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

message: This principle says "Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly". I find this wording troubling. If wikipedia is to be reliable and contain all the notable information about a subject, it should contain information about notable blunders made by an individual which is certainly of relevance to the reader in judging the credibility of that individual. Such blunders may indeed reduce the stature of the individual in the eyes of many but I do not think this is a good enough reason to not provide that information.
There are conflicting goals here. One is to be a comprehensive reference and the second is to maintain dignity. I hope that notable facts are not going to be put in second place because of this conflict. Perhaps my concern would be addressed by the correct interpretation of "primarily" above. I hope so. Perhaps the wording could be expanded to make the intention clearer.
Wikipedia should not, in my view, be considering any approach which means that influential people, like the Pope, can be sure that undignified mistakes they have made will not see the light of day. Eiler7 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of "mock" and "disparage" as being negative ways of wording things.  As per NPOV we should word them carefully.  I think that the principle is trying to state that an article should not exist if its only purpose is to highlight something negative, rather than a section of another article.  violet/riga (t) 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The word "primarily" is important here.  If the only thing notable about a person is that he once waved a golfing tool around and pretended to be Han Solo, and a film of this was mocked by bullies, then obviously any article about him risks furthering the goal of mockery and should be written with great care.  On the other hand if a prominent politician vomits all over his hosts on an important diplomatic occasion, or during a state visit is confined to his plane by the after-effects of a drinking bout, one shouldn't airbrush the incident out. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principle 2 

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

message: So far, we seem to be having the same argument again and again. This is because a number of points have been repeatedly raised, and the ArbCom has simply not answered them, and has instead continued to threaten Violetriga, when she is guilty of nothing more than following the literal wording of the policies. The points are this:
#If an article on a living person of dubious notability is created, and the article is completely sourced to reliable, non-trivial published sources (therefore not defamatory), is it justifiable to delete it immediately under BLP, without discussion?
#If such a deletion occurs, and it is challenged, is it correct for another admin to undelete it and send it to AfD?
#If the answer to question 2 is no, then what method should be used to gauge community consensus on the fate of the deleted article? 
#How far do the above provisions extend? Do they apply to recently deceased people, or to articles that contain information on a living relative of a notable deceased person? 
The ArbCom needs to answer these questions. So far, all they've produced is threats. Waltonalternate account 10:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clear response... but I was asking for a reply from an arbitrator, not an anon IP. Or are you an arbitrator that wasn't logged in when posting? Waltonalternate account 11:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying your identity, I wasn't sure who it was. Waltontalk 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the point here is that the answers to those questions are so clear from the proposed decision that further answers from arbitrators are not necessary.  Also it has been pointed out elsewhere on this page that raising edge cases is not likely to be productive. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately almost all the cases that have been dealt with and have given rise to these problems are edge cases. JoshuaZ 15:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Several people have suggested this great idea now but the admins going around deleting under BLP have yet to comment.  violet/riga (t) 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, I am behind the curve - I see Tony has busily been making or proposing changes to WP:BLP, WP:CSD and WP:DP over the past few days already!  I should have thought it was worth waiting for this case to close before changes were made to the policy pages to reflect it (who knows - the ArbCom may change its mind: it seems that they cannot decide whether dead people are protected by our policy on biographies of living people at the moment).  It is also possible that community consensus will shift once people realise what ArbCom say our current policy is - particular when the policy pages are amended to reflect it - in which case the ArbCom's interpretation will become moot. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And he is now edit-warring to remove a clause that has been in policy for at least a year (I won't check back further) when he has no consensus to do so.  violet/riga (t) 08:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh what nonsense.  One revert isn't an edit war. --Tony Sidaway 08:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:1RR.  You made a change that was undone, two other users joined in, then you revert again (the third removal of the clause and your second).  That is clearly part of an edit war.  Add to that the consensus is actually against you as it stands on the talk page.  violet/riga (t) 09:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Even on the standard of 1RR, one revert is no edit war.  --Tony Sidaway 09:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your action was the second revert, thus it was an edit war.  You were wrong to cite consensus which didn't exist and even more mistaken to revert again.  violet/riga (t) 09:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hang on, you're complaining because I was the second editor to revert you?  That's a little lame, isn't it? --Tony Sidaway 09:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm complaining that you were edit warring on a policy page against consensus.  What a laughable attempt to turn it round.  violet/riga (t) 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also complaining that you are misrepresenting the proposed principles by saying that undeleting an article is wrong when the arbcom have only discussed those relating to BLP.  violet/riga (t) 09:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wheelwarring should always be avoided. If an admin goes crazy and deletes the main page, any sensible admin will undelete without needing a special clause in the deletion policy that allows them to do it. For cases that appear on the scale between the main page and fat Chinese children, if the deletion is crazy, it will be undone without needing to appeal to a special clause. If it's a proper deletion, it hopefully won't be undone. If it's borderline, we can discuss it. ElinorD (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  If all this has any relevance to the arbitration, I suggest that you take it to the evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 10:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the point - I don't agree with trying to get people "told off".  I was merely highlighting it here for transparency.  violet/riga (t) 11:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So far, no one's actually answered the central questions... 

message: #Generally (99% of the time) speaking, no. However, there may be some cases where the article is a totally hatchet job. (An attack can be well referenced!) or otherwise grossly unethical. In such very, very, rare cases, an admin may IAR/BLP delete and then we can debate it if anyone objects.
#No, never. And certainly not without asking the deleting admin for comment first. It is entirely possible that the challenging admin has missed something obvious.
#Firstly, always discuss with the deleter first. There is no rush to undelete. He/she may be able to satisfy the challenger that it is libellous or otherwise inappropriate (or the challenger may persuade the deleter that a speedy is unneccessary). If no agreement is possible with the deleter, then go to DRV. There should be no undeletion unless the content has been reviewed by various admins who think it is safe for an open afd debate.
#Use common sense. With highly notable people, there will be a good version to revert to (or just delete the bad versions). With deceased people, consider the impact on the living. A recently dead baby is really biographical material affecting the parents - use your judgement. And avoid strawmen.--82.10.143.137 – Doc glasgow 11:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clear response... but I was asking for a reply from an arbitrator, not an anon IP. Or are you an arbitrator that wasn't logged in when posting? Waltonalternate account 11:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying your identity, I wasn't sure who it was. Waltontalk 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the point here is that the answers to those questions are so clear from the proposed decision that further answers from arbitrators are not necessary.  Also it has been pointed out elsewhere on this page that raising edge cases is not likely to be productive. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately almost all the cases that have been dealt with and have given rise to these problems are edge cases. JoshuaZ 15:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Several people have suggested this great idea now but the admins going around deleting under BLP have yet to comment.  violet/riga (t) 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, I am behind the curve - I see Tony has busily been making or proposing changes to WP:BLP, WP:CSD and WP:DP over the past few days already!  I should have thought it was worth waiting for this case to close before changes were made to the policy pages to reflect it (who knows - the ArbCom may change its mind: it seems that they cannot decide whether dead people are protected by our policy on biographies of living people at the moment).  It is also possible that community consensus will shift once people realise what ArbCom say our current policy is - particular when the policy pages are amended to reflect it - in which case the ArbCom's interpretation will become moot. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And he is now edit-warring to remove a clause that has been in policy for at least a year (I won't check back further) when he has no consensus to do so.  violet/riga (t) 08:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh what nonsense.  One revert isn't an edit war. --Tony Sidaway 08:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:1RR.  You made a change that was undone, two other users joined in, then you revert again (the third removal of the clause and your second).  That is clearly part of an edit war.  Add to that the consensus is actually against you as it stands on the talk page.  violet/riga (t) 09:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Even on the standard of 1RR, one revert is no edit war.  --Tony Sidaway 09:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your action was the second revert, thus it was an edit war.  You were wrong to cite consensus which didn't exist and even more mistaken to revert again.  violet/riga (t) 09:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hang on, you're complaining because I was the second editor to revert you?  That's a little lame, isn't it? --Tony Sidaway 09:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm complaining that you were edit warring on a policy page against consensus.  What a laughable attempt to turn it round.  violet/riga (t) 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also complaining that you are misrepresenting the proposed principles by saying that undeleting an article is wrong when the arbcom have only discussed those relating to BLP.  violet/riga (t) 09:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wheelwarring should always be avoided. If an admin goes crazy and deletes the main page, any sensible admin will undelete without needing a special clause in the deletion policy that allows them to do it. For cases that appear on the scale between the main page and fat Chinese children, if the deletion is crazy, it will be undone without needing to appeal to a special clause. If it's a proper deletion, it hopefully won't be undone. If it's borderline, we can discuss it. ElinorD (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  If all this has any relevance to the arbitration, I suggest that you take it to the evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 10:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the point - I don't agree with trying to get people "told off".  I was merely highlighting it here for transparency.  violet/riga (t) 11:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, here goes

message: "For this case, there are 12 active arbitrators, of whom one is recused, so 6 votes are a majority."
Based on the word "majority" and other recent cases I would have said that it would require 7 votes for a majority.  violet/riga (t) 12:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the majority for twelve active arbitrators is seven. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hang on, though. Mackensen is one of the twelve, and is recused.  Eleven arbitrators are active in this case. --Tony Sidaway 12:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)Since one is recused then 11 are active on this case. So the majority it 6. FloNight 12:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - so I see.  violet/riga (t) 12:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of the committee members active on each case is found at the top of each case proposed decision talk page.  The clerks are good at keeping it updated. At various times and for various reasons during the case it will not be accurate. A final update is done at the time the case closes. That is the only one that matters. FloNight 12:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator majority 

message: Kirill, Fred, Uninvited Company and James want to ban Jeff from discussing the BLP policy because of his "rejection of the fundamental ethical principles that underlie the BLP policy", while Raul has daringly rejected those underlying principles himself : "I've always considered it primarily, if not exclusively, concerned with avoiding a libel lawsuit"
Raul is still voting to caution Jeff to follow the letter and spirit of the policy but presumably that's a different spirit to the one that Kirill is cautioning him to follow.
Morven also votes to caution Jeff but very even-handedly adds that his caution applies to everyone else too! 
Flo  announces “we do not sanction editors and administrators for attempting to do the right thing” but doesn’t to post it under “proposed principles” so we may never know whether the other arbitrators agree. 
Raul accuses Tony Sidaway of a “BLP spree” but hasn't proposed any findings or sanctions yet. (BLP spree, not deletion spree. Hope that soothes any mystification of the clerks)
Despite valiant efforts to maintain that a clear policy is being discussed here, they fail to agree amongst themselves whether dead people count as a subset of living people but people WILL be sanctioned if they violated this policy, whatever it may or may not turn out to have been.
Stay tuned 213.130.142.183 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP is a developing policy.  Part of the reason for this arbitration case is to provide some clarity and remove doubt.  There is still some debate about whether BLP applies to the recently deceased (see here for a clue as to why there is as yet little support for the proposed principle that "BLP applies only to living people").  The findings of the case are true irrespective of whether or not the BLP applies only to living people, although it might be nice if the arbitration committee has been able to agree on it for the sake of clarity. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary so far 

message: I thought it would be interesting to see who added the phrase "do no harm" to BLP and when.  It seems to appear first here, on 19 December 2005, when User:SlimVirgin was busy building up the page.   Here is what it said:
:... there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, may nevertheless feel that they are private individuals, and who may object to being on the receiving end of public attention. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and, in the case of a dispute, should err in favor of respecting the individual's privacy.
:[examples]
:In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing.
The context is very interesting.  Both of the examples given are of damaging negative comments of questionable veracity - do we repeat allegations of misconduct made in the New York Times (answer: yes); do we repeat allegations of misconduct made in a student newspaper or satirical magazine (answer: no).  Funny how this has grown in the a full-blown ethical position, which results in the redaction of the names of minors, the deletion of articles on sight, etc. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reading the same words as you, and I see an ethical statement there: "It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing."  I hope there is no serious objection to the redaction of the names of minors, as you seem to imply. We routinely removed the names of minor children from biographies of even very famous living persons. I hope there is no serious objection to the immediate removal of harmful material, up to and including whole articles, as you seem to imply. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is an absolutely stupid position for any encyclopedia with a claim to objectivity and neutrality to take.  It is very much our job to expose people's wrong-doing.  Fraudsters, scam artists, hucksters of patent medicines, incompetent or corrupt officials,  Scientology, all would probably all face great harm from a neutral, balanced, and completely accurate article.  Our goal is not to protect people from any harm, nor to conceal misdeeds or true facts.  Our goal is to present reliable facts in a balanced way so that everyone may know the truth, and those who deserve to be hurt by the truth will be, and those who do not will have nothing to fear from our articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  We're not investigative journalists.  We don't flinch from reporting bad stuff, but we don't make things worse.  The difference is this: if in the course of your research you uncover what you believe to be evidence of a terrible bad thing, put it on your blog.  If it's important enough it'll become public currency and then someone will put it into the encyclopedia.  Expose scientology? No.  Report the many very public exposees of scientology, including the times they were caught trying to hide the evidence? Absolutely.  This is inherent in our core policies.  If you think the BLP is some terribly new thing that destroys our capacity to pursue our existing policies as well, then you might like to consider that you misunderstood our aims in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what the distinction you're drawing is.  What would constitute an inappropriate exposé when draw entirely from reliable published secondary sources?  I can understand not digging through tax records and property forms and parking tickets to find some screwup recorded in a primary record but not by any secondary media, but if an investigative journalist has exposed something, are we supposed to sit on our hands and not mention it? I look at this the same way as classified material.  To meet our sourcing guidelines, it already has to be public information, so we won't be making anything worse as long as we stick to them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, we do make things worse if we're indiscriminate.  In a recent rape case, the defense dug up all kinds of muck about the alleged victim's background.  It's a standard defense in rape to denigrate the alleged victim.  But we, reporting the case, chose not to retain in full an article, a purported biography, that contained all that detail.  The information was all out there, but the alleged victim was a private individual--her identity protected by the court until an advanced stage because of that--so we decided that it wasn't appropriate to have  a biography containing all that muck.  The case is fully covered, but it doesn't dwell on what is not relevant, and the alleged victim does not have a biographical article about her.  --Tony Sidaway 08:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The case is fully covered?  Well that's not what happens if you just go around deleting things - you don't even give people the chance to come up with an acceptable solution.  And I'm not talking about obvious speedy deletion candidates here but more of the "I'll claim BLP" deletions that have no basis for their removal.  violet/riga (t) 08:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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