is reliably sourced but we may wish to leave it out for ethical reasons. In such cases, there is much more of an editorial element and by nature much more subjective. We therefore should treat such situations as closer to content disputes. The sort of example that this would be relevant for would the Allison Stookes case where everyone agrees that the information is reliably sourced. Given that, the decision to include or not is editorial with the general principle of BLP being relevant. Therefore, it is not appropriate in such cases for involved editors to use admin tools. JoshuaZ 02:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That s exactly the point was trying to make in the section above. Viridae^Talk 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Although poorly sourced information in BLP articles should be removed, involved admins should never block, except in cases of clear vandalism. Walton^{alternate account} 08:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This principle contradicts the biographies of living persons policy, and as such, will undoubtedly be rejected. JoshuaZ, what you don't get is that material which is being disputed under the BLP is potentially harmful whether it can be "sourced" or not, and the principle of the BLP demands that "when in doubt, leave it out" be our rule of thumb. Wikipedia will not be permanently harmed by leaving out disputed information, but people can be permanently harmed by disputed information. FCYTravis 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just reread the policy in response to your above comment and I can't see where you are getting the above logic. The clause which justifies the use of rollback, blocking etc. is "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles" (internal fonts suppressed). Similarly, the section on blocking says "Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption." The policy does not support your claim and allowing involved admins to block over the addition of reliably sourced material is a very bad idea. If reliably sourced material has any serious potential problems it should be easy for the admin to find another admin willing to make the block. If I'm missing something in the policy, I'd appreciate it being pointed out to me. JoshuaZ 14:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

48) The use of rollback, an editing tool restricted to administrators, is for quick reverts of vandalism. The automated edit summary generated by its use is intended to signal that the edit is to revert vandalism, or used to revert edits by banned users. Some exceptions include using it to revert widespread ill-advised edits or edits by malfunctioning bots. Rollback is not intended to signal that the editor using it does not need to explain his or her edit. Administrators should not use rollback in content disputes, and should be willing to explain their edits using a manual edit summary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbcom passed something similar in the Philwelch case. Milto LOL pia 02:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. BLP disputes are not vandalism, and should not be treated as such. Walton^{alternate account} 08:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback in conjunction with BLP

49) The use of rollback to revert edits using the Biography of living persons policy is unhelpful. This is especially true in cases where BLP concerns are in dispute, since in cases of disputes, editors should be willing to give coherent explanations of their reverts. Using a manual edit summary to give an appropriate explanation is preferred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Choppily worded, plz help. Milto LOL pia 02:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP disputes are content disputes

50) Disagreements over biographical material are content disputes, and should be handled in the normal way for editorial disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No. WP:BLP issues are different, that is why we ave a policy whchi distinguishes between articles on living individuals and other articles. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What happens when someone says "there's a BLP problem" and another editor/editors say "there's no BLP problem"? Milto LOL pia 07:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm reaching here. But surely there needs to be something recognizing that a BLP dispute is not some "special" type of dispute, where one person saying "hmm, I think I see a BLP problem" can overrule any number of other editors. Unless that's actually the case. Milto LOL pia 02:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

They can and do overide per both the wording of BLP and common practice. And they should. See my proposal above regarding the penumbra that may be more relevant. JoshuaZ 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Your proposal appears to read "involved admins shouldn't block in cases where the BLP issue is in dispute." Because you shouldn't block in a dispute you're involved in, right? It seems like we're in agreement, and in fact, yours sort of makes mine completely redundant (and I probably should've read yours more carefully before even writing this up), but if you disagree with this, I think I'm missing something.

Anyway, maybe what's really needed is some modifications to BLP policy on how to handle disputes over BLP problems? As in disputes over whether or not a problem even exists? Clearly the policy is weak weak weak on that, or much of this stuff would not have ended up here. Milto LOL pia 02:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No. If something is a straight BLP problem (that is potentially negative unsourced information) it doesn't matter whether someone else claims it isn't, the person has the right if not obligation to use the rollback tool and other tools to remove the information and keep it removed. The contrasting case is the penumbra situation based on the general ethics implications of BLP. Such cases should probably be viewed as content disputes (as I suggest above) and thus involved admins should not use admin tools in those circumstances. JoshuaZ 02:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. BLP disputes, although some special rules apply, are still content disputes. Citing BLP does not automatically permit circumvention of normal policy and process. Walton^{alternate account} 08:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is again in direct contradiction with the biographies of living persons policy, and will be rejected, BLP disputes are specifically recognized as something other than a normal content dispute, because of Wikipedia's ability to disseminate harmful, libelous or otherwise inappropriate material about living persons, leading to potential legal and ethical liability for harm done, and to negative publicity focusing on our biographical content. FCYTravis 13:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And still no one has any clue on what to do when BLP's relevance to an article is in dispute. Either that, or they're just not sharing for whatever reason. Maybe it makes it easier for you to get your way if you just pretend it doesn't happen? Milto LOL pia 21:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

51) Criticism of administrative, arbitration, and bureaucratic decisions is welcome.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, straight from Giano case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs).

What point of evidence does this address? Guy (Help!) 18:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strong, strong, strong support. In fact, this is the most important principle so far. Citing BLP does not give admins special authority or put them above criticism. There are processes to allow for criticism, questioning and debate of administrative actions, and those processes must be followed. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes an admin dictatorship. Walton^{alternate account} 08:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being upset

52) Within limits, it is acceptable to be upset at a decision or a situation which provokes strong emotion, to blow off steam.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Giano case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs).

Comment by others:

Particularly when the upsetness is provoked by flat out rudeness. Some upset and defensive reaction is to be expected in those cases... any finding that Jeff has been uncivil should not be passed without one acknowledging the provovative incivility he's had to put up with. Milto LOL pia 03:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Viridae^Talk 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption by administrators

53) Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Giano case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Begging the question again. Guy (Help!) 06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This assumes that there have been any actions that could possibly be defined as "disruption," as opposed to good-faith disagreement. FCYTravis 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't think repeatedly closing contentious discussions is not disruptive? Viridae^Talk 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What Viridae said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing a contentious discussion can often be the opposite of disruptive. ^(H) 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And re-opening one can also be disruptive, of course. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy

54) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous and respectful to other users and avoid personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Giano case, may mirror other principles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It is completely unacceptable to assert that your opponents are liars, for example. 80.176.82.42 21:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Discussion of controversial decisions

55) If a controversial decision is made extended discussion is to be expected. This discussion may include strong statements of opposition. Those who made or support controversial decisions should be prepared to patiently and courteously explain and support the decision. Attempts to prematurely close the discussion are ill-advised.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Giano. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strong support. This gets to the heart of the case. Discussion should not be circumvented by admins who believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. Walton^{alternate account} 08:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. There is usually little to be gained from stifling discussion. If people feel that they are not being heard, they will either lash out or leave. Neither response is beneficial for the project. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baiting

56) Baiting or harassing of other users is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Giano. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but not relevant as Jeff was not baiting people too much, not half as much as was seen in the Giano case. Guy 21:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, for once, maybe you could put the snide comments aside and not use the "pretend-I'm-missing-the-point-you're-trying-to-make" tactic. You have to see that it only makes these disputes worse. Milto LOL pia 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we missed the point a bit here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I got the point just fine, but apparently you didn't. Matthew 7:5, in case you hadn't worked it out. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ah, but they also passed something about those who consistently "take the bait", didn't they?  ;-) Milto LOL pia 03:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, no. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake then. Milto LOL pia 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant. Sean William @ 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How so? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for deletion

57) Involvement by Wikipedia users in debates regarding deletion, even of subjects they are involved in, is not an actionable offense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. From MONGO, since it seems like this is my only "crime." --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Administrators

58) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses from optimal behavior are acceptable, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. In part from Seabhcan. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strong support. This gets to the heart of this case. Walton^Assistance! 13:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Optimum leadership

59) The role of a Wikipedia administrator extends beyond enforcement of rules to active support of other users in interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Kosovo, related to above. The continued outside-of-policy activity by the involved administrators in this case is against basic principles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Neutral Point of View

60) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. From Rachel Marsden case. Emphasis on all significant points of view regarding a subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. I don't think a particular case precedent is even need. Neutrality is the cornerstone of a legitimate encyclopedia project. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiable information

61) Only information which is verifiable by reference to a reputable source may be included in an article. Likewise, removal of relevant information which is verifiable is improper. See Wikipedia:Verifiability

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. From 8bitJake. Specifically referring to Doc glasgow's edit warring on Allison Stokke, but it applies to many people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is nothing in WP:V which supports the assertion that "removal of relevant information which is verifiable is improper." The mere fact that something is verifiable does not in any way obligate us to include it in an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 16:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Very silly indeed. Verifiability is a minimum threshhold, not a mandate. Editorial judgement involving such issues as good taste, relevance, bias and undue weight (to name a few) is always excersized, even when BLP is not an issue. Thatcher131 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly stated--verifiability is a minimum threshold, not a mandate. -Jmh123 20:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a good thing it doesn't say that "if it's verifiable, it belongs" then, right? Not everything that's verifiable belongs, I think every editor agrees with that. But it's improper to remove relevant verifiable information, thus the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. The removal of relevant, sourced, and NPOV information is generally improper. I agree with this as a general principle and in particular with respect to Doc glasgow's actions on Allison Stokke. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The removal of information of BLP concern was endorsed in that deletion review and subsequent AfD. No consensus ever developed to reverse Doc's decision. That case illustrated very well, in my opinion, how the BLP acts as a kind of prism, subtly changing the way many of our other policies operate. Jimmy's changes to the deletion policy, and Xoloz' solomonic decision to separate BLP from notability, helped to clarify the issue greatly. --Tony Sidaway 05:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, separating the aspects of a person's life makes no sense. We don't consider whether Bill Clinton was notable for being Governor of Arkansas or notable for being Senator Hillary Clinton's husband. Likewise, we shouldn't consider whether Stokke was notable as an athlete, the subject of an internet meme, or anything else. We should just ask: is the subject notable? As regards the removal of information in question ... I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree that there was ever consensus for that or that the removal was in any way justified by the BLP policy. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writing style, biography of a living person

62) From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style:

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone....

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. From Sathya Sai Baba. Worth noting in the context of Qian Zhijun as well as the other articles being discussed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In the case of SSB, there are biographical works on the subject; in the case of QZ the sources present the person in the context of the mocking of his image; the change by Jimbo to WP:NOT also reinforces this. Numerous other examples in evidence follow the same model: we were presenting as a biography something which the sources presented as an event or example. Do not represent the subject in a way the sources do not. This principle does not, of course, oblige us to retain an article on a marginally-notable subject. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support, with no comment as to its applicability to either SSB or QZ. The writing style for any article should be, above all else, neutral. It should not be sensationalist, sympathetic, or antagonistic. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of pages

63) Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion. Wikipedia administrators are expected to use the deletion and undeletion abilities granted to them in a fashion consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete articles that are clearly outside the criteria for speedy deletion should list those articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Proposed deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. From Brandt, may be similar to something above, but this may be written better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strong support. Out-of-process deletions have very few benefits and a great many costs. Hypothetically, they save time ... the reality is that they often spark time-consuming DRV-AfD-DRV (and sometimes RfC) cycles, which could have been avoided if the initial deletion took place through consensus reached at AfD. Out-of-process deletions also undermine trust in administrators and degrade Wikipedia's social capital, which is essential to its continued operation. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack pages are subject to speedy deletion

64) A grossly unbalanced biography of a living person is considered an attack page for the purposes of speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G10.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Marsden. Proposed more to be explicitly clear as to when the speedy is proper, thus showing when it's not proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Essays are not policy

65) Essays, such as WP:COATRACK, are not policy but primarily opinion pieces, Category:Wikipedia essays. They may, however, provide some guidance, see, for example Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_integrated_throughout_the_article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Vivaldi. Worth noting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed, but not sure where you're going with this. See your own proposal "Writing style, biography of a living person" which explicitly finds coatracks to be attack pages within the meaning of G10.

Compare the first sentence of Coatrack essay: A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".

And now your "Writing style" proposal says "grossly unbalanced biography of a living person is considered an attack page for the purposes of speedy deletion". --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It, of course, "explicitly finds" nothing of the sort. And, to follow up on your three extra paragraphs: as I said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing, and the COATRACK essay (which is very interesting) seems to be related to my proposed remedy, which is languishing at the bottom of this page. The proposed remedy reminds people to use editorial discretion before taking things to deletion and deletion review. I would much rather see people talking on talk pages about options such as redirects, merges, changing due weight within a set of articles, and so on, instead of arguing at deletion discussions and reviews. If possible, would some people be able to take a look at and comment on that proposed remedy, if only to reassure me that the discussion here, which has fragmented across various sections of this page, is not completely overlooking new additions? Carcharoth 13:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel warring and the BLP

[edit] Enforcement of BLP deletions

66.1) Any administrator may redelete an article that has been deleted for reasonable purposes under the Biographies of living persons policy and summarily undeleted by another administrator without appropriate attempts at prior consultation with the deleting administrator. Action taken in furtherance of this principle does not constitute Wheel warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And in the case of unreasonable deletions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair. Less harm is caused by temporarily not having an article than by keeping something which causes distress to the subject while we gaze at our navels for the requisite nine deletions and DRVs. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Another "big guns" interpretation of the principles of the BLP. While the community should confer, where appropriate, on article deletions, and BLP deletion should be subject to all reasonable review, it is important that the principle of deleting as a form of pre-emptive takedown be respected. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff has linked to an article about a Californian pole vaulter, the BLP deletion of which was endorsed at deletion review, and described it as an "unreasonable deletion". Let me clarify: a reasonable deletion is one that, in the light of prevailing BLP considerations, might be taken as a reasonable interim action in order to resolve the immediate problem while an eventual solution is sought.

I know we're used to thinking of deletion as something final and irrevocable, but this isn't necessarily the case. Sometimes hitting the delete button is a good way to prevent potential harm or to halt ongoing harm. This kind of action is well established on other websites, and indeed it has been reported that many other websites have taken down their material related to this sportswoman in the wake of her pleas for privacy. It is in a way surprising that, with our broadly eventualist principles, we hade not developed such practices long before now.

So a "reasonable deletion" in the above doesn't amount to a deletion that is fully appropriate according to the prevailing criteria for speedy deletion. It's a deletion, possibly temporary, that can be reasonably be expected to limit damage. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Barberio reads this proposal as "a charter to wheel war". I see it as the opposite. It establishes the principle that reasonable deletions under the BLP are not to be undone without prior consultation, and if they are they can be redone if this will improve the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that well intentioned administrators can have differing opinions over what was or was not a reasonable deletion. Your suggestion would inevitably lead to wheel warring in these situations, as one at least one party believes they are 'entitled' to do so because 'it was a reasonable deletion'. This also raises the ugly spectre of Administrators insisting they are entitled to not have their actions reviewed because they were 'reasonable'.--Barberio 16:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reasonable" doesn't mean "unimpeachable", nor even "correct". It means, merely, not grossly and obviously wrong, such as deleting an article about pythagoras' theorem under the BLP. The deleting administrator may have spotted something that you may not have, so this principle says "ask him before you decide to undelete." There is a corollary to this, which is "don't summarily undelete in case of difference of opinion, even after consultation", but that is for another principle. It is possible to accept that consultation is good, while reserving the administrator's discretion to undelete after taking reasonable steps to consult. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And since all Wikipedia Administrators are Supreme Beings incapable of either mistake of malice, this could not possibly lead to huge levels of disruption as editors argue over if an article should have been deleted. This was sarcasm by the way. This proposal reads as a charter to wheel war over if articles should be deleted for BLP reasons. Especially that last sentence, since the whole definition of wheel warring is 'reverting the revert of your administrative action'. Seriously, I start to wonder if we need to desysop all these Administrators who subscribe to the 'SHUT UP I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU!' form of dispute resolution. --Barberio 16:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree in principle, mostly because I think the undeletion should not have occurred without discussion unless the original deletion was obviously out-of-process (e.g., deleting a featured article). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 0RR applies in the case of BLP deletions

66.2) In the case of disagreements between administrators, reversing a deletion made under the Biographies of living persons policy is inappropriate behavior which may lead to sanctions or, in extreme cases, desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Completely absurd. Wikipedia is not a caste system, or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a much stronger principle than 66.1. The basic principle: even after consulting with the deleting admin, don't undo a BLP deletion. deletion review may be more appropriate in some cases. Where the deleting admin claims with reasonable cause that there are copyright or defamation problems, or other serious problems that leave no suitable revision to revert to, open discussion might do more harm than good so we need some other form of review. In the meantime, wheel warring isn't the solution. --Tony Sidaway 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Much too extreme, especially given that we now have BLP deletions occuring over ethical rather than sourcing issues. Such concerns are inherently subjective enough that statements such as this one could be highly problematic. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ] 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No basis in current policy, guidelines, or practice. This is not the place to go about proposing fundamental changes to policy! Go propose this special exception on Wikipedia talk:Wheel war. But I doubt you'll gain consensus support for it. --Barberio 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

0RR is a reasonable interpretation of BLP, well within the purview of the arbitration committee. No change in policy would be required. --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

'Interpretating' Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to overturn Wikipedia:Wheel War is stretching the elasticity of Wikipedia beyond it's breaking point. --Barberio 19:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that if an admin undeletes a libelous page, it would be unacceptable wheel warring to redelete it? Preposterous. FCYTravis 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's putting Wikipedia at harm in that way, I'd expect that kind of urgent deletion to happen as an WP:OFFICE action, not unilateral action by an Admin. This is one of the reasons that they're currently advertising for the position of Legal coordinator. When it's *not* an urgent decision, I see no reason the deletion can not be delayed while it's discussed. --Barberio 19:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are BLP concerns, wouldn't it be more prudent to keep the article deleted while it's discussed? What harm is there in keeping a few articles (out of 1.8 million) temporarily deleted? ChazBeckett 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that Office actions are a matter of last resort only, and the vast majority of these situations can be, should be and are handled without resorting to that eventuality. Obviously libelous or privacy-violating content must be removed, immediately, and kept removed. Any administrator who replaces libelous material on the grounds that it has to be "discussed" is essentially asking for an emergency desysopping. FCYTravis 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This bars non-administrator editors from being able to make judgements about the article's contents. This basically turns decision making on BLP issues into an Admin Only Club. --Barberio 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's correct. You're just going to have to trust me when I delete John "Porno King" Doe with the deletion summary "Entirely and completely libelous." As an OTRS admin, I do stuff like that quite often. If you ask, I might tell you a bit more, but I might not, depending on how sensitive the matter is. You don't have a right to read libelous information. Any other administrator can review that, and question it. What we ask is that they not undelete it. That's part of the added trust and responsibility we assign to administrators. Those who misuse it, either by deleting abusively or undeleting abusively, are subject to loss of that trust and loss of that sysop bit. In the specific case of living people, it is patently clear that too little information is far less dangerous than too much, and thus it is established policy that we err on the side of too little. FCYTravis 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

'The 3rd rule of ticket club: "OTRS is not a badge. You must still follow the rules for each project and work to build consensus."', if you need to have something done on en.wikipedia.org that can't be undone by another admin, you ask for an Office Action. You don't do it yourself, and use OTRS as credentials to overule everyone else. --Barberio 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't need "to build consensus" to delete a patently libelous article. It just needs to get done. You can ask to discuss it later, but we're not going to undelete libelous material, ever, period. Consensus does not have the power to override deletions of libel and defamation. FCYTravis 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yowzer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know why you act shocked, Jeff. I don't know what's so difficult to understand about the idea that we're not going to undelete material which is patently libelous or defamatory. FCYTravis 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't libelious or defamotory material. The problem is material like, say, Qian Zhijun or Allison Stokke or Charlotte Wyatt or other sourced, non-libelious, non-defamatory material.--badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking to those examples here. I'm speaking to the idea that only office actions should deal with libel and defamation. The Office is a last resort. Countless numbers of these situations can be, should be and are dealt with before they get to that level. FCYTravis 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So do you agree then that the above principle is overly broad in that it seems to encompany those situations? JoshuaZ 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff is actually correct in this case. I don't think anyone disagrees that this is the case for a "patently libelous article". The concern is that for non-libelous articles that we arguably should not have (such as the QZ case or the AS case) that giving unilateral admin action of this sort is not a good idea and is not supported in policy. JoshuaZ 20:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And to build on Josh's point, we're looking at a bunch of OTRS admins saying "Trust us, we know better" and then blatantly ignoring policy. If you stick with the libelious stuff, great! We're happy to see it go, and we know why it needs to go. But that trust is completely eroded at the moment with the heavy-handedness of these deletions, especially when you try to flash the OTRS badge in an attempt to belittle those of us with good faith concerns. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved a very long discussion of the meaning of the word "unilateral" in this context to "General discussion". --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Very, very, very, very, very strongly disagree. I would've agreed if it said "don't undelete without discussion", but disallowing undeletion even after attempts at discussion is not reasonable. What if the deleting admin is on wikibreak or what if the deleting admin's response happens to be "Sod off" or "It's an issue of *basic human decency*. End of story."? These may seem like extreme cases, but they're not much different from actual comments that have been made in the past few weeks. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, see my comment (the first under "Comment by others"). This was written six days ago, when I was feeling my way towards a review process. The wording could be tighter, and is meant to say what I will present as 66.21. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 0RR applies in the case of BLP deletions (2)

66.21) In the case of disagreements between administrators, reversing a deletion made under the Biographies of living persons policy without adequate review is inappropriate behavior which may lead to sanctions or, in extreme cases, desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Intended t complement 29.1, "Reviewing WP:BLP deletions". I hope this answers Black Falcon's objections. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this mostly addresses my concerns above, so I'll agree to general principle. However, I'd like to see "adequate review" replaced with "adequate consideration" to avoid a possible interpretation that "adequate review" refers only to formal action via DRV. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd stick with the word "review" here. As defined in 29.1 this prevents a single admin undoing deletion in the absence of agreement with the deleting admin, which is usually unacceptable behavior in the context of the BLP. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I must oppose this proposal. I agree that it's a matter of common sense not to undelete articles that contain potentially libelous or defamatory content without first discussing with the deleting admin. However, as BLP speedy deletions are out-of-process, the burden is on the deleting admin to justify the deletion. If the deleting admin does not provide a proper rationale, the deletion should be overturned and the article sent to AfD. In think 66.1 is sufficient to express this idea. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it.

66.3) Administrators must not repeat an administrative action when they know that another administrator opposes it. "Wheel Wars" are highly disruptive and damaging to the project. If someone undoes an administrative action of yours, do not reinstate that action. The issue must be taken to an appropriate place for discussion before any further action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No. This is unnecessary, and also instruction creep: admins can have differences of opinion, we don't need new rules to say you can't redo a block or deletion - sometimes it's the right thing to do, and of course you will by then be in discussion with the admin who reversed it. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... This is straight from Wikipedia:Wheel war, and I'm rather surprised that you don't know that. Can I suggest you acquaint yourself with these long standing Wikipedia Policy? --Barberio 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, simple statement of the Wheel War policy. Seems to directly contradict what a lot of people have been saying. --Barberio 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I will propose that 0RR must apply in BLP cases. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this to the "BLP and wheel warring" section and renumbered.

The main objection I see here in the context of the BLP is that it would make the policy impossible to enforce as long as just one administrator was prepared to undo an action. This is far too low a bar. We should rather be asking administrators to take the policy seriously, and this has been the thrust of all arbitration committee statements that I've seen so far. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Which part of 'taken to appropriate place for discussion' are you reading to mean 'just one administrator can hold it up'. If the deletion was proper, then the discussion will support it. Again, you seem to believe that an Administrator can declare their actions irrevocable. --Barberio 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Under this principle, one administrator could reverse the deletion of a libelous/smearjob article, and that article could not be deleted until some sort of "discussion" was undertaken. Again, preposterous. FCYTravis 19:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See above. The Wikimedia Foundation handle cases where the project is put at legal risk, not Administrators. --Barberio 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See above. 99 percent of these problems never get to that level, and never should because they're easily handled by simple deletion. Our first responsibility to people is to get our facts straight about them, and if there's an article that's not doing it, we nuke it and then discuss it. That's a central tenet of BLP and it's not going to change. FCYTravis 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely what the BLP is designed for. Taking potentially harmful material (at least temporarily) out of sight. -Tony Sidaway 19:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Support as existing policy. The only exception should be BLPs where the undeleting admin did not make an attempt to discuss with the original deleting admin. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, your view would mean that any one admin could force the deletion of an article. All in all, that's just as bad. Your view has been tailored to fit the way you propose to operate--if any of the 1250 think it should go, it goes. Just as absurd as the other position. In any actual case of real harm, nobody will disagree. Th problem comes when an admin decides to think it equivalent to real harm without general agreement. That the first uses of this were made when there was actual GF controversy tends to show the potential for abuse is very real.DGG 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burden of proof

67) The onus is always on those seeking to include content, to demonstrate that it meets applicable policies and guidelines, and to achieve consensus for its inclusion where it is challenged. This applies particularly in the case of articles on living individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting proposal. And when that is demonstrated and consensus is found, and it's ignored by admins, then what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on the case. Consensus never trumps policy, and in the case of the articles discussed here such consensus to include is palpably absent anyway (the one thing which is most clearly absent is a consensus on what to do, which is why we are here), so I can't really answer the question in the context of this case. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Well, a close of 'No Consensus' in our deletion processes does not result in the article being deleted. So this principle is patently false. --Barberio 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Default keep of a subject does not mean default keep of any particular piece of information. It is plain that any piece of information whihc is contentious and disputed, should be excluded until there is consensus on how best to include it, if at all. Anything else is a charter for POV-pushers. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Barberio, in this clause we're talking about content, not articles. This isn't a deletionist charter, just a restatement of our commitment to Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Copyright, Biographies of living persons, etc. An content that doesn't meet these (and other applicable policies) gets sliced and diced until it fits the policies or is dead. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This case is about article deletions, and it does appear to me that this was proposed in relation to article deletions, not article content. Incidentally, I dislike being called by my first name by people having arguments with me. I consider it false chumminess, and it's belittling. --Barberio 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I apologise for using your first name. The intention wasn't to belittle but it did assume more familiarity than I have a right to. I'll replace all the occurrences by your username.

Secondly, in a way I was being a little evasive. We have until now tended to treat articles and content in inconsistent ways. We have had a very inclusionist attitude towards articles (and I speak as one of the community's most notorious inclusionists) but, as we have matured a correctly parsimonious attitude towards content. In the past two years our verifiability standards have been revolutionised.

I think you've touched upon it on the talk page: the idea that no consensus results in keep. In certain circumstances, I think it should result in deletion. I say so in all seriousness. I think it's the next step in the fulfilment of our commitment to humanity. Soon, I hope, we will be in a position to say, truthfully, that Wikipedia is no longer a newspaper archive. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP is ambiguous

68)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No, it's the interpretation which is ambiguous, and any attempt to fix that will amount to an attempt to legislate Clue, which has historically been ineffective and led mainly to more Wikilawyering rather than more Clue. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, if the interpretation is ambiguous, then the policy has obviously been written in an ambiguous manner. As the examples below ascertain. BLP is NPOV, verifiability and NOR. When we ignore the only notable facet of a person's life because of ill-defined privacy worries, it is "serious violation of our policies on neutrality". As I've mentioned, I don't think we should have had an article on Allison Stokke, but if it does exist for however transient a time, it should adhere to our policies on neutrality. Please don't use phrases like "legislate Clue", is it some kind of txt speak internets slang? - hahnchen 23:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

True. So are most of our good policies. NPOV, for instance, is wonderfully ambiguous. That's what requires editors as opposed to robots. Phil Sandifer 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is only ambiguous if you struggle with basic language interpretation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ambiguous in exactly the same way that BLP is - it articulates principles that have to be applied with careful judgment in the field. Phil Sandifer 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not so ambiguous as to be contradictory, as in the example below. This is compounded by the fact that editors feel that BLP allows any editor to delete material on "moral" grounds. - hahnchen 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So BLP is only ambiguous if you struggle with basic language interpretation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is the biggest problem with BLP deletions, the policy is incredibly ambiguous. The first bullet point of the page is an important Wikipedia tenet WP:NPOV. WP:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown states that as an encyclopedia, we should "include only material relevant to their notability". Following BLP, the Allison Stokke article should include the internet meme centered upon her.

However, BLP also states that articles must be written "with due regard to the subject's privacy". And thus, citing BLP, the article was protected to stop editors from inserting the only notable event in her life. As a counterargument, one could easily argue that as the article only covers her trivialities, then that is a gross violation of her privacy. - hahnchen 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS

69) Actions in response to OTRS complaints may be be based on privileged information. Editors should not revert actions taken citing OTRS without prior discussion with the OTRS volunteer first taking steps to establish the precise nature of the issue addressed. OTRS volunteers are expected to note the ticket number in such cases, to facilitate peer-review by other OTRS volunteers. An action which does not specifically reference OTRS is not an OTRS action.

OTRS volunteers have no right of veto, but editors are expected to show reasonable sensitivity to the fact that are acting on information which may not be publicly available and may be a legal or copyright complaint.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Needs clarifying, given discussions of OTRS issues above. There is a difference between "removing per OTRS complaint" in an edit summary or takl page comment, and noting that as an OTRS volunteer one has a certain insight into the effect of Wikipedia on real people's lives. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is another attempt to wedge in policy changes to this case! OTRS volunteers do not have any special powers on en.wikipedia.org, the ArbCom have no entitlement to grant them any special powers, there has been no discussion over granting OTRS volunteers special powers. Wikipedia:OTRS is not official policy, and has no impact. OTRS volunteers are expected to follow common practice within each individual project, they are not acting as the "voice of the foundation", and should not be claiming their actions are irrevocable. The idea of 'superuser admins' with such special powers has been regularly proposed, and regularly rejected, and nothing seems to have changed to suggest otherwise.

I've raised this on the pump, to try and generate some discussion on this. I think it may be wise to discard any arguments based on OTRS 'Special Powers' until the comunity have decided if they have them or Wikimedia make a special announcement that they do. --Barberio 15:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not a policy change, a recognition that when people are responding to complaints - which may be legal complaints - we should, in the first instance anyway, let them get on with it and ask them what it's about, rather than simply undoing it. It's just common sense. WP:OFFICE says much the same thing but with teeth. OTRS volunteers are doing essentially the same job. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anything in this case have a lick to do with OTRS concerns and responsibilities? The only actual comment about OTRS I'm aware of that's germane involves the OTRS volunteers somehow believing their opinion means more simply because they're allowed to volunteer with OTRS, not that any of the deletions or conflicts surrounding these deletions and actions are based on OTRS abuse - I know of none of that, nor would I be challenging OTRS issues here without some serious discussion first. So why is this even here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not sure how that applies to this specific case, since to my knowledge, no OTRS complaint was ever even received, though I could be wrong on that one. That aside, however, while I'd agree that one should generally discuss a matter with anyone before undoing an action of theirs (it's common courtesy and common sense, you might've missed something which upon their clarification will show you that they're quite right), I'd be very hesitant to put OTRS in the same category with OFFICE. The OTRS guidelines even quite specifically state that being an OTRS member does not give one unlimited authority. OFFICE authority is restricted to a very few people and invoked very sparingly, and for good reason. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant to this case. No evidence that any action here has been or has been claimed to be or has been mistaken for an OTRS action. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I sort of agree, but there seems to be some misunderstanding here and this is designed to clear it up and be unambiguous. When those of us who are OTRS volunteers say we have some appreciation of the effect Wikipedia articles have on real people out there in real life land, that's just a statement of fact, not an assertion of special privileges. Some have misunderstood it as being an assertion of privilege, but it is not. On the other hand, it bears stating that an action taken in response to a specified OTRS ticket is based on some information which may or may not be privileged, is always the result of a genuine complaint, and should not be reverted without at least taking steps to establish the cause of the problem. Naturally this should not need to be said, reverting an edit made in response to a complaint which may come from the subject's lawyer is pretty stupid after all, but it's happened enough times that I think it's worth including. However, if it's not deemed relevant, as a tangential issue at best, I'll not be over worried. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While this case may involve editors who happen to volunteer for OTRS; I do not believe any of the principles involved in this case directly relate to OTRS volunteering. It would be regrettable if this section were included in the final dispute resolution. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I could be wildly out, but I don't think the arbitration committee is likely to want to interfere with the operation of OTRS unless evidence of serious abuses of the OTRS system are presented. Which is about as likely as Jimbo Wales being blocked as a sock puppet of Willy on Wheels. The involvement of OTRS in this case is, at best, tangential, although OTRS volunteers certainly have special interest in the outcome of this case. --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy closure of articles for deletion discussions listed as the result of a deletion review

70) Articles for deletion discussions listed or relisted as a result of community consensus at deletion review should generally not be closed before the customary time period for discussion has elapsed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Hmmm. Many articles have been relisted for "procedural" reasons, which is complete bollocks really - we don't list at AfD for the sake of process, we do it because the person listing at AfD believes the article should go. This would impede some clueful actions. It would also open the door to endless Wikilawyering, with those advocating one result or the other continually requesting relisting until they get the outcome they want. Much better to have a finding which urges the use of more creative solutions than an endless game of deletion ping-pong between Afd-default-keep and DRV-default-Clue. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted for procedural reasons means the DRV has been closed as open an(other) AfD and the closing admin does not wish to impose their arguments on the community because they happened to have closed the previous dicussion - or they do not have a strong opinion either way. Seems reasonable to me. You keep touting Clue^TM as widely held view that everyone should have - when in reality you are pushing your views on everyone else expecting them to see them as logicaly as you do and essentially treating them like idiots qhwn they disagree. Viridae^Talk 02:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's one way of seeing it, I guess. Me, I don't think "procedurally" listing an AfD is especially helpful. If you can't make a case for deletion, then don't list it. If you can make a case for deletion, it's not "procedural", it's a listing. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chatham County Line, for example (not a good example, but an example). Waste of time. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to remedy 21. I think the idea behind that proposal is sound, but I'm not sure saying it can never be done is a great idea. It should be something done very rarely and only with very, very good reason though-if the decision at DRV is "Have a full discussion on it" (or "Put it up for discussion again since there's a good chance the first one didn't produce an accurate measure of consensus)", a full discussion should be had. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus of the community" is a tricky one here. It appears to me that we've often been dealing with a very small but energetic tail trying its best to wag a reluctant or indifferent dog. Recent changes to the deletion policy have made this kind of activism more difficult to sustain. Speedy closes in this case, though controversial, seem to have been in the direction of consensus and in recognition that a huge amount of time had already been devoted to a case, and the intention of those raising the issue was to inflict punishment on the community, in the absence of any likelihood that a different result would be achieve the third or fourth time around. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree here. Do you know why we have these "procedural AFDs"? It's not process for process sake, it's because we don't trust a single administrator to make all the decisions by himself. - hahnchen 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Guy here procedural AFDs are a nonsense, at best it should just restore the article and let someone who does want to argue for deletion relist it, nothing procedural about it. --pgk 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy closure of articles for deletion discussions listed as the result of a deletion review

70.1) In the case of biographies of living persons, repetitive discussion is often harmful to the aims of the project, and speedy closure of discussions restarted for bureaucratic reasons, without an underlying issue to be settled, is to be expected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absurd. Arbcom is not a charter for disruption. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. A bold riposte to 70, and I think a more realistic one. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, in that case, the underlying issue could be said to be "Is this really a BLP issue, and is the article genuinely an inherent violation of BLP to the point it must be deleted and never recreated?" I don't think that if a consensus comes to the conclusion "A discussion (or a new discussion) needs to be held" that holding that new discussion is for bureaucratic reasons-it's because apparently, then, a discussion needs to be held. You can't actually stop people from discussing an issue if they want to regardless, you can only scatter the discussion all over the place (making it difficult to monitor for further problems) and increase resentment and hostility by trying. Look how well the "speedy closures" did at stopping discussion in this case-it caused more of it, the issue would very likely be resolved by now if not for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it would be accurate to say that the speedy closures protracted discussion of sensitive matters at all. They were very effective in killing it. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is...why we're here? Not to mention it was intensely discussed on everything from the RfC to the mailing list as well. It didn't squelch discussion, we're still having it! (I would question whether it would be a good idea to forcibly squelch discussion even if one could, but really, I've never seen it be effective even when someone tries.) Better to have it in one central location, where it can be easily monitored for problematic comments and everyone involved can have his or her say. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We're seeing a lot of moaning and gnashing of teeth over the cessation of some abusive attempts to inflict pointless pain on the community by prolonging discussion in the absence of any realistic chance of changing its opinion. The harmful matter is no longer being discussed, however, and so the object has been achieved. Eventually, discussion must cease, and particularly in the case of the BLP the attempts to restart a dead issue are very disruptive. I hope this case will clear that up quite cleanly. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. "Abusive attempts to inflict pointless pain?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you imagine the deletion policy was recently changed? --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To stop the disruption you're so fond of. So far, it hasn't worked - admins are making worse calls than ever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thus the problem. Shut down all discussion so you can get the result you want. Truly, people with that attitude should be forcibly removed from the project entirely. Since that will never happen, simply making a stern statement that squelching discussion in this way is completely inappropriate will have to do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Stifling discussion will never produce a positive outcome. It may produce one or more editors' desired outcome, but overall it will not produce a positive outcome. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User blocks are not weapons

71) Special:Blockip is not a machine gun; it is to be used only when blocking has a positive effect (such as deterring vandalism) and it should not be used as a reaction to something such as incivility. It should also be noted that when a person is blocked, they may react by feeling they have been wronged and as such they will not handle it well.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed (messedrocker • talk) 02:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should never be used as a reaction to incivility. If I start posting "Messedrocker is a @*#*, and a $&@&, and a &*!@$ while we're on the subject!" all over the place, I would certainly not be surprised to find myself blocked. I don't think it should just be used for bluntness though—some people express their opinion very bluntly and it's just their style. "You're dead wrong" is not uncivil. The underlying principle is good though, that blocking should be with an eye to prevent damage, not to punish. That's been in the blocking policy forever. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view is an infrangible principle

72) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is an infrangible principle. All articles, including biographies of living persons, must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, in a neutral tone, representing all significant views, and without giving undue weight to any aspects of the subject, whether positive or negative.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as a reaffirmation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This case is very much about Neutral point of view and in particular the crucial role of "Undue Weight" in the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not censored

73) Wikipedia is not censored. Information that is reliably sourced and verifiable, does not constitute original research, and is expressed from a neutral point of view, including that it does not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, should not be removed from articles without consensus support.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a phrase which has been misleadingly used by several editors and demands clarification. Wikipedia is not censored means that we do not exclude content that some may find offensive, such as images of nudity, descriptions of sex acts and cartoon representations of Mohammed. What it does not mean is that we must publish crap. Removal of articles documenting the humiliation of unwitting private individuals is absolutely not what Wikipedia is not censored is intended to cover, and it would be well worth ArbCom clarifying this. Wikipedia is not censored does not mean that Wikipedia should not engage in a degreee of self-censorship where there are potential adverse consequences to living individuals, the two concepts are subtly different. It should also be noted that the contentious articles in this case are considered contentious precisely because several of us consider that they do confer undue weight, and are a form of original research, int hat they tease a "biography" out of a series of news stories, thus presenting the subject in a way the sources do not, so invoking Wikipedia is not censored is to beg the question. So: it is relevant to consider Wikipedia is not censored in as much as it is worthwhile the arbitrators confirming that it is a straw man in this case. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Please note that the above wording applies only to the removal of information; it allows content to be replaced and rewritten as necessary or appropriate. It also does not safeguard articles from deletion. An article may be verified and neutral, but still fail any number of inclusion/exclusion criteria (including notability and WP:NOT). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an issue in this case. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely an issue. Very much a major point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Censored" is a value-laden term that I have found unhelpful in these types of discussion. The proposal here begs the question: it correctly acknowledges that material can be deleted or truncated based on considerations of notability or undue weight, without addressing how those are to be interpreted with respect to the types of articles we are discussing. The proposal also does not address whether the privacy interests of a living, semi-notable person are a proper consideration in a deletion analysis. If the implicit suggestion is that they are not, then I disagree. Newyorkbrad 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply that privacy considerations are not valid. However, I think such concerns are already mostly covered by the "Undue weight" section of the NPOV policy. Also, the proposal applies not so much to article inclusion/deletion as the inclusion/exclusion of information. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember this from a year or two back (can't find exactly when it change), where the title was in my view more specific as to the nature of this, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. --pgk 20:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, SPUI put it in because some guys thought it was okay to remove a picture of a clitoris from the clitoris article and whatnot. I negotiated its inclusion in policy. It's mutated a bit, but it still isn't a license to put crap into the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, "not censored" does not cover only the exclusion of content that some may find offensive, but any exclusion of content made on the basis of personal moral considerations that may not be shared by others. Censorship is censorship, regardless of the form it takes: removing supposedly 'graphic' or 'sexually explicit' images, removing depictions of the Prophet Muhammed, and/or removing information that is sourced, neutral, and relevant on the basis of the principle that BLP articles should not contain any negative information. Also please note that I've stated this as a general principle and have not pointed any fingers at you or anyone else (I'm not aware if others have, but I won't take responsibility for others' actions in any case). In any case where there's a genuine disagreement about undue weight, neutrality, reliability of sources, relevance, and the like, the point of censorship is essentially irrelevant. I also agree that "Wikipedia should ... engage in a degreee of self-censorship where there are potential adverse consequences to living individuals" (that's the whole point of the rule that any unsourced BLP information can be removed on-sight). However, I think it can be taken too far and believe that overapplications of BLP constitute censorship. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, but I believe you are wrong, and I believe that the recent change to WP:NOT and the existence of WP:BLP demonstrate that. The censorship clause exists to fix a specific problem: attempts to bowdlerise sexually explicit content. It has been extended to cover the Mohammed cartoons, but it has emphatically not been extended to cover the inclusion of material over which editors express good faith concerns in respect of WP:BLP, so its use in this case by proponents of the contentious articles has been a straw man, because their removal was not due to censorship but due to serious concerns with policy, most notably representing the subject in a way the sources did not. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, if you dig into what "not censored" policy's purpose was when it was enacted, you are looking into legislative history, which should be frowned upon. We should look at what the word of the policy means in the dictionary, not why they were originally made. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 14:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Policy isn't legislation, and you should never be looking to "what the word of the policy means in the dictionary", over what the policies intent is, the spirit of the policy. If the intent of change of wording was to cover some extra circumstances, but the wording in retrospect is being used over and above what was intended, it's the intent which wins. --pgk 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wooyi, that may be how a Wikilawyer view it, but in my view you are completely wrong there. The purpose of Wikipedia is nto censored is pretty well understood, and it does not mean, as it is asserted to mean here, that Wikipedia may not make a discerning choice not to cover certain subjects in certain ways, or not co cover certain aspects of certain subjects. It exists, in intent and from its historicity, to support the inclusion of material which is vulnerable to bowdlerisation, specifically the use of explicit images and text in sexually charged subjects. By extension, Wikipedia also does not exclude material on grounds of blasphemy. I believe that extending it to say we should not remove material which has the potential to materially affect the lives of real, individually identifiable people, is going far beyond the intent of that policy as written and interpreted. The use of the phrase is also a simple denial of a large part of the rationale underlying the disputed actions. The cry of "ZOMG! Censorship!" abjectly fails to account for objections raised in good faith by a number of long-standing contributors and founded in a perfectly defensible interpretation of policy. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, Wikipedia is not a website whose intent is to showcase the good in people and suppress any information about the bad. We're an encyclopedia, not Disneyland. If we remove sourced, relevant, and neutral information from an article on the basis that the information may harm the subject (we can, of course, never be certain), then we've just violated Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Censorship does not apply to cases where the information is unsourced, irrelevant, or non-neutral (which includes the provision of "undue weight") ... that is, when ediors raise objections in good faith. Censorship applies only to situations where content is as perfect as it could be, but is still removed to satisfy someone's personal ethical considerations. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration of admin privileges

74) Administrators who resign their sysop rights voluntarily while involved in controversial circumstances must go through normal channels to regain them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Certainly has support, but of debatable relevance to this case. Arguing over this should be kept down in the finding of fact section under Doc glasgow's section. Milto LOL pia 05:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

75)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Wikipedia's growth and status

1) The English Wikipedia has reportedly become one of the ten most visited websites in the entire world. Because of our high siterank and the extensive interlinking of Wikipedia pages to one another, a Wikipedia article on an individual or topic will often be among the highest-ranking, if not the very first, page to turn up when a Google or comparable search is conducted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This was already true a year or so ago when Wikipedia was only a top 20 site, at least for whatever I was searching for, the the first search result was on Wikipedia and thus I began editing. — CharlotteWebb 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover our content is free and will be around for a very long time even if this site collapses. It's popular and it's used by mirror sites to generate revenue, and that practice would only increase if we disappeared. We have to stop leaking crap. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony I agree with you entirely on this. If the pagerank of Wikipedia jumped from a single digit number to an imaginary number, we would not suddenly relax on BLP. The fact that we're even acknowledging that BLP issues (the principle, not the policy) will exist and will present no less of a concern for every two-bit mirror/fork site of Wikipedia — even long after Wikipedia is gone — makes Wikipedia's status as a top ten site, in my opinion, irrelevant to our level of responsibility. — CharlotteWebb 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that our mirrors/forks don't show up nearly as highly on Google now as they did a few months ago. The only thing I know that changed is we now serve all extlinks with rel=nofollow (die linkspammers die!!!!) but I'm having trouble seeing how that could be the cause. 75.62.6.237 07:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of Wikipedia's growth and status

2) As Wikipedia has grown, there has been extensive attention both within and outside the project to the effect that coverage on Wikipedia has on living persons. A strong, although not unanimous, consensus has emerged that increased awareness and sensitivity by Wikipedians toward these concerns has become a matter of imperative public importance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not actually convinced this is true. At best, a caveat about BLP as intended v. BLP as executed by the people causing this case may be helpful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced this is true. It's an extension of don't be a dick to cover our interactions with people outside of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it. 75.62.6.237 07:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons is policy

3) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP) is a policy that exists, in part, to protect Wikipedia from liability by requiring that biographies have reliable sources, especially about controversial claims. BLP also requires editors to be sensitive about biographies of living people. "Do no harm" has been incorporated into BLP since at least early 2006 [24].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed Thatcher131 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do no harm" in that link refers to borderline cases (which I suppose are the cases under dispute). I don't favor a wildly broad "do no harm" policy. Our entire mission of giving away an accurate encyclopedia does harm to people with self-serving reasons to spread misinformation, e.g. our physics article about conservation of energy probably harms scammers selling perpetual motion devices. I think the SSB2 arb case ended up overprotective towards SSB (the main subject of the disputed articles, a cult leader/scam artist with supposedly 50 million followers and therefore someone of considerable public importance, and in a position of possibly-destructive influence over other people's lives). It's within our mission to document good and bad stuff done by people like that. Major politicians are another example of people with possibly-destructive authority over large numbers of others. I'd more strictly adhere to not doing harm when the article subject doesn't have such influence, even when they have meet our threshold of notability (like QZ, various entertainment figures, etc.) [TBD: conflict between BLP and NPOV and notability].

True, but "do no harm" is not a justification for compromising neutrality or removing sourced, neutral, and relevant content. Dennis Rader has been convicted of 10 murders; that information may harm his chances of winning a Nobel Peace Prize, but BLP doesn't justify the blanking of his article. BLP does not trump NPOV. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People notable for a single event

3.1) WP:BLP has recently been modifed to give guidance on articles about people notable for a single event.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed Thatcher131 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The example of Rachel Marsden

3.2) Rachel Marsden is a public figure who is the subject of a wikipedia biography, Rachel Marsden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). At one time, the article dealt almost exclusively with an incident that occured during her college years, in part because the only sources found that covered her popst-college career were partisan and extremely biased. Although the college incident was well documented with reliable sources, the arbitration committee ruled in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden that Rachel Marsden, in its negative form, is inconsistent with Wikipedia:biographies of living persons, directed that the article be stubbed, and cautioned two administrators who were largely responsible for the negative version. Thatcher131 00:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed Thatcher131 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what Thatcher is getting at here. That aspect of the Marsden arb case looks like a content ruling to me, especially regarding the link to the Western Standard article, which is no longer in the Wikipedia article about Rachel Marsden. All in all I'm not convinced that decision was one of Arbcom's better moments. It may have had more to do with Marsden herself participating in the case as a "squeaky wheel" than trying to do the right thing regarding POV. The older "negative" version of the article was apparently written by tendentious POV-pushers who have been repeatedly sanctioned by arbcom, so maybe it would have been best to just delete the article, and let neutral editors use discretion about whether that link was appropriate in a rewrite. Marsden's situation is nothing like QZ's (i.e. she's a political advocate with a lot of ongoing media exposure) and if the Western Standard link was definitely outside Wikipedia's spectrum of acceptable sourcing for such people, then a heck of a lot of other political articles need to be cleaned up. 75.62.6.237 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Do no harm" refers to every case, of course. Wikipedia isn't here to make the world a worse place. The watchword "do no harm" is presented here as a kind of tie-breaker. 'In case of doubt,' it says, 'the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".' If we're unsure about whether to include some minor detail about a person involved in some event (perhaps, for instance, the tabloids have made much of the fact that a private individual involved in some major event has a criminal record unrelated to the event) then we cut them some slack. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT

4) As a direct result of the controversy regarding the QZ article, and some related incidents, the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was changed by Jimbo Wales to reinforce the idea that transient notoriety does not equate to encyclopaedic notability [25].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd want some evidence of that. And, secondarily, his change really didn't negate the ability to have articles on these things. It's misguided and rather toothless in the grander scheme of things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of motivation? It's in the archives of OTRS-en-l. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, private evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seems a bit unnecessary for the ArbCom to conclude simply that one Wikipedian, albeit one whose views many (probably properly) respect, proposed a change to a policy page. The Cqommittee should surely, where relevant, recapitulate extant policy with respect to transient notoriety in order to apply such policy to the instant situation, but I can't imagine why we'd want the Committee to take note of the edit to WP:NOT, except perhaps to observe that its being a source of some controversy amongst the community suggests that there is at present no plain consensus for a more restrictive understanding of encyclopedic notability. Joe 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Committee has all the evidence on this, for or against, that it could wish for. --Tony Sidaway 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

5) As a direct result of the controversy regarding the Qian Zhijun article, and some related incidents, the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons was modified to include a section which currently reads:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry.

Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If the reliable sources only cover the person in the context of something else, then a separate biography is probably unwarranted. Court cases, crimes, and natural disasters, for examples, should be presented as unified articles that involve all sides, based on reliable secondary sources, and not primary-source material interpreted only by Wikipedians. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, and create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead. In such cases, a redirect is often the best option.

This enjoys considerable support, as evidence on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, and is also in line with the change made by Jimbo to WP:NOT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we add the part about it being added to win in ongoing deletion disputes? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sure, Jimbo added it in "to win in ongoing disputes". --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review has not reflected community ideals regarding consensus

6) Deletion reviews have traditionally been closed as straight vote counts rather than per strength of argument and consensus. This has resulted in a number of improper results, and a weakening of the deletion appeal process for Wikipedians.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per DRV is broken evidence, an alternative to above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hell, we agree. Voting is evil.--Doc^g 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jimmy Wales recently fixed the broken process out of concern for the abuse of the process to attempt to break the BLP. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as too vague. It's impossible to state as fact any statement that includes the normative word "improper". The statement is unfalsifiable. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review has not resulted in the proper results at an acceptable rate

7) Deletion review has an unacceptably high fail rate. Of all full deletion reviews, including uncontested endorsements/overturns, deletion review comes to a conclusion that is not consistent with policy approximately 15% of the time. Since the change in deletion policy added by Jimbo Wales, deletion review has continued to show a lack of ability to weigh arguments against policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, shocked I missed this. Per clear evidence, and per the Hornbeck DRV closure and many more coming up for sure, at this rate. Rank incompetence should not be tolerated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Please see DRV is not broken for a debunking of Jeff's assertion, which can often be summed up as "DRV disagreed with me, therefore it's wrong." FCYTravis 07:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that this rude assertion has absolutely no basis in reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. There's no sense going around in circles with this - you believe that we are supposed to follow process to the letter at all times, even when that would result in nonsensical results for the encyclopedia. FCYTravis 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dishonest statements regarding other editors should not be tolerated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You make an argument, I make a counterargument, you call me dishonest and rude. I think this pretty much sums it up. FCYTravis 00:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

When your counterargument is dishonest, we call it what it is. I've been lied about enough already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be supported by anything on the evidence page. Nandesuka 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to read the evidence page again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be more a "my interpretation of policy is being ignored by the closing admins" finding. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Quite simply, this cannot be a fact since "high fail rate" and "conclusion that is not consistent with policy" is subjective. In a sense, any decision reached by consensus at DRV is already consistent with policy. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus and deletions of articles

8) Many adminsitrators believe they have support of the community for their actions, and that those who oppose them citing policy are wrong due to the upholding of deletions at DRV or RfC. Policy can not be overturned or abandoned due to discussion on individual issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, see finding of fact above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So what this is saying is: Jeff is to be the final arbiter of deletion policy, deletion arguments from policy are to be ignored as invalid, retention arguments citing policy are to be honoured, irrespective of the fact that Jeff has shown beyond doubt that he fundamentally misunderstands at least one of the policies in force here. Pardon me if I don't rush to endorse this. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not what it's saying. And your continued smear that I "fundamentally misunderstand" any of the policies here, let alone "one...in force," has been duly noted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The evidence shows that the administrators in the instances under discussion have cited the Biographies of living persons policy, and believe their actions in deleting unencyclopedic and harmful or potentially harmful material to be supported by the principles set out in that policy, specifically: do no harm.

That the community, taken as a whole, supports or tolerates such necessary actions makes them easier to perform, but it is arguable in the case of this particular policy that they would need to be carried out, at least to take unsuitable material temporarily out of view, even if the community eventually arrived at a disposition of the material other than complete obliteration.

The principle of taking such material out of sight is well established on websites with a far lower commitment to ethical behavior than Wikipedia, so it's far from obvious that it should not apply to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is too easy to shout "BLP" and remove an article without anyone realising. The evidence also shows that the articles deleted under that guise are being reviewed through better processes and the findings are in favour of keep or merge based on differing interpretations on that policy. Until that policy is clear this problem will keep happening. violet/riga (t) 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is evidence that shows this, it would be a good idea to put it onto the evidence page of this arbitration. Of your own evidence, I see Baby 81, Rumaisa Rahman, Kian and Remee Hodgson, Manar Maged, Charlotte Wyatt, Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman, Montana Barbaro, Rebeca Martínez, and Delimar Vera Cuevas, not one of which survives in its original form. In particular, incorporation as notes into conjoined twins and premature birth, and (in one instance) expanded into a general article Mixed twins has shown the success of this scanning and deletion methodology. The deletion has not stopped the appropriate parts of the material being given a sensitive treatment. On the other hand, the kneejerk undeletion of articles, without consultation, placed Wikipedia in a very difficult situation. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the evidence - not one of those was a legitimate deletion, including your bizarre closure earlier today. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a statement of dogma, not a reasoned argument. Had you said "I do not believe that these were legitimate" it would be uncontentious, but instead you assert your belief as fact, and reject out of hand the idea that any other position than yours has any merit whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't tend to sugarcoat facts. Sorry if that bothers you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion does not necessarily equate to fact. Hopefully this will one day sink in. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinions aren't facts. I agree with that. But facts, however, are not things that are fungible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, opinions are not facts. Throughout this arbitration you have asserted as fact things which are, in fact, only your opinion. Some at least of these opinions you have asserted as fact, are provably wrong. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you folks get around to proving me wrong, let me know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moral and Ethical nature of the project and expectations of participants

9) The moral and ethical nature of the project itself is an open question. There have been a number of proposals relating to the moral and ethical nature of the project, or relating to what it should be. These include the following:

Proposal	Nutshell	Status
Beyond Good and Evil	Wikipedia is/should be beyond good and evil.	Rejected
Beyond Good and Evil/Evil	Wikipedia is evil.	Rejected
Wikiethics	Appears not to have one but summary is: Wikipedia has a body of policies that presuppose the existence of ethical standards in both the editors contributing, and the encyclopedia itself. Although these ethical standards are largely undefinable this document aims to outline their parameters and scope.	Rejected
Basic dignity	This above all - do no harm, or The Golden Rule	Essay
NOT evil	Wikipedia is not evil.	Essay
Wikipedia:No Moral Code	none	Rejected
Biographies_of_living_persons	Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.	Policy

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. While this shows that there is not universal consensus on every point, and like many other areas, there are a plethora of guidelines, essays and policy that may overlap or be contradictory, there is a basic expectation that we act in ethical ways, that the encyclopedia project should not make things worse for the world. I encourage others to add to the table, I am sure I missed some. ++Lar: t/c

• "Essay but not rejected" is an oxymoron. We don't reject essays. >Radiant< 13:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• What is meant there is that sometimes essays start out as proposed policies or guidelines, which then get rejected, before getting converted into essays. Neither of these essays made that trip, as far as I could tell. Hope that helps clarify. However, since it was confusing, I removed it. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That chart is horrible. The fact that BLP is policy says it all, really. Why make it more complicated by introducing rejected stuff? --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I introduced it to show that there is significant community discussion about this, but that in general (not uniformly) the trend is to reject the idea that the project is amoral. The chart seemed the best way to present it. ++Lar: t/c 17:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff and BLP

10.1) While badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) has been a vocal critic of BLP as written, he has not shown evidence of editing outside of the BLP policy, or pushing for the undeletion of blatant violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence, because it's true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note the complete lack of any substantiation of BLP concerns. A perfect example of the problem at hand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is begging the question. First of all, your content-editing is not at issue. Second of all, what constitutes a "blatant violation" is hotly disputed. Naturally you've acted completely correctly in your own mind--but that's why we're here, isn't it? Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm allowed to say why I think we're here. This is simply a statement regarding the evidence that a) exists, and b) will be forthcoming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You can say this if you wish, though I think the latter half is untrue. The Barbara Bauer DRV springs to mind - a blatant coatrack article that attacked a living person, if ever there was one. Moreschi ^Talk 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on that, as did many others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is probably half the problem. Your definition of "blatant violation" is way outside the project norm. Moreschi ^Talk 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And that's untrue. My definition is derived solely from relevant policy and guidelines. --20:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "opponent" to "critic" as I think it more accurately describes the relationship here. — CharlotteWebb 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I believe both words are true - I oppose the need for it, and I'm a critic of its heavy-handed implementation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See this evidence for an example of Jeff's unnecessary restoration of the name of a four-month-old baby to an article, and moving the article back to the name of the minor despite citation of BLP concerns by the editor (myself) who moved it and removed the name. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, I will probably recount the Armando affair in the evidence section this weekend if nobody beats me to it. 75.62.6.237 07:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do. I've heard vague rumblings about Jeff's behavior in that case, but I'm not familiar with the details, and it may be relevant as evidence of long term problematic behavior. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the details. Armando is a blogger at Daily Kos. Armando uses his full name in appearances and on the radio. Someone made an article using his full name about the blogger. Armando gets mad about it when National Review and The New Republic notice his name and the article, and a minor shitstorm ensues with various deletion discussions. BLP was a fledgling guideline at the time, and the information would still meet the standard today, but the eventual outcome, after some RfCs and discussion and whatever, was that the redirect was what people decided to keep, and I haven't bothered with it since. Discussion at Talk:Armando (blogger) and in the archives at Talk:Daily_Kos/Archive_2#Armando_Issues will give a pretty decent outline. I wasn't the only one arguing in favor of the stand-alone article, and I haven't bothered with the discussion since. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And the guy's name is still there in the redirect page's edit history. Sure, it's not searchable from Google, but it's not exactly oversighted either (and doesn't need to be if the guy uses his full name elsewhere). I suspect this is a case of a stage name - of someone wanting to have control over their "stage name", and objecting to the article being under their real name. Carcharoth 16:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rereading the archives, I'll also note that I had brought it up to the BLP noticeboard, which, upon discussion, essentially agreed with my position regarding whether the use of the name was a BLP violation. Worth noting, but I can't find the archive currently, and I've made 12k-odd edits since last July, so I don't intend to go fishing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff has mis-told the story. Armando was an anonymous blogger whose full name got out (he was less protective about it at first) and was then spread around maliciously. He wasn't trying to "control his stage name" in the sense of publicizing it when he chose to; he was trying to stay anonymous and slipped up. What happened to him on Wikipedia was outrageous. Google's #2 hit for (armando dailykos) is a Wikipedia RFM page about the incident and the #1 hit is Wikipedia's article on Daily Kos, which to this day contains a tendentious disclosure about Armando that BDJ helped maintain. OK, I'll see if I can write something about it at /Evidence though I hoped someone else would since I didn't have the energy for it. One issue is I think there is relevant deleted material that I can't easily access without a sysop bit, but there's enough remaining to get the idea across. I agree with Jeff that others were also acting in the same way he was at that time. I don't claim there was a bright-line BLP violation but I would describe Jeff's editing in that incident as aggressive. 75.62.6.237 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting spin on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Jeff has acted correctly. Walton^{alternate account} 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Any disagreement between two editors on a biography of a living person does not automatically make one of them a BLP violator. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff

10.2) Badlydrawnjeff has edited Wikipedia since February 2005 and has more than 18,500 edits across a variety of namespaces. He is not an administrator. In addition to his mainspace contributions, Badlydrawnjeff is well-known as a forceful advocate of the "inclusionist" philosophy and advocates that much disputed content remain in the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nothing false here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How is "he is not an administrator" relevant? Also, the last phrase, "advocates that much disputed content remain in the encyclopedia" needs some work (or to be removed completely). It doesn't make any sense - it makes it sound like he advocates keeping the content merely based on the fact that it is disputed. --BigDT 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"He is not an administrator" is important in identifying the parties given allegations of wheel-warring, etc. It's also a formulation I've used before in identifying the players. As for your second point, "much disputed" means "a great deal of disputed" - anyone can change the wording if anyone else was confused. Newyorkbrad 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, he's had two RFA's (BDJ1 BDJ2) fail due to his overzealous inclusionism. 75.62.6.237 07:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's untrue. The first failed due to poor calculations and untrue statements, the second due to self-limitations and the fact that I don't edit with adminship in mind. Let's not overdo the inclusionism angle - it didn't hurt other people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well ok, you've probably contemplated the reasons for the RFA failures more than I have, so maybe you're right about that point, especially re BDJ2. It's not worth debating in either case. All I can say is that BDJ1 was a personal epiphany for me--reading it (and the Armando AfD that one the opposers linked to) was what convinced me that inclusionism (of the sort we're dealing with in this case) is evil and not just silly. 75.62.6.237 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The unsuccessful RfA's are not relevant at the level of background information for an arbitration decision. (Although a world in which Badlydrawnjeff was an administrator for the past few months would definitely have been an interesting place.) Newyorkbrad 14:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff

10.2.1) Badlydrawnjeff has edited Wikipedia since February 2005 and has more than 18,500 edits across a variety of namespaces. He is not an administrator. He is the primary author of three featured articles (with a fourth nominated). In addition to his mainspace contributions, Badlydrawnjeff is well-known as a forceful advocate of the "inclusionist" philosophy and advocates that much disputed content remain in the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Expanded. If we're going to describe him in a short paragraph, we can hardly leave out 3+ FAs, that's more important than edit count, there are considerably fewer editors with those qualifications than admins, and at least one criticism has implied that he spends all his time at DRV, rather than actually writing articles. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff

10.2.2) Badlydrawnjeff has edited Wikipedia since February 2005 and has more than 18,500 edits across a variety of namespaces. He is not an administrator. He is the primary author of three featured articles (with a fourth nominated). In addition to his mainspace contributions, Badlydrawnjeff is well-known as a forceful advocate of the "inclusionist" philosophy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as modification of 10.2.1 by AnonEMouse. There is no way to assert as fact or in any way prove the statement "advocates that much disputed content remain in the encyclopedia". I second BigDT's comment that it comes across as implying that he advocates the inclusion of content because it is disputed. I'm well aware that this wasn't Newyorkbrad's intention, but I think it's better to just leave out the phrase. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff's participation in deletion discussions

10.3) Badlydrawnjeff's participation in deletion discussions is in good faith and consistent with his personal Wikipedia philosophy. At times this has been productive in causing the retention and/or improvement of worthwhile content. However, at times badlydrawnjeff has expressed his views in harshly strident terms, or has pressed his position procedurally to the point that some users have considered his actions to be disruptive. His actions in connection with the former "Brian Peppers" article, including but not limited to his commencement and pursuit of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning, are an example.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Mostly fair. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. We need to see both the good and the bad. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Death by wikilawyering is the long term strategy of this editor. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff is pretty civil most of the time and occasional lapses don't bother me. His endless pursuit of bogus goals is a more serious issue. 75.62.6.237 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mostly fair as long as it's noted that only "some users have considered his actions to be disruptive". -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff Block Inappropriate

10.4) The block of badlydrawnjeff was inappropriate and displayed poor judgment and poor effort in finding a consensus for controversial actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yeah, but we're not going to do anything about it. Now, or in another arbitration. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed. But, so does everyone. We don't need arbitration to decide this. We have consensus, even unanimity. No need to further pillory people who have been castigated already.--Doc^g 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're not going to introduce sanctions here about it, I don't think it's all that important here. I'm still weighing a separate case for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This was really, really stupid, guys. Phil Sandifer 00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in theory, but prefer the wording of 17, which takes this from the point of view of impact on this case rather than piling further on the admin(s) who made a mistake. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not just poor judgement, but poor practice, in that it didn't even seek to notify him of anything, but represented a severe usurpation of the concept of discussion and consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, a separate case for the block, a week later, is a really, really terrible idea. What could it possibly accomplish? (Feel free to respond on my talk.) Newyorkbrad 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As I said at the time of the response to my query of this block, "This is the biggest load of codswallop I ever heard." [26] --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff has enough sense to know that the separate case he is weighing has no chance of acceptance. If he files it anyway, that will be another example of the bad judgement described further up as WP:POINT. That he's even weighing it already shows bad judgement, though not disruptive in itself. 75.62.6.237 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unjustified block of badlydrawnjeff disapproved, disregarded

10.5) Badlydrawnjeff was briefly blocked on May 23, 2007, but the block was quickly overturned and was disapproved by strong consensus as being unwarranted and inconsistent with the blocking policy. The Arbitration Committee agrees with this consensus and therefore this block has not been considered against badlydrawnjeff in any way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yeah. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No problems with this.--Doc^g 09:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In principle I'm OK with this, but I feel that it would be best if (if there are any) other admins who were involved in the discussion that led to the block would step up and apologize to bdj for their involvement in that discussion and if all of the admins involved would pledge to the community of Wikipedia as a whole to do their best to avoid such mistakes in the future. Proper form should be followed. It's polite, and I'd wager 90% or more of us were taught manners by our mothers, and should not need to be reminded by anyone else. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 05:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Disapproves of the block but in a way that ties it into the case rather than piling on against the administrator(s) who made a mistake. Newyorkbrad 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Agree with Newyorkbrad. Walton^{alternate account} 08:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's complete consensus on this point. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Support per Newyorkbrad. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff actively promotes the misunderstanding and misapplication of WP:BLP

10.6) In aggressively promoting the idea that WP:BLP has no ethical component, Badlydrawnjeff is undermining a policy of critical importance to the quality of the encyclopedia, as well as intentionally misleading other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yeah, undermining. Enough, already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

See evidence at [27] [28]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#User:Badlydrawnjeff.27s_objections_are_fluid_and_inconsistent [29] [30] [31] . I'm not sommenting on motives - but he mischaracterises BLP, misapplies it, and the result is to mislead.--Doc^g 23:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I, again, do nothing of the sort. The evidence is completely lacking in substance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Follows from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Nandesuka and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop#.5B.5BWP:BLP.5D.5D_is_a_policy_about_ethics. Nandesuka 11:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with expressing opposition to policy. I'd rather focus on conduct, which is more squarely in the purview of arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Intentionally trying to mislead other editors, which the evidence demonstrates, is inappropriate conduct. No argument that Jeff could (for example) properly lobby for change on WP:BLP without crossing a line. Instead, I think it's clear that his conduct is intentional, disruptive, and tendentious. That's the reason I propose this. Nandesuka 12:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious I can buy. My problem with this line in that it seems to say "persistent wrong-headed attacks on policy are bad". Sure, they're annoying, but I'm not sure they're bad enough that they can't be dealt with by simply telling him to stop being a silly sausage. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. With all due respect, this is absolutely untrue. Whether BLP is "a policy about ethics" is a disputed point. It is not disruptive to disagree with the majority view, or to push for proper following of process, consensus and discussion. Walton^{alternate account} 08:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A precursor to this argument is the proposed principle that BLP is a policy about ethics. I don't believe that that statement is subject to serious, good faith dispute. Obviously, the ArbCom may disagee. Nandesuka 12:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So there's no such thing as a good faith disagreement about what BLP's intention is? That's a bit scary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

More precisely, I'm saying that the disagreements that you, badlydrawnjeff, promote are not in good faith. I have no opinion on any other hypothetical arguments that haven't been made. Nandesuka 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Extremely ballsy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, Nandesuka, lots of arguments have been made, by people other than Jeff. I do not concede that BLP has to be a policy about ethics; ethics are subjective. As far as I'm concerned, the main purpose of BLP is to prevent the spread of false and libellous information about living people. Wikipedia would be breaking the law if it spread such information, and would in some cases be open to lawsuit. This is nothing to do with "ethical principles", which, by their nature, are individual and cannot be established by consensus; it's simple common sense. Any interpretation of BLP beyond this is wrong, IMHO. Walton^Assistance! 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This assumes a lot of bad faith, possibly about a lot of people. Jeff isn't the only one who thinks that BLP can exist without an ethical component or who thinks that BLP is redundant to other policies. Quite frankly, I think BLP can exist without an ethical component, especially since most of BLP is already redundant to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff's stance on his opposers

10.7) Badlydrawnjeff has repeatedly stated that, and acted as if, he is right and those who disagree with him are both wrong and mendacious. When challenged he has defended this position. See evidence1 , evidence2, evidence3.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As noted in the principles above, assumption of good faith ends with evidence to the contrary. I have plenty. If I am wrong, I have no trouble admitting as such - I am not wrong here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Spot on, I'm afraid. This is the central problem with Jeff's current behaviour. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

See also this ridiculous gloating piece of tr.....trying my patience.[32]. Has Jeff never encountered Cromwell's rule?--Doc^g 15:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I may post some evidence about this myself, although I believe some have already done so and may wish to add references to the above. Now there's nothing wrong with thinking that you're right. There is a point, however, at which one assumes that those who disagree with you are up to no good. This is the essence of assumption of bad faith. He could be justified in his assumption, let's argue, and certainly the unjustified block must have dented his faith in the fairness of others, so I sympathize to an extent. However this could be a problem for Wikipedia.

We probably have enough evidence now to decide whether Jeff's stance, taking into account his bad experiences, is reasonable or at least understandable. I think that a judgement of this type may figure in the resolution of this arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Whether Jeff has acted civilly or not, the key thing here is that several admins have wrongfully deleted articles, ignoring other people's opinions, in the name of BLP. Walton^{alternate account} 08:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether Jeff has acted civilly or not is, in fact, one of the central points of this case. That's hardly irrelevant. Nandesuka 12:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence of badlydrawnjeff's abusive language in DRV discussions: [33]. Corvus cornix 18:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose as irrelevant unless one assumes bad faith on Jeff's part. The gist of this proposal does not so much seem to be civility, but rather that Jeff is stubborn. So what? I know that he's stubborn from personal experience. It can be frustrating, but since when is being stubborn a crime? Stubbornness is only an issue when it's done with the intent to disrupt. I disagree that Jeff has anything but the good of the project in mind. Also, Jeff certainly isn't the only one to whom this can apply. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway

[edit] Tony Sidaway has a long history of incivility

11.1) Tony Sidaway has had a long history of incivility. The most recent situation is emblematic of the way Tony communicates with other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence and long acceptance of such a thing that should have been nipped in the bud years ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

True, though I'll add that the evidence presented so far in this case is extremely weak. . --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's plenty of indication of your incivility to bdj right here in this very Workshop page. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 05:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? Whereas Jeff is a model of co-operation and intellectual flexibility? Seems to me that a lot of people have been trying to help Jeff get it (it being that obduracy is not a good approach here), and he's been remarkably resistant. Also incredibly rude, accusing those who disagree with him of bad faith and sophistry. Tony seems pretty calm here, especially by comparison. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway has closed AFD and DRV discussions improperly

11.2) Tony Sidaway has made improper early closures of AFD/DRV discussions. These did not reflect the consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Pretty much true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per evidence just from the last few days. Prolog 11:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence does not support this proposed finding. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Although I accept that he was acting in good faith, he still ignored consensus and acted according to his own opinion. He and I have already discussed this, and I hope it's clear that there's nothing personal in my viewpoint here. Walton^{alternate account} 08:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

and, what is worse, continues to believe he acted rightly, and is trying to change WP policy in order to justify his actions.

[edit] Doc glasgow

[edit] Doc glasgow has made a number of improper deletions

12.1) Doc glasgow has made a significant number of improper deletions based on his interpretation of WP:BLP. These deletions do not fit the criteria for speedy deletion, nor the threshold required at WP:BLP for such activity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

One is a number. What's the point? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Edit made my snotty comment less amusing. Nevermind. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Opposed per my evidence [34]- although I'm sure I've got some calls wrong, DRV consensus tends to support me more than you. --Doc^g 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For values of "a number" which lie somewhere between zero and not very many, certainly nothing in evidence to justify any significant problem. Or is Jeff once again begging the question? Guy (Help!) 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Note the new Tanya Koch evidence. The improper deletions continue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

And there's plenty of evidence to suggest that DRV "consensus" (tough to call it that since it's operated as a vote count for so long) has been coming to the proper conclusions anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And, in any event, certain professions that the presumption in cases of BLPs that comport with all but the do no harm standard of BLP is in favor of deletion first and discussion thereafter (at least in those situations where other editors have occasion to become aware of the deletion at all) notwithstanding, it has long been understood that the community counsels only the strictest application of our criteria for speedy deletion and favors debate in all such cases as deletion is likely to be controversial (amongst good-faith contributors), such that anyone who has made more than one speedy deletion consistent with BLP (except in the no sourced and NPOV version to which to revert) that has subsequently been taken to DRV (and where DRV has borne out that at least a non-trivial number of editors think speedying to have been wrong) should resist the urge to delete things prior to ascertaining the specific consensus of the community. Joe 08:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But AfD of the articles I undeleted, along with edits of the other articles not on AfD, clearly go against you. violet/riga (t) 08:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. It's clear that many of these deletions were improper, and were based on Doc's own views about BLP rather than the speedy deletion criteria. I'm not necessarily saying the articles shouldn't have been deleted, just that they shouldn't have been deleted without a full AfD process and proper consensus. Walton^{alternate account} 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A number of the deletions were inappropriate. I'm not saying that some of them might not have been deleted eventually or that I think they should be kept, but the deletions themselves were based in a personal and non-moderate interpretation of BLP. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong support per all above. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc glasgow blocks under BLP

12.2) On 6 June after a deletion review which was closed with the decision that discussion of an internet meme was not suitable for a particular biographical article [35], Doc glasgow blocked Mckaysalisbury for three hours after the latter inserted the BLP-covered information into the article [36]. The article was subsequently protected by FCYTravis, who also removed the BLP material, citing "BLP issues." [37] Before the block expired, AnonEMouse unblocked, claiming amongst other things that the block was "rather questionable", and mischaracterizing the removal of BLP information as an "edit war"[38].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To be fair to both sides - Doc glasgow has continually asserted, against policy and consensus, that the information on the situation itself is against BLP. Mckaysalisbury may have overstepped the bounds of the letter of BLP by using some somewhat less-than-stellar sources in the article. That Doc glasgow has reverted in various forms upwards of 8 times since this specific dispute began is much more problematic than the block at this point (not to say that the block wasn't problematic given the circumstances), as sourced, neutral information shouldn't be blanket removed per the letter and spirit of BLP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth ArbCom recording its appreciation of Doc's defence of the project, but it doesn't seem relevant to this case, except as another data point in respect of Jeff's belief that he is the arbiter of truth. I am still waiting for any sign that Jeff is even prepared to countenance the possibility that any position other than his might have any merit whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem admitting I'm wrong when I'm wrong. The issue here is that I'm not wrong. If I am wrong, I'm always open to proof that it's the case. That such proof is rarely forthcoming isn't really my problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I don't think I am that inept a communicator, it seems that you are avoiding my point here. It is not about whether you are right or wrong (which is what we are here to discuss), it's about your consistent refusal to accept the validity of any viewpoint or solution other than your own. And that genuinely is a problem. If you are going to insist on principle on a "biography" for every individual who was ever mentioned in more than a single source, then I believe we will continue to see conflict between you and the likes of Doc, Tony and me. If, on the other hand, you are committed to inclusion but prepared to explore and compromise on how information is included, then the problem may be amenable to resolution. I have to say that I am not currently hopeful of this, since you continue to represent, for example, a merge of an article on a minor who is a victim of kidnapping, as an "improper deletion" - both Doc and I would dispute both those words, and even while disputing both those words we would allow of the possibility that other interpretations may exist. You, on the other hand, assert dogma as fact and actively refuse to accept the validity of other views, dismissing them with a variety of epithets of varying degrees of incivility. Do you genuinely believe that representing a particular interpretation of policy as a lie, apparently on the basis that you stated your interpretation but this was not accepted, represents a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute? I don't. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't me avoiding your point, it's me rejecting it outright. I'm not going to admitthat i'm wrong when I'm not, and I'm not going to think there's much in the way of good faith when you accuse me of calling a merge a deletion when you know full well the status when I noted it. A speedy deletion of an overturned-at-DRV article that is sourced and neutral is improper. Any other interpretation is invalid per policy. Do I genuinely believe that, when people say one thing fully knowing that it's false per policy, those things are lies? Absolutely. And when dishonest words are said about me by the same people who then whine about my allegedly not being fair to them, well... --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One last time. This is probably a case - or rather, a series of cases - where there is no binary right/wrong answer. Numerous thoughtful comments here back that up.. What is harmful here - both to the project and to your case - is your refusal to admit of the possibility that any position other than yours has any merit whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree - there is a very clear binary answer here. I have no problem or history admitting that there are other positions with merit in situations that aren't "binary," to use your words - this simply is not one of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is only a clear binary answer if you are determined that anything other than a biographical article drawn from the news stories about a single event in someone's life is evil deletionist censorship and utterly unacceptable. You're not going to get very far here with an approach which is quite that black-and-white. And this is not just about this one article, time and again in this arbitration you have made the same kinds of assertions. You do not seem to be the least bit interested in even considering anything other than your preferred way of covering these subjects. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. It's very disturbing when even experienced administrators so grossly misinterpret the BLP as to describe removal of the material as "an edit war", and read involvement as disqualification. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You actually linked to a post of McKay's rather than mine. What I wrote was this and this, which should hopefully explain the questionability. Anyone seriously argue that this edit history doesn't describe an edit war? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference. To dismiss it as an edit war is grossly inaccurate. Removals of BLP material are privileged. I want to see the arbitration committee spell this out, as with the deletions, so that administrators will be under no more illusions. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Privileged yes, possibly even justified, there is a strong argument for removing the information. But it's not undisputed. And block-worthy after a single edit? Block-worthy of an experienced, senior editor? McKay has been here since July 2004, longer than I have, longer than Doc has, longer than you have... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

McKay has been on Wikipedia long enough to know that you don't pull this kind of crap, and the administrator who unblocked has been am administrator long enough to know that too. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought blocks were preventive not punitive so what was the problem with the unblocking then Tony? --MichaelLinnear 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no assurance that the behavior would not be repeated. Indeed one person congratulated McKaysalisbury on not giving such an undertaking [39]. In the circumstances, an unblock was extremely unwise. --Tony Sidaway 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the real point is being missed here. With the possible exception of Jeff, everyone here agrees that admins should block over the repeated addition or threat of repeated addition of unsourced, negative material. What seems to be the issue here is that the material is not stricly speaking a BLP violation but at worst falls under a penumbra of BLP ethics. Such blocks are highly problematic when made by an involved editor. I've tried to break to make this more explicit below. JoshuaZ 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, no problem with the blocks as long as they're legit. Doc's inability to understand how BLP is applied to this specific article makes me more than a little hesitant to endorse this specific block, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP disputes are content disputes. Admins should not block over a content dispute in which they are involved. Period. There are no exceptions to this rule for any reason whatsoever. Walton 08:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy is against you on that one, I'm afraid. --Tony Sidaway 11:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Although this seems to be mostly true as a statement of fact (rather than principle), I'm wary of supporting given the use of "BLP-covered information". If it means that the information was in the scope of BLP, then yes. If it means that the information violated BLP or was somehow questionable under BLP, then no. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc glasgow improperly uses the rollback tool

12.3) Help:Reverting#Rollback recommends not using the rollback tool on good faith edits. Doc glasgow has continually used the rollback tool inappropriately on his talk page, on Allison Stokke, and at WP:DRV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on evidence. --badlydrawnjefftalk 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I reverted Jeff's pantomime. I removed this non-constructive post from MY talk page "I'm correct, you are wrong. This is something you'll have to deal with" without roll back, and then regarded repeated further posts: [40] [41] and [42] as being less than good faith. Dignifying such nonsense is not helpful.--Doc^g 15:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Doc glasgow improperly closes deletion discussions

12.4) Doc glasgow inappropriately and disruptively closed a good faith DRV early.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So Doc disruptively closed a disruptive DRV, for good and well-explained reasons. And this is relevant because?... Guy (Help!) 11:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Aboslutely. Very clear from the evidence I've pasted on teh evidence page. The Evil Spartan 16:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

More or less, but I wouldn't use the term "disruptive" - Doc was acting in good faith, although he certainly did act inappropriately. Walton^Assistance! 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Understood. However, badlydrawnjeff was also acting in good faith, and some of his actions have been interpreted as disruptive. Unfortunately, good faith!=not disruptive. The Evil Spartan 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if it's found that Doc has a history of such disruptive early closures, it should be noted that he has actively refused to learn from it. But whether or not that's the case is probably up for another Finding of Fact. Milto LOL pia 05:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, with the caveat that Doc's closure was made in good faith. That is, though the action turned out to be disruptive, that was not it's intent. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin rights

12.5) Doc glasgow resigned his administrator privileges while involved in controversial circumstances regarding his use of his sysop tools. He may not get them back without going through the normal channels.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

O RLY? Where is the evidence to support this? As far as I can tell Doc decided he'd had enough and has decided to take a break. It's not clear to me what problem this is designed to solve. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ok, the precise wording used in the past escapes me. If this is thrown out then it should probably be included that Doc's privileges may be restored without an RFA, but I'm guessing this is the way it's going to go. A decisions one way or another would be nice. Milto LOL pia 05:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Doc's actions were understood and appreciated by all those who had full access to the facts of the case. He will be missed, and if he ever comes back he'll be welcomed. --Tony Sidaway 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So then he'll have no problem making it through the RFA gauntlet. --MichaelLinnear 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This won't be required. --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JzG

[edit] JzG has made a number of improper deletions

13.1) JzG has made a significant number of improper deletions based on his interpretation of WP:BLP and his interpretation of WP:CSD. These deletions do not fit the criteria for speedy deletion, nor the threshold required at WP:BLP for such activity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, a number. Somewhere between zero and not many, I think - I addressed this point in my evidence - but find me an admin who has never ever made a bad call. The question here is: do I habitually make bad calls? I have deleted well over 5,000 separate pages, of which virtually all are either still deleted, salted, redirects or were deleted to make way for moves. Of those deleted citing WP:BLP, at least some will be the result of OTRS complaints, such as Melissa Guille (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), where the deleted version was defamatory. A complete rewrite is one of the bluelinks in my deletion log. I'm happy to be set right if the arbitrators think I'm excessively rouge. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia accomodates even troublesome editors who on balance prove beneficial to the project. --Ghirla^-????- 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from directly discussing Guy here as I don't think these recent deletions were improper, but that notwithstanding, I think any hard working administrator will make a small number of improper deletions, but they don't dent the huge, overwhelming benefit the administrator is to the project, and when number crunched, we would be looking at an error rate of fractions of 1%. You can't realistically expect to be permitted to complain about any administrator that is accurate more than 99% of the time. Nick 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what point Ghirla is trying to make. 75.62.6.237 07:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose No evidence for this conclusion. --Tbeatty 11:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JzG has made improper protections

13.2) Jzg has used protection in disputes he was involved in. He protected Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons after having reverted an edit related to the eventual protection. He removed the protection shortly afterward, though later he removed full protection instated by another admin.

JzG also protected Lolcat after edit warring over redirecting the page to image macro despite a recent WP:AFD resulting in keep; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#JzG and Lolcat.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use of protection in disputes you're involved is still not cool, I hope. The second protection also shows that JzG considers consensus of his fellow editors worthless. Is it possible he just likes getting stuff deleted he doesn't like, regardless of other discussion, and then avoids discussing about it in the hopes that it'll just blow over? If that were the case, he's just using BLP as a means of doing so, rather dishonestly. But I might be reaching. Milto LOL pia 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

JzG seems to have had the good sense to undo the protection within minutes to permit H (formerly HighInBC) to reprotect. Obviously the policy page needed to be protected because of the ridiculous edit war. I'd be inclined to blame those people who are lately making a battleground of that policy instead of discussing and listening. He later (31 May) adjusted protection by Marskell from full to semi, which made sense (and obviously couldn't have been done in order to gain an advantage in a dispute).

In short, this is rather weak unless accompanied by evidence of previous abuse. --Tony Sidaway 01:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The second example is more worrisome. His talk page indicates no repentance, as does the absence of his name in the history of the Lolcat talk page. And I realize this is a small thing, but if someone has more evidence they can add it to this section. Try to remember that this is an outline page and not a competition.

However, the removal or downgrading of protection in an edit war one is involved with is still a cause for concern due to the fact that one is opening the page for editing. At least one such removal was cited in the desysopping of an admin in the Seabchan case if I remember right. Milto LOL pia 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I am unrepentant about lolcat. The article was (and I think is still) a festering heap of excrement bloated with either vanity or personal preference, I can't easily tell which, and looks like something off ED not an article in a serious encyclopaedia. I have since adopted a policy of actively not caring. Much. I'm not surprise Miltopia likes it, being an old ED hand. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H

[edit] H has been incivil

14.1) User:H has been incivil toward badlydrawnjeff throughout this situation, up to and including on-wiki and off-wiki statements.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per logs sent to ArbCom and evidence page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Simply not true. ^(H) 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violetriga

[edit] Violetriga has wheel warred

15.1) User:Violetriga has, by reversing administrative actions on articles she had a personal stake in without comment, wheel warred inappropriately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

By the definition at Wikipedia:Wheel war no I did not - I only undid actions and did not repeat them. My undeletes were to undo the removal of valid content. violet/riga (t) 08:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet you propose that I wheel warred, under the same circumstances (a single deletion, no repeat actions). Have....cake....+ eat? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeez have you failed to read anything here?! I have very clearly stated that if I wheel warred given that definition then you must have as well, but as per the policy as I read it then neither of us have. violet/riga (t) 09:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As per evidence section. Phil Sandifer 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of an individual policy interpretation, administrators do well to follow arbitration cases concerning administrative behavior--there may be a substantial difference between what they think is the letter of the policy, and actions for which the Arbitration Committee is compelled to sanction. Mackensen (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do well to" but don't have to. Sorry but if an arbcom ruling in one case does not alter Wikipedia policy then it is restricted to that individual case. While previous rulings can be used as a precedent it is not appropriate to enforce them or to ask that all administrators are familiar with them. violet/riga (t) 11:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not even when the administrator in question was a party to the case and her behavior was under scrutiny? Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's laughable. The outcome regarding a reprimand for me was:

"Until someone can suggest to me a realistic alternative for what Violetriga ... should have done I will strongly oppose this proposal."

This was then backed up by five other arbitrators. The decision therefore was that I did no wrong clearly sending the message that I did not wheel war and that I was correct in my actions. violet/riga (t) 11:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What? Where did 5 Arbitrators endorse your actions? Thatcher131 11:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to bring up past arbitrations then please look at the decisions. [43] violet/riga (t) 11:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You re-deleted the pedophilia userboxes after they were recreated—It looks like you got a break there because you were "right". I suspect the same view will not hold here, but time will tell. Thatcher131 11:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Got a break"? Excuse me I was totally justified in my actions and backed up by the majority of arbitrators! That's not getting a break! violet/riga (t) 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tangentially relevant link: [44]. – Steel 11:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Undoing an out-of-process deletion does not constitute wheel warring per Wikipedia:Wheel war. When the article is a BLP, it may be bad judgment, but it's still not wheel-warring. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violetriga has wheel warred

15.2) Violetriga (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has wheel-warred by restoring 9 articles deleted by Doc glasgow (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) without prior consultation or discussion. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] Two of these articles were either created or significantly edited by Violetriga [54] [55].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Undeleting 9 articles once without discussion or consultation is just as bad as undeleting 3 articles 3 times each, because it shows a lack of respect, or even contempt, for another admin's actions. Violetriga shows no recognition that this is even a potential problem, relying on the written policy that seems to give admins one free pass rather than prior arbitration rulings which are quite clear that even one reversal is unacceptable wheel-warring. Thatcher131 11:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your first comment is wrong - I restored the status quo once on each article when they have been deleted without sufficient reason. We could then proceed through the correct channels. I attempted to engage in discussion and contacted the deleting admin immediately but he refused to comment about the articles. You are still misusing the term "wheel war". violet/riga (t) 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Time will tell. Thatcher131 11:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Undoing an out-of-process deletion does not constitute wheel warring per Wikipedia:Wheel war. When the article is a BLP, it may be bad judgment, but it's still not wheel-warring. Taking an administrative action on an article in which one has a vested interest was a bad call, but it's still not wheel warring. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Support restoring without consensus or notice is wheel warring. 9 times is abusive. --Tbeatty 11:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not (especially when the initial deletion was illegitimate). Please see Wikipedia:Wheel war. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that policy says what you think it says. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What it says is "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." (Italics mine.) That reads as a 1RR rule: revert the action that was bold, but then discuss it; like WP:BRD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sterile wikilawyering of the worst kind. --Tony Sidaway 03:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, though I appreciate the reference to this, an accusation of "wikilawyering" does not negate a direct quote. Wheel warring refers to, and has for as long as I've been here, a repetition of a particular action. Wheel warring requires a struggle of some sort. Simply undoing another admin's action without discussion may not be advisable, even if that action is blatantly out-of-process, but it does not constitute wheel warring. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that you are unaware of the history of arbitration decisions on this matter. I am not. --Tony Sidaway 23:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom does not set policy; or at least it didn't until now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violetriga has demonstrated a high degree of insensitivity with respect to the Biographies of living persons policy

15.3) Violetriga on 30 May 2007 and without consulting the deleting admin who was online at the time, restored seven articles about minors deleted on grounds of the Biographies of living persons policy. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#Violetriga_has_demonstrated_a_high_degree_of_insensivity_to_concerns_about_biographies_of_living_persons_policy. When asked to undo the restoration at once, she said she had done nothing wrong.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I did try and talk about it. I engaged (or tried to, the other party refused) in discussions about the articles after going through the usual and common process of WP:BRD. I showed sensitivity by only restoring the articles that did were deleted with the incorrect justification of BLP - it did not apply to those articles. It did apply to other articles deleted at the same time but I did not restore those. violet/riga (t) 11:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See also evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#Preterm births ([56]). Guy (Help!) 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Deletion is reversible, and if an administrator mistakenly deletes a page it can be restored after consultation. Restoring a page without consultation is regarded as improper. Restoring without consultation a page deleted by an administrator who cites BLP displays gross insensitivity to the concerns addressed by that policy. --Tony Sidaway 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved and renumbered to keep similar ideas together. Thatcher131 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned that Violetriga didn't contact the deleting admin, deleting an article for BLP is fine, even if it shouldn't be deleted, yes, it's an inconvenience, but hey, we've got all the time in the world to write our encyclopedia, we don't have a publisher to worry about. Undeletions are much more tricky, the deleting admin may have received a complaint through OTRS or e-mail, there may be new information he's picked up in a newspaper, in broadcast media or online, and without taking the time to find out if there is a specific reason for deletion, unilateral undeletion without consultation with the deleting admin is grossly irresponsible.

We really do not need administrators getting annoyed at deletions and undeleting work without consultation, there's nothing that can't really wait a few hours or days to be undeleted or re-written. It's not ArbCom's place to make policy, but I would like a recommendation that where BLP issues are cited for deletion, any undeletion must not take place until the deleting admin is contacted. I and I think the community by and large do trust our admins to make the correct decisions, it's just that when it comes to sensitive issues such as BLP where new information may not be available to all admins, extreme caution and continuous dialogue with those responsible for the deletion of articles is essential and non negotiable. Nick 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversing an other admin's action is not wheel warring - at least by any definition of the term "warring" that I understand. If I think you did the wrong thing, should I not undo it before it causes further harm? Repeating an administrative action without discussing first more than once certainly is "warring". Doing the same thing three times is not anything like doing nine different things once. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Violetriga has done nothing wrong. She restored articles that were wrongfully deleted without proper consultation. BLP is not a license to be authoritarian; labelling anyone who dissents as "insensitive" is completely wrong. Walton^{alternate account} 08:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the facts and view the restorations to have been somewhat hurried, but disagree with the conclusion that "Violetriga has demonstrated a high degree of insensitivity with respect to the Biographies of living persons policy" per Walton. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violetriga restored BLP deletions

15.4) Without conferring beforehand, Violetriga restored several articles which were deleted by an administrator who cited Biographies of living persons concerns. See evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed: this uses the same of words that I used for Night Gyr. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the similar case involving Night Gyr. In particular, it's not so important to treat this as sanctionable behavior as it is to decide whether the procedure followed is problematic in the case of BLP deletions. If, as I believe is obvious, it is found to make the BLP difficult to enforce sensibly, then this is a problem that needs to be remedied by providing guidance to administrators who may in future find themselves in the same situation as Night Gyr and Violetriga. --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violetriga abused her admin tools

15.5) Violetriga has admitted to having originally created some one of the articles she restored and has expressed her opinion in terms of Ownership. "Indeed - you didn't think of the people whose work you were deleting. And as I said I created two one of them" [57]. She abused her ability to restore pages, by restoring a page she herself had created, and by doing so without consulting the deleting administrator, who had cited Biographies of living persons as a reason for deletion in the deletion log.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How is that OWN? It is a statement that the people that worked on the article obviously thought that it was a worthwhile inclusion to Wikipedia, and that deleting an article without any form of warning or notification is going to upset those contributors. violet/riga (t) 13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Having checked I only created one of the articles, but I did significantly edit another. And if I hadn't edited them and had I not kept a log of some of the articles I've created then their deletion would have been missed and I would not have known for quite some time. Then the "but it's been deleted for x months without anyone mentioning it" argument would occur. violet/riga (t) 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the title pertains to the abuse of admin tools while your text discusses the topic of OWN - these aren't entirely related. violet/riga (t) 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Just discovered this. --Tony Sidaway 13:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to violetriga, I've added more text to clarify the specifics. --Tony Sidaway 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Violetriga did not abuse the admin tools. She just restored articles that were wrongfully deleted, by admins who were abusing their tools. Whether she had been involved with writing the articles in question is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Walton^Assistance! 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The initial deletions were entirely out-of-process and she was fully justified in reversing them. Let's remember that at the time BLP did not require discussion prior to undeleting obvious out-of-process deletions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violetriga has abused her admin tools before

15.6) Violetriga abused her admin tools on 15 January, 2007 by edit warring with three other administrators on the protected template:Did you know, breaking the three revert rule in the process. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I find Violetriga's argumentation in the edit summaries most revealing. --Tony Sidaway 07:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how much light this WP:DYK fracas from 5 months ago sheds on the current debate about WP:BLP.

Nevertheless, diligent reviewers of violet/riga's behaviour (she has been here since mid-2004, so there is plenty of edit history to review) may like to read the contemporaneous discussion on these edits, initiated by Violetriga, at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 17#.22I object so nerr.22, continuing in the next section at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 17#Self Selecting.3F, as well as earlier discussion about self-selection of DYK entries in the DYK talk archives. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify: this indicates that Violetriga's egregious abuse of her admin tools in this instance wasn't simply a case of an administrator getting caught up in the moment and making a one-off mistake. Her recent comments on the talk page of the proposed decision suggest that she completely lacks insight into the inappropriateness of her actions, and that seems to apply to the case outlined in this proposed finding. --Tony Sidaway 09:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, 3RR was not broken so you will kindly remove that. Secondly, I find "completely lacks insight into the inappropriateness of her actions" to be a personal attack and do not appreciate such comments. Finally, I think that the situation was dealt with appropriately at the time and the discussion explains the situation. violet/riga (t) 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason we are opening old wounds debates? Seems a bit vindictive. —M (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I've been debating with Tony he thinks it's appropriate to delve through histories. I'm not sure what would happen if we went through the histories of others involved here. It's hardly relevant anyway. violet/riga (t) 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swatjester

[edit] Swatjester wheel warred

16.1) Swatjester (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) wheel warred by deleting Charlotte Wyatt and Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman after they were deleted by Doc glasgow and undeleted by violet/riga.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Swatjester is aware of the disputes and chose to re-delete rather than partake in discussions. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought you said wheel warring was 'multiple' actions?--Doc^g 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I trust you've read the "slow-motion wheel war" definition? Further, if I am accused of wheel warring based on my actions then the same must apply here. violet/riga (t) 13:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh.....what? These were BLP deletions. They can be deleted at any time. Not to mention, Wheel Warring is as Doc mentioned, multiple actions. A single deletions on two articles does not a wheel war make. I should further add that my naming here as a party is pointless and irresponsible, and that I'll not be checking this arbitration with any regularity at all. If you need me for something, my user talk is that way -->⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is me stating that definition of wheel warring with others saying that I wheel warred by doing a single restoration of each article. As per the "slow-motion wheel war" example on the Wikipedia:Wheel war page you made the third action (re-deleted) the two articles. This could be seen as wheel warring (by the people using the single-action definition) just as much as my actions, if not more. I have included you here for that fact. violet/riga (t) 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Swatjester redeletes under the BLP

16.2) Swatjester (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) redeleted Charlotte Wyatt and Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman after they were deleted by Doc glasgow citing BLP concerns, and undeleted by violet/riga who failed to take reasonable prior steps to consult with Doc glasgow, who was online at the time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The BLP is privileged. --Tony Sidaway 16:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick

[edit] Nick wheel warred

17.1) Nick (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) wheel warred by deleting Montana Barbaro after it was deleted by Doc glasgow and undeleted by violet/riga. He closed the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Barbaro) after less than 11 hours with only four votes (one of which was Doc glasgow).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Nick is aware of the disputes and chose to abuse WP:SNOW. His response to me was not civil and was unbecoming of an administrator: "What a terrible shame..." [58]. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm slightly perplexed by this, I suspected I would probably be shouted at for deleting that article, but I personally see no reason for the article to exist. If, as is sort of implied, I was doing this to get back at Violetriga, I could have easily deleted the articles shortly after the event, indeed, I did consider Speedy Deletion of this article at the time, it was quite clear, from my own thoughts on the article and the comments left at the deletion discussion that deletion was inevitable and the article was inappropriate. It seems I'm not permitted to use my own discretion to close such a discussion now.

I'm also concerned by the implication that this article should not have been deleted because it forms part of an Arbitration Case, that's, to my mind, stupid, this Arbitration will take many days or weeks. If the article was part of the Arbitration Case, Violetriga should have suspended the AfD until after the conclusion of this case. I'm also disappointed at the double standards on display here, Violetriga was quite happy to undelete other deletions without contacting the administrator, but implies I'm not supposed to close an AfD and delete the article until she has had time to comment. Interesting if nothing else. Nick 12:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are coming up with a lot of assumptions there and reading things into it that are not correct. I am saying that it is inappropriate to SNOW an AfD after such a short time and with so few votes when you are clearly aware of the dispute surrounding the article. Had you waited say 24 hours to close the AfD or if there had been 10+ delete votes then it would have been fine. You wanted rid of the article and thought that SNOW would be an acceptable reason to get your way.

At no point did I say that you were trying to get back at me. Who are you? Why would I have reason to think that when I've not come across you before (to the best of my knowledge)? violet/riga (t) 12:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. If you don't like a WP:SNOW close, then try dispute resolution. There is no evidence of a prior attempt to resolve this particular dispute.--Doc^g 22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know, stop doing disruptive SNOW closes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Looks to me like Nick took due note of the content of the AfD, and Doc's original deletion reason (BLP). Whether that's appropriate is for the arbitrators to determine, but it wasn't wheel warring. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick clearly abused WP:SNOW in this instance. BLP is not an excuse to wheel-war, or to ignore the opinions of others by closing AfDs early. Walton^Assistance! 17:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Everybody who commented on the AfD was in support of deletion. Nick 16:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick redeletes under the BLP

17.2) Nick (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) redeleted Montana Barbaro after it was deleted by Doc glasgow, who cited BLP concerns, and undeleted by violet/riga without taking reasonable steps to consult with Doc glasgow, who was online at the time. He later took reasonable steps to enforce the deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The BLP is privileged. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The BLP is not a license to circumvent process and discussion, and to arbitrarily delete articles. After the articles were undeleted by Violetriga, they should have been taken to AfD, not re-deleted. Walton^{alternate account} 08:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was taken to an AfD [59], but not by Violetriga, but a 3rd party. The opinions of all those who commented were such that I believed it was inevitable the outcome would be deletion and it was for that reason I closed it per SNOW. All the comments made on the AfD were rationale well thought out comments and excluding Doc glasgow, the remaining comments were all from uninvolved parties. This closure was no different to the many SNOWball closures made everyday on Wikipedia. The only complaint came from Violetriga, nobody has recreated the article, there has been no deletion review instigated nor has their been any further complaints regarding my closure of this AfD, which leads me to believe I made a "good call" with this closure. The original complaint here seems to be that by closing an obvious (to me) AfD and carrying out the consensus view, I was wheel warring. I refute that allegation. Nick 16:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose this specifically, but I do oppose Tony's interpretation that BLP is necessarily "privileged." In cases of unsourced attack pieces or potentially libelous material, yes, BLP has that privilege (just like deleted copyvios) due to potential legal concerns. However, in cases where a well-sourced article is deleted citing ethical concerns, rather than legal ones, BLP should not act as "OFFICE for everyone." It does hold true, though, that violet/riga should have discussed the matter with the deleting admin before making any move to reverse them, as is the case if you disagree with another admin's actions of any kind. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And thus it is all th more true that reversing her action once again confirms wheel-warring. If something admin A does is thought so drastically wrong by admin B that B immediately reverts it, A should take serious second thoughts and consultation before reverting it again. DGG 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Night Gyr

[edit] Night Gyr

18.1) Without conferring beforehand, Night Gyr has restored several articles, or histories of articles, which were deleted by administrators who cited Biographies of living persons concerns. See evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Should we start putting findings up about deletions where the article met BLP and was deleted improperly anyway? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The accusation is inaccurate, claiming that I did not discuss beforehand (when in fact I did). Also, although the administrators cited WP:BLP, they did so only in the vaguest of terms and their decision was not backed by Deletion Policy or the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Deletion policy says that articles deleted out of process may be undeleted immediately. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed: this first came to light during the Crystal Gail Mangum affair when he restored the history and refused to reverse this. Since then he has grown bolder. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is sensitivity. Real people are involved here. This is why it's wrong to just barge in and restore an article just because you think the other admin is wrong. You have to discuss things with him first, and if you disagree don't just restore. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't just scream "sensitivity" and expect people to go along with it. This is why these BLP speedies of non-attack sourced material is absurd and dangerous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If Night Gyr informed the deleting admins of his intention to restore, and sought agreement on this, I ask him to submit evidence to that effect. I have looked and find no evidence in two of the three cases. I'll update the evidence section to show what I did find. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of undeletion is necessarily problematic in the general case, but it does raise serious problems in the case of Biographies of living persons. My reasoning is that the deleting administrator must be presumed to have performed the deletion for cause and it is inconsistent with our assume good faith policy to undo what he did, given the primacy of the relevant policy, without at least conferring with him, and then going to deletion review if there is a difference of opinion. I do think policy and practice have been unclear on this and I raise Night Gyr's summary undeletions as examples of administrator behavior that could make the BLP difficult to enforce, and get us into severe trouble if not unchecked. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away. BLP is only becoming "difficult to enforce" due to the heavy-handed tactics of administrators arbitrarily deleting compliant articles. If they weren't so quick to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them, this would be a non-issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr was emergency desysopped as a result of this edit, which led many to believe to mean that Night Gyr was planning on releasing material deleted for BLP reasons, to the press. Night Gyr has explained that he/she meant that he/she would release the material to the subject of the article, but the question of whether admins should be releasing deleted material at all, was already addressed in the Everyking decision. Corvus cornix 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going on the earlier Sean Hornbeck case, where the concern was also that the subject would be unduly harmed simply by the article existing, regardless of how neutral and sourced it is. I contacted the foundation and asked if they'd like to take a look at it, my post in the DRV about it met with a positive response. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr has done nothing wrong - s/he was only restoring articles which were arbitrarily and wrongfully deleted out-of-process. Walton^Assistance! 17:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Sandifer

[edit] Phil Sandifer wheel warred

19.1) Phil Sandifer, in his final deletion of Qian Zhijun, wheel warred per the principles set out in the wheel warring policy. After the article was undeleted by Viridae, he re-deleted it again saying "This is deleted. No restorations. No full course AfDs. No process or politics."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Pretty cut-and-dry, this is the definition. No, he's not the only one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious why my addition to this case was made so long after the initial statements, and after I engaged in discussion on the workshop and evidence pages. It rather smacks of sour grapes. Phil Sandifer 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Phil Sandifer redeletes under the BLP

19.2) Phil Sandifer took reasonable steps to enforce the deletion of the QZ article under the BLP after a full discussion had determined that the deletion was reasonable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

False. Deleting an article who's deletion was a) overturned, and b) demonstrated to have requisite sources for BLP consideration is not reasonable. Shutting down a discussion to enforce a ruling that was overturned at DRV is unreasonable. None of this statement is true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It remains my assessment of the situation that there was no valid basis to consider the deletion overturned, nor was there a basis for the claim that the article was without BLP problems. Accordingly, the deletion was straightforward. However, I also feel that the correctness of my actions ought be irrelevant to judgment on this matter. My actions were in good faith, and were clearly made under a defensible interpretation of my responsibilities as an administrator with regards to BLP. If administrators are expected to act decisively and thoroughly with regard to BLP issues it is imperative that they not come under sanction for occasional errors. Phil Sandifer 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This was extensively discussed but some editors chose to abuse the deletion review process in order to challenge it. As a result of this abuse of process, the BLP deletion policy was altered by Jimmy Wales. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QZ Article

[edit] The use of WP:BLP

20.1) The specifics of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons was not violated by Qian Zhijun at the time of its first deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Do you guys really want ArbCom to start evaluating individual articles for content? 'Cause once we start doing it, at least half of you aren't going to like the results. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per written language of WP:BLP and per the discussion at the RfC and here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

False. BLP is a principle and not just a set of rules about sources.--Doc^g 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A principle that the article undoubtedly met. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note - I've rewritten this for specifics. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true. BLP issues were nonexistent with this article, it met the proper standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is not true. BLP talks specifically about the ethical mandates of being a top ten website - these apply to all articles that can affect the lives of living people. Phil Sandifer 19:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A minor who was victimized by an anonymous pack of internet users. --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Has it just been proposed that all articles fall under BLP, and, presumably, are therefore susceptible to arbitrary deletion. Is that what was actually meant? DGG 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qian Zhijun

20.2) The deletion and re-deletions of Qian Zhijun following the first deletion review were improper, as the article did not violate any core policies or WP:BLP, and the consensus was to overturn the initial deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per policy, per the last legitimate deletion review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A number of experienced administrators disagreed. Is it arbcom's role to overrule them on content judgement? (That's genuinely a question).--Doc^g 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether "experienced administrators" disagreed is as relevant as the fact that a number of experienced editors agreed. No one's more special than anyone else, and this principle is designed not to comment on the status of the article long-term, but to simply re-affirm the last proper consensus result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Why? Needs fleshing out. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs considerable work in view of Jimbo's recent clarification of the deletion policy, with respect to evaluation of consensus in deletion reviews. --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Qian Zhijun at the time of deletion

20.3) Qian Zhijun, at the time of its deletion, met all relevant inclusion policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per policy, per the last legitimate deletion review, per the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a ruling on those policies, but merely an affirmation that, as noted, the article met them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would prefer not to see the arbcom rule on our inclusion policies at this stage. Phil Sandifer 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has a chronic and well founded reluctance to make content rulings. --Tony Sidaway 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was just crap regardless of whether a living person was involved and regardless of whether it met the letter of the guidelines. We are not trying to write crap-o-pedia. If our guidelines instruct us to retain crap, the guidelines need fixing. 75.62.6.237 07:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early closures were improper

20.4) The early closures of the subsequent deletion reviews and AfDs of Qian Zhijun were improper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Let's put it out there, since it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) Revision as of 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree WRT the DRV - snowing of DRVs is a big problem. If the nominator withdraws the nomination, if it's a bad faith/trolling nomination, or if it's a rehash of a previous DRV with nothing new, by all means, snow it. But if there is a good faith, EVEN IF ILL-CONCEIVED nomination, it needs to be allowed to take place. Snowing the thing can only cause hurt feelings. --BigDT 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely wrong unless there's a finding that the initial AfD closure was improper. Otherwise still dubious. 75.62.6.237 07:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The early DRV closures were undoubtedly improper. Invoking IAR makes no sense in that case as the benefit to be gained (saved time) was insignificant when compared to the potential (and now realised) costs. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QZ

20.5) On 4 May, an article about a Chinese person who became famous for the web meme his appearance inspired and he himself cultivated, was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). The discussion was closed as delete by admin Daniel (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) on May 11, then reopened by Daniel and closed by Drini (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) again as delete on May 12.

• First DRV filed by DESiegel (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) on May 13, closed by Xoloz (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) on May 18 with the decision to relist at AfD due to 'out of process closures'[60]
• The second AfD was speedily closed as delete by Thebainer (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) (with an extended rationale).
• Second DRV filed by badlydrawnjeff, speedily closed by JzG.
• Third DRV filed by DESiegel, speedily closed the same day by Viridae (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) as a relisting, after many editors edit-warred over the DRV.
• Third AfD speedily closed as delete, by Nick (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) based on the previous deletions.
• Fourth DRV filed by badlydrawnjeff, speedily closed by JzG.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Probably should add that Drini closed the afd as 'delete' and The bainer didn't just shut the afd down, he offered an extensive rationale in the close. These were not just shut downs of the debate but careful assessments of consensus. Whilst Xoloz's DRV close was 'procedural'.--Doc^g 01:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it. Minor tweaks are fine as long as they don't materially alter what other people have commented on. Thatcher131 01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on Jeff's evidence here. Thatcher131 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Suggest possibly adding "eventually" before cultivated. My understanding is that the publicity was completely involuntary for awhile before the individual decided that he was stuck with the fame for awhile whether he liked it or not, so he might as well capitalize on it (an experience similar to that of an editor here who went through much the same thing). Newyorkbrad 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What then followed this reasonable close was a horrible and rather depressing abuse of the deletion review process. I'm glad that we've probably seen the end of this kind of "procedural" folly. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the facts as presented without any implications about the validity of any of the actions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion rationale

20.6) Admins endorsing the deletion of the QZ article relied on the "Do no harm" section of WP:BLP as well as a lack of encyclopedic notability. The internet phenomenon is notable, the kid not, and there's no need to write an article to keep him embarassing him. How is this biography notable? Will Qian be remembered in three years from now, never mind in three months. Is this the greatest that this kid can ever aspire to achieve in his life--being the butt of a joke? Weak appeals to Wikipedia is not censored do not trump our overriding obligation to living people, or the need for Wikipedia to try and be an encyclopedia of some repute. This is taking "sum of human knowledge" to absurdity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thatcher has put his finger on it: this is not an encyclopaedic subject. Guy (Help!) 07:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, he's simply identified some of the arguments made by people. Arguments, by the way, that had no basis in policy and do not reflect community consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence is against you here, I think. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. There's no evidence to suggest otherwise, in fact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is a difference between "notable" (as understood by denizens of AfD and DRV) and encyclopedic. Thatcher131 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Newyorkbrad 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do no harm. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do no harm" is a noble principle, but should be considered along with another noble principle: "everything in moderation". The ends do not always justify the means. Also, personal interpretations of "do no harm" should not be allowed to compromise neutrality. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Those quotes are at least partly misleading. By the third AFD, the Zhijun page had been turned into an article about the meme, so it was not a biography anymore. Even the real name had been taken out. "Do no harm", easily misused, is much more unencyclopedic than the article ever was. Prolog 09:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional recent examples

20.7) The "Do no harm" rationale has been applied to other recent deletions of biographies of living persons who were notable for a single event in their lives, even when reliable sources documented that event. For example, Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker, Crystal Gail Mangum, and Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, also Amillia_Taylor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Rumaisa Rahman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Anna Mae He (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Kian and Remee Hodgson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Chukwu octuplets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), doubtless many more. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A statement on the legitimacy of the rationale in these contexts may be helpful. For instance, the twins and Hornbeck have both had various forms of self-promotional activity, and there's no possible way we can do more harm to Mangum than she has done to herself already. It's really a great example of why the concept is flawed in the way it's being executed by administrators here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Mangum you are, I think, quite wrong. There has been a great deal of abuse of that article and the related 2006 Duke University lacrosse case (formerly "scandal" which is quite telling) to pursue an agenda against her, apparently by Duke students and alumni. In fact, if it were not for the fact that she spoiled there chances in the 2006 Championships I do not believe we would have an article at all. It is my strong belief that we already have, at several points in the past, done more harm to her than she has done to herself. 80.176.82.42 21:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume, again, that the case did not have the same magnitude across the pond as it did over here. The fact that the 2006 season was lost only became somewhat in play after their run this year, not really before. And I know of no "agenda" that you speak of - no vast conspiracy that I'm aware of. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. See my extensive comments on the Hornbeck/Ownby DRV, on which I was the deleting administrator. Newyorkbrad 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do no harm. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, it has been applied, but that doesn't mean it always has been applied appropriately. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Do no harm" concept is often flawed in use

20.8) In many of the examples above, while the concept of "do no harm" was cited, there's significant question as to our ability to do harm in the creation of an article that meets Wikipedia's standards. In cases involving self-promoting individuals, or clearly notorious individuals, a neutral, factual, well-sourced article cannot do any more "harm" than what may already exist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per above issues. People overwhelmingly seem to be missing the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, we're not missing the point. People are disagreeing with your point. When all the available facts are negative, titillating or sensationalistic, no biography can possibly be neutral. This is OK in some cases - Jeffrey Dahmer, perhaps - but entirely unfair when we're talking about a person who's been unwillingly tossed to the media wolves - Anna Mae He, for example. Furthermore, individuals can be involved in encyclopedic events without becoming candidates for encyclopedic biographies. They should be described in the context of the event only. FCYTravis 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the flaw lies in the absence of any objective way to measure the potential harm, or even the actual harm done by any article. I do not believe anyone here wants to harm anybody (though I am willing to be proven wrong on this), but the fact of the matter is the community will generally not agree within itself, much less agree with the subject, as to what might constitute harm, especially after shots have been fired. But rather than writing it off as a lost cause, we should try to be more responsible as we can about it (in our roles both as writers and as reviewers of what others have written). In that respect, the concept is obviously flawed in theory, but could work better in practice. Try the pruning shears and fungicide before chopping entire trees down. Address issues by doing what you sincerely believe is right (call it "ethics" if you will), rather than weighing them against a policy that which even you yourself aren't quite sure about (because one size will never fit all, regardless of its complexity). More readily explain what you're doing, why you're doing it, and why no less intrusive action would have sufficed. Actively seek sanity checks and third opinions before the issue reaches "deletion review". This, I think, could both reduce the temptation of others to assume bad faith (and lessen the rate at which mutual respect becomes hopelessly lost). — CharlotteWebb 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the arbitrators will be able to work out what's what. I put my trust in their judgement, because even if I didn't it wouldn't make a hap'orth of difference. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the article Tron (hacker) about how even a sourced neutral biography of a dead person led to someone taking Wikipedia to court over perceived harm. 75.62.6.237 03:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Qian Zhijun was proper

20.9) The deletion of the article Qian Zhijun was proper according to the policies. Even if it was not done within the bounds of current policies in letter, it would be a valid exercise of WP:IAR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unacceptable. The first half of the commentary is false, the second half is sad if we need to invoke IAR to do something that offers no net benefit to the project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You say. A lot of people disagree with you. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then those people need to either begin reading the policies closer, or work to change them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Four admins closed AfDs as delete.--Doc^g 09:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

At least two of them improperly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've remarked in other discussion, review of recent IAR discussion will reveal that consensus understanding of IAR is that is not effective (or ethical) to use it in a situation where there is contention. It is fine to use in a situation where you have consensus that a rules is dumb or inappropriate or what have you, but if you've got contentious discussion, that is absolutely NOT the time to use IAR. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 05:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the committtee will specifically endorse this. They may slap some people for edit warring over the closure, and they may alter the deletion landscape by the principles they endorse (or oppose) and the remedies they endorse (or oppose) but they are unlikely to come out specifically endorse any particular content decision. Thatcher131 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QZ

20.10) QZ also known as "Little Fatty" is not a public person. Such notoriety as he has stems solely from mockery of an image taken without his consent or foreknowledge,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction: he was not a public person in the beginning, but is one now. I do reject the idea of "private persons" regardless, but if we're going to continue that farce, let's be accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Post-facto damage limitation does not change the fundamentals. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you see, the fundamentals are being misrepresented here. Stating "is not a public person" is false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Stating "is not a public person" is false is false. See? Works both ways. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that one statement is true, and one is not. It doesn't work both ways, because the facts are only on one side. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Redacted to remove the name. I think this is too close to a content finding. --Tony Sidaway 07:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QZ

20.11) QZ, also known as "Little Fatty," reached a level of fame not a public person, but has since become one due to his personal involvement in his notoriety. Such notoriety as he has stems solely from mockery of an image taken without his consent or foreknowledge, but now accepts and promotes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. More accurate than above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-facto damage limitation does not make you a willing participant. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Talking to the press does not make one a "public person". And even if he's a public person this week, a Wikipedia article about him would stay around a whole lot longer. 75.62.6.237 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Independent states that his mother thinks he should sue but (the internet being what it is) can find no defendant [61]. QZ himself has said the he was "terribly upset" to find these pictures and that he hasn't made a penny out of them. QZ's action in trying to exploit his fame seem to be more like trying to handle a fait accompli than conniving in his misfortunes, or at least this is the impression I get from reading the Independent article. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First AfD Closed Validly

20.12) The first AfD was closed validly by both Daniel Bryant and Drini. In Daniel's case, the discussion lacked the traditional numerical consensus, but the use of discretion was well-warranted in the case of a BLP issue. Although Drini's decision to ignore Daniel's request to let the AfD run for another five days might be considered controversial, it was not out of line with existing practice, as AfDs running for ten days is unusual. Her closing of the AfD was sound on numerical grounds and as an evaluation of the arguments made.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported by timeline in my evidence section. Phil Sandifer 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

True. As a whole, no one's really complaining about the validity of the first AfD on its own. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] First DRV Closed Unclearly

20.13) Xoloz's closure of the first DRV was defensible, but could have been made clearer. Xoloz did not explain his closure sufficiently on the DRV page, and cited the failure to follow process in his AfD listing. Process was followed, however, making future discussions muddied and complex.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported by timeline in my evidence section. Xoloz's lack of clarity was one of the main factors in this getting ugly. Phil Sandifer 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is fair, but "process was followed" isn't what caused "muddled and complex" discussions as much as disruptiveness did. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Second AfD Closed Defensibly

20.14) Given the lack of clarity in Xoloz's close, Thebainer's functional overturning of the close was defensible, as the procedural errors were not readily apparent. Thebainer did an excellent job of explaining this reasons in closing the AfD.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported by timeline in my evidence section. Phil Sandifer 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not supported by any evidence. The lack of any clarity that can be derived from Xoloz would not be enough to abort a process clearly necessary to derive a true consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that overturning a process that had generated a consensus on non-existant procedural grounds is a problem unto itself. Phil Sandifer 19:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How so? DRV is just as much for the appeal of deletions that reached an improper result as it is a check on process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Complete Chaos

20.15) Everything after the second AfD's closure was highly chaotic, and did not helpfully advance towards any sort of consensus or decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A no-brainer, really. Phil Sandifer 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say everything from the second AfD on, but it's a pretty "duh" commentary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, obviously enough.DGG 22:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

yes, obviously enough.DGG 22:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion processes inadequate to handle issue

20.16) Our deletion process, as it stands, proved ill-equipped to handle this issue. Confusion over procedural obligations, the scope and weight of BLP, and other issues made it so that there was no satisfactory way to close the debate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is the real problem - our multi-paged deletion process and the widespread disagreement over fundamental issues like what constitutes a consensus, what DRV is for, and how to count or discount opinions expressed was just unsuited to this task. Phil Sandifer 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's fully equipped to deal with these issues - the fact that the results aren't to the liking of many people who supported/directly took part in the disruprion isn't evidence that the processes are inadequate, but that the people running them are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. Deletion processes are adequate and well-equipped to handle this issue ... part of the problem is that they were not allowed to handle it (i.e., out-of-process deletions, speedy closes, and so on). Also, this seems a moot point given that there is no other process. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:^demon

21) ^demon closed the A.S. deletion review discussion eight minutes after Badlydrawnjeff initiated it [62]. ^demon refused to discuss this closure, instead blanking Jeff's comments and engaging in personal attacks when questioned about this. [63] [64] [65].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, see Allison Stokke evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to include every admin who closes a deletion debate with a result that's not to Jeff's liking? If so, we are most likely going to end up with every active admin as a party in this arbitration. And in what way is starting a fourth debate based on exactly the same arguments not disruptive? Guy (Help!) 15:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Only the disruptive ones. I'm not going to add Nearly Headless Nick even though I disagree with this Archimedes Plutonium closure, for instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It seems to me that Jeff is labeling dissenting opinions as "disruptive". Sean William @ 15:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And why would you say such a stupid thing? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Added diffs. Why was it so imperative to close the DRV before anyone other than Jeff could comment? Just to make Jeff look like the lone nutter, the only one questioning the result? Sheesh. — CharlotteWebb 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Closed in just 8 minutes? Why? What possible harm could there have been from allowing the discussion to proceed 5 days? And since when is "let it go" a reason to close a good-faith nomination? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Daniel

22) Daniel has disruptively closed deletion review discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, see evidence per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not really. I procedurally reclosed a debate. This debate, which was closed by a totally-uninvolved administrator, was reverted by a party centrally involved in the debate. It was a very similar action to what I took in the QZ deletion, when Matt reverted the close despite offering an opinion in the AfD. Really, I can't see where I went wrong, and where BDJ's evidence is that my actions were not on (I only see him stating the fact, nothing more). Daniel 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allison Stokke

23) Another BLP, Allison Stokke, was closed in a way contrary to policy. The corresponding DRV for the second AfD was closed improperly and disruptively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What evidence? We don't, as far as I am aware, have any policy which mandates the retention of an article in the face of loud agitation. While policy states that unsourceable articles must go, it does not say that sourceable ones must stay whatever the arguments for their deletion. We also do not have a policy that says Wikipedia is a court of infinite appeals. We do have a policy which says that the person closing a debate should weigh the arguments rather than counting heads, which is what the closing statement shows happened. Which policy was violated and by whom? And given the contentious nature of the article, and the existence of this arbitration case, it could be argued with at least as much justification that bringing the case to deletion review, as Jeff did, was disruptive. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Take your pick. This closure had nothing to do with strength of argument. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

DRV is not a second AFD. Sean William @ 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good thing it wasn't a second AfD then, eh? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither is RfA. Corvus cornix 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the review would have been to determine whether the close was appropriate. So, I'll not endorse the first statement, but strongly endorse the second. The DRV should not have been speedily closed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making Sausage

24) The production of Wikipedia's evolving policy is often a process the details of which leave much to be desired. The development of policy via particular case examples being disputed can be particularly hard to evolve into good precedent. This dispute related to an area of unsettled policy and princple, and all parties are believed to have been acting in good faith regarding the development of the encyclopedia. Beyond the current vagueness in BLP, this also substantially involved finding balance points between BLP and other, long-settled policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

LOL! Ten points for quoting Bismarck in an arbitration case. Does that mean Wikipedia is making laws now? And given Jimbo's recent clarification of WP:NOT one might also be tempted to urge the arbitrators not to drop the pilot... Guy (Help!) 21:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(I'm tempted to reply "great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood". *joke*) But, seriously, I think there's some truth in this sausage. Our processes are in a state of flux and that is unsettling and uncomfortable - particularly for those who feel the need of certainties and the pseudo-objectivity of ignoring ethics, pounding process and counting sources. But I suspect we're undergoing a paradigm shift on our previously pretty lax BLP policy. Soon we'll reach a new equilibrium, codification of the principles will catch up, and a (new) normal service will be resumed. That's the way we evolve. The main thing is to make good policy, not to write it.--Doc^g 22:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems as if we want to encourage disruption. I don't think that's a good idea. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. As I say, some people need certainties. But disruption isn't always bad - depends what you mean by it. Change is sometimes required for survival. As the wiki grows we mature and outgrow things - that's why IAR is intrinsic to Wikipedia. It is the wild creative gene that drives all the rules forward and allows them to evolve and adapt to new situations. Our processes were not designed for the world's most popular reference work, top ten website, that can have a huge impact on the lives of ordinary people. We need to shake things up to allow for that.--Doc^g 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is actually an excellent example as to why IAR is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Imagine how much better everything would be right now if people stopped this nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Without it, we'd be history. Static may be comforting, but it doesn't work at the cutting edge.--Doc^g 22:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like we're heading down the shitter awfully quick with it being used more and more. Structure isn't a abd thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert 18:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the participants their own meat to grind. While they all presumably want to do what they feel is best for the project, it concerns me that hampering Jeff has taken a higher priority. — CharlotteWebb 20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion process needed

25) A process is needed to ensure that speedy deletions of articles which allegedly violate WP:BLP, but do not meet CSD G10, do not result in wheel wars or other disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I have suggested such a process at Wikipedia:BLP Deletion Process. John254 22:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Guidance is needed from arbcom on interpretation of existing behavior standards. That's where the arbitration committee comes in. There are plenty of suggested principles. The committee only has to choose a few and endorse them, or else fashion its own.

This is a change from my earlier position. Events have increased my confidence in the good sense of the community as a whole in these cases. --Tony Sidaway 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I think the simple solution is: don't speedily delete articles that don't meet the criteria. If anyone wants a new speedy deletion criterion based on ethics, the will of God, or 42, then let them propose such a criterion. Not an extra process ... please. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose; Tony's proposal, which I placed in evidence, points in this direction; the current text is better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative 1RR

26) All administrators are under a one revert rule for administrative actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Widely asserted below; let's state it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case, 0RR applies for undiscussed BLP restorations. --Tony Sidaway 03:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a general statement. It should be found independent of any particular case.

The exception, if valid, applies only because of Tony Sidaway's doubtful change of WP:BLP during this proceeding, which was after all the reversions concerned in that case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In short, this is Wikilawyering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The change follows considerable concern about the reverting of deletions performed under the BLP, when the deleting admins were online, without any attempt at prior discussion with the deleting admins. Obviously the BLP would be impossible to enforce if this were to be encouraged. Consensus appears to exist for my changes. --Tony Sidaway 18:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

3-2 is not consensus; even if the three consists of one crusader and two revert warriors. Tony's present version is (as I said) an improvement over the original; and I was prepared to let it stand until now, when Tony attempted to make it retroactive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If the text is still there in a week's time, it will be because consensus exists. Beyond that we cannot say. If it's just edit warriors and crusaders then it will die. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it will prove that you have two revert warriors on your side; which is what its current presence without qualification proves. 3-2 can win an edit war, if they are irresponsible enough to fight one; that does not make them consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Replace "week" with "month" or "year". If the principle doesn't have consensus, it will not survive in the long run. Edit warriors can't keep it up forever. --Tony Sidaway 19:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change of policy in the middle of Arbitrations

[edit] Tony Sidaway changed BLP in the middle of this arbitration

27.1) Tony Sidaway changed the text of BLP in the middle of this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

True. I cannot be the only editor engaged in both arbitration cases and editing policy. Fully discussed on the relevant talk page. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on this is debatable

27.2) The discussion of this change involved 5 editors; 3 supporting, 2 opposed

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't performed a crude count, but consensus appears to exist on the changes that I have performed. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if "consensus" = "what SlimVirgin will revertwar for." Perhaps we should add her to this controversy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think arguing over whether a bold edit has consensus will get us anywhere in this case. The arbitration committee obviously won't find it surprising that policy edits accompanied by discussion are made during the course of arbitrations. Life goes on. --Tony Sidaway 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The recently deceased

28) There is an ongoing debate on the question of whether, and if so to what extent, the biographies of living persons policy applies to the recently deceased. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It may be more precise to say that there's debate on the question of whether certain aspects of BLP are applicable to dead people; this doesn't mean that the policy per se can be considered to cover them. While much of the general guidance given in the policy is relevant across the board, the not-open-to-debate remove-this-or-else aspects that form the bulk of the practical application are really intended for a case where our actions can harm a living individual, and are largely irrelevant when the article subject is no longer in a position to care one way or the other what we write about them.

(This should not preclude, however, applying BLP directly in cases where an article might be about a recently deceased individual's still-living family moreso than about the individual themselves.) Kirill 20:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It is a point of confusion, certainly. That means that the decision to delete articles of dead people should not be taken lightly. violet/riga (t) 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Counter to BLP applies only to living people, a principle in the proposed final decision--Tony Sidaway 19:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Kirill's comments and particularly the concern expressed on the talk page of the proposed decision. I'm quite confident that the thinking we've been doing over the past eighteen months has changed the project to the extent that, if someone wrote in the Ronald Reagan article "in 1985 he made a speech in favor of legalizing sex between adults and children" we wouldn't just stick a "citation needed" tag on it and walk away. So the benefits of clarity from adopting the principle "BLP applies only to living people" probably outweigh the costs, and I think I'll support it. --Tony Sidaway 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

29) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[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

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff placed on civility parole

1.1) badlydrawnjeff is placed on civility parole for three months. If he violates said parole, blocks will begin at 24 hours, and escalating to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Feh. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Wording is not what is normally used, but that can be fixed in the transfer over. Per evidence, perhaps the only actual thing that could be held against me, but I also have never been sanctioned by ArbCom before, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Useless, civility is not the issue. Jeff is exasperating, and has driven me to utter frustration. But I've never found him uncivil.--Doc^g 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Civility parole is almost impossible to enforce objectively. If an editor has been repeatedly uncivil in a certain area of the project, whether teletubby articles or deletion discussions, it is simpler (and far more common in past cases) to ban the editor from that area for a period of time. Thatcher131 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Thatcher, and I'm not really sure this is the issue anyway (and if it were, just three months of civility parole would be so weak as to be meaningless). Moreschi ^Talk 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Thatcher, to be sure. I think those who typically find themselves in disagreement with Jeff would, in fact, probably concede that they, more than he, tend to be brusque, usually because they believe (rightly or wrongly) the extended discussions that Jeff might favor to be unnecessarily disruptive perversions of process. Joe 08:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree exactly per Doc's reasoning. Jeff is completely civil as far as I'm aware. I'm sure if we dig we could find something on anybody, but as far as I'm concerned Jeff's issue is not incivility. Also...proposing a remedy against yourself? WTF? Unorthodox? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.

1.2) badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

...about what? Excessive typing? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed, second choice. Per whatever people might be thinking, although I don't think there's much evidence for this either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add alternatives. I don't really see a problem with me at all here, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but people seem to think I should be held accountable for something, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You win at the internet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A general caution? I think this needs some elaboration to be useful. ChazBeckett 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Much too vague. Newyorkbrad 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Danger, Jeff Raymond! The cabal is after you. — CharlotteWebb 00:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff is warned

1.3) No action is taken toward badlydrawnjeff for any excessive zeal he has displayed, although he is warned to be aware of the situation around him for the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think the proposer can undertake this without our help. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per MONGO arbitration last year. Still unnecessary in my mind, but throwing it out there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In the Requests for arbitration/MONGO case, Badlydrawnjeff was found 6-0 to be critical of my efforts to defeat harassment. There is no doubt that he has not learned from this, and since has repeatedly been overly critical of other editors whose actions he has been in dispute with.--MONGO 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What was there to learn from? It was simply a finding that said I was critical. And I still am critical. If that was meant to be a warning, it would have been in the remedies section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, harassment is so not an issue here. Milto LOL pia 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The finding was that you were critical Jeff, I'd say, critical over something you shouldn't have been. That this has been repeated by you numerous times since regarding other admins you have been in disagreement with is not something that should be overlooked. Questioning admins and others on their actions is fine, condemning them repeatedly isn't.--MONGO 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I wasn't critical of your combating harassment, but instead on how you chose to combat it. You seem to be missing that component. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The issues from the so-called MONGO case are not relevant to those presented here, and we have more than enough issues in this case without bringing in inflammatory, extraneous matters. Newyorkbrad 21:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. At the time I was trying to defend myself from incessant trolling as an Admin, Badlydrawnjeff critizied my efforts and my administrative decisions relentlessly. He has repeated these actions with other administrators with whom has has had disagreements with since, to the point of being relentless. What we have here is a pattern of challenging admins, (who are, in almost all cases, trying to do the best they can), well beyond the point that most of us would, and demonstrates an inability on his part to assume good faith.--MONGO 22:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions

1.4) Badlydrawnjeff is banned from deletion discussions for X amount of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Good idea. I suggest X=3 hours. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As noted above, there's actually no evidence for this except that people don't like what I have to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Throwing the baby out wiht the bathwater. The problem is not Jeff contributing, it's that he thinks he's always right and keeps on even after it's obvious that his view has been heard. He seems to think that those who do nto accept his view have not heard or understood it. This is rarely the case. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Extension of my proposed temporary injunction. Is well-supported by the evidence - Jeff disrupts these pages, plain and simple. Phil Sandifer 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Too broad. Perhaps restrict to BLP deletion discussions, at best. Moreschi ^Talk 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP discussions are where Jeff causes the most harm, but they are not the whole of his problem. Phil Sandifer 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This still falsely assumes I'm disruptive in these discussions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Stong oppose. Jeff provides a valuable role in deletion discussions, and has on numerous occassions successfully overturned hasty deletion decisions. Catchpole 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree no compelling evidence has suggested this particular remedy. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Best remedy for Wikipedia.--MONGO 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have probably closed as many (non-obvious) AFDs as an anyone in the past 1.5 years and I think this would be a bad idea. Civility parole sure, if the evidence supports it, but there's no need to ban him just from deletion discussions. It smacks of just wanting to filter out unpopular opinions... which makes discussions worthless in the long run. --W.marsh 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are people getting the idea that Jeff disrupts discussions? I have not once encountered an AfD or DRV in which Jeff advanced a view so plainly frivolous as not to attract the support of at least one other established, good-faith editor, and I think it is fair to conclude that where even a small minority of the community appears to be troubled by a particular deletion a discussion ought to be had in order to confirm that a consensus exists for deletion. It is plain that Jeff does not edit with disruptive intent, and it is equally clear that he cannot be expected to have appreciated that, intent aside, his edits are perceived as disruptive because, well, there's no consensus for that view. There are many editors who think process to be important and who think that decisions taken in the absence of discussion ought to be revisited where objections are levied and that revisitation ought to take as long as is necessary for a consensus to be borne out, and Jeff surely edits consistent with the views of those editors. Joe 08:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Restricting him to one comment means he can't discuss his views. What's the point of making a comment if you can't defend it when people offer objections? Ban him from discussion completely, or let him discuss fully, this kind of compromise doesn't work. --Tango 12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a very bad idea. Jeff may be a prolific contributor to deletion discussions, and may often hold a minority opinion, but that shouldn't be a sanctionable offense. (As to the immediate situation here on QZ, I think that the "speedy closings" of the previous discussions were more problematic than anything else. If people had just left them run, this page and this case probably would not exist.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. Suggests that some cabal has God speaking in their ears and are infallible, so no disagreement is allowed. Flies in the face of the principle of Wikipedia decisions made by discussion aimed at reaching consensus. Edison 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. We should not shut out valued editors just because they dissent with the views of some administrators (and, no, I don't agree with Jeff on most things). If we're to be honest, there are many editors who agree with Jeff, but are simply not as vocal as he is. Banning him from deletion debates would send the message of "If you're not going to agree with us, we don't want to hear what you have to say." This is a very bad idea. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support He contributes in other ways that are far less disruptive so this is not a big loss. --Tbeatty 11:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose We can not have sensible discussions with one side excluded. Removing the most active proponent of one side is an obvious to overbalance AfD decisions. DGG 22:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff banned from Wikipedia:Deletion review

1.5) Badlydrawnjeff is banned from commenting at Wikipedia:Deletion review for X amount of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, no evidence that this remedy is necessary. I have not been disruptive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Alteration of Phil Sandifer's proposal above. Sean William @ 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you have been. Why else would we be here? Sean William @ 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We're here because of the disruptive deletions of an article. People simply want to make it about me because I dare to challenge them. I haven't been disruptive, and there's no evidence to suggest it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree no compelling evidence has suggested this particular remedy. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Jeff is an invaluble contributor to deletion review. Deletion review is needed to allow non-administators to discuss cases when they think articles have been mistakenly deleted. Catchpole 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can or should take action to stop an editor being tiresome. The problem will resolve itself in due course. --Tony Sidaway 04:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Support - If someone makes it to the ARBCOM on an issue, you don't get to leave unschathed with only the smell of smoke on your clothes. You did something to deserve to be here. The evidence demonstrates this in this case. 60 day ban on deletions. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, that's completely false and unfair. The reason Jeff has "made it" to the ArbCom is because this totally unjustified case was brought against him. He is not at fault here, and should not be banned from DRV, where he is one of the few people willing to stand up for due process and fair consultation. Walton^Assistance! 15:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Jeff has much to contribute to DRV. The fact that he sometimes contributes TOO much should not be cause to complete muzzle him. The intention does not appear to be disruption of Wikipedia or of any of its deletion or review processes. Edison 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose per my comments above and per Edison. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff restricted

1.6) Badlydrawnjeff is restricted to one comment in any deletion debate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just ban him, then. Criminy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jeff often makes valid points, they get lost in the noise. Keep it to one comment per debate (which may be amended, perhaps with an upper limit on size or number of edits) and it would be easier to tell the two apart. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This would then assume it's not a discussion. Or that I shouldn't be allowed to take part in the discussion, which is really absurd. Not to mention, still, that I'm not disruptive in these discussions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not disruptive? Ya think? Guy (Help!) 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not disruptive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disagree, no compelling evidence. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is silly - if he is being disruptive, ban him from the discussions; if he isn't, then don't - this remedy serves no purpose other than to be annoying to anyone involved. --BigDT 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The nature of discussion often involves statements, replies, counterstatements. IOW, an ongoing dialog. Heck, if somebody had a question for Jeff about his statement, this proposal would render it impossible for him to respond. If there are any problems with discussions going off track, a blanket statement that editors should work carefully to not get distracted would be more effective. FrozenPurpleCube 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mister.Manicore is obviously right. I think this to be a supremely bad suggestion, consistent with my remarks relative to remedy 14 and inasmuch as copious and perhaps incorrigible participation in a discussion is almost never disruptive. If Jeff thinks consensus to be unclear or believes there remain arguments to be made but is well aware that the community considers an issue resolved and nevertheless proceeds, disruption might be an appropriate descriptor. Here, though, Jeff often contributes quite prolifically to discussions that are unresolved. Perhaps he repeats himself too often, and perhaps he presses policy issues that many others consider settled, and perhaps he is sometimes unnecessarily wordy and by his verbosity obliges other editors to consume time replying to him, but it is quite clear that any negative consequences that may follow from any such problems are outweighed by the good work that Jeff does at DRV (where, it should be said, he rarely raises an issue on which he does not ultimately find non-trivial community support). If he seems to be consuming time and space on an issue on which the community seems to have reached resolution, one may surely ignore what he has to say; he has never proven himself willing to seek to bring out about change other than discursively. Joe 09:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if this would be two comments, it would be a great remedy. There needs to be some clarity on editing his own comments to change them and what the rules would be. SakotGrimshine 21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of other editors who do not know when to stop in their desire to dispute every statement by those with other views. All should learn to bite their tongue (or their keyboard if necessary) and not insist on one more rebuttal effort or snappy comeback. Anyone may need to make an initial statement and at least one rebuttal in a given discussion. That is the nature of a debate. This is not a good proposal. Edison 01:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer some kind of exhortation for Jeff to limit his xfd/drv participation to articles where he personally thinks the article is important on its merits. What we currently see is prolific defense of a vast swath of junk articles that amount to POV-pushing inclusionistic philosophy in project space, using the afd as sort of a WP:COATRACK. I'm not very moved by the observation that a few of them turned out to be worth saving, since even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and those weren't exactly important or well-developed articles as far as I've seen. I think most of us have seen articles deleted that we think should have been saved, and the project seems to get along ok without them. They get recreated sooner or later if they're important. 75.62.6.237 03:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I already do that. I don't comment on every DRV/XfD I see. --03:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, are you really saying the QZ article is important on its own merits rather than as a rallying point in an on-wiki ideological battle? Wikipedia has 1.8 million articles--can we at least agree that some are more important than others? That each of us can in principle rank all 1.8M articles from #1 (most important) to #1,800,000 (least important)? Of course we would not make the same choices, but we could each choose a ranking that reflected our own views in some reasonably consistent way. Where would you put the QZ article on a scale like that? What I'm trying to suggest is "don't sweat the small stuff". If it's not in, say, the top 25%, it's not worth wrestling over. 75.62.6.237 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I really saying that an article on Qian Zhijun is important on its own merits? Yes, without any hesitation. As important as the core topics? Of course not, but not unimportan at all. Remember - there wasn't an ideological battle at all over this until the administrators decided to disruptively start one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose per ... it's not possible to have a debate with one comment. What if someone asks him a question? Any other arbitrary cutoff point is also silly as it's not possible to put a quota on constructive discussion. Sometimes one or two comments suffice and sometimes a dozen replies and counter-replies are needed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

One user answering every comment on the other side is usually bad tactics, as looking at AFD discussions will show; but not always. I hope Jeff will learn not to shoot himself in the foot - but I doubt ArbCom should intervene. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff admonished

1.7) Badlydrawnjeff may continue to contribute in deletion discussions, but is admonished to keep a cool mind and not to make uncivil comments during the discussion. This include AFD and DRV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

s/Badlydrawnjeff/Everyone/g --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that Badlydrawnjeff's problem is that he's uncivil. It's his interpretation of WP:BLP that people have problems with. Sean William @ 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon is surely right to suggest that this is simply a restatement of the general principles that ought to govern each contribution made by every editor here, but I don't think it's always wrong to issue in the form of a remedy a gentle reminder that one who has had problems comporting his editing with a specific policy be especially careful in future editing; Jeff has shown no civility problems, though (well, almost none; he has probably been unnecessarily curt when discussions have been abruptly halted), and he is probably the last person of those named as parties to this RfAr whom one would caution w/r/to WP:CIVIL. Joe 09:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff restricted to one DRV nom per article

1.8) Badlydrawnjeff may not bring the same deleted article to WP:DRV more than once. [Possible addition: limit the number he may have on the page at any one time]

1.8.1) Badlydrawnjeff may not bring a deleted article to deletion review if the article has already been through deletion review in the past six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Worthless on at least three levels. One, I have no actual reputation for multiply nominating articles - i've done it twice, once as a test, and once with this article. Two, this assumes things aren't horribly broken with DRV - if DRV does things properly, there's generally no reason to multiply nominate anything. Thirdly, no one's more likely to let it run its course - look at the amount of bad faith commentary and outright dishonest stuff being put out there. This won't be treated any differently. Essentially, this restricts me to something I'm already doing as a remedy for something I never did. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is an obvious initial step to address the issues that brought people here. Anticipating first objection: "But I was not disruptive." A great many people seem to think he was, and it's hard to argue with an injunction that would help tame an often flaming process page. Anticipating second: "But what if somebody shut the first discussion summarily?" If admins were aware that Jeff could only nominate once they would be far more likely to let that one run it's course. Marskell 11:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This would appear to be treating a symptom, not the cause. Irrespective some of the disruption is not on DRVs raised by Jeff. Reraising reviews without presenting anything new usually get shutdown pretty quickly. --pgk 11:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's comments like this that are troubling--we do need to treat the symptom in this case. The DRV fails, you move along; as a small outcome of this case, that needs to be made clear to BDJ. Marskell 12:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To me from that you'd treat the cause. either by demonstrating (telling) that the deletions were "proper" (in line with wikipedia's policies and goals), or by conceding they weren't and dealing with that. Remove that obstacle and the symptom of the multiple listing goes away (Or if it doesn't you look to the next cause, which may involve a broader cure than addressing the single page). --pgk 13:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, simply, stop making disruptive closures. That's really the best result - you're not going avoid some relistings by other groups of people (see The Game (game)), but let's be frank here - the problem isn't me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to debate what constitues a disruptive closure, the closure wouldn't be disruptive if you didn't moan about it (and you wouldn't moan about it if everyone else just accepted your supperior ability to judge the "correct" outcome), that's a circular debtate and one which I'll leave for the arbitrators to consider. My comment doesn't seek to determine who is right or wrong in this case (the remedy wouldn't be useful either way), hence the "or by conceding they weren't and dealing with that". --pgk 14:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>God forbid admins and editors alike actually follow policy (or alternately change the policy they dislike/disagree with). But certainly, do bash people for following policy to try to seek remedies when folks won't just talk with them and make compromise, because that always works.</sarcasm> --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy is descriptive not prescriptive, always has been always will be. Policy is also always open to interpretation. --pgk 14:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So why aren't we changing the policy since it is clearly not accurately descriptive? Whether it's proscriptive or descriptive, it still needs to match reality. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated given policy has a certain interpretation element (not a bureacracy, spirit etc. being important) so sometimes change are unnecessary. Sometimes the changes are fairly transient and so the policy pages never catch up, sometimes the multitude of different policies means one catches up within those bounds another may not. Other times there are those who want to argue the nTh degree about a given wording change so the policy stays in a state of limbo, but the real consensus for what our policy actually is, is in what the community actually does/believes to be the right approach. Written policy tends to set a broad framework, we aren't an experiment in systems of rule making. --pgk 14:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not going to work. What if an article is put on AFD twice, and there's DRV problems both times? And why is there a problem with the number of a given editor's DRVs? If admin's can't let a DRV run its course, that's their problem, not his. They should learn patience and reasonable behavior are less likely to lead to disruption than summary action. FrozenPurpleCube 14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff on the point that there's no evidence or finding of fact to support this. --Tony Sidaway 14:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If the findings of fact include some mention that the multiple DRVs were disruptive, then this would be supportable. If there is no finding of fact in that regard, then it wouldn't be. Marskell 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In the wake of the events of today, including Jeff's tendentious attempts to take the Alisson Stokke deletion to yet another deletion review, and subsequently adding those who closed it, I think the arbitration committee should consider a remedy of this type. See 1.8.1 --Tony Sidaway 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Typical worthless tripe. Blame the guy fixing the problem instead of fixing the people causing the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How have you fixed any problems? You seem to be the one instigating them. Corvus cornix 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. It is a remedy for a problem that does not exist. Also, any supposed "remedy" of this nature should also require that any DRV brought by Jeff should not be speedily closed out-of-process. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy closes are part of the process. --Tony Sidaway 14:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not when the issue is controversial and there is no clear consensus about it. Also, "opened by Jeff" is not a criterion for speedily closing deletion reviews. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff placed on discussion parole

1.9) Badlydrawnjeff may not revert the closure of any discussion by an admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The Evil Spartan 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So blame the guy who's fighting disruption? No thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Isn't that the case for everyone though? Whsitchy 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this seems to have been ignored by everybody in these disputes. There may also be some question of if an improper closure can be undone. We need to make it clear that, if it is allowed, Badlydrawnjeff certainly may not do so. The Evil Spartan 18:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I think closed XfD's and the like should only be reopened by another admin (or the same one) after consulting with the admin who closed it in the first place, thus preventing a wheel war. If a user wants it reopened, he should contact the admin that closed it himself, and if the admin refuse to, not go admin shopping. Just my thoughts on it. Whsitchy 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence or finding of fact to support this proposed remedy? --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion participation

1.10) Any uninvolved admin may ban Badlydrawnjeff from any deletion or undeletion discussion where Jeff is, in that admin's opinion, being disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's a discussion. Frankly, deal with it. If discussion is disruptive, there's a bigger problem at play. Do I get to ban administrators from being disruptive too? Please? Enough already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would much rather see Jeff's comments held to a single section in contentious cases, since I do actually read and evaluate his views even if I usually disagree with them. The endless threaded comments do get a bit wearing, though, especially since a lot of them are very repetitive. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Very much agreed with Guy's comment. I'd also be concerned as someone else who argues a lot in both deletion discussions and other discussion types that we will start restricting people for being argumentative. The main issue is that Jeff needs to AGF a bit more and needs to learn when he's arguing for a lost cause. JoshuaZ 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If we're supposedly looking for strength of argument, there's no such thing as a lost cause, really. I have no real problems assuming good faith for most people - my line is quite clear and distant. Again, if there's some sort of evidence that I a) routinely fail to AGF during deletion discussion, or b) routinely overpursue deletion situations, I'd love to see it, and I'd gladly adjust accordingly. The problem is that I don't do those things, and I stay very aware of them because I know my views are unpopular and I'm generally not respected here. So we can either go with what's going on, or continue to perpetuate the myth. This remedy is designed specifically to keep me out of deletion discussions, and it's unnecessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nitpick: I think you mean "clear and distinct". Clear and distant is... interesting. :-) I can also argue when the mood strikes me, but it is important to keep things under control and not argue for the sake of argument. I think this is what references to tendentious mean, and what Jimbo meant when he said "I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk." - though if I'm totally honest, I've never fully understood what the squeaky wheel is a metaphor for. Carcharoth 22:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Because Jeff's tendency to respond in cascade to every single friggin' comment that doesn't match his view is really not a constructive approach. >Radiant< 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you interpret "uninvolved"? How do you enforce it if an admin ends up being involved and does it anyway? If BDJ is subject to this, shouldn't every other editor and admin? How will you police conflict of interest? Additionally, how else do you make it absolutely clear here in Wikipedia that you don't agree with something? In my experience, if you do respond to every single friggin' comment, you're lambasted like this, and if you don't, you're summarily ignored. Which one would I prefer? Ban me if you don't like it.

This kind of remedy is poorly thought out and will very likely be poorly executed. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Overkill. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to read Jeff's comments, ignore them. A remedy like this would effectively condone privately solicited "favors" at Jeff's expense (and with the aim of manipulating the result of the discussion). I think we've had enough of that already. — CharlotteWebb 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

i think this is a bad idea. Disruption is often a two-way street. The wayto try to get a debate between otherwise reasonable editors is not well served by banning. If BDJ is engaging in disruptive behavior, treat him like any other editor. FrozenPurpleCube 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic. Sure, the issues Jeff keeps returning to and ones for unimpeded community debate. But Jeff is monopolising one side of the discussion. Every contested deletion becomes 'a dialogue with Jeff' - in that regard he is disrupting the community discussion. Look, if his points have wider support, others will also make them. Why is it Jeff puts himself into every such discussion so it becomes about him? This is not helpful.--Doc^g 08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons: 1) If people were making them, I wouldn't have to. 2) Until recently, DRV was a vote count, so it was imperitive to attempt toget people to change their votes, which required more discussion and persuasion. None of these reasons are disruptive, or reasons to attempt to silence me except to remove a contrary voice. At no point do I make the discussions "about me," that's patently absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold on! 1) You mean, of the hundreds of participants, no one is making the case but you? Are you arrogant enough to think the rest incapable? Or is it that few actually hold your position? 2) Again, when there are multiple people making the case for deletion, why does it always have to be you that answers them? Why is it so often the community debates see to be a "conversation with Jeff"?--Doc^g 11:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1) In some cases, yes. And it turns out that I can be quite persuasive, which is probably a problem for those who continue to insist, without evidence, that I'm disruptive. 2) Why? Because I make it a conversation, and because I challenge people to make comments that jive with policy and consensus. Not disruptive in the least. This is just an excuse to try and silence me, something many have wanted to do for a very long time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's astoundingly ego-centric (and a little paranoid to boot).--Doc^g 11:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I know my value in deletion discussions, and I think I have every right to be paranoid, as has been demonstrated in this very situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Radiant's proposal is overkill, and a very bad idea. The correct approach to excessive commentary is to come right out and say to whoever it is: "you don't need to respond to every comment". Alternatively, refactor the discussion so that similar replies are grouped together, and Jeff (or whoever) only has to respond once. The problem is that AfD has a tradition of leaving comments in chronological order, so that there if someone repeats an argument, you have to repeat the rebuttal. Maybe suggest that Jeff limit himself to "invalid argument, see above" or something. Jeff does have some good arguments, and sometimes others just sit back and let him make those arguments. If Jeff ever feels he is the only one commenting, he should ask others who agree with him to add their comments. Carcharoth 14:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRVs on living persons

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as an alternative to more severe restriction on Jeff's editing. Also, this remedy is rather unambiguous and so should avoid continuing the dispute when applied. The way, the truth, and the light 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff banned from BLP discussions

1.12) Because of his rejection of the fundamental ethical principles that underlie the BLP policy, badlydrawnjeff is banned from all policy-related discussions 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. 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Let it go, guys. Evidence has nothing to do with this case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Alternative to Kirill Lokshin's Remedy 1 "Badlydrawnjeff banned from BLPs" in the proposed decision, with similar wording. The intention is to leave Badlydrawnjeff free to make edits where there is no reason to suppose he will come into conflict over the BLP. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on it, I'd suggest this copyedit for clarity:

Because of his rejection of the fundamental ethical principles that unerlie the BLP policy, badlydrawnjeff is banned from all policy-related discussions cover by BLP, as well as any associated discussions. In particular, this includes any deletion discussion dealing with BLP, as well as any present or future discussions of the policy itself. 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.

The first version seemed a bit wordy. --InkSplotch 22:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this or even something along the lines of one of the ones above dealing only with DRV would be best. Evidence that Jeff has made inapropriate article edits is very sparce indeed. Eluchil404 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing of BLP debates

1.13) Any admin may warn Badlydrawnjeff that he is disrupting any BLP discussion, notifying WP:ANI that he has done so. If Jeff continues to edit that discussion, and the warning has not been withdrawn, any uninvolved admin may block Badlydrawnjeff per enforcement, below.

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

Comment by others

Proposed; this is what I would do. It permits any admin to say to Jeff, "enough already, you've made your point." What more do we need? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well intentioned, but asking administrators to post announcements about Jeff's behavior on that noticeboard hardly seems likely to reduce drama. I fear that an outright ban from the page, perhaps a temporary one, might be the only solution that keeps the noise levels on deletion review down. I don't really want to ban Jeff from that page, though, so perhaps the warnings proposed by the arbitrators may be for the best. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Even with no notification it would be better than the proposals now being voted on. For notification, I would accept arbitration enforcement; but there are two concerns here: participants in a discussion should be able to warn Jeff; but others should be able to tell them they're overreacting. We should not mistake accountability for drama. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The normal place to put warnings is the talk page. Your response illustrates another problem with this remedy: it would be used for grandstanding. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This would require both Jeff's talk page and ANI; the remedy below would require only Jeff's talk page. Sorry, Tony, disagreeing with an admin is not automatically grandstanding; often it is encouraging her to operate by consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Either "any admin" means something or it doesn't. Arbitration remedies of this have to be enforceable, in that they give admins powers delegated from the arbitration committee. This wording has obvious flaws. Again I see the use of the word "uninvolved" and I think it's going to be seen as a code word for an admin who shares Jeff's non-mainstream views. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin has been used repeatedly in such contexts: it means an admin who has not edited the discussion in question; Tony knows this. I have substituted that below; I do not choose to do so here. This Wikilawyering on Tony's part begins to resemble a wish to be free of any accountability whatsoever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing of BLP debates (2nd version)

1.14) Any admin may warn Badlydrawnjeff that he is disrupting any BLP discussion. If Jeff continues to edit that discussion, and the warning has not been withdrawn, any uninvolved admin who has not edited the discussion may block Badlydrawnjeff per enforcement, below.

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

Comment by others

Proposed. As above, but no notification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A formula for wikilawyering. Any administrator whose views conform to the mainstream will be viewed as "involved" by certain parties. No I think a ban is better because it doesn't allow scope for such bad faith argumentation. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll define it. That's the usual meaning of uninvolved, anyway; it would mark the complainer as a wikilawyer to use any other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff commended and thanked

1.15) Badlydrawnjeff is commended for his exemplary commitment to Wikipedia, thanked for the exceptional quality and quantity of his edits in the capacity of content creator, and urged to resume contributing high-quality content to the encyclopedia, at his leisure. All editors are exhorted to assist him in this, whenever he chooses to resume.

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

Ignoring the reasons this was put here, let's just stop this already. There's no need for this - my edits were appreciated by those who mattered, and moreso by outsiders who aren't here at all - and it implies I'm done because of this case when it's not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others

My clumsy attempt to recognise Jeff's fantastic contributions of content. --Tony Sidaway 00:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff did partake in a worthy cause... if only he had handled the opposition differently... (messedrocker • talk) 00:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong endorse. Take it at face value, folks. It's very important that we be all able to disagree on some issues, even strongly disagree, yet still recognize each others positive contributions to the Wikipedia. Without that, we have nothing. That we can keep appreciating each others' help during a heated confrontation like this is one of the finer things about this project, and what puts it above a mere chat forum. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. We need to remember that Jeff has done more for this encyclopedia than most of us here. He's written 3 featured articles, for God's sake; I became an admin without having written a single one. But just because he dares to have an opinion that contradicts a few admins' arbitrary view of "fundamental ethics", he's being witch-hunted. Walton^talk 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway

[edit] Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole

2.1) Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole. Escalating blocks, etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just say no to "parole". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Based not only on the most recent evidence, but on years of activity. Enough is enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nonsense. Tony delivers, from time to time, a needed dose of hardened common sense, but I am unaware of a circumstance where he has caused an escellation of tensions in relation to this matter. Phil Sandifer 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read the evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see four diffs that you unconvincingly describe as condescending. Phil Sandifer 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see why. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is wishful thinking at best - David Gerard 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Tony Sidaway has been a long time incivil editor, this civility parole is long overdue. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway is blunt and to the point...that is not the same thing as being incivil.--MONGO 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Over-bluntness may incite anger and hatred, and is not the best way to handle problems. There is a reason why there are euphemisms in English language. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony is blunt and to the point, but there is a right way and a wrong way to be blunt and to the point. --BigDT 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. I've never been offended by the substance of anything Tony has said, but the general sentiments conveyed by the fashion in which he says things properly disconcert one. It is not that he is incivil to others but that he is incivilly disinclined to accept that a view with which one disagrees need not be responded to with fuck process, do no harm, meh, and the like. Where some non-trivial quantity of editors think discussion to be appropriate (that is, thinks process to be important other than simply for process's sake), discussion should be had; that's simply the way a collaborative project works. This should not, to be sure, be codified as a sanction against Tony or even as a statement of principle, but should probably be something he, inter al., considers in the future. Joe 08:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm blunt but sometimes (without intending to be) hurtfully so. If I addressed my civility problems I'd probably be ten times more effective (which is sort of frightening, all things considered). --Tony Sidaway 04:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to counsel Tony to make his points less forcefully. The unnecessary aggressiveness of some of his remarks probably reduces the receptiveness of other users to his general good sense, which all in all is a bad thing. A parole is unwarranted and unlikely to be effective. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles out of process with a summary such as "F**k process. This will die" is not acceptable and casts doubt on any individual's suitability to be an admin. Walton_monarchist89 15:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Is there any particular reason for your invocation of this deletion summary in this context? Has someone you know used such a deletion summary? --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He's not an admin. Comments like the one referred to [66] (just a straight comment on a deletion review, not a deletion summary, but if that's not splitting hairs, nothing is) are a big part of the reason why. No opinion as to the remedy - it was not at all a nice thing to write, and did escalate the issue, but wasn't a personal attack on any person either. Tony does a lot of good stuff, and a bit of really bad stuff. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think it was a rather pithy, and accurate, description of the inadequacy of the reason requested for undeletion and the eventual outcome. While "fuck process" isn't the most delicate expression of opposition to the abuse of process to do harm, it's both memorable and expressive. I see no sign of any flame war following the edit you refer to. Two people responded, and both clearly understood my meaning and neither expressed upset. A line had been drawn, and it was as well to state that the line had been drawn, and the consequences. --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - I thought it was a deletion summary, but I didn't read the evidence page correctly, and only found out a few days ago that he wasn't an admin. Although the comment is mildly incivil in a discussion, I'm inclined to take it less seriously than I would if it had been a deletion summary. Walton^talk 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Excessive and unecessary. Try "Tony is counseled". 75.62.6.237 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite necessary. How many times has this user been outright blocked for misuse of admin powers alone? The Evil Spartan 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I'll quote a comment I made to another user regarding Tony: "[I]n my experience, Tony is reasonable". I've also found that he's easy to talk to in a normal discussion. However, he is overly blunt at times. There's nothing wrong with being honest and I'm certainly not suggesting that he sugarcoat his comments, but bluntness can be provocative. In the nearly 8 months I've been here, I think my only instance of incivility was when I reacted poorly to a comment made by Tony. The problem was with my reaction, but it was a reaction to Tony's way of expressing the idea more than to the idea itself. In short, I think Tony should heed the concerns raised in this ArbCom case, but don't think he should be "paroled" or warned ... at most, he should be counseled or cautioned. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway placed on discussion closure parole

2.2) Tony Sidaway is disallowed to speedy close any AFD dicussion or DRV discussion, and is disallowed to close any discussion in which he was previously involved. This prohibition shall be for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The Evil Spartan 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse, though it should apply only to AfDs and DRVs that concern biographies of living persons. In my view, Tony is much too involved in these matters and has too strong an opinion to be able to speedily close BLP-related AfDs and DRVs neutrally. The other part about being "disallowed to close any discussion in which he was previously involved" is one that I think should generally apply to all editors and not just Tony. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway is cautioned on closures

2.3) Tony Sidaway is cautioned that speedy closing AFD and DRV discussions may be perceived as divisive, and cautioned that closing discussions which he has previously edited may be perceived as a conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cautions all around. These were both borderline activities, to be done rarely and, if I may, with caution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway is cautioned on closures

2.3) Tony Sidaway is cautioned not to use profane language.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. We would ban an anon who used as much profanity as is on the evidence page alone; it has probably raised the incivility level of this case. Again, this is an even-handed distribution of cautions; neither side here are candidates for sainthood. (Cautioning Doc, while perhaps equally justifiable, would be kicking a man when he's down.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc glasgow

[edit] Doc glasgow desysopped

3.1) Doc glasgow is to be desysopped. He may appeal this decision to the arbcom or through the usual procedures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Doc glasgow has misused his admin powers by speedy deleting articles using WP:BLP where it does not apply and when he knows it is controversial. He then refuses to discuss the articles as is proper for an admin. violet/riga (t) 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, "it's rather pathetic to bandy desysop resolutions around" [67]. Looks a bit pointy to me.--Doc^g 10:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is pathetic to do so, but if the mud is being slung in my direction then I will sling it back. My point is that your actions were improper as much as you believe mine to have been. You removed content either knowing the ill feeling you would cause or being ignorant of it - either would be bad. The unwillingness of an admin to justify his deletions or attempt to reach a compromise (cut down the article to a bare minimum?) is unforgivable, especially when given ample opportunity to do so. violet/riga (t) 10:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If anything, your deletions were much more harmful than her undeletions. But I think this is a poor remedy because I don't think your harmful deletions were done in bad faith, which is a major difference maker here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As below, I'm not convinced this is as poor anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify I do not believe that this action is warranted. violet/riga (t) 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admins sometimes make very tough calls, that is why we make them admins...we don't crucify them if they are less than perfect. This proposal is not supported by the evidence.--MONGO 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just cannot agree with Jeff's assertions that playing it safe with content is more damaging that leaving some incredibly dubious drivel in an article whilst we spend a week generally pricking about deciding what to do. Deleting content this is only suspected of being libelous and suchlike isn't disruptive, it's the circus that watch administrators logs like hawks and start of complaining when such an article is deleted that causes all the drama. If editors would just acknowledge we might know more than them and leave things alone until they're sorted out, everybody would find things a lot easier going. As such, I cannot support any desysoppings or any action being taken against any administrator who has taken a cautious approach to BLP issues. Nick 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If I were an arbitrator, I think there would be enough proposals here to wade through, without people listing things that the proposer himself/herself believes are not warranted. I suggest a convention that people primarily propose things they believe should pass. Newyorkbrad 14:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic of that I feel that there could be grounds for this just as there could be grounds for it to happen to me. I have included it in order to balance the proposals. violet/riga (t) 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Desysopped for doing something helpful, that the proposer does not even believe is warranted?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Manifestly absurd. WjBscribe 12:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Swatjester here. --Ghirla^-????- 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, on balance. Although there are adequate grounds for desysopping, I think it should be taken into account that Doc was acting in good faith, and was trying to pursue what he genuinely considered best for the encyclopedia. He should be reprimanded, but taking away his sysop tools is excessive, IMO. Walton^{alternate account} 12:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I might favor this sort of thing if Doc continues to act problematically, but as of right now I don't think his behavior merits desysoping. JoshuaZ 15:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. We cannot crucify admins for taking on the thankless landmine of BLP issues. Phil Sandifer 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Although I think performing controversial out-of-process deletions is sufficient grounds for desysopping, I don't think this would do more good than harm. Doc is an excellent editor, a good admin, and his actions were made in good faith and for the purpose of benefiting (in his view) the project. Of course, I sincerely hope he will not continue performing controversial out-of-process deletions ... just {{prod}} or AfD them, please. It'll probably end up taking less time and effort and will probably result in less exposure for the subjects. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR

3.2) Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR, which includes deletions and closing of discussions and debates per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war#Doc_glasgow.2C_Bumm13.2C_and_Mailer_diablo_cautioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

All admins should be on 1RR. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: as Mackensen says below, all admins are on 1RR, at least as regards administrative actions. For me, "wheel war" is defined as serial breaches of admin 1RR. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Had he not been warned about this in the Brandt case, I wouldn't bother, but his action shows a lack of understanding of the magnitude of the situation. For the record, removal of administrative rights may be too strong at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be founded on a misapprehension as to what exactly constitutes wheel-warring, and a misreading of the referenced arbitration case. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should just ask for a removal of powers, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussions and debates is not an administrative action. Other than that, I have always considered myself on a 0-1RR as regards admin actions. If I've broken that, then detail it, I will explain or apologise.--Doc^g 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See the evidence page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The intent of this is more to hold Doc more accountable for his activity. If 1RR-style stuff is out, then maybe a different rationale is necessary - restricted from making decisions on deletions without secondary input or restricted from non-OTRS deletions. I'd like to refrain from a complete loss of tools, as this isn't a chronic situation but rather a recent problematic one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If you violate adminstrative 1RR, you're probably wheel-warring, which you shouldn't be doing anyway. This is not in line with current practice. Doesn't actually say anything. Moreschi ^Talk 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All administrators are on administrative 1RR regardless under normal circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc glasgow placed on administrative restriction

3.3) Doc glasgow, except in cases involving OTRS responsibilities, is restricted from deletion of articles without discussion or secondary oversight for six months. Doc glasgow can still tag articles for speedy deletion, nominate for deletion at AfD, and close discussions at AfD and DRV, but he is to refrain from executing deletions of articles on his own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. An alternate to above, would still need some clarification from wording, but perhaps a better restriction given the situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully acceptable to me. I more or less follow this anyway. I even asked Jeff for a second opinion once. And there's no need to restrict it to six months, I'm fine with indefinite.--Doc^g 09:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not at all convinced this is in any way warranted, and what exactly qualifies as "secondary oversight", anyway? Moreschi ^Talk 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Preposterous.--MONGO 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As below, this is an all-around bad idea and can serve only to be annoying. --BigDT 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going to happen, but I would observe from my own experience that removing a good administrator's buttons doesn't stop him getting a hell of a lot of admin work done. --Tony Sidaway 04:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this remedy. Although acting in good faith and according to his moral principles, Doc has nonetheless misused the admin tools in circumventing process and unilaterally deleting articles. Admins are not dictators; the tools exist only to carry out the judgments made by consensus of the community, and the opinions of non-admins have equal weight to those of admins. Walton^Assistance! 15:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. Doc does great work removing material that should not be on this site - his judgment is overwhelmingly sound. He should not need an OTRS complaint to act. WjBscribe 12:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, ludicrous - Doc has admirably taken the lead on fixing our worst BLP problems. To sanction him for this would have a dreadful chilling effect. Phil Sandifer 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I support this; I like Doc Glasgow, but if he has any fault, it is a tendency to bull ahead with what he knows is right, regardless of opposition. Admins should execute consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, this means that Doc shouldn't perform on-sight deletions of articles. To be honest, I trust him enough not to want this. I only ask that he only speedily delete those pages which meet the speedy deletion criteria as set forth at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please leave any controversial cases for {{prod}} or AfD. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc glasgow placed on civility parole

3.4) Doc glasgow placed on civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Several threats: "The last person who called my BLP removals vandalism got trashed in an RfC" and "I fear will arbitration be the end result, and wheel-warriors (for that is what arbcom has repeatedly called it) will likely be sanctioned." Not civil. violet/riga (t) 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first statement was not a threat, but a fairly accurate description of this. I don't like my good faith actions being described as "vandalism" as happened there, and as you did today. The second was a warning - sorry about the tone, you are right, it was uncalled for. But you were attacking me as a vandal at the time.--Doc^g 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My civility could always improve, so I'm fine with this. Do I get a swearbox too?--Doc^g 10:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for this remedy is not strong.--MONGO 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Per MONGO. Doc's level of civility isn't perfect. Whose is? Newyorkbrad 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yours ;) David Mestel^(Talk) 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't find the proposed remedy either warranted or helpful. --Ghirla^-????- 13:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Newyorkbrad. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc glasgow strongly cautioned

3.5) Doc glasgow is strongly cautioned regarding BLP deletions, especially when challenged in good faith by other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding what? Makes no sense?--Doc^g 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe making comments like "sod off" and the like? Milto LOL pia 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sod off is sufficiently incivil. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pass this if you like, but it wouldn't help, since (call me thick) I don't understand it, and I don't understand what it ask me to do.--Doc^g 09:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a reversal of the proper conclusion. BLP pretty clearly invokes a higher burden of proof, and I would say the onus is on the editor seeking to include content anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wooyi has it precisely right. When one speedies an article consistent with BLP and has the propriety of his deletion questioned by another editor acting in good faith (or perhaps at least two editors), he ought to partake of a discussion with that editor, et al., in order to determine where the consensus of the community lies. It is pernicious enough simply to suggest that one's interpretation of policy (even where that interpretation is shared somewhat widely) will, irrespective of further discussion, be dispositive (hence this remedy's being in order) but to make such suggestion with anything less that careful civility and deliberate care is outrageous. Joe 08:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

'Sod off' wasn't great. But look at the context and you'll see I was engaging in debate, actually extensively. Jeff didn't like the reasons I was giving and so repeatedly kept denying I had given any. His harranging, and superior rubbishing of my ethical concerns drove me to exasperation.--Doc^g 09:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem here which I mean to address later. I don't think the problem is Doc's, however, although as an administrator he should retain his cool. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As I'm not sure what this proposal involves, I'll neither endorse nor oppose it. However, I'll agree with the general principle that administrators should be willing to explain (and, if necessary, re-explain) their rationale for deleting articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc glasgow admonished

3.6) Doc glasgow is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Um. About what? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Again, due to Brandt case. Weakest scenario. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If I'm admonished, then the point is to make me reform. So, I need told what I'm to be admonished for?--Doc^g 13:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Regarding what? Makes no sense in this form. Moreschi ^Talk 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience seeing Doc glasgow's posts, he is overly condescending and sometimes use insulting words, bordering incivility. This is only admonition, not sanction, so I don't think Doc should think that he would be hurt by this proposal. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Much too vague to be of use to the arbitrators, which is the point of this page. Newyorkbrad 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow is admonished to stop deleting his userpage. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the proposed admonition. With all due respect to Doc - and I'm aware he's acting in good faith and according to his strongly-held moral principles - he needs to stop ignoring process and overriding consensus in the pursuit of his own ideas about BLP. BLP is not a license to unilaterally delete articles in order to "protect" someone from unwelcome publicity. The proposed admonition, therefore, is for unilaterally deleting articles without consultation, and for bringing this unjustified case against Jeff, who is a valuable and hardworking (albeit sometimes overzealous) defender of policy, process and consensus on Wikipedia. Walton^Assistance! 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that arbcom chose to accept the case? They didn't have to. If I were to be admonished for bringing the case, then they'd have to whip themselves hard for being stupid enough to take it on.--Doc^g 15:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, forget that bit. The proposed admonition is for circumventing proper discussion and unilaterally deleting articles out-of-process. Don't get me wrong - I don't condemn your motivations, nor do I intend this to be taken personally. I know you're acting in good faith (hence why I opposed the proposal to desysop you), but your deliberate ignoring of consensus merits a mild reprimand. Walton^{alternate account} 12:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Heavens, should I just propose "Doc Glasgow gets a cookie" or "Doc Glasgow is instructed to have a warm fuzzy feeling" if we're making this trivial a proposal? Phil Sandifer 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. In fact, everyone can have a cookie if they want to come round to my house to collect it. Home-made cookies, too, none of that shop-bought crap. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars are welcome, but cookies are better. I'll even offer Jeff one.--Doc^g 22:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Please don't speedily delete articles on the basis of personal ethical considerations or interpretations. When in doubt, seek input from others. Also, I've opposed every other sanction listed so far, but I think there should be some indication that some of your actions were not appropriate. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc glasgow placed on discussion closure parole

3.7) Doc glasgow is disallowed to speedy close any AFD dicussion or DRV discussion, and is disallowed to close any discussion in which he was previously involved. This prohibition shall be for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The Evil Spartan 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The second part, "and is disallowed to close any discussion in which he was previously involved." I believe exists as a general guideline already. Also, modify to closing early per WP:SNOW because sometimes AfD's are done when a {{db}} tag could be used. Whsitchy 01:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The second part: this guideline was fully ignored by the administrators in this debate, which is one of the major causes of this uproar to begin with. This is a guideline elsewhere, which isn't necessarily enforceable - Arbcom would make this enforceable for these admins.

As for the db part - it's probably better to just let another admin handle this - allowing speedy closure seems to be a major problem here, and saying "no early closure except for where speedy applies" is tantamount saying nothing at all - as these administrators (improperly) found a reason to speedy delete it before. The Evil Spartan 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Speedy closes of AfDs and DRVs generally have few benefits (saving time), but may carry significant costs (RfC and ArbCom cases). The latter part about being "disallowed to close any discussion in which he was previously involved" should apply to everyone. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JzG

[edit] JzG admonished

4.1) JzG admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Details? Milto LOL pia 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've chosen this proposal somewhat randomly as an instance of a problem afflicting this workshop. Editors need to bear in mind that the purpose of this page is to be of use to the arbitrators. Therefore, proposals need to be sufficiently concrete to draw reactions from arbitrators, parties, and others, to crystalize thinking, to help the arbs along the path to formulating the decision. A workshop proposal should have a concrete objective of furthering the decision-making process, ideally by providing a snippet of quotable prose that could make its way into the decision itself if the arbitrators agreed with it. Now I think we can all agree that if the decision in this case included the remedy "JzG [is] admonished" as a bare conclusion, that would not be satisfactory. Therefore this proposal is much too vague and should be deleted improved. Newyorkbrad 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No basis for admonishment. Admins are not punished for doing their job. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Admonished for a history of incivility in comments, edit summaries, and block summaries, and also for inappropriate speedy closes of discussions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah. --Tbeatty 10:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JzG placed on administrative 1RR

4.2) JzG placed on adminstrative 1RR, which includes deletions and closing of discussions and debates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per long history of disruptive closures of discussions and questionable deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone point out the evidence which purportedly supports this? As written, it implies that I have a history of wheel-warring. I do not believe that is the case. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, that does not seem to be good remedy. Sean William @ 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Per above, not in line with current practice and attitudes towards wheel-warring. You violate admin 1RR, you're probably wheel-warring. We've moved on since the Tony Sidaway arbitration case. Moreschi ^Talk 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of wheel warring here. The wording also seems to propagate Jeff's belief that wheel warring can take place in the absence of administrative action. --Tony Sidaway 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - No wheel war apparent in the logs. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the allegations of wheel warring against violetriga, it would seem that she is on an administrative 0RR already. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, no. seems punitive for admin action. --Tbeatty 10:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JzG placed on adminstrative restriction

4.3) JzG, except in cases involving OTRS responsibilities, is restricted from deletion of articles without discussion or secondary oversight for six months. JzG can still tag articles for speedy deletion, nominate for deletion at AfD, and close discussions at AfD and DRV, but he is to refrain from executing deletions of articles on his own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Identical to above, reflecting 1RR concerns and evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't see how that would benefit anybody. Sean William @ 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So he can't delete articles that consist of "Augustus has a tiny penis", it seems, and what qualifies as "secondary oversight"? Moreschi ^Talk 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins aren't expected to be perfect, yet here, an effort to restrict an almost perfect admin is attempted. Preposterous.--MONGO 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost perfect? JzG is nowhere near perfect. I respect him personally, but he definitely has done some incivilities and over-hasty actions. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an all-around bad idea. --BigDT 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. No basis for this. Newyorkbrad 23:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. JzG is exemplary as an administrator - if he makes a mistake, he'll do his best to fix it. As for "some incivilities" - I think we've all done that. Martinp23 11:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not "exemplary" but definitely above average. Don't think this is necessary. — CharlotteWebb 19:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. If everyone who was uncivil at one time or another on Wikipedia was booted off, only the bots would remain. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per CharlotteWebb. However, I would prefer if he was more careful to not speedily delete articles that do not clearly meet one or more of the speedy deletion criteria. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate. --Tbeatty 10:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JzG desysopped

4.4) JzG is desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think JzG could be a little more civil. I think most of us could. I think he could be a little less trigger happy. I think most of us could. I don't think he's a bad administrator, and I don't think his activity warrants this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as strongly against this anymore. Administrators who don't understand how to properly apply our policies should not be in positions where they can do so, and I think there's serious question here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Much as I'd probably enjoy going back to editing articles, I don't see the evidence to support this remedy, which appears to be retaliation for a very small section I added to /Evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per evidence; a history of improper deletions, protections, block threats and closures of discussions as an involved admin. Prolog 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a desysopping is necessary, a warning is enough. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah-no.--MONGO 21:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous. --BigDT 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to Uncyclopedia. 75.62.6.237 08:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - JzG takes the effort to resolve disputes and goes the extra mile. He is quick on the trigger, but as near as I can tell, its not for bad faith and he does try to balance everyone's rights. His quick trigger finger can be better characterized as a "freeze motion frame" rather than "block and go away" approach. He appears to want to slow down disputes so they can be studied and a suitable compromise determined for the benefit of all. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless of if JzG should lose his Admin powers, use of blocks as a 'cooling down period' has been firmly rejected as a correct use of blocking. Having an itchy trigger finger and then covering for it by saying the blocks were used as a cooling down period is just not on. --Barberio 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, whom did JzG block who has anything to do with this case? Newyorkbrad 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone has come bearing grudges, I think. Check the history of WT:EL and the subpage on YouTube links. But the comment is a misunderstanding: I blocked Jeff to stop ongogin issues; once it became clear that the issues would no longer disrupt the project I unblocked. I don't believe in cool-down blocks any more, and don't do them. I do block people for a while to allow cleanup or give others a rest, but most of my blocks at the moment are indefinite (read: until I am satisfied the user has seen the problem), and most of those are unequivocal abusers of the project - vandals, trolls, copyright violators, spammers. I subscribe to unblock-en-l, have done for some time; in the last few months I can only recall half a dozen of my blocks being appealed, all denied or subsequently reblocked. I am, of course, not perfect, but I don't use the block button that often, unlike some who specialise in blocking vandals. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was not actually directed at you, but in general. I do not support this proposal. But I do wonder why you said 'until I am satisfied', I hope that was just a typo for 'until we are satisfied'. --Barberio 10:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't unblock people when someone else is satisfied they are no longer a problem. Other admins who are satisfied the user is no longer a problem will be the ones to do the unblocking. I do generally ask for review if it is anything other than unabmbiguous, and as I say few are challenged or overturned. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This would be an overreaction and harm the project by the loss of the services of a hardworking admin. Edison 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Nothing whatsoever to justify this. WjBscribe 12:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, this is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not even close. For starters, he wouldn't be able to delete, protect, block, or close anything. --Tbeatty 10:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JzG placed on civility parole

4.5) JzG is placed on civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oh I was so tempted... Guy (Help!) 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per evidence. Prolog 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for this proposal is not compelling.--MONGO 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would ask for the same of anyone who threatened to block me on my talk page, then responded to a calm, reasonable and impersonal reply with "F*** off. F*** right off." Milto LOL pia 09:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I mean if there was other stuff too. Not just for the one remark :-) Milto LOL pia 09:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

JZG has a clear and long history of incivility, biting the newbies, and generally making an ass of himself by rude behaviour. --Barberio 11:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• So open an arbcom case on me; this is about the WP:BLP issues in the QZ case and other related conflicts between militant inclusionism and forceful application of policy as understood by numerous admins. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Evidence does not warrant such an action. Balancing the good vs. bad of JzG's contributions does not warrant such a stance. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Unfortunately too many of his comments consist of calling people "idiot" or "stupid" or telling them to "fuck off". I realise that this has probably happened less than two dozen times, but that's definitely too much. The incivility is definitely grounds for desysopping, which I opposed only because of all the good work that Guy has done. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No parole warranted. Evidence is not compelling. --Tbeatty 11:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JzG placed on discussion closure parole

4.6) JzG is disallowed to speedy close any AFD dicussion or DRV discussion, and is disallowed to close any discussion in which he was previously involved. This prohibition shall last for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The Evil Spartan 16:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As I said above: the second part, "and is disallowed to close any discussion in which he was previously involved." I believe exists as a general guideline already. Also, modify to closing early per WP:SNOW because sometimes AfD's are done when a {{db}} tag could be used. Whsitchy 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The second part: this guideline was fully ignored by the administrators in this debate, which is one of the major causes of this uproar to begin with. This is a guideline elsewhere, which isn't necessarily enforceable - Arbcom would make this enforceable for these admins.

As for the db part - it's probably better to just let another admin handle this - allowing speedy closure seems to be a major problem here, and saying "no early closure except for where speedy applies" is tantamount saying nothing at all - as these administrators (improperly) found a reason to speedy delete it before. The Evil Spartan 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. In my view, Guy is much too involved in these matters and has too strong an opinion to be able to speedily close BLP-related AfDs and DRVs neutrally. The other part about being "disallowed to close any discussion in which he was previously involved" is one that should apply to all editors. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. JzG is not in the wrong here and should only be subjected to the normal admin discretion in closing AfD/DRVs. COIs are already in place and nothing extraordinary is warranted. --Tbeatty 11:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that JzG repeatedly violated in-wiki COI during the QZ mess (e.g., he closed DRVs on AfDs in which he had participated). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H

[edit] H placed on civility parole

5.1) H (talk · contribs) placed on civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a remedy, not an enforcement, isn't it? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence submitted to the arbcom-l list and evidence page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Private communications are not within ArbCom's scope barring extraordinary circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this is fairly extraordinary. Also, the MONGO case noted that off-wiki attacks were permissable as evidence. ArbCom has the relevant logs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd say extraordinary is when somebody's life has been threatened off-wiki. That happens, incidentally. It's admissable, sure, but is it actionable? Mackensen (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we disagree on this. But HighinBC's civility is an ongoing problem, on or off the project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen the IRC logs, so I can't comment in that regard. However, in my interactions with HighInBC I have generally found him to be rigorously civil and to actively make a stand against incivility where he encounters it. So I'm somewhat puzzled by this one. I may be misinformed and this comment may be out of place, in which case I will reconsider or move it. --YFB ¿ 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Along with the evidence at the evidence page, telling a user to "get off the cross, Jesus needs it" typically isn't the best way to go about things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen that comment, so I assume it was on IRC. It's not the sort of thing I'd usually expect from H and I'm disappointed if that's what he said, regardless of the context. I believe this is one reason why non-publicly-logged off-wiki discussion about Wikipedia issues that are not strictly privacy-related is harmful to the project. Of the diffs on the evidence page, only the one about your actions being indistinguishable from trolling seems likely to be interpreted as uncivil and I doubt that was the intent. Likewise if this comment belongs somewhere else, I'll move it - I'm not that familiar with ArbCom protocols. --YFB ¿ 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree no compelling evidence has suggested this particular remedy. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as when I was added to the evidence page, I was not notified of this addition either. Please keep me informed when you involve me in something. ^(H) 15:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Jeff has me confused with someone else, I am not even tangentially involved in this dispute. I was not uncivil to Jeff, I always keep myself on civility parole, and if I find myself in violation I reprimand myself with a long walk and some fresh air, often I do so before finding myself in violation. In fact, that sounds like a wonderful idea, I will do that now. ^(H) 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For one, the error in the notification was mine and mine alone - it was not done out of malice, it was simply an unintentional oversight. For two, when you tell someone to "get off the cross, Jesus needs it," it doesn't really set the right tone, and you didn't help yourself as time progressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can think of three possibilities:

1. Someone spoofed the e-mail headers to exacerbated the situation in my name, which is easy
2. You are confusing me with someone else who sent you an e-mail
3. Jeff is not being truthful

I don't know which one is the case, though I suspect the first is the most likely(I have been subject to this sort of harassment before). I want to assure Jeff that I don't have any ill feelings towards him. ^(H) 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very hard for me to assume otherwise. I'd go change your Wikipedia password, though, because it was sent through here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC (now User:H) has been repeatedly harassed as the result of his involvement in a situation completely unrelated to this dispute. Unfortunately, if badlydrawnjeff received an e-mail purporting to be from H, and H denies having sent the e-mail, the possibility that the headers were forged by a troll in order to fan the flames here must be taken very seriously. Newyorkbrad 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or that someone knows that the evidence is easily fungible, and would much rather put the doubt on said evidence than own up to saying such nasty things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's silly, Jeff. Are the words "assume good faith" even in your vocabulary, or do I need to propose a remedy to have them surgically inserted there? If H says he didn't send you the email, you should assume he is telling the truth until provided with evidence to the contrary. Picaroon (Talk) 21:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume he's not telling the truth because it came directly from Wikipedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, okay let me break this down,

• I don't use metaphors when criticizing people
• I don't use religious symbolism
• I don't think of Jesus as a martyr

This is just not me. When I give criticisms it will be in plain languages and on wiki, such as this or this. What you need to understand is that any script kiddie who has googled "spoofing email headers" can make an e-mail appear to be from the president of the US if they wanted. ^(H) 13:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that they can be hacked. I simply don't think the evidence suggests that they were hacked. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if not hacked I have provided two other very possible alternative explanations above. ^(H) 14:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And neither are plausible given the evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence Jeff, so I will thank you to drop this matter. I will not be responding here further unless requested to by a member of arbcom. ^(H) 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but there is. How dumb do you think I am, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Stating the obvious, anyone could set up an account called user:adhoc or user:AddHoc and send emails. Or for that matter go onto the IRC noticeboards under the name "Addhoc". I suspect that's what has happened. Addhoc 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violetriga

[edit] Violetriga desysopped

6.1) Violetriga is to be desysopped. She may appeal this decision to the arbcom or through the usual procedures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not sure that her activity really reaches WP:WHEEL in letter or spirit. Regardless, it seems awfully imbalanced to want to desysop her for undeleting articles that were never legitimate deletions to begin with. Hell, even I'm willing to give Doc and JzG a pass on the bad deletions regarding this extent, given that I have no question regarding their good faith in the matter... --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather offensive proposal given the scenario and the evidence. violet/riga (t) 08:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. When something is deleted as a BLP violation, even if wrongly, interposing your own judgement and undeleting without discussion, not even the asking the deleter if there was a reason you've missed, is reckless in the extreme and could potentially legally endanger wikipedia. This isn't just about wheel-warring being bad, and discussion being good - although that's also true - and we've desysopped on that ground before. This administrator undeleted 6-8 BLP violations, without any discussion, and continues to insist that the behaviour was acceptable. Even if arbcom viewed all the deletions as erroneous, they must send out the strongest possible message to administrators that swiftly undeleting potential BLP violations is always utterly unacceptable. There must not be an next time.--Doc^g 09:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They were not BLP violations and, as shown in the evidence, your deletions were improper. I acted on 1RR and BRD yet you have repeatedly failed to discuss the articles or your reasons for deletion. You should not delete something if you are not willing to back it up with your reasons. violet/riga (t) 09:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was. You didn't ask.--Doc^g 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So me asking to discuss it wasn't obvious enough? You refused to discuss things until you got your own way:

• violet/riga: "I am still waiting for you to discuss, on a per-article basis, the reasons you have for deletion. Please put them forward so that I can consider them and respond." [68]
• Doc glasgow: "Reverse yourself and we talk civilly."
• violet/riga: "Then it would appear that we are at a stalemate as you refuse to communicate..."
• Doc glasgow did not respond

violet/riga (t) 10:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore this arbitration was not brought up against me and the motion to add me is not complete. violet/riga (t) 10:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Due to wheel warring. Phil Sandifer 00:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the precise offense was, without discussion, restoring multiple articles deleted on cited grounds of BLP. I think the arbitration committee just needs to say that this isn't how we do things here. No further action is warranted. Perhaps an admonishment if it's thought that this particular administrator might be prone to bad decisions. --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Failure to discuss the recreations first was bad, but otherwise, this seems a little harsh.--MONGO 04:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think MONGO to be right, and I would suggest that Jeff's interpretation of WP:WHEEL is probably the correct one here; this seems a simple case of BRD (which is obvious inapplicable to admin actions but which is one instance in which wheel warring is not exceedingly bad), which seems quite fine inasmuch as there is a presumption, even relative to BLPs, that speedy deletion is not appropriate where there appears to be no consensus of the community for speedying; undeletion in instances such as this is really pro forma, not unlike in retroactively contested PRODs, and so there is no real error in judgment here (the error, to the extent there is one, is simply in failing to apprise JzG and Doc of her intentions straightaway; she need not, in view of the specifics here, have awaited their/the community's sanctioning her undeletion). Joe 09:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that violetriga was not alone in requesting discussion of the reasons for deletion; I posted a note to that effect at violetriga's talk page and directed Doc to it (to avoid accusations of spamming). 9 hours later Doc was still insisting on self-reversion before he'd engage in a productive discussion about his BLP concerns. Violetriga may have been wrong to undelete before discussing, but a flat refusal to discuss without a prior self-reversion is, frankly, WP:POINT. --YFB ¿ 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, actually reviewing my deletions was a little moot once they'd be reversed. Hardly any point in reviewing my actions once undone. I left that to other admins to consider - some of the articles were soon re-deleted.--Doc^g 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that is a poor attitude - you are the one that saw BLP where it didn't exist and then didn't have the decency to admit that you were wrong. You still haven't explained where BLP applies to any of these articles and that to me is very telling. Come on - if you can explain yourself then maybe I can be convinced and admit that my undeletion was wrong. And don't claim "notability" as that is not what we are dealing with here. violet/riga (t) 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you just one example right away. Look at your own notes on the evidence page. Once of the articles contained a totally unreferenced assertion of the crime of bigamy. You noted that yourself. Yet, you restored the article and left the potentially libellous assertion standing. That's as irresponsible as you get. But this is moot, even if my deletions had all been in total error, you would still have been irresponsible and wrong in undeleting without discussion. By doing so you presumed that your judgement that they were 'safe' is infallible. Well, it isn't.--Doc^g 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One example where the single sentence could easily be removed rather than an entire article. I didn't get chance to do so because you were too busy arguing about how bad it was that someone spotted your incorrect deletions. It should have removed the sentence after I restored the article but really you should've done it rather than delete it. Anyway, that's just one article of the nine - here you are given another chance to provide evidence of why the articles needed deleting and you still haven't. It makes me think that your calls of BLP were excuses to delete articles you didn't like, and I was so willing to assume good faith here. violet/riga (t) 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you a direct question about one of the articles. You deleted Rumaisa Rahman citing BLP - please tell me any sentence within that article that is defamatory or libellous. violet/riga (t) 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Discussion to talk page please. Thatcher131 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Alternatively, support 18.1. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems excessive, given that the deletions were themselves considered by some admins and established editors to be out of process and not based on policies.

Blanket reverting the deletion of articles under WP:BLP when the deleting admin was around for discussion is extremely serious. I'm not sure it warrants this severe a remedy (or that below) however unless its is shown to be part of a history of similar conduct. WjBscribe 12:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Her actions did not violate WP:WHEEL either in spirit or letter, as noted above. The addition that admins should discuss BLP deletions before overturning them was added only recently. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violetriga desysopped for 10 days

6.2) For wheel warring, Violetriga is desysopped for 10 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Violetriga is unrepentant and insists that the wheel-warring policy gives her one free pass per action (she restored 9 articles without consultation or discussion; restoring 9 articles once is as bad as restoring 3 articles 3 times each). A brief desysopping is in line with prior cases involving first offense types of bad judgement and wheel warring by admins and will indicate to the community (and to Violetriga) that when ArbCom says "no wheel-warring", they mean it. Thatcher131 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Again you have the flawed idea that it is the same as 3 articles 3 times. Wheel warring, by definition at the policy page, is not reverting an administrative action once. If this is not the intended meaning then it needs updating in light of this but it cannot apply to me here. violet/riga (t) 11:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether I support this more than the previous remedy. I agree 100% with Thatcher's description, and I'm inclined to lean towards this one due to prior precedent in wheel warring cases. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That comment makes me think that you haven't looked into this case. You state (above) that your view of wheel warring is multiple actions, but I have not performed multiple actions on a single article and thus not wheel warred by your definition. Thatcher's "3 articles 3 times" equivalence is nonsense - I performed an action but did not repeat it, forcing my view. violet/riga (t) 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't condone wheel warring, Violetriga was right to reverse Doc's unilateral out-of-process deletions, and should not be desysopped Walton^Assistance! 16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems excessive, given that the deletions were themselves considered by some admins and established editors to be out of process and not based on policies. Still, better than permanent desysopping. Edison 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Violtriga was not right to reverse the in-process, BLP-founded deletions, without prior discussion. Corvus cornix 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

She didn't reverse any in-process, BLP-founded deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Corvus cornix, the BLP-founded deletions were illegitimate and out-of-process. It was they that should have been done with prior discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per my comments above. The 9x1 = 3x3 things makes no sense outside of a pure mathematical calculation. Restoring 9 articles once is not the same as restoring 3 articles thrice. The latter is serious wheel warring; the former is not. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violetriga desysopped for 5 days

6.3) For restoring several contentious articles, but failing to adequately discuss her actions, failing to determine and resolve the BLP issues cited in the deletions, and for undeleting, among others, two articles in which she had a vested interest as the original author, Violetriga is desysopped for five days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as another alternative. — CharlotteWebb 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Violetriga has done nothing wrong; she simply reversed arbitrary out-of-process deletions which had taken place without proper discussion. Walton^Assistance! 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Translation: you liked what she did, you didn't like what she undid. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per my comments above. I am inclined to overlook the vested interests issue given the circumstances: i.e., that the deletions, as carried out, were wholly illegitimate. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QZ Article

[edit] The QZ article shall be restored

7.1) The QZ article should be restored. The article can still be deleted via the consensus means available to the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Seeing as how if the second AfD finished properly, we wouldn't be here... --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. And I strongly suggest a cease to the "wikilawyering" mantra. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a matter for arbcom.--Doc^g 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Content, not for ArbCom, and embodies the assumption that none of the objections raised are valid, which assertion by militant inclusionists is the principal source of the problem. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There was no consensus for this in the RFC, not even for yet another rerun of the deletion review. Enough wikilawyering! --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Will never happen. ArbCom does not make content rulings. Thatcher131 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No way. Wikipedia isn't required to have articles on every single ephemeral subject, especially subjects of this type.--MONGO 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely ludicrous on its face. Nandesuka 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. In fact, it's completely legitimate, since no legitimate reason has been given to keep it deleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean no reason that you deem legitimate. Actually, lots of people gave lots of reasons to delete. You didn't like them.--Doc^g 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no legitimate reason. Read policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean that part of the BLP policy about doing no harm? Corvus cornix 21:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As no harm was done, and BLP policy does not call for the deletion of sourced, neutral articles... --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy which mandates inclusion if the community decides that the subject is more trouble than it's worth, and in any case the subject here is covered, just not as a faux biography. Also the idea that the article in quesiton was neutral is problematic: one of the principal objections raised was WP:UNDUE, i.e. that it was not neutral by virtue of the sources only documenting a single incident. The precedent usually cited here is Brian Peppers; after much soul-searching the community decided it was not willing to participate in the victimisation of a private person. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose in favour of 7.2.1. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The QZ article shall be relisted at AfD

7.2) The QZ article shall be relisted at AfD to attempt to determine community consensus without speedy closes.

7.2.1) (added) The QZ article shall be relisted at AfD to attempt to determine community consensus without speedy closes. None of the involved parties shall close the discussion. The Evil Spartan 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Alternative to above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that.--Doc^g 13:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results" - Albert Einstein. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We might get different results if the nasty fat kids from down the street stopped effing with them. Viridae^Talk 15:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify which group you consider "nasty fat kids". Guy (Help!) 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A proposal of this sort was opposed 19-18 in the RFC. See my evidence. I agree with Thatcher131 that it is possible, at least in principle. My instinct is that the community has no appetite for this, and since the root problem here was querulous attempts to force the community to undelete an article it had deleted, I see no reason why the arbitration committee would want to visit that upon them. --Tony Sidaway

Rewritten. This is at least possible. In other cases ArbCom will ocassionally direct the community to take another crack at determining consensus. Thatcher131 02:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Jeff continuing to use the full name of this person, given the serious concerns that have been raised 'on this very page about WP:BLP? Nandesuka 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the use of his name is not a BLP issue. Please do not edit my posts in that way in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sensitivity to BLP issues. --Tony Sidaway 12:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, a lack of buying the idea that anytime someone hollers "BLP," there's an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to censor names that have continuously appeared in reliable mainstream sources. Prolog 13:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Due sensitivity ? censorship. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't equal censorship, sensitivity, however, does, even if self-censored. FrozenPurpleCube 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. We need a conclusive end to this debate. Walton^Assistance! 19:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong support of 7.2.1. Let's please have just one discussion on the article that is allowed to proceed until completion, that is not closed by someone who has a vested interest (i.e., anyone--including myself--who participated in the previous AfDs and/or DRVs, or who was otherwise significantly involved in the RfC or this ArbCom case), and that does not turn a simple 5-day process into a chaotic mess. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's dead and buried. The subject matter has been covered quite adequately in List of Internet phenomena with references for at least four months. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. How are our readers supposed to find this information buried in a list without a helpful redirect? Catchpole 15:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You only had to ask. Here it is. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you use tags, you can link deeper than that, not just to sections (which can produce large TOCs). Examples are WP:NOT#NEWS (takes you directly to that section) and Bandobras Took. The former uses a span id tag: <span id="NEWS" />; and the latter uses div id tags: <div id="Bandobras">TEXT</div>. Someone should really document that somewhere, as using tags like that avoids the problems with anchored redirects (ones that point to ARTICLE NAME#SECTION NAME) when other editors reorganise the article and change the name of the sections. Carcharoth 14:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping of status quo on QZ

7.3)The status quo of the QZ article, which is currently a protected title of a deleted article, shall remain in effect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And reward disruption? No, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again you assume that the disruption was only caused by other people. You may be wrong in this. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The only evidence that there was any disruption comes from the early closures and improper deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again you assert that the disruption was only caused by other people. You may be wrong in this. Count how many participants this activity requires. Consider also whether the approach of some parties might be considered disruptive. Asuume for the sake of argument that this may include you. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I assert it because it's true. I cannot assume that I am the problem, because I am not the problem - the problem was created solely by disruptive editors who could not handle allowing discussion of an article, or that the community felt the discussion should go on. Period. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And again you fail to acknowledge any responsibility whatsoever for the problem - it's all down to other people, those evil admins and long-standing editors who choose to disagree with you, the bastards. It is this wilful refusal to accept even the tiniest bit of responsibility which is likely to be your downfall I think. Jeff's motto: "Dieu et mon droit" - God and me are right (but not necessarily in that order). Guy (Help!) 10:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt arbcom will want to re-run deletion debates here. This one is long over.--Doc^g 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

content, not for ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

why? It could be a redirect to the proposed Little Fatty article where discussion has been postponed until this arbititration is over or to the internet memes article. Catchpole 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. It needs to go through a full AfD so that actual community consensus, not the opinion of a couple of admins, can be determined. Walton^Assistance! 19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Process for process' sake, in other words. Note that the little fatty meme is covered, just not in the form of a faux biography. Are you seriously arguing that the most encyclopaedic way of covering the mockery of a child's picture on the internets is through a "biography" of the individual? Guy (Help!) 11:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable. We need some sort of definite closure in the form of a consensus decision. We shouldn't allow a precedent to be set whereby one side triumphs simply by forcibly stifling discussion. I hate process for process' sake too, but this is not it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other articles

[edit] The Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parkers articles shall be relisted at AfD

8.1) The Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker articles shall be relisted at AfD to attempt to determine community consensus without speedy closes. None of the involved parties shall close the discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed The Evil Spartan 18:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Content, not for ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Content? This is entire issue is about the improper closure of these debates by the said parties. Of course it's deleted. See my diffs on the evidence page. The Evil Spartan 17:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a deleted article. --Tony Sidaway 05:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parkers deletion shall be reviewed

8.1.1) The Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parkers deletions shall be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The deletion review should not be closed early or by anyone involved with the article, its AfDs, or its DRVs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Alternative to above. The Evil Spartan 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No proposed finding of fact to support this. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean other than this entire RFA (see my contributions to the evidence page if you're still skeptical). In other words, "I don't agree with the facts given, so they're not there". The Evil Spartan 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, to clarify: by "no proposed finding of fact to support this" I mean, and it's hard to state this too forcefully "no proposed finding of fact to support this" and absolutely nothing else. This is simple enough. If you want this remedy, propose a finding of fact justifying it. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parkers deletion may be reviewed

8.1.2) Any editor may open a review of the Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parkers deletions at Wikipedia:Deletion review in the period of the next 10 days. This deletion review should not be closed early or by anyone involved with the article, its AfDs, or its DRVs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Wording slightly different from 8.1.1. In the case that the committee is uncomfortable with force opening a DRV, but would be comfortable with allowing another user to do so. The Evil Spartan 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Will this ridiculous pettyfogging never end? --Tony Sidaway 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Tanya Kach article shall be relisted at AfD

8.2) The Tanya Kach article shall be relisted at AfD to attempt to determine community consensus without speedy closes. None of the involved parties shall close the discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed The Evil Spartan 18:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Content, not for ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article has been undeleted without fuss. --Tony Sidaway 05:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No it hasn't. It was improperly closed, redirected, and fully protected by JzG. The Evil Spartan 17:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Doc did the close. It seems to be quite in order to me. He later decided to undelete. The whole history right back to March of last year is just sitting there on the wiki. I'm reading it now. --Tony Sidaway 18:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hogwash. It was redirected then protected, and you now it (someone tried to create a new article, which you [69] and JzG [70] undid, before protecting it [71]. Sorry, no, a redirect is not an article at all. The Evil Spartan 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself. It's all there. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] The Tanya Kach deletion shall be reviewed

8.2.1) The Tanya Kach deletion shall be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The deletion review should not be closed early or by anyone involved with the article, its AfDs, or its DRVs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Alternative to above. The Evil Spartan 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] The Tanya Kach deletion may be reviewed

8.2.2) Any editor may open a review of the Tanya Kach deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review in the period of the next 10 days. This deletion review should not be closed early or by anyone involved with the article, its AfDs, or its DRVs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Wording slightly different from 8.2.1. In the case that the committee is uncomfortable with force opening a DRV, but would be comfortable with allowing another user to do so. The Evil Spartan 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] The Allison Stokke article shall be restored

8.3) The Allison Stokke article shall be restored per policy. Further challenges to the article should not be speedy closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Perfectly within Arbcom's purview to combat disruption. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Pull the other one, it's got bells on! --Tony Sidaway 05:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose (see 8.3.1 below). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Allison Stokke deletion shall be reviewed

8.3.1) The Allison Stokke deletion shall be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The deletion review should not be closed early or by anyone involved with the article, its AfDs, or its DRVs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative to 8.3 above. I don't believe this should be restored, but rather think we should have a deletion review on it. I was thinking of restarting one myself (the third one), but thought it better to wait for this ArbCom case to close. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This article deletion was reviewed, sent to deletion discussion, and deleted again. Enough. --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The second deletion was based on a faulty premise ... two attempts to review it were suppressed without cause: the first was closed on the basis of ignoring Jeff and the second cited the first. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Allison Stoke deletion may be reviewed

8.3.2) Any editor may open a review of the Allison Stoke deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review in the period of the next 10 days. This deletion review should not be closed early or by anyone involved with the article, its AfDs, or its DRVs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Wording slightly different from 8.3.1. In the case that the committee is uncomfortable with force opening a DRV, but would be comfortable with allowing another user to do so. The Evil Spartan 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] General caution

9) Administrators are cautioned to not disrupt the community via the short-circuiting of discussion or the unilateral activity on controversial or contentious situations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. General precaution to the rest of administrators not involved in this particular case, but doing the same things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the disruption was only caused by those who wanted the QZ article deleted, and not by those who insisted on prolonging the deletion debate in the hope of getting a different result. How silly of me not to realise. In reality, of course, it makes no sense whatsoever to assert that only one side in a bilateral dispute is acting disruptively. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the disruption came solely from the people who did not respect their fellow editors enough to allow for further discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

And if that "unilateral activity in a controversial situation" is completely the right thing policy-wise and is later roundly endorsed? Moreschi ^Talk 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree no compelling evidence has suggested this particular remedy. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Discussion on controversial articles should not be speedily closed and/or supressed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The way to deal with egregious abuse of process is to stop it. --Tony Sidaway 15:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, since when is discussion an "egregious abuse of process"? If a discussion is controversial, then that's a pretty good indication that consensus on the issue is not clear. The only abuse of process in such cases is when discussion is forcibly stifled by speedy closes. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See Biographies of living persons, independent statements by three arbitrators on this case, and my proposed principle "Flogging a dead horse". --Tony Sidaway 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admins blocking Jeff admonished

10) The administrators involved in the block of badlydrawnjeff are admonished to show better judgment and do a more thorough job of seeking consensus for controversial decisions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These people have already been rightly admonished by community consensus. What's the point in this. It was bad, we all agree. Arbitration is for what we disagree about.--Doc^g 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be the best possible resolution to this situation at this point, unless ArbCom is going to consider more serious sanctions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't see how it helps. But it can't do harm either.--Doc^g 22:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? What ongoing problem does this solve? Guy (Help!) 23:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Balances previous remedy. Phil Sandifer 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, might it be worth including the words on-wiki in there somewhere? --YFB ¿ 00:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think their actions would have been just as stupid had they been discussed on-wiki. Stupidity tends to be blind to its medium. Phil Sandifer 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that there was a strong consensus that IRC should never be used to decide blocks of established users. We have on-wiki venues specifically intended for that purpose, where the participation of non-IRC'ers might help to prevent knee-jerk groupthinking. --YFB ¿ 00:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, no, I don't think this goes far enough. It should also mention the problem of making such a decision off Wikipedia, and the failure to give warning first. Or at all. There are times when a block without a warning is appropriate, but I can't imagine it involving an established user. FrozenPurpleCube 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Balances previous remedy is a particularly uncompelling reason for admonishment or desysopping; we admonish or desysop admins where questions as to judgment arise in order to prevent future harm or to make plain existing policy, and situations must be evaluated on their individual merits. That one admin may have wheel-warred in a fashion that favored those who support a more relaxed view of BLP and that another may, after consultation with other admins, inappropriately blocked a user with such a view does not mean that the two were counteracting opposites to be treated similarly. Joe 09:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How can any remedy be applied without naming the parties to who this applies? Names are known and should be spelled out in whatever remedy is agreed on (from admonishing to desysopping) unless the committee does not see a need to apply any remedy to the block constructors. --Irpen 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a historic secret legal process called the Star Chamber. Per the article "In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers." Severe punishments determined secretly on IRC or some other private and secret forum or tribunal are sadly reminiscent of this and should be avoided in favor of openness and due process. Edison 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an error that got fixed within half an hour. Comparing it to a star chamber process that creates decisions that actually stick is misconceived. Issue a caution at most. And yes, people talk to each other off-wiki. There's an event called Wikimania coming up just for that purpose, and it's going to have a lot of private conversations, in person yet, and without even any logs. More good and bad ideas are going to come out of those conversations and be acted on. Main thing is to be able to undo errors without too much fuss. See also WP:BRD. 75.62.6.237 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy development

11) The community is encouraged as a matter of priority to continue working to formulate additional relevant principles to be incorporated in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or a related policy so as to balance concern for the effect that Wikipedia articles may have on the well-being of their subjects with the desire for comprehensiveness in the encyclopedia. These issues may be addressed on policy pages or, in appropriate cases, in deletion debates or reviews.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I support efforts to accurately document de facto policy. I also support efforts to clarify the best thing to do in these situations, so long as the importance of the BLP policy is recognized in them. It should always be realized that written WP policy is largely the documentation of what is done in practice, and that differences between policy and practice are not always fixed by changing practice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Matt. And since we are a wiki that anyone can edit including our policy pages, a written policy on a particular day might not be the best indication of our policy on that topic.

Also written policy usually lags behind actual policy. That was how policy development at Wikipedia was explained to me by experienced user when I started editing and it bears repeating for those that might not have heard it. FloNight 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. First sentence loosely adapted from the first remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Newyorkbrad 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good course to take. Fight the battle once in perfecting the text of the rule, then we have "a rule of laws, not of men." Edison 01:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's already balanced by WP:NOT#PAPER and the fact that anyone can edit the encyclopedia. Of course, we should continue to discuss at WT:BLP but we don't need to turn the policy into a "yes, but". Marskell 11:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy closures

[edit] Speedy closures

12.1) Considering the "strict guidelines" of both WP:CSD, and WP:PROD concerning "speedy deletion"; XfD discussions, including WP:AFD and WP:DRV, should never be speedily closed with a result of Delete.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I suspect we will not be issuing explicit directions for the conduct of Wikipedia deletion discussions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

That's a policy innovation - not a matter for arbcom.--Doc^g 23:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We should not legislate to prevent closure of a debate should the result be obvious either per the debate or per policy, or in cases of forum shopping, wrong venue or whatever. One could, I suppose, attempt to work in the various necessary exceptions and precedents, but that would end up as trying to legislate Clue, which is not generally successful. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think a lot of the problems (though not all, obviously) could have been avoided if this had been clearer at the time. - jc37 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly incorrect, or at least overstated: The community strongly (though admittedly not unanimously) approved of closing the Brian Peppers DRV early, and I don't think too many people thought ill of my summarily terminating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslims involved in a crime. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since all of those examples would seem to be BLP examples, they could possibly fall under the proposal below? - jc37 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether the community approved of, for instance, the Peppers or Muslims closing is not relevant. The community can't unanimously approve of switching Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to "Rocks fall, everyone dies," either. They may accept it, but it's still completely wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, the proposal was for the ArbCom to determine that debates should never be speedily closed. If the community strongly approves of the idea that in certain circumstances, debates should be speedily closed, how can that not be relevant? Newyorkbrad 01:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have a guideline for that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that it's about speedy "keeps", not "deletions". - jc37 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unwise. In the first place, that would have extended the debate over QZ to 6 weeks, and it is unlikely that anyone's mind would have been changed during that time. More important is to respect decisions one disagrees with. Rather than fighting tooth and nail to keep (or delete) and article, one might withdraw from the conflict and wait a month before approaching the issue again. Thatcher131 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(confused) Why 6 weeks? - jc37 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

2 weeks, max, if the second AfD was allowed to complete properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You would have let it drop if the consensus had been delete? Really? Actually of course the first AfD was closed perfectly properly, so if people had accepted that and sat back for a while then the debate would not have been prolonged at all. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this a bit further. On WP:CFD, there is a section for speedy deletions. If, after 2 days (or so), 2 editors haven't opposed the listing, the category may be "speedily deleted". If 2 or more editors oppose (or sometimes simply by admin action), then the category is "relisted" on the appropriate CfD page of the current day. WP:PROD works similarly, except it only requires a single objector (noting, of course, that Prod is never to be used for categories). Obviously a listing at WP:DRV about a deletion presumes that the deletion was "contested" in some way. So if we follow those rules, then WP:DRV discussions resulting in endorsing deletion should not be closed "speedily". Wait out the 5 days and "finish it", rather than cause more and more "hoopla" (disruption), such as we've now had many times in the recent months. The same goes for XfD discussions, since it defeats the purpose of placing a Prod or Speedy listing at the XfD discussion page, only to speedily close as deletion. I think it's fair to say that such actions can be seen as very disruptive. Now, the urgency of a WP:BLP vio may trump this, but then we could presume that that's a proper "out-of-process" (out of XfD process, in this case) deletion, and should have nothing to do with the closure of the XfD. Hopefully this makes more sense. - jc37 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would modify this a bit, as there are cases where speedy deletion is appropriate, such as copyright infringement. FrozenPurpleCube 02:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How would you modify it? - jc37 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is about speedy closures, rather than speedy deletions (a fine point, but there it is.) I'm also noting that copyvio is possibly another issue which involves potential legal ramifications. However, just because someone claims that there is a copyvio or BLP concern, doesn't necessarily mean there is... So I presume that in most cases, that's what XfD process is for? To determine such concensus. - jc37 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, the statement above quite clearly says it's about speedy closures with deletions, not simply speedy closures regardless of results. Given that there are times when copyright violations do get noticed after an AFD has been opened (I've noted a few myself), I think it's worth noting them as the exceptions. I am not sure how it would be best to express it, but I do think there are the rare times when it does need to happen. That said, I don't disagree with the principle being expressed here. FrozenPurpleCube 03:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Like disputes about ethics, copyvio claims are not always clearcut. I have seen numerous cases where someone claims a Wikipedia article is a copyvio of a website, then someone points out that the Wikipedia article has been here for 2 years and the website says it is copied from Wikipedia. Edison 01:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I recall a case in which I thought an article both non-notable and speediable; the author revert-warred over the speedy tag, and I took it to AfD abd explained; and, behold, an admin speedied it. This was a good thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy closures

12.2) While occasionally it may be appropriate and necessary to close a community discussion before the normal amount of time has elapsed for that discussion, such discussions should generally be left to run their course, especially when there is significant disagreement as to what the discussion's outcome should be.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As noted below, there is "significant disagreement" about the status of s number of articles, with the result that some of them are listed at DRV almost weekly. There is also the issue of baseless requests (it was deleted but it's notable! without evidence to back the assertion) and so on. Finally, there is the problem of dragging out the debate without introducing new arguments, as was the case with QZ. I don't see this being an especially helpful finding. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to above. While speedy closes are sometimes acceptable, they aren't all that often, and they tend to cause more trouble, not less, in contentious situations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. They are almost always disruptive and cause endless wheelwarring and wheelspinning process such as this because they are seen as high handed, however wel-intentioned. If something has to be instantly expurgated it can be requested as an office action. When that happens, there should be in general at least a dummy comment to explain that an office action took place. Just grit your teeth and let the time for the AFD or DRV run its course. Edison 01:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There are large numbers of DRV dicsussions which are speedy closed as delete due to failure of the nominator to provide any new arguments, or due to trolling in general. Should we really have a five-day long discussion of The Game every week? Corvus cornix 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

One easy solution for that particular type of situation is to craft "Criteria for Speedy Closure" for DRV, in a role parallel to CSD for XFD. DRV-CSC-1 (or whatever we call them) could be "does not present new arguments or information". Serpent's Choice 16:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like instruction creep and merely adding another area for people to argue/lawyer over. Unless this is a significant general problem adding extra layers of policy is just adding bureacracy, if it's not a significant general problem it should be dealt with on a case by case basis through the normal dispute resolution systems --pgk 18:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I support this. Personally, I would only speedy-close an AfD as Delete where all the !votes had been Delete, and where there was a valid speedy deletion reason. If there was any sign of controversy, I would let the AfD run its course. Walton^{alternate account} 08:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited the text (by moving some phrases), though I presume I retained its meaning. Personally, I'd like to see the word "occasionally" replaced with something indicating rarity, or at least showing that speedy closes should be the exception, not the rule. Otherwise, I support this. - jc37 10:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. If this had been followed, this case would not have reached ArbCom. If discussion in the normal channels is not allowed to take place, escalation is unavoidable. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary measure for closing of BLP DRV discussions

12.3) No one, for a period of 4 months, may speedily close a DRV discussion which was deleted solely based on BLP and no other CSD material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The Evil Spartan 19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I thought arbitration cases were supposed to eliminate disruption, not cause it. Silly me. This remedy means if I delete an article called "Arrest of John Q Doe," which contained only "NFL player John Q Doe (born January 1, 1960) was arrested for cocaine possession and punching out a waiter yesterday," with the summary "BLP violation," and somebody opens a DVR, we have to wait five days? Picaroon (Talk) 02:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it really do any harm seeing as the article has already been deleted? In any case, I believe that your example just might satisfy some other CSD and thus relieve the discussion of any terms set in place by this proposed remedy (that is, the deletion would certainly not be rooted only in BLP). Regardless, I agree with you that such a remedy certainly has a potential to cause more problems than it would solve, as most attempts to so solidly codify things do--I agree with the spirit of the proposal, however. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon - um, yes, that example would easily fit under db-attack. Seriously, if you can think of any cases of BLP alone that should be speedy closed and wouldn't fit a CSD, please do mention them - I can't at the moment. Ami, if you don't support this, can you come up with a better solution? No solution may be perfect, but it's certainly better than what we have now. The Evil Spartan 15:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we close Wikipedia for six months? It could do with a spring clean. </jpgordon> --Tony Sidaway 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary measure for closing of overturned AFD discussions

12.4) No one, for a period of 6 months, may speedily close an AFD discussion which was overturned at DRV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The Evil Spartan 19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This would have the effect of enforcing even capricious DRV closes, which is probably not a good idea. I don't believe the problem here lay in the closing of AfDs consequent on DRV closures, it lay in the DRV debates and the underlying article issues. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Generally this is good practice, but first, I would be hesitant to see a remedy which so broadly would affect those who are not parties to the case, and secondly, there's always an edge case where something which would normally be inappropriate is the right choice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that there is any edge case, here. The more I think about it, the more I realize that if an administrator overturns a deletion at DRV, then it will at least not satisfy any of the speedily close criteria, and to do so is going against the spirit, if not letter, of the rule saying that an administrator decision cannot be undone. Can you think of any cases where this shouldn't apply? I certainly can't. Anyway, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Evil Spartan 15:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary measure for closing of overturned AFD discussions (2)

12.5) No administrator, for a period of 6 months, may close an AFD discussion for an article which he/she previously deleted, and was overturned at DRV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The Evil Spartan 19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Which specific case is this designed to address? Guy (Help!) 16:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Should have been so obvious to go without saying, but a wise precaution.DGG 22:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Precedence

13) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard discussions supercede XfD discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For a community so fearful of "instruction creep"... --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like legislation. No.--Doc^g 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Doc. However, it would be good to explore a way of handlng these discussions which is more akin to rfc than the often-hysterical forums of DRV and AfD, and the ping-pong between them caused by differences in interpretation of closure standards. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed more as a question of whether this is the case. - jc37 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is intended to mean. --Tony Sidaway 02:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It means that a discussion on an obscure noticeboard can override or preclude deletion discussions in the normal process or deletion reviews, as I read it. --ST47Talk 14:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have long participated in the Living People Patrol, and see the BLP noticeboard more as a place to raise concerns and solicit feedback about the correct course of action or seek backup in edit wars aboutPOV attack articles or libellous articles (much like WP:ANI is for admins), rather than a forum for determining deletion of articles. Edison 01:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just picked it as the only thing I could find as a centralised location for BLP discussions. What I was attempting to say is that BLP concerns "can be" urgent enough to speedily close an XfD or DRV discussion, if consensus has been established (such as from the noticeboard) that there truly is a BLP concern. So (to put it another way): prior, but recent BLP consensus supercedes the need for XfD consensus. Hopefully this clarifies. - jc37 10:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No thank you, AfD is wiki-wide. BLP is one area. I fail to see how that will happen. Whsitchy 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Doc and Whsitchy. BLP noticeboard is just that ... a noticeboard to deal with content. The issue of retaining or deleting entire articles is within the scope of XfD. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical investigation

14) Developers and other Wikipedians with the relevant expertise should try to encode a method for excluding controversial articles from external search engines (including but not limited to Google) while those articles are under review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Okay, this is a good idea, but may be diminished in effectiveness by most search engines' caching algorithms (i.e. not getting around to reindexing for a few days). I think it's a great idea for partial technical amelioration of some of the issues here, though. If administrators became more willing to unlock article histories from view during reviews, it might help ameliorate the deletion discussion issues NYB enumerates. I'm also curious whether this would require developer expertise at all - is there a way of including some HTML comment in a disputed template? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC) admittedly not doing my own homework here

Comment by others:

Proposed. Immediate deletion of problematic content (but which is not libellous, unsourced negative BLP, dangerous, or severely incremental to a privacy violation) admittedly makes it more difficult for non-administators to participate in a subsequent deletion discussion in an informed manner. However, administrators sometimes find it imperative to delete such articles immediately because they will otherwise show up as prominent results in Internet searches. I have seen various, but contradictory, references to the effect that certain pages or spaces within Wikipedia can be or have been excluded from searchability. It would be good to have a clarification on whether and to what extent this is possible, and if so, to include such knowledge in our discussion on how we should move forward in dealing with these issues. Newyorkbrad 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an arbitration level decision. If this needs to be handled anywhere, it'd be at the media wiki level, in which case, it should go to them as a request. Feel free to take it up through the appropriate channels, but this isn't the place. FrozenPurpleCube 14:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. Hopefully this would be as simple as adding some sort of magic words to templates such as {{unreferenced}} or {{disputed}}. — CharlotteWebb 17:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

See the article Robot Exclusion Standard for technical details of how this stuff works. WP:VPT is the traditional place for discussing adding such features to Wikipedia. It's reasonable for arbcom to endorse exploration of the idea, if arbcom thinks it makes sense. There are various subtle issues involved like the ones mentioned above, and including some BEANS. I'd see it as being mostly for archived process pages. 75.62.6.237 07:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I reworded the proposal for clarity. I do not intend to change its content, nor do I express an opinion on its substance. YechielMan 01:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom does not seem to me to have the standing to boss developers around. And, more to the point, it's rude. Phil Sandifer 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. It would lead to edit warring over whatever the exclusion method is (tag, flag, whatever) and would create an excuse for keeping bad articles under the guise of, "since its not on google, it's doing no harm, so lets keep it". Thatcher131 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not something the arbcom can "enforce". For relevant discussion of such functionality, see (among others) bugzilla:9415. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Execution of policy

15) Editors who, in the opinion of the Arbitration Committee, fail to show due sensitivity in areas of policy where this is a prerequisite may be admonished to modify their behavior. If their behavior continues to cause concern they may ultimately be sanctioned as the Committee sees fit for the good of Wikipedia through editing restrictions escalating to blocks and removal of certain privileges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Let's get to the root of it - let's restrict editors who don't understand policy and restrain administrators who can't use the tools properly in obvious situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seems to be a description of the arbitration process. Far too vague as a remedy. --pgk 14:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As worded, this is a principle, and indeed seems to be a substantive copy of my proposed principle 33: Insensitivity. I agree with Pgk that my wording is a bit vague. I was trying to express a sense that in individual debates on particular cases Jeff has been dismissive of serious concerns about the appropriateness of certain articles related to individuals. I'm not really convinced myself that it would be a useful principle. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more useful to reign in abusive administrators who don't interpret policy properly than as an attempt to try and slap me down because you think I don't show enough "sensitivity." Thus it being a remedy - let's hold those people accountable in a tangible way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. A principle expresses a condition that pertains, a finding of fact expresses a statement for which overwhelming evidence exists, and a remedy is a recommendation to the community on action to be taken to resolve the problem. A principle is general, findings and remedies are specific, and there is a logical flow from principle to remedy. Taking the text of a principle and plonking it down under a different name in the remedy section of an arbitration has no function except to confuse everybody further, because it does not name entities such as wiki pages or editors upon which action is to be taken, nor is it specific about what is to be done. --Tony Sidaway 15:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand fine. Thanks for your opinion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So editors who fail to show due sensitivity when dealing with biographies of living persons (as prescribed by WP:BLP, which is by far our most sensitive and important content policy) can be restricted and/or blocked. Excellent idea, Jeff. FCYTravis 07:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. And let's start blocking people for multiple reverts when they lie about BLP issues. And blocking them for civility/NPA when they make blatantly false statements about other editors. Yes, please follow BLP - if we did, we wouldn't be here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's "lying about BLP issues." You disagree with people as to how BLP should be applied. That doesn't make those people liars. FCYTravis 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, people are definitely lying. This is not a question of disagreement - when people are shown quite clearly what the policy reads and how discussions were concluded, and they continue to promote the incorrect statement, they are lying. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All parties are reminded to use editorial discretion

16) All parties to this case are reminded that careful and considered use of editorial tools can avoid drama over deletion and deletion review discussions. Sometimes it is best just to remove unsourced and/or negative material, reduce excessively detailed articles to stubs, merge/move articles about briefly famous people into articles about the relevant incident, and exercise similar ways of using editorial discretion. Discussions about such editorial actions can then take place on article talk pages. This is preferable, and should be a first step before extended deletion debates and administrative warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sensible, as long as there's discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A note placed on the talk page after implementing the necessary edits/moves/merges, not some horribly bureaucratic process like "Requested Moves". If no response to the note, the edit stands for that time. Carcharoth 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per discussion here. This is a general remedy aimed at everyone involved in the case, and as such is not based directly on specific evidence, but more the general evidence of drama, disruption, and people engaging in deletion debates rather than editing the articles concerned to improve them. Note in particular what Serpent's Choice said here: "It should be humbling to all of us that only admin tools, and not editor tools, were used in an effort to address the problem." Carcharoth 15:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This often works quite well. As examples I'd cite the excellent work by Bainer, Jimmy Wales and others on a Polish school suicide, which ended up in School violence article. Other good examples include various articles on infants that have been merged by some of us to articles on various subjects such as right to life, twins, severe medical conditions and so on. Serpent's Choice's statement could not be more wrong. --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would modify that statement to say that some editorial discretion and editing did avoid some problems (as you point out), but that many more problems could have been avoided if that approach had been consistently applied, even extending to deleting revisions from the article history before carry out a merge, or blanking and starting again from scratch. If there had been an article at the "deleted" title, then those objecting would have had to put their money where their mouth was and help edit the new article (or the destination article in the case of a redirect). Carcharoth 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The other point is that people coming 'new' to the situation, instead of seeing a salted page, end up being redirected. Like this one to pick an example. Used to be a redirect to the kidnapper, and is now a redirect to the foundation bearing his name. As for the other cases, where there any attempts at pruning, merging, redirecting before, during or after the deletion discussions? QZ for example? Carcharoth 15:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of our recent addressing of BLP concerns has been to systematically remove the names of private individuals who are minors from the encyclopedia. In such cases there's a good reason to remove the redirect altogether, and that's where most of the deletions have taken place. We're not here to be a yellow pages for stalkers. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your query about QZ, I realise that this has become a huge arbitration, but if you've read the application page and at least some of the evidence you'll have found references to the RFC which preceded it. Please read that to get up to speed on the case. The short answer: yes it was fully discussed at AfD for eight days. --Tony Sidaway 16:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that Wikipedia is used as a yellow pages by stalkers? And how does a stalker use a name without any further information? If so, you have a lot of redirects to check. There are probably a lot of quiet merges and redirects that haven't been brought to the attention of the vocal Wikipedia minority. And in this specific case, a Google search on the name brings up the website and should (once Google's indexing updates) bring up Wikipedia's article on the foundation. All publically available information. If you salt, then (I believe) the Google results will bring you to the salted page (unless there is a no-robot tag for salted pages), when it would seem preferable for people to end up at the foundation page. Case-by-case basis. You have to discuss the specifics, as they vary from case to case. It's a bit like fair use. You can't have a boilerplate fair use rationale, and you can't have a blanket BLP deletion rationale. You have to explain the deletion and allow some discussion. Carcharoth 16:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your surmise about the effects of salting is incorrect--certainly the Wikipedia salt pages for salted articles known to me don't show up in google searches. You're right that a lot of merges and redirects haven't breen brought to the attention of the noisemakers. A lot of quiet deletions have happened, too. You're right to say that the deletion rationale varies from case to case; you're wrong to assume that it has to be discussed. Discussion is often the last thing that is appropriate in such cases. See the policy itself for some bright-line examples of this that have been part of the policy for a good, long time. --Tony Sidaway 16:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

From examining the HTML sources of The Game (game) (new-style salting, i.e. protected redlink) and Ergonom Microscope (deleted but unsalted article) it looks to me like redlink pages are unindexed but bluelink pages are not (see the tag <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" /> in the head section of both redlink pages). There are still a lot of old-fashioned salted pages like HHO (i.e. a protected bluelink containing a salt template), and those are indexed. In fact Category:Protected_deleted_pages contains a ton of these pages and a lot of the titles are people's names. It may be worth launching an adminbot to redlink these articles or else put special magic into the salt template to noindex the page (a developer would have to do that). Redirects also appear to be indexed. 75.62.6.237 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Tony's last comment above, in particular: "you're wrong to assume that it has to be discussed" - what I meant by this was that if no-one is watching, or objects, then fine, there will be no discussion. But if someone shows up on your talk page (in the case of a speedy deletion), or the article's talk page (in the case of excised material), and starts a discussion, what then? Gag them? I accept that some material shouldn't be dragged out, but you can't shut down discussion completely. If someone notices, and comes asking about it, you need to have something concrete with which to back up your actions. Carcharoth 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean, "shouldn't be discussed publicly." All admins should have valid mailboxes, and should respond to reasonable email requests for clarification by known, trusted Wikipedians. Editors wishing to make such requests should make them from their Wikipedia accounts using the email link of the admin. This would ensure correct communication. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That would satisfy me. Can this proviso be added to the relevant places? Carcharoth 18:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Disputes at the editorial level are far less problematic than those at the administrative level. In many cases, deletion is neither the only nor the most desirable option. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making Sausage, part 2

17) The production of Wikipedia's evolving policy is often a process the details of which leave much to be desired. The development of policy via particular case examples being disputed can be particularly hard to evolve into good precedent. This dispute related to an area of unsettled policy and princple, and all parties are believed to have been acting in good faith regarding the development of the encyclopedia. Beyond the current vagueness in BLP, this also substantially involved finding balance points between BLP and other, long-settled policies.

While discussions have been lively, and in many cases disruptive, they are found to have been in good faith. Given the clear lack of settled policy decisions regarding these areas, further sanctions are unnecessary. All parties are requested to reflect on Assume good faith and Civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I can't endorse this in good conscience. I'm not convinced all parties are working toward the betterment of the project. ---badlydrawnjeff talk 05:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert 18:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Though it would be better to write some English in place of the abbreviations, while still linking to the pages in question. Carcharoth 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy isn't what's written down on some page. Policy is what works. --Tony Sidaway 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, policy is what's written down. Policy is what works, which is why it gets written down. If you can't get what you're doing written down, you shouldn't be doing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't write it down until you know it works. You can't know it works until you try it. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense abound. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is another Anglo-American dispute; however, WP:POL speaks of our policies as written. For what it's worth; that's my usage: policy is what's on a {{policy}} page. Tony, Wikipedia is not a branch of the common law; Jeff, try to understand that some people are not used to written constitutions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it isn't always necessary to try things in order to know that they won't work. In many cases, it is sufficient to draw inferences from other experiences. For instance, speedy deletions are reserved for cases that are, by and large, uncontroversial. When a group of speedy deletions results in this much controversy, including an ArbCom case, that is the best possible indication that the deletions were inappropriate. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration case seems to have arisen because of concern over abuse of deletion review, particularly by one editor. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. --MichaelLinnear 18:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Statement_by_Doc_glasgow, and also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.287.2F3.2F1.2F0.29. , in particular the acceptance statements of three of the arbitrators. There are other matters, but this was the trigger. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A hasty reading; Doc Glasgow argues that this is an ArbCom case at all, as opposed to a single deletion dispute, because the entire process of DRV is broken. (The opposing view would of course be that extreme use of BLP is what is broken; but you and Jeff are not going to agree on that.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Doc's statement as follows is unequivocal:

This article has had numerous AfDs, DRVs and comment elsewhere. In addition to his comments, Jeff listed it on [opened or reopened debates on]† DRV three times: [2] [3] [4], filed an arbcom case, then when that was rejected had another go at DRV [5] before opening his sham RfC. This activity is damaging to the encyclopedia. He's been asked to stop. But he's indicated he will launch more attempts regardless of the RfC[6] [7]. I am asking arbcom to call a halt.

If you don't agree, then I suggest we agree to disagree, for I know Doc glasgow well and have discussed this matter with him many times, and I think I can interpret his plain words as well as anyone. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certain admins banned from blocking badlydrawnjeff

19) Administrators strongly involved in previous or current disputes with badlydrawnjeff shall not block him. For the purposes of this case, this includes users such as Doc glasgow, JzG and Coredesat.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For goodness sake. What is this - a remedy to prevent us being incredibly stupid? Of us all, I'd say the chance of me blocking Jeff is slightly lower than that the chance of Tony doing it - and since the chance of a desysopped Tony blocking anyone is nil - then I think this is somewhat unneccessary. Ral, I know you mean well, but this type of friendly advice belongs on our userpages, not on a bloated RfARb.--Doc^g 15:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely absurd. The fact that a grand total of two blocks, ever, have ever held up (both for less than a quarter of a day) show that the only sanity left is that people are willing to remove stupid blocks. Maybe advise admins to actually take two seconds to do some research before reaching for the block button may be useful, but that might be too much to ask. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

badlydrawnjeff has been highly incivil, and arguably disruptive, in the past few days, but some administrators are too attached to previous incidents that they should not block him. This doesn't imply, in my mind, that any of these administrators have acted inappropriately, but that any block they may make in the future will immediately be cited as a block by an involved user, by both badlydrawnjeff and other administrators. Ral315 » 15:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to this idea, content disputes should preclude the use of the block button, but extending that to disputes in general basically clips the wings of anyone who has disagreed with Jeff. ^(H) 15:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Coredesat, who has blocked Badlydrawnjeff, has never been in any dispute with him to my knowledge. Doc_glasgow and JzG do not have a history of making bad blocks and neither has blocked Badlydrawnjeff recently. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If I block Jeff in the next few weeks, I ask to be desysopped immediately for being drunk in charge of a block button, or having lost my senses entirely. Can I be any clearer?--Doc^g 16:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Coredesat and i have been in a series of conflicts in the past. I'm without any doubt certain that the absurdity of the block last night was related to that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Old stuff doesn't really count. If an established editor needs to be blocked, the case should be sufficiently clear that anyone could do so. --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that blocking Jeff only made the situation worse, I don't think this is a good idea, really. Yes, Jeff and I have had problems in the past, but I haven't ever come close to blocking him before. I didn't realize a block for incivility would be such a bad idea. I don't need a ban to tell me that, and I don't think the other admins listed need it either. They can just look at Jeff's user talk page. --Coredesat 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting remedy. However, drunkenness is one thing, peer pressure is another. — CharlotteWebb 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilawyering

20) Wikipedia editorial procedure operates on the basis of following the spirit, as opposed to the letter, of policy and process documents. Editors who have a penchant for using the letter of rules in an effort to gain advantage in editorial discussions, or to cause particular discussions to result in their desired outcome, can be considered to be "wikilawyering".

21) Wikilawyering is contrary to the interests of the Wikipedia project. Users who engage in this activity may be briefly blocked for disruption, should a Wikipedia administrator consider it necessary. Should such users continue this behaviour obsessively despite warnings, they may be permanently banned under the "Users who exhaust the community's patience" provision of WP:BP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Gee, I wonder what this could be aimed toward. See above, in the findings of fact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as I think this sums it up. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Insisiting that there is a fair deletion debate rather than unilateral deletion is not wikilawyering. Viridae^Talk 23:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, Viridae, I agree with you, but only where we have the luxury to do so as regards the interests of the project and those people we write about (which can amount to the same thing). I take the view that Wikipedia editorial procedure is not about being "fair", it is about the encyclopaedia's standards and goals - and the role of our project is clearly not to publish every minute detail on the planet without any regard to journalistic ethics nor writer's judgement. Those users who insist that we do so, and instead spend all their time trying to gum up the works of sensible encyclopaedia editing, are not worth the infinite time that has to be spent where they remain obstinate and uncompromising. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, if I might pre-empt you regarding your above comment, I have no desire whatsoever to see you blocked, and have absolutely zero intention at the present of doing so myself. Blocks should be a last resort, and should be applied only after exhaustive efforts to inform the user of their malefaction. I should also point out that this is by no means aimed at you alone; it is more that this case has highlighted why some kind of provision is necessary for users who engage in such behaviour to be prevented from wasting endless amounts of time here on Wikipedia for all concerned (including themselves). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a very hard time buying that, unfortunately. And, furthermore, this seems to be yet another flailing attempt at trying to beat down anyone who dares think that the old guard may not be working in the best interests of the project, which is unfortunate. The fact that the pejorative "wikilaywering" nonsense is invoked here pretty much destroys any credible assertion that this is anything other than that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This can too easily turn into the Salem witch trials, whereby any disagreement can be characterised as harmful "wikilawyering". I'll repeat what I wrote in the "proposed principles" section: wikilawyering is something that we should remind ourselves to avoid; it is not an accusation we should throw at others. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parties requested to CHILL OUT

22) Wikipedia editing is supposed to be an enjoyable experience, not something where you go bald from stress because of continual fighting. I request that everyone involved in this take a deep breath, relax, respect that people think differently from you, recognize that not everyone has the same set of morals as you, be tolerant, and have some fun. Wikipedia (especially its handlement of articles on living people) is serious business and throbbing veins in your head is no way to approach such serious business.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Let's have the party right here! --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed (messedrocker • talk) 03:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I emphatically endorse this request, but sadly I am just waiting for someone to come along and say "this is too serious to relax about, we must save the project/kill everything with fire!". *Sigh*. --YFB ¿ 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is too serious to relax about, we must save the project/kill everything with fire! Happy now? JoshuaZ 04:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat. I would of course have preferred it to have come from one of the parties to the dispute so as to imbue it with the necessary vehemence, but I suppose yours'll do. ;-) --YFB ¿ 04:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Great minds think alike: see Alex Kozinski#Cases. Newyorkbrad 03:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading about a judge telling two lawsuit parties to chill, but it wasn't in my mind when I wrote this proposed remedy. Thank you for reminding me about such a cool judge! (messedrocker • talk) 03:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Great idea but woefully unenforceable. — CharlotteWebb 06:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Everyone is to chill out or be indefinitely blocked. No, wait... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea! One of the best ways to deal with in-group animosity and frustration is to find a outside scapegoat and direct all frustration at it. So, I suggest that all editors involved in this dispute (assuming they still feel frustrated) find an appropriate scapegoat on which they can release their energy. I would suggest turning Biography into a featured article, though any other improvement effort would do just as well. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"All involved editors are banned from Wikipedia except from editing the article "Biography". This ban shall be lifted as soon as the said article reaches featured article status". Hey, why not? The Catholic Church has used a similar idea for centuries in papal elections, and have always managed to get a pope, so I see no reason why it wouldn't work here. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

before using the last template please make a copy

23) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

[edit] Unilateral

On this word "unilateral" every single action any editor has performed on Wikipedia is unilateral. There is no such thing as a multilateral edit or administrative action. The only question is: does Wikipedia policy support this action? And this is what we're here to determine: of the actions carried out under the BLP and in opposition to the BLP, which were supported by policy and which were not? --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First, let's kill that silliness once and for all. We know what unilateral means in a Wikipedia context, and it's different than a real world context. "Multilateral" or "administrative action' have consistent, workable meanings, and attempts to fog that up should be denied immediately. To answer your question, it's simple - speedy deletions of sourced, neutral material did not meet the BLP standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. Like "Consensus version", "unilateral" is simply a meaningless term flung around Wikipedia by edit warriors. All actions on a wiki are perforce unilateral. When an editor sees an edit or an action he disagrees with, sometimes the first word that he types on the keyboard is "unilateral". The fact is that his own utterance is in itself also unilateral. Nobody else is going to press that button on your reply to me if you don't. Unilateral!

I'll await the arbitration committee's verdict on whether the actions described in the evidence page were within policy. I could be wrong, but I don't think any part of the final decision will use the word "unilateral". --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Unilateral" in Wikipedia means without any dicussion, without giving people a chance to object, or going ahead and doing something even when you know everyone else opposes you. A "non-unilateral" admin action means that you are doing something after discussing it, or after someone else has dicussed it, leaving a debate to evaluate. In a fair sense, speedy deletions of things which nobody has tagged for speedy delete, are inherently unilateral because nobody has been allowed to evaluate them, but since most speedy deletions are of non-articles and entirely uncontroversial, that is not a big controversy in most cases. Closing an AFD debate is not a unilateral action, it is an action reflecting the wishes of the community, and you can carry those decisions out with a degree of confidence that the community has discussed it, that objectors have been given a chance to speak, and that you will have its backing. When "unilateral" is being used in a negative sense, we refer to controversial actions which have not been discussed with anybody. It is utterly uncontroversial when someone unilaterally moves an article from a title with a typo, to the correct one. It is quite accepted that a person carry out a contested move when it has been discussed and consensus is for the move, and this consensus is what prevents us from calling the move "unilateral". Some of the controversial moves ("Allegations of Israeli apartheid" comes to mind) would be complete flame-bait if they were done unilaterally, that is, without any discussion. Use of the term unilateral is a perfectly sensible word, far from being "complete bollocks". Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is "Bold". An action carried out prior to discussion is "bold", and as you note, speedy deletions are perforce bold. Many actions under the biographies of living persons policy are also bold, and if you read the polic you will even find thatsome of them are actually mandated to be carried out without discussion. This word "unilateral" is simply used on Wikipedia as a term of abuse to describe actions the the complainant disagrees with. --Tony Sidaway 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, the word we're looking for is "unilateral." There's a very strong difference between a bold edit and a unilateral edit that has to do with a variety of circumstances. You are not doing a good job gleaning our intent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All edits on a wiki are unilateral. Some are bold, others are the result of negotiation. All administrative acts, without exception, are bold. The act of determining group consensus is about as bold as it gets. --Tony Sidaway 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll again point you to Sjakkalle's excellent commentary on the matter. Read it again, and again, and again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is this commentary by Sjakkalle. Can you provide a link, please? Carcharoth 14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore that, I think I found it a few lines above in this thread! How can those participating, let alone the arbitrators, keep track of all this? Carcharoth 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the act of repetition to you. But just try it. Everywhere the term "unilateral" is used, I have found that it conforms precisely to the more usual term, "bold". The only difference is that "unilateral" is only used as a term of abuse. It's a weasel word. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you believe that "unilateral" means "bold," you're not understanding us. It's not a weasel word, it's an accurate distinction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking up definitions of unilateral, and "without consultation" and/or "a lone action" seem to apply best here. It is usually used to contrast with an action taken after discussion, or an action taken with others in a show of unity. You hear the term used in cases of climate change and declarations of war, with one side taking "unilateral action". I agree, "bold" is an oversimplistic statement of what it means, and Tony does seem to be missing the point here. Carcharoth 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bold" here is a term of art used on Wikipedia to describe just that: action without prior discussion. It's usually encouraged on the assumption that a wiki functions best with a minimum of bureaucracy and any action is easily reversed. In the BLP, some actions are required to be carried out without discussion before or after. This is because of the sensitivity of the material. --Tony Sidaway 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. And to illustrate the absurdity of the purported distinction, I would suggest that the vast majority of deletions on Wikipedia are made without any debate whatsoever. I watched Special:newpages for an hour once; over two thirds of new articles were deleted within five minutes with no debate, no discussion, and no controversy. Sometimes we get kickback, and the chances of kickback tend to increase in proportion to the correctness of the deletion - frustrated spammers are, in my experience, among the most vociferous complainants. Nobody seriously suggests we should allow spammers to abuse Wikipedia, or require extensive debate before removing blatant spam, copyright violations, trivial vanity pages and so on. Well, i say nobody - someone probably does... Guy (Help!) 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions under the BLP

I perhaps need to clarify my wording. When I talked about "unilateral deletions", what I meant was deletions which did not have a prior XfD discussion with consensus to delete. Unilateral deletions are acceptable for articles which expressly meet the WP:CSD criteria, and in certain other exceptional circumstances; the reason for allowing this is to keep Wikipedia clear of articles which would damage its integrity. The question here is whether WP:BLP provides a license for unilateral deletions without discussion, in cases where the CSD criteria are not invoked. I believe it does not, although I can understand the opposing argument. Walton 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, that's part of what this case is about. In a way what I and a number of other people have been saying is simply a restatement of Proposed Principle 45, "Enforcing BLP", drafted by an arbitrator, Kirill Lokshin. Here's what Kirill proposed:

Any administrator, acting on their own judgement, 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 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 the policy.

Kirill doesn't have authority to speak for the entire committee--they will discuss this case in the proposed decision page and possibly in private before arriving at their final decision--but the fact that he has proposed it, with its stern, no nonsense wording, suggests that it may not be such a crazy interpretion of policy as some editors have argued. You can call it bold or unilateral, same thing as far as I'm concerned, but it means that the deleting admin deletes acting on his own judgement and undeletion must not take place without consensus to undelete. --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. So, if "those who wish to retain the article" are not admins, how are they supposed to "demonstrate that it is compliant with the policy" without actually being able to see it? At risk of stating the obvious, I'd have to point out that non-admins can't access deleted material. Walton 18:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We regularly discuss article deletions at deletion review without undeleting the material. At one time, this was the only way we did it. This is why discussion between the deleting admin and other admins is so important. Only they can see what has been deleted. At the moment we've had a case where some administrators have believed that their opinion, in the absence of consensus, is sufficient to justify an undeletion. The proposal simply says that this isn't so. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So your argument basically boils down to "when in doubt, delete?" You're arguing that the opinion of a single admin, in the absence of consensus, is sufficient to justify a deletion but not an undeletion. Surely, whenever consensus is unclear or has not been determined, the default course of action is to keep content, not to delete it? Walton 19:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's about the size of it, when it comes to the biographies of living persons policy. This seems to be the sense of the policy. --Tony Sidaway 11:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But won't that inherently create an elitist system? If BLP articles are not to be undeleted for a DRV or other discussion, then participation in the discussion will be effectively restricted to admins, as non-admins simply can't see the original article. IMO it's far more sensible, where a BLP deletion has been challenged, for the article to be undeleted straight away and taken to AfD. In general, I am very, very wary of anything that increases the power of admins, because as someone once said, "power tends to corrupt". As an admin I see myself as a functionary, whose role is to carry out the will of the community as expressed through consensus, discussion and policy, not to make my own decisions about what's "right" for the encyclopedia; I feel other admins should abide by the same principle. Walton^Assistance! 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between the "consensus" represented by a vociferous group of passionate advocates for an article, and the consensus that underpins policy. There is no bar to debate, but we should not wilfully restore problematic content just so we can satisfy our desire for process. we can debate it with the content missing. Sometimes it's better to do so in a WP:FORGET kind of way. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Far more is at stake than concerns about elitism. There will be people who have access to potentially damaging material, and people who don't. This is good because it's potentially damaging. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sensitive material

I thought sensitive material was best handled by the oversight mechanisms? And while I agree with no discussion beforehand, there are times when discussion afterwards is needed and appropriate. What is needed here is agreement on when discussion afterwards is not needed, how this all relates to Office and Oversight and OTRS mechanisms. Also, how does this all relate to any action being easily reversed? The whole point here seems to be to be able to carry out an action and not have it easily reversed. In that case, your definition of bold seems inappropriate, because Bold, Revert, Discuss is not possible, but you have to have Bold, Discuss, Something. Carcharoth 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Oversight. To summarise the policy, it's to be used very parsimoniously. See also Biographies of living persons policy which outlines some deletion criteria. You will not get a blanket agreement from me that discussion must follow all deletions under the policy, because this would be contrary to the policy itself, both the spirit and the word. Obviously "Bold, Revert, Discuss" would be absolutely out of the question for BLP deletions (or even editorial removals). --Tony Sidaway 17:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I'm interested in some clarification as to how you view two of your points interacting. Above, you wrote "Part of our recent addressing of BLP concerns has been to systematically remove the names of private individuals who are minors from the encyclopedia." And here, that discussion (at least in the context of BRD) is "absolutely out of the question" for "editorial removals", which I assume includes the redaction of names. However, even the current BLP does not discuss redaction of names. It mentions that a "separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", cautions to "simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date", and even remarks on people "mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but [who] remain[] of essentially low profile themselves". It offers not a single word about when we should talk about a person without naming them. It is almost certainly true that not all of these people should have their own articles (although we clearly differ in good faith about precisely where to draw that line). I do not feel, however, that inclusion of names appropriate to a larger context lacks "taste", especially when that information has moved beyond journalistic sources and into peer-reviewed journals or books from respected publishers. I am, in particular, disquieted by the idea that such redaction might be considered beyond reproach or discussion. Have I misinterpreted your position? Serpent's Choice 16:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Editorial removals in the above means, primarily, removal of unsourced negative material. Removal of names of private individuals is simply a bit of commonsense editing, and isn't really covered by the policy. Sorry for the confusion. --Tony Sidaway 11:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone at the WP:NOT discussion suggested that this addition to policy should be in the BLP, so I've taken it there. This doesn't alter the state of play, though. Removed names can be put back if there is consensus to do so. --Tony Sidaway 22:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, exactly the clarification I was hoping for! For my part, I agree that removal of "core" (or however we want to phrase it) BLP violations should be privileged. Negative, controversial, or salacious material without proper citations cannot appear in articles about living people regardless of consensus or discussion. Anyone wanting that stuff back needs to rewrite and source it as appropriate. But that is one of the key reasons why I oppose justifying other removals under BLP. BLP needs to remain, in my mind, a very tightly worded policy focusing on specific actions. If we expand it, we create confusion; is a given BLP removal one that can be subject to reversion-by-consensus or not? Serpent's Choice 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it the BLP affects how we interpret existing policy. We would definitely want to have a very good reason to put something back into an article if validly removed for BLP concerns, and that includes names in the case of private people caught up in some larger event. So it wouldn't be a case of "justify the removal of the names, please", which might otherwise be seen as a reasonable interpretation of existing policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Two different types of BLP material

There's some confusion here: when some of us say that BLP should not be a license to delete articles arbitrarily and keep them deleted, others say "Yes, but we can't keep potentially damaging material out there for any longer than necessary." This is a valid point; the real reason for the dispute is that everyone is getting confused between two different types of BLP-related material. They are:

1) Information about living persons that is unsourced and of dubious accuracy, and/or is potentially libellous. This may also apply to information from an unreliable source, e.g. a blog or attack site. Such information should be removed on sight, and the presumption should be to delete; prolonged discussion in this case would be harmful.

2) Information about living persons that is reliably sourced and accurate, but could still be potentially damaging. This includes the information on QZ and Alison Stokke. In these cases, removals and deletions should be discussed, as with any content issues, and the presumption should be to keep.

I hope this clears up the essential issue. Basically, where the deletion is clearly necessary for accuracy and common sense, it should be done straight away. But where the reason for deletion is "ethics" or "do no harm", it should be discussed, debated, and everyone's opinion should be taken into account. This is because factual accuracy is non-negotiable, while ethics are not. Walton 17:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you're forgetting the presumption in favor of privacy. There must be consensus to include. Simple absence of consensus to remove isn't enough. The pole vaulter case was one example of a marginal potential article that was clearly being overweighed by a trivial matter. The QZ case was an example of a private individual famous for being made fun of by internet bullies. I'd also add, possibly, the surviving victims of the Virginia Tech shootings. We have a version of the latter article that omits names but is perfectly well referenced. We'd need a strong consensus to include the unnecessary personal information. --Tony Sidaway 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: if we have something in place which is "harmless but wrong", you say we should delete immediately, but if we have something in place which is "potentially harmful but possibly accurate" we should enter into interminable debate while leaving it up for the world to goggle at? Don't you think that if something is both accurate and harmful, that compounds the offense? Maybe if it were your personal and private dealings which were being splashed all over the wiki, you'd be reacting somewhat differently: I know I would. —Phil | Talk 17:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what it says. If something is well sourced is accurate. The harm that might be involved in all these cases is minimal to non-existent since they all are using pre-existing sources that have the information. At worst all Wikipedia is doing in these cases is adding a tiny addition to the great sea of sources about the topics. And arguably, it is better to have more well-written neutral sources out there such as Wikipedia than just leave this sort of thing mainly up to nasty blogs and such. The bottom line is once we have published reliable sources it is very hard to see how we can out of process deletions. They are not endorsed by the wording of BLP nor are they generally good policy. JoshuaZ 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)This, roughly translated, means "heads I win, tails you loose". If there are strong ethical concerns that something is invading the privacy of an otherwise non-notable innocent individual - perhaps one who is only notable for having her privacy invaded - then we are allowed to ask for its deletion but only if we allow you to have a privacy invading debate? NO. Ethics may be something we have to negotiate - but we don't start with loaded dickery principles.--Doc^g 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, if there are ethical concerns then we need to have an open discussion on individual cases about whether or not there is a severe ethical concern and if so, whether it overides concerns about trying to make an encyclopieda, JoshuaZ 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is very close to what I was arguing for earlier. JoshuaZ 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I think JoshuaZ has grasped the point here. In reply to Phil Boswell, I was simply saying that unsourced and/or wrong info about living people should be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous; that's what it says in the Template:Blp which is used in all such articles. But if accurate and verifiable information, when obtained from reliable published sources (thus not "private" details) is going to hurt someone, then yes, it's reasonable to take that into account when discussing the deletion of the article - but it's not reasonable to say "This could hurt someone, it offends my ethical values, so I'm going to delete it. Try and stop me." Walton^Assistance! 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So if I can find the personal details of a fellow Wikipedian published somewhere, online for preference, I can reveal that with no problem? No…wait…that's not allowed because it's against our policy: if I were to link to the right site, I could get myself banninated forthwith! So we extend more protection towards our own than to the subjects of our articles? I'm sure they will sleep better tonight for the knowledge… —Phil | Talk 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about details appearing in reliable sources. Certainly we shouldn't "out" a subject's private details from an attack forum or blog, just as we wouldn't with a Wikipedian. But, just as Wikipedians who are notable must face the fact that someone might dig up details on them from the press, so the subjects of our articles have to deal with the fact that the press might publish stuff on them, and that this content might end up in a Wikipedia article. Walton^{alternate account} 12:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Walton, if what you said were true there would be no need for a separate policy on living individuals. Unsourced and wrong information can always be removed from any article. BLP is about recognising the effect a Wikipedia article can have on real people's lives. Endless navel-gazing discussions about the "notability" of an individual or the significance of this or that tabloid source is all very well, but first and foremost we have to consider: is this fair? Guy (Help!) 11:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Life isn't fair. Chelsea Clinton and Prince Harry, for instance, never chose to be "public" figures. They were born into it, and I'm sure they'd rather we didn't have articles on them. But we do have those articles, and I doubt we would delete them on their subjects' request. Our coverage is defined by "encyclopedicity", which (despite being a fairly nebulous concept) is not the same thing as fairness. Walton^{alternate account} 12:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it isn't fair to Muslims or Bahai that we have pictures (indeed caricatures) of their religious leaders up, and it isn't fair to the Orthodox Jews that we have the Tetragrammatron on Yahweh. Wikipedia is not censored. JoshuaZ 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, life's not fair. Let's not be in the business of making it even less so. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You've hit upon a very good point - maybe there is no need for a separate policy on living indivduals. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)