Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision/Archive 1

message: This issue isn't about Jeff. It never was. The other side have tried to make it about Jeff to avoid talking about the real issues and intimidate those that disagree. By deliberating leaving deletion criteria vague and attacking anyone that disagrees, they are imposing a new kind of censorship on Wikipedia. Now the standard to not having articles based solely on a brief appearance in the news is reasonable, though one can honestly argue against it; but it is apparent that this new secret standard goes farther in imposing a higher standard of notability on controversial biographies than on normal ones. This means that we will have biographies on semi-notable people except when they are necessarily negative or arguably so, which creates a systemic bias in our coverage.
Specifically, #4 of this proposed decision, about BLP deletions, does not decide anything. It leaves essentially what we have now, which has created this conflict. If there were consensus to delete an article it can be gotten at AfD; doing so after it has been deleted will not be representative. It is therefor not reasonable to insist that out-of-process deletions require consensus to overturn, especially given the difficulty of determining such. Note also that all the articles we have had disputes over have been ones that existed a long time, and one can reasonably suspect that something is wrong if long-standing articles are speedily deleted. Newly created articles can be speedied as usual, but those that have long been a part of Wikipedia should almost always go through AfD. The way, the truth, and the light 10:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by The way, the truth, and the light 

message: The way I read it, remedy #1 forbids Jeff from editing articles about people. First, this is way too harsh - why on earth would we want to forbid one of our more prolific editors from editing articles? Second, it misses the issue at hand, as I have not seen any evidence that Jeff's editing of articles is in any way problematic or disruptive. I hope the ArbCom would reconsider this. >Radiant< 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree here.  This proposal, in my opinion, indicates that the arbitrator supporting it has totally failed to understand the problem and situation.  The problem is the disagreement and wheel-edit warring over BLP deletion of articles.  The evidence does not demonstrate that jeff is a problematic editor of articles, it demonstrates that he strongly disagrees with a small but vocal faction of admins that are themselves a problem because they act to prevent the formation of consensus.  GRBerry 12:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also strongly agree. Far far too harsh, and missing the point. Trebor 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Radiant as well. Seems Jeff is being made a scapegoat for BLP matters, when the real evidence of disruption is elsewhere. Arbcom needs to remember that Jeff is a prolific article starter and has fetaured level work as well, including areas that are in the scope of BLP. This BLP ban essentially is a Wikipedia ban for Jeff and that is unacceptable. Lets not run an otherwise excellent contributor out the door over a few comments about BLP, which are made only due to his efforts to prevent mass deletions of every single sourced negative aspect made in a biography. I definitely see Jeff as simply one who is very worried that we're going to sugar coat our bios to protect us from lawsuits, and what he is striving for seems to be the truth, even if that truth might be ugly to read about. Again, yes Jeff is disruptive but it is in deletions and deletion reviews, which only sometimes happen to be part of the BLP issue.--MONGO 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too harsh 

message: I'm not overly impressed with this. This could easily be used as carte blanche for a small and vocal minority of sysops to carry out their particularly anal (no offence meant) interpretation of BLP. While I'd call myself a 'deletionist', should one choose to speak in those terms, there's been articles that've had all kinds of things done to them out of process and without consensus and without valid reasons under BLP as it stands. 
I appreciate the existence of BLP, and as evidenced by my edits to "What wikipedia is not" agree that a certain amount of the news-coverage related material here is not relevant to an encyclopedia. I feel, though, that using BLP as an extension of IDONTLIKEIT can only be harmful to the project, let alone muting and suppressing the good-faith concerns of a great number of users (and admins). 
I've been editing here for many years under many different names (as it says on my userpage, one at a time). I have never believed in a cabal. Sanctions like this, though, against a user who has spoken up against a group consisting partly of 'insiders' (a term that I'm sure not many will disagree too heavily with), will give the impression to some users of: 1) Censorship and 2) Oligarchy, and this case should be treated with particular care.
I'm sure the best and least divisive solution would be to generally warn everybody involved as to their civility, and suggest that debate should not be muted, provided it doesn't become disruptive for disruption's sake. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not rid ourselves of nuisances we 'don't like'.
DrumCarton 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm 

message: The final sentence of this proposal is too strong – in practice, with the flexible nature of WP policy and consensus, no editor can show that something does agree with every policy. A lower burden of proof, but still high enough in my opinion, would be to obtain consensus that the article should be restored. Also, the proposal would be more useful if the final clause was reworded to say "can be made compliant with every aspect of policy." — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The final clause does say that the article can't be restored (by undeletion or any other means) unless there is actual consensus to do so.  The second part, where the onus is outlined in detail, is necessary to guard against the formation of an uninformed, obstructionist or contrary pseudo-consensus where those making the decision or determining the consensus ignore, either wilfully or through ignorance, the principles of the BLP.  As an example of this I'd cite perhaps the first reversal of the QZ deletion.  My impression at the time was that the closer reversed it on a technicality without due attention to the BLP concerns.  --Tony Sidaway 00:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by CBM on "Summary deletion of BLPs" 

message: A better way to do this, rather than have those arguing for restoration after a BLP deletion being required to show that the deleted article is compliant with BLP policy (difficult when you cannot see the article, or have to rely on unreliable caching), might be to say that those contesting BLP deletions should instead be asked make a case for any article about that person existing. Once the principle that there should be an article is established, then those who deleted the old version under the BLP would be asked to restore an edited version (probably a stub) that was acceptable to them, and those editing or defending the article would be allowed to continue editing, while being strongly reminded to adhere to the BLP policy. Also, a default question at a DRV should be whether the deleting admin looked through the article history to find a version that was acceptable. ie:
*Admin deletes an article on subject X citing BLP concerns.
*Any user can then open a DRV and argues that an article on subject X is required.
*The deleting admin confirms that they looked at the article history and were unable to find an acceptable version of the article to rollback to.
*Discussion ensues and a consensus position is reached (no consensus = no article) on both the existence of an article or redirect and an appropriate title name and the appropriateness of various redirects. The content of the deleted version is not discussed (this is the key point).
*If consensus is that an article or redirect should exist at that title, the deleting admin restores the article as a stub, or creates the redirect.
*Editing resumes with a general caution sounded to all editors of the article and, any article it redirects to, over BLP issues.
Would that work in practice? Carcharoth 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but only assuming that the article meets BLP deletion rules.  I would like to see a template used to replace the article similar to that used for copyvios.  violet/riga (t) 17:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed "the content of the deleted version is not discussed" bit. The first discussion is whether any article should exist at all, regardless of what the deleted version actually said (this is designed to focus discussion). Then, if consensus is to restore a stub/blank page, a second discussion ensues on the talk page (as it should have done all along) on how best to write an article on the subject. But with people now aware that there are BLP concerns. Carcharoth 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't miss that bit.  I'm saying that articles can only be speedy deleted citing BLP if they are unsourced and disparaging.  If they are deleted on those grounds they should be then replaced with a template stating what has happened, at least for a few days.  violet/riga (t) 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This narrow view (only articles that are "unsourced and disparaging" may be deleted citing BLP) is the heart of the matter.  I foresee a number of rapid desysoppings for whgeel-warring if proposed principles 2 and 3 pass.  I do not favor this, and hope that editors and admins are flexible enough to adapt to the decision. Thatcher131 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is written very clearly in the policy.  Sorry but this talk of "well we don't go by the letter" is rubbish and is really the cause of the problems.  If people want to delete for other reasons then the policy must change to reflect that.  violet/riga (t) 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are simply ignoring the written policy where the section Presumption in favor of privacy has contained the phrase "do no harm" for at least a year, and the clarification from Jimbo ("Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism,") has also been around for more than a year.  What I don't understand is why you choose to ignore this. Thatcher131 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which applies to articles that are disparaging to people and I agree that they should be removed.  Is it really hard for people to understand that I actually support the ethics behind BLP?!  I just don't want people abusing it as a way of removing articles when it doesn't apply.  violet/riga (t) 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that your statement lacks precision.  You want people not to invoke the BLP where you do not agree that it applies.  There's a subtle difference.  --Tony Sidaway 21:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't want people deleting articles based on flawed interpretations of policies that clearly don't allow for it.  violet/riga (t) 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I can summarise BLP in eight words: We're not in Kansas any more, Toto. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this passes, it won't take that many. How about Any admin can delete whatever he likes? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, how can you ever prove that an article is compliant with every aspect of the policy. Does reporting on a scandal complies with "an ethical responsibility" or "when in doubt, do no harm" (at first only intended for non-public figures, and only on June 1st changed to include all BLP's , change by Tony Sidaway)? How can you prove that it does? Are we sure that it does no harm to mention the O. J. Simpson murder trial in the opening paragraph of his article, instead of focusing on his sporting and acting career? It was already in the very first version, so if I delete this article now, under the ArbCom proposition, it can't be recreated until you demonstrate that it does no harm. Or Robert Mugabe, who has been accused of corruption from the very first version until the current one. Never mind that it is true: is it ethical, doesn't it harm him to be portrayed here in such a way, don't we even have the "legal responsibility" to leave out such allegations against a foreign head of state? So thanks to this proposed Arbcom decision, I can delete this article and it will be pretty hard to recreate it. This will make a mockery of Wikipedia, and will indeed give any admin the chance to delete whatever he likes. Please, I urge the arbitrators to reconsider this proposed principle and to either reject it or to completely rewrite it to make clear that it is only intended for e.g. people who have no active part in their notability (victims) or whose sole notability is based on one minor episode. The way it is written now is way too extreme and will lead to many new problems between admins, I fear. Fram 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Or perhaps, "Adminship is, as of now, a big deal?" MastCell Talk 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let DRV decide whether BLP deletions need an article at all 

message: The remedy says, "badlydrawnjeff is banned from all articles covered by the policy".  Every article is covered by this policy.  Under WP:BLP, inappropriate statements about a living person can and should  be removed from anywhere that they are found.  The policy explicitly says all articles, project space, and talk space.  So this remedy is effectively a ban from the project.  I strongly encourage a rejection of the current language and that the language be revised to use the term "biographical articles and deletion discussions" and specifically state that he is permitted to suggest changes on talk pages.  I further encourage that the ban be only for a predetermined period of time, rather than indefinite, or, at least, that it be explicitly stated that arbcom will entertain lifting the ban after some period of time, like six months or a year. --BigDT 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be clearer, but bottom line, if he insists on adding negative information regarding a living person or engages in a dispute about it, he's breaking the ban. Fred Bauder 20:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you mean unsourced and NPOV-violating negative information there.  violet/riga (t) 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding duration, what evidence do you have that he would change over a shorter period. His attitude is stable and unresponsive to feedback. Fred Bauder 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I've done nothing wrong, Fred.  I'm very responsive to feedback when the feedback's legitimate.  Do you think you're proving anything about me here?  The point of all this was obviously to get me off the project, and it succeeded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the key.  By now, Jeff has had legitimate feedback from almost every single editor who routinely handles complaints from members of the public.  In my experience he regards none of our comments as in any way legitimate, and he repeatedly refers to us as liars simply for disagreeing with his interpretation.  Only his own reading of policy dictates what is and is not legitimate.  That reading, to my knowledge, is held not by Jimbo, not by any arbitrator who has commented in this case, and not by any of us who have been vilified in the event leading to this case. --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that they let you anywhere near OTRS is one of the reasons I'm gone, Tony.  I have received no legitimate feedback regarding this issue, just a lot of disruption, condescension, and hatred.  No one should have to put up with that, and no one should be penalized for daring to speak up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The feedback has been extensive, you have just chosen to ignore it. How many different ways do you need to read it before you get it? However, you are right, I think a BLP ban on you is a bad idea. I see you as disruptive to deletions and deletion reviews, some of which just happen to be regarding BLP issues.--MONGO 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feedback can be extensive and worthless, like much of the crap I put up with here, including your BS about my alleged disruptiveness. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you feel that way. If I had been on arbcom, the remedy for you would have been to ban you from deletions and deletion reviews completely for one year. I definitely feel that would have enticed you to resume creating articles, lowered yours and others blood pressure levels and made deletions and DRV's less of a battleground. I do not concur with the BLP ban that is now likely to be passed. Best wishes.--MONGO 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you'd be just as wrong.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It needs to be a lot clearer.  Right now, there are featured article's I've written that I can't edit because I might fall afoul of this absurdity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Fred, if that's what you think it means, then why don't you modify the language to say that. As it is now, he can't edit articles about people, which is a lot of what Jeff does.--Chaser - T 20:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, actually.  Most of my editing was in articles that were about things, but people are involved with things, and I'm not allowed anymore.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Fred, thanks for replying so quickly.  There are several issues here.  First and foremost is that right now, the language says, "all articles covered by the policy".  The policy explicitly says that means "all articles".  If you mean that he is banned from "editing controversial information about living people", then that's what the ruling should say ... because right now it doesn't mean that.  --BigDT 20:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my intent, at least, to use "all articles covered by the policy" to mean all articles containing BLP material, not all articles that could potentially contain BLP material.  As far as I'm concerned, badlydrawnjeff is perfectly welcome to write about rocks, or butterflies, or ancient Romans; it's only the BLP stuff that he can't touch. Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you mean any articles that contain anything related to a person?  Thereby including the discovery of certain types of rock by John McJohn, the eponymously-named butterfly Butteri McJohneri, and the mention of Julius Caesar (who's ancestors may be offended).  Yes I know I'm being flippant here, but I find it very difficult to see how this can be properly implemented.  violet/riga (t) 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean descendants, not ancestors - I doubt Caesar's ancestors care one way or the other.  Even if Jeff is editing an article on, say, George W Bush, I don't think there is an issue - this is a solution looking for a problem.  Jeff has edited articles about plenty of living people and done a fine job.  The problem isn't with an article on George W Bush - the problem is with the article about Alphonzo Bush, who is the nephew of the guy who makes Bush's Baked Beans (no, not really).  Alphonzo is not a public person and we need to respect his privacy.  I don't see any evidence that would suggest that a ban on Jeff editing George W Bush is warranted.  I don't even know that a ban on Jeff editing Alphonzo Bush is warranted.  What probably is warranted is a ban on deletion discussions pertaining to Alphonzo Bush - that is the only place that I can see that the evidence shows an issue to be resolved. --BigDT 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I...  Yeah that'll be what I meant!  Ta.    violet/riga (t) 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "So you mean any articles that contain anything related to a person?" — What?  Where did you get that idea?  BLP stands for biographies of living people.  We don't have quite the same ethical issues with biographies of dead people, and this motion wouldn't prevent Jeff from editing those articles.  --Cyde Weys 01:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-read the policy.  The policy applies to all articles, even if the main topic is not about a living person.  In other words, if the article is about Greek mythology, it is possible that the article might mention a book that a now-living person wrote on the subject.  It might mention an archaeological dig that a now-living person performed.  Whatever the topic is, articles about topics other than living people still mention living people.  If an article on Greek mythology claims, for instance, that researcher John Doe falsified his study of Zeus and that claim is uncited, we would not hesitate to remove it.  The BLP policy applies to every page on Wikipedia ... this really isn't in dispute.  As the text of the remedy reads right now, it says "all articles covered by the policy" (bad), rather than "all articles about living people" (not as bad). --BigDT 05:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's exactly why I am saying that it should be renamed Wikipedia:Biographical content.  violet/riga (t) 07:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, not every article is covered by that block.  Freeze-dried ice cream comes to mind, as does Bluegill, and possibly Geography of Namibia.  Plenty of articles for anyone falling under the block on this decision to still edit.  But this is seriously one of the reasons that I try to stay the heck away from editing any mainspace article that has anything but a passing mention of a living person in it.  And why WP has fallen a few notches in my mind to find information about living people.  I can understand the importance of BLP, and why information about living persons needs to be treated somewhat delicately.  But decisions like this may well have a chilling effect on persons trying to improve articles that have any living person mentioned in them.  I hope that has been taken into consideration, and I hope that badlydrawnjeff may find other articles to edit (if he stays.) Edit to add signature:  LaughingVulcan  05:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel the same way. I'd like to bring Greater Vancouver Gateway Program to Featured Article status, but I had to think twice about it because I might have to make the Minister of Transportation look bad. I'm not being facetious. This is how chilling effects work. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 06:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  The "BDJ banned from the project" message might not come across so strongly if ArbCom passed the proposed principle that BLP does not apply to dead people. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 07:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedy "Badlydrawnjeff banned from BLPs" 

message: I've proposed an alternative remedy to that proposed by Kirill.  Because I'm not an arbitrator it's on the workshop page. Comment welcome on that page. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative remedy 

message: This is absolutely ridiculous. Consensus means that everybody has discussed it and most agreed upon a solution. If there's consensus for a policy, that does not mean we should ban people who disagree with that policy from going anywhere near it! It means we should note their concerns in discussions, preferably by having them comment themselves, and then, if most other people disagree with them, as should happen in most cases if the policy actually had consensus, the discussion is closed with a result that goes along with the policy. If necessary, ban BDJ from violating BLP, but don't ban him from articles that are covered by it if he's not going to break the policy, and don't ban him from discussions, because that completely goes against everything Wikipedia stands for regarding consensus. --Rory096 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badlydrawnjeff banned from BLPs 

message: The justification for the ban is "Because of his rejection of the fundamental ethical principles that underlie the BLP policy". The evidence for that is the statement "We should discard ethics..." How is merely arguing that we should do something ban-worthy? If I argue an unpopular position, am I suddenly subject to being banned? Surely that takes action, not just argument.
Note that other people have made similar or more harsh arguments on this very issue. For example, User:Walton monarchist89 (recently made an admin) in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_8: "it's not our problem whether this person's life deteriorates as a result of their Wikipedia article, as long as they don't have grounds for legal action. Wikipedia isn't here to be nice to people." That seems to be at least an equal rejection, in fact it's a stronger one, Jeff is merely writing "we should...", Walton is writing in the present tense.
There isn't evidence showing that Jeff is an unrepentant edit warrior. He is merely a vocal proponent of how we should write articles. Same for Walton, by the way. Surely that isn't something either of them should be banned for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not just a vocal opponent.  He has acted to sabotage the policy by personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and provocative article edits. --Tony Sidaway 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, that sounds familiar for some reason Tony. --MichaelLinnear 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to defend him here but other people on the opposite side of the argument have done the same thing.  I hope that they will feature on this page too.  violet/riga (t) 21:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If civility is the issue (which I agree it is an issue), how is banning him from editing articles addressing that issue?  It seems to me that an article ban (as opposed to a deletion discussion ban) is strictly punative. --BigDT 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Bullshit, Tony.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banning for arguing, not acting? 

message: "This deletion may be contested via the usual means;" The usual means in this case would require you to prove that the admin is acting in bad faith since it would be the only situation where a deletion would not be legit under that type of policy. Aditionaly the second part of the sentance contradicts the first (waiting a few months then trying again is "usual means").Geni 22:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you only have to show that an assessment of the article as irretrievably compromised would be incorrect.  Some of the early principles on the workshop, many of them proposed by arbitrators, illustrate this, particularly the idea of there being "no rush to undelete". An admin may in this way of thinking use deletion as a precaution to avoid seemingly irretrievably damaging material being published on this top ten website. Alternatives can be discussed without publishing the material. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nope read what is there "if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy" you would have to prove that the admin does not in fact belive that.Geni 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have misread the proposed principle.  It says that the admin may perform the deletion under these conditions.  It also explicitly states that the deletion may then be contested "via usual means".  It also says "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy."  Nothing about proving that the deleting administrator was being dishonest, just that his belief was incorrect. --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you are failing to think about how this meshes into other policy. "via usual means" is pretty much talking about DRV. DRV is about process not content and unless the admin is acting in bad faith they have followed process.Geni 22:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of how imposing stuff from the top-down conflicts with organic policy grown from actual practice. Why not deal with BLP issues in exactly the same way as we deal with copyvios. See Template:Copyvio for a nice example of a template that will make editors sit up and take notice. Carcharoth 23:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Anybody who thinks deletion review is about piddling process hasn't been keeping up.  It's about policy and product. --Tony Sidaway 23:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: anyone who thinks it should be about anything else has an irrational fear of xfd.Geni 23:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Re Geni's earlier comments: remember that DRV only requires one to demonstrate that the closer was mistaken in his belief that there was consensus in one direction, not that he closed it maliciously; similarly, this remedy would presumably only require one to show at DRV that the deleting admin was mistaken in his belief that the article was a BLP violation. David Mestel(Talk) 15:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: um no. because arbcom's policy dopesn't require the admin to be right.Geni 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  DRV is also about whether all necessary facts were available at the time of the AfD. Sometimes AfD closures are overturned because all participants in the AfD were unaware of the presence of certain sources which didn't appear in Google, or the person's name was misspelled, etc. An overturned AfD closure is not necessarily a criticism of the closing admin. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 16:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So admin responds by deleting again.Geni 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that happens, take him to arbcom. Dispute resolution, you see. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary deletion of BLPs 

message: Add discussion here. Carcharoth 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blanking, or (my preference) quick editing by a small focused team, sometimes works, but some articles have to be taken out of circulation at once while we decide what to do with them.  Both methods are useful.  Blanking, less so.  If you think the article is sick, mend it. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what happens when admins get lazy and delete articles instead of taking the time to mend them? Where do you draw the lines between immediate deletion, blanking, or mending? Oh faff. No wiki-philosophy I said. :-) Let's stick to technical details. (1) Why precisely is blanking more or less "taking it out of circulation" than deletion? For something that has made it to the mirrors, deletion is no more efficient at removing stuff from circulation. I've been following something on the mirrors that was deleted over two weeks ago. It is still there. Blanking at least extends the courtesy to non-admins that they are welcome to review the article's content and participate in the discussion. (2) For stuff that hasn't made it to the mirrors or caches yet, I believe blanking will ensure that only the blanked template warning will go up if the updates happen while discussion is in progress (and that will only lead people to a disucssion, that should equally be courtesy blanked when it is over, similar to how DRVs are hidden at the moment). (3) If you are worried about people linking to earlier versions in the page history, well, there is a clear notice warning people that they are looking at an archived version, which may differ significantly from the current version, and directing them to the current version. In any case, sites that link to archived versions will likely already have made their own copy of the article. (4) Really serious issues could obviously still be dealt with as speedies or via oversight. (5) This is exactly the same system that is used for copyvios. It works there. Why can't it work for BLP issues? Carcharoth 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: ::: I think we're in basic agreement here, though obviously deletion is often best.  As an example I'd give trash like the Crystal Gail Mangum article.
::: On mirrors, those are not our concern.  We cannot call back what we have already published.  --Tony Sidaway 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Practically, you are right about mirrors, but ethically, hmm, I wonder. As ethics is driving a lot of this, why not try and enforce, or propose to enforce, a more ethical stance with respects to mirrors? Legally, as we've released stuff to them, it may not be possible. But ethically, well, that is another matter. Surely restricting ethics to only Wikipedia content, and not downstream content, is, well, to put it bluntly, hypocritical? It seems very similar to the stance that if we ensure we only repeat what "reliable" newspapers say, we don't need to care about the effects on living people. It is the fault of the newspapers, not us. Similarly, you would be saying, it is for the mirrors to worry about, not us. Does that make sense? Essentially, the ethics of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted, rather than closing the barn door before the horse enters the stable. Carcharoth 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not ruling out doing something about mirrors at some point, just saying that it isn't the problem before us.  What may appear to you as hypocrisy , I see as maintaining focus on developing the ethical policy wiki-wide.  We should not let worries about the mirrors stop us from doing the right thing on the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Cool. Forgive me if I close this with an exhortation for anyone who has read this far to not get distracted, but to comment on the courtesy blanking proposal this section should be about. :-) I noted Casey Abell's edit summary "Carcharoth's proposals are better but they won't get enacted", though of necessity I must take a more optimistic view than that! Carcharoth 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Side discussion about mirrors and stuff

message: Should the articles under dispute, such as QZ, stay deleted, or be undeleted? Maybe ArbCom could start a page where a discussion like AFD/DRV will take place, except that instead of an admin, ArbCom will close it. --Kaypoh 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. No. They stay deleted. A lot of articles will probably follow them. That's my guess of what will happen. I think using blanking will reduce the drama, but the ArbCom seem set on their course. Carcharoth 23:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're dead, Jim. --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, ArbCom should make a decision on whether the articles will be deleted or kept. If not, we may be back here again. --Kaypoh 23:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The community decided.  They're dead and buried. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Tony, we know: what Tony Sidaway does is the action of the community; what Tony Sidaway thinks is consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most important question still has not been answered... 

message: Did I read this correctly, or are my eyes deceiving me:
:Because of his rejection of the fundamental ethical principles that underlie the BLP policy, badlydrawnjeff is banned from all articles covered by the policy, as well as any associated discussions. (emphasis mine)
Are we really suggesting banning someone from discussing articles? Even IP vandals don't get that kind of treatment!
And they wonder why people say there's a cabal... ATren 00:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isnt and hasn't ever been a free speech zone. --Tony Sidaway 00:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disruptive people have always been prevented from disrupting. This is nothing new. (H) 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen IP vandals post disgusting, vile stuff on living persons articles - for which they get warnings and an occasional temporary block. After the block expires, they invariably resume the same destructive behavior, adding stuff that has the potential to be much more damaging than anything Jeff has done. I cannot reconcile how passionate, good-faith disagreement on non-article pages gets an indefinite ban, while repeated outright destructive behavior to the articles themselves rarely gets more than a slap on the wrist. ATren 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your claim that repeatedly abusive anonymous users get a slap on the wrist.  I'm always very harsh on them, much more so than established users.  --Cyde Weys 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true in your case, but remember that by the time it's reported, users have already been warned several times (as per policy) - meaning that they've already done 3 or more things that are much more potentially damaging than anything Jeff did. And everything Jeff did was done in good faith (does anyone doubt that?) and as far as I can tell his worst crime was being argumentative (he may have been uncivil, but so were the others). I still say: we are treating a longtime productive contributor much worse than we would a persistent vandal who has never made a single good edit. ATren 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this remedy definitely needs a rewrite.  The problem is Jeff's incivil comments during deletion discussions.  Jeff has never, to my knowledge, abused his editing privileges in an article.  I don't see any reason to ban him from all BLP articles and certainly not the current language - all articles where BLP applies, because that's every article.  The remedy needs to address the issue.  The issue is incivility in deletion discussions, so the remedy needs to relate to that. Banning him from all BLP articles is punative. --BigDT 02:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this what it's come to? 

message: It looks as if ArbCom is about to pass this horrible set of decisions and the community may not be able to do much about it. So I guess this is a protest vote. Reading the proposed decision page is making me feel ill. How long will it be until an admin speedies Robert Pickton and others have to prove that the article (which they can no longer see) complies with BLP? How long will it be until Michael D. Brown is rewritten to be more favourable to its subject, in order to make it less likely to be deleted and its editors less likely to be banned? This is a sad day for the credibility of Wikipedia. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 02:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do any of the proposed decisions change?  An admin has the technical ability to speedy any article right now and the text is, for the moment, unavailable for review.  In borderline cases (ie, not a blatant attack page), you can always get someone to restore the article text behind a SALT message or email you the text for review.  I don't see what is changed here. I think there's a horrible problem with the remedy on Jeff, but the principles on BLPs look fine. --BigDT 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Proposed principle 4, "Summary deletion of BLPs," changes a lot of things. First, it shifts the consensus requirement from consensus required to delete to consensus required to keep. Furthermore, the "burden of proof" part essentially excuses the deleting admin from having to present any reason to delete other than "I think it violates BLP." Instead, people in favour of keeping will have to demonstrate that the deleted article meets BLP. I don't even know what this kind of demonstration would even look like, as BLP is essentially defined as a set of requirements for what an article should not contain. People trying to argue in favour of keeping will, of course, also have to do so under the Monty Python-esque handicap of not being able to repeat alleged BLP violations, even if necessary to make the argument that they are not BLP violations. The community has repeatedly rejected proposals to modify the deletion methods for biographies which were substantially similar to proposed principle 4, such as Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion. I read the principle to mean that undeleting means undeleting; if it's OK to undelete history behind a template:Delrev screen, then the proposed principle should be clarified. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 07:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Instead of courtesy BLP deletion, I have proposed courtesy BLP blanking (see above). Instead of the article, people would see something similar to the DRV notice, directing them to the deletion discussion, but because the history is present, they would be able to review the disputed version of the article. I fail to see why this is not acceptable. Several people I have spoken to on talk pages, including one of the arbitrators, have pointed out problems with blanking, but some have agreed that it could work. Look at the process used for suspected copyvios, which use . The presumption that a disucssion is needed is still there, but the offending text is replaced by a notice until the discussion is concluded. Deletion sends a strong message and prejudices the discussion, in my opinion. Carcharoth 10:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Protest 

message: Have a look at , which would put most editors off edit-warring if that was placed on an article. It also says: Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue. Is this not a sensible way to deal with BLP issues rather than deletion? Carcharoth 10:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another solution would be to use WP:OFFICE which sends a strong and clear message to both editors as well as admins that the article in question should not be touched until someone who actually knows what they are doing have looked into the issue and made a binding non-disputable decision. MartinDK 10:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep - that's what I've been saying for ages, but a certain section of admins simply refuse to even acknowledge the comments.  violet/riga (t) 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually not all OTRS volunteers are part of the Office. I think there's nothing wrong per se with deleting apparent BLP violations and discussing them on DRV if contested. All admins can look at the deleted revisions at need, and if a deletion turns out to be spurious, it will be objected to. >Radiant< 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many active admins look at all DRVs? I feel that this makes adminship too big a deal. Blanking would allow non-admins to understand what was being discussed in cases where there was no Google cache or mirror copy yet. Otherwise you will get people writing stubs and pasting them into the DRV to ask admins to compare the stub to the deleted article. Carcharoth 11:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Then I would suggest that the community encourages Jimbo to grant a group of people/admins the right to make non-disputable decisions regarding BLP's. Wikipedia is not an experiment in online democracy and this case clearly shows why. As long as policy allows people to contest such deletions then naturally they will choose to do so in good faith. This outcome does not solve the issue at all since it doesn't deal with the bureaucracy and incivility that follows from it. MartinDK 11:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just revive a revised version of: Wikipedia:BLP Admin? None of these ideas are new, not mine, not yours. But it seems that one option has been chosen, and this option is being implemented by fiat without sufficient discussion of the alternatives. Carcharoth 11:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the things that Wikipedia does so well is discuss and analyze every aspect of the project. That is a good thing. However, what this dispute has shown is that at times process fails. Dispute resolution failed too. Excellent editors like Jeff and excellent admins are drawn into disputes with each other that cannot be solved through process. This hurts the peoiple involved as well as the project. To avoid this we need a way to end these disputes once and for all. Your idea could work too, especially if there was a limit to how many times a BLP could be sent to DRV. Whatever solution gains community support is not important, what matters is that the solution puts an end to the bureaucracy that caused all the incivility on both sides. MartinDK 11:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I support the proposal. Sometimes I think that administrators forget what it's like to not be able to see deleted revisions. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 17:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use a similar system to copyvio process? 

message: So far, the decision has realised all my worst fears. The arbitrators seem to have completely endorsed the idea of arbitrary out-of-process deletions, and are "cautioning" the admins who correctly reversed such inappropriate deletions. They're effectively putting a gag order on Jeff (pointless, since he's left anyway) - preventing him from even discussing BLP articles because he "rejects the ethical principles that underly the BLP policy". What??!! So ArbCom now has absolute power to decide what is ethical and what is not? 
Sadly, my faith in the ArbCom is destroyed. Saying "Wikipedia is not a democracy" ought not to be a mandate for authoritarianism. Like any other large community of human beings, Wikipedia needs to be governed by process and rules which allow everyone, regardless of their status, fair participation in the decision-making process. I think this is a sad day for Wikipedia. Waltonalternate account 11:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not agree more. This is persecution and a fucking disgrace. Evidence does not seem to matter in this case and the heretics with "wrong" ethical ideas must be burnt so that the "right" ideology can stay uncontested. So far, the ArbCom decision seems to aim at changing policy and supporting that when dealing with biographies of living persons, 1. abuse and misuse of admin tools and causing disruption is allowed, if it is done "per BLP", 2. obviously out-of-process deletions can not be quickly overturned in-process per the deletion policy, 3. any admin can claim ownership of an article by deleting it and then refusing to point out how it violates the relevant policy, 4. any admin can overturn a community decision such as the result of an AFD discussion, 5. consensus is not important, 6. reliable sources, notability and neutrality are not as important as "basic human dignity", 7. adminship is a big deal, 8. articles must be censored if the facts can be harmful to the subject ("victim"). This would be the end of a neutral encyclopedia and beginning of this project turning into a joke like the "trustworthy" Conservapedia. Prolog 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. ATren 14:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure why anyone's making comments or arguments anymore, I could see that seemed pretty much useless by the time I watched the Brandt deletion unfold.  Because consensus matters, excpet when it doesn't, and remember it's not a vote! (but user Id's are checked for SPA status).  What does matter here is that the *right outcome* was reached -Jeff is reprimanded and the principle that any 1 admin can unilaterily delete anything in the name of BLP with no discussion is upheld.  Well we can discuss later. . .how does that work exactly?  No info for the discussion, prove a negative for the whole deleted article, and all the while reach a consensus (but remember we're not voting, just checking accounts).  Oh and during AFDs, first one to close wins! R. Baley 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely, totally ridiculous 

message: Great - so it would seem that the red flag of WP:BLP is now a magic bullet in cases of dispute, which can be reinforced by the contentless mantra of "do no harm", and that disputed material has to be removed until "a decision to include it is reached" (by whom? how?).  And, indeed, Violetriga is being "cautioned" for reverting deletions that are baldly claimed to be pursuant to WP:BLP without any supporting justification, because, we now find out, after the event, that the onus is on her to initiate such prior discussion.
Perhaps we need a page setting in more detail the ethical framework within which we are supposed to be operating.  I'm sure it will not be too difficult to hammer out a shared system of ethical values among the billion or so people who speak English. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do no harm 

message: Flonight has added two new remedies concerning Badlydrawnjeff to the proposed decision. In contrast to the original remedy (complete ban from BLP articles and discussion), these new remedies are significantly more lenient and (IMO) barely address the problematic behavior. 
1.1) Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't think a caution is going to affect Jeff's behavior. Jeff believes that he is adhering to the BLP policy, which is why this ended up at ArbCom. 
1.2) Badlydrawnjeff may not initiate or reopen any deletion review concerning an article deleted for BLP reasons for three months.
This remedy at least recognizes that the problem isn't the editing of BLP articles, but Jeff's behavior in discussions concerning deletion. However, this behavior will only be affected minimally by restricting him from initiating DRVs. There's nothing in this remedy to restrict the disruption in DRVs opened by another editor. 
It seems like we've seen "too harsh" and "too lenient", so hopefully "just right" will be coming along soon. Chaz Beckett 16:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When we reach too leinient, let me know.  I'm still being held accountable for something with no supporting evidence and no record to support it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're all well aware of your opinions on how accountable you are in this whole matter. I'm sure that you believe that any remedy placed on you would be unjustified. In fact, I think the core issue of this case is the disconnect between how you view things and how a majority of other editors view them. Chaz Beckett 16:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply not true - "a majority of other editors"? There's plenty of us who support Jeff in this. Anyway, the important issue here isn't what happens to individual editors - it's what happens to the policy, and the precedent established by this ArbCom case. And so far, I'm sory to say, the decision is sending Wikipedia in the direction of authoritarianism, arbitrary deletions, and "ethical values" which are forced down everyone's throats. Waltontalk 17:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it's true to say that a majority of editors do not share Jeff's views, especially as they relate to extreme inclusionism. I don't think a majority support draconian restrictions on his editing of articles, but that doesn't mean they support his actions. Chaz Beckett 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no support for this conclusion. Look how many editors have come out of the woodwork to protest this proposed ruling. Just because we're not as vocal as Jeff, don't assume that we are not sympathetic to his views on this case (and shocked at the extent of the proposed remedy for someone who did little more than argue his case). ATren 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we can put that myth to bed right now, too - my inclusionism began and ended with where our policies and guidelines sat.  Myths are troublesome and cause situations like this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone should know it's a lot easier to re-interpret words/policies and claim consensus than it is to actuallly change them with consensus.  R. Baley 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: They don't support his actions-Beckett (above). perhaps we should conduct a straw poll? :-) (Or is that disruptive?) R. Baley 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right - any remedy placed on me would be unjustified, as there's no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part.  The core issue is the disconnect between administrators and execution of deletion policy.  ArbCom missed the boat, which is unfortunate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No evidence of "wrongdoing" perhaps, maybe...but disruption, yes, plenty of evidence.--MONGO 17:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also plently of evidence of Jeff being provoked by statements like fuck off among others. Is this pre-school? Do people get to bully others to the point where they get fed up and react like human beings? Then they run off to the adults to get what they wanted? Let the record show that I would disagree with Jeff on almost each and everyone of these deletions but this kind of crappy treatment is a disgrace. Has the possibility of more power and authority really consumed you people so much that you can't see how you are hurting Wikipedia as a project? For Christ sake grow up... or this project will be dead before you know it. MartinDK 17:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Action=reaction...maybe someone told Jeff to f*%@ off because he wouldn't stop incessantly and termangently badgering them about a deletion.--MONGO 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chances are that's not the case.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: He badgered someone so badly on his own talk page that they felt compelled to say that? --MichaelLinnear 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the rule is: "non-disrupters may say fuck off, but disrupters may not." ATren 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This project is already dead. The very fact that they consider passionate debate on discussion pages disruption is compelling evidence that Wikipedia has sold out. At some point this project got too big, and now it is nothing but a corporate, beaurocratic nightmare. I am looking forward to seeing what replaces it - I'm betting it will be something initiated by Google, which knows the true meaning of "do no harm". ATren 17:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this is a riot. If the project is dead, go away. We don't need pessimistic hangers-on. Of course, you're not going to leave, because the project really isn't dead, you're just trying to make a stupid point. As for Google — please. It's a mega-corporation. "Do no evil" is a slogan to sell itself to nerds and make them think that the company is somehow different. But at the end of the day, it's a publicly owned company, and it can't make decisions that may be morally right but would lose it money. Just look at how it has bowed to censorship in China. --Cyde Weys 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I won't go away, but the way things are going I suspect I will be shown the door for expressing these very words. Disagreement (aka "disruption") is not tolerated here. ATren 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Cyde is quite right on what Google is. So why do we want to imitate them? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I see a big difference between censorship in China, where a pure uncensored feed would get them banned entirely so they made the pragmatic decision that something is better than nothing, and censorship here in the US, which Wikipedia seems to be advocating. ATren 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New remedies are insufficient 

message: There is some confusion in the wording of some of the new remedies. Some refer to BLP in their titles, while referring to "living people" in the main text of the remedy. There is actually a subtle difference. Could the arbitrators clarify what they mean and make clear whether they are referring to "articles covered by Wikipedia:Biographies of living people" (which includes more than just articles on people) or just "articles on living people". Thanks. Carcharoth 20:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague wording 

message: This, or something like it, is missing.  Jeff has been an exemplary contributor of content, and he should be recognised as such.  He is welcome to resume at his leisure. --Tony Sidaway 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether the arbitrators will formally adopt this proposal, but it is certainly a true statement. Newyorkbrad 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, definitely. You've already gotten on your moral high-horse to lecture him on ethics and morality, now you just need a patronizing finding like this to put him in his place. 75.116.33.246 01:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ethics are just as important.  I do not apologise for holding steadfastly and with considerable success to that. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Jeff feels badly about this, and says so, however, that is unfortunate. I believe it is a nice proposal on Tony's part, meant in the best of faith, and truly needed. It is important that two users can disagree on some issues, even strongly disagree, yet still recognize the positive contributions of "the other side". That's what lets Sunni and Shia, Protestants and Catholics, Liberals and Conservatives argue fiercely about some things, yet, in general, edit this Wikipedia together constructively. Thanks, Tony. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologise to Jeff for the clear offense that my proposal, however well intended, has caused. --Tony Sidaway 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not my intent to criticise you for suggesting it; just that I would probably find it quite insulting if the committee approved this "thank you for your service" motion while showing me the door for discussing too hard. ATren 20:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No ban of Jeff from Wikipedia has been discussed. --Tony Sidaway 20:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, right. He can stay as long as he never says another word in any article or discussion that involves humans. My mistake. ATren 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's something missing 

message: I don't envy the clerk who closes this out.
When multiple remedies pass, but are dependent on choices, are both implemented?  What if on two different proposals like half the supports are first/second choices and the rest are last-ish choice votes?  Ugly.  Milto LOL pia 07:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually by the time the voting closes, the arbitrators have clarified which proposals supersede the others for final approval. If it's still unclear, the case clerk asks the arbitrators to clarify before doing the closing. The "implementation notes" section at the bottom of the decision page is used to make sure the arbitrators and clerks have the same understanding of what has finally passed. You are right about this one getting complicated, though; I don't think I've ever seen "sixth choice" before. Newyorkbrad 10:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, before I added the implementation notes section the closes could be quite chaotic, because the busy arbitrators received no feedback about the final effect of their individual decisions and often did not have the time to figure out whether the overall remedy made sense.  Now before they vote on the motion to close they can see at a glance which proposals will make it into the final decision.  It also helps to reduce clerical error. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choices 

message: I'm not an editor, although I work with one, and sometimes give him input when he writes about something I'm more familiar with.  I'm a reader.  I haven't read your policies.  I think having a policy about "biographies of living people" sounds like a wonderful and needed idea.  I barely know what it says.  
I've thought about changing that.  My friend and coworker seems to have a lot of fun here.  He is passionate about what he does.  But I read some of this over his shoulder, and the rest on my own time, and now I'm afraid to.  I'm not a scholar.  I'm not a physicist or a historian or a philosopher.  I don't think I'm half as smart as most of the people who make this place a useful reference, full of useful information.  But I'm not terrible at Google.  I know where my local library is, with the real paper books.  I've had a library card for almost 30 years.  I even know how to use a microfilm reader.  And I'm fascinated by people, by the idea that someone can matter enough to be written about before they become a dusty part of history.
I don't want to hurt any of those people.  I don't want to write anything mean.  As God is my witness, I would never make things up.  Yet I don't understand how some of the things talked about cause harm.  I don't understand this idea that names are dangerous.  I probably only read half of this discussion, but I found mention of a little girl, who was the first person in the world to have her terrible birth defect corrected by surgery.  And I just can't see the harm in saying her name.  If she was my daughter, I'd be proud of her name.  I'd shout it from the treetops, even though she's with God now. 
I read about all these people talking about dignity, and how editors have to protect that dignity.  I've heard talk about dignity, and about being quiet before.  Many times.  My cousin is, as they say, "profoundly disabled."  If by some miracle, some doctor found a way to cure him, and Wikipedia thought that cure mattered enough to talk about, I'd hope the editor would be able to say his name.  I'd hate to think of him as just "an American child."  And me?  I'm a survivor of violent rape myself.  Someone smarter at Google than me could probably even find the couple of newspaper articles about it.  I don't think I should have an article at Wikipedia.  I am certainly not going to write one myself.  Terrible as it is to think about, a lot of women are raped like I was.  But not very many people are the girl who fell down the well in Texas or that boy who was kidnapped for four years until the other one got taken too.  People have told me that I shouldn't talk about my cousin.  People have told me that I should be ashamed of what happened to me.  I wish to God that no one had to be born sick, or to be kidnapped, or raped, or murdered.  But people are.  And there is no shame in it.  There is no shame in being sick.  There is no shame in being a victim.  You do not have to be silent to show dignity for someone.  Sometimes, the most dignified thing to do is to speak.
I'm not quite so naive to the politics here that I don't think there was more going on, but this Proposed Decision, well, it says that this editor didn't understand these things, and now he's not allowed to edit anymore.  I don't understand.  I don't think I agree.  Should I just stay a reader, and not an editor, so that no one has to come along later and tell me I have to stop? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.2.246.30 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your sincere and intelligent contribution. I think that one piece of the background that you may not appreciate is that the "medical" articles are just one of the types of articles involved here. The articles that have been deleted or renamed that we are discussing include many other situations. There were articles about children who were abducted and subject to sexual abuse. There were articles about people who have been brutally mocked all over the Internet ("memes") because they supposedly look funny. There was a teenager who was made fun, again all over the Internet, because he was overweight. There was an article that I put through the deletion process that humiliated a person who sold his laptop computer without properly erasing the hard drive, and when he got into a dispute about the price, the buyer dumped all of the person's intimate and financial information onto a website. In answer to your question, please do become an editor: we really do want and welcome anyone, and especially an articulate observer like yourself. With the sensitivity you have shown, I find it highly unlikely that you would fall afoul of the guidelines we are discussing here. Newyorkbrad 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An outside voice 

message: Although I applaud much in the proposed decision that Kirill Lokshin has drafted, the editing restrictions proposed for badlydrawnjeff (which may be moot in any event if he does not return to editing) are draconian. If I am reading the proposed decision correctly, Jeff would not only be banned indefinitely from deletion debates concerning any BLP article (which in itself seems overbroad), but also from ever editing any mainspace article concerning any living person ("all articles covered by the [BLP] policy"). This ban would apply even if the subject was indisputably notable and even if there were nothing even slightly controversial about the edit (theoretically, Jeff could not correct a living person's middle initial). This remedy seems particularly unnecessary given the consensus in the Workshop that Jeff's own editing (as opposed to his position in deletion debates) has never raised any BLP-related issues. Remarkably, the scope of the ban actually exceeds even the most severe of the dozen or so varying remedies proposed against badlydrawnjeff in the otherwise compendious Workshop. I have been on opposite sides from badlydrawnjeff in several of the contested deletion debates that led up to this arbitration case but I am nonetheless extremely uncomfortable with this proposal. Newyorkbrad 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Newyorkbrad. In addition to obvious biographies (articles titled as a persons' name), there are plenty of un-obvious ones (articles titled as something else, but that include substantial biographical content). With the current remedy #1, we could talk in terms of percentage of Main space from which Badlydrawnjeff is banned. Combine these two factors with community feeling on this issue, and I fear it will quickly become unrealistic for Badlydrawnjeff to edit anything at all. If I may, I suggest the remedy be drastically reduced in scope to only cover POINT xFDs and DRVs (or POINT participation in such), as that was what led to this arbitration. — digitaleon • talk @ 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff has made seemingly-reasonable edits to XfD/DRV as well as some obvious WP:POINT ones. Given that decided what is POINT may be as contentious as the issue itself, and a decision to that effect may only serve to anger him, I suggest that if any remedy is needed, Jeff be barred only from starting DRVs on living persons, which is easier to enforce - see my proposed remedy .  The way, the truth, and the light 10:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure where such a consensus in the workshop has come from; certainly badlydrawnjeff has made problematic edits in mainspace (e.g. this) as well as the ones in XfDs and such.  And yes, the remedy I've proposed is draconian; but, quite honestly, I don't see any other option for a case of this nature.  Jeff simply does not get BLP; until he shows some signs of doing so, it would be wildly irresponsible of us to allow him to continue screwing around with those articles. Kirill Lokshin 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute was never about BLP, as it was, but about the new policy being implemented by some administrators without previous discussion; this has been expressed in the new additions to WP:BLP and WP:NOT. I don't think it's reasonable to blame this on Jeff. The way, the truth, and the light 10:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently, my crime for sanctioning is that someone can find one edit that's debatably problematic.  Otherwise, this is simply a sanction that a) restricts me for holding an opinion contrary to the people in charge, and b) completly ignores what got us here to begin with.  Not that I'm even considering bothering with this project anymore, but this would certainly mean it's not even worth my considering it if I do change my mind.  Which, of course, was the point all along. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you don't agree with an organisation's fundamental policy, then it's ludicrous for you to join it, and more so to expect to stay in it. If you joined the RSPCA and spent the meetings breaking the legs off insects, how long would you expect to remain in? Yet this is exactly what some editors expect of Wikipedia simply because it says 'anyone can edit' - they confuse 'anyone can edit' with 'anyone may edit'. --86.151.38.245 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BLP policy came into existence in December 2005, several months after I joined Wikipedia. In addition, I agree with the policy. What I don't agree with is the desire to attribute to it some sort of subjective ethical basis, which will inherently always be the subject of dispute. How are we to determine whose ethics are better? I doubt that Wikipedians will be able to answer that question (if an answer exists in the first place) and don't think we should waste time trying. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User comments on the proposed decision 

message: In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war, the arbitrators used a set of principles that I think can be directly used in this case. Furthermore, both cases have extremely strong parallels -- if it worked for the previous case, why not try reusing it for this one? Silas Snider (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous decision 

message: This is a new one for me.  I didn't think expressing an opinion was so wrong.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, it looks like you're going to be gagged, simply for daring to dissent from the ArbCom's view on what constitute "fundamental ethical principles". Evidently NPOV is dead. Waltontalk 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part, NPOV is a content principle that decides how we must cover things we decide to cover. It is not primarily an inclusion policy, except inasmuch as some topics have to be considered to be covered across multiple articles. Phil Sandifer 16:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughtcrime 

message: Just a few observations:
None of the arbitrators that have commented on this page have answered violetriga's concerns that s/he is being admonished/cautioned/whatever for 'not understanding WP:BLP', when her actions (according to her) were to undelete articles of dead people. These concerns need to be addressed, either by admitting that WP:BLP can extend in some cases to dead people, or by contesting the assertion that these articles were of dead subjects. I cannot verify that the articles were indeed about dead people, since I, being merely an editor, do not have access (for good reason!) to the articles.
Also, the concern over whose ethics needs to be spelled out in the decision before it is released for public consumption. As a practicing, very conservative protestant, I doubt that my ethical system is the one being referred to, but there is no indication of that in the decision. This understandably leads to concerns about certain administrators using the decision to squash any kind of existing consensus under 'ethical' concerns.
Additionally, please remember that just as Tony Sidaway, et al. were following their interpretation of WP:BLP, all the evidence indicates that so were BDJ and Violetriga. Also, everything that BDJ did was in an effort to actually garner consensus for either keeping or deleting the article, while it appears that Tony Sidaway, et al. were focused on removing as quickly as possible and without discussion a perceived violation of policy, to the point of speedy closing DRVs, which are specifically mentioned in WP:BLP as the way to appeal wrongful WP:BLP deletions
Finally, the biggest problem with this case is that it appears to outside observers that the ArbCom is upholding that actions of people that fought against transparency, while coming down quite heavy-handed on people that fought for (possibly excessive) transparency. I doubt that even as recently as two years ago that five arbitrators would even consider selectively excluding someone from participating in discussions, especially when that someone has long been the well-know champion of a particular side.
I hope that these can be taken constructively, and that my waiting until now to speak does not mean that my voice cannot be heard.
Sincerely,
Silas Snider (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well put. I would like to see some replies from the arbitration committee. ViridaeTalk 00:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Re: Silas' statement.  The more who speak out the better; and better later than never.  Agree with Silas' statement above and I've also added WP:BLP to my watchlist, and plan to participate as time allows. This case smells. R. Baley 00:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Re: Silas's statement.  I very much agree.  I'm a very new editor, and the discussions here and on other places of what seems to be restrictions of transparancy in article and policy discussions are very disturbing.  Makes me not want to get as involved as I might otherwise.  Rocksanddirt 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification -- as I said, I don't have access to the text, so I wasn't sure, just going on the basis of certain comments above. I definitely agree that, as far as I can tell, they are correctly deleted. Silas Snider (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll have to respectfully disagree with you here. Yes, Violetriga did not obtain consensus for undeletion. However, I trust her sense of whether there are any BLP violations at least as much as I trust the deleting admin's sense of violations. The main problem, as noted in the last paragraph of my comment, is that there is a decided lack of transparency in the deleting admin's actions, while there is a ton of transparency in Violetriga's actions. I remember once reading a section on conflict of interest in the legal system that I often quote: "There must not only be justice, but an appearance of justice." In other words, while the deleting admin was, according to the evidence you've brought up, correct in deleting the articles, leaving a one-line terse comment about the deletion of an article is definitely not giving an appearance of correctness by any stretch of the imagination. Also, it is much harder to trust someone who withholds harmless information, than someone who works to give the impression that they actually seek constant discussion of their actions. Silas Snider (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor clarification -- by the phrase 'withholds harmless information', I do not mean 'deletes BLP violations', but rather 'gives little to no explanation of their actions'. Silas Snider (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I appreciate the gesture. -- Silas Snider (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside Opinion