Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:52, 25 February 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Deskana excused

1) Per the reasoning given in Deskana's statement, Deskana's name is removed from the participant's list of this case. The Arbitration Committee, in light of this explanatory note, feels that Deskana has no reason to be involved as a party in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seems right to me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have no problem with this. Bumm13 13:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in the heat of the moment it might not have occurred to Deskana that anonymous users have (for over a year) been unable to create pages and (since the beginning of time) been able to view the wikitext of deleted revisions, as would have been necessary for an exact reposting to occur. —freak(talk) 07:03, Feb. 25, 2007 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me that an anonymous user couldn't recreate a page, but I assumed that the user had copied the page before and simply reposted it. I have seen users repost exact copies of pages seemingly from nowhere, since they seem to save the Wikitext to their computer or something. In retrospect I should have thought a bit longer before I hit the delete button. --Deskana (request backup) 11:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel.Bryant 06:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Bucketsofg 06:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Alternatively have "Deskana exonerated" as on of the "findings of fact". Given the appearance of the deletion log, which Jimbo Wales called "a disgrace", it's probably better for the arbitration committee to look into the behaviour of everyone who deleted or undeleted, and to state specifically that some of the parties were blameless. "Excused" could mean "he was wrong, but we'll forgive him." ElinorD (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Expectations and role of administrators

n) In general, Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users, particularly with regard to principles such as assume good faith and no personal attacks. Administrators are expected to keep their cool and should not use administrator-specific capabilities casually or without thought. They should lead by example and serve as a model of the proper editing behavior to which other users should aspire.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit wars considered harmful

n) The essence of an edit war is repeated reversion of an action as a substitute for discussion leading to consensus. Edit wars undermine the consensus-based decisionmaking upon which Wikipedia depends.

The practice of carrying on a discussion in the comment field for edits or log entries is unhelpful and is not a suitable substitute for genuine discussion in an appropriate forum.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ignoring all rules

n) Wikipedia has many policies and processes that affect deletion and undeletion of pages. Where there is strong community support (or minimally, a lack of objections), it is sometimes permissible to sidestep or otherwise take liberties with these process. Practitioners of ignore all rules should proceed slowly and deliberately; act only when informed by any existing discussion, history, or logs; and should be prepared to explain the reasoning for their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Location of deletion debates

n) When a "speedy deletion" is questioned and appears to be more than a simple mistake by the deleting admin, the proper venue for discussion is Wikipedia:Deletion Review. As a general rule, articles listed there are left deleted at least until a strong consensus begins to emerge in favor of overturning the deletion of the article. Where consensus is unclear, the article should remain deleted until the five-day comment period has elapsed. Non-administrators interested in commenting may ask an administrator to email a copy of the article to them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In practice, it's much more common to temporarily undelete history behind a template like {{TempUndelete}} than to email copies around. —Cryptic 13:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care in deletion and undeletion

n) Administrators are expected to use care in making speedy deletions. In all but the most obvious cases, this means checking the page history prior to completing the deletion. Where a history exists, a link is provided on the deletion confirmation page to make this easy.

Administrators who undelete articles, and administrators who delete articles where the page history indicates prior deletion-related discussion or activity, are expected to familiarize themselves with the situation, including a review of any relevant discussion, logs, and history.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

1) All editors are expected to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —freak(talk) 00:29, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No personal attacks

2) Personally charged attacks are inflammatory, divisive, and contribute to a negative environment on Wikipedia. They should be avoided. Occasional lapses in civility may be forgiven, but continued infractions may result in a block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Recommend leniency for Yanksox due to lack of any prior history that I'm aware of. —freak(talk) 00:29, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Deletion venues

3) If an article does not satisfy one or more criteria for speedy deletion, and deletion of said page is likely to be controversial, it should be submitted for discussion at articles for deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —freak(talk) 00:29, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Bumm13 14:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If this is accepted without conditions, someone should put WP:IAR up for deletion. Don't speedy it, however - regardless of how it is irrelevant, process MUST be followed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, IAR is a useful principle, and Jimbo says it's official policy. It can and is appropriately invoked when deleting material whose absence nobody is likely to complain about, as well as for other actions not related to deletion. While Yanksox certainly intended well, the effect was detrimental. I believe he knew that his interpretation of IAR would fly over like a lead balloon, but felt it was worth a try. —freak(talk) 01:03, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite thats a ridiculous ascertion. Why do we bother having any policies at all then following that logic? Glen 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actions taken under IAR should be relatively non-controversial, meaning that few or no informed users would be likely to make a good faith objection. IAR isn't free reign to do whatever the heck you feel like. --BigDT 18:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is fine - it is a principle, and hypothetically it will allow exceptions. Anyway, if it is a rule, it is only one more to ignore if it gets in the way. (And that's not meant to provocative - in 99% of cases this principle will be right.--Doc^g 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "a page" to "an article" as a technical matter. Some "pages" don't go to AFD - they go to MFD, etc. --BigDT 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. —freak(talk) 20:36, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion policy

3b) If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with the deletion policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately [1], particularly (in relation to this case) in situations where the article has been wrongly deleted (i.e. that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored) [2] or for the benefit of non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article, either to use its content elsewhere, or alternatively, because they cannot tell if it was wrongly deleted without seeing what exactly was deleted. [3].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —freak(talk) 20:11, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Strong object. This is a charter for process-fans to wheel-war, and it contradicts the dictum "do not reverse another admin's action without discussion". Sometimes an IAR deletion can be the 'right thing' and indeed in content uncontroversial. We don't want people wheel-waring just because process wasn't followed in the deletion of some useless piece of crap that one-one wants (yes, that happens). In any case, process is not greater than consensus. In the case of the deletion in question, a DRV had been opened and a high number of users had endorsed the deletion. It was for DRV to decide whether the deletion should stand or fail, not one individual, not having the article for a few days while we did that was not really damaging. Always discuss and seek consensus before reversing.--Doc^g 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this policy needs revision. Should we do it now or wait for this case to close? —freak(talk) 20:29, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

It appears we have a clear conflict of policies at any rate.--Doc^g 20:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Fairness to deletion review participants

4) In the interest of fairness to everybody (administrator or not), it is usually appropriate for prior revisions of articles being considered for deletion review to be restored, at the request of one or more participants, to ensure that all involved parties may see the content of the article whose ultimate fate is being discussed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is what I did and why I did it. How else is the average user able to make an informed comment in a deletion review discussion. —freak(talk) 00:40, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this completely; that's what I was attempting to do (albeit inefficiently) when I initially undeleted/restored the article to its then-most recent revision. Bumm13 13:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally no problem with this, but admins must first check why the article has been deleted and be sure they are not undeleting libellous or BLP violating histories.--Doc^g 20:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Though frequently contested at the DRV talk page (e.g. here, this is an appropriate measure. "Fairness" is not so much the issue as the fact that DRV effectively decides to delete/undelete articles, and making deletion/undeletion decisions in ignorance of the content of an article is obviously a bad idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use the term fairness as a non-administrator would otherwise have only two choices: (a) refrain from commenting, or (b) voice an opinion and be primarily ignored on the basis that they most likely have no level of familiarity with the content. Feel free to rephrase as you see prudent. —freak(talk) 00:52, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary givn my comments linked above. In many cases the content is availible in other ways besides restoration or not particularly relevant to the decision of what the consensus was at AfD. Eluchil404 06:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merits of an article itself are more important than who says what and how many people agree with him/her, or how many of them are sockpuppets, or distinct people who received biased solicitation during the AFD (in cases where an AFD exists). —freak(talk) 07:59, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest changing the wording to "sometimes appropriate for one or more prior revisions". Most of what comes to DRV doesn't really need to be restored. --BigDT 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But no matter how worthless you think a page is, if a user in good standing requests to actually see it for the duration of a deletion review, you'd probably restore it, or paste it to a sandbox page or something, so that he or she can express an informed opinion on the issue, unless there was a compelling reason to deny the request, correct? —freak(talk) 19:49, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review should be respected

4b) When participants in the deletion review process have been asked to scrutinise a deletion, admins should generally await the outcome of that deliberation. Premature closing, whether to endorse or overturn deletion, or to move the debate elsewhere, should only be used where there is an obvious consensus to do so. Respect needs to be shown to all participants in the process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

'

Comment by Parties:

Proposed: I submit that events at DRV and disrespect, not so much of the process but of the views of the participants, was inflammatory and largely led to this wheel war. I'm trying to be even handed here. A disputed deletion had been carried out by Yanksox, Coolcat commendably took the matter to DRV - from that point we'd all have done better to read what the community was saying there. There was no need to rush.

The WP:SNOW closing of the DRV was unwise and inflammatory. Although nearly all participants at the time were endorsing the deletion - it should have been obvious that the debate still had far to go.
The undeletion, opening of an AfD, and closing of the DRV was also unwise. At that point the participants in the DRV were strongly endorsing the deletion - and few indeed calling for an 'undelete and relist'. Ignoring that putative consensus and taking action based on interpretations of process was also inflammatory. Consensus needs to be respected above process. There was no need to rush.

Admins reversed Yanksox's deletion as 'out of process' or unjustified. Perhaps it was. But, with respect, that decision would have been better arrived at corporately through the DRV debate. There was no need to rush.--Doc^g 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Others:

Do No Harm

5) In borderline cases regarding biographies of living people, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe extraordinary attention to sources and neutral presentation of the material adequately separate Wikipedia articles from tabloid fodder. The article spoke very little of Brandt's life, focusing almost entirely on his public activism against the Vietnam War and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, his criticism of Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, and his role in the Seigenthaler incident. There was no sensationalism. —freak(talk) 00:58, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

This is unworkable and is a totally over-reaching interpretation of BLP. The result of this would be Positive POV articles. Those last two sentences are true but most people have things, well documented things, they would rather have swept under the rug. It isn't our job to censor negative information for the benefit of a living person. In some cases there are instances of untrue things that were still scandalous events. Coverage of those events is usually done in the article of the person. SchmuckyTheCat 05:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely with Schmucky. We have to deal with the messy reality of people's lives - that requires covering negative episodes (Monica Lewinsky, anyone?) as well as positive. -- ChrisO 13:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore All Rules

6) If rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The question of whether deleting Daniel Brandt improved the quality of the encyclopedia remains a matter of heated dispute. I believe it was both unnecessary and destructive. —freak(talk) 01:08, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the "spirit" of the WP:IAR notion, but the idea of "ignore all rules" is extremely unworkable on a Top 15 website (in terms of Web traffic) edited by many thousands of people worldwide who come from different worldviews, etc. I think constructive discussion helps reduce the need for rushing into action regarding Wikipedia issues. Bumm13 14:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a widely followed idea, I oppose it: it makes it nearly impossible for the casual or new editor to know what to expect, and this leads to them getting bitten, hard. Wikipedia's too big, and too many people with too many different ideas are involved, to be run on individual whim. -- Jay Maynard 14:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and esp admins taking action under IAR should be ready to show that 1) the rules prevented them from taking appropriate action, and 2) that the action was necessary for improving or maintaining Wikipedia. IAR does not simply state: "Rules... ignore them." Jd2718 17:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much I like the idea of ArbCom putting a stamp of approval on IAR, especially considering that IAR is frequently misinterpreted as "do whatever the heck you feel like". A better resolution would be to state what IAR really is - permission to take an action that is not explicitly granted in the rules when that action is necessary and largely non-controversial. --BigDT 18:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BigDT. As it stands, IAR is a charter for reckless actions such as the one that set this controversy off in the first place. -- ChrisO 13:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding conflicted interpretation of deletion policy

7) If in doubt, don't delete. [4]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —freak(talk) 01:11, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Suspected violations of BLP

8) Pages suspected to contain unsourced or poorly sourced negative information may (and should) be edited, by any user and without penalty of WP:3RR, to remove such information [5] [6]. In extreme cases an article may be shortened to a stub [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —freak(talk) 01:31, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm loath to step in here, but believe that since the issue has been raised in this proceeding, it should be addressed. Some admins, in this case and other instances, including at least one party to this case, expanded WP:BLP to mean that any unsourced or poorly sourced information, negative or not, controversial or not, should be immediately removed. That's not what WP:BLP says. If the expanded interpretation is to be treated as policy, then the policy should be rewritten to reflect that. Please don't hit me if this isn't the place or manner in which this issue should be raised; just let me know, and I'll quietly go away again. -- Jay Maynard 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iawtc. BLP is not a Positive POV policy. SchmuckyTheCat 05:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP policy says that any unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, whether in articles or on talk pages, should be removed immediately, and that 3RR does not apply. Anyone adding such material should be warned, and if they continue to restore it, may be blocked. Articles may be protected by any admin, including admins who are editing the page, to keep such material out.SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying WP:BLP is a bad idea or should not be followed, despite what some admins appear to believe. The problem is that those admins are expanding it to remove the "contentious" part. If that is to be removed from the policy, fine, update the policy. If not, then the policy should be enforced as written. Enforcing an unwritten policy with incivility and banning is abusive, and destructive to the encyclopedia. -- Jay Maynard 14:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, Slim. I've changed "articles" to "pages". —freak(talk) 05:39, Feb. 25, 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring

9) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Proto ► 01:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the intent is right I think that the phrasing is less than ideal. Admins undo each other's actions all the time and should... if an image was protected while it was on the Main page and it isn't there anymore you don't need the original admin's approval to unprotect it. Likewise, reversing a block which consensus agrees was inappropriate is fine even if you haven't been able to talk to the original blocker about it. Where it becomes 'wheel warring' is when you knew, or should have known, that your admin action was going to be widely contentious and you did it anyway... which I apply even to the first admin action. --CBD 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

10) Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Again taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. I think this might be better suited than a "no personal attack" reiteration directed at Yanksox, given the user's previous good conduct, and if not, I still believe it ought to be present as a reminder to involved parties that civility is a necessity, particularly for administrators. Proto ► 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wishes of the subject of an article do not dictate Wikipedia articles

11) The subjects of Wikipedia articles do not dictate what Wikipedia says or does not say about them. Our policies do.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. If a living person has a legitimate gripe about possible libel/defamation of character, then that issue needs to be taken up with the Wikimedia Foundation directly. It's not even so much our policies that dictate this as much as U.S./Florida state law, etc. (as that is where the Foundation is based) Bumm13 14:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Bumm13. —freak(talk) 20:43, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed I'm tired of seeing "so and so doesn't like their article" used as an excuse to delete valid content. SchmuckyTheCat 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... and no... In some cases we should take into account the subject's desire to have a biography removed. These are the cases where the biography would have little or limited public interest, while the presence of the biography can cause serious troubles to the reputation and life of the subject. In the Brian Peppers case, the person's "claim to notability" is being made fun of in a particularily nasty way on a number of websites. Is the quality and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia severely compromised by lacking an article on him? I would say no, and it was one of the things I discussed with other Wikipedians at a meetup in Bergen in May last year (first and only time I have seen Jimbo in person!). Here I will tend to agree, the article was a burden to him and his family, and the only benefit for the readers would be satisfying a level of nosiness which tabloid newspapers are only too willing to satisfy.

Of course, there are limits. If Bill Clinton called into Wikipedia, said that he did not like the fact that we describe him as an impeached president, we would quite rightly ignore it. Because deleting it would seriously compromise Wikipedia's ability to be a comprehensive encyclopedia (and it would give Wikipedia remarkably bad press if people could just get their bios deleted willy-nilly.) If a public figure does not like their bio here, but the person is so clearly notable that deleting it would damage our credibility, then this principle applies in full force. Yes, we should make a strong concerted effort to maintain the article in a verifiable and neutral condition, yes, it should be in accordance with WP:BLP guidelines, but we cannot go as far as to saying "This person doesn't want an article, so we won't have one".

Perhaps the Brandt case is one of the borderline issues which makes me so uncertain about what to do here. He is an active activist who maintains a number of sites, and has received a fair amount of media attention, but he is not the kind of person a lay person would be expected to know about, or would expect to see a biography about. I see a number of very strong, very sincere, and very convicted arguments on both sides here. I am torn as to whether the principle here applies for this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wishes of the subject and Wikipedia articles

11b) The subjects of Wikipedia articles do not dictate what Wikipedia says or does not say about them. However, given the power of this medium, and its potential for harm, the concerns of the subject should be considered. In cases of marginal notability, the subject's wishes may be a factor, although not the determining factor, in deletion decisions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: I cite as a clear indicator of consensus for this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Clarke. I also cite the policy statement "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm" from WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy. We are not a tabloid newspaper, and even when something is roughly sourced, we need to consider whether our need to be comprehensive and uncensored outweighs the legitimate concerns of an otherwise non-public figure. Often having the relevant information in other articles may be a better, more humane, way of proceeding than to retain a bio that on another day we might have deleted as not-notable anyway. Leaving aside the specific argument as to whether Brandt is a public figure, I'd suggest in general this is a better policy finding than the above - and reflects in practice what we do. OTRS admins routinely delete borderline bios in response to e-mails, in such cases we stretch CSD A7 as far as we can - and in most cases the subject is so obscure that no-one notices (Gah, I've let the cat out of the bag). Further, for the most part (although granted not here) low notability bios are unwatched, and thus subject to the dangers of unnoticed libels remaining for long periods.--Doc^g 15:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse (at least as a policy matter, although I'm not sure this is an issue for the arbitrators). Newyorkbrad 15:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While not opposed to the subject of an article having a voice, I'm opposed to privileging that voice over the judgement of editors. Yes, there will be a time where the subject's opinion may be the difference--in the same way that there are times where a single !vote moves an afd from "no consensus" to delete. But introducing this as a principle is not a good idea. (And a single AFD case should not be treated as any kind of precedent.) Bucketsofg 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators applying WP:IAR

12) Administrators applying WP:IAR or otherwise performing an action that can be reasonably be foreseen as controversial should take care to explain those actions fully and with civility. When possible they should also make an attempt to be available for discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This isn't directed solely at Yanksox and others involved here, but using less inflammatory language might have lessened the damage in this and other instances. More respectful use of WP:IAR can reduce the heat. RxS 06:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a rule that's applied generally. I'm still trying to get a civil explanation of admin action from a couple of days ago, and my repeated inquiries have led to the admin in question writing me off as a troll - which I most certainly am not. -- Jay Maynard 14:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be obvious. IAR doesn't say that you can do whatever you wish, so you have to have a good reason why you did it, not just "I ignored the rules". And if you have to ignore the rules, then nobody has foreseen your reason, so you should expect that people want an explanation, and comply civilly. -Amarkov moo! 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of WP:IAR in deletion

13) Invoking WP:IAR to speedily delete an article that is a largely-worthless shell of an article, even if it does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion, may be appropriate. Invoking WP:IAR to speedily delete an article that, in addition to not meeting any criteria for deletion, has survived more than ten nominations on Articles for Deletion is not appropriate, and is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. IAR has its place, but speedying an article that has survived so many AfDs is just horribly disruptive. jgp T C 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inherently disruptive ... and besides, this isn't a principle. --BigDT 02:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gross incivility by administrators

14) Derogatory personal attacks directed at the entire Wikipedia community by an administrator in good standing harm the community even more than personal attacks made in other contexts, and are considered a betrayal of the trust the community has placed in that administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Personal attacks are bad, regardless of their source. You're suggesting that the same offensive statement might be more harmful or less harmful depending on who uttered it, and I honestly do not believe that. —freak(talk) 08:33, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

It's not just who made the attacks; it's also who those attacks were directed at. I specified "directed at the entire Wikipedia community" for a reason. An administrator is someone who has had a large amount of trust placed in them by the community. Grossly attacking the community is a violation of that trust. jgp T C 08:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to defend Yanksox. His remarks show his frustration and are certainly disrespectful, but to suggest that bitching at the world in general in a deletion summary is worse than attacking a specified person is crazy. The wikipedia community has a corporate thick skin - individuals wound a lot easier. I've seen a lot worse in edit summaries.--Doc^g 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Yanksox's "Are you even human?" comment, as well as his subsequent deletion comments, go beyond simply incivil. It has caused severe damage to the community. jgp T C 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you substantiate that last claim of 'severe damage', I'm not sure what that means. His actions certainly caused a row, but I think the edit summaries made little difference to that.--Doc^g 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...I don't see a history of personal attacks by Yanksox, only a few recent ones. Permanent or semi-permanent sanctions for incivility are generally based on a history of ongoing incivility--MONGO 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If something is directed at a body of people, it can't be definition by a personal attack. It is an impersonal attack. Tyrenius 02:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make speedy deletion exception of IAR

15) To reduce the risk of administrators to speedy delete a page based on biased and perhaps wrongly assumption, speedy deletion should be an exception of IAR. All speedy deletion must be in line with CSD criterias.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As a policy discussion that belongs elsewhere, I recommend that we ignore all rules and speedy-delete this section. —freak(talk) 20:18, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

A glance at what the community tags a speedy suggests that there are a large group of people out there who support non literal interpritation of the rules. I really wish they wouldn't do that. It makes CSD harder than it needs to be but that's life.Geni 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed this might not only be directed to the parties involved, but to all administrators, to reduce the risk of going rouge. _→AzaToth 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short: adding exceptions to IAR defeats its purpose, and tonnes of perfectly valid IAR speedies would be forbidden in the hope that it'll prevent controversial ones every now and again... which it won't. – Steel 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an administrator must resort to ignore all rules to delete an article, then why isn't there a criteria for such action then specified? The reason I took this up, is that I have noticed some beeing a bit comfortable applying IAR when speedy deleting articles, even when such article is specified at CSD as a NON-criteria. _→AzaToth 17:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is hellbent on on speedying something, the existance (or lack thereof) of a page like WP:IAR will not stop them. Such an addition to IAR is needless. --Deskana (request backup) 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as Steel writes, it's contradictory; We simply can't have rules on ignoring all rules. That said, IAR is the embodiment of risk, every time you use it, you should be well aware that there is a chance you will be desysopped, banned or worse. If you're not willing to face that, don't rely on it, pretend it's just not for you. It's not for the timid. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness no, there are times when something absolutely needs to be deleted that aren't forseen in the rules. For example, there was a phishing scam a few days ago. Technically, that probably doesn't fit anything in the CSD. Also, there are certain cases of images being uploaded under a claim of fair use that absolutely, positively, cannot be fair use and can get Wikipedia into a lot of trouble. Every time it comes up on WT:CSD, it is agreed that they need to be speedied, but nobody can figure out with the exact wording for the rule as there are always exceptions. In both cases, IAR is a necessary tool in order to accomplish what needs to be done. --BigDT 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional distress

1) Emotional distress resulting from an article about a subject who is not particularly notable may be considered as a factor in consideration of deletion of an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten Fred Bauder 02:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not yet ready for this as formal policy.--Doc^g 00:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for policy creation. Much like the item directly above, these ideas would be best discussed elsewhere. —freak(talk) 02:39, Feb. 25, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I thought ArbCom wasn't in the business of creating new guidelines which have no basis in consensus...or am I missing something here? Daniel.Bryant 00:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation, disagreement, and problems. What is "particularly notable"? -- Jay Maynard 00:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, "emotional distress" to whom? The subject of the article, any one person, the community at large? —Krellis (Talk) 00:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe both, as in this case. Agathoclea 00:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that this new version is a much better reflection of current practice. I like it. Daniel.Bryant 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "some editors may choose to consider the emotional distress ..."? That is more in line with current practice and less likely to be misinterpreted at some future point in time. --BigDT 02:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

1)Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be verifiable and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." This principle must be respected in all wikipedia articles, not merely the subject of a named article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Bucketsofg 04:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Track record of the involved parties

1) Yanksox, Geni, Freakofnurture, Bumm13, Deskana, Doc glasgow, Mailer diablo and CesarB all have a strong record of using their editing and administrative tools in ways which almost always have been consistent with the best interests of the project. All of them have generously volunteered their time to combat vandalism, clear backlogs and keep Wikipedia free from nonsense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The "almost always" might be interpreted as "already did something wrong before", which I think is not the intended interpretation here. --cesarb 15:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest change to 'usually' - sounds better but allows that we've made mistakes. We have tens of thousands of edits between us, I'm sure we've all had some bad days.--Doc^g 16:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Doc. —freak(talk) 20:16, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think we should make it clear that we are dealing with users who have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, regardless of whether their actions here can be faulted. All of them have showed a strong willingness to maintain Wikipedia and do the often boring grunt work which ensues when someone is given the admin tools. Contrast that to people like this who simply decide to quit doing maintenance work when it makes him tired, and starts filling up the backlogs instead... Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Newyorkbrad 14:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also endorse, and per Doc I think the "almost always" should go; it is redundant anyway since we are talking about their having a long record of doing good - that record does not preclude occasional errors of judgement. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Sjakkalle. Good self deprecating humour too. (: ~Crazytales !!! 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per JzG. Nobody's perfect, but the overall record is very much on the plus side fo the ledger. -- Jay Maynard 20:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per above.--Wizardman 23:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive deletion

2) Yanksox has unilaterally and disruptively deleted an article that has survived eleven nominations on Articles for Deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The point is well taken that there was, and is, substantial support for the deletion. Fred Bauder 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse as per Zocky's comment. —freak(talk) 05:43, Feb. 25, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. jgp T C 11:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to believe that it was unilateral. His talk page has plenty of support. The DRV shows that there was plenty of support. According to the discussion on ANI and elsewhere, there was discussion on IRC beforehand. That's not unilateral. It may have been incorrect, but it wasn't unilateral. As for disruptive? It was only disruptive to the extent that any wheel war or incivil comment is disruptive - there is nothing inherently disruptive about the deletion. The language would be better without the modifiers "unilaterally and disruptively". --BigDT 18:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Keep in mind that, although he received support for doing so, all that support came AFTER the deletion. Unilaterally means he deleted with without previous discussion, and without warning that he was going to do it.--Wizardman 23:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I raise an eyebrow at the point that there was a substantial support for the deletion. What does the number of people that support the deletion have to do with anything? WP:NOT a democracy, remember? "Unilateral" means "single-sided", not "single-handedly". Yanksox, and people he consulted with, knew that the "other side" will not agree with speedying of this article, and he went ahead and did it anyway. That's as unilateral as you can get. Zocky | picture popups 05:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks in deletion summaries

3) Yanksox's deletion summaries include highly offensive personal attacks against the entire community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Endorse, with caveats as per below. —freak(talk) 20:24, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. jgp T C 11:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring by Yanksox

4) After his deletion was undone, Yanksox proceeded to wheel-war over the issue. The wheel warring was done in a highly incivil manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. This was especially apparent in real-time as the situation was actually escalating. Bumm13 14:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, though I believe that wheel-warring and personal attackery are separate issues which should be addressed separately. This finding of fact should not equal more than the sum of its parts. —freak(talk) 20:22, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. jgp T C 11:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel-warring by Geni

5) Geni wheel-warred by undeleting the article after it had been deleted by Yanksox, Doc Glasgow, and Mailer Diablo.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 19:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse with slight modification as per Jay Maynard below. —freak(talk) 20:47, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Q: 12 nomination yes, but I'd be interested in trying to work out how many genuine debates we've had. How many of those 12 ran the course and weren't terminated early for some reason?--Doc^g 21:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Wow, I've checked. Most of these were speedy closed for process reasons in minutes - NONE ran the full course and only one looks like a genuine debate. Hey folks the impression we've endlessly debated this may be a mirage! The idea that there's a settled consensus on this is bollocks.--Doc^g 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the second AfD was incorrect, I fixed it (using the list on the deleted talk page as the source). --cesarb 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we did have one real debate, back in November 2005 - I stand corrected. Still the impression given by saying 'we've had 12 Afds' is deceptive,--Doc^g 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't just an internet activist. His history goes back further than that.Geni 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Shouldn't this mention the fact that 11 of those AfDs resulted in Keep decisions? -- Jay Maynard 20:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will insert the word unsuccessful Fred Bauder 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "controversial internet activist" is appropriate here. His controversy extends almost exclusively to Wikipedia and outside of Wikipedia he would not be labeled so. For example, I don't think the NYTimes would call him controversial. I agree that the controversy is about his article. --Tbeatty 20:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Fred Bauder 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a DRV back in April 2006 that endorsed the keeps in AFD3 and AFD4. diff of DRV closure GRBerry 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussions

1) WP:ANI#Daniel_Brandt_and_DRV, WP:ANI#Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing by Daniel Brandt

1) Daniel Brandt has edited under his own name Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and apparently anonymously and as a sockpuppet, often vigorously advocating deletion of the article on himself, see "HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR PRIVACY!" [13] [14] [15] [16]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 22:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Relevance?--Doc^g 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Notes" Fred Bauder 22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are more, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel Brandt. —freak(talk) 22:51, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Just researching, as pointed out, relevance may be an issue. Fred Bauder 22:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yanksox

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BLP and Daniel Brandt

1) Although Daniel Brandt has expressed a desire not to have a wikipedia article about him, nothing about that article violated WP:BLP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree entirely with this analysis of the situation. I have no opinion on its applicability to this case (of which deletion procedures are the primary focal point), or its suitability as a finding of fact in this or any other case. However, some of us are familiar of a previous RFAR in which a handful of similarly flavored findings of fact were accepted without any objection on the basis of the arbitration committee's judicial scope, see [17], so a formal opinion whether or not "article X violates policy Y" would hardly be unprecedented. —freak(talk) 06:47, Feb. 25, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Bucketsofg 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... can we please not make Arbcom into a body that can legislate editorial matters? -Amarkov moo! 06:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A decision about this one question about this one article would hardly be legislating or precedent setting. At the root of the controversy (and raised several times by others above) is the fact that DB was unhappy that an article about him existed--not merely what the article said, but that it existed. It is perfectly reasonable to raise the question whether BLP was in fact violated. Bucketsofg 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be precedent setting. That establishes a precedent that Arbcom can to rule on article content, and whether or not it violates certain policies, at least so long as that is relevant to a dispute. And it would certainly be legislating, because community consensus can't overturn an Arbcom decision, and even if it could, far too many people will say "But Arbcom said so!" to get a consensus. -Amarkov moo! 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden#Findings of fact before commenting further. —freak(talk) 06:50, Feb. 25, 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it's already been done. I still am not going to support it, although I admit that makes my case weaker. -Amarkov moo! 06:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that case was the only time in Arbcom's history that they've made content rulings. Furthermore, the fact that it's been done before doesn't necessarily mean it's a good practice. Kla'quot 09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed it, but after looking through the AfD, the DRV, the evidence page here, and various other related pages I have not seen a single person identify any specific text in this article which they considered to be a BLP violation. The only 'BLP argument' advanced seems to be along the lines of, 'Brandt does not like the article existing, therefor the whole thing is a BLP violation and must be speedy deleted'. That's a policy interpretation and absolutely IS within the purview of the ArbCom. Does the BLP policy allow the removal of unsourced controversial text about living people OR, as proposed here, the removal of sourced text about living people which the subject (or others) want removed? I think the intent and wording of policy is already absolutely clear on this issue, but as people are disputing it an ArbCom statement on the nature of the BLP policy would be a good thing. If people felt that particular sources weren't valid they should have cited those and removed the text supported by them. That didn't happen because people wanted to use BLP as an excuse to delete the article entirely... not to make it better sourced. And that isn't what BLP exists for. Even articles deleted under BLP as hopelessly unsourced (which blatantly did not apply here) are intended to be recreated with proper sourcing. BLP is not an article deletion criteria... it is a vehicle for removing unsourced text which can cover the entire article in extreme cases, but even then allows immediate recreation if reliable sources are provided in answer to the stated BLP objections. Nobody even bothered to identify text 'violating BLP' here, because this wasn't about improving sources/BLP at all. --CBD 13:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have a culture in which WP:BLP is a silver bullet: shoot first, aim indiscriminately, use the biggest gun you can lay hands on, ask questions later if you're one of the fortunate few, or else never if you're not. That needs to change, or else WP:BLP needs to be rewritten to make that interpretation explicit policy. -- Jay Maynard 13:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Yanksox

1) For wheel warring, Yanksox is desysopped. He may reapply for administrative privileges at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Done by Jimbo. His comments mitigate against restoration. Fred Bauder 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This would appear to be the obvious first remedy. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yanksox desysopped

2) For wheel warring and violating the community's trust with personal attacks against the entire community, Yanksox is desysopped. After three months, he may reapply at Requests for Adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Done by Jimbo. What is relevant would be any good reason to not keep him desysopped. Fred Bauder 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Personal attacks should not be considered as a rationale for desysopping, as sysop status or lack thereof does not affect one's ability or likeliness to make personal attacks. —freak(talk) 20:51, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Following precedent set in the pedophilia userbox wheel war, setting a minimum time before reapplying for adminship. jgp T C 11:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the likely difficulty in passing a new RfA, not sure if the minimum is really necessary, but it is unlikely to do harm, and there is precedent. Personal attacks by an admin are far more serious than personal attacks by other editors; endorse taking this distinction into account. Jd2718 21:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's already desysopped, and it's impossible to pass an RfA within 3 months of an arbcom case anyway, so this proposa is kind of redundant.--Wizardman 23:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yanksox banned for two months

3) For disruption and severe personal attacks against the community, Yanksox is banned for two months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a grossly punitive and completely unnecessary remedy. —freak(talk) 20:48, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Deleting an article that has survived eleven AfDs is disruption, and since it involves activities only admins can perform, it is a very serious form of disruption. jgp T C 11:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like imposing long bans on otherwise good editors based on activity which was done in only a few hours. Yanksox should certainly have treated the community better than he did, but we should also treat generally good contributors with a spirit of forgiveness. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption or not. Being de-sysopt will mean he is no longer able to continue. So a ban would not be needed. Possibly an article ban. Agathoclea 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. He has not shown that he will attack the community in general, merely that he can not be trusted with administrative powers. -AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, no. This is ludicrous. --BigDT 18:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the 2 month ban re Jimbo's comments here. Some of us have voluntarily given our time and effort here over a long time, including defending the article from BLP vios (as Freak has amply said) and we should be respected, ie an afd would have been welcome but a speedy with insults that imply someone like me isnt human needs a severe censorship to protect wikipedia's reputation, SqueakBox 18:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, that's going too far.--Wizardman 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as too severe. Bucketsofg 06:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as too severe. But I would support a shorter block - say one week - in recognition of the fact that the initial offence was aggravated by insults and a lack of any recognition of wrongdoing on his part. -- ChrisO 13:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yanksox banned from Daniel Brandt

4) Given his good track record as an administrator, Yanksox is resysopped, provided that he agrees to be more civil. He is also banned from the page Daniel Brandt, and any deletion discussion about that page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose civility agreement as virtually unenforceable and because civility should be equally expected of everyone; Oppose topic-specific ban (Daniel Brandt) as per AnonEMouse; Oppose ban from deletion discussions as completely counterproductive (more discussion would be better); No opinion on resysopping. —freak(talk) 21:02, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Deskana (request backup) 16:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. His comments [18] [19] show that he does not understand that he did anything very wrong. Note just two days before this he restored and deleted another artilce unrelated in subject only in controversy.[20] The issue isn't with the specific article, but with admin powers. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Given that editing of the DB-page was not part of the problem here, a ban from it doesn't make much sense to me. Bucketsofg 06:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 644: / Line 644: @@
 :::::::I think that case was the only time in Arbcom's history that they've made content rulings. Furthermore, the fact that it's been done before doesn't necessarily mean it's a good practice. [[User:Clayoquot|Kla'quot]] 09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 :::I may have missed it, but after looking through the AfD, the DRV, the evidence page here, and various other related pages I have not seen a single person identify '''any''' ''specific'' text in this article which they considered to be a BLP violation. The only 'BLP argument' advanced seems to be along the lines of, 'Brandt does not like the article existing, therefor the whole thing is a BLP violation and must be speedy deleted'. That's a policy interpretation and absolutely '''IS''' within the purview of the ArbCom. Does the BLP policy allow the removal of unsourced controversial text about living people OR, as proposed here, the removal of ''sourced'' text about living people which the subject (or others) want removed? I think the intent and wording of policy is already absolutely clear on this issue, but as people are disputing it an ArbCom statement on the nature of the BLP policy would be a good thing. If people felt that particular sources weren't valid they should have cited those and removed the text supported by them. That didn't happen because people wanted to use BLP as an excuse to delete the article entirely... not to make it better sourced. And that isn't what BLP exists for. Even articles deleted under BLP as hopelessly unsourced (which blatantly did not apply here) are '''intended''' to be recreated with proper sourcing. BLP is not an article deletion criteria... it is a vehicle for removing unsourced text which ''can'' cover the entire article in extreme cases, but even then allows immediate recreation if reliable sources are provided in answer to the stated BLP objections. Nobody even bothered to identify text 'violating BLP' here, because this wasn't about improving sources/BLP at all. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 13:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
+::::We appear to have a culture in which WP:BLP is a silver bullet: shoot first, aim indiscriminately, use the biggest gun you can lay hands on, ask questions later if you're one of the fortunate few, or else never if you're not. That needs to change, or else WP:BLP needs to be rewritten to make that interpretation explicit policy. -- [[User:Jmaynard|Jay Maynard]] 13:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 ===Template===

Revision as of 13:52, 25 February 2007

Motions and requests by the parties

Deskana excused

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Expectations and role of administrators

Edit wars considered harmful

Ignoring all rules

Location of deletion debates

Care in deletion and undeletion

Assume good faith

No personal attacks

Deletion venues

Undeletion policy

Fairness to deletion review participants

Deletion review should be respected

Do No Harm

Ignore All Rules

Regarding conflicted interpretation of deletion policy

Suspected violations of BLP

Wheel warring

Civility

The wishes of the subject of an article do not dictate Wikipedia articles

The wishes of the subject and Wikipedia articles

Administrators applying WP:IAR

Appropriateness of WP:IAR in deletion

Gross incivility by administrators

Make speedy deletion exception of IAR

Emotional distress

BLP

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Track record of the involved parties

Disruptive deletion

Personal attacks in deletion summaries

Wheel warring by Yanksox

Wheel-warring by Geni

Daniel Brandt

Community discussions

Editing by Daniel Brandt

Yanksox

BLP and Daniel Brandt

Template

Proposed remedies

Yanksox

Yanksox desysopped

Yanksox banned for two months

Yanksox banned from Daniel Brandt

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion