Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision

message: #Blnguyen
#Charles Matthews
#FloNight
#Fred Bauder
#Jdforrester
#Jpgordon
#Kirill Lokshin
#Matthew Brown (Morven)
#Paul August
#Raul654
#SimonP
#UninvitedCompany
Recused
#Mackensen
Inactive/away
#Flcelloguy
#Neutrality
=== How many active arbitrators? ===
There are 12 active arbitrators listed here, however Paul August noted that there are 13 on the proposed decision page. Since some of the votes are close, this could make a difference. Chaz Beckett 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 13 arbitrators listed as active, but one (Mackensen) is recused in this case, so there are 12 actually participating. Newyorkbrad 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And so the majority is...? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven. (At least on proposals with no abstentions). A majority has to be more than half the number of sitting arbitrators (to avoid "passing" something on a tie vote). Newyorkbrad 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators active on this case 

message: There are 12 active arbitrators listed here, however Paul August noted that there are 13 on the proposed decision page. Since some of the votes are close, this could make a difference. Chaz Beckett 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 13 arbitrators listed as active, but one (Mackensen) is recused in this case, so there are 12 actually participating. Newyorkbrad 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And so the majority is...? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven. (At least on proposals with no abstentions). A majority has to be more than half the number of sitting arbitrators (to avoid "passing" something on a tie vote). Newyorkbrad 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many active arbitrators? 

message: As I see it currently, the proposed cautioning of two admins who may have been acting in accordance with deletion policy may have the effect of discouraging them. Perhaps it would be better to "inform" them and recognise that the deletion policy is not phrased as well as it should be. An improvement to the policy would be a good thing to come out of this process. It could be as simple as "... an admin may choose to undelete it immediately unless the stated reason for the deletion was a BLP concern. In that case, the admin should start a discussion rather than undelete" Eiler7 21:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde, I can understand what you're saying in that some policies take precedence over others.   Can you point somewhere it is objectively stated which are "primary" and which are "secondary"?  I can find no such reference. LaughingVulcan 00:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I don't think it's written down anywhere, though it should.  It's self-evidently obvious that some policies are core policies regarding what Wikipedia is, and other policies are just roadmaps on how process is conducted.  --Cyde Weys 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Self-evidently obvious"? That's what most of our POV-pushers say in article space: it's self-evidently obvious that the moon is made of green cheese, and anybody who reverts them is Suppressing the Truth. So here; if you don't have a source, please don't claim it. I see that WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V no longer identify themselves as core policies; but if anything has a claim to be so, it is those three and WP:CIVIL, under which we have always operated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there's some truth in the notion that the BLP policy takes precedence over the others. In particular, it tends to override the proceduralism that has crept into those policies--as can be seen from this proposed decision, which I believe is about to close if there are no last minute changes. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the deletion policy is marked as official. I would suggest we update it if it is inaccurate. If no one objects, I may be bold and update it myself along the lines I suggested above. It seems like a good idea to keep on top of the policy accuracy issue for the sake of admins who are reading policy to find out how to act. Eiler7 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should make this proposal on that talk page, to get more than a handful of discussants. I support the idea that policy should describe what we actually do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it may actually prove pretty difficult to get the written BLP in sync with the policy as it is practised.  When it works well, nobody notices it. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it unfair to read these words as an admission that BLP is enforced in a manner that is against consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably.  I have no great love for BLP, nor for articles deleted where the specific points of why they violate BLP can't seem to be defined in a way which can be understood, let alone agreed with (i.e. "BLP", "It's doing harm," etc. without describing what the specific part is that does that.)  But I think it's evident that policies occasionally clash with one another.  And thus, those who believe there is consensus for BLP enforcement may conflict with those who believe NOT#CENSORED conflicts (or pick any two policies and it may be conceivable how the policies, and therefore personalities, clash.)  It would be a lovely world (well, lovely Wiki) if policy could be coordinated so that doesn't happen.  It would be a smoother running Wiki if conflicting policy values would be resolved so that there is no conflict.  But I doubt either of those will happen, so if a policy is felt to be enforced against consensus, the proper answer is probably to ask "against consensus about what?"  In the meantime, we'll have the Arbcom to settle individual cases of policy clash by judgments and enforcements of the editors/Admins involved. LaughingVulcan 23:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Pmanderson/Septentrionalis, I think you should take the words as a pretty accurate statement of how a good editing policy works.  It's inherent in the BLP that damaging, unfounded statements about a living person are removed without discussion from any page on the wiki that they are found.  The intention is that those damaging statements will not be discussed.   If the BLP works, nobody notices and they are not discussed.  This is why the policy exists. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yes,one of these days I will get tired of pointing out that I wrote "not censored", and it has nothing to do with keeping damaging rubbish on the encyclopedia.  But that day is not today. --Tony Sidaway 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sometimes I feel like your claim that you wrote "not censored" is meant as if it should convey some special status to you to interpret it for the rest of us.  And that you somehow feel the authority to define what is and is not "rubbish" at Wikipedia in a way which is different from the rest of us.  Or that your values of what rubbish is therefore control by fiat over what someone else believes may be a diamond.  I don't really believe that, but it appears that way to me sometimes.  Sorry if that sounds like a knock.  (And, to clarify the above of mine, I meant that it is probably unfair to read that BLP is administered out-of-consensus by the words above.  Also that policy clashes existed, still exist, and I would not be surprised that most arbitrations arise because of policy clash.  But that also might just be my several years as a extemporaneous speaking and Lincoln-Douglas/Policy debate judge speaking.)   LaughingVulcan  01:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And which of us  has argued against removing "damaging, unfounded statements about a living person" "without discussion"?  That is an excellent statement of policy, and would have consensus - so where's the problem writing the policy?  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about discouraging admins 

message: So you want to close this without even replying here about why you have not included anything about anyone else.  That's very poor form.  violet/riga (t) 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone here has acted in poor form, including yourself. I would suggest leaving it at that. -- Kesh 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but who is being sanctioned?  Not to worry, I'm not interested in biased or poorly run adjudications.  violet/riga (t) 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you including me in that? Eiler7 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not going to look at anyone else then 

message: Let's imagine this scenario: We get a call from the sister of Gaëtan Dugas, who says that her elderly mother is very upset that her son is being described as a psychopath. We go into the article and decide it wouldn't hurt to apply full BLP standards to someone who has been dead for 20 years, so we take out the "psychopath" part. 
A few weeks later, Dugas's sister calls back and says her children are being teased and bullied at school because of their uncle, and one of them is on the verge of dropping out. Can we make it not show up so high on Google searches? After much debate, we move the article to Patient Zero (AIDS) and pull Dugas's name and photo from the article. The sister calls back a few weeks later and says that while she appreciates what we've done, her kids' schoolmates already know who Patient Zero is, so the teasing hasn't stopped. She is afraid that one of the bullies will choose to write a term paper about Patient Zero in order to humiliate her child. Can we take the article down for the rest of the school year? 
Clearly, in this scenario, our article is doing harm to living people. At what point do we say, "I'm very sorry, Ms. Dugas, but although we don't like harming anyone, we have a duty to report the truth."?  
Now apply the same question to articles about living politicians whose kids are being teased in school because of their parents' scandals. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Under the new interpretation of BLP, are we going to have to take out the references to Jenna Bush's underage drinking? She didn't choose to be famous, after all. In fact, why not delete it altogether? And Chelsea Clinton. And Leo Blair. And Prince Harry. Where do we stop? I swear, there are some people here who'd be happier if we didn't have an article on anyone, in case it might hurt them or their relatives. Waltontalk 16:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a fairly good argument, though, that Wikipedia being right up-to-date is a bad thing in this case. If you had to wait until people were 5 or 10 years in their graves before writing the definitive Wikipedia article on them, that might not be such a bad thing. Compare Isaac Newton with Stephen Hawking, and Neville Chamberlain with Tony Blair, and James I of England with Queen Elizabeth II of England. All those articles are about a person, but the ones about living people inevitably suffer from recentism. The Wikipedia articles on those curently living people will look very different in 100 years time. You can't have historical perspective on living people, and so you can't really have a proper encyclopedic article, only the beginnings of one. Ditto for events like Hurricane Katrina and 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake. The literature on those is still expanding, and the story (of recovery) is not yet finished, so the articles are not yet finished. Compare them with 1755 Lisbon earthquake and 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Carcharoth 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A mainstream encyclopedia does not restrict its coverage to past events and dead people. A big part of Wikipedia's utility as a reference work is its up-to-date nature. Yes, it's true that articles on dead people are often better when it comes to "historical perspective", but we're not all about historical perspective. We're trying to create the most comprehensive free encyclopedia in the world, and so far we've succeeded. Yes, we need to trim the thing down a bit, and make sure we don't unintentionally spread false rumour. But severely limiting coverage of living people and current events just to avoid recentism is like burning your house down because you don't like the colour of the wallpaper. Waltontalk 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was searching for encyclopedia inclusion criteria, and found this. Not strictly relevant but interesting (it does briefly allude to Oxford DNB inclusion criteria). I then found this, which said "The first criterion [for inclusion in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography] is that you have to be dead." Note that the Oxford DNB is described thus: "What is the importance of this publication? Gibbon said of all the people who have died in the past that they are the authors of our existence. So all of these people in this dictionary — the 50,000 — in one way or another have had some small impact, not only upon the society in which they lived but upon the society in which we live today. That is the historical concept behind this great dictionary." - now, why can't Wikipedia have the same lofty goals?  (Did anyone notice that the website on which I found that Hansard (House of Lords) debate was linking to Wikipedia articles?) Another description of the Oxford DNB says "The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography tells the stories of over 50,000 people who shaped the history of the British Isles and beyond, from the earliest times to those who died in the year 2000 - from the 4th-century BC Greek Explorer Pytheas to Princess Diana, and from the founding fathers of America to the Nawabs of Bengal.". So the idea of only writing about people who are dead is not outside the mainstream. Indeed, from what I can gather, national biographies in general limit themselves to dead people. Now, obviously, Wikipedia will never remove all its articles about living people, and Wikipedia is a melting pot of various types of encyclopedias, but a clear distinction should be drawn, in my opinion, between writing about historical subjects, and writing about living people. That was the original intent behind Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, and the creation of :Category:Living people. Living people are different and you have to write about them in different ways. No-one disputes that. But a lot of the stuff about living people could easily be moved over to Wikinews, as reports, rather than biographical stuff. In an ideal world, Wikinews would have lots of articles about a living person, carefully sourced from different newspapers, and Wikipedia would have a short, sober, informative article, going beyond the newspaper headlines, and avoiding the newspaper headlines, and detailing some of the historical context and background. You could have lots of Wikinews links in the Wikipedia article, but anything sourced from a newspaper would be turfed over to Wikinews instead. A lot of the angst could be solved by having Wikipedia use published/online books and journals as references, with Wikinews using newspapers as references. Lots of people talk about "reporting" things in Wikipedia articles, to which the response is: Wikinews is that way. 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Do no harm" is not about sparing people's feelings. These are straw man arguments. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was responding to what Carcharoth said above me. However, the problem with "do no harm" is that lots of coverage has the potential to do harm. Like I keep saying, Jenna Bush might well be harmed by the fact that her article details her arrest for underage drinking. She never chose to be famous - just as Alison Stokke didn't - and would doubtless prefer that we didn't retain the story of one of her youthful errors for posterity. If we follow "ethical" principles, they have to be consistent principles; either we avoid spreading stuff that could do harm to people's lives - in which case we'll have to take out large chunks of the encyclopedia - or we just accept that a side-effect of free information is that people get hurt. Waltontalk 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who shifted the frame of the debate from "do no harm" to "don't hurt people's feelings" but it was a brilliant move by the opposition in this case.  I don't know of any objective way to place articles like Baby 81, Jennifer Mee, Allison Stokke, Jenna Bush and Prince Harry on a scale that will precisely define how they should be treated under BLP.  But I do know that they are fundamentally different in important ways (such a the difference between a public person who unquestionably belongs in an encyclopedia versus a person who is private but for a single incident).  How we treat Jennifer Mee is and should be different than the way we treat Jenna Bush, and to lump the two together shows either a fundamental distrust of administrator judgement or deliberate obfuscation of the issue.  The important result of this case is to shift the burden of proof from the deleters to the keepers. Thatcher131 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is indeed the direction of the tide of policy.  The deleter doesn't get carte blanche, but the keeper must justify a living bio by establishing that the bio passes, or can pass, all parts of the BLP.  --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said anything about "don't hurt people's feelings", at least I didn't. What I was doing was extrapolating the logical consequences of the "do no harm" policy, and of basing editing decisions on "ethics" rather than clearly defined rules. It is ethically inconsistent to say "we will protect Allison Stokke from information that might harm her life, but we won't do the same for Jenna Bush, or Prince Harry." If we are going to "do no harm", then we have to do so consistently. Alternatively, we can just accept that a free and comprehensive information resource will, inevitably, cause harm, but that this harm is outweighed by the inherent good of Wikipedia's existence. Waltontalk 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The appeal to large and vague "ethical" sentiments is the proclamation that every admin do what seems right in his own eyes, which is a state of anarchy - one of the things Wikipedia is not. In this case, there is also a large thumb on the scale, saying VioletRiga shall not do what is right in her eyes, as she did here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can indeed heed "do no harm" inconsistently, and we should do so.  For highly "notable" people, even those only notable by virtue of their parentage such as baby princes and the like, we may still seek to minimise harm by avoiding posting their nanny's private phone number, the nursery school they attend, and so on, but we obviously cannot write an encyclopedia without giving them pretty thorough coverage which would be inappropriate for, say, the newborn daughter of a random police constable who happened to be born with a certain neonatal condition.  I think it's a bit early to claim that the sky is falling down just because this tendency to apply commonsense to our coverage is being dealt with explicity instead of just assumed to happen by magic. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You write "thorough coverage which would be inappropriate for, say, the newborn daughter of a random police constable who happened to be born with a certain neonatal condition" If that was what your policy proposals said, they might get widespread support; but they never have said that. If this were explicitly limited to a handful of articles, I would probably support it myself. But no, it is a general principle. Hard cases make bad law. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which policy proposals?  As far as I'm aware all of my non-trivial past policy proposals for the BLP are now an active part of the policy. --Tony Sidaway 05:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's only because its opponents are not willing to revert war, like your couple of irresponsible supporters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you should withdraw that attack, whoever your targets may be. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence for my assertion is in the history of WP:BLP; it will be presented if necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think any evidence can support such an egregious lapse of judgement as to descend to personal attacks.  Please reconsider. --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this odd from someone who has a long record of profane and abusive language himself. If someone else feels  that repeated exact reversions (within the limits of 3RR) is not revert warring, I will certainly abide by consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do No Harm 

message: I don't get it. I was never part of Badlydrawnjeff's obviously stupid comments about ignoring BLP, but why is there no mention of the constant opening-and-closing of discussions (which has been called wheel-warring) for which I gave evidence, and for which even Flonight said there would be consequences for the parties if they didn't promise to stop. This is ridiculous. I believe this is enough for me to quit this encyclopedia. I've put so much time and effort into this (on this and other accounts). Can anyone explain this, why there are no sanctions for wheel warring? The Evil Spartan 00:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, I'm kind of surprised that huge swathes of bad behavior have simply been unaddressed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, I'm asking an arbitrator to address this. Can someone respond? I'm not out to grind anyone into the dust, but even Jimbo has said that wheel-warring is worse than BLP violations (e.g., User:Yanksox). The Evil Spartan 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not an arbitrator, but I would observe that both Violetriga and Night Gyr have been sanctioned for undeleting deleted BLPs without discussion.  This seems to me to be a pretty loud and clear statement on abuse of admin powers.  While other allegations were made during the course of the arbitration, I see no sign that any arbitrators who commented in the workshop found any evidence so compelling as that pertaining to those two admins. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the response. OK, I suppose I mis-used the words. What I should have said was repeatedly undoing another administrator action. Something needn't be wheel-warring to still be inappropriate and admonished. In essence, a lack of even noting the constant undoing of administrator actions (i.e., re-opening and closing discussions opened by other admins, etc.) is a completely acceptable action. If you have not already done so, please look into the diffs I provided on the evidence page. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Clearly FloNight is unwilling to even discuss the wrong-doings of others, so it's just best to ignore this whole arbitration.  violet/riga (t) 17:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I carefully reviewed them before I replied the first time. That is how I knew that that some of the editors were not admins. We generally do not sanction editors or admins for involving themselves in issues if they do not handle the situation perfectly. We want editors to feel empowered to act. Usually only serious breaches of policy and the concern that the action will be repeated get a mention in an ArbCom case. I do not feel the situation that you describe can be addressed without severely restricting the normal practices in Xfd, DRV, and other discussions. FloNight 17:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not mentioning anything else, of course.  The least you could've done is replied to the myriad of points raised on this page rather than dismissing the odd few.  This case has been poorly handled and some arbitrators seem to neither understand the issues nor bother to look into them.  violet/riga (t) 17:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Violetriga, I wonder if you had noticed that, in the workshop of this case, FloNight made some 40 comments?  Looking at this talk page and its archives, I see that she has also made over a dozen comments here.  She has, I think covered just about everything put to her, but obviously has an opinion that differs considerably from the opinions of some non-arbitrators who also edit this talk page.  Having a different opinion from other editors is, I believe, still permitted on Wikipedia.  She has engaged fully in this case and I don't think it's good to insinuate that she has not. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FloNight has replied to some things while ignoring lots of others within the text she is replying to - selective reading.  That was obvious from what I said Tony so try not to read other things into my comments (just as you do with certain policies).  violet/riga (t) 07:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: but no one has even claimed that I violated policy, and I'm still getting a caution for following it to the letter. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think that no one has claimed that you violated policy, you have forgotten the contents of your own talk page, failed to check the evidence page and the workshop page of the arbitration and (most important of all) failed to read and understand |the finding of fact that applies to you in this arbitration.  You may disagree that you violated policy (although I think that would be cause for concern) but you cannot say that nobody has claimed that you violated policy.  --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you'll check the deletion policy, and the wording of that decision, no where do they say I violated policy.  To quote the policy: "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the admin who deleted the page should be informed."  No requirement for discussion.  They say I should have discussed, not that it was mandated to do so by policy.  The finding of fact is accurate, in some cases I did not discuss, but doing so is not a policy violation. If they're going to sanction people for actions that did not violate policy, there's a lot of bad behavior that's being missed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   You're an administrator. You should know better than to try to appeal to what is on the page when the arbitration committee is the body empowered with clarifying and interpreting policy in the course of settling disputes. "But the page never said..." is a poor excuse for doing the wrong thing. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm appealing to the text of the arbcom decision!  There's no mention of policy violation in there because they're not saying I violated policy!  You are saying I violated policy, you are outright misrepresenting their decision to say things it doesn't! Anyway, when I said "no one", I was referring to arbitrators and the text of the decision. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Compare finding of fact 4 (Night Gyr) which describes what you did with  Principle 4 (Summary deletion of BLPs) and I think you'll find that they're saying you violated the biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, they aren't.  I violated the behavior they recommend, which is not a policy.  Until edits that have taken place since this case began, the BLP policy contained no such requirement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you really cannot see why you're being sanctioned, you might like to consider "Don't worry the arbitration committee" to be an unwritten policy.  I think what you did was more fundamentally wrong than that, but if you'll accept nothing else then this ad hoc rule might serve you well instead. --Tony Sidaway 08:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't get it 

message: I've written an essay on this topic at Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. It doesn't actually reflect my own views on BLP; rather, I think it reflects the broad opinion of most people on this, and I hope it will form an appropriate compromise. Waltontalk 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay 

message: In most Anglo-American law, it is impossible to libel the dead. Does anyone happen to know whether Florida is an exception? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it has come up on the project page; and Raul's opinion on principle #5 seems quite clear on what he means by BLP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other principles in this arbitration make it clear that the law is not the sole consideration here. --Tony Sidaway 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And when the law is not the sole consideration, we should not use the word "libel". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The word "libel" should (and does) appear in the policy.  The law isn't the only consideration, but it is a consideration. --Tony Sidaway 12:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another red herring. Libel should, and does, appear when considering libel, which we are legally bound to avoid. It has no wider meaning; implying that it does approaches making legal threats to settle content issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've really, really lost me here.  Could you explain whose point you are arguing against?  It really looks to me like you're responding to the statements of some person who (in some part of the discussion I perhaps have not read) says that libel applies to the dead.  --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Septentrionalis makes a valid point though, that there is tension between WP:NLT and WP:BLP. The essence of many BLP arguments is an assertion that certain statements in Wikipedia may constitute libel, and this being used to justify (often correctly) the removal of content. On the other hand, I have seen people blocked for saying "remove this content immediately, or I will sue you". This veers very close to being in opposition to a case where an admin says "I am blocking you because you have restored, and continue to restore, defamatory content that was removed per WP:BLP". This seems to be saying that it is OK to remove content to avoid potential legal action, but it is not OK to threaten legal action to get such content removed. I see that this is not mutually exclusive, but I see how it can be confusing. Carcharoth 13:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference being that between threatening legal action on-wiki, and threatening it off-wiki. In an attempt to demonstrate that I do understand WP:NLT... Carcharoth 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm sorry but I cannot see any connection between no legal threats and taking reasonable steps to remove potentially libellous statements.  An expression of belief (even an incorrect one) that a statement is libellous is not a legal threat, and anyone blocked solely on those grounds is not being blocked legitimately. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The connection point comes when dispute occurs and one side uses legal arguments to try and enforce their view. "You must delete this because it is libellous". This may be true, but saying it in a threatening way reminds some people of why WP:NLT ("no legal threats") was written in the first place - the need to avoid people editing Wikipedia to feel they can shout at the other side and claim the full force of the law is on their side in an edit war. Though WP:NLT is specifically about the people who would take the legal action making direct legal threats (rather than a random editor pointing out libellous content), I can see why the concern is there over aggressive actions involving legal aspects of BLP. The same thing is seen in fair-use, where people who don't understand fair-use (or rather, the Foundation's more restrictive licensing policy) cave in pretty quickly if someone waves the fair-use card and pretends they know what they are talking about. In essence, I am probably talking about a form of wiki-lawyering, using real-world legal aspects of policy to intimidate other editors into doing something. If the editor in question is correct, then it is nothing more than a bit bitey, but if the editor is wrong (knowingly or unknowingly), it can appear to be a form of intimidation. Carcharoth 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose I see this as all a but hypothetical. I've never yet encountered a case of clear libel on Wikipedia where reasonable people disagreed to the idea that it should be gotten off the site sharpish.  Obviously if some editors insisted on putting it back they'd have to be blocked.  Such blocking does happen, and I think most OTRS volunteers could give you a list of such blocks.  All blocks are subject to review. --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libelling the dead 

message: I'd like to invite comment on the proposed "Jenna Bush test" for BLP cases, that I outlined in the essay I wrote (WP:HARM) as mentioned above. I think this is a pretty good guideline for determining what information about a living individual should be included in their article. I also think the ideas at Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm#Suggested_procedure might be a useful compromise in BLP cases. Waltontalk 19:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was just hoping to hammer out a compromise between the opposing points of view here. It looks like the ArbCom has ruled that "do no harm" in BLPs takes precedence over normal consensus and process; that's not what I hoped for, but better to accept the situation how it is, and try to establish a definite process that will clarify how admins should act in these cases. So I hope the ArbCom will read WP:HARM and take it into account. Waltontalk 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom settles disputes, they don't set policy. "Do no harm" has no consensus, and it's only a matter of time before we're able to rid our policies of this nonsense. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I do like where you're going with WP:HARM. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. ArbCom need to consider the very real possibility that the community may end up writing, discussing and enacting policies similar to, but crucially different, to what ArbCom have indicated in this and other cases. The differences may be subtle, but they may also demonstrate that the community's judgement ends up being better than that of ArbCom. Essentially, different areas of the community will take different interpretations of what "do no harm" means. What the end result of that will be, I don't know. I personally disagree with the Jenna Bush case, as that article reads to me like the sort of article that no-one will be interested in in 50 years time, and likely won't be that interested in now. The classic example of newspaper-generated stories would be Paris Hilton. Carcharoth 07:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's silly to delete anything on presumption that people won't be interested in it.  That someone (other than the editor who wrote it) is interested in a topic has never been a necessity for inclusion in wikipedia, and many of our best-covered topics are extremely obscure, and only an interest to the small handful who already know about them.  Plus, we don't have a survey of all of humanity to know what they care about, so we might as well keep it around until they can see. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have to agree with Night Gyr. The 100 year test is a reasonable idea, but it is not as hard to meet as some seem to think. We are still interested in the mental and personality problems of Mary Todd Lincoln, for example, and it has been more than 100 years. Caesar's wife has even become an idiom. Interest in the scandalous behaviour of famous relatives is not a new invention. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jenna Bush test" and BLP removals 

message: I noticed Charles Matthews (one of the arbitrators) used an interesting Latin phrase in one of his comments. From De mortuis nil nisi bonum: "This expression is used in modern parlance with two nearly contradictory significances. In legal contexts, it refers to the principle of British, American, and other legal systems that defaming a deceased person is not actionable. In colloquial contexts, it indicates that it is socially inappropriate to say anything negative about a (recently) deceased person." - thought that explication might be relevant here, and worth some discussion if anyone wants to work out in which sense Wikipedia should apply this principle... (yes, the answer is "both"!) Carcharoth 12:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Case closing soon (by the looks of it). Discussion moved to here (WT:BLP). Carcharoth 12:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin phrase