Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

• Blnguyen
• Charles Matthews
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

Recused

• Mackensen

Inactive/away

• Flcelloguy
• Neutrality
• Paul August
• Raul654

User comments on the proposed decision

Although I applaud much in the proposed decision that Kirill Lokshin has drafted, the editing restrictions proposed for badlydrawnjeff (which may be moot in any event if he does not return to editing) are draconian. If I am reading the proposed decision correctly, Jeff would not only be banned indefinitely from deletion debates concerning any BLP article (which in itself seems overbroad), but also from ever editing any mainspace article concerning any living person ("all articles covered by the [BLP] policy"). This ban would apply even if the subject was indisputably notable and even if there were nothing even slightly controversial about the edit (theoretically, Jeff could not correct a living person's middle initial). This remedy seems particularly unnecessary given the consensus in the Workshop that Jeff's own editing (as opposed to his position in deletion debates) has never raised any BLP-related issues. Remarkably, the scope of the ban actually exceeds even the most severe of the dozen or so varying remedies proposed against badlydrawnjeff in the otherwise compendious Workshop. I have been on opposite sides from badlydrawnjeff in several of the contested deletion debates that led up to this arbitration case but I am nonetheless extremely uncomfortable with this proposal. Newyorkbrad 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Newyorkbrad. In addition to obvious biographies (articles titled as a persons' name), there are plenty of un-obvious ones (articles titled as something else, but that include substantial biographical content). With the current remedy #1, we could talk in terms of percentage of Main space from which Badlydrawnjeff is banned. Combine these two factors with community feeling on this issue, and I fear it will quickly become unrealistic for Badlydrawnjeff to edit anything at all. If I may, I suggest the remedy be drastically reduced in scope to only cover POINT xFDs and DRVs (or POINT participation in such), as that was what lead to this arbitration. — digitaleon • talk @ 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff has made seemingly-reasonable edits to XfD/DRV as well as some obvious WP:POINT ones. Given that decided what is POINT may be as contentious as the issue itself, and a decision to that effect may only serve to anger him, I suggest that if any remedy is needed, Jeff be barred only from starting DRVs on living persons, which is easier to enforce - see my proposed remedy [1]. The way, the truth, and the light 10:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where such a consensus in the workshop has come from; certainly badlydrawnjeff has made problematic edits in mainspace (e.g. this) as well as the ones in XfDs and such. And yes, the remedy I've proposed is draconian; but, quite honestly, I don't see any other option for a case of this nature. Jeff simply does not get BLP; until he shows some signs of doing so, it would be wildly irresponsible of us to allow him to continue screwing around with those articles. Kirill Lokshin 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The dispute was never about BLP, as it was, but about the new policy being implemented by some administrators without previous discussion; this has been expressed in the new additions to WP:BLP and WP:NOT. I don't think it's reasonable to blame this on Jeff. The way, the truth, and the light 10:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I would have to say that the isssues regarding Badlydrawnjeff are far less about BLP than they are about general disruption of deletions and deletion reviews. I supported a temporary ban on him from deletions and deletion reviews. Wikipedia is not a battleground. The drama he creates with his extreme inclusionism only happens to spill over into BLP.--MONGO 10:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Like NYBrad, I think that the proposal to ban Jeff from BLPs is excessive and unjustified and strongly urge its rejection. Bucketsofg 11:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Not nearly justified by the evidence, and effectively causing serious damage to the encyclopedia. The edit you describe isn't even vandalism, but a good faith edit, that had been discussed and supported on the talk page of that article, hardly a reason for such penalties. Compare that to Bdj's excellent contributions throughout: without his intervention, for example, Chase Headley, a BLP article, would have been deleted months ago, and I'm sure that is true of tens if not hundreds of other articles. In the end, folks, the encyclopedia is not the DRV discussion and the other forums, it's the articles, and Bdj has been nothing but a boon to the articles. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• MONGO is correct. Jeff is simply more trouble than he is worth, and he has no-one to blame but himself. Wikipedia cannot tolerate bulls in china shops, particularly when the china represents people's lives. The uncertainty over what he will do next, given his open opposition to BLP, is just as important, if not more so, than what diffs you can find over what he has done in the past. Wikipedia is one of very few organisations, and certainly the only organisation of its size and reputation, that tolerates people working within it that openly disagree with and actively attempt to subvert its fundamental principles in the name of openness and freedom. Even this decision won't reverse that, but it's a start. A strong signal such as this may encourage those seeking a career in amateur tabloid journalism to stop attempting to abuse Wikipedia's open-editing structure for that purpose, and go find a more suitable website with different ethical princples. 86.151.38.245 15:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by The way, the truth, and the light

This issue isn't about Jeff. It never was. The other side have tried to make it about Jeff to avoid talking about the real issues and intimidate those that disagree. By deliberating leaving deletion criteria vague and attacking anyone that disagrees, they are imposing a new kind of censorship on Wikipedia. Now the standard to not having articles based solely on a brief appearance in the news is reasonable, though one can honestly argue against it; but it is apparent that this new secret standard goes farther in imposing a higher standard of notability on controversial biographies than on normal ones. This means that we will have biographies on semi-notable people except when they are necessarily negative or arguably so, which creates a systemic bias in our coverage.

Specifically, #4 of this proposed decision, about BLP deletions, does not decide anything. It leaves essentially what we have now, which has created this conflict. If there were consensus to delete an article it can be gotten at AfD; doing so after it has been deleted will not be representative. It is therefor not reasonable to insist that out-of-process deletions require consensus to overturn, especially given the difficulty of determining such. Note also that all the articles we have had disputes over have been ones that existed a long time, and one can reasonably suspect that something is wrong if long-standing articles are speedily deleted. Newly created articles can be speedied as usual, but those that have long been a part of Wikipedia should almost always go through AfD. The way, the truth, and the light 10:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to Digitaleon for clarification

Without commenting on the proposed remedy, I'd like to pick out a sentence used by Digitaleon that puzzles me: I suggest the remedy be drastically reduced in scope to only cover POINT xFDs and DRVs (or POINT participation in such).

I like to think that I'm familiar with the guideline in question, whose full name is Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but I don't understand that context in which it's used here. "WP:POINT" is about breaching experiments--disruptive acts that the author carries out, knowing that the consequences will be bad for Wikipedia, but believing that the actions are necessary to show the absurdity of a line of reasoning or a policy.

That doesn't sound like what Jeff has been doing at all. He has certainly believed that his actions are the best thing for Wikipedia as the most direct step available to right a perceived wrong. Such acts are sometimes disruptive especially when pursued to the lengths he is prepared to go to, but I don't think this is in any way a breaching experiment. He wants those discussions and he wants those articles resurrected.

So could you explain what it is about these disruptive acts that makes you describe them as "POINT" acts? Do you just mean disruptive acts concerning the deletion process? --Tony Sidaway 10:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what he was referring to are comments that are based only on his extreme philosophy and not on the merits of the article. The way, the truth, and the light 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds plausible I suppose. To clarify I don't think general philosophical opposition is necessarily bad, and in fact I and many other editors deploy such arguments regularly--not least in my own promotion of a certain view of the biographies of living persons policy in opposition to a more restrictive view. But there's a difference in the tone.

Comments of that type may be disruptive, but I think the reason is because of their vehemence, the assumptions of bad faith he brings with them (at several points in the workshop and in deletion discussions he accused people who disagreed with him of lying), and perhaps as Kirill suggests in his finding of fact and remedy, his irreconcilable opposition to the ethical component of Wikipedia policy. Denying the ethical dimension could perhaps be seen as disruptive if carried to extremes. --Tony Sidaway 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Way too harsh

The way I read it, remedy #1 forbids Jeff from editing articles about people. First, this is way too harsh - why on earth would we want to forbid one of our more prolific editors from editing articles? Second, it misses the issue at hand, as I have not seen any evidence that Jeff's editing of articles is in any way problematic or disruptive. I hope the ArbCom would reconsider this. >Radiant< 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree here. This proposal, in my opinion, indicates that the arbitrator supporting it has totally failed to understand the problem and situation. The problem is the disagreement and wheel-edit warring over BLP deletion of articles. The evidence does not demonstrate that jeff is a problematic editor of articles, it demonstrates that he strongly disagrees with a small but vocal faction of admins that are themselves a problem because they act to prevent the formation of consensus. GRBerry 12:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Let us see:

• "badlydrawnjeff is banned from all articles covered by the policy" (arbcom)
• "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles." (WP:BLP)

I'm sorry but either that proposed remedy needs changing or you are asking for a site-wide ban. violet/riga (t) 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored

I'd like to repeat my call for a clarification of the real meaning of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored, another editor at a DRV of a living person biography has made exactly the same comment as we have seen several times in respect of this case - see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 17#Joel Hayward. There are two groups of editors with differing interpretations of how this relates to such cases (one group believing it allows the inclusion of tabloid-style articles on living individuals, the other believing it is designed to cover a much more specific situation, explicit content). Please do include a clarification one way or the other. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SPUI and I were involved in writing the earliest version of this in late 2004. This was to cement the result of a long debate that had decided that it was appropriate to display pictures of sexual organs in articles about them. It has (quite legitimately) mutated a bit since then, and acquired meanings I didn't foresee, and I'm okay with that because that's how these things work.

But it still doesn't mean that crap belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. A number of editors seem to incorrectly interpret "Wikipedia is not censored" as meaning something akin to "Wikipedia is not edited." This is rather tragic. Nandesuka 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How to sanction overzealous admins? Roadmap to BLP admins?

"Any administrator, acting on their own judgement, 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..." - I'm fine with this, with one question: what if an admin (now or in the future), takes the opposite position of Jeff, errs a long way towards caution, and deletes lots of articles based on their interpretation of the BLP policy? In this hypothetical case, a significant number of admins and editors that were opposed to Jeff's stance also oppose this admin's actions. What then? The same amount of disruption would occur, but in reverse. Will we need an arbcom case everytime someone veers too far from the middle ground? Is there a case for a proviso that any admin having, say, 3 BLP deletions overturned at DRV, has been shown to have poor judgement on BLP issue and should be restricted from carrying out BLP issues? Surely that way lies a superclass of "BLP admins", which would be disastrous for the functioning of the encyclopedia, in my opinion. In fact, I recall a user calling for BLP admins not so long ago. Were they right all along? (Can anyone dig out the relevant ANI thread?) Carcharoth 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Found it. Wikipedia:BLP Admin (the rejected proposal). The editor in question, User:CyberAnth is still active (though some may remember the deletion discussions spawned), so I'll tone down my comments above (apologies for any offence caused). Carcharoth 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Those deletion discussions included lots of laughs about removing the inflammatory information that Hank Aaron was in baseball's Hall of Fame. [2] Which was a preview of the endless fun we're going to have after this case unleashes the BLP deletionists. But Jimbo is tired of people pestering him about their WP bios – which I can sympathize with – so get ready for much hilarity. Casey Abell 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm

I'm not overly impressed with this. This could easily be used as carte blanche for a small and vocal minority of sysops to carry out their particularly anal (no offence meant) interpretation of BLP. While I'd call myself a 'deletionist', should one choose to speak in those terms, there's been articles that've had all kinds of things done to them out of process and without consensus and without valid reasons under BLP as it stands.

I appreciate the existence of BLP, and as evidenced by my edits to "What wikipedia is not" agree that a certain amount of the news-coverage related material here is not relevant to an encyclopedia. I feel, though, that using BLP as an extension of IDONTLIKEIT can only be harmful to the project, let alone muting and suppressing the good-faith concerns of a great number of users (and admins).

I've been editing here for many years under many different names (as it says on my userpage, one at a time). I have never believed in a cabal. Sanctions like this, though, against a user who has spoken up against a group consisting partly of 'insiders' (a term that I'm sure not many will disagree too heavily with), will give the impression to some users of: 1) Censorship and 2) Oligarchy, and this case should be treated with particular care.

I'm sure the best and least divisive solution would be to generally warn everybody involved as to their civility, and suggest that debate should not be muted, provided it doesn't become disruptive for disruption's sake. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not rid ourselves of nuisances we 'don't like'.

DrumCarton 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind

At no point has any article I undeleted been shown to violate BLP. There has been enough time for supporting statements to be given about any of the articles but nothing has been forthcoming. I carefully checked them and they did not fall under BLP guidance so it is my opinion that I was undoing deletions that went against policy. I would urge the arbcom to be very wary of any ruling that would encourage or condone an admin to delete an article without backing up their claim of BLP (note that the edit summaries of the deletions were not clear enough). violet/riga (t) 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the list of articles that you deleted and I would like to know how you could possibly believe that these articles were not covered by the biographies of living persons policy. Every single one was of a minor and every single one was in the name of the child. It is because of the kind of "I can't see any problem here" attitude that the onus must be on the challenger to prove that the article passes all Wikipedia policies. We can't afford to leave this policy at the mercy of "Jack the lad" any more. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please quote the part that says that sourced, factual articles about minors must be deleted. Or the part that states that we must not have their names. It is because of your attitude of "We can just delete it and forget about it" that we have had all of this problem. Rather than delete things it's better to fix them. violet/riga (t) 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Every biography of a living person falls under BLP. The dispute here has always been between one faction that sees nothing important in WP:BLP except the need for reliable sources, and another faction that sees a requirement to do no harm, and to respect basic human dignity. (And some of the participants in this case, including Violetriga just above, have proven over and over again through their edits to the case itself that they continue to refuse to see any validity to the expansive view.) Perhaps the disputed deletions did not run afoul of the very narrow interpretation of BLP that only respects the source requirement. If passed, this decision will send a strong signal that ArbCom takes the more expansive view of BLP, and I suspect would also signal that they are willing to enforce that view in the future when necessary. I won't attempt to characterize either viewpoint as majority or minority, but the expansive viewpoint is clearly held by every member of ArbCom that has commented on the workshop, as well as by Jimbo (see for example his actions on 2006 Gdansk school suicide incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), or his recent logs). If passed, this decision will indeed send a strong signal that admins like Doc, who defend an expansive view, are encouraged, while admins like Violetriga, who defend the narrowest view, are in danger of future ArbCom action if they do not change their approach. Thatcher131 16:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I love it when people pigeon-hole my views. BLP did not allow for the deletions of those articles. This "expansive view" is a load of rubbish because it is simply not supported by the policy. The deletions were therefore incorrect and needed to be restored.

You say about my reading of BLP being the "narrow view" but you really don't have a clue what I think. I never campaigned for the articles to survive AfD or suchlike, and indeed believe that their removal has been the correct course of action. It's just that the way they were originally deleted was unacceptable and out of line with policy. Sure, arbcom can go ahead and suggest the "expansive view" will be the way forward but it cannot be retrospectively actionable and I fail to see how I have violated any policy or guideline. Tell me off for not discussing it first, sure, but I tried to do so after undoing an incorrect action and Doc glasgow refused. violet/riga (t) 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Try to forget about rules and guidelines, they're only there to help us. We are supposed to ignore them when they hinder us, remember? Think about the overall goal: how did you help the overall goal by, without discussion, undeleting articles, deleted by an admin in good standing, who clearly labelled them as having serious enough biographies of living persons problems to merit deletion? --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

By restoring information that is useful and worthy of inclusion, as proven by various AfD results to merge. Further, the articles clearly didn't violate BLP and were in no way disparaging to those involved. Sorry but it just appears that IDONTLIKEIT is being accepted here under the guise of BLP. violet/riga (t) 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. I get to be the scapegoat so that the people who couldn't get their way via consensus can force it. No fucking wonder. Great play, guys, I commend the gamesmanship. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The section Presumption in favor of privacy has contained the phrase "do no harm" for at least a year, and the clarification from Jimbo ("Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism,") has also been around for more than a year. Thatcher131 17:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thus my being the scapegoat. At no point have I ever "done harm," at no point have I ever come close to violating that in any way shape or form, period. What I did do is disagree with people. That is apparently a crime in the eyes of ArbCom, which means that things are even worse than I thought. Disagree with the insiders, the cabal, whatever you want to call them, and they'll find a way to fuck you over. Reap what you sow, people - this simply can't end well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What needs to stop (from my point of view) is the hounding of admins who delete sourced articles on the basis of "do no harm" and "Wikipedia is not a tabloid", the multiple passes at AfD and DRV, and the wheel warring. (See below where Violetriga insists that only articles that are unsourced and disparaging may be deleted per the BLP policy.) Maybe it would be sufficient for ArbCom to say, "This is our view of these principles, and we will rapidly ban and/or desysop to uphold them" but give a general amnesty for all prior actions and arguments. Thatcher131 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. What needs to stop is the nonsensical point of views that certain administrators hold, the lack of accountability, and some actual building of consensus by people who actually contribute to this project as opposed to trolls and liars. Violetriga, per policy, is absolutely right. Want Violet to get on board with this new expansion of policy (and yes, it is new - at no point was the policy ever interpreted to mean what is being advanced here in regards to removal the way these articles have been removed) - then fucking change it. Don't allow incompetent people to throw the competent ones to the wolves to make a point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask, as I did in the section above, what happens when someone with an extreme expansionist viewpoint comes along and deletes lots of borderline stuff that (after lots of DRVs) gets restored? The whole problem is that this is a continuum of viewpoints, not a yes-no problem. The battleground (for that is what it is, despite pleas for Wikipedia not to be a battleground) will shift to the new borderline, but if there are still people on either side of the divide unwilling to discuss things or compromise their principles (like in this case), then the battle will go on. I still think the ArbCom should send out a strong signal about how they expect the deleting admins to conduct themselves in cases like this during and after a Deletion Review. Where is the deleting admin left when they are overturned at DRV? They may still think they are right, in which case they will have no option but to wheel-war to uphold their interpretation of BLP policy. Chaos will ensue, and won't die down until an admin is desysopped for ultra-conservative deletion and wheel-warring over BLP policy to keep something deleted. Carcharoth 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this. If there is no evidence provided that the deletions were acceptable under BLP policy rather than just citing that as a reason to delete then there cannot be evidence of my wrongdoing. Nobody at any point has shown where the articles are "unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to". violet/riga (t) 18:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We went over this on the workshop, I think, so not a good idea to rehash it here. --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And still no proof was forthcoming? Yeah that'll be my point proven then. violet/riga (t) 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by CBM on "Summary deletion of BLPs"

The final sentence of this proposal is too strong – in practice, with the flexible nature of WP policy and consensus, no editor can show that something does agree with every policy. A lower burden of proof, but still high enough in my opinion, would be to obtain consensus that the article should be restored. Also, the proposal would be more useful if the final clause was reworded to say "can be made compliant with every aspect of policy." — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let DRV decide whether BLP deletions need an article at all

A better way to do this, rather than have those arguing for restoration after a BLP deletion being required to show that the deleted article is compliant with BLP policy (difficult when you cannot see the article, or have to rely on unreliable caching), might be to say that those contesting BLP deletions should instead be asked make a case for any article about that person existing. Once the principle that there should be an article is established, then those who deleted the old version under the BLP would be asked to restore an edited version (probably a stub) that was acceptable to them, and those editing or defending the article would be allowed to continue editing, while being strongly reminded to adhere to the BLP policy. Also, a default question at a DRV should be whether the deleting admin looked through the article history to find a version that was acceptable. ie:

• Admin deletes an article on subject X citing BLP concerns.
• Any user can then open a DRV and argues that an article on subject X is required.
• The deleting admin confirms that they looked at the article history and were unable to find an acceptable version of the article to rollback to.
• Discussion ensues and a consensus position is reached (no consensus = no article) on both the existence of an article or redirect and an appropriate title name and the appropriateness of various redirects. The content of the deleted version is not discussed (this is the key point).
• If consensus is that an article or redirect should exist at that title, the deleting admin restores the article as a stub, or creates the redirect.
• Editing resumes with a general caution sounded to all editors of the article and, any article it redirects to, over BLP issues.

Would that work in practice? Carcharoth 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but only assuming that the article meets BLP deletion rules. I would like to see a template used to replace the article similar to that used for copyvios. violet/riga (t) 17:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed "the content of the deleted version is not discussed" bit. The first discussion is whether any article should exist at all, regardless of what the deleted version actually said (this is designed to focus discussion). Then, if consensus is to restore a stub/blank page, a second discussion ensues on the talk page (as it should have done all along) on how best to write an article on the subject. But with people now aware that there are BLP concerns. Carcharoth 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't miss that bit. I'm saying that articles can only be speedy deleted citing BLP if they are unsourced and disparaging. If they are deleted on those grounds they should be then replaced with a template stating what has happened, at least for a few days. violet/riga (t) 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This narrow view (only articles that are "unsourced and disparaging" may be deleted citing BLP) is the heart of the matter. I foresee a number of rapid desysoppings for whgeel-warring if proposed principles 2 and 3 pass. I do not favor this, and hope that editors and admins are flexible enough to adapt to the decision. Thatcher131 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is written very clearly in the policy. Sorry but this talk of "well we don't go by the letter" is rubbish and is really the cause of the problems. If people want to delete for other reasons then the policy must change to reflect that. violet/riga (t) 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are simply ignoring the written policy where the section Presumption in favor of privacy has contained the phrase "do no harm" for at least a year, and the clarification from Jimbo ("Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism,") has also been around for more than a year. What I don't understand is why you choose to ignore this. Thatcher131 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Which applies to articles that are disparaging to people and I agree that they should be removed. Is it really hard for people to understand that I actually support the ethics behind BLP?! I just don't want people abusing it as a way of removing articles when it doesn't apply. violet/riga (t) 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you could skip the deletion/discussion/restoration cycle, and just have "BLP blankings". But the intervening discussion and disruption should help shock the more entrenched editors out of their failure to understand BLP. Carcharoth 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I can summarise BLP in eight words: We're not in Kansas any more, Toto. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If this passes, it won't take that many. How about Any admin can delete whatever he likes? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, how can you ever prove that an article is compliant with every aspect of the policy. Does reporting on a scandal complies with "an ethical responsibility" or "when in doubt, do no harm" (at first only intended for non-public figures, and only on June 1st changed to include all BLP's [3], change by Tony Sidaway)? How can you prove that it does? Are we sure that it does no harm to mention the O. J. Simpson murder trial in the opening paragraph of his article, instead of focusing on his sporting and acting career? It was already in the very first version[4], so if I delete this article now, under the ArbCom proposition, it can't be recreated until you demonstrate that it does no harm. Or Robert Mugabe, who has been accused of corruption from the very first version[5] until the current one. Never mind that it is true: is it ethical, doesn't it harm him to be portrayed here in such a way, don't we even have the "legal responsibility" to leave out such allegations against a foreign head of state? So thanks to this proposed Arbcom decision, I can delete this article and it will be pretty hard to recreate it. This will make a mockery of Wikipedia, and will indeed give any admin the chance to delete whatever he likes. Please, I urge the arbitrators to reconsider this proposed principle and to either reject it or to completely rewrite it to make clear that it is only intended for e.g. people who have no active part in their notability (victims) or whose sole notability is based on one minor episode. The way it is written now is way too extreme and will lead to many new problems between admins, I fear. Fram 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Or perhaps, "Adminship is, as of now, a big deal?" MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from the audience - I hope this comes out okay

I’m not a contributor to Wikpedia, I’m an occasional user of the encyclopedia who’s managed to stumble into this section and get drawn in by the drama (yeah, I know exactly what you don’t want people to be drawn to Wikipedia for). But now I’m here I’d just like to add a couple of comments because I can’t believe what I’m seeing here.

Problem in a nut shell : Your policy doesn’t say what a bunch of you, including arbitrators, would like it to say.

Maybe you honestly can’t see how the policy could be read any way other way than to say what you apparently think it says. But you’ve got this wonderful “assume good faith” principle you’re all supposedly following and you’ve got apparently serious contributors (not just one) telling you that it really doesn’t read that way to them. It really isn’t that difficult to see where the problem is here.

All you have to so is 1. Change your policy to say what you actually think it should say (discuss the wording with the people who don’t think it does say that now) 2. enjoin BadlyDrawnJeff to follow the new policy or make it clear he’ll be on a fast track to <whatever> if he doesn’t. Maybe he’ll leave because he hates the newly explicit policy so much (or because he’s had enough of the process that’s led here) or maybe he’ll stick around and accept it or maybe he’ll break it and get banned but either way you’ll be acting constructively and reasonably and giving him a chance to do the same,

And whatever else you do don’t try to combine prescriptions like “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” with vague “policy isn’t prescriptive” stuff that basically amounts to “you must prove it is compliant with the policies, but you can’t know what the policies are until later”. If you’re serious in wanting to apply ethical standards then one group you’re going to need to treat ethically are the people actually working on your project. That means fair-warning of what standards they'll be held to, for a start.

Yeah, I know, “Wikipedia isn’t an experiment in online legal systems” or something. How about adding “Wikipedia isn’t a novel by Kafka” to your list of stock phrases? Seriously, try to maintain some sort of balance or semblance of sanity or something.

Now if you’ll excuse me I’ll return to the audience.

Oh and I really should say thanks for the encyclopedia; I appreciate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.254.65.67 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 June 2007.

A lot of sense is spoken here - it's the sensible route to take. Thanks for that contribution. violet/riga (t) 19:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Remedy "Badlydrawnjeff banned from BLPs"

The remedy says, "badlydrawnjeff is banned from all articles covered by the policy". Every article is covered by this policy. Under WP:BLP, inappropriate statements about a living person can and should be removed from anywhere that they are found. The policy explicitly says all articles, project space, and talk space. So this remedy is effectively a ban from the project. I strongly encourage a rejection of the current language and that the language be revised to use the term "biographical articles and deletion discussions" and specifically state that he is permitted to suggest changes on talk pages. I further encourage that the ban be only for a predetermined period of time, rather than indefinite, or, at least, that it be explicitly stated that arbcom will entertain lifting the ban after some period of time, like six months or a year. --BigDT 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be clearer, but bottom line, if he insists on adding negative information regarding a living person or engages in a dispute about it, he's breaking the ban. Fred Bauder 20:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it you mean unsourced and NPOV-violating negative information there. violet/riga (t) 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding duration, what evidence do you have that he would change over a shorter period. His attitude is stable and unresponsive to feedback. Fred Bauder 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I've done nothing wrong, Fred. I'm very responsive to feedback when the feedback's legitimate. Do you think you're proving anything about me here? The point of all this was obviously to get me off the project, and it succeeded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the key. By now, Jeff has had legitimate feedback from almost every single editor who routinely handles complaints from members of the public. In my experience he regards none of our comments as in any way legitimate, and he repeatedly refers to us as liars simply for disagreeing with his interpretation. Only his own reading of policy dictates what is and is not legitimate. That reading, to my knowledge, is held not by Jimbo, not by any arbitrator who has commented in this case, and not by any of us who have been vilified in the event leading to this case. --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they let you anywhere near OTRS is one of the reasons I'm gone, Tony. I have received no legitimate feedback regarding this issue, just a lot of disruption, condescension, and hatred. No one should have to put up with that, and no one should be penalized for daring to speak up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Fred, if that's what you think it means, then why don't you modify the language to say that. As it is now, he can't edit articles about people, which is a lot of what Jeff does.--Chaser - T 20:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't, actually. Most of my editing was in articles that were about things, but people are involved with things, and I'm not allowed anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred, thanks for replying so quickly. There are several issues here. First and foremost is that right now, the language says, "all articles covered by the policy". The policy explicitly says that means "all articles". If you mean that he is banned from "editing controversial information about living people", then that's what the ruling should say ... because right now it doesn't mean that. --BigDT 20:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave it be, people

ArbCom wants me permanently banned, and I decided long before this complete absurdity that I wasn't going edit here anymore. Means to an end. The cabal wins. Good luck. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)