Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Recusal request

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Motion/request by non-party

Protect QZ from search engines

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Proposed temporary injunctions

Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Violetriga added to case

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moratorium on DRVs of BLPs

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Real names

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Disputes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Interpersonal communication

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

How to handle disputes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Biographies of living persons

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Biographies of living persons

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Deletion review

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Early closures

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early closures (2)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Early closures (3)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Inclusion and exclusion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Speedy deletion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wheel warring is disruptive

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics

11) Wikipedia is not an experiment in ethics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treatment of editors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Adminship is no big deal

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP is a policy about ethics

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sensitive matters

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Primum non nocere

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

This is already Wikipedia policy [13]. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Persons of minor interest

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Articles about living people notable only for one event

17.1) Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry. In many cases it will be difficult or even impossible to write a fair, neutral and encyclopedic article about a person's life if the person is notable for a single event, no matter how well that event may be documented. [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Internet memes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Minors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Privacy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Requests for comment

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP is not a show of force

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ownership of WP:BLP

22) WP:BLP is not owned by anyone, and the interpretation of the policy is subject to discussion. (See [15] for an example) and suggest that their interpretation is not subject to discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

BLP and ethics

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Ethics count

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wheel-warring

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Wheel warring

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

WP:BLP does not apply to dead people

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Oppose per [16]. — CharlotteWebb 22:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

No rush to undelete

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

No rush to delete

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of WP:BLP deletions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

This is already part of Wikipedia policy concerning deletions:

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

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

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

Discuss the issue, not the action

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Basic human dignity

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do no harm

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge [17] --Tony Sidaway 08:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Insensitivity

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Badgering

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Principle of implied consent

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

No original research

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Neutral point of view

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Courtesy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Wikilawyering is harmful to the encyclopedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Don't Disrupt Wikipedia To Make A Point

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

WP:POINT and DRV

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

WP:POINT and deletions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Precedential value

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Deletion review is a discussion, not a vote

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obduracy is harmful

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

On the subject of the RFC, I think Jeff is badly misreading the situation. Jeff himself was extremely reluctant to start the RFC, despite being asked to do so by me, Drini, Stifle, Johnleemk. Mackensen and David Gerard, and he did so only when asked to by arbitrators who rejected his earlier application for arbitration, and even then described it as "a charade", with "zero value," a "song and dance" [18]. The RFC vindicated the position of the administrators: JzG's refutation of Jeff's case against the admins won 30 endorsements, and a move to have yet another rerun of the QZ deletion, which was Jeff's main goal, was roundly rejected. No, Jeff has forgotten: the admins wanted that RFC and he didn't want it. Jeff's wishes were rejected by the community. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Enforcing BLP

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons for deletion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Reasons for deletion 2

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

As me evidence shows[19], I'm always happy to do this, and even discuss other options. However, I refuse to offer moot defences of actions that have been reversed, to someone who wasn't even interested in asking me before determining that I needed undoing. What's the point, when they've made up their mind?--Doc^g 08:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Encyclopedia more important than rules

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Self explanatory, and obviously policy. We are not a bureaucracy, and cluefullness is, and always has been key to our procedures. This is, and always has been, an absolutely necessary counter-balance to process wonking.--Doc^g 08:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Some actions require you to be bold and to ignore consensus, but that does not give people carte blanche to enforce their own views. Undoing an action and then discussing it is appropriate if the original action is founded on false policy or principles. violet/riga (t) 08:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom have already rejected that opinion as regards undeletions.--Doc^g 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that the rules help us make a great encyclopedia. Image - if we followed the rules in this case, we wouldn't be here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If we'd followed the 'rules' (at leas as you interpret them) we'd certainly not be here. But I hate to think where we would be.--Doc^g 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Pointless without greater context; even jeff agrees with this (I think), it's whether or not his actions show reasonable application of rules or not that's the dispute here. Of course if Jeff is actually advocating what he knows is harmful behavior for the sake of rules then I'm mistaken, but I doubt an editor as effective as jeff would insist on process he believes himself to be harmful. Milto LOL pia 09:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrative actions are subject to review.

48) Administrators should understand that no administrative action may be unilateral, and that any action by a single admin or plurality of admin may be overturned by consensus. All administrators should expect to have their actions reviewed by others, and review of an administrator's actions is not a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Factually inaccurate premise. Every action - administrative or editorial - is unilateral. It may or may not be informed by prior discussion, but we are not and explicitly never have been a democracy. Equally, all actions - administrative or editorial - are open to review and possible reversal, with the onus firmly on the person seeking to include content, to justify it per policy. However, review does not mean bowing to vocal minorities, or even vocal majorities, where that conflicts with fundamental principles. One of the most depressing aspects of this case is the flat refusal by some parties to even consider whether this subject can and should be better covered in some form other than as a faux-biography. And a faux-biography is what it is; we know next to nothing about this kid, and never will know much from independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone deleted the Tom Cruise article the onus would not be on the person restoring it. I know that the articles we are talking about are not really in the same league here but it is an example that your point is not entirely correct. violet/riga (t) 15:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This, of course, is dangerous. For instance, take a look at Qian Zhijun or the latest casualty, Allison Stokke. One person gets to cry BLP, and that's it - article's gone. And at no point does the deleting administrator need to prove that there was a BLP issue, even though numerous people - who JzG claims the onus is on - demonstrate easily that there is not. This is problematic if administrators think that their improper interpretation of policy is beyond the scope of community review - the onus is on the administrators to either properly justify their action when challenged or prepare to have that action overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. From the comments on the evidence page, there seems to be a large amount of hostility from some towards having their actions reviewed or potentially overturned. --Barberio 11:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken at face value this statement is reasonable, but in practice there is disagreement over many of its assertions. What constitutes a unilateral administrative action? How may an action be overturned? How is consensus to overturn determined? Should admins expect all of their actions to be subject to review or to actually have each one of their actions reviewed? Everyone has their own answers to these questions and that's why a statement such as this doesn't accomplish too much. ChazBeckett 11:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement does reflect a base level of 'review happens, deal with it'. The specifics of when review happens are situation specific rather than a general principle. --Barberio 12:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

History undeletions

33) In the case of articles at deletion review that are not deleted due to copyright, possible libel, or other legal issues, a history undeletion upon request is generally appropriate in order to give all users an opportunity to accurately judge the merits of an administrative action, especially regarding issues such as sourcing and tone and where a Google cache may have at one point existed earlier in the discussion.

33.1) In the case of articles at deletion review that are not deleted due to copyright, possible libel, other legal issues, or possible Biographies of living persons problems, a history undeletion upon request is generally appropriate in order to give all users an opportunity to accurately judge the merits of an administrative action, especially regarding issues such as sourcing and tone and where a Google cache may have at one point existed earlier in the discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Based on the continued struggles at DRV and the inane position that non-administrative users should be able to justify the existence of an article they can't see. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of exceptions in 33 is incomplete because it doesn't include all possible Biographies of living persons concerns. I have drafted 33.1 to remedy this. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse

34) Editors who contest the outcome of Wikipedia processes are encouraged to pursue the multitude of paths in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Repeatedly trying to restart a process that has failed is unproductive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Might be good advice to those repeatedly trying to appeal deletions. They're using the wrong process. --Tony Sidaway 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It didn't fail it was "murdered". Viridae^Talk 01:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for Speedy Deletion

35) Speedy deletion should be applied only in circumstances where consensus has already been established to support it, as outlined in the criteria for speedy deletion. Deletions likely to be controversial should be taken through an XfD process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is very much a "duh" moment, although there are very, very, very, very few exceptional cases (OTRS, for example) that this isn't true for. Then again, we could probably work in an OTRS exemption by consensus, but that's a different discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If something egregiously violates policy, leaving it hanging around for a week while we gaze at our collective navels is stupid. Admins are supposed to exercise Clue. Rule no. 1: ignore all rules. This finding seems to me to seek to prevent admins from following their conscience and judgment; if their conscience and judgment is genuinely far out of line with consensus they should simply not be admins. No evidence has been presented that the admins deleting these articles are, in fact, far out of line with consensus. What we do have is a wilful refusal to treat the issue of inclusion separately from ideological commitment to "biograpies" of individuals not socially or culturally significant outside of a single event (if that). Placing barriers in the way of removing "biographies" of people mocked for their appearance, subjected to obsessive attention on Teh Internets without their consent, premature births and the like, misses the point by quite a wide margin. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're quite obviously out of line with consensus. Policy, being reached via consensus, does not support the recent activity, and the heavy-handed attempts to force their collective will is not condusive to further consensus building. Consensus is not the goal of those people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"No evidence has been presented that the admins deleting these articles are, in fact, far out of line with consensus."

Please look at the evidence page where it details two articles that are to be kept/merged by AfD, one that has undergone a merger, and one that has been renamed. These four articles are showing that the deletion was against consensus. Further, while BLP might allow speedy deletions if BLP does not apply then the deletion was not appropriate. violet/riga (t) 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, these articles are not fit subjects for a biographical treatment. I have already made several suggestions for ways of handling this type of thing that are more nuanced. Badlydrawnjeff seems to think the solution is to stop trying to rid the encyclopaedia of problematic biographies - i.e. to assert once again that the problem is everyone else - but I am hopeful of some rather more constructive input as well. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not - would violate policy. Unprecedented for arbcom to find something should only be done when the pre-set rules allow. Total process wonkers charter. This would be a change to policy - as it would effectively restrict the use of IAR - which is fundamental policy. Even if arbcom were stupid enough to agree - they lack the competency to change fundamental policy.--Doc^g 09:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is at the heart of a number of huge disputes in our history. (Userbox war for one) We need to establish consensus first if the issue is going to be controversial. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a proposed principle, not a finding of fact. And I have to say, I think the community decides the ground rules for deletion. The community tolerates administrators who exercise discretion over deletions; indeed it would be impracticable to try to police the thousands of speedy deletions performed every day. I should know. I've scanned a day's worth of speedies myself, and it was not something I'd wish to do again. --Tony Sidaway 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The community expects that the speedy deletions of administrators will reflect consensus (even if it isn't formalized). I think the most important part is that deletions likely to be disputed should not be carried out speedily. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

The use of WP:BLP

1) The specifics of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons was not violated by Qian Zhijun at the time of its first deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Do you guys really want ArbCom to start evaluating individual articles for content? 'Cause once we start doing it, at least half of you aren't going to like the results. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per written language of WP:BLP and per the discussion at the RfC and here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

False. BLP is a principle and not just a set of rules about sources.--Doc^g 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A principle that the article undoubtedly met. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note - I've rewritten this for specifics. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true. BLP issues were nonexistent with this article, it met the proper standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is not true. BLP talks specifically about the ethical mandates of being a top ten website - these apply to all articles that can affect the lives of living people. Phil Sandifer 19:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A minor who was victimized by an anonymous pack of internet users. --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Has it just been proposed that all articles fall under BLP, and, presumably, are therefore susceptible to arbitrary deletion. Is that what was actually meant? DGG 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

2) The deletion and re-deletions of Qian Zhijun following the first deletion review were improper, as the article did not violate any core policies or WP:BLP, and the consensus was to overturn the initial deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per policy, per the last legitimate deletion review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A number of experienced administrators disagreed. Is it arbcom's role to overrule them on content judgement? (That's genuinely a question).--Doc^g 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether "experienced administrators" disagreed is as relevant as the fact that a number of experienced editors agreed. No one's more special than anyone else, and this principle is designed not to comment on the status of the article long-term, but to simply re-affirm the last proper consensus result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Why? Needs fleshing out. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs considerable work in view of Jimbo's recent clarification of the deletion policy, with respect to evaluation of consensus in deletion reviews. --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Status of Qian Zhijun at the time of deletion

3) Qian Zhijun, at the time of its deletion, met all relevant inclusion policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per policy, per the last legitimate deletion review, per the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a ruling on those policies, but merely an affirmation that, as noted, the article met them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would prefer not to see the arbcom rule on our inclusion policies at this stage. Phil Sandifer 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has a chronic and well founded reluctance to make content rulings. --Tony Sidaway 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was just crap regardless of whether a living person was involved and regardless of whether it met the letter of the guidelines. We are not trying to write crap-o-pedia. If our guidelines instruct us to retain crap, the guidelines need fixing. 75.62.6.237 07:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Early closures were improper

4) The early closures of the subsequent deletion reviews and AfDs of Qian Zhijun were improper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Let's put it out there, since it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) Revision as of 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree WRT the DRV - snowing of DRVs is a big problem. If the nominator withdraws the nomination, if it's a bad faith/trolling nomination, or if it's a rehash of a previous DRV with nothing new, by all means, snow it. But if there is a good faith, EVEN IF ILL-CONCEIVED nomination, it needs to be allowed to take place. Snowing the thing can only cause hurt feelings. --BigDT 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely wrong unless there's a finding that the initial AfD closure was improper. Otherwise still dubious. 75.62.6.237 07:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff and BLP

5) While badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) has been a vocal critic of BLP as written, he has not shown evidence of editing outside of the BLP policy, or pushing for the undeletion of blatant violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence, because it's true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note the complete lack of any substantiation of BLP concerns. A perfect example of the problem at hand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is begging the question. First of all, your content-editing is not at issue. Second of all, what constitutes a "blatant violation" is hotly disputed. Naturally you've acted completely correctly in your own mind--but that's why we're here, isn't it? Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm allowed to say why I think we're here. This is simply a statement regarding the evidence that a) exists, and b) will be forthcoming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You can say this if you wish, though I think the latter half is untrue. The Barbara Bauer DRV springs to mind - a blatant coatrack article that attacked a living person, if ever there was one. Moreschi ^Talk 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on that, as did many others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is probably half the problem. Your definition of "blatant violation" is way outside the project norm. Moreschi ^Talk 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And that's untrue. My definition is derived solely from relevant policy and guidelines. --20:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "opponent" to "critic" as I think it more accurately describes the relationship here. — CharlotteWebb 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I believe both words are true - I oppose the need for it, and I'm a critic of its heavy-handed implementation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See this evidence for an example of Jeff's unnecessary restoration of the name of a four-month-old baby to an article, and moving the article back to the name of the minor despite citation of BLP concerns by the editor (myself) who moved it and removed the name. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, I will probably recount the Armando affair in the evidence section this weekend if nobody beats me to it. 75.62.6.237 07:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff

6) Badlydrawnjeff has edited Wikipedia since February 2005 and has more than 18,500 edits across a variety of namespaces. He is not an administrator. In addition to his mainspace contributions, Badlydrawnjeff is well-known as a forceful advocate of the "inclusionist" philosophy and advocates that much disputed content remain in the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nothing false here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How is "he is not an administrator" relevant? Also, the last phrase, "advocates that much disputed content remain in the encyclopedia" needs some work (or to be removed completely). It doesn't make any sense - it makes it sound like he advocates keeping the content merely based on the fact that it is disputed. --BigDT 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"He is not an administrator" is important in identifying the parties given allegations of wheel-warring, etc. It's also a formulation I've used before in identifying the players. As for your second point, "much disputed" means "a great deal of disputed" - anyone can change the wording if anyone else was confused. Newyorkbrad 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, he's had two RFA's (BDJ1 BDJ2) fail due to his overzealous inclusionism. 75.62.6.237 07:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's untrue. The first failed due to poor calculations and untrue statements, the second due to self-limitations and the fact that I don't edit with adminship in mind. Let's not overdo the inclusionism angle - it didn't hurt other people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The unsuccessful RfA's are not relevant at the level of background information for an arbitration decision. (Although a world in which Badlydrawnjeff was an administrator for the past few months would definitely have been an interesting place.) Newyorkbrad 14:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff's participation in deletion discussions

7) Badlydrawnjeff's participation in deletion discussions is in good faith and consistent with his personal Wikipedia philosophy. At times this has been productive in causing the retention and/or improvement of worthwhile content. However, at times badlydrawnjeff has expressed his views in harshly strident terms, or has pressed his position procedurally to the point that some users have considered his actions to be disruptive. His actions in connection with the former "Brian Peppers" article, including but not limited to his commencement and pursuit of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning, are an example.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Mostly fair. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. We need to see both the good and the bad. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Death by wikilawyering is the long term strategy of this editor. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff is pretty civil most of the time and occasional lapses don't bother me. His endless pursuit of bogus goals is a more serious issue. 75.62.6.237 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's growth and status

8) The English Wikipedia has reportedly become one of the ten most visited websites in the entire world. Because of our high siterank and the extensive interlinking of Wikipedia pages to one another, a Wikipedia article on an individual or topic will often be among the highest-ranking, if not the very first, page to turn up when a Google or comparable search is conducted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This was already true a year or so ago when Wikipedia was only a top 20 site, at least for whatever I was searching for, the the first search result was on Wikipedia and thus I began editing. — CharlotteWebb 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover our content is free and will be around for a very long time even if this site collapses. It's popular and it's used by mirror sites to generate revenue, and that practice would only increase if we disappeared. We have to stop leaking crap. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony I agree with you entirely on this. If the pagerank of Wikipedia jumped from a single digit number to an imaginary number, we would not suddenly relax on BLP. The fact that we're even acknowledging that BLP issues (the principle, not the policy) will exist and will present no less of a concern for every two-bit mirror/fork site of Wikipedia — even long after Wikipedia is gone — makes Wikipedia's status as a top ten site, in my opinion, irrelevant to our level of responsibility. — CharlotteWebb 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that our mirrors/forks don't show up nearly as highly on Google now as they did a few months ago. The only thing I know that changed is we now serve all extlinks with rel=nofollow (die linkspammers die!!!!) but I'm having trouble seeing how that could be the cause. 75.62.6.237 07:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Effects of Wikipedia's growth and status

9) As Wikipedia has grown, there has been extensive attention both within and outside the project to the effect that coverage on Wikipedia has on living persons. A strong, although not unanimous, consensus has emerged that increased awareness and sensitivity by Wikipedians toward these concerns has become a matter of imperative public importance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it. 75.62.6.237 07:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway has a long history of incivility

10) Tony Sidaway has had a long history of incivility. The most recent situation is emblematic of the way Tony communicates with other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence and long acceptance of such a thing that should have been nipped in the bud years ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

True, though I'll add that the evidence presented so far in this case is extremely weak. . --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow has made a number of improper deletions

11) Doc glasgow has made a significant number of improper deletions based on his interpretation of WP:BLP. These deletions do not fit the criteria for speedy deletion, nor the threshold required at WP:BLP for such activity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

One is a number. What's the point? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Edit made my snotty comment less amusing. Nevermind. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Opposed per my evidence [20]- although I'm sure I've got some calls wrong, DRV consensus tends to support me more than you. --Doc^g 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

And there's plenty of evidence to suggest that DRV "consensus" (tough to call it that since it's operated as a vote count for so long) has been coming to the proper conclusions anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And, in any event, certain professions that the presumption in cases of BLPs that comport with all but the do no harm standard of BLP is in favor of deletion first and discussion thereafter (at least in those situations where other editors have occasion to become aware of the deletion at all) notwithstanding, it has long been understood that the community counsels only the strictest application of our criteria for speedy deletion and favors debate in all such cases as deletion is likely to be controversial (amongst good-faith contributors), such that anyone who has made more than one speedy deletion consistent with BLP (except in the no sourced and NPOV version to which to revert) that has subsequently been taken to DRV (and where DRV has borne out that at least a non-trivial number of editors think speedying to have been wrong) should resist the urge to delete things prior to ascertaining the specific consensus of the community. Joe 08:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But AfD of the articles I undeleted, along with edits of the other articles not on AfD, clearly go against you. violet/riga (t) 08:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

JzG has made a number of improper deletions

12) JzG has made a significant number of improper deletions based on his interpretation of WP:BLP and his interpretation of WP:CSD. These deletions do not fit the criteria for speedy deletion, nor the threshold required at WP:BLP for such activity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Find me an admin who has never ever made a bad call. the question here is: do I habitually make bad calls? I have deleted well over 5,000 separate pages, of which virtually all are either still deleted, salted, redirects or were deleted to make way for moves. Of those deleted citing WP:BLP, at least some will be the result of OTRS complaints, such as Melissa Guille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the deleted version was defamatory. A complete rewrite is one of the bluelinks in my deletion log. I'm happy to be set right if the arbitrators think I'm excessively rouge. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia accomodates even troublesome editors who on balance prove beneficial to the project. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from directly discussing Guy here as I don't think these recent deletions were improper, but that notwithstanding, I think any hard working administrator will make a small number of improper deletions, but they don't dent the huge, overwhelming benefit the administrator is to the project, and when number crunched, we would be looking at an error rate of fractions of 1%. You can't realistically expect to be permitted to complain about any administrator that is accurate more than 99% of the time. Nick 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what point Ghirla is trying to make. 75.62.6.237 07:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

H has been incivil

13) User:H has been incivil toward badlydrawnjeff throughout this situation, up to and including on-wiki and off-wiki statements.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per logs sent to ArbCom and evidence page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Simply not true. ^(H) 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga

Violetriga has wheel warred

14) User:Violetriga has, by reversing administrative actions on articles she had a personal stake in without comment, wheel warred inappropriately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

By the definition at Wikipedia:Wheel war no I did not - I only undid actions and did not repeat them. My undeletes were to undo the removal of valid content. violet/riga (t) 08:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As per evidence section. Phil Sandifer 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of an individual policy interpretation, administrators do well to follow arbitration cases concerning administrative behavior--there may be a substantial difference between what they think is the letter of the policy, and actions for which the Arbitration Committee is compelled to sanction. Mackensen (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do well to" but don't have to. Sorry but if an arbcom ruling in one case does not alter Wikipedia policy then it is restricted to that individual case. While previous rulings can be used as a precedent it is not appropriate to enforce them or to ask that all administrators are familiar with them. violet/riga (t) 11:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not even when the administrator in question was a party to the case and her behavior was under scrutiny? Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's laughable. The outcome regarding a reprimand for me was:

"Until someone can suggest to me a realistic alternative for what Violetriga ... should have done I will strongly oppose this proposal."

This was then backed up by five other arbitrators. The decision therefore was that I did no wrong clearly sending the message that I did not wheel war and that I was correct in my actions. violet/riga (t) 11:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What? Where did 5 Arbitrators endorse your actions? Thatcher131 11:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to bring up past arbitrations then please look at the decisions. [21] violet/riga (t) 11:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You re-deleted the pedophilia userboxes after they were recreated—It looks like you got a break there because you were "right". I suspect the same view will not hold here, but time will tell. Thatcher131 11:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Got a break"? Excuse me I was totally justified in my actions and backed up by the majority of arbitrators! That's not getting a break! violet/riga (t) 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tangentially relevant link: [22]. – Steel 11:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga has wheel warred

14.1) Violetriga (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has wheel-warred by restoring 9 articles deleted by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) without prior consultation or discussion. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Two of these articles were either created or significantly edited by Violetriga [32] [33].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Undeleting 9 articles once without discussion or consultation is just as bad as undeleting 3 articles 3 times each, because it shows a lack of respect, or even contempt, for another admin's actions. Violetriga shows no recognition that this is even a potential problem, relying on the written policy that seems to give admins one free pass rather than prior arbitration rulings which are quite clear that even one reversal is unacceptable wheel-warring. Thatcher131 11:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your first comment is wrong - I restored the status quo once on each article when they have been deleted without sufficient reason. We could then proceed through the correct channels. I attempted to engage in discussion and contacted the deleting admin immediately but he refused to comment about the articles. You are still misusing the term "wheel war". violet/riga (t) 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Time will tell. Thatcher131 11:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga has demonstrated a high degree of insensitivity with respect to the Biographies of living persons policy

14.2) Violetriga on 30 May 2007 and without consulting the deleting admin who was online at the time, restored seven articles about minors deleted on grounds of the Biographies of living persons policy. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#Violetriga_has_demonstrated_a_high_degree_of_insensivity_to_concerns_about_biographies_of_living_persons_policy. When asked to undo the restoration at once, she said she had done nothing wrong.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I did try and talk about it. I engaged (or tried to, the other party refused) in discussions about the articles after going through the usual and common process of WP:BRD. I showed sensitivity by only restoring the articles that did were deleted with the incorrect justification of BLP - it did not apply to those articles. It did apply to other articles deleted at the same time but I did not restore those. violet/riga (t) 11:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See also evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#Preterm births ([34]). Guy (Help!) 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Deletion is reversible, and if an administrator mistakenly deletes a page it can be restored after consultation. Restoring a page without consultation is regarded as improper. Restoring without consultation a page deleted by an administrator who cites BLP displays gross insensitivity to the concerns addressed by that policy. --Tony Sidaway 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved and renumbered to keep similar ideas together. Thatcher131 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned that Violetriga didn't contact the deleting admin, deleting an article for BLP is fine, even if it shouldn't be deleted, yes, it's an inconvenience, but hey, we've got all the time in the world to write our encyclopedia, we don't have a publisher to worry about. Undeletions are much more tricky, the deleting admin may have received a complaint through OTRS or e-mail, there may be new information he's picked up in a newspaper, in broadcast media or online, and without taking the time to find out if there is a specific reason for deletion, unilateral undeletion without consultation with the deleting admin is grossly irresponsible.

We really do not need administrators getting annoyed at deletions and undeleting work without consultation, there's nothing that can't really wait a few hours or days to be undeleted or re-written. It's not ArbCom's place to make policy, but I would like a recommendation that where BLP issues are cited for deletion, any undeletion must not take place until the deleting admin is contacted. I and I think the community by and large do trust our admins to make the correct decisions, it's just that when it comes to sensitive issues such as BLP where new information may not be available to all admins, extreme caution and continuous dialogue with those responsible for the deletion of articles is essential and non negotiable. Nick 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversing an other admin's action is not wheel warring - at least by any definition of the term "warring" that I understand. If I think you did the wrong thing, should I not undo it before it causes further harm? Repeating an administrative action without discussing first more than once certainly is "warring". Doing the same thing three times is not anything like doing nine different things once. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga restored BLP deletions

14.3) Without conferring beforehand, Violetriga restored several articles which were deleted by an administrator who cited Biographies of living persons concerns. See evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed: this uses the same of words that I used for Night Gyr. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the similar case involving Night Gyr. In particular, it's not so important to treat this as sanctionable behavior as it is to decide whether the procedure followed is problematic in the case of BLP deletions. If, as I believe is obvious, it is found to make the BLP difficult to enforce sensibly, then this is a problem that needs to be remedied by providing guidance to administrators who may in future find themselves in the same situation as Night Gyr and Violetriga. --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons is policy

15) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP) is a policy that exists, in part, to protect Wikipedia from liability by requiring that biographies have reliable sources, especially about controversial claims. BLP also requires editors to be sensitive about biographies of living people. "Do no harm" has been incorporated into BLP since at least early 2006 [35].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed Thatcher131 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do no harm" in that link refers to borderline cases (which I suppose are the cases under dispute). I don't favor a wildly broad "do no harm" policy. Our entire mission of giving away an accurate encyclopedia does harm to people with self-serving reasons to spread misinformation, e.g. our physics article about conservation of energy probably harms scammers selling perpetual motion devices. I think the SSB2 arb case ended up overprotective towards SSB (the main subject of the disputed articles, a cult leader/scam artist with supposedly 50 million followers and therefore someone of considerable public importance, and in a position of possibly-destructive influence over other people's lives). It's within our mission to document good and bad stuff done by people like that. Major politicians are another example of people with possibly-destructive authority over large numbers of others. I'd more strictly adhere to not doing harm when the article subject doesn't have such influence, even when they have meet our threshold of notability (like QZ, various entertainment figures, etc.) [TBD: conflict between BLP and NPOV and notability].

People notable for a single event

15.1) WP:BLP has recently been modifed to give guidance on articles about people notable for a single event.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed Thatcher131 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The example of Rachel Marsden

15.2) Rachel Marsden is a public figure who is the subject of a wikipedia biography, Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At one time, the article dealt almost exclusively with an incident that occured during her college years, in part because the only sources found that covered her popst-college career were partisan and extremely biased. Although the college incident was well documented with reliable sources, the arbitration committee ruled in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden that Rachel Marsden, in its negative form, is inconsistent with Wikipedia:biographies of living persons, directed that the article be stubbed, and cautioned two administrators who were largely responsible for the negative version. Thatcher131 00:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed Thatcher131 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff Block Inappropriate

16) The block of badlydrawnjeff was inappropriate and displayed poor judgment and poor effort in finding a consensus for controversial actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yeah, but we're not going to do anything about it. Now, or in another arbitration. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed. But, so does everyone. We don't need arbitration to decide this. We have consensus, even unanimity. No need to further pillory people who have been castigated already.--Doc^g 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're not going to introduce sanctions here about it, I don't think it's all that important here. I'm still weighing a separate case for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This was really, really stupid, guys. Phil Sandifer 00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in theory, but prefer the wording of 17, which takes this from the point of view of impact on this case rather than piling further on the admin(s) who made a mistake. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not just poor judgement, but poor practice, in that it didn't even seek to notify him of anything, but represented a severe usurpation of the concept of discussion and consensus. Mister.Manticore 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, a separate case for the block, a week later, is a really, really terrible idea. What could it possibly accomplish? (Feel free to respond on my talk.) Newyorkbrad 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As I said at the time of the response to my query of this block, "This is the biggest load of codswallop I ever heard." [36] --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff has enough sense to know that the separate case he is weighing has no chance of acceptance. If he files it anyway, that will be another example of the bad judgement described further up as WP:POINT. That he's even weighing it already shows bad judgement, though not disruptive in itself. 75.62.6.237 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified block of badlydrawnjeff disapproved, disregarded

16.1) Badlydrawnjeff was briefly blocked on May 23, 2007, but the block was quickly overturned and was disapproved by strong consensus as being unwarranted and inconsistent with the blocking policy. The Arbitration Committee agrees with this consensus and therefore this block has not been considered against badlydrawnjeff in any way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yeah. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No problems with this.--Doc^g 09:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Disapproves of the block but in a way that ties it into the case rather than piling on against the administrator(s) who made a mistake. Newyorkbrad 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's complete consensus on this point. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

QZ

17) On 4 May, an article about a Chinese person who became famous for the web meme his appearance inspired and he himself cultivated, was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The discussion was closed as delete by admin Daniel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on May 11, then reopened by Daniel and closed by Drini (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) again as delete on May 12.

• First DRV filed by DESiegel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on May 13, closed by Xoloz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on May 18 with the decision to relist at AfD due to 'out of process closures'[37]
• The second AfD was speedily closed as delete by Thebainer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (with an extended rationale).
• Second DRV filed by badlydrawnjeff, speedily closed by JzG.
• Third DRV filed by DESiegel, speedily closed the same day by Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a relisting, after many editors edit-warred over the DRV.
• Third AfD speedily closed as delete, by Nick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) based on the previous deletions.
• Fourth DRV filed by badlydrawnjeff, speedily closed by JzG.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Probably should add that Drini closed the afd as 'delete' and The bainer didn't just shut the afd down, he offered an extensive rationale in the close. These were not just shut downs of the debate but careful assessments of consensus. Whilst Xoloz's DRV close was 'procedural'.--Doc^g 01:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it. Minor tweaks are fine as long as they don't materially alter what other people have commented on. Thatcher131 01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on Jeff's evidence here. Thatcher131 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Suggest possibly adding "eventually" before cultivated. My understanding is that the publicity was completely involuntary for awhile before the individual decided that he was stuck with the fame for awhile whether he liked it or not, so he might as well capitalize on it (an experience similar to that of an editor here who went through much the same thing). Newyorkbrad 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What then followed this reasonable close was a horrible and rather depressing abuse of the deletion review process. I'm glad that we've probably seen the end of this kind of "procedural" folly. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion rationale

17.1) Admins endorsing the deletion of the QZ article relied on the "Do no harm" section of WP:BLP as well as a lack of encyclopedic notability. The internet phenomenon is notable, the kid not, and there's no need to write an article to keep him embarassing him. How is this biography notable? Will Qian be remembered in three years from now, never mind in three months. Is this the greatest that this kid can ever aspire to achieve in his life--being the butt of a joke? Weak appeals to Wikipedia is not censored do not trump our overriding obligation to living people, or the need for Wikipedia to try and be an encyclopedia of some repute. This is taking "sum of human knowledge" to absurdity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thatcher has put his finger on it: this is not an encyclopaedic subject. Guy (Help!) 07:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, he's simply identified some of the arguments made by people. Arguments, by the way, that had no basis in policy and do not reflect community consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence is against you here, I think. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. There's no evidence to suggest otherwise, in fact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is a difference between "notable" (as understood by denizens of AfD and DRV) and encyclopedic. Thatcher131 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Newyorkbrad 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do no harm. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Those quotes are at least partly misleading. By the third AFD, the Zhijun page had been turned into an article about the meme, so it was not a biography anymore. Even the real name had been taken out. "Do no harm", easily misused, is much more unencyclopedic than the article ever was. Prolog 09:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional recent examples

17.2) The "Do no harm" rationale has been applied to other recent deletions of biographies of living persons who were notable for a single event in their lives, even when reliable sources documented that event. For example, Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker, Crystal Gail Mangum, and Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, also Amillia_Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Rumaisa Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Anna Mae He (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kian and Remee Hodgson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Chukwu octuplets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), doubtless many more. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A statement on the legitimacy of the rationale in these contexts may be helpful. For instance, the twins and Hornbeck have both had various forms of self-promotional activity, and there's no possible way we can do more harm to Mangum than she has done to herself already. It's really a great example of why the concept is flawed in the way it's being executed by administrators here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. See my extensive comments on the Hornbeck/Ownby DRV, on which I was the deleting administrator. Newyorkbrad 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do no harm. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Do no harm" concept is often flawed in use

17.3) In many of the examples above, while the concept of "do no harm" was cited, there's significant question as to our ability to do harm in the creation of an article that meets Wikipedia's standards. In cases involving self-promoting individuals, or clearly notorious individuals, a neutral, factual, well-sourced article cannot do any more "harm" than what may already exist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per above issues. People overwhelmingly seem to be missing the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, we're not missing the point. People are disagreeing with your point. When all the available facts are negative, titillating or sensationalistic, no biography can possibly be neutral. This is OK in some cases - Jeffrey Dahmer, perhaps - but entirely unfair when we're talking about a person who's been unwillingly tossed to the media wolves - Anna Mae He, for example. Furthermore, individuals can be involved in encyclopedic events without becoming candidates for encyclopedic biographies. They should be described in the context of the event only. FCYTravis 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the flaw lies in the absence of any objective way to measure the potential harm, or even the actual harm done by any article. I do not believe anyone here wants to harm anybody (though I am willing to be proven wrong on this), but the fact of the matter is the community will generally not agree within itself, much less agree with the subject, as to what might constitute harm, especially after shots have been fired. But rather than writing it off as a lost cause, we should try to be more responsible as we can about it (in our roles both as writers and as reviewers of what others have written). In that respect, the concept is obviously flawed in theory, but could work better in practice. Try the pruning shears and fungicide before chopping entire trees down. Address issues by doing what you sincerely believe is right (call it "ethics" if you will), rather than weighing them against a policy that which even you yourself aren't quite sure about (because one size will never fit all, regardless of its complexity). More readily explain what you're doing, why you're doing it, and why no less intrusive action would have sufficed. Actively seek sanity checks and third opinions before the issue reaches "deletion review". This, I think, could both reduce the temptation of others to assume bad faith (and lessen the rate at which mutual respect becomes hopelessly lost). — CharlotteWebb 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the arbitrators will be able to work out what's what. I put my trust in their judgement, because even if I didn't it wouldn't make a hap'orth of difference. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Qian Zhijun was proper

18) The deletion of the article Qian Zhijun was proper according to the policies. Even if it was not done within the bounds of current policies in letter, it would be a valid exercise of WP:IAR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unacceptable. The first half of the commentary is false, the second half is sad if we need to invoke IAR to do something that offers no net benefit to the project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You say. A lot of people disagree with you. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then those people need to either begin reading the policies closer, or work to change them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Four admins closed AfDs as delete.--Doc^g 09:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

At least two of them improperly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the committtee will specifically endorse this. They may slap some people for edit warring over the closure, and they may alter the deletion landscape by the principles they endorse (or oppose) and the remedies they endorse (or oppose) but they are unlikely to come out specifically endorse any particular content decision. Thatcher131 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

QZ

19) QZ also known as "Little Fatty" is not a public person. Such notoriety as he has stems solely from mockery of an image taken without his consent or foreknowledge,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction: he was not a public person in the beginning, but is one now. I do reject the idea of "private persons" regardless, but if we're going to continue that farce, let's be accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Post-facto damage limitation does not change the fundamentals. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you see, the fundamentals are being misrepresented here. Stating "is not a public person" is false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Redacted to remove the name. I think this is too close to a content finding. --Tony Sidaway 07:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

QZ

19.1) QZ, also known as "Little Fatty," reached a level of fame not a public person, but has since become one due to his personal involvement in his notoriety. Such notoriety as he has stems solely from mockery of an image taken without his consent or foreknowledge, but now accepts and promotes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. More accurate than above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-facto damage limitation does not make you a willing participant. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:NOT

20) As a direct result of the controversy regarding the QZ article, and some related incidents, the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was changed by Jimbo Wales to reinforce the idea that transient notoriety does not equate to encyclopaedic notability [38].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd want some evidence of that. And, secondarily, his change really didn't negate the ability to have articles on these things. It's misguided and rather toothless in the grander scheme of things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of motivation? It's in the archives of OTRS-en-l. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, private evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seems a bit unnecessary for the ArbCom to conclude simply that one Wikipedian, albeit one whose views many (probably properly) respect, proposed a change to a policy page. The Cqommittee should surely, where relevant, recapitulate extant policy with respect to transient notoriety in order to apply such policy to the instant situation, but I can't imagine why we'd want the Committee to take note of the edit to WP:NOT, except perhaps to observe that its being a source of some controversy amongst the community suggests that there is at present no plain consensus for a more restrictive understanding of encyclopedic notability. Joe 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Committee has all the evidence on this, for or against, that it could wish for. --Tony Sidaway 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

21) As a direct result of the controversy regarding the Qian Zhijun article, and some related incidents, the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons was modified to include a section which currently reads:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry.

Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If the reliable sources only cover the person in the context of something else, then a separate biography is probably unwarranted. Court cases, crimes, and natural disasters, for examples, should be presented as unified articles that involve all sides, based on reliable secondary sources, and not primary-source material interpreted only by Wikipedians. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, and create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead. In such cases, a redirect is often the best option.

This enjoys considerable support, as evidence on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, and is also in line with the change made by Jimbo to WP:NOT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we add the part about it being added to win in ongoing deletion disputes? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sure, Jimbo added it in "to win in ongoing disputes". --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review has not reflected community ideals regarding consensus

22.1) Deletion reviews have traditionally been closed as straight vote counts rather than per strength of argument and consensus. This has resulted in a number of improper results, and a weakening of the deletion appeal process for Wikipedians.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per DRV is broken evidence, an alternative to above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hell, we agree. Voting is evil.--Doc^g 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jimmy Wales recently fixed the broken process out of concern for the abuse of the process to attempt to break the BLP. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester wheel warred

23) Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) wheel warred by deleting Charlotte Wyatt and Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman after they were deleted by Doc glasgow and undeleted by violet/riga.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Swatjester is aware of the disputes and chose to re-delete rather than partake in discussions. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought you said wheel warring was 'multiple' actions?--Doc^g 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I trust you've read the "slow-motion wheel war" definition? Further, if I am accused of wheel warring based on my actions then the same must apply here. violet/riga (t) 13:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh.....what? These were BLP deletions. They can be deleted at any time. Not to mention, Wheel Warring is as Doc mentioned, multiple actions. A single deletions on two articles does not a wheel war make. I should further add that my naming here as a party is pointless and irresponsible, and that I'll not be checking this arbitration with any regularity at all. If you need me for something, my user talk is that way -->⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is me stating that definition of wheel warring with others saying that I wheel warred by doing a single restoration of each article. As per the "slow-motion wheel war" example on the Wikipedia:Wheel war page you made the third action (re-deleted) the two articles. This could be seen as wheel warring (by the people using the single-action definition) just as much as my actions, if not more. I have included you here for that fact. violet/riga (t) 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nick wheel warred

24) Nick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) wheel warred by deleting Montana Barbaro after it was deleted by Doc glasgow and undeleted by violet/riga. He closed the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Barbaro) after less than 11 hours with only four votes (one of which was Doc glasgow).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Nick is aware of the disputes and chose to abuse WP:SNOW. His response to me was not civil and was unbecoming of an administrator: "What a terrible shame..." [39]. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm slightly perplexed by this, I suspected I would probably be shouted at for deleting that article, but I personally see no reason for the article to exist. If, as is sort of implied, I was doing this to get back at Violetriga, I could have easily deleted the articles shortly after the event, indeed, I did consider Speedy Deletion of this article at the time, it was quite clear, from my own thoughts on the article and the comments left at the deletion discussion that deletion was inevitable and the article was inappropriate. It seems I'm not permitted to use my own discretion to close such a discussion now.

I'm also concerned by the implication that this article should not have been deleted because it forms part of an Arbitration Case, that's, to my mind, stupid, this Arbitration will take many days or weeks. If the article was part of the Arbitration Case, Violetriga should have suspended the AfD until after the conclusion of this case. I'm also disappointed at the double standards on display here, Violetriga was quite happy to undelete other deletions without contacting the administrator, but implies I'm not supposed to close an AfD and delete the article until she has had time to comment. Interesting if nothing else. Nick 12:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are coming up with a lot of assumptions there and reading things into it that are not correct. I am saying that it is inappropriate to SNOW an AfD after such a short time and with so few votes when you are clearly aware of the dispute surrounding the article. Had you waited say 24 hours to close the AfD or if there had been 10+ delete votes then it would have been fine. You wanted rid of the article and thought that SNOW would be an acceptable reason to get your way.

At no point did I say that you were trying to get back at me. Who are you? Why would I have reason to think that when I've not come across you before (to the best of my knowledge)? violet/riga (t) 12:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. If you don't like a WP:SNOW close, then try dispute resolution. There is no evidence of a prior attempt to resolve this particular dispute.--Doc^g 22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know, stop doing disruptive SNOW closes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Looks to me like Nick took due note of the content of the AfD, and Doc's original deletion reason (BLP). Whether that's appropriate is for the arbitrators to determine, but it wasn't wheel warring. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga abused her admin tools

25) Violetriga has admitted to having originally created some one of the articles she restored and has expressed her opinion in terms of Ownership. "Indeed - you didn't think of the people whose work you were deleting. And as I said I created two one of them" [40]. She abused her ability to restore pages, by restoring a page she herself had created, and by doing so without consulting the deleting administrator, who had cited Biographies of living persons as a reason for deletion in the deletion log.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How is that OWN? It is a statement that the people that worked on the article obviously thought that it was a worthwhile inclusion to Wikipedia, and that deleting an article without any form of warning or notification is going to upset those contributors. violet/riga (t) 13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Having checked I only created one of the articles, but I did significantly edit another. And if I hadn't edited them and had I not kept a log of some of the articles I've created then their deletion would have been missed and I would not have known for quite some time. Then the "but it's been deleted for x months without anyone mentioning it" argument would occur. violet/riga (t) 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the title pertains to the abuse of admin tools while your text discusses the topic of OWN - these aren't entirely related. violet/riga (t) 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Just discovered this. --Tony Sidaway 13:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to violetriga, I've added more text to clarify the specifics. --Tony Sidaway 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr

26) Without conferring beforehand, Night Gyr has restored several articles, or histories of articles, which were deleted by administrators who cited Biographies of living persons concerns. See evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Should we start putting findings up about deletions where the article met BLP and was deleted improperly anyway? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The accusation is inaccurate, claiming that I did not discuss beforehand (when in fact I did). Also, although the administrators cited WP:BLP, they did so only in the vaguest of terms and their decision was not backed by Deletion Policy or the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Deletion policy says that articles deleted out of process may be undeleted immediately. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed: this first came to light during the Crystal Gail Mangum affair when he restored the history and refused to reverse this. Since then he has grown bolder. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is sensitivity. Real people are involved here. This is why it's wrong to just barge in and restore an article just because you think the other admin is wrong. You have to discuss things with him first, and if you disagree don't just restore. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't just scream "sensitivity" and expect people to go along with it. This is why these BLP speedies of non-attack sourced material is absurd and dangerous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If Night Gyr informed the deleting admins of his intention to restore, and sought agreement on this, I ask him to submit evidence to that effect. I have looked and find no evidence in two of the three cases. I'll update the evidence section to show what I did find. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of undeletion is necessarily problematic in the general case, but it does raise serious problems in the case of Biographies of living persons. My reasoning is that the deleting administrator must be presumed to have performed the deletion for cause and it is inconsistent with our assume good faith policy to undo what he did, given the primacy of the relevant policy, without at least conferring with him, and then going to deletion review if there is a difference of opinion. I do think policy and practice have been unclear on this and I raise Night Gyr's summary undeletions as examples of administrator behavior that could make the BLP difficult to enforce, and get us into severe trouble if not unchecked. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away. BLP is only becoming "difficult to enforce" due to the heavy-handed tactics of administrators arbitrarily deleting compliant articles. If they weren't so quick to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them, this would be a non-issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr was emergency desysopped as a result of this edit, which led many to believe to mean that Night Gyr was planning on releasing material deleted for BLP reasons, to the press. Night Gyr has explained that he/she meant that he/she would release the material to the subject of the article, but the question of whether admins should be releasing deleted material at all, was already addressed in the Everyking decision. Corvus cornix 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going on the earlier Sean Hornbeck case, where the concern was also that the subject would be unduly harmed simply by the article existing, regardless of how neutral and sourced it is. I contacted the foundation and asked if they'd like to take a look at it, my post in the DRV about it met with a positive response. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review has not resulted in the proper results at an acceptable rate

27) Deletion review has an unacceptably high fail rate. Of all full deletion reviews, including uncontested endorsements/overturns, deletion review comes to a conclusion that is not consistent with policy approximately 15% of the time. Since the change in deletion policy added by Jimbo Wales, deletion review has continued to show a lack of ability to weigh arguments against policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, shocked I missed this. Per clear evidence, and per the Hornbeck DRV closure and many more coming up for sure, at this rate. Rank incompetence should not be tolerated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Please see DRV is not broken for a debunking of Jeff's assertion, which can often be summed up as "DRV disagreed with me, therefore it's wrong." FCYTravis 07:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that this rude assertion has absolutely no basis in reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be supported by anything on the evidence page. Nandesuka 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to read the evidence page again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff actively promotes the misunderstanding and misapplication of WP:BLP

27) In aggressively promoting the idea that WP:BLP has no ethical component, Badlydrawnjeff is undermining a policy of critical importance to the quality of the encyclopedia, as well as intentionally misleading other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Follows from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Nandesuka and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop#.5B.5BWP:BLP.5D.5D_is_a_policy_about_ethics. Nandesuka 11:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Template

27) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

27) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

27) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Badlydrawnjeff placed on civility parole

1) badlydrawnjeff is placed on civility parole for three months. If he violates said parole, blocks will begin at 24 hours, and escalating to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Feh. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Wording is not what is normally used, but that can be fixed in the transfer over. Per evidence, perhaps the only actual thing that could be held against me, but I also have never been sanctioned by ArbCom before, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Useless, civility is not the issue. Jeff is exasperating, and has driven me to utter frustration. But I've never found him uncivil.--Doc^g 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Civility parole is almost impossible to enforce objectively. If an editor has been repeatedly uncivil in a certain area of the project, whether teletubby articles or deletion discussions, it is simpler (and far more common in past cases) to ban the editor from that area for a period of time. Thatcher131 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Thatcher, and I'm not really sure this is the issue anyway (and if it were, just three months of civility parole would be so weak as to be meaningless). Moreschi ^Talk 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Thatcher, to be sure. I think those who typically find themselves in disagreement with Jeff would, in fact, probably concede that they, more than he, tend to be brusque, usually because they believe (rightly or wrongly) the extended discussions that Jeff might favor to be unnecessarily disruptive perversions of process. Joe 08:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree exactly per Doc's reasoning. Jeff is completely civil as far as I'm aware. I'm sure if we dig we could find something on anybody, but as far as I'm concerned Jeff's issue is not incivility. Also...proposing a remedy against yourself? WTF? Unorthodox? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.

2) badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

...about what? Excessive typing? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed, second choice. Per whatever people might be thinking, although I don't think there's much evidence for this either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add alternatives. I don't really see a problem with me at all here, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but people seem to think I should be held accountable for something, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You win at the internet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A general caution? I think this needs some elaboration to be useful. ChazBeckett 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Much too vague. Newyorkbrad 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Danger, Jeff Raymond! The cabal is after you. — CharlotteWebb 00:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff is warned

3) No action is taken toward badlydrawnjeff for any excessive zeal he has displayed, although he is warned to be aware of the situation around him for the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think the proposer can undertake this without our help. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per MONGO arbitration last year. Still unnecessary in my mind, but throwing it out there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In the Requests for arbitration/MONGO case, Badlydrawnjeff was found 6-0 to be critical of my efforts to defeat harassment. There is no doubt that he has not learned from this, and since has repeatedly been overly critical of other editors whose actions he has been in dispute with.--MONGO 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What was there to learn from? It was simply a finding that said I was critical. And I still am critical. If that was meant to be a warning, it would have been in the remedies section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, harassment is so not an issue here. Milto LOL pia 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The finding was that you were critical Jeff, I'd say, critical over something you shouldn't have been. That this has been repeated by you numerous times since regarding other admins you have been in disagreement with is not something that should be overlooked. Questioning admins and others on their actions is fine, condemning them repeatedly isn't.--MONGO 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I wasn't critical of your combating harassment, but instead on how you chose to combat it. You seem to be missing that component. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The issues from the so-called MONGO case are not relevant to those presented here, and we have more than enough issues in this case without bringing in inflammatory, extraneous matters. Newyorkbrad 21:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. At the time I was trying to defend myself from incessant trolling as an Admin, Badlydrawnjeff critizied my efforts and my administrative decisions relentlessly. He has repeated these actions with other administrators with whom has has had disagreements with since, to the point of being relentless. What we have here is a pattern of challenging admins, (who are, in almost all cases, trying to do the best they can), well beyond the point that most of us would, and demonstrates an inability on his part to assume good faith.--MONGO 22:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole

4) Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole. Escalating blocks, etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just say no to "parole". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Based not only on the most recent evidence, but on years of activity. Enough is enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nonsense. Tony delivers, from time to time, a needed dose of hardened common sense, but I am unaware of a circumstance where he has caused an escellation of tensions in relation to this matter. Phil Sandifer 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read the evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see four diffs that you unconvincingly describe as condescending. Phil Sandifer 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see why. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is wishful thinking at best - David Gerard 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Tony Sidaway has been a long time incivil editor, this civility parole is long overdue. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway is blunt and to the point...that is not the same thing as being incivil.--MONGO 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Over-bluntness may incite anger and hatred, and is not the best way to handle problems. There is a reason why there are euphemisms in English language. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony is blunt and to the point, but there is a right way and a wrong way to be blunt and to the point. --BigDT 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. I've never been offended by the substance of anything Tony has said, but the general sentiments conveyed by the fashion in which he says things properly disconcert one. It is not that he is incivil to others but that he is incivilly disinclined to accept that a view with which one disagrees need not be responded to with fuck process, do no harm, meh, and the like. Where some non-trivial quantity of editors think discussion to be appropriate (that is, thinks process to be important other than simply for process's sake), discussion should be had; that's simply the way a collaborative project works. This should not, to be sure, be codified as a sanction against Tony or even as a statement of principle, but should probably be something he, inter al., considers in the future. Joe 08:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm blunt but sometimes (without intending to be) hurtfully so. If I addressed my civility problems I'd probably be ten times more effective (which is sort of frightening, all things considered). --Tony Sidaway 04:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to counsel Tony to make his points less forcefully. The unnecessary aggressiveness of some of his remarks probably reduces the receptiveness of other users to his general good sense, which all in all is a bad thing. A parole is unwarranted and unlikely to be effective. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow desysopped

6) Doc glasgow is to be desysopped. He may appeal this decision to the arbcom or through the usual procedures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Doc glasgow has misused his admin powers by speedy deleting articles using WP:BLP where it does not apply and when he knows it is controversial. He then refuses to discuss the articles as is proper for an admin. violet/riga (t) 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, "it's rather pathetic to bandy desysop resolutions around" [41]. Looks a bit pointy to me.--Doc^g 10:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is pathetic to do so, but if the mud is being slung in my direction then I will sling it back. My point is that your actions were improper as much as you believe mine to have been. You removed content either knowing the ill feeling you would cause or being ignorant of it - either would be bad. The unwillingness of an admin to justify his deletions or attempt to reach a compromise (cut down the article to a bare minimum?) is unforgivable, especially when given ample opportunity to do so. violet/riga (t) 10:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If anything, your deletions were much more harmful than her undeletions. But I think this is a poor remedy because I don't think your harmful deletions were done in bad faith, which is a major difference maker here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify I do not believe that this action is warranted. violet/riga (t) 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admins sometimes make very tough calls, that is why we make them admins...we don't crucify them if they are less than perfect. This proposal is not supported by the evidence.--MONGO 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just cannot agree with Jeff's assertions that playing it safe with content is more damaging that leaving some incredibly dubious drivel in an article whilst we spend a week generally pricking about deciding what to do. Deleting content this is only suspected of being libelous and suchlike isn't disruptive, it's the circus that watch administrators logs like hawks and start of complaining when such an article is deleted that causes all the drama. If editors would just acknowledge we might know more than them and leave things alone until they're sorted out, everybody would find things a lot easier going. As such, I cannot support any desysoppings or any action being taken against any administrator who has taken a cautious approach to BLP issues. Nick 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If I were an arbitrator, I think there would be enough proposals here to wade through, without people listing things that the proposer himself/herself believes are not warranted. I suggest a convention that people primarily propose things they believe should pass. Newyorkbrad 14:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic of that I feel that there could be grounds for this just as there could be grounds for it to happen to me. I have included it in order to balance the proposals. violet/riga (t) 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Desysopped for doing something helpful, that the proposer does not even believe is warranted?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR

6) Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR, which includes deletions and closing of discussions and debates per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war#Doc_glasgow.2C_Bumm13.2C_and_Mailer_diablo_cautioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

All admins should be on 1RR. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: as Mackensen says below, all admins are on 1RR, at least as regards administrative actions. For me, "wheel war" is defined as serial breaches of admin 1RR. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Had he not been warned about this in the Brandt case, I wouldn't bother, but his action shows a lack of understanding of the magnitude of the situation. For the record, removal of administrative rights may be too strong at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be founded on a misapprehension as to what exactly constitutes wheel-warring, and a misreading of the referenced arbitration case. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should just ask for a removal of powers, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussions and debates is not an administrative action. Other than that, I have always considered myself on a 0-1RR as regards admin actions. If I've broken that, then detail it, I will explain or apologise.--Doc^g 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See the evidence page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The intent of this is more to hold Doc more accountable for his activity. If 1RR-style stuff is out, then maybe a different rationale is necessary - restricted from making decisions on deletions without secondary input or restricted from non-OTRS deletions. I'd like to refrain from a complete loss of tools, as this isn't a chronic situation but rather a recent problematic one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If you violate adminstrative 1RR, you're probably wheel-warring, which you shouldn't be doing anyway. This is not in line with current practice. Doesn't actually say anything. Moreschi ^Talk 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All administrators are on administrative 1RR regardless under normal circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow placed on administrative restriction

6.1) Doc glasgow, except in cases involving OTRS responsibilities, is restricted from deletion of articles without discussion or secondary oversight for six months. Doc glasgow can still tag articles for speedy deletion, nominate for deletion at AfD, and close discussions at AfD and DRV, but he is to refrain from executing deletions of articles on his own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. An alternate to above, would still need some clarification from wording, but perhaps a better restriction given the situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully acceptable to me. I more or less follow this anyway. I even asked Jeff for a second opinion once. And there's no need to restrict it to six months, I'm fine with indefinite.--Doc^g 09:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not at all convinced this is in any way warranted, and what exactly qualifies as "secondary oversight", anyway? Moreschi ^Talk 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Preposterous.--MONGO 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As below, this is an all-around bad idea and can serve only to be annoying. --BigDT 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going to happen, but I would observe from my own experience that removing a good administrator's buttons doesn't stop him getting a hell of a lot of admin work done. --Tony Sidaway 04:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow placed on civility parole

7) Doc glasgow placed on civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Several threats: "The last person who called my BLP removals vandalism got trashed in an RfC" and "I fear will arbitration be the end result, and wheel-warriors (for that is what arbcom has repeatedly called it) will likely be sanctioned." Not civil. violet/riga (t) 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first statement was not a threat, but a fairly accurate description of this. I don't like my good faith actions being described as "vandalism" as happened there, and as you did today. The second was a warning - sorry about the tone, you are right, it was uncalled for. But you were attacking me as a vandal at the time.--Doc^g 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My civility could always improve, so I'm fine with this. Do I get a swearbox too?--Doc^g 10:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for this remedy is not strong.--MONGO 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Per MONGO. Doc's level of civility isn't perfect. Whose is? Newyorkbrad 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow strongly cautioned

8) Doc glasgow is strongly cautioned regarding BLP deletions, especially when challenged in good faith by other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding what? Makes no sense?--Doc^g 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe making comments like "sod off" and the like? Milto LOL pia 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sod off is sufficiently incivil. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pass this if you like, but it wouldn't help, since (call me thick) I don't understand it, and I don't understand what it ask me to do.--Doc^g 09:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wooyi has it precisely right. When one speedies an article consistent with BLP and has the propriety of his deletion questioned by another editor acting in good faith (or perhaps at least two editors), he ought to partake of a discussion with that editor, et al., in order to determine where the consensus of the community lies. It is pernicious enough simply to suggest that one's interpretation of policy (even where that interpretation is shared somewhat widely) will, irrespective of further discussion, be dispositive (hence this remedy's being in order) but to make such suggestion with anything less that careful civility and deliberate care is outrageous. Joe 08:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

'Sod off' wasn't great. But look at the context and you'll see I was engaging in debate, actually extensively. Jeff didn't like the reasons I was giving and so repeatedly kept denying I had given any. His harranging, and superior rubbishing of my ethical concerns drove me to exasperation.--Doc^g 09:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem here which I mean to address later. I don't think the problem is Doc's, however, although as an administrator he should retain his cool. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow admonished

9) Doc glasgow is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Um. About what? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Again, due to Brandt case. Weakest scenario. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If I'm admonished, then the point is to make me reform. So, I need told what I'm to be admonished for?--Doc^g 13:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Regarding what? Makes no sense in this form. Moreschi ^Talk 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience seeing Doc glasgow's posts, he is overly condescending and sometimes use insulting words, bordering incivility. This is only admonition, not sanction, so I don't think Doc should think that he would be hurt by this proposal. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Much too vague to be of use to the arbitrators, which is the point of this page. Newyorkbrad 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow is admonished to stop deleting his userpage. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

JzG admonished

10) JzG admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Details? Milto LOL pia 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've chosen this proposal somewhat randomly as an instance of a problem afflicting this workshop. Editors need to bear in mind that the purpose of this page is to be of use to the arbitrators. Therefore, proposals need to be sufficiently concrete to draw reactions from arbitrators, parties, and others, to crystalize thinking, to help the arbs along the path to formulating the decision. A workshop proposal should have a concrete objective of furthering the decision-making process, ideally by providing a snippet of quotable prose that could make its way into the decision itself if the arbitrators agreed with it. Now I think we can all agree that if the decision in this case included the remedy "JzG [is] admonished" as a bare conclusion, that would not be satisfactory. Therefore this proposal is much too vague and should be deleted improved. Newyorkbrad 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No basis for admonishment. Admins are not punished for doing their job. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

JzG placed on administrative 1RR

11) JzG placed on adminstrative 1RR, which includes deletions and closing of discussions and debates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per long history of disruptive closures of discussions and questionable deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, that does not seem to be good remedy. Sean William @ 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Per above, not in line with current practice and attitudes towards wheel-warring. You violate admin 1RR, you're probably wheel-warring. We've moved on since the Tony Sidaway arbitration case. Moreschi ^Talk 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of wheel warring here. The wording also seems to propagate Jeff's belief that wheel warring can take place in the absence of administrative action. --Tony Sidaway 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - No wheel war apparent in the logs. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the allegations of wheel warring against violetriga, it would seem that she is on an administrative 0RR already. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

JzG placed on adminstrative restriction

11.1) JzG, except in cases involving OTRS responsibilities, is restricted from deletion of articles without discussion or secondary oversight for six months. JzG can still tag articles for speedy deletion, nominate for deletion at AfD, and close discussions at AfD and DRV, but he is to refrain from executing deletions of articles on his own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Identical to above, reflecting 1RR concerns and evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't see how that would benefit anybody. Sean William @ 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So he can't delete articles that consist of "Augustus has a tiny penis", it seems, and what qualifies as "secondary oversight"? Moreschi ^Talk 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins aren't expected to be perfect, yet here, an effort to restrict an almost perfect admin is attempted. Preposterous.--MONGO 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost perfect? JzG is nowhere near perfect. I respect him personally, but he definitely has done some incivilities and over-hasty actions. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an all-around bad idea. --BigDT 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. No basis for this. Newyorkbrad 23:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. JzG is exemplary as an administrator - if he makes a mistake, he'll do his best to fix it. As for "some incivilities" - I think we've all done that. Martinp23 11:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not "exemplary" but definitely above average. Don't think this is necessary. — CharlotteWebb 19:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. If everyone who was uncivil at one time or another on Wikipedia was booted off, only the bots would remain. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

H placed on civility parole

12) H (talk · contribs) placed on civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a remedy, not an enforcement, isn't it? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence submitted to the arbcom-l list and evidence page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Private communications are not within ArbCom's scope barring extraordinary circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this is fairly extraordinary. Also, the MONGO case noted that off-wiki attacks were permissable as evidence. ArbCom has the relevant logs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd say extraordinary is when somebody's life has been threatened off-wiki. That happens, incidentally. It's admissable, sure, but is it actionable? Mackensen (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we disagree on this. But HighinBC's civility is an ongoing problem, on or off the project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen the IRC logs, so I can't comment in that regard. However, in my interactions with HighInBC I have generally found him to be rigorously civil and to actively make a stand against incivility where he encounters it. So I'm somewhat puzzled by this one. I may be misinformed and this comment may be out of place, in which case I will reconsider or move it. --YFB ¿ 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Along with the evidence at the evidence page, telling a user to "get off the cross, Jesus needs it" typically isn't the best way to go about things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen that comment, so I assume it was on IRC. It's not the sort of thing I'd usually expect from H and I'm disappointed if that's what he said, regardless of the context. I believe this is one reason why non-publicly-logged off-wiki discussion about Wikipedia issues that are not strictly privacy-related is harmful to the project. Of the diffs on the evidence page, only the one about your actions being indistinguishable from trolling seems likely to be interpreted as uncivil and I doubt that was the intent. Likewise if this comment belongs somewhere else, I'll move it - I'm not that familiar with ArbCom protocols. --YFB ¿ 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree no compelling evidence has suggested this particular remedy. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as when I was added to the evidence page, I was not notified of this addition either. Please keep me informed when you involve me in something. ^(H) 15:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Jeff has me confused with someone else, I am not even tangentially involved in this dispute. I was not uncivil to Jeff, I always keep myself on civility parole, and if I find myself in violation I reprimand myself with a long walk and some fresh air, often I do so before finding myself in violation. In fact, that sounds like a wonderful idea, I will do that now. ^(H) 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For one, the error in the notification was mine and mine alone - it was not done out of malice, it was simply an unintentional oversight. For two, when you tell someone to "get off the cross, Jesus needs it," it doesn't really set the right tone, and you didn't help yourself as time progressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can think of three possibilities:

1. Someone spoofed the e-mail headers to exacerbated the situation in my name, which is easy
2. You are confusing me with someone else who sent you an e-mail
3. Jeff is not being truthful

I don't know which one is the case, though I suspect the first is the most likely(I have been subject to this sort of harassment before). I want to assure Jeff that I don't have any ill feelings towards him. ^(H) 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very hard for me to assume otherwise. I'd go change your Wikipedia password, though, because it was sent through here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC (now User:H) has been repeatedly harassed as the result of his involvement in a situation completely unrelated to this dispute. Unfortunately, if badlydrawnjeff received an e-mail purporting to be from H, and H denies having sent the e-mail, the possibility that the headers were forged by a troll in order to fan the flames here must be taken very seriously. Newyorkbrad 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or that someone knows that the evidence is easily fungible, and would much rather put the doubt on said evidence than own up to saying such nasty things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's silly, Jeff. Are the words "assume good faith" even in your vocabulary, or do I need to propose a remedy to have them surgically inserted there? If H says he didn't send you the email, you should assume he is telling the truth until provided with evidence to the contrary. Picaroon (Talk) 21:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume he's not telling the truth because it came directly from Wikipedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, okay let me break this down,

• I don't use metaphors when criticizing people
• I don't use religious symbolism
• I don't think of Jesus as a martyr

This is just not me. When I give criticisms it will be in plain languages and on wiki, such as this or this. What you need to understand is that any script kiddie who has googled "spoofing email headers" can make an e-mail appear to be from the president of the US if they wanted. ^(H) 13:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that they can be hacked. I simply don't think the evidence suggests that they were hacked. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

General caution

13) Administrators are cautioned to not disrupt the community via the short-circuiting of discussion or the unilateral activity on controversial or contentious situations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. General precaution to the rest of administrators not involved in this particular case, but doing the same things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

And if that "unilateral activity in a controversial situation" is completely the right thing policy-wise and is later roundly endorsed? Moreschi ^Talk 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree no compelling evidence has suggested this particular remedy. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions

14) Badlydrawnjeff is banned from deletion discussions for X amount of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Good idea. I suggest X=3 hours. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As noted above, there's actually no evidence for this except that people don't like what I have to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Extension of my proposed temporary injunction. Is well-supported by the evidence - Jeff disrupts these pages, plain and simple. Phil Sandifer 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Too broad. Perhaps restrict to BLP deletion discussions, at best. Moreschi ^Talk 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP discussions are where Jeff causes the most harm, but they are not the whole of his problem. Phil Sandifer 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This still falsely assumes I'm disruptive in these discussions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Stong oppose. Jeff provides a valuable role in deletion discussions, and has on numerous occassions successfully overturned hasty deletion decisions. Catchpole 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree no compelling evidence has suggested this particular remedy. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Best remedy for Wikipedia.--MONGO 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have probably closed as many (non-obvious) AFDs as an anyone in the past 1.5 years and I think this would be a bad idea. Civility parole sure, if the evidence supports it, but there's no need to ban him just from deletion discussions. It smacks of just wanting to filter out unpopular opinions... which makes discussions worthless in the long run. --W.marsh 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are people getting the idea that Jeff disrupts discussions? I have not once encountered an AfD or DRV in which Jeff advanced a view so plainly frivolous as not to attract the support of at least one other established, good-faith editor, and I think it is fair to conclude that where even a small minority of the community appears to be troubled by a particular deletion a discussion ought to be had in order to confirm that a consensus exists for deletion. It is plain that Jeff does not edit with disruptive intent, and it is equally clear that he cannot be expected to have appreciated that, intent aside, his edits are perceived as disruptive because, well, there's no consensus for that view. There are many editors who think process to be important and who think that decisions taken in the absence of discussion ought to be revisited where objections are levied and that revisitation ought to take as long as is necessary for a consensus to be borne out, and Jeff surely edits consistent with the views of those editors. Joe 08:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Restricting him to one comment means he can't discuss his views. What's the point of making a comment if you can't defend it when people offer objections? Ban him from discussion completely, or let him discuss fully, this kind of compromise doesn't work. --Tango 12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a very bad idea. Jeff may be a prolific contributor to deletion discussions, and may often hold a minority opinion, but that shouldn't be a sanctionable offense. (As to the immediate situation here on QZ, I think that the "speedy closings" of the previous discussions were more problematic than anything else. If people had just left them run, this page and this case probably would not exist.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff banned from Wikipedia:Deletion review

15) Badlydrawnjeff is banned from commenting at Wikipedia:Deletion review for X amount of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, no evidence that this remedy is necessary. I have not been disruptive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Alteration of Phil Sandifer's proposal above. Sean William @ 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you have been. Why else would we be here? Sean William @ 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We're here because of the disruptive deletions of an article. People simply want to make it about me because I dare to challenge them. I haven't been disruptive, and there's no evidence to suggest it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree no compelling evidence has suggested this particular remedy. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Jeff is an invaluble contributor to deletion review. Deletion review is needed to allow non-administators to discuss cases when they think articles have been mistakenly deleted. Catchpole 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can or should take action to stop an editor being tiresome. The problem will resolve itself in due course. --Tony Sidaway 04:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Support - If someone makes it to the ARBCOM on an issue, you don't get to leave unschathed with only the smell of smoke on your clothes. You did something to deserve to be here. The evidence demonstrates this in this case. 60 day ban on deletions. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff restricted

16) Badlydrawnjeff is restricted to one comment in any deletion debate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just ban him, then. Criminy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jeff often makes valid points, they get lost in the noise. Keep it to one comment per debate (which may be amended, perhaps with an upper limit on size or number of edits) and it would be easier to tell the two apart. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This would then assume it's not a discussion. Or that I shouldn't be allowed to take part in the discussion, which is really absurd. Not to mention, still, that I'm not disruptive in these discussions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not disruptive? Ya think? Guy (Help!) 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not disruptive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disagree, no compelling evidence. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is silly - if he is being disruptive, ban him from the discussions; if he isn't, then don't - this remedy serves no purpose other than to be annoying to anyone involved. --BigDT 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The nature of discussion often involves statements, replies, counterstatements. IOW, an ongoing dialog. Heck, if somebody had a question for Jeff about his statement, this proposal would render it impossible for him to respond. If there are any problems with discussions going off track, a blanket statement that editors should work carefully to not get distracted would be more effective. Mister.Manticore 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mister.Manicore is obviously right. I think this to be a supremely bad suggestion, consistent with my remarks relative to remedy 14 and inasmuch as copious and perhaps incorrigible participation in a discussion is almost never disruptive. If Jeff thinks consensus to be unclear or believes there remain arguments to be made but is well aware that the community considers an issue resolved and nevertheless proceeds, disruption might be an appropriate descriptor. Here, though, Jeff often contributes quite prolifically to discussions that are unresolved. Perhaps he repeats himself too often, and perhaps he presses policy issues that many others consider settled, and perhaps he is sometimes unnecessarily wordy and by his verbosity obliges other editors to consume time replying to him, but it is quite clear that any negative consequences that may follow from any such problems are outweighed by the good work that Jeff does at DRV (where, it should be said, he rarely raises an issue on which he does not ultimately find non-trivial community support). If he seems to be consuming time and space on an issue on which the community seems to have reached resolution, one may surely ignore what he has to say; he has never proven himself willing to seek to bring out about change other than discursively. Joe 09:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff admonished

17) Badlydrawnjeff may continue to contribute in deletion discussions, but is admonished to keep a cool mind and not to make uncivil comments during the discussion. This include AFD and DRV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

s/Badlydrawnjeff/Everyone/g --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that Badlydrawnjeff's problem is that he's uncivil. It's his interpretation of WP:BLP that people have problems with. Sean William @ 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon is surely right to suggest that this is simply a restatement of the general principles that ought to govern each contribution made by every editor here, but I don't think it's always wrong to issue in the form of a remedy a gentle reminder that one who has had problems comporting his editing with a specific policy be especially careful in future editing; Jeff has shown no civility problems, though (well, almost none; he has probably been unnecessarily curt when discussions have been abruptly halted), and he is probably the last person of those named as parties to this RfAr whom one would caution w/r/to WP:CIVIL. Joe 09:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga desysopped

18) Violetriga is to be desysopped. She may appeal this decision to the arbcom or through the usual procedures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not sure that her activity really reaches WP:WHEEL in letter or spirit. Regardless, it seems awfully imbalanced to want to desysop her for undeleting articles that were never legitimate deletions to begin with. Hell, even I'm willing to give Doc and JzG a pass on the bad deletions regarding this extent, given that I have no question regarding their good faith in the matter... --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather offensive proposal given the scenario and the evidence. violet/riga (t) 08:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. When something is deleted as a BLP violation, even if wrongly, interposing your own judgement and undeleting without discussion, not even the asking the deleter if there was a reason you've missed, is reckless in the extreme and could potentially legally endanger wikipedia. This isn't just about wheel-warring being bad, and discussion being good - although that's also true - and we've desysopped on that ground before. This administrator undeleted 6-8 BLP violations, without any discussion, and continues to insist that the behaviour was acceptable. Even if arbcom viewed all the deletions as erroneous, they must send out the strongest possible message to administrators that swiftly undeleting potential BLP violations is always utterly unacceptable. There must not be an next time.--Doc^g 09:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They were not BLP violations and, as shown in the evidence, your deletions were improper. I acted on 1RR and BRD yet you have repeatedly failed to discuss the articles or your reasons for deletion. You should not delete something if you are not willing to back it up with your reasons. violet/riga (t) 09:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was. You didn't ask.--Doc^g 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So me asking to discuss it wasn't obvious enough? You refused to discuss things until you got your own way:

• violet/riga: "I am still waiting for you to discuss, on a per-article basis, the reasons you have for deletion. Please put them forward so that I can consider them and respond." [42]
• Doc glasgow: "Reverse yourself and we talk civilly."
• violet/riga: "Then it would appear that we are at a stalemate as you refuse to communicate..."
• Doc glasgow did not respond

violet/riga (t) 10:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore this arbitration was not brought up against me and the motion to add me is not complete. violet/riga (t) 10:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Due to wheel warring. Phil Sandifer 00:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the precise offense was, without discussion, restoring multiple articles deleted on cited grounds of BLP. I think the arbitration committee just needs to say that this isn't how we do things here. No further action is warranted. Perhaps an admonishment if it's thought that this particular administrator might be prone to bad decisions. --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Failure to discuss the recreations first was bad, but otherwise, this seems a little harsh.--MONGO 04:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think MONGO to be right, and I would suggest that Jeff's interpretation of WP:WHEEL is probably the correct one here; this seems a simple case of BRD (which is obvious inapplicable to admin actions but which is one instance in which wheel warring is not exceedingly bad), which seems quite fine inasmuch as there is a presumption, even relative to BLPs, that speedy deletion is not appropriate where there appears to be no consensus of the community for speedying; undeletion in instances such as this is really pro forma, not unlike in retroactively contested PRODs, and so there is no real error in judgment here (the error, to the extent there is one, is simply in failing to apprise JzG and Doc of her intentions straightaway; she need not, in view of the specifics here, have awaited their/the community's sanctioning her undeletion). Joe 09:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that violetriga was not alone in requesting discussion of the reasons for deletion; I posted a note to that effect at violetriga's talk page and directed Doc to it (to avoid accusations of spamming). 9 hours later Doc was still insisting on self-reversion before he'd engage in a productive discussion about his BLP concerns. Violetriga may have been wrong to undelete before discussing, but a flat refusal to discuss without a prior self-reversion is, frankly, WP:POINT. --YFB ¿ 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, actually reviewing my deletions was a little moot once they'd be reversed. Hardly any point in reviewing my actions once undone. I left that to other admins to consider - some of the articles were soon re-deleted.--Doc^g 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that is a poor attitude - you are the one that saw BLP where it didn't exist and then didn't have the decency to admit that you were wrong. You still haven't explained where BLP applies to any of these articles and that to me is very telling. Come on - if you can explain yourself then maybe I can be convinced and admit that my undeletion was wrong. And don't claim "notability" as that is not what we are dealing with here. violet/riga (t) 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you just one example right away. Look at your own notes on the evidence page. Once of the articles contained a totally unreferenced assertion of the crime of bigamy. You noted that yourself. Yet, you restored the article and left the potentially libellous assertion standing. That's as irresponsible as you get. But this is moot, even if my deletions had all been in total error, you would still have been irresponsible and wrong in undeleting without discussion. By doing so you presumed that your judgement that they were 'safe' is infallible. Well, it isn't.--Doc^g 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One example where the single sentence could easily be removed rather than an entire article. I didn't get chance to do so because you were too busy arguing about how bad it was that someone spotted your incorrect deletions. It should have removed the sentence after I restored the article but really you should've done it rather than delete it. Anyway, that's just one article of the nine - here you are given another chance to provide evidence of why the articles needed deleting and you still haven't. It makes me think that your calls of BLP were excuses to delete articles you didn't like, and I was so willing to assume good faith here. violet/riga (t) 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you a direct question about one of the articles. You deleted Rumaisa Rahman citing BLP - please tell me any sentence within that article that is defamatory or libellous. violet/riga (t) 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Discussion to talk page please. Thatcher131 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Alternatively, support 18.1. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga desysopped for 10 days

18.1) For wheel warring, Violetriga is desysopped for 10 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Violetriga is unrepentant and insists that the wheel-warring policy gives her one free pass per action (she restored 9 articles without consultation or discussion; restoring 9 articles once is as bad as restoring 3 articles 3 times each). A brief desysopping is in line with prior cases involving first offense types of bad judgement and wheel warring by admins and will indicate to the community (and to Violetriga) than when ArbCom says "no wheel-warring", they mean it. Thatcher131 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Again you have the flawed idea that it is the same as 3 articles 3 times. Wheel warring, by definition at the policy page, is not reverting an administrative action once. If this is not the intended meaning then it needs updating in light of this but it cannot apply to me here. violet/riga (t) 11:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether I support this more than the previous remedy. I agree 100% with Thatcher's description, and I'm inclined to lean towards this one due to prior precedent in wheel warring cases. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That comment makes me think that you haven't looked into this case. You state (above) that your view of wheel warring is multiple actions, but I have not performed multiple actions on a single article and thus not wheel warred by your definition. Thatcher's "3 articles 3 times" equivalence is nonsense - I performed an action but did not repeat it, forcing my view. violet/riga (t) 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins blocking Jeff admonished

19) The administrators involved in the block of badlydrawnjeff are admonished to show better judgment and do a more thorough job of seeking consensus for controversial decisions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These people have already been rightly admonished by community consensus. What's the point in this. It was bad, we all agree. Arbitration is for what we disagree about.--Doc^g 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be the best possible resolution to this situation at this point, unless ArbCom is going to consider more serious sanctions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't see how it helps. But it can't do harm either.--Doc^g 22:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Balances previous remedy. Phil Sandifer 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, might it be worth including the words on-wiki in there somewhere? --YFB ¿ 00:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think their actions would have been just as stupid had they been discussed on-wiki. Stupidity tends to be blind to its medium. Phil Sandifer 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that there was a strong consensus that IRC should never be used to decide blocks of established users. We have on-wiki venues specifically intended for that purpose, where the participation of non-IRC'ers might help to prevent knee-jerk groupthinking. --YFB ¿ 00:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, no, I don't think this goes far enough. It should also mention the problem of making such a decision off Wikipedia, and the failure to give warning first. Or at all. There are times when a block without a warning is appropriate, but I can't imagine it involving an established user. Mister.Manticore 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Balances previous remedy is a particularly uncompelling reason for admonishment or desysopping; we admonish or desysop admins where questions as to judgment arise in order to prevent future harm or to make plain existing policy, and situations must be evaluated on their individual merits. That one admin may have wheel-warred in a fashion that favored those who support a more relaxed view of BLP and that another may, after consultation with other admins, inappropriately blocked a user with such a view does not mean that the two were counteracting opposites to be treated similarly. Joe 09:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How can any remedy be applied without naming the parties to who this applies? Names are known and should be spelled out in whatever remedy is agreed on (from admonishing to desysopping) unless the committee does not see a need to apply any remedy to the block constructors. --Irpen 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy development

20) The community is encouraged as a matter of priority to continue working to formulate additional relevant principles to be incorporated in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or a related policy so as to balance concern for the effect that Wikipedia articles may have on the well-being of their subjects with the desire for comprehensiveness in the encyclopedia. These issues may be addressed on policy pages or, in appropriate cases, in deletion debates or reviews.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. First sentence loosely adapted from the first remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Newyorkbrad 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy closures

21) 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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think a lot of the problems (though not all, obviously) could have been avoided if this had been clearer at the time. - jc37 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly incorrect, or at least overstated: The community strongly (though admittedly not unanimously) approved of closing the Brian Peppers DRV early, and I don't think too many people thought ill of my summarily terminating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslims involved in a crime. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since all of those examples would seem to be BLP examples, they could possibly fall under the proposal below? - jc37 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether the community approved of, for instance, the Peppers or Muslims closing is not relevant. The community can't unanimously approve of switching Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to "Rocks fall, everyone dies," either. They may accept it, but it's still completely wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, the proposal was for the ArbCom to determine that debates should never be speedily closed. If the community strongly approves of the idea that in certain circumstances, debates should be speedily closed, how can that not be relevant? Newyorkbrad 01:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have a guideline for that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that it's about speedy "keeps", not "deletions". - jc37 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unwise. In the first place, that would have extended the debate over QZ to 6 weeks, and it is unlikely that anyone's mind would have been changed during that time. More important is to respect decisions one disagrees with. Rather than fighting tooth and nail to keep (or delete) and article, one might withdraw from the conflict and wait a month before approaching the issue again. Thatcher131 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(confused) Why 6 weeks? - jc37 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

2 weeks, max, if the second AfD was allowed to complete properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this a bit further. On WP:CFD, there is a section for speedy deletions. If, after 2 days (or so), 2 editors haven't opposed the listing, the category may be "speedily deleted". If 2 or more editors oppose (or sometimes simply by admin action), then the category is "relisted" on the appropriate CfD page of the current day. WP:PROD works similarly, except it only requires a single objector (noting, of course, that Prod is never to be used for categories). Obviously a listing at WP:DRV about a deletion presumes that the deletion was "contested" in some way. So if we follow those rules, then WP:DRV discussions resulting in endorsing deletion should not be closed "speedily". Wait out the 5 days and "finish it", rather than cause more and more "hoopla" (disruption), such as we've now had many times in the recent months. The same goes for XfD discussions, since it defeats the purpose of placing a Prod or Speedy listing at the XfD discussion page, only to speedily close as deletion. I think it's fair to say that such actions can be seen as very disruptive. Now, the urgency of a WP:BLP vio may trump this, but then we could presume that that's a proper "out-of-process" (out of XfD process, in this case) deletion, and should have nothing to do with the closure of the XfD. Hopefully this makes more sense. - jc37 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would modify this a bit, as there are cases where speedy deletion is appropriate, such as copyright infringement. Mister.Manticore 02:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How would you modify it? - jc37 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is about speedy closures, rather than speedy deletions (a fine point, but there it is.) I'm also noting that copyvio is possibly another issue which involves potential legal ramifications. However, just because someone claims that there is a copyvio or BLP concern, doesn't necessarily mean there is... So I presume that in most cases, that's what XfD process is for? To determine such concensus. - jc37 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, the statement above quite clearly says it's about speedy closures with deletions, not simply speedy closures regardless of results. Given that there are times when copyright violations do get noticed after an AFD has been opened (I've noted a few myself), I think it's worth noting them as the exceptions. I am not sure how it would be best to express it, but I do think there are the rare times when it does need to happen. That said, I don't disagree with the principle being expressed here. Mister.Manticore 03:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy closures

21.1) While occasionally a closure of a community discussion before the normal amount of time has elapsed for that discussion is appropriate and necessary, such discussions should generally be left to run their course, especially when significant disagreement exists as to what the discussion's outcome should be.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to above. While speedy closes are sometimes acceptable, they aren't all that often, and they tend to cause more trouble, not less, in contentious situations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Precedence

22) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard discussions supercede XfD discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For a community so fearful of "instruction creep"... --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like legislation. No.--Doc^g 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed more as a question of whether this is the case. - jc37 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is intended to mean. --Tony Sidaway 02:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The QZ article shall be restored

23) The QZ article should be restored. The article can still be deleted via the consensus means available to the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Seeing as how if the second AfD finished properly, we wouldn't be here... --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. And I strongly suggest a cease to the "wikilawyering" mantra. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There was no consensus for this in the RFC, not even for yet another rerun of the deletion review. Enough wikilawyering! --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Will never happen. ArbCom does not make content rulings. Thatcher131 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No way. Wikipedia isn't required to have articles on every single ephemeral subject, especially subjects of this type.--MONGO 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely ludicrous on its face. Nandesuka 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. In fact, it's completely legitimate, since no legitimate reason has been given to keep it deleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The QZ article shall be relisted at AfD

23.1) The QZ article shall be relisted at AfD to attempt to determine community consensus without speedy closes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Alternative to above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that.--Doc^g 13:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results" - Albert Einstein. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A proposal of this sort was opposed 19-18 in the RFC. See my evidence. I agree with Thatcher131 that it is possible, at least in principle. My instinct is that the community has no appetite for this, and since the root problem here was querulous attempts to force the community to undelete an article it had deleted, I see no reason why the arbitration committee would want to visit that upon them. --Tony Sidaway

Rewritten. This is at least possible. In other cases ArbCom will ocassionally direct the community to take another crack at determining consensus. Thatcher131 02:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Jeff continuing to use the full name of this person, given the serious concerns that have been raised 'on this very page about WP:BLP? Nandesuka 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the use of his name is not a BLP issue. Please do not edit my posts in that way in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sensitivity to BLP issues. --Tony Sidaway 12:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, a lack of buying the idea that anytime someone hollers "BLP," there's an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to censor names that have continuously appeared in reliable mainstream sources. Prolog 13:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Due sensitivity ≠ censorship. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't equal censorship, sensitivity, however, does, even if self-censored. Mister.Manticore 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

JzG desysopped

24) JzG is desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think JzG could be a little more civil. I think most of us could. I think he could be a little less trigger happy. I think most of us could. I don't think he's a bad administrator, and I don't think his activity warrants this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per evidence; a history of improper deletions, protections, block threats and closures of discussions as an involved admin. Prolog 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a desysopping is necessary, a warning is enough. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah-no.--MONGO 21:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous. --BigDT 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to Uncyclopedia. 75.62.6.237 08:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - JzG takes the effort to resolve disputes and goes the extra mile. He is quick on the trigger, but as near as I can tell, its not for bad faith and he does try to balance everyone's rights. His quick trigger finger can be better characterized as a "freeze motion frame" rather than "block and go away" approach. He appears to want to slow down disputes so they can be studied and a suitable compromise determined for the benefit of all. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

JzG placed on civility parole

25) JzG is placed on civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per evidence. Prolog 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for this proposal is not compelling.--MONGO 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would ask for the same of anyone who threatened to block me on my talk page, then responded to a calm, reasonable and impersonal reply with "F*** off. F*** right off." Milto LOL pia 09:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I mean if there was other stuff too. Not just for the one remark :-) Milto LOL pia 09:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

JZG has a clear and long history of incivility, biting the newbies, and generally making an ass of himself by rude behaviour. --Barberio 11:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Evidence does not warrant such an action. Balancing the good vs. bad of JzG's contributions does not warrant such a stance. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Keeping of status quo on QZ

26)The status quo of the QZ article, which is currently a protected title of a deleted article, shall remain in effect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And reward disruption? No, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

why? It could be a redirect to the proposed Little Fatty article where discussion has been postponed until this arbititration is over or to the internet memes article. Catchpole 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Template

26) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

26) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

26) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

before using the last template please make a copy

26) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: