Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Principle 2

This principle says "Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly". I find this wording troubling. If wikipedia is to be reliable and contain all the notable information about a subject, it should contain information about notable blunders made by an individual which is certainly of relevance to the reader in judging the credibility of that individual. Such blunders may indeed reduce the stature of the individual in the eyes of many but I do not think this is a good enough reason to not provide that information.

There are conflicting goals here. One is to be a comprehensive reference and the second is to maintain dignity. I hope that notable facts are not going to be put in second place because of this conflict. Perhaps my concern would be addressed by the correct interpretation of "primarily" above. I hope so. Perhaps the wording could be expanded to make the intention clearer.

Wikipedia should not, in my view, be considering any approach which means that influential people, like the Pope, can be sure that undignified mistakes they have made will not see the light of day. Eiler7 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Think of "mock" and "disparage" as being negative ways of wording things. As per NPOV we should word them carefully. I think that the principle is trying to state that an article should not exist if its only purpose is to highlight something negative, rather than a section of another article. violet/riga (t) 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "primarily" is important here. If the only thing notable about a person is that he once waved a golfing tool around and pretended to be Han Solo, and a film of this was mocked by bullies, then obviously any article about him risks furthering the goal of mockery and should be written with great care. On the other hand if a prominent politician vomits all over his hosts on an important diplomatic occasion, or during a state visit is confined to his plane by the after-effects of a drinking bout, one shouldn't airbrush the incident out. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the last few days

So I'm here trying to explain my reasoning behind the restoration of some articles. I give my arguments and have shown, without any evidence to the contrary, that most if not all of the articles should never have been speedy deleted. I try to explain how the current BLP policy does not fit what it needs to and is far too vague, and that it does not give an admin permission to delete an article that is not defamatory and is sourced. I've tried to show how the off-cited "do no harm" is also too vague. I've explained how I fully support BLP and have constantly said that we should develop the policy so that admins can delete articles on sight in required situations.

Apparently I'm an unethical "disgrace to the project" (that from an arbitrator, from whom I would expect better). Apparently I'm likely to undelete lots of other articles despite having only done so on one occasion. Apparently me trying to help and resolve issues which, it is important to note, is not just me against the world gets me into further trouble.

I've asked for the deletions and the deleting admin to be reviewed, yet had no response. I've asked for any defamatory comments from those articles (except the one I noted myself) to be highlighted, but none have. I've asked for clarification on the "deceased" aspect of BLP, but clearly the policy is not clear on this.

As is clear from my contributions I've had no time to do anything here for days on end except discuss this issue. You'll see the times that I posted such messages, ranging from very late nights to early mornings and throughout the day. Personally I'd say that the amount of my real life I've spent trying to actually sort this out and help show how BLP is currently problematic is punishment enough. "Cautions" and "Admonishments" are hardly warranted based on one single event when I haven't shown any reason for restoring further articles. It also appears that had I not discussed anything here at all I would have had a lesser punishment. violet/riga (t) 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the crux of this, and I've been disappointed with the fact that committee members have not outlined specific allegations. I count at least half a dozen others here expressing the same concerns.

Some arbitrators have responded here with irrelevant points (i.e. what happens in two decades - which is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether a 1-week process is allowed to proceed). I've not seen any of the articles in question, but given the fact that nobody seems to want to give specifics of why these violated BLP, I can only assume the BLP violations were minor at best.

Violetriga, the only problem I have with your behavior is that you didn't discuss first - but given the lack of willingness of anyone to discuss this matter now, to provide specifics of why exactly these articles were such an imminent BLP danger that they warranted immediate removal outside of process, I seriously doubt discussion would have made a difference. ATren 16:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I can accept that and apologised to Doc shortly after the matter. I still think that discussion could've taken place using BRD but, as I said to Doc, "I understand that [he] would not have been happy to have been reverted". violet/riga (t) 16:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should make it more clear that you accept responsibility for reverting without discussion, which you admit was a mistake, but that you disagree with the notion that your actions indicate that you are hostile to the principles of BLP; and in fact you thought you were in full compliance with BLP. If that's your position. ATren 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: I am saddened to see that the sanction against Violetriga has increased based solely on the discussions here. The discussion has been civil, and Violet has given no indication that she will violate the principles laid down here - the crux of her argument is that she believed her prior interpretations were correct with respect to the vague wording of BLP (before the more strict principles were laid down here). This seems to be yet another case of punishment for discussion, this time for civil comments made by someone in defense of her own decisions. Are we to be admonished for civil, reasonable dissent? ATren 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles cited in evidence were all about infants, either living or (in one case) recently deceased. There were significant, though not overwhelming, BLP issues concerned with having these as biographical articles. It wouldn't have hurt Wikipedia to discuss and obtain consensus if you thought they should be restored. That is what the arbitration committee is telling you.

In point of fact, I list above 5 articles that were mentioned in evidence which were about dead children. One was aged almost 6 when he died in 2002, so hardly an infant; another died as long ago as 2000. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "unilateral" has frequently been used as a pejorative to describe action taken without prior discussion on the wiki. In general most actions on the wiki, including most administrator actions, are unilateral in that sense, and the term is therefore not really much use. However the arbitration committee in this case has identified one instance where taking action without discussing and obtaining consensus is wrong: restoring an article deleted on BLP grounds. It's wrong enough to get an administrator warned and, if it looks like she doesn't understand why she was warned, put on notice that she'll lose her sysop bit immediately if she does it again. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But BLP does not say anything specific about young people, and the articles were not harming anybody. It's just unfortunate (and ironic) that I was the only one willing to discuss the deletion of the articles yet I'm being punished. violet/riga (t) 17:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, you were warned because you restored without making an effort to discuss. You are being further sanctioned because it is evident that you have not absorbed the message: that you failed to discuss. --Tony Sidaway 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Doc, the deleting admin, has never made a case for the deletions. You called "do no harm" after several days. I repeatedly said that I wanted to discuss it as per BRD, but the both of you have failed to give any reason for the deletions (other than this convenient "do no harm"). I was asked to discuss it and I was repeated refused. As far as I'm concerned the other people involved in this should be sanctioned for their refusals. violet/riga (t) 17:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And unless you've somehow turned into an arbitrator I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to represent what they are saying. violet/riga (t) 17:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As for not understanding about the warning well firstly I haven't said or done anything that would imply that I wouldn't discuss such a deletion in the future. You are painting the picture of a stupid idiot that doesn't understand what is being said. I fully understand - it's just that I am explaining my reasoning: that I examined the articles, found not in our BLP policy that meant they were acceptably deleted, and reverted them before initiating discussions. violet/riga (t) 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have defended the deletions at least twice on this very page. On the subject of Doc's responses, I see for instance his comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manar Maged, which is a subsequent deletion discussion on one of the articles you restored. So if you're not seeing his comments on the subject, it's possible that you're not looking in the right places.

The arbitrators have tried to explain to you why further sanctions are being considered, but you don't seem to understand so I thought I'd have a go. Can't blame me for trying. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For that AfD Doc says "If merging this into conjoined twin improves that article, fine. otherwise delete. There is simply no case for an independent article here.". That's not a BLP (or speediable) reason and hardly an explanation at all. In fact, it shows that Doc believes that a merger was an appropriate course of action, thus he should have tried that first rather than delete it. You have defended the deletions using "do no harm" and "infant". The former is your convenient cover-all and the latter is plucked from nowhere. violet/riga (t) 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Of the seven artices offered in evidence, not one remains in its original form. Most have simply been redeleted and the remainder exist mainly as footnotes, without the name of the infant, in appropriate articles. Clearly there is something to the notion that we shouldn't normally have articles about infant children of private individuals, in their name, on Wikipedia, but should find more appropriate ways of incorporating the information into the encyclopedia, if at all. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - look at what happens if people disagree. I'm not sure of your point though - I've purposely left the articles alone because of this case, but if you look at the evidence page you'll see my opinion of the articles. Shockingly I agree with what's happened, except your assertion that names are evil and shouldn't be included in an article even if a dozen references use it. violet/riga (t) 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that the fact that "not one remains in its original form" is not being taken to mean that there is consensus on the way some of these topics have been handled. For my part, I still find the current resolution to Charlotte Wyatt to be entirely unsatisfying. I have avoided editing the topic (under any article title) further solely because instigating an issue under active ArbCom disucssion seems, well, ill-advised; Wikipedia can wait. I don't know how many others I speak for, but I also know I'm not alone in wanting to stay off the Remedies list of this case. But we're still left with no guidance on when, for example, names should be redacted. And I'm sorry, but at the risk of drawing offense at this late date, I don't find open-ended assertions of "dignity" compelling, especially from the same editor who, in an effort to make Wikipedia less like a tabloid, discarded medical and legal journal citations in favor of a redacted clause cited to newspaper blurbs. Serpent's Choice 20:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The recently deceased

I have proposed a new finding of fact on the worshop, with associated evidence, which is in essence a counter-argument to the proposed principle BLP applies only to living people. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, no one's actually answered the central questions...

So far, we seem to be having the same argument again and again. This is because a number of points have been repeatedly raised, and the ArbCom has simply not answered them, and has instead continued to threaten Violetriga, when she is guilty of nothing more than following the literal wording of the policies. The points are this:

1. If an article on a living person of dubious notability is created, and the article is completely sourced to reliable, non-trivial published sources (therefore not defamatory), is it justifiable to delete it immediately under BLP, without discussion?
2. If such a deletion occurs, and it is challenged, is it correct for another admin to undelete it and send it to AfD?
3. If the answer to question 2 is no, then what method should be used to gauge community consensus on the fate of the deleted article?
4. How far do the above provisions extend? Do they apply to recently deceased people, or to articles that contain information on a living relative of a notable deceased person?

The ArbCom needs to answer these questions. So far, all they've produced is threats. Walton^{alternate account} 10:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, here goes

1. Generally (99% of the time) speaking, no. However, there may be some cases where the article is a totally hatchet job. (An attack can be well referenced!) or otherwise grossly unethical. In such very, very, rare cases, an admin may IAR/BLP delete and then we can debate it if anyone objects.
2. No, never. And certainly not without asking the deleting admin for comment first. It is entirely possible that the challenging admin has missed something obvious.
3. Firstly, always discuss with the deleter first. There is no rush to undelete. He/she may be able to satisfy the challenger that it is libellous or otherwise inappropriate (or the challenger may persuade the deleter that a speedy is unneccessary). If no agreement is possible with the deleter, then go to DRV. There should be no undeletion unless the content has been reviewed by various admins who think it is safe for an open afd debate.
4. Use common sense. With highly notable people, there will be a good version to revert to (or just delete the bad versions). With deceased people, consider the impact on the living. A recently dead baby is really biographical material affecting the parents - use your judgement. And avoid strawmen.--82.10.143.137 – Doc glasgow 11:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear response... but I was asking for a reply from an arbitrator, not an anon IP. Or are you an arbitrator that wasn't logged in when posting? Walton^{alternate account} 11:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your identity, I wasn't sure who it was. Walton^talk 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point here is that the answers to those questions are so clear from the proposed decision that further answers from arbitrators are not necessary. Also it has been pointed out elsewhere on this page that raising edge cases is not likely to be productive. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately almost all the cases that have been dealt with and have given rise to these problems are edge cases. JoshuaZ 15:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My take on the "clear" answers are:

• (1) yes - it seems to be the case that any admin can delete any article that is "substantially a biography of a living person" on sight if they perceive BLP concerns (whether or not such BLP concerns turn out to be justified)
• (2) no - even if the other admin is convinced that there are no real BLP issues, they should not undelete without a "full" discussion leading to an "actual" consensus / "decision" to reverse the original admins choice to delete (so the undeletion of, for example, the articles on dead people that I mention above are "wrong" on this basis, despite several of the still existing in some form)
• (3) discussion would presumably take place on the article's talk page, an involved user's talk page, or a relevant noticeboard, such as DRV, I guess (although it is not at all clear how anyone other than the original authors or someone checking an admin's deletion log would know that an article has been summarily deleted for claimed BLP concerns - justified or not - or that this kind of discussion is ongoing. Perhaps such deletions should be listed somewhere?)
• (4) this policy extends to any article that is "substantially a biography of a living person". FWIW, I don't see how a biography of a dead (even recently deceased) person can be "substantially a biography of a living person", unless it goes into detail about other living persons (friends or family, perhaps). In any case, it seems clear that the first line should be to excise the problematic parts, or revert to an earlier unproblematic version, rather than delete wholesale.

If this is right, don't we need to update WP:CSD? {{db-blp}}?

I am not sure why we need to give admins carte blanche to delete on sight, though. Wouldn't it be better to employ something like the copyvio system - blank the page, add an appropriate template (even protect, if necessary, to prevernt version while discussion continues), and then a second uninvolved admin could review the article and delete it if necessary. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Several people have suggested this great idea now but the admins going around deleting under BLP have yet to comment. violet/riga (t) 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I am behind the curve - I see Tony has busily been making or proposing changes to WP:BLP, WP:CSD and WP:DP over the past few days already! I should have thought it was worth waiting for this case to close before changes were made to the policy pages to reflect it (who knows - the ArbCom may change its mind: it seems that they cannot decide whether dead people are protected by our policy on biographies of living people at the moment). It is also possible that community consensus will shift once people realise what ArbCom say our current policy is - particular when the policy pages are amended to reflect it - in which case the ArbCom's interpretation will become moot. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And he is now edit-warring to remove a clause that has been in policy for at least a year (I won't check back further) when he has no consensus to do so. violet/riga (t) 08:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh what nonsense. One revert isn't an edit war. --Tony Sidaway 08:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:1RR. You made a change that was undone, two other users joined in, then you revert again (the third removal of the clause and your second). That is clearly part of an edit war. Add to that the consensus is actually against you as it stands on the talk page. violet/riga (t) 09:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Even on the standard of 1RR, one revert is no edit war. --Tony Sidaway 09:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your action was the second revert, thus it was an edit war. You were wrong to cite consensus which didn't exist and even more mistaken to revert again. violet/riga (t) 09:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, you're complaining because I was the second editor to revert you? That's a little lame, isn't it? --Tony Sidaway 09:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm complaining that you were edit warring on a policy page against consensus. What a laughable attempt to turn it round. violet/riga (t) 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also complaining that you are misrepresenting the proposed principles by saying that undeleting an article is wrong when the arbcom have only discussed those relating to BLP. violet/riga (t) 09:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wheelwarring should always be avoided. If an admin goes crazy and deletes the main page, any sensible admin will undelete without needing a special clause in the deletion policy that allows them to do it. For cases that appear on the scale between the main page and fat Chinese children, if the deletion is crazy, it will be undone without needing to appeal to a special clause. If it's a proper deletion, it hopefully won't be undone. If it's borderline, we can discuss it. ElinorD (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If all this has any relevance to the arbitration, I suggest that you take it to the evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 10:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point - I don't agree with trying to get people "told off". I was merely highlighting it here for transparency. violet/riga (t) 11:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Talking before acting

New section written by me #34 - the longest yet

Had I not been in a rush (not an excuse) I might've spoken to Doc before restoring the articles. Had they not included articles I had on my watchlist I never would have undeleted them (simply because I wouldn't have noticed). Some people want me to say "I should've discussed before acting" and that, apparently, is a grave sin.

I want to make this very clear. I did not restore all of the articles that Doc deleted. I went through and examined them and specifically noted that they were not defamatory. These were undeleted. There is no harm in having such an article when it has been around for years, is mirrored around the web, and whose subject is discussed at length on numerous other sites. With the one exception already noted (which I was trying to attend to but was distracted by the fallout) none of the articles contained anything that anyone could take offence to. This is not a comment on the appropriateness of their inclusion, and I was more than accepting of them being taken to AfD and/or being merged elsewhere.

It clearly states on our BLP policy that "unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article". I based my undeletions on the fact that most of the articles failed both of these. Speedy deleting articles when it is not justified is not acceptable. I decided that the best course of action was to restore them and then discuss it. Restoring the articles could not harm those involved when it was not negative. I am fully aware of the ethics of writing an encyclopaedia. I understand how the media can be destructive to lives. These articles were not capable of such a thing, and our BLP policy, as it is (was) written is more about avoiding legal action than caring for people. This is wrong and we need to develop the policy, but we are currently going through a period of change and the vagueness of the current wording is causing trouble. I am being taken to task for one (good faith) interpretation of BLP. My interpretation and my actions would not have caused harm or put us into any kind of legally-prone situation.

So I am being admonished for not discussing the action. Well I stand by my reasoning. The articles were not deleted validly and so I tried to do what I thought was best for the project by restoring them and then entering discussions as to how to progress - most likely to AfD them. The opposing interpretation of BLP is based more on the ethical principles (which may or may not be the best way to develop the policy) but, as shown above, is not supported by the wording of the policy. I don't like the pejorative neologism "wikilawyering", and while I understand the importance of letter/spirit there is simply no other way to take a policy that states that you can only delete an article if it is "unsourced and negative in tone".

One thing that I won't accept is accusations that I did not try to discuss the deletions. I certainly did and the deleter was unwilling to enter into the debate. This is not acceptable and I am surprised that there isn't any sort of remedy that considers this. I can accept that discussing first would've have been more polite and would've avoided much of this, but I actually think that it has proven useful as it has sparked more debate and will hopefully develop the BLP policy.

Finally, I am somewhat bemused by the decision by the arbcom to threaten me with "do that again and...". We are talking about a one-off event that was not repeated since, and at no point have I even intimated that I would do the same again. Indeed, to do so would violate the updated version of the BLP policy and I never knowingly go against our policies.

Sorry that the above is so long - I just wanted to fully clarify my thought process around the restorations as I feel that some people are not totally aware of why I acted how I did. violet/riga (t) 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The excuses are lame

I wasn't going to comment again, but the total tosh above from violetriga can't go unanswered.

• "Had I not been in a rush"?

1) You say? Well, what was the rush? Would the wiki collapse without these very minor biographies for a few hours, while we discussed it? Most of them have now been re-deleted, and the wiki is still here. I was on-line, my talk page was open. I've a track record of reversing myself or finding compromises when asked. The problem was you were in a flipping rush to get your way, regardless of the consequences.

• "I went through and examined them and specifically noted that they were not defamatory"

2) Hey, that makes no sense. You claim you had time to carefully check all seven? You claim, you made sure everything was referenced? You claim checked the references said what the text claimed they said? How did you do this, when you were is such a "rush" that you had no time to come to my talk page? You can't have it both ways.

3) You "noted they were not defamatory". Yes, except the one that was: the unreferenced claim of bigamy. Indeed you noted it was a BLP violation at the time YET YOU STILL UNDELETED IT, and even many hours later had done nothing to remove the violation that you spotted. You shrug that off as one admitted mistake, but that's the nub of it. Your actions led to a BLP violation being restored. That's unacceptable.

4) You still claim you were right to reverse me since *the articles didn't violate BLP". Well, that's the problem - you imposed your judgement over mine. Now, I am weak, fallible, and biased, and some of my deletion may even have been wrong headed.... but you are fallible too. As you seem incapable of seeing. Your judgement can be wrong and, indeed, in this case was blatantly so.

5) Since it is better for a minor, but BLP compliant, article to be deleted for a bit, than to risk a BLP violating one being visible, we need to be really certain before undeleting something when an admin has asserted a BLP violation. You keep saying in your defence, that you were really, really, really, certain - but a) you were in a self-convinced "rush" - not a good place to make important infallible judgements b) you hadn't bothered asking me what I'd seen that you hadn't - you might well have missed something c) you made at least one glaring error with a BLP violation. Now, even if, in fact, you'd been totally right, and I'd been totally wrong - your action would still have been reckless as it is always at least possible that a reviewing admin makes a mistake. Or are we to say "oh, nevermind, it's violetriga - let her do as she chooses - she's always right".

Frankly, your actions were reckless in the extreme - and your failure to recognise that is the nub of the problem. It doesn't really matter what arbcom passes, as long as they are satisfied that you either get it, or, even if you don't, you won't do it again. If that means desysopping, that's unfortunate. (Doc glasgow) --11:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1 & 2) I was in a rush and did not want to get drawn into the problem you had caused (I wanted to go to bed) but I actually stayed up for over two hours (or thereabouts) to try and resolve the issue. As per the common convention of BRD the articles were restored and discussion could've taken place. I was rushing but then still hung around to try and talk to you. Did you talk? Nah - you simply had no justification for deleting them. If you had I'm sure you could've quoted the policy and I would immediately have held my hands up to a mistake.

3) I forgot to remove that one line (that I specifically pointed out) because of your badgering and belligerence. That one line should've been taken out, not the whole article deleted. You wrongly deleted eight articles.

4 & 5) But no evidence has been shown that means that the articles were acceptably deleted under BLP. That means that I was right, just that (according to some) I should've discussed it first. If there was something that was really bad (x was a prostitute that... you get the idea) it would a) have never been undeleted, and b) been redeleted very quickly given the traffic generated by the situation.

I'm glad you finally came back to comment rather than sitting back, having been the instigator of all of this (both the arbcom and the invalid deletions), and thinking that you were right. violet/riga (t) 11:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, my commentary above is not disputable. It is an accurate explanation of my thoughts behind my actions. You might disagree with them, as might others, but at least I'm trying to explain why I did what I did rather than not saying anything at all. violet/riga (t) 11:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD, Principle 4, and the proposed cautioning

I probably should have made this comment earlier, but I've been a bit distracted lately.

My undeletions were based on Wikipedia:Deletion Policy, which states "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." The articles which I undeleted did not meet a speedy deletion criterion, as they were written at the time, and were therefore out of process. Unless an explicit criterion is added to the CSDs for BLPs other than G10, deletions of BLP articles based on editors' subjective opinions of what harms they may cause will remain out-of-process. This ruling is therefore contrary to policy as written and I ask that either the written policy or the decision be modified to reflect this. Until a very short time ago, the standard procedure for harmful articles was stubbing, protection, and monitoring. Principle 4 would be an endorsement of an expansion of power not supported by history or policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have compared BLP to Oz. In a way it's also like a looking glass world. It changes the way in which we implement our other policies. This is a learning experience for all of us. --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a learning experience and, as long as no harm is caused and no policies are repeatedly violated, people should not be sanctioned for their actions. violet/riga (t) 22:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oz or Alice in Wonderland is about right - it seems a bit odd that policy pages need to be amended to reflect this decision, which is, as I understand it, interpreting the existing policy. Perhaps we should ask ArbCom to tell us what the amended policy pages mean. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP tends to operate under a lot of radars. Some BLP-based operations are undiscussed and rightly so, and those implementing them are reluctant to draw attention to what is done, because it need to be done while attracting a minimum of attention. So yes, written policy has lagged far behind practice. A certain amount of cognitive dissonance is inevitable when arbcom clarifies policy in a particular case, and it doesn't resemble written policy. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In Night Gyr's case it's difficult to argue that he's been learning. After the Crystal Gale Mangum affair came the Jeffrey Baldwin affair. In the Allison Stokke matter I suppose at least he had the fig leaf that David had said that it was okay for an admin to undelete, but a long, long and pointless drama could have been avoided if some common sense had been exercised. Undeleting deleted BLPs creates a toxic atmosphere and makes it difficult to enforce the policy. --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrarily deleting articles creates a toxic atmosphere too. violet/riga (t) 23:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here is the assumption of bad faith involved in the use of the word "arbitrary". The deleting administrator is one of our best, and to say that he's prone to arbitrary actions is not accurate and not helpful in this case. It is not the deletions that caused the toxic atmosphere, but the overruling here and the subsequent refusal to undo the damage. You were politely asked to redelete several times by different editors. --Tony Sidaway 00:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. Viridae^Talk 00:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed_decision#Violetriga also this and this and this. And this. This isn't the way to behave, accusing an administrator in good standing of vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 00:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about where I accused him of vandalism. I merely stated that his actions could be seen as vandalism if people thought the deletions were not good faith. violet/riga (t) 07:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You can hardly talk about good behaviour. What pisses the commnity off (makes a toxic atmosphere) is deletions without discussion and without reasoning. Viridae^Talk 00:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that twice but the evidence is on my side. --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, deleting something out of process while knowing in advance that it will be controversial can be taken as an indication of different things. One of them is an honest mistake, in which case the deleting admin should be willing to restore the article. It can also indicate impatience at best and arrogance or disrespect at worst. These imply an attitude of: "I know you'll disagree, but I know better than you, so I'll just ignore you." I'm not condoning the label of vandalism and I don't agree with undeletion without discussion but one can't call for process to be ignored when it comes to deletion, but insist that every detail be followed when it comes to undoing an out-of-process action. I agree that if there's a genuine dispute about a BLP (and the issue isn't a compromised account, or the like), the matter ought to be taken to DRV or AfD, but the best way to avoid conflicts regarding out-of-process deletions is still to not make such deletions in the first place. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem here wasn't lack of "process", which is mindless and should be trashed with prejudice wherever it is found infesting a wiki. It was failure to even attempt to communicate, and failure to think. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Process helps a community of this size run, people want their say. Admins ignoring process against consensus pisses a lot of people off. I would say that the deletions doc performed were the ones done with a lack of thought, because they pissed a lot of people off. Viridae^Talk 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony if you don't lke process, you had better find a smaller wiki. This one is just too big to work without it. Viridae^Talk 00:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's useful as long as it's regularly pissed on to keep it from overheating. But seriously, I urge you to read, understand and inwardly digest this proposed decision. Cos that's the way it is. --Tony Sidaway

(edit conflict) The issue is that the deleting admins thought they were operating under proper process, given the new understanding of BLP. The undeleting admins also argue they were operating under proper process. We have a conflict of what is considered proper process here, with each side arguing that the other is the one that violated process. -- Kesh 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've already suggested, process should be roundly fucked in all available orifices. The problem here was failure to adopt the commonsense "do no harm" rule of thumb in the underlying policy. This requires thought. Administrators aren't supposed to act like robots, they're supposed to think. Which is why "out of process" is a very, very stupid word to use about an adinistrator action. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So, "fuck process" when it gets in your way, like when and admin short circuits an AfD or DRV. But when the other side of the debate wavers one iota from policy, they get admonished, even if the policy itself was vague (or even non-existent) at the time. Put another way: admins don't need to follow policy if they're "doing the right thing". Where "doing the right thing" means "exercise common sense". And "exercising common sense" means "do no harm". And "do no harm" means "have some compassion". And "have some compassion" means "do the right thing"...

It's like pornography - admins will know it when they see it. ATren 05:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, your language is over the line. Please redact your first sentence immediately or I will do it for you. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 01:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. Express your respect for basic human dignity this way if you want. If this is the human dignity and ethics parade, I want to stay home. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 02:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that what passes for standard English vernacular where I live isn't considered acceptable where you live. My apologies, no offense was intended. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Using sentences such as "fucked in all available orifices" is not at all pleasant and is not appropriate. violet/riga (t) 07:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony this is why I don't approve at all of what you are doing. If you are "baffled" or think I am trying to personalize this then try rereading your comments. There is a place for people who think your language is perfectly okay and who persistently keeps trolling everyone who disagrees with him... it's called ED. Grow up Tony or at least learn how to speak with respect even if you disagree with those you are talking to. This isn't Usenet Tony... you don't earn respect for being uncivil. You are giving the side that wants articles like Allison Stokke gone a bad name. MartinDK 10:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) A "failure to even attempt to communicate". That perfectly describes a speedy deletion of a non-speedyable article. Tony, no large group can function with process. At minimum, process serves three functions. First, it helps to coordinate activity among tens of thousands of individuals with differing abilities, backgrounds, idiosyncrasies, and values. It does so in large part by mandating communication. Second, it protects the weak by ensuring that they are not ignored and bullied. Third, it ensures that most decisions are acceptable even to those who disagree with them. If your favourite article is deleted per consensus through an AfD ... well, what can you do but accept it? This is not the case when individual desires and interpretations override consensus-supported processes. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, disputes are settled in one of two ways: by process or by the barrel of a gun. If process is, as you put it, "roundly fucked", Wikipedia will become a battleground. One side may eventually win and drive away the rest, but the project overall will lose. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Accepting principle 4 will cause a fundamental change to the project. Tony Sidaway has done a little edit warring on WP:CSD for including BLPs for speedy deletion (the tone is not so harsh right now, but it will be when this gets enforced). If it is actually permitted that administrators may delete a BLP page at any time with their own subjective view, who knows what'll break loose. Controversial pages like the (recently permanently deleted) Daniel Brandt page would get deleted by any administrator involved in a discussion "per WP:CSD#G10", and we may even have more wheel wars. Please think twice about this principle. SalaSkan 01:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it there. This case if enacted in its current form, will be enough. I don't have to annoy anyone needlessly by spelling it out or by proposing reasonable alterations to policy ("a little edit warring on WP:CSD" if you prefer). What we have now isn't enough but the ball is moving in the right direction. Policy will change over time (and I confidently predict, such as to give my little tweaks a very milquetoast appearance indeed). This case is just a sensible interpretation of Wikipedia policy as it pertained in May, but we're learning and adjusting. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrator majority

"For this case, there are 12 active arbitrators, of whom one is recused, so 6 votes are a majority."

Based on the word "majority" and other recent cases I would have said that it would require 7 votes for a majority. violet/riga (t) 12:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the majority for twelve active arbitrators is seven. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, though. Mackensen is one of the twelve, and is recused. Eleven arbitrators are active in this case. --Tony Sidaway 12:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Since one is recused then 11 are active on this case. So the majority it 6. FloNight 12:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - so I see. violet/riga (t) 12:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of the committee members active on each case is found at the top of each case proposed decision talk page. [1] The clerks are good at keeping it updated. At various times and for various reasons during the case it will not be accurate. A final update is done at the time the case closes. That is the only one that matters. FloNight 12:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

I understand what is attempted to be done here as far as biographies of living people (BLP). I'm just wondering if the outright deletion idea is the best way for this. :S I read up above where there was the idea to treat BLPs like we do copyright violations, and just simply blank the page and put an ugly template on it. This would allow a "full" discussion by all editors. Now there might be something I'm missing here, and if there is someone is free to enlighten me on why deletion is the only way to do these. Is BLP concerns to be treated as so urgent as to be more important to remove then even a copyright violation? I understand the ethical consideration of removing the excess information, but a page blanking achieves the same affect, in both cases the information is hidden from public view, which is what I think we are going after. Also does this change when it is appropriate to delete, ie, when there is no good revision, or does this basically grant me or any other admin the ability to delete then look. Also I presume that the arbcom will not be happy with any admin that wrongly deletes an article under this. I'm just curious mostly. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We need a full range of options when we deal with content about living people. The options need to range from asking for sources, removing controversial content, stubbing and asking for a rewrite, redirecting, merge, moving to a different title (about the incident instead of the person,) prod, Afd, speeding deletion. Stubbing and doing an prod or Afd is about the same as the type of blanking that you are suggesting, I think. It might be appropriate if the article was a really crappy mixture of poor sources and reliable sources about a borderline notable person. But in some cases, the best course of action is immediate deletion if in the judgment of the deleting admin the article is a real problem and best removed at least for now. DRV is available to review speeding deletions if someone disagrees with the deleting admin. Discussion with the deleting admin should almost always happen first since they might know something that is not obvious to the casual observer. FloNight 14:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgetting my actions, does "the article is a real problem and best removed" apply to Doc's deletions? Certainly not, so I'm wondering how come none of this is being tackled by the arbcom. violet/riga (t) 14:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Doc's deletions were following the spirit of the deletion and BLP policy if the not the letter. We do not sanction editors and administrators for attempting to do the right thing. That is one of the reasons that WP:IAR has always be an important cultural ethos on Wikipedia-en.

As Wikipedia-en has grown to be one of the top sites on the Internet, we have become more aware of the different ways that our articles can impact society. We've learned that some people get very upset by their article. We are causing people emotional distress. Some of the time the best short term fix is deletion until the issue can be sorted. This applies mostly if the person is a non-public borderline notable figure only known for a single event. Sometimes the situation can be resolved quickly. Other times the article might need to stay deleted for weeks to months or years because it is the best solution. We need to remember that we are not a news agency with the responsibility to keep the public full updated about current events. An encyclopedia looks at the long view and places people and incidents in context. Often this can not happen right away. So waiting to see how something looks a year later might be best. Because there are differences of opinion about this type of deletion, DRV is the best place to resolve it if someone feels that it is being done in a situation where an article is the best approach. I personally feel that doing a DRV for an article that was speedy deleted and will likely be endorsed as proper for privacy and dignity reasons should be avoided even if the deleting admin did not have a clear justification under our speedy deletion criteria. These types of process arguments prolong the inevitable and have the potential to cause the subject of the article more emotional distress by further evading their privacy. The intent of the BLP is to remind editors that we need to be sensitive to the harm that we can cause. The spirit of the policy should always be in the minds of editors and administrators as we edit content about living people. FloNight 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"We do not sanction editors and administrators for attempting to do the right thing." I was trying to do the right thing. There were articles that were speedy deleted that should not have been and it was my opinion that the action was a violation of our policies and a misuse of admin privileges. I've fully explained this above yet I'm being admonished! That's why I'm just so pissed off about this crap - I was doing what I thought was best for the project. violet/riga (t) 15:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What violet said, unless ArbCom thinks we were acting in bad faith, which would be patently false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many steps along the path from good faith to bad faith. I don't think anyone has asserted that any of you were acting malevolently; recklessly, perhaps. --bainer (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd accept that I was reckless if the articles were in any way defamatory, negative, and generally violated the BLP policy. As said, I checked that such content was not in the articles. violet/riga (t) 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga's right. Even from a completely objective point of view, it's not fair to admonish her for "reckless" undeletions, when those who performed equally reckless deletions have not been sanctioned. ArbCom is applying double standards here; saying that ArbCom does not "sanction editors and administrators for attempting to do the right thing" implies that Violetriga and others were attempting to do the "wrong" thing. This whole situation is completely unfair, and I think the entire ArbCom should be ashamed of themselves. Walton^talk 16:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Doc didn't act recklessly because when he deleted he knew what was wrong with the articles he deleted. Violetriga acted recklessly because she didn't know what was wrong with the articles and still undeleted. Moreover, with Doc online and with a strong track record of reconsidering and reversing himself if asked, Violetriga acted needlessly and in a self-imposed state of ignorance. --Tony Sidaway 17:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? But Doc hasn't justified any of those deletions yet while I have shown that my undeletions were based on the fact that they did not meet BLP speedy deletion policy. violet/riga (t) 17:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary so far

Kirill, Fred, Uninvited Company and James want to ban Jeff from discussing the BLP policy because of his "rejection of the fundamental ethical principles that underlie the BLP policy", while Raul has daringly rejected those underlying principles himself : "I've always considered it primarily, if not exclusively, concerned with avoiding a libel lawsuit"

Raul is still voting to caution Jeff to follow the letter and spirit of the policy but presumably that's a different spirit to the one that Kirill is cautioning him to follow.

Morven also votes to caution Jeff but very even-handedly adds that his caution applies to everyone else too!

Flo announces “we do not sanction editors and administrators for attempting to do the right thing” but doesn’t to post it under “proposed principles” so we may never know whether the other arbitrators agree.

Raul accuses Tony Sidaway of a “BLP spree” but hasn't proposed any findings or sanctions yet. (BLP spree, not deletion spree. Hope that soothes any mystification of the clerks)

Despite valiant efforts to maintain that a clear policy is being discussed here, they fail to agree amongst themselves whether dead people count as a subset of living people but people WILL be sanctioned if they violated this policy, whatever it may or may not turn out to have been.

Stay tuned 213.130.142.183 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP is a developing policy. Part of the reason for this arbitration case is to provide some clarity and remove doubt. There is still some debate about whether BLP applies to the recently deceased (see here for a clue as to why there is as yet little support for the proposed principle that "BLP applies only to living people"). The findings of the case are true irrespective of whether or not the BLP applies only to living people, although it might be nice if the arbitration committee has been able to agree on it for the sake of clarity. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

On 3.1.3, "Do no harm"

How do we, as editors, judge when the "potential for further harm" from using a subject's name — one that our sources use — is "diminish[ed]" enough that we can actually use it when talking about about that subject? Any ... no, every article that even makes mention of a living person "interferes with that person's privacy" to some extent.[2] That's why we reference to reliable sources. That's why we take precautions about neutrality, and about tone (a topic that needs more weight in guidelines). I agree that the ethical recognition of the effect of articles on living people is critical (no, I don't think we need anything at all about Brian Peppers), but there is not a single "right" answer about where to set the line. When we have redacted the name involved in a high-profile international custody dispute caused by one of the worst natural disasters in the modern era (Baby 81) and from the case at the center of right-to-life and consent of the disabled medical law debates in the UK (Charlotte Wyatt), I have real questions about where that line is being drawn. And when the name of the first successful surgical treatment of a medical condition is redacted (Rebeca Martínez), even though that person isn't even alive to have her privacy threatened, "in the name of human dignity and our own self respect"[3], I am at a loss. What harm are we preventing? To whom?

Maybe we could redact Anthony Mercieca's name from Mark Foley scandal. We wouldn't want to cause harm by raising unpleasant questions for his former paritioners in Fort Worth. Or in fact, all the names in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases could go. Surely, "an Irish priest" or "a priest in California" is a sufficient description of these people, who are, after all, only notable for a single reason. If our readers want to learn more about Brendan Smyth or Oliver O'Grady, that's what references are for, right?

One member of ArbCom has reversed support for 3.1.3. I agree with that reversal. I do not see how a policy of "do no harm" can ever be reconiciled with a policy of "maintain a neutral point of view" when we suggest that even saying the name of a dead infant might cause harm (but linking to people who say it is just fine). I'm not here to write a tabloid, and there do need to be hard questions asked about when standalone articles are appropriate (and how those articles should be titled), but I'm not here to write a collection of hagiographies either. I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Serpent's Choice 17:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument. Removing the names of guys who happened to dodge a bullet at Virginia Tech may make sense. The above suggestions don't. . --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Straw man" is quickly becoming an all-too-common derogatory comment. You seem to be the one that knows exactly which names must be redacted and which not. Why shouldn't we have the name of Baby 81, for example? violet/riga (t) 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

On Baby 81, You're surely joking! --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Straw man" (a term I don't often use and haven't used on Wikipedia before to my knowledge) is accurate here. A number of names are plucked out of articles and it is falsely suggested that they would be removed under the BLP. Then the arguer attacks this false premise. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

But you nor anybody else has shown when it is acceptable to include names and when it is not. You have failed to convince people at Talk:Baby 81 and lots of us are still waiting for you to explain how you get to be the decision maker. violet/riga (t) 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony: Why? Is it possibly because you believe that the people in the above examples have done wrong? In that case, isn't this a violation of NPOV ('we'll do our utmost not to mention you -- unless you do something that just pisses us off')? --Silas Snider (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The quality of our coverage would be adversely affected by removing those names. Simple as that. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way Tony, but that is just answering my question of 'why' with 'because'. Please tell me how 'The quality of our coverage would be adversely affected' by removing those names when it is (according to you) not 'adversely affected' by removing the names of articles such as Baby 81 --Silas Snider (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Tony, it wasn't meant to be a straw man. I believe you want to write a really good encyclopedia here. So do I! But we disagree about something important, and I do not understand your side of the argument. That makes it hard for me to try rebutting it, or to offer a compromise. I do not understand where you draw the "dignity" line. Maybe the drawbacks of text-only dialogue are complicating the issue? In conversations on your talk page, you asserted that Charlotte Wyatt's name should be redacted for "dignity". I disagree, but ... well, she is a living minor, so maybe. In your AFD closure, you claimed the same purpose for redacting Rebeca Martínez's name. She's dead, though, sadly. So any harm that is caused by mentioning her name has to be caused to someone else. Her family, I guess? I believe that our coverage of right to life and parasitic twin is adversely affected by removal of those names. You disagree. Disagreement is fine, but I don't understand how your redaction guidelines would be implemented. Honestly, I really expected that you would consider Mercieca's name unnecessary. That you responded by dismissing my arguments as fallacious while using ... people at VT that I didn't even list in my examples as counterpoint does not do anything to clarify this issue in my eyes. Serpent's Choice 18:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have written no redaction guidelines. This is a succession of straw man arguments. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the point Tony! We would like to understand your view, so that we can continue to write a better encyclopedia (it turns out that needless strife is detrimental to that aim :D), and in order to understand your view, it seems to me that I need to understand your internal redaction guidelines. I suspect that (after re-reading your comments) your rule is 'if it seems wrong to me, it is wrong'. Correct us please! --Silas Snider (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec, again; type slower, Silas! =p )I don't mean guidelines in the "Wikipedia things that are almost-but-not-quite policy" sense. But it seems there is some method or rubric that you use when you are looking at the name of a person used in an article in order to determine if it is necessary to redact the name. I do not understand what you mean by the phrases you use in explanation. I'm trying to understand your point of view on an issue about which we disagree. Sure, I could just go edit articles based on my beliefs about the topic, and see if you change them back and all that fun stuff, but ... I'd really rather just sit down and talk about it on a discussion page that is already an open forum for this topic. Serpent's Choice 18:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We need a new template {{nonames}} which would transclude something like this:

For legal or ethical reasons we are not going to name at least one of the people directly related to the content of this article. Please be aware that clicking on any of the references or external links will show you such names.

I'm a little worried that we are going a bit off topic here and while I think it is useful for the arbitrators to see this commentary I think it would be better off at the BLP talk page. violet/riga (t) 18:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ASR applies. This encyclopedia is not always viewed online. You can not click links to a paper copy, or a plain text copy. -Parappathebagel 03:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I really intended this to be taken in the context of the case under discussion, especially 3.1.3 and Raul's reversal regarding it. If 3.1.3 and 3.1.5 pass and there is an expectation that "being decent ... trumps everything, including amassing information in the encyclopedia", then there really needs to be a clearer delineation about what is "decent". I value ethical editing, and I acknowledge a need for decency and dignity, but I don't know it when I see it, and I'm pretty sure I disagree starkly with Tony about it. Serpent's Choice 18:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I do think this is largely an attempt to retrospectively "unwrite" part of the biography of living persons policy by reference to particular cases most of which (it turns out) don't seem to have extant BLP problems and haven't been raised as BLP problems. As such it might be a good idea to transfer this discussion to the talk page of the relevant policy. If the policy needs to be refined then there is the place to do it.

I have to add that I don't appreciate being misrepresented as something other than an editor. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unwrite part of BLP? Oh, the bit that you wrote? This clause begins "Editors should consider" and includes "Evaluate on a case by case basis". This clearly states that we have to make judgements for each article. While this supports your choice to redact some names it also supports the inclusion when the consensus is in favour, as per Baby 81. violet/riga (t) 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It'll only remain in the policy as long as it has consensus. --Tony Sidaway 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it will. Shame it was added before any consensus was gathered. violet/riga (t) 19:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It seemed like a reasonable expression of the policy. It was added and discussed, and seems to have remained so far. There is no shame in bold editing. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an "expression"; an "addition". As I'm sure you'll agree it is purposely vague so that discussions can determine, on a per article basis, if a name should be included. I'm sure this will cause conflicts but as long as we are clear that it does not rule either way I'm sure that discussion can resolve each case. This is the reasoning behind the move to reinsert the name of Baby 81 (see Talk:Baby 81). violet/riga (t) 20:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not addition, really. It follows from "do no harm". Like most of what has happened in the past six weeks or so, it's a clarification. That such clarifications are required is puzzling. It's pretty plain. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

When you stop hiding behind that overly simplistic get-out we might actually be able to make BLP a decent policy. violet/riga (t) 22:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not hiding, I really do believe it follows from "do no harm". The Star Wars kid example, in which you seem to agree that removal of the name is good, is no different from the "Baby 81" example. In both cases we risk tying events that are of possible encyclopedic note to people who are of no intrinsic encyclopedic note. Internet technology means that we must consider the interests of the private individual: should this person be forever and indelibly associated with that event whenever a colleague or employer googles on his name? In the cases of people who aren't "public" people (in the sense that office holders, movie stars and so on are public people) then we should be considerate and avoid using the name if it doesn't significantly damage the article to avoid using it. The fact that other information sources may not choose to do this, for their own reasons, should not affect our judgement on this. We are responsible for our (very large) patch of the internet. --Tony Sidaway 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The origin of "do no harm"

I thought it would be interesting to see who added the phrase "do no harm" to BLP and when. It seems to appear first here, on 19 December 2005, when User:SlimVirgin was busy building up the page. Here is what it said:

... there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, may nevertheless feel that they are private individuals, and who may object to being on the receiving end of public attention. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and, in the case of a dispute, should err in favor of respecting the individual's privacy.

[examples]

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing.

The context is very interesting. Both of the examples given are of damaging negative comments of questionable veracity - do we repeat allegations of misconduct made in the New York Times (answer: yes); do we repeat allegations of misconduct made in a student newspaper or satirical magazine (answer: no). Funny how this has grown in the a full-blown ethical position, which results in the redaction of the names of minors, the deletion of articles on sight, etc. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading the same words as you, and I see an ethical statement there: "It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing." I hope there is no serious objection to the redaction of the names of minors, as you seem to imply. We routinely removed the names of minor children from biographies of even very famous living persons. I hope there is no serious objection to the immediate removal of harmful material, up to and including whole articles, as you seem to imply. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That is an absolutely stupid position for any encyclopedia with a claim to objectivity and neutrality to take. It is very much our job to expose people's wrong-doing. Fraudsters, scam artists, hucksters of patent medicines, incompetent or corrupt officials, Scientology, all would probably all face great harm from a neutral, balanced, and completely accurate article. Our goal is not to protect people from any harm, nor to conceal misdeeds or true facts. Our goal is to present reliable facts in a balanced way so that everyone may know the truth, and those who deserve to be hurt by the truth will be, and those who do not will have nothing to fear from our articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not investigative journalists. We don't flinch from reporting bad stuff, but we don't make things worse. The difference is this: if in the course of your research you uncover what you believe to be evidence of a terrible bad thing, put it on your blog. If it's important enough it'll become public currency and then someone will put it into the encyclopedia. Expose scientology? No. Report the many very public exposees of scientology, including the times they were caught trying to hide the evidence? Absolutely. This is inherent in our core policies. If you think the BLP is some terribly new thing that destroys our capacity to pursue our existing policies as well, then you might like to consider that you misunderstood our aims in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the distinction you're drawing is. What would constitute an inappropriate exposé when draw entirely from reliable published secondary sources? I can understand not digging through tax records and property forms and parking tickets to find some screwup recorded in a primary record but not by any secondary media, but if an investigative journalist has exposed something, are we supposed to sit on our hands and not mention it? I look at this the same way as classified material. To meet our sourcing guidelines, it already has to be public information, so we won't be making anything worse as long as we stick to them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do make things worse if we're indiscriminate. In a recent rape case, the defense dug up all kinds of muck about the alleged victim's background. It's a standard defense in rape to denigrate the alleged victim. But we, reporting the case, chose not to retain in full an article, a purported biography, that contained all that detail. The information was all out there, but the alleged victim was a private individual--her identity protected by the court until an advanced stage because of that--so we decided that it wasn't appropriate to have a biography containing all that muck. The case is fully covered, but it doesn't dwell on what is not relevant, and the alleged victim does not have a biographical article about her. --Tony Sidaway 08:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The case is fully covered? Well that's not what happens if you just go around deleting things - you don't even give people the chance to come up with an acceptable solution. And I'm not talking about obvious speedy deletion candidates here but more of the "I'll claim BLP" deletions that have no basis for their removal. violet/riga (t) 08:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We are going around in circles, aren't we? Perhaps one last try:

• The diff that I linked above provides context for the so-called "ethical" statement - It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing. It is clear (to me, at least) that that statement was simply counselling against including poorly-sourced negative comments in a biographical article. It does not deal with well-sourced, neutral comments, like the ones in issue here. In what sense do the articles undeleted by violetriga and others "expose people's wrong-doing"?
• Routinely removing the names of minor children? Like the articles listed in categories like Category:2007 births? Like the children of Jamie Oliver, for example?
• Yes, as you say, we are absolutely not investigative journalists - we do not publish original research; we simply compile information from reliable sources, presenting it in a neutral manner. We do flinch from reporting bad stuff, actually, if the sources are not good enough. On the other hand, we should not flinch from reporting well-sourced, reliable information, even if it is capable of causing "harm" of one sort or another.
• The crux of this discussion is the assertion that a well-sourced, neutral article can be "harmful". How so? To whom? Who decides? How is that decision reviewed? It seems that there are differences of view amongst the arbitrators, for goodness sake. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  An article that does disproportionate harm to an individual cannot possibly be described as neutral. It is inherently predisposed to the detriment of that individual. A classic example of this was the Star Wars kid article prior to my removal of the boy's name. Drawing attention to a case of bullying will be taken by bullies as a license to bully. --Tony Sidaway 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  It's so easy to give one example of an obvious case. Shame that you use it to justify the removal of any names you personally decide should be redacted. violet/riga (t) 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  We all make edits based on our personal judgement. This is unavoidable because it is after all our best judgement. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  Ah, but there's the problem. I don't trust the a large amount of editors to use their best judgement for a subjective concept like ethics. For example, admins are chosen because we trust them with admin tools, but there was never anything that said they would also be making these kinds of judgement calls for deletions. One's personal judgement does not replace the community's consensus. -- Ned Scott 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think we have a choice. To clarify, we must depend on all of our editors acting ethically. This is required by the BLP, at a very minimum (see as an example of this resolution, the proposed remedy "Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy."). In particular, we must depend on our administrators acting ethically. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI.[4] Durova^Charge! 06:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova makes an interesting point, among several; "do no harm" implies that Wikipedia is entitled to request evidence of harm, which will often be none of our business. (I suppose it is possible that we could just assume that all claims of harm are meritorious, as some of the discussion here appears to suggest; I think this very doubtful.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do no harm is not our only ethical responsibility. We are not doctors; we do not claim to heal; we do not ask consent to enter patients' homes or their privacy. If it were, we would be morally compelled to shut down; that is the only way we can guarantee doing no harm.

We have in fact already done harm, and we justify it, I think correctly, in terms of our other ethical responsibilities. We certainly gave pain to dozens (they said millions, but dozens were pained enough to revert war) in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Yet we refused (I was one of those who refused) to give an inch; to warn, to make the illustration a link, or make any other compromise.

Regards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)