Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
New remedies
Line 225: Line 225:
:Abstain:
:Abstain:
:#
:#
===Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned===
====Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned====
1.1) Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and spirit of the [[WP:BLP|Biographies of living persons]] policy.
1.1) Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and spirit of the [[WP:BLP|Biographies of living persons]] policy.
:Support:
:Support:
Line 231: Line 231:


:Oppose:
:Oppose:
:# Pointless when he's essentially told us straight out that he won't. The only way I could see this working is if he explicitly acknowledged his responsibilities under principle 1. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
⚫
:#


:Abstain:
:Abstain:
:#
:#

===Badlydrawnjeff banned from DRVs on living persons===
====Badlydrawnjeff banned from DRVs on living persons====
1.2) Badlydrawnjeff may not initiate or reopen any deletion review concerning an article deleted for BLP reasons for three months.
1.2) Badlydrawnjeff may not initiate or reopen any deletion review concerning an article deleted for BLP reasons for three months.
:Support:
:Support:
Line 241: Line 242:


:Oppose:
:Oppose:
:# He'll just get someone else to open it for him. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:Abstain:
:#
:#

====Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions on living persons====
1.3) Badlydrawnjeff may not participate in any deletion discussion or review concerning a BLP article for three months.

:Support:
:# Second choice. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
⚫
:#

====Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion reviews on living persons====
1.4) Badlydrawnjeff may not participate in any deletion review concerning an article deleted for BLP reasons for three months.

:Support:
:# Third choice. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#


:Abstain:
:Abstain:

Revision as of 17:10, 19 June 2007

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only arbitrators or clerks should edit this page; non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active arbitrators, of whom one is recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Biographies of living persons

1) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (made copyedit)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Basic human dignity

2) Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (copyedited)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Do no harm

3) In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Summary deletion of BLPs

4) Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. 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.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Could stand some copyediting Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute involves the deletion, undeletion, and associated discussion of a number of articles covered by the biographies of living persons policy.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Badlydrawnjeff

2) badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has vocally argued against the deletion of certain articles that were deleted on the grounds of violating WP:BLP. He has explicitly rejected the need for ethical considerations when dealing with such articles (""We should discard ethics in favor of writing an encyclopedia. If we share any ethics as a project, that's it.").

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Violetriga

3) Violetriga (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has, in a number of instances, undeleted content that was deleted under the BLP policy without a discussion to ensure that such content was appropriate ([1]).

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Night Gyr

4) Night Gyr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has, in a number of instances, undeleted content that was deleted under the BLP policy without a discussion to ensure that such content was appropriate ([2]).

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Badlydrawnjeff banned from BLPs

1) 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. In particular, this includes any deletion discussion dealing with such an article, as well as any present or future discussion of the policy itself.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think this goes much too far. I don't think we've shown Jeff to have behaved inappropriately in terms of editing articles on living persons, and my problem with his behavior in discussions has not been with his fundamental ethical principles, but with his incivility and inability to let a point rest (which latter, it must be said, applies equally to those who insist on debating him in similar fashion rather than ignoring him once the point has been made, repeatedly). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with Matt. See 1.1 and 1.2 for alternatives. FloNight 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned

1.1) Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy.

Support:
  1. I feel that a caution and a limited ban for a limited amount of time is better (see 1.2). Gives Badlydrawnjeff a chance to adjust to the principles and findings in this case. FloNight 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Pointless when he's essentially told us straight out that he won't. The only way I could see this working is if he explicitly acknowledged his responsibilities under principle 1. Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Badlydrawnjeff banned from DRVs on living persons

1.2) Badlydrawnjeff may not initiate or reopen any deletion review concerning an article deleted for BLP reasons for three months.

Support:
  1. I fee that a limited ban for a limited amount of time is better. Gives Badlydrawnjeff a chance to adjust to the principles and findings in this case. FloNight 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. He'll just get someone else to open it for him. Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions on living persons

1.3) Badlydrawnjeff may not participate in any deletion discussion or review concerning a BLP article for three months.

Support:
  1. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion reviews on living persons

1.4) Badlydrawnjeff may not participate in any deletion review concerning an article deleted for BLP reasons for three months.

Support:
  1. Third choice. Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Violetriga cautioned

2) Violetriga is cautioned to avoid undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined above.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Night Gyr cautioned

3) Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined above.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Users who violate any ban imposed by this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Log_of_notifications.2C_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed_decision&oldid=139236531"