Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | Badlydrawnjeff

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 23:13, 30 May 2007 (→‎{Write your assertion here}: Violet uses admin tools carpiciously). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

Specific user conduct issues regarding deletion

Improper activity toward BDJ based on his position regarding the conflicts

It's very hard to assume anything other than malice when you have to deal with comments such as the following:

  • Tony Sidaway and his continued condescending remarks: [2] [3] [4] [5]
  • User:Chairboy and continued condescending remarks and poor faith commentary: [6] [7] [8] [9]
  • User:Drini and continued condescending remarks: [10] [11]
  • User:JzG's false statements and improper block threats: [12] [13], and also see his ArbCom statement, where he falsely accuses me of being "devoted to...popular culture" (which is not at all true given my areas of editing), that my "personal inclusion threshold is well off in the long tail" (which is not true, as my personal beliefs are consistently put aside in favor of our needlessly strict guidelines), that my "constant challenging of admin's best-efforts closures of hard cases is actively harmful to the project" (dissent isn't harmful.
  • User:H (HighInBC) and his condescending accusations: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Please also see the IRC logs forward to ArbCom last week, as well as the e-mail sent to me through the Wikipedia "E-mail this user" link.
  • User:Pilotguy and gross incivility, warnings, and disruptive accusations: [19]. Please also see the IRC logs forwarded to ArbCom last week.
  • User:Doc glasgow's activity in particular has been especially egregious. His opening statement [20] makes four false statements: That I listed the Qian Zhijun article at DRV a total of four times (I did so twice [21][22]) , that I promote "in-house processes [with] the potential of causing harm, or bringing wikipedia into disrepute," that my "activity is damaging to the encyclopedia" regarding Qian Zhijun, that I was "disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point," or that I was "flaunting BLP by continually linking this individual." None of this is true or substantiated, or can be because it never happened. Incivility is one thing - impugning my character the way Doc has and continues to do is unacceptable, and ironic given his desire to protect BLPs.

For other pieces of evidence, see AN/I, AN/I, RfC, AN/I, and the IRC logs that were forwarded to the ArbCom mailing list.

Improper BLP deletions continue unabated

See the following:

Note that a variety of editors are protesting these.

On BDJ

Badlydrawnjeff often gets fed up

Plenty of evidence may be brought up based on my possible incivility. I own up to anything I've said, and I try very hard to keep a cool head, and don't always succeed. I have nothing more to say on the matter, although one can certainly understand a reaction when being threatened with various blocks and being accused of various false things to lose one's head. The following may be worth noting in the interests of full disclosure: [23] [24] [25]

BDJ does not have a history of extending issues past the state of consensus

DRV is the only place this would qualify - I've relisted one DRV after an incorrect closing (Darvon cocktail), and I relisted Qian Zhijun before the RfC in an attempt to avoid said RfC. Other than that, I typically don't bother with situations once a proper closing has been reached, whether i agree or not. Contrary to the myth perpetuated by Doc glasgow, I listed Qian Zhijun twice, and reverted disruptive closures of the DRV twice. Very different things.

I do often act as the lone voice in the wind. There's a good chance that people may try to hold that against me - at no point is my voice being put out there in a way that is contrary to policy or inclusion guidelines.

BDJ's general record regarding these issues is good, even though a lot of people dislike him for it

I'm an m:inclusionist, possibly the highest profile one on the project. Inclusionists aren't well-liked on this project as a whole, but we manage. At no time do I petition for egregious material to be kept on the site, especially in terms of BLP issues. I definitely find the BLP policy to be detrimental to this project's success, but at no point does my activity live up to any reputation many would like to peg on me regarding BLP issues. I can't adequately prove a negative, and I have over 10000 non-automated edits since BLP was instituted, so there's plenty of strong evidence to suggest that a) my mainspace edits, and b) my DRV/AfD record has been well within policy and BLP grounds.

BDJ does not have a history of acting outside of policy or consensus, even if he disagrees with it

In fact, one of the main complaints people have is that I'm too married to policy. Let's be straight - I don't knowingly violate policy in my edits or activity, and I work hard to fix the problems if it turns out I made an error. At no point have I attempted to buck consensus, ignore consensus, or ignore policy to exert my will. It does not happen.

The article in question

On 4 May, Qian Zhijun and he himself cultivated, was nominated for deletion.[26] After the requisite five day period, the discussion was closed as delete by Daniel (talk · contribs) ,[27] but later re-opened by Bryant following an appeal.[28] Drini (talk · contribs) closed the discussion again not too long after as delete, citing that the meme might be notable, but the kid isn't.[29] This was appealed at deletion review on 13 May, and eventually overturned by Xoloz (talk · contribs) on the grounds that the subject met all the relevant policies (having multiple reliable sources, the cornerstone of inclusion - one user put the rate of sourcing at 1.7 refs/sentence[30]), and relisted the article on AfD.[31] This discussion was quickly responded to by a number of people before being closed by thebainer (talk · contribs) less than an hour after the relisting.[32] I then nominated it for deletion review[33] following an appeal to thebainer[34] which was declined. This is where the issues began, over the course of around 24 hours:

The discussion spilled over to a number of project pages, talk pages, and userpages. It's emblematic of the general situation the project is currently encountering regarding the actual role of deletion review, the ability of administrators to use their abilities to shut down useful discussion, and the inability to have a consistent, clear appeals process, without even getting into the specifics of user conduct, which is highlighted by the numerous case of incivility and lack of good faith toward contributors on both sides of the debate, as evidenced by commentary below mine. At one point in this discussion, JzG even tried to imply that, since so many OTRS admins were supporting the deletion, that those opinions should be given more weight, which is patently false.

There was no process problem with the first AfD or the first DRV. The first AfD was properly closed on process grounds, but the first DRV properly noted that there were issues with the result.

You'll note a great deal of administrative wheel warring as well as non-administrative wheel warring. You'll notice a deletion for BLP, although the article was more than well-sourced. BLP IS NOT A BLUDGEONING DEVICE.

Current consensus is unknown. The third AfD suggested a major shift, but there's no way an AfD can derive such a consensus after less than one day. It was disclosed by one admin [diff forthcoming] that IRC discussion aided in the decision, leaving a significant group of editors out of the process. That's a major problem.

Meta issues

Deletion review too often fails to achieve proper results in disputed cases

  • See User:Badlydrawnjeff/DRV is Broken. A 6 week look at DRV results that went the full time period ended up with the incorrect result per process or policy 15% of the time, and that number includes uncontroversial decisions where no one disputes the result during the discussion.

Inclusionist Wikipedians are held to a different standard than other self-styled Wikipedians

BDJ is very intent on holding administrators accountable for their actions

Absolutely, and I'm sure there are diffs galore for it there, as well, that are too numerous to dig up. JzG notes in his ArbCom statement that he doesn't like me going after those pushing the button on deletions, for instance, as if administrators are simply there to not inspect whether a speedy deletion is legitimate. As a threat to the power structure, people don't trust me. I can accept that personally, but not when it bleeds over like this.

Responses

Response to Tony Sidaway

Tony claims my objections are "fluid and inconsistent." He fails to note my admittance of being "hasty" in said response to NYB.[35]

Response to Phil Sandifer

The first set do not demonstrate any disruption whatsoever, as deletion discussions are just that - discussions. Could I be less heated at times? Yes, and I'm the first to admit it.

The second part about the RfC is irrelevant - if 50 editors can come around to endorse a disruptive closure by Sam Blanning, those 50 editors can change the policy if they so choose. Sam was incorrect.

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway

The issue is not hostility to inclusionism

In 2005 in loose collaboration with others I undertook an avowedly inclusionist and highly successful project to stop what I perceived to be unwarranted campaign of deletion of articles related to high schools.

It's still running, although I myself subsequently focused my interests elsewhere. In general I have found Wikipedia to be an intensely inclusionist environment, as evidenced by the high success rate of the project to turn deletion debates around and focus on improving Wikipedia's coverage of schools. The deletion debate record for 2005 read:

  • Nominated: 424. Kept: 362; Deleted: 41; Merged/redirected: 13; Other: 8.

This was an extraordinarily high keep rate. Note that most of the deletions were in the earlier part of the year, before I started the project. In particular, of 12 school articles listed for deletion in January, all but 3 were deleted. In December of that year, 22 articles were listed for deletion and all were kept. I myself had left the project in September.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute results suggest that Badlydrawnjeff's complaints do not come close to enjoying consensus

At the request of the arbitration committee, Badlydrawnjeff took his dispute with actions over the QZ article to Requests for comment.

  • Original complaint alleging wheel warring, disregard for consensus, and incivility:
    • Certified by 6 editors (not all of whom could validly certify)
    • Endorsed by 7 editors

The most significant responses in terms of support or opposition can be summarised as follows:

  • Commentary by User:JzG strongly disputing the case, particularly with respect to the claim that administrators had engaged in wheel warring:
    • Endorsed by 30 editors
  • Outside view by BigDT saying simply: "This whole thing is stupid. It's time to move on with life":
    • Endorsed by 28 editors including Badlydrawnjeff who however added "but there are reasons why we can't."
  • Response by Doc glasgow critical of Jeff's focus on that particular article and describing it in terms of "Articles about fat Chinese kids who get mocked on websites":
    • endorsed by 23 editors
  • Another outside view by "Radiant!" critical of the unjustified blocking of Badlydrawnjeff in relation to this case:
    • Endorsed by 23 editors
  • Outside view of FloNight, essentially: "Please respect the closing admin unless there is a clear undisputed error":
    • Endorsed by 21 editors

User:Badlydrawnjeff's objections are fluid and inconsistent

Here I present a recently compiled bit of evidence which illustrates the difficulty of understanding Jeff's objections, because they often seem to contradict his prior statements.

In discussing the deletion of two articles on the child victims of abduction and serious sexual abuse, Newyorkbrad said on my talk page on 27th May:

  • ...I have gone ahead and deleted both articles. They concern two juveniles, still alive and still minors, who were the victims of kidnapping and horrific multiple sexual assaults. The mass media would probably not have printed their names but for the fact that they were kidnapped before being assaulted, resulting in "missing children" publicity, and the media may have felt it was too late to put the genie of publicity back into the bottle. Wikipedia need not follow this course and as these teenagers seek to recover from their ordeals, there is no reason to publicize them further under the innocent victims' names, so that Wikipedia joins in ensuring that years from now, the first bit of information that will be available about these people is what a predator did to them. For legitimate encyclopedic purposes, sufficient coverage can be found in our article about the criminal, from which I have redacted only the victims' names—probably a symbolic gesture, but one I am comfortable with. And I truly urge those who support the inclusion of virtually all disputed content to consider whether a line must be drawn somewhere, and this is an appropriate place. [36]

Badlydrawnjeff's response was:

  • For the record, current minors is an area we shouldn't touch. I don't disagree with that. You want to draw a clear line, that's a good one [37]

Today I moved an article in the name of a four-month-old minor who survived the recent Indian Ocean tsunami, to the name by which the baby was called by the press prior to identification of his parents, Baby 81, and removed the name of the minor from the article. All links were updated. The name is still given by some references, but at least it's no longer being broadcast by this top ten website. Jeff now opposes this, with the support of ALoan and without waiting on my response to his request for clarification of BLP concerns, moving the article back to the original place [38] and restoring the wording [39]. His justification:

  • "Four month old baby" is not part of BLP. [40]

On my request, the article was then move-protected on BLP grounds by an administrator. Two orphaned redirects were also deleted following the move.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Generic Evidence (Created by User:Phil Sandifer)

Because I suspect that there are certain claims that are going to be echoed by many parties, it seems easiest for the arbcom to condense some of these into one section. Accordingly, I am opening this section with the intention that anybody may contribute to it. I may refactor in order to keep this section relatively concise and on-target, but if you have a diff supporting a claim here, please feel free to make it.

I will note that this evidence section is, shall we say, a bit prosecutorial. That is not to dismiss those who wish to support Jeff's actions, but it becomes confusing to have a schizophrenic evidence section, and so I'm going to say no to that. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure this is a good idea unless you can find a way to format it so that editors sign their submissions individually, otherwise accountability becomes difficult. Thatcher131 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff is incivil and disruptive in deletion discussions

Jeff has posted the same critique of another user in multiple deletion discussions, which is needlessly inflammatory. [41]

Jeff has made many incivil and overly hostile comments in deletion debates: [42] [43] [44]

Jeff engages in argumentation in deletion debates rather than simply stating his case (Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]); (List of Muslims involved in a crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67])

Badlydrawnjeff's complaints do not come close to enjoying consensus (2)

Submitted by Steel359

In addition to Tony Sidaway above:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning

  • Original complaint alleging disruption and abuse of trust on the part of Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs)
    • Certified by 3 editors
    • Endorsed by 2 editors
  • Outside view by Redvers: "This was never going to be anything other than an obvious "keep deleted". The "discussion" that was being held was generating heat but no light. Samuel Blanning therefore correctly used his judgment to end a broken process. Wikipedia processes exist to facilitate the creation of an encyclopedia. They are not a means unto themselves."
    • Endorsed by 41 editors

Evidence presented by violet/riga (t)

Doc glasgow's deletion log

Articles deleted and restored

Rumaisa Rahman

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "unreferenced child bio - per WP:BLP feel free to recreate with sources"
  • Not referenced (created in 2004 before referencing was so prevalent).
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: significant rewrite

Merged into Premature birth by JzG. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

Abhilasha Jeyarajah

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP and WPNOT"
  • Four references (not inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: created

Presently at Baby 81 without mention of the name.

Kian and Remee Hodgson

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP and WP:NOT take it away"
  • Two references (not inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: none

Turned into article Mixed twins by FCYTravis. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

Manar Maged

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "eak, no WP:BLP"
  • Seven references (three inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of the person and the events.
  • My work on the article: none

Notability is clearly established by references and mention of several television programmes. Currently on AfD heading for a merger into Conjoined twin. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

Charlotte Wyatt

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP attack"
  • Six references (all inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way - everything is fully referenced.
  • My work on the article: none

Article has been re-deleted by Swatjester (this constitutes a "slow-motion wheel war").

Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP and WP:NOT"
  • No references
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: none

Article has been re-deleted by Swatjester (this constitutes a "slow-motion wheel war").

Montana Barbaro

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "unreferenced bio per WP:BLP without prejudice to properly sourced recreation"
  • No references (but four external links that could be used as such)
  • Accusation of bigamy could be seen as defamatory
  • My work on the article: none

Prod by FCYTravis.

Rebeca Martínez

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "unreferenced child BLP - recreate with compliant sources if you wish"
  • No references
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: none

Currently on AfD heading for a merger into Conjoined twin. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

Delimar Vera Cuevas

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP unsourced child bio"
  • No references
  • Some content could be controversial but would have easily been removed rather than the entire article deleted.
  • My work on the article: none

Deleted by AfD. I accept this, having commented that I did not mind if it were kept or not as long as it went through due process.


Evidence presented by AnonEMouse

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is being misused by people who don't read it

Specifically, the policy is being cited for deleting articles that don't violate it, and for closing discussion on articles that are disputable whether or not they violate it.

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker speedily closed for the reason that "a number of editors in the DRV debate expressed the opinion that these are are unacceptable per WP:BLP." Note that there is no claim that those editors had achieved consensus, or even were in the majority - they hadn't, and they weren't. The claim is merely that some people said so, so merely that claim is a reason to overrule the DRV decision.
  • Here are the deletion log entries in question:
    • 21:26, May 26, 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Robyn Dawkins" (per [[WP:BLP][] not to be restored for procedural reasons) (Restore)
    • 20:54, May 26, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Robyn Dawkins" (4 revisions restored: restore for afd, per DRV)
  • Here is the deleted content of Robyn Dawkins
[REDACTED James F. (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]

The reference is to 60 Minutes.""Switched at birth"". 2007. Retrieved May 23. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |Work= ignored (|work= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

  • This meets the standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The information is sourced, not derogatory, not controversial, not even disputed. The alleged BLP violation cited in the DRV were:
    • "A 60 min programmes will not Google on this child's name later in life - we will." First, that's not a BLP deletion reason. Second, it's simply not true, as that very article used as a reference is the first Google hit for this child's name.
    • "This is a hospital fuck-up and will be forgotten next time a hospital fucks up." The 60 Minutes article is from 2007, the incident was from 1989 - it hasn't been forgotten in 18 years. Here it is from 2004. Also, that's not a BLP deletion reason.
    • "Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Come back when mainstream sources have proper substantial biographical articles on these individuals" 60 Minutes is hardly a tabloid newspaper, it is a respected program, considered by many to be the preeminent investigative television program in the United States. It is a mainstream source and the citation is to a proper substantial biographical article.
    • Note that the boys, now over 18, no longer minors, are still giving these interviews voluntarily. They aren't objecting to being the subjects of international news coverage, instead Wikipedia admins who never asked them are objecting to their article in their name.

And it just goes on and on. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:JzG

Jeff misunderstands the purpose of WP:BLP

WP:BLP in a nutshell: 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. Jeff misunderstands the purpose of WP:BLP as being primarily about "covering one's legal behind". [68]. This is false. Legal responsibility can be managed by WP:V and WP:NPOV, as for other potential subjects of defamation (e.g corporations); no special policy is required to fulfil this purpose.

Violetriga uses admin tools capriciously

Evidence presented by Phil Sandifer

Violetriga Wheel Warred

Violetriga undid several of Doc Glasgow's BLP deletions. [70] This was done without discussion with Doc Glasgow - an astonishingly bad idea for a sensitive matter like BLP concerns.

Furthermore, two of the articles were ones she created, making her actions inappropriate and a conflict of interest [71]

She subsequently acted quite uncivilly to Doc Glasgow [72].


Evidence presented by Doc

Jeff was personally obsessive and about the QZ deletion

Apparently, somehow claiming this is false. But I count four (re)openings of DRV [73] [74] [75] [76] plus a request for arbitration and an RfC. He stated his intention to carry on with DRV attempts after the RfC, and regardless of the outcome. [77] [78] That's in addition to dozens of comments. Why does it always have to be Jeff that pursues these things? If a deletion needs challenging, someone will challenge it.

Doc is (generally) competent in deletion judgements

I spend a lot of time helping to clean-up wikipedia from problematic biographies of living people. I am active on OTRS. I believe Wikipedia has a major problem and an obligation to sort it. I am intolerant of those who feel process is more important that product in this regard. It matters to me - I get snappy - sorry. I carry out BLP/OTRS related deletion fairly often.[79].. They are actually seldom challenged, and I can't recall the last time I was not endorsed on DRV. That indicates the community generally agrees with my judgement.

But as it states on my userpage "*I will review any of my administrative actions on request. I'm not infallible but I'm humble enough to admit error."" [80]. If approached, I will review my actions and back up if I think I've misjudged it. See recently this discussion, where I reversed myself on review. Jeff himself will recall that I carried out an WP:IAR deletion of a bio in response to an OTRS privacy request, only after discussion with him on IRC, and an indication that I'd undelete and AfD if anyone objected. As I recall he concurred with my use of IAR on that occasion.

I will not defend the specific deletions that violetriga cites. Although, I note that one of these articles is likely to be left as an independent article. I may, or may not, have been hasty in deleting them. I have actually not reviewed that, since they were undeleted before I was questioned.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence&oldid=134682945"