Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (726 intermediate revisions by 75 users not shown) | |||
Line 62:
:: 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. [[User:75.62.6.237|75.62.6.237]] 06:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Support. See also newly proposed temporary injunction #4 ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
===Rename the case to include WP:BLP===
2) From [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_AnonEMouse|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. --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 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. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 17:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
==Proposed temporary injunctions==
Line 152 ⟶ 165:
::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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
===Real names===
Line 282 ⟶ 296:
:'''Comment by others:'''
::True, but see proposal "Sensitive matters" below. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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". [[User:Walton_monarchist89|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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 [[WP:NOT#CENSORED|not censored]]. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
===Biographies of living persons===
Line 301 ⟶ 319:
:::::Of course it does. There's a minority rumbling about a new way of interpreting ''how'', though. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Marskell|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". -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
===Biographies of living persons===
Line 330 ⟶ 349:
::::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? [[User:Edison|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. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
==== Deletion review (2) ====
Line 341 ⟶ 361:
::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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
==== 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 16:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Early closures===
Line 373 ⟶ 405:
:'''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. [[User:FrozenPurpleCube|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. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 10:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::This is true in most cases. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 380 ⟶ 411:
::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. [[User:Edison|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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Early closures (3)===
Line 393 ⟶ 425:
::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. <sup>[[User:Lubaf|Thanks]],</sup> <sub>[[User_talk:Lubaf|Luc "Somethingorother" French]]</sub> 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::Sounds fair to everyone involved. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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. [[User:Whsitchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whsitchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whsitchy|'''h'''y]] 05:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
===Inclusion and exclusion===
Line 403 ⟶ 436:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Proposed. Much of this could have been avoided with this simple principle in mind. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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''. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::::No. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:::No, it has its roots in it. See the initial statements. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 411 ⟶ 446:
:: 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.'' --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Tango|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. <
::: All deletions are unilateral. We have no mechanism for anything else. The rest of your statement is just one massive piece of [[WP:ABF|assuming bad faith]]. You might want to consider if you can phrase it in less inflammatory terms. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Do you really see no difference between my deletion of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangeline|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 {{tl|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). -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Speedy deletion===
Line 429 ⟶ 469:
::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." --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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"). [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 436 ⟶ 478:
::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. [[User:Prolog|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. '''[[User:DGG|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. <
::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. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
:::A backdoor attempt to make BLP subordinate to CSD. Strong oppose. [[User:Marskell|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 00:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Wheel warring is disruptive===
Line 451 ⟶ 494:
:: 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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, it would. I was very aware of that when proposing this. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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'. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 482 ⟶ 528:
:::::::Seconded. You know nothing of my personal ethics. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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".--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 492 ⟶ 539:
:: Nobody who disseminates knowledge gets to dodge ethical questions about the process. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|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 is incorrect that there's no [[The Golden Rule|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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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]]. [[User:Edison|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". [[User:Prolog|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Treatment of editors===
Line 507 ⟶ 555:
::It is unethical.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 20:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 515 ⟶ 562:
::Agreed, harassment should not be allowed on Wikipedia. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 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. [[User:Edison|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Adminship is no big deal===
Line 521 ⟶ 571:
::This one's almost "duh", and might be useful here. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 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. [[User:FloNight|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 528 ⟶ 579:
::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. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 535 ⟶ 588:
::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. --[[User:Tango|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. <span style="font-size:95%">—[[User talk:Messedrocker|Signed]], your friendly neighborhood '''[[User:Messedrocker|MessedRocker]]'''.</span> 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. <
:::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?--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 15:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Because Admin apparently means "automatically good judgement". This case would indicate that that was not correct. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 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. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===[[WP:BLP]] is a policy about ethics===
Line 569 ⟶ 624:
::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 [[Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton|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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. -[[User:Jmh123|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. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 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. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] 21:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
===Sensitive matters===
Line 590 ⟶ 647:
::::We don't know, really. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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? -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Primum non nocere===
Line 616 ⟶ 674:
:::[[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"? -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. <
:: 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. --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 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. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 01:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Lots of this stuff has happened ''throughout history''. I'm talking about [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]]. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk: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? - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 12:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
===Persons of minor interest===
Line 636 ⟶ 697:
::Excellent summary by FCYTravis.--[[User:MONGO|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
:::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. [[User:FCYTravis|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
====Articles about living people notable only for one event====
Line 657 ⟶ 720:
:::::''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. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
::Once again, Violetriga is absolutely right. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
::May I suggest using the shortcut [[WP:NOT#NEWS]]? [[User:Carcharoth|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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=137319707] 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). [[User:Vassyana|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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). -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. <span style="font-family:Times; letter-spacing:-1.2px;font-weight:normal; background:white;white-space:nowrap;cursor:help;">—[[User:Malber|M]] ([[User talk:Malber|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Malber|contribs]]) 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)</span>
====Internet memes====
Line 677 ⟶ 744:
::Endorse. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <
:::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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
::This is from a current [http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-stokke2jun02,0,1825747.story?page=1&coll=la-headlines-sports 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). [[User talk:Thatcher131|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====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 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Priority_scale|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:'''
Line 692 ⟶ 759:
:'''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). [[User:75.62.6.237|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. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] 21:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
===Minors===
Line 708 ⟶ 776:
::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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:
::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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 10:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 716 ⟶ 784:
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::Hm. I don't like limiting reliable sourcing to "mainstream coverage" at all. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::: This is informed by, for example, the grade point averages which were added to [[Crystal Gail Mangum]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 726 ⟶ 795:
:: I agree with Tony except I'm not sure what the proposer is driving at. Maybe Guy could try again. [[User:75.62.6.237|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? --[[User:Tim4christ17|Tim4christ17]] <sup>[[User talk:Tim4christ17|talk]]</sup> 10:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
====Privacy====
19.1) The [[wikipedia:biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] policy imposes a [[Wikipedia:biographies of living persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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 [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]]. Also, it is not a carte blanche for speedy-deleting any articles that present personal information, even if they are sourced and neutral. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Requests for comment===
Line 734 ⟶ 815:
::Seems to be the case. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 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. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Proposed. Per practice and per a lack of an actual required process. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 754 ⟶ 835:
:'''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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 772 ⟶ 854:
:: 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Ownership of WP:BLP===
Line 802 ⟶ 885:
::::Moved. This is a proposed principle, not a finding of fact. [[User talk:Thatcher131|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. [[User:Nandesuka|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. <
===Ethics count===
Line 824 ⟶ 907:
:: The "in a nutshell" summary of WP:BLP explicitly invokes ethical responsibility. This is straightforward and correct. [[User:Nandesuka|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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 00:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
===Wheel-warring===
Line 837 ⟶ 923:
::Moved. This is a proposed principle, not a finding of fact. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::: Thanks. So hard to keep track :-) <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::Agreed. No additional comments or disclaimers this time. :) -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Wheel warring===
Line 860 ⟶ 947:
::: 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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'. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk: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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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 [[WP:BOLD|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]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===WP:BLP does not apply to dead people===
Line 885 ⟶ 975:
::'''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. [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. '''[[User:DGG|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
===No rush to undelete===
Line 902 ⟶ 994:
::: 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? [[User:Nandesuka|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. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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. [[User:
:: 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'''. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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? — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===No rush to delete===
Line 924 ⟶ 1,018:
::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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::I concur with this, except I would point out that those exceptions are very important. [[User:
:: If [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 01:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 930 ⟶ 1,024:
:: 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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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." [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 22:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
===Discussion of [[WP:BLP]] deletions===
Line 941 ⟶ 1,037:
::I don't disagree with this. As a matter of courtesy, all deletion challenges should at least be discussed first. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:
:: This is already part of [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|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."''
Line 954 ⟶ 1,050:
:: It seems to have been well received. It's really just a commonsense recommendation. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|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." --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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). -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====Reviewing [[WP:BLP]] deletions====
29.1) Administrators who dispute a deletion of a page where the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Discuss the issue, not the action===
Line 992 ⟶ 1,105:
::I take it my comments above show that I '''endorse''' this principle. [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Endorse. [[User:75.62.6.237|75.62.6.237]] 04:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::Well, yes, but this is already covered by [[WP:CSD#G10|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Do no harm===
Line 1,012 ⟶ 1,126:
:::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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. <
:::Neither are we here to encourage, promote and prolong harm to people. If we are, let me know and I'll quit now. [[User:FCYTravis|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'' [[Mark Oaten|Shit eating Oaten]]'s chances of a political career by including his sex scandal in his biography too. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=139998529&oldid=139987477] 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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
===Insensitivity===
Line 1,029 ⟶ 1,147:
:: Agreed, sensitivity should be a fundamental human ethical value. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 16:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Seems like a tautology. Does it really need stating as an arb principle? [[User:75.62.6.237|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". -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Badgering===
Line 1,070 ⟶ 1,189:
::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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. [[User talk:Thatcher131|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]]. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Neutral point of view===
Line 1,088 ⟶ 1,208:
:::: 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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
::: 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. [[User:80.176.82.42|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. [[User:Serpent's Choice|Serpent's Choice]] 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Courtesy===
Line 1,116 ⟶ 1,238:
:'''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. [[User:Nandesuka|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. [[User:
::The principle is correct but I'm not sure what specific evidence in this arb case it's supposed to be connected to. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. --[[User_talk:Pgk|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". <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
::Oppose - AGF. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|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". — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 03:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy===
Line 1,150 ⟶ 1,275:
::::::I'd hope not. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 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 [[WP:BEANS|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. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 1,158 ⟶ 1,283:
:: 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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 [[WP:BEANS|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. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
===WP:POINT and DRV===
Line 1,192 ⟶ 1,319:
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Yeah agree with this one. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 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. [[User:Nandesuka|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Precedential value===
Line 1,233 ⟶ 1,361:
::: 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 [[WP:CON|consensus]] is irrelevant on DRV, which really isn't the case. Consensus is not the only issue, but it ''is'' relevant. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 11:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::Agreed 100%. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 03:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Obduracy is harmful===
Line 1,250 ⟶ 1,379:
::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" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff&diff=132449640&oldid=132449142]. 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
===Enforcing BLP===
Line 1,264 ⟶ 1,395:
:::No its not allt he time. Had you per chance noticed that an afd the results in no consensus is kept? [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 12:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::::An arb case can't decide it but maybe that practice should not apply to BLP's. [[User:75.62.6.237|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''. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,276 ⟶ 1,408:
:::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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|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. [[User:75.62.6.237|75.62.6.237]] 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::Support. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:CLIMBING|<small><sup>Denny Crane.</sup></small>]] 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. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 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. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 03:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===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 [[WP:BLP|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. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 05:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
===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 [[WP:BLP|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 [[WP:RS|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:: I'm not sure with presuming sources to be unreliable unless demonstrated otherwise, but this is better. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
===Reasons for deletion===
Line 1,294 ⟶ 1,451:
::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. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 23:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
:: A license for sterile wikilawyering. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 03:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Reasons for deletion 2===
Line 1,315 ⟶ 1,473:
:::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. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 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. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Encyclopedia more important than rules===
Line 1,335 ⟶ 1,495:
:'''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. [[User:Miltopia|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Administrative actions are subject to review.===
Line 1,352 ⟶ 1,513:
::: 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. --[[User:Barberio|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. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 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). -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===History undeletions===
Line 1,390 ⟶ 1,562:
:::It didn't fail it was "murdered". [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 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. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 01:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I support, as long as "failed" actually means "failed" rather than dismissed out of process. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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 [[WP:CCC|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Criteria for Speedy Deletion===
Line 1,418 ⟶ 1,595:
::: Support per Night Gyr. OTRS is included in community consensus. --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Oppose proposed principle, endorse JzG's comment. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
::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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Admins do not have special authority===
Line 1,444 ⟶ 1,622:
::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 [[WP:NPOV|out-of-context snapshot of someone's life, giving undue weight to whatever negative incident happened to make the news that day]]. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Indeed. There is a lot more to NPOV than taking a "neutral tone." [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk: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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Argumentative and repetitive demands===
Line 1,479 ⟶ 1,658:
:: Proposed. --[[User:Barberio|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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. <
::Support. This is the definition of IAR: ignore rules only when they prevent improvement, but not when doing so is merely convenient. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===No one is infallible===
Line 1,547 ⟶ 1,727:
:: 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
:::If it walks like a duck... --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually, Jeff didn't write this principle. I did. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
::::: 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,590 ⟶ 1,770:
:'''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). --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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''. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====Involved editors and administrators and the BLP (1)====
44.1) Under the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|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 [[WP:VI|vested interest]] problems. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Consensus and BLP===
Line 1,602 ⟶ 1,793:
:'''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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
::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). -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Precautionary principle===
Line 1,616 ⟶ 1,808:
:: Proposed. Time to lay down the law. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 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. -[[User:Jmh123|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===The penumbra of BLP and blocks===
Line 1,635 ⟶ 1,829:
::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::::That s exactly the point was trying to make in the section above. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
::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. [[User:FCYTravis|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,650 ⟶ 1,844:
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Arbcom passed something similar in the Philwelch case. [[User:Miltopia|Milto LOL pia]] 02:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::Support. BLP disputes are ''not'' vandalism, and should not be treated as such. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
===Rollback in conjunction with BLP===
Line 1,680 ⟶ 1,874:
::::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. [[User:Miltopia|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
::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. [[User:FCYTravis|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? [[User:Miltopia|Milto LOL pia]] 21:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
===Criticism===
Line 1,691 ⟶ 1,886:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed, straight from Giano case. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|Badlydrawnjeff]] ([[User talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Badlydrawnjeff|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:: What point of evidence does this address? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
===Being upset===
Line 1,722 ⟶ 1,918:
:::You don't think repeatedly closing contentious discussions is not disruptive? [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::What Viridae said. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Closing a contentious discussion can often be the opposite of disruptive. [[User talk:H|<small><sup
:::: And re-opening one can also be disruptive, of course. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
===Courtesy===
Line 1,732 ⟶ 1,929:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed, from Giano case, may mirror other principles. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Indeed. It is completely unacceptable to assert that your opponents are liars, for example. [[User:80.176.82.42|80.176.82.42]] 21:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===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.
Line 1,745 ⟶ 1,944:
:'''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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
::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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Baiting===
Line 1,755 ⟶ 1,955:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed. Giano. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:JzG|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. [[User:Miltopia|Milto LOL pia]] 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I think we missed the point a bit here. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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? ;-) [[User:Miltopia|Milto LOL pia]] 03:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Surprisingly, no. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::::My mistake then. [[User:Miltopia|Milto LOL pia]] 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::Not relevant. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk:Sean William|@]] 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::How so? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,784 ⟶ 1,989:
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Strong support. This gets to the heart of this case. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 13:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
===Optimum leadership===
Line 1,808 ⟶ 2,013:
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Support. I don't think a particular case precedent is even need. Neutrality is the cornerstone of a legitimate encyclopedia project. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Verifiable information===
Line 1,822 ⟶ 2,027:
::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. [[User:FCYTravis|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. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Perfectly stated--verifiability is a minimum threshold, not a mandate. -[[User:Jmh123|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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]]. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Writing style, biography of a living person===
Line 1,833 ⟶ 2,043:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed. From Sathya Sai Baba. Worth noting in the context of Qian Zhijun as well as the other articles being discussed. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Deletion of pages===
Line 1,848 ⟶ 2,059:
:'''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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Attack pages are subject to speedy deletion===
Line 1,872 ⟶ 2,083:
:'''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". --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::This sort of thing, and the COATRACK essay (which is very interesting) seems to be related to my [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop#All parties are reminded to use editorial discretion|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? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 13:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
===Wheel warring and the BLP===
Line 1,884 ⟶ 2,102:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::And in the case of [[Allison Stokke|unreasonable deletions]]? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 1,893 ⟶ 2,112:
::: So a "reasonable deletion" in the above doesn't amount to a deletion that is fully appropriate according to the prevailing [[wikipedia:criteria for speedy deletion|criteria for speedy deletion]]. It's a deletion, possibly temporary, that can be reasonably be expected to limit damage. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 16:12, 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'.--[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 16:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,900 ⟶ 2,119:
:: 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. --[[User:Barberio|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). -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====0RR applies in the case of BLP deletions====
66.2) In the case of disagreements between administrators, reversing a deletion made under the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]] policy is inappropriate behavior which may lead to sanctions or, in extreme cases, desysopping.
Line 1,907 ⟶ 2,129:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Completely absurd. Wikipedia is not a caste system, or something. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[wikipedia:deletion review|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Barberio|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Barberio|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. [[User:FCYTravis|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 [[WikiMedia:Job openings#Legal coordinator|Legal coordinator]]. When it's *not* an urgent decision, I see no reason the deletion can not be delayed while it's discussed. --[[User:Barberio|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? [[User:ChazBeckett|ChazBeckett]] 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::You don't seem to understand that [[WP:OFFICE|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. [[User:FCYTravis|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. --[[User:Barberio|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 [[m:OTRS|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. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::: [[Meta:OTRS/introduction|'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. --[[User:Barberio|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. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Yowzer. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:FCYTravis|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.--[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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 [[WP:OFFICE|Office]] is a last resort. Countless numbers of these situations can be, should be and are dealt with before they get to that level. [[User:FCYTravis|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? [[User:JoshuaZ|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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".'' --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====0RR applies in the case of BLP deletions (2)====
66.21) In the case of disagreements between administrators, reversing a deletion made under the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:::<s>Yes, this mostly addresses my concerns above, so I'll agree to general principle.</s> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it.====
Line 1,919 ⟶ 2,177:
:'''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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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? --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 1,925 ⟶ 2,184:
::: No. I will propose that 0RR must apply in BLP cases. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Barberio|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. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 19:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::See above. [[WP:OFFICE|The Wikimedia Foundation]] handle cases where the project is put at legal risk, not Administrators. --[[User:Barberio|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 [[WP:BLP|BLP]] and it's not going to change. [[User:FCYTravis|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. -[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
===
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:'''
Line 1,933 ⟶ 2,200:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Proposed. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. --[[User:Barberio|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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 [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:Copyright|Copyright]], [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Barberio|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
===[[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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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? - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:::NPOV is only ambiguous if you struggle with basic language interpretation. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::So BLP is only ambiguous if you struggle with basic language interpretation. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
===OTRS===
69) Actions in response to [[WP:OTRS|OTRS]] complaints may be be based on privileged information. Editors should not revert actions taken citing OTRS without <s>prior discussion with the OTRS volunteer</s> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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 [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Wikipedia:OTRS|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. --[[User:Barberio|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:Bastique|Cary Bass]] <sup>[[User talk:Bastique|demandez]]</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
===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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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<sup><small>TM</small></sup> 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. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 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. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 22:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Proposed. A bold riposte to 70, and I think a more realistic one. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 01:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Wow. "Abusive attempts to inflict pointless pain?" --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 01:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::: Why do you imagine the deletion policy was recently changed? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===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 ([[User:Messedrocker|messedrocker]] • [[User talk: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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
===Neutral point of view is an infrangible principle===
72) Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia|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]]. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:: This case is very much about [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] and in particular the crucial role of "Undue Weight" in the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]] policy. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Wikipedia is not censored===
73) Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT#CENSORED|not censored]]. Information that is [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliably sourced]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]], does not constitute [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]], and is expressed from a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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]]). -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Not an issue in this case. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 17:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Absolutely an issue. Very much a major point. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::I remember this from a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=26048157#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors 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. --[[User_talk:Pgk|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 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. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::::: Wooyi, that may be how a [[WP:WIKILAWYER|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 18:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
===Restoration of admin privileges===
<!-- be sure to make a copy of this before using it. don't forget to make the copy one number higher -->
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. [[User:Miltopia|Milto LOL pia]] 05:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
===Template===
<!-- be sure to make a copy of this before using it. don't forget to make the copy one number higher -->
75)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 1,975 ⟶ 2,400:
:'''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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:: I ''am'' convinced this is true. It's an extension of [[m:DICK|don't be a dick]] to cover our interactions with people outside of Wikipedia. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 1,992 ⟶ 2,418:
::proposed [[User talk:Thatcher131|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 17:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====People notable for a single event====
Line 2,004 ⟶ 2,431:
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: proposed [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
====The example of Rachel Marsden====
Line 2,019 ⟶ 2,444:
:: proposed [[User talk:Thatcher131|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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
===[[WP:NOT]]===
Line 2,065 ⟶ 2,491:
:'''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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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 [[falsifiability|unfalsifiable]]. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Deletion review has not resulted in the proper results at an acceptable rate===
Line 2,085 ⟶ 2,512:
:::Then you need to read the evidence page again. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:: This seems to be more a "my interpretation of policy is being ignored by the closing admins" finding. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 17:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Consensus and deletions of articles===
Line 2,094 ⟶ 2,522:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed, see finding of fact above. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: The evidence shows that the administrators in the instances under discussion have cited the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|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''.
Line 2,108 ⟶ 2,537:
:::::: 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I don't tend to sugarcoat facts. Sorry if that bothers you. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: Your opinion does not necessarily equate to fact. Hopefully this will one day sink in. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Opinions aren't facts. I agree with that. But facts, however, are not things that are fungible. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, when you folks get around to proving me wrong, let me know. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
===Moral and Ethical nature of the project and expectations of participants===
Line 2,133 ⟶ 2,566:
|[[Wikipedia:Basic dignity|Basic dignity]]
|This above all - do no harm, or [[The Golden Rule]]
| Essay
|-
|[[
| Wikipedia is not evil.
|Essay
|-
|[[Wikipedia:No Moral Code]]
Line 2,157 ⟶ 2,590:
::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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]]
::*"Essay but not rejected" is an oxymoron. We don't reject essays. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|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? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 17:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
===Badlydrawnjeff===
Line 2,181 ⟶ 2,616:
:: See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#User:Badlydrawnjeff.27s_objections_are_fluid_and_inconsistent|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Carcharoth|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [http://www.google.com/search?q=armando+dailykos 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. [[User:75.62.6.237|75.62.6.237]] 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Interesting spin on it. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
::Support. Jeff has acted correctly. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup style="color:Purple;">alternate account</sup>]]</font> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====Badlydrawnjeff====
Line 2,201 ⟶ 2,644:
:::::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.) [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 14:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
=====Badlydrawnjeff=====
10.2.1) [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|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 [[Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations|three featured articles]] (with [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Benchley|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.
Line 2,211 ⟶ 2,654:
:'''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. --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 14:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
=====Badlydrawnjeff=====
10.2.2) [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|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 [[Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations|three featured articles]] (with [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Benchley|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 [[User:BigDT|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 [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]]'s intention, but I think it's better to just leave out the phrase. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====Badlydrawnjeff's participation in deletion discussions====
Line 2,226 ⟶ 2,681:
:: Death by wikilawyering is the long term strategy of this editor. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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". -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====Badlydrawnjeff Block Inappropriate====
Line 2,239 ⟶ 2,695:
::This was really, really stupid, guys. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|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. [[User:
::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.) [[User:Newyorkbrad|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." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=132836682&oldid=132836036] --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 2,246 ⟶ 2,702:
====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 [[WP:BLOCK|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. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 2,255 ⟶ 2,712:
:'''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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::Support. Agree with Newyorkbrad. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup style="color:Purple;">alternate account</sup>]]</font> 08:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::I think there's complete consensus on this point. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 01:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::Support per Newyorkbrad. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====Badlydrawnjeff actively promotes the misunderstanding and misapplication of [[WP:BLP]]====
Line 2,277 ⟶ 2,735:
:: 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]]. [[User:Nandesuka|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Nandesuka|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup style="color:Purple;">alternate account</sup>]]</font> 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. [[User:Nandesuka|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Wow. Extremely ballsy. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 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]]. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====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 [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#Badlydrawnjeff_assumes_bad_faith_in_an_uncivil_manner|evidence1]] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff&oldid=136083854#I_think_you.27ve_gone_a_little_over_the_top_here evidence2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop&curid=11507611&diff=136135726&oldid=136134865 evidence3].
Line 2,293 ⟶ 2,761:
:: 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup style="color:Purple;">alternate account</sup>]]</font> 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. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 12:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::Further evidence of badlydrawnjeff's abusive language in DRV discussions: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2007_June_11&diff=137716828&oldid=137715880]. [[User:Corvus cornix|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Tony Sidaway===
Line 2,307 ⟶ 2,780:
:: True, though I'll add that the evidence presented so far in this case is extremely weak. . --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
====Tony Sidaway has closed AFD and DRV discussions improperly====
Line 2,320 ⟶ 2,794:
:: Proposed, per evidence just from the last few days. [[User:Prolog|Prolog]] 11:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:: The evidence does not support this proposed finding. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup style="color:Purple;">alternate account</sup>]]</font> 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.
===Doc glasgow===
Line 2,339 ⟶ 2,815:
::::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 [[WP:CSD|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. [[User:Jahiegel|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. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup style="color:Purple;">alternate account</sup>]]</font> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::Strong support per all above. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 23:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
====Doc glasgow blocks under BLP====
Line 2,351 ⟶ 2,830:
:: 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Tanya_Kach 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... --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 19:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 2,361 ⟶ 2,846:
:: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]] 08:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: Policy is against you on that one, I'm afraid. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]]<small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::Guilty as charged. I reverted Jeff's pantomime. I removed this non-constructive post from MY talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_glasgow&diff=next&oldid=136067642 "I'm correct, you are wrong. This is something you'll have to deal with"] without roll back, and then regarded repeated further posts: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_glasgow&diff=next&oldid=136068776] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_glasgow&diff=next&oldid=136069711] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_glasgow&diff=next&oldid=136082808] as being less than good faith. Dignifying such nonsense is not helpful.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 15:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
====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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:: So Doc disruptively closed a disruptive DRV, for good and well-explained reasons. And this is relevant because?... <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Aboslutely. Very clear from the evidence I've pasted on teh evidence page. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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. [[User:Miltopia|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====Admin rights====
12.5) [[User:Doc glasgow|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:Miltopia|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::::So then he'll have no problem making it through the RFA gauntlet. --[[User:MichaelLinnear|MichaelLinnear]] 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::::: This won't be required. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
===JzG===
Line 2,372 ⟶ 2,909:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed. Per evidence. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 2,378 ⟶ 2,915:
:: 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. [[User:Nick|Nick]] 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
:: I don't understand what point Ghirla is trying to make. [[User:75.62.6.237|75.62.6.237]] 07:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' No evidence for this conclusion. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 11:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====JzG has made improper protections====
13.2) Jzg has used protection in disputes he was involved in. He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=JzG&page=Wikipedia%3ABiographies+of+living+persons protected] [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=133158162&oldid=133157999 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. [[User:Miltopia|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Miltopia|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
===H===
Line 2,421 ⟶ 2,983:
:::::::::"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! [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::Tangentially relevant link: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&offset=20070115034722&limit=12&action=history]. – [[User:Steel359|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====Violetriga has wheel warred====
Line 2,435 ⟶ 2,998:
:::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". [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Perhaps. Time will tell. [[User talk:Thatcher131|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 [[WP:VI|vested interest]] was a bad call, but it's still not wheel warring. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::'''Support''' restoring without consensus or notice is wheel warring. 9 times is abusive. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 11:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:::No, it is not (especially when the initial deletion was illegitimate). Please see [[Wikipedia:Wheel war]]. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: I don't think that policy says what you think it says. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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]]. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Sterile wikilawyering of the worst kind. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Tony, though I appreciate the reference to [[The Princess Bride (film)|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 23:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::ArbCom does not set policy; or at least it didn't until now. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
====Violetriga has demonstrated a high degree of insensitivity with respect to the Biographies of living persons policy====
Line 2,453 ⟶ 3,025:
::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. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk: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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup style="color:Purple;">alternate account</sup>]]</font> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====Violetriga restored BLP deletions====
Line 2,465 ⟶ 3,039:
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Proposed: this uses the same of words that I used for Night Gyr. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Please see my comments on the similar case involving [[User:Night Gyr|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 2,482 ⟶ 3,055:
:: Proposed. Just discovered this. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 13:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::: Apologies to violetriga, I've added more text to clarify the specifics. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====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 [[wikipedia:three revert rule|three revert rule]] in the process. See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#VioletRiga_edit_wars_on_a_protected_page|evidence]].
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Proposed. I find Violetriga's argumentation in the edit summaries most revealing. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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 [[User:Violetriga|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. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk: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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::Is there a reason we are opening old <s>wounds</s> debates? Seems a bit vindictive. <span style="font-family:Times; letter-spacing:-1.2px;font-weight:normal; background:white;white-space:nowrap;cursor:help;">—[[User:Malber|M]] ([[User talk:Malber|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Malber|contribs]]) 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)</span>
:::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. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
===Swatjester===
Line 2,528 ⟶ 3,125:
:'''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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 17:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Everybody who commented on the AfD was in support of deletion. [[User:Nick|Nick]] 16:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
====Nick redeletes under the BLP====
17.2) {{admin|Nick}} 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.
Line 2,539 ⟶ 3,139:
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Proposed. The BLP is privileged. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup style="color:Purple;">alternate account</sup>]]</font> 08:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::The article was taken to an AfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montana_Barbaro], 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. [[User:Nick|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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
===Night Gyr===
Line 2,564 ⟶ 3,168:
: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. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 17:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
===Phil Sandifer===
Line 2,575 ⟶ 3,180:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed. Pretty cut-and-dry, this is the definition. No, he's not the only one. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
Line 2,588 ⟶ 3,193:
:'''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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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 <s>BLP</s> [[wikipedia:deletion policy|deletion policy]] was altered by Jimmy Wales. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
===QZ Article===
Line 2,643 ⟶ 3,248:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Proposed. Let's put it out there, since it's true.
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Agree WRT the DRV - [[WP:SNOW|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. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Completely wrong unless there's a finding that the initial AfD closure was improper. Otherwise still dubious. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====QZ====
Line 2,669 ⟶ 3,275:
::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). [[User:Newyorkbrad|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Endorse the facts as presented without any implications about the validity of any of the actions. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====Deletion rationale====
Line 2,685 ⟶ 3,292:
::Endorse. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Do no harm. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. [[User:Prolog|Prolog]] 09:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 2,696 ⟶ 3,304:
:: Yes, also {{la|Amillia_Taylor}}, {{la|Rumaisa Rahman}}, {{la|Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu}}, {{la|Anna Mae He}}, {{la|Kian and Remee Hodgson}}, {{la|Chukwu octuplets}}, doubtless many more. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:80.176.82.42|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 22:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::Endorse. See my extensive comments on the Hornbeck/Ownby DRV, on which I was the deleting administrator. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Do no harm. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
====The "Do no harm" concept is often flawed in use====
Line 2,746 ⟶ 3,357:
::: Post-facto damage limitation does not change the fundamentals. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 06:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::::No, you see, the fundamentals are being misrepresented here. Stating "is not a public person" is ''false''. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::::: Stating "is not a public person" is ''false'' is ''false''. See? Works both ways. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Redacted to remove the name. I think this is too close to a content finding. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 07:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 2,762 ⟶ 3,375:
::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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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 [http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1987610.ece]. 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 19:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
====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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 19:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
====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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
====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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'd say everything from the second AfD on, but it's a pretty "duh" commentary. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:yes, obviously enough.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 22:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:yes, obviously enough.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 22:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===[[User:^demon]]===
21) ^demon closed the A.S. deletion review discussion eight minutes after Badlydrawnjeff initiated it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_9&diff=prev&oldid=137033032]. ^demon refused to discuss this closure, instead blanking Jeff's comments and engaging in personal attacks when questioned about this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%5Edemon&diff=prev&oldid=137034528] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%5Edemon&diff=prev&oldid=137035009] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%5Edemon&diff=prev&oldid=137035667].
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed, see [[Allison Stokke]] evidence. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::It seems to me that Jeff is labeling dissenting opinions as "disruptive". [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk:Sean William|@]] 15:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::And why would you say such a stupid thing? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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? -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 20:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===[[User:Daniel]]===
22) Daniel has disruptively closed deletion review discussions.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed, see evidence per above. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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). '''[[User:Daniel|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel</span>]]''' 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
===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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Take your pick. This closure had nothing to do with strength of argument. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 22:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::DRV is not a second AFD. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk:Sean William|@]] 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Good thing it wasn't a second AfD then, eh? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::Neither is RfA. [[User:Corvus cornix|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Making Sausage===
<!--Before using the last blank template, please copy additional templates for other editors to use.-->
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 [[dropping the pilot|drop the pilot]]... <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 22:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::Seems as if we want to encourage disruption. I don't think that's a good idea. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Proposed. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|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. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
===Deletion process needed===
25) A process is needed to ensure that speedy deletions of articles which allegedly violate [[WP:BLP]], but do not meet [[WP:CSD#G10|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]]. [[User:John254|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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 [[Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything|42]], then let them propose such a criterion. Not an extra process ... please. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 20:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
===Administrative 1RR===
<!--Before using the last blank template, please copy additional templates for other editors to use.-->
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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:: In this case, 0RR applies for undiscussed BLP restorations. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 17:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:::In short, this is Wikilawyering. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 19:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
===Change of policy in the middle of Arbitrations===
====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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 18:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
====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 [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 18:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Only if "consensus" = "what SlimVirgin will revertwar for." Perhaps we should add her to this controversy. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
===The recently deceased===
28) There is an ongoing debate on the question of whether, and if so to what extent, the [[Wikipedia:biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] policy applies to the recently deceased. See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#There_is_an_ongoing_debate_over_whether.2C_and_to_what_extent.2C_the_BLP_applies_to_the_recently_deceased|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.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|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. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Proposed. Counter to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed_decision#BLP_applies_only_to_living_people|BLP applies only to living people]], a principle in the proposed final decision--[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
===Template===
<!--Before using the last blank template, please copy additional templates for other editors to use.-->
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 2,853 ⟶ 3,681:
::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.) [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. [[User:Edison|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::'''Support''' He contributes in other ways that are far less disruptive so this is not a big loss. --[[User:Tbeatty|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. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 22:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
====Badlydrawnjeff banned from [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]]====
Line 2,871 ⟶ 3,702:
:: I don't think we can or should take action to stop an editor being tiresome. The problem will resolve itself in due course. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|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. <
::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. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::Strong oppose per my comments above and per Edison. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====Badlydrawnjeff restricted====
Line 2,888 ⟶ 3,720:
::Disagree, no compelling evidence. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 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. --[[User:BigDT|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. [[User:
::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. [[User:Jahiegel|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. [[User:SakotGrimshine|SakotGrimshine]] 21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 2,896 ⟶ 3,728:
::::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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 20:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
====Badlydrawnjeff admonished====
Line 2,914 ⟶ 3,748:
====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:'''
Line 2,932 ⟶ 3,768:
:::::: 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. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 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. --[[User_talk:Pgk|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. [[User:
:: I agree with Jeff on the point that there's no evidence or finding of fact to support this. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Marskell|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 --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::How have you '''''fixed''''' any problems? You seem to be the one instigating them. [[User:Corvus cornix|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Speedy closes are part of the process. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::So blame the guy who's fighting disruption? No thanks. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Isn't that the case for everyone though? [[User:Whsitchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whsitchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whsitchy|'''h'''y]] 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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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. [[User:Whsitchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whsitchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whsitchy|'''h'''y]] 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Is there any evidence or finding of fact to support this proposed remedy? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Carcharoth|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. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 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. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 16:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Overkill. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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. [[User:FrozenPurpleCube|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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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"?--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 11:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::That's astoundingly ego-centric (and a little paranoid to boot).--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 14:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:The way, the truth, and the light|The way, the truth, and the light]] 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:InkSplotch|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. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
====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? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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 [[wikipedia:deletion review|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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 [[WP:AE|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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
====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 <s>''uninvolved''</s> 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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 20:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 03:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others'''
:: My clumsy attempt to recognise Jeff's fantastic contributions of content. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Badlydrawnjeff ''did'' partake in a worthy cause... if only he had handled the opposition differently... ([[User:Messedrocker|messedrocker]] • [[User talk: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. --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 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. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>[[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|talk]]</sup> 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
===Tony Sidaway===
Line 2,960 ⟶ 3,910:
:: 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). --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::<s>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. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton_monarchist89]] 15:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)</s>
::: 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? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: He's not an admin. Comments like the one referred to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_13&diff=prev&oldid=130833304] (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. --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>[[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|talk]]</sup> 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Excessive and unecessary. Try "Tony is counseled". [[User:75.62.6.237|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? [[User:The Evil Spartan|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 06:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 06:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
====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.) [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
===Doc glasgow===
Line 2,990 ⟶ 3,975:
:::Manifestly absurd. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 12:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm with Swatjester here. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-????-]]</sup> 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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::Ridiculous. We cannot crucify admins for taking on the thankless landmine of BLP issues. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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 {{tl|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR====
Line 3,026 ⟶ 4,013:
::As below, this is an all-around bad idea and can serve only to be annoying. --[[User:BigDT|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <
:::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. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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 {{tl|prod}} or AfD. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====Doc glasgow placed on civility parole====
Line 3,041 ⟶ 4,031:
::My civility could always improve, so I'm fine with this. Do I get a swearbox too?--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 10:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 3,047 ⟶ 4,036:
::The evidence for this remedy is not strong.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::Per MONGO. Doc's level of civility isn't perfect. Whose is? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Yours ;) [[User:David.Mestel|David Mestel]]<sup>([[User Talk:David.Mestel|Talk]])</sup> 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
::I don't find the proposed remedy either warranted or helpful. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-????-]]</sup> 13:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
::Oppose per Newyorkbrad. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====Doc glasgow strongly cautioned====
Line 3,061 ⟶ 4,052:
:::::Sod off is sufficiently incivil. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 3,066 ⟶ 4,058:
::'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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====Doc glasgow admonished====
Line 3,083 ⟶ 4,076:
::Much too vague to be of use to the arbitrators, which is the point of this page. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Doc glasgow is admonished to stop deleting his userpage. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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, <s>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.</s> <
::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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup
::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? [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Barnstars are welcome, but cookies are better. I'll even offer Jeff one.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. <small>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.</small> -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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 <nowiki>{{db}}</nowiki> tag could be used. [[User:Whsitchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whsitchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whsitchy|'''h'''y]] 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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
===JzG===
Line 3,101 ⟶ 4,113:
::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 <s> deleted </s> improved. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::'''Delete''' - No basis for admonishment. Admins are not punished for doing their job. [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::Nah. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 10:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====JzG placed on administrative 1RR====
Line 3,110 ⟶ 4,124:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Proposed. Per long history of disruptive closures of discussions and questionable deletions. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 3,116 ⟶ 4,131:
:: 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Oppose - No wheel war apparent in the logs. [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Given the allegations of wheel warring against [[User:violetriga|violetriga]], it would seem that she is on an administrative 0RR already. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 12:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::Ummm, no. seems punitive for admin action. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 10:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====JzG placed on adminstrative restriction====
Line 3,137 ⟶ 4,152:
::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. [[User:Martinp23|Mart]]'''[[User_talk:Martinp23|inp23]]''' 11:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::Maybe not "exemplary" but definitely above average. Don't think this is necessary. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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. [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|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 [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion criteria]]. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think this is appropriate. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 10:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====JzG desysopped====
Line 3,166 ⟶ 4,182:
::Oppose. This would be an overreaction and harm the project by the loss of the services of a hardworking admin. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
:::No. Nothing whatsoever to justify this. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 12:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::Quite simply, this is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::Not even close. For starters, he wouldn't be able to delete, protect, block, or close anything. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 10:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====JzG placed on civility parole====
Line 3,184 ⟶ 4,202:
::* 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::No parole warranted. Evidence is not compelling. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 11:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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 <nowiki>{{db}}</nowiki> tag could be used. [[User:Whsitchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whsitchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whsitchy|'''h'''y]] 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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. --[[User:Tbeatty|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). -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
===H===
Line 3,224 ⟶ 4,261:
:::::::::::This is just not me. When I give criticisms it will be in plain languages and on wiki, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABadlydrawnjeff&diff=132484404&oldid=132481317 this] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff&diff=next&oldid=132695110 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. [[User talk:H|<small><sup><font color="#000">(</font><font color="#c20">H</font><font color="#000">)</font></sup></small>]]<!-- Was HighInBC --> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
:Indeed, if not hacked I have provided two other very possible alternative explanations above. [[User talk:H|<small><sup
::And neither are plausible given the evidence. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User talk:H|<small><sup
::::Oh, but there is. How dumb do you think I am, exactly? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 3,268 ⟶ 4,305:
::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. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====Violetriga desysopped for 10 days====
Line 3,283 ⟶ 4,321:
::::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. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:CLIMBING|<small><sup>Denny Crane.</sup></small>]] 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. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(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 <
::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. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Violtriga was not right to reverse the in-process, BLP-founded deletions, without prior discussion. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::::She didn't reverse any in-process, BLP-founded deletions. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====Violetriga desysopped for 5 days====
Line 3,299 ⟶ 4,339:
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed as another alternative. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Translation: you liked what she did, you didn't like what she undid. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
===QZ Article===
Line 3,323 ⟶ 4,366:
::::::You mean that part of the BLP '''''policy''''' about doing no harm? [[User:Corvus cornix|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... --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 10:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
::Oppose in favour of 7.2.1. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
Line 3,347 ⟶ 4,393:
:::There is no need to censor names that have continuously appeared in reliable mainstream sources. [[User:Prolog|Prolog]] 13:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
:::: Due sensitivity ? censorship. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::NPOV doesn't equal censorship, sensitivity, however, does, even if self-censored. [[User:
::Support. We need a conclusive end to this debate. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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? [[User:Catchpole|Catchpole]] 15:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::::: You only had to ask. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_fatty&action=history Here] it is. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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: <nowiki><span id="NEWS" /></nowiki>; and the latter uses div id tags: <nowiki><div id="Bandobras">TEXT</div></nowiki>. 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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 14:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
====Keeping of status quo on QZ====
Line 3,369 ⟶ 4,421:
::Proposed by [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 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. [[User:Catchpole|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. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 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? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
===Other articles===
====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 [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 18:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::Content, not for ArbCom. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 17:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::This is a deleted article. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 05:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
=====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: No proposed finding of fact to support this. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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". [[User:The Evil Spartan|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
=====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Will this ridiculous pettyfogging never end? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
====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 [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 18:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::Content, not for ArbCom. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:: I believe this article has been undeleted without fuss. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 05:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:::No it hasn't. It was improperly closed, redirected, and fully protected by JzG. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanya_Kach&diff=137176278&oldid=137176230] and JzG [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanya_Kach&diff=137199294&oldid=137178721] undid, before protecting it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanya_Kach&diff=137199303&oldid=137199294]. Sorry, no, a redirect is not an article at all. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Suit yourself. It's all there. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 18:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
=====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
=====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
====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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 22:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Pull the other one, it's got bells on! --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 05:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
::Oppose (see 8.3.1 below). -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
=====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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:: This article deletion was reviewed, sent to deletion discussion, and deleted again. Enough. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
=====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
===General caution===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 3,383 ⟶ 4,548:
::And if that "unilateral activity in a controversial situation" is completely the right thing policy-wise and is later roundly endorsed? [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::'''Disagree''' no compelling evidence has suggested this particular remedy. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::Endorse. Discussion on controversial articles should not be speedily closed and/or supressed. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:: No. The way to deal with egregious abuse of process is to stop it. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
::: See [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]], independent statements by three arbitrators on this case, and my proposed principle "Flogging a dead horse". --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
===Admins blocking Jeff admonished===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 3,400 ⟶ 4,569:
:::I think their actions would have been just as stupid had they been discussed on-wiki. Stupidity tends to be blind to its medium. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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. --[[User:Yummifruitbat|YFB]] [[User talk:Yummifruitbat|<font color="33CC66">¿</font>]] 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. [[User:
::''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. [[User:Jahiegel|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. --[[User:Irpen|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. [[User:Edison|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]]. [[User:75.62.6.237|75.62.6.237]] 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
===Policy development===
:'''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. [[User:Morven|Matthew Brown (Morven)]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 09:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 3,420 ⟶ 4,589:
:::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". [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 11:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
===
==== 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:'''
Line 3,445 ⟶ 4,615:
::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. - [[User:Jc37|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. [[User:
:::How would you modify it? - [[User:Jc37|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. - [[User:Jc37|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. [[User:
::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. [[User:Edison|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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 20:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
====Speedy closures====
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 3,459 ⟶ 4,630:
:'''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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 3,466 ⟶ 4,637:
::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? [[User:Corvus cornix|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". [[User:Serpent's Choice|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 --[[User_talk:Pgk|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. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]][[User:Walton 77|<sup style="color:Purple;">alternate account</sup>]]</font> 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. - [[User:Jc37|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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 "[[O RLY?|Arrest of John Q Doe]]," which contained only "[[YA RLY|NFL player John Q Doe (born January 1, 1960) was arrested for cocaine possession and punching out a waiter yesterday]]," with the summary "[[NO WAI!|BLP violation]]," and somebody opens a DVR, we have to wait five days? [[User:Picaroon9288|Picaroon]] [[User talk:Picaroon9288|(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 [[Reductio ad absurdum|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. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Picaroon - um, yes, that [[Reductio ad absurdum|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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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> --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 15:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
====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. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Which specific case is this designed to address? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Should have been so obvious to go without saying, but a wise precaution.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 22:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
=== Precedence ===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 3,484 ⟶ 4,704:
:::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. --[[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Edison|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. - [[User:Jc37|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. [[User:Whsitchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whsitchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whsitchy|'''h'''y]] 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
===Technical investigation===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 3,496 ⟶ 4,719:
:'''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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|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. [[User:
::This sounds reasonable. Hopefully this would be as simple as adding some sort of magic words to templates such as {{tl|unreferenced}} or {{tl|disputed}}. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. [[User:YechielMan|Yechiel]][[User talk:YechielMan|<span style="color:green">Man</span>]] 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. [[User:Phil Sandifer|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". [[User talk:Thatcher131|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]]. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 09:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
===Execution of policy===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 3,522 ⟶ 4,748:
:::::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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
===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:'''
Line 3,529 ⟶ 4,755:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:::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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed, per discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop#On editorial discretion and NPOV|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."'' [[User:Carcharoth|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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). [[User:Carcharoth|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 [[Shawn Hornbeck|this one]] to pick an example. Used to be a redirect to [[Michael J. Devlin|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? [[User:Carcharoth|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Carcharoth|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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 <tt><meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" /></tt> 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. [[User:75.62.6.237|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. [[User:Carcharoth|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 05:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::That would satisfy me. Can this proviso be added to the relevant places? [[User:Carcharoth|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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 07:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
===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 [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|Assume good faith]] and [[Wikipedia:Civility|Civility]].
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 3,557 ⟶ 4,783:
:'''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. ---[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 05:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Proposed. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Policy isn't what's written down on some page. Policy is what works. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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''. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Nonsense abound. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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 {{tl|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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::That's not true. --[[User:MichaelLinnear|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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.) [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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 <s>listed it on</s> [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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 23:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
===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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk: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. [[User talk:H|<small><sup style="color:#000;">(<span style="color:#c20;">H</span>)</sup></small>]]<!-- Was HighInBC --> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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?--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<font color="#006449">desat</font>]] 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::Interesting remedy. However, drunkenness is one thing, peer pressure is another. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
===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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 20:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Proposed, as I think this sums it up. --[[User:NicholasTurnbull|Nicholas'''Turnbull''']] | [[User_talk:NicholasTurnbull|(talk)]] 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::Insisiting that there is a fair deletion debate rather than unilateral deletion is not wikilawyering. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 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. --[[User:NicholasTurnbull|Nicholas'''Turnbull''']] | [[User_talk: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). --[[User:NicholasTurnbull|Nicholas'''Turnbull''']] | [[User_talk: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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 08:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
===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''! --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 23:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Proposed ([[User:Messedrocker|messedrocker]] • [[User talk: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*. --[[User:Yummifruitbat|YFB]] [[User talk:Yummifruitbat|<font color="33CC66">¿</font>]] 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: This is too serious to relax about, we must save the project/kill everything with fire! Happy now? [[User:JoshuaZ|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. ;-) --[[User:Yummifruitbat|YFB]] [[User talk:Yummifruitbat|<font color="33CC66">¿</font>]] 04:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Great minds think alike: see [[Alex Kozinski#Cases]]. [[User:Newyorkbrad|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! ([[User:Messedrocker|messedrocker]] • [[User talk:Messedrocker|talk]]) 03:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::Great idea but woefully unenforceable. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 06:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::Support. Everyone is to chill out or be indefinitely blocked. No, wait... --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 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. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 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. :-) [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 13:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
===Template===
:''before using the last template please make a copy''
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 3,705 ⟶ 5,008:
==General discussion==
===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? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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". --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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". [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 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 [[wikipedia:biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] policy are also bold, and if you read the polic you will even find that''some 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Where is this commentary by Sjakkalle. Can you provide a link, please? [[User:Carcharoth|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? [[User:Carcharoth|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 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. [[User:Carcharoth|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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... <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
===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. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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? [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]] 19:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::::: I think that's about the size of it, when it comes to the [[Wikipedia:biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] policy. This seems to be the sense of the policy. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
===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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
: See [[Wikipedia:Oversight]]. To summarise the policy, it's to be used very parsimoniously. See also [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|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). --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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? [[User:Serpent's Choice|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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? [[User:Serpent's Choice|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
Line 3,713 ⟶ 5,060:
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===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'''. <br>
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. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 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, [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
: Yes, this is very close to what I was arguing for earlier. [[User:JoshuaZ|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." <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype;">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<span style="color:purple;">Walton</span>]][[WP:ASSIST|<sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!</sup>]]</span> 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… —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|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. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>[[User:Walton 77|alternate account]]</sup> 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''? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>[[User:Walton 77|alternate account]]</sup> 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
| |||