Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Workshop

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)

I think we should still consider Deskana as part of the case, although I agree that Deskana's role is, at most, minor. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On further thought, we should evaluate this with all the others. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

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)

I've no quarrel with this, except the language. Arbcom isn't a disciplinary committee and being a party to a case isn't being 'up on charges'. If, as I suspect, Deskana has no real involvement, then whether he is a party or not will not matter. I'm happy with a declaration that this user has no real involvement with the issues, but 'excused' carries connotations about what it means to be a party ('unexcused'?) that I don't recognise.--Doc^g 16:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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)

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:

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. This really needs to be said. Jd2718 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse the second part. I think the first part is too narrow: sometimes edit wars happen during a discussion, but prior to reaching a consensus. Trebor 14:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse. I am concerned however by the particular combination of boldness and IARiness. Should they explain and discuss before and as they take action? Or is IAR automatically unilateral, with discussion, if any, after the fact? Jd2718 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Location of deletion debates

n) While undeletion policy permits admins to reverse an obviously out-of-process deletion, discussion is the more appropriate response when there is disagreement. The proper venue for such 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, or are marked as "temporarily undeleted" if necessary so that participants in the deletion can see their contents. Where consensus is unclear, the article should remain deleted until the five-day comment period has elapsed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Updated based on comments and a rereading of policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed. {{delrev}} was applied on the page whilst the review is ongoing. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Closing down an ongoing DRV discussion to instigate some other process (AFD) shows disregard for discusison, particularly when the participants in the DRV are not calling for an undelete relist. Discussion and consensus must trumph enforcing ideas of enforcing some 'process'. If is for discussion and not individual action to overturn deletions. (No problem with temporary undeletions for sight reasons - providing BLP is held in view). --Doc^g 16:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

The first step when an editor disagrees with a speedy deletion should be to contact the deleting administrator. If the admin agrees that reasonable, good-faith editors could disagree with the deletion and that no supervening consideration such as BLP is involved, the best course may often be to reinstate the article and list it for discussion on AfD. If the deleting admin declines to do this, he or she should explain why, and the matter can then be brought to DRV. As for temporary undeletion for review purposes, this should generally be a matter of administrator discretion. If the speedy was because of the borderline notability of a high school or a local rock band, different considerations apply than if the article raised BLP or privacy issues or the like. Newyorkbrad 15:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Offwiki support for a decision is insufficient

n) Off-wiki discussion (e.g. via email or IRC) or support for a decision such as deletion of an article is not visible to other Wikipedians. Therefore, offwiki discussion by itself does not fulfill an administrator's obligation to discuss controversial actions with the community prior to taking them. Minimally, such discussion should be summarized with further comments invited from the broader community before overt action is taken. Better still, the discussion should be moved to the Wiki as soon as a consensus starts to form in IRC or another forum.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this relevant here? Kirill Lokshin 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that Yanksox had support from IRC regulars. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This may be a little broad - while IRC is no substitute for sending an article through a process such as AfD, it is not necessary for an administrator to use the talk page of another admin when asking for advice on closing an AfD, IRC would suffice. ST47Talk 16:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Kirill: See the early deletion review where the deletion had nearly unanimous support, and then have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#IRC and WP:SNOW. I found the early and massive support for the deletion to be quite peculiar, and it makes sense to me that IRC has played a role in that. This in turn might've lead to the early closure of the DRV, as it looked like a clear consensus for "endorse" at that time. (Disclaimer: No, I don't hate IRC. I do not think that this was planned all along, I don't believe in any kind of conspiracy, and I don't assume bad faith on anyone here. This is just what I have observed, and anyone who has more information on this than me is free to correct me.) --Conti|✉ 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall a discussion at some point that the IRC regulars (not sure if it was the regular channel or the admins channel) supported the deletion, and this accounted for the apparent block voting early at the DRV, which may have given the appearance of more support than there really was. Of course, this has also been an issue on other occasions. It seems to me that the various IRC channels are excellent for communication but not so good for consensus. Thatcher131 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Early closure of discussions is harmful

The Committee notes that the "Snowball clause" is not policy, and that early closure of discussions is normally counterproductive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment. "normally" overstates it, I think. If you look at the WP:AFD page for yesterday, there are already several closures, some for what can only be described as snowy. Speaking impressionistically, it strikes me that most such closures are uncontroversial. I would suggest "sometimes counterproductive" instead of "normally". Bucketsofg 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this speaks to the essence of the problem here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

Yes, but I think that this neglects that particular responsibility that admins have in this area. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

I don't think this speaks to the essence of the case. People bend the CSDs all the time, and while I don't necessarily agree with its deletion as a speedy, I'm not sure that AFD is the answer. AFD has become toxic enough that many editors (and administrators) use it only as a last resort, and such a finding would have the effect of driving more borderline cases to AFD. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

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

Yes and no. In theory, if you know that a deletion is controversial then AFD is best. However, if an admin makes a call to speedy something, any discussion of whether it is justified or not (or meets the CSD or not - that's not always clear-cut) belongs on DRV. Certainly once a DRV is started and people are endorsing the deletion (rather than calling for a speedy overturn or listing elsewhere) it is unacceptable for one person to override that discussion on the basis of 'process' - ignore the opinions expressed there - close it and start a new discussion in an alternative venue. Consensus is always more important than procedural technicalities. Once a discussion has started, it should not be terminated without some discussion.--Doc^g 15:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Totally agree with the proposal. We don't need to promote such supposedly brave and bold moves to end up in wheelwars. This will only give people more venues to wikilawyer their way out. I make no comment on this particular incident, however. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:34, 25 February 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:

Having a finding that anything can be undeleted if the right process wasn't followed during its disposal would be a recipie for disaster. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That 'recipe for disaster' has been Wikipedia policy for as long as we have HAD an undeletion page. This idea that it is wrong for admins to overturn against policy deletions seems bass-ackwards. If consensus agrees that the deletion was against policy then the page should be restored and a normal procedure followed to see whether it should be deleted or not. Claiming that only the admins trying to uphold policy are 'wheel warring' is wrong IMO... the admin who violated policy in the first place initiated the problem. Effectively, wheel-warring against the established policy consensus. The fact that they didn't 'revert' anyone in taking their contentious action is irrelevant. They knew, or should have known, that there was no consensus for it / it violated policy / it was likely to cause disruption... ergo, they shouldn't have done it. Reversing that and following normal procedure is what we are supposed to do. Otherwise we're saying that admins who violate policy and take disruptive action get a free pass while admins who try to clean up the mess and follow established policy for dealing with such disputes are 'wheel-warrers'. It makes no sense. It also places a burden against restoring the article since DRV only reverses if there is a consensus to do so - a split opinion results in the page remaining deleted, because DRV was intended to be used after normal deletion procedures - where a split decision results in keep. --CBD 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is, in effect, what was happening. Mackensen (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

This might equally read "if I think your deletion was out of process, I can wheel war, even if the DRV consensus is endorsing your deletion". Quite unacceptable and incompatible with an aversion to wheel warring. Discussion and consensus > process concerns of an individual. There is never any urgency to undelete something - and if the deletion is outrageous, then there will be a pile on DRV, which, once evident can be speedily closed.--Doc^g 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This policy needs to be updated with the times, it was written way back in 2003. [4] At this state it looks like a "Get Out of Jail Free card" for wheel-warring. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Object. Status quo. Don't wheelwar. Go to DRV and discuss. If process is flawed, then improve it. Most of all, use common sense. However, I find it hard to believe that we will ever have a perfect system for Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this even though the Arbs do not. Not agreeing with this means that admins who go on deletion binges against consensus (and it happens) have to be consulted individually and each issue dealt with individually, which takes days and days. SchmuckyTheCat 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

Nope. It's become a convention to do this when there is no claim that the article is actively harmful. That doesn't make it an entitlement, and in this particular case, there were claims that the article posed problems based on WP:LIVING. Admins may email the contents of deleted articles, at their discretion, to those who want to participate at DRV. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Disagree, Deletion review is specifically about process not content. I agree there will be some cases (particularly in the case of speedy deletes) the process is directly tied to the content, but suspect making this too broad will lead to the trolling type requests for the x th review of ED or some such, just so it's up for another 5 days. --pgk 13:58, 25 February 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:

I generally agree with the sentiment here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

1. 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.
2. 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)

Indeed, let consensus be fully formed in DRV first. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

Yes, but I don't believe this speaks to the essence of the case. This case isn't about whether or not the article should be deleted, IMO at least. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

Some of the above comments overlook that the cited principle is an existing part of the BLP policy. Of course, its application to particular articles or topics can be the subject of good-faith disagreement, as in this case. Newyorkbrad 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is this component of BLP, but it is not worded this strongly - note this proposal says nothing about sourced information. Those that interpret it this strongly are putting BLP in conflict with NPOV and deleting things out of turn, creating this type of wiki-drama. If BLP is this strong, then we have a PPOV policy for living people, period. SchmuckyTheCat 16:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignore All Rules

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, sure, but it has to be done slowly, carefully, respectfully, and with discussion. IAR isn't an excuse to be mean to people or ignore consensus. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Regarding conflicted interpretation of deletion policy

7) If in doubt, don't delete. [5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't believe that it is the role of the Committee to give support to either deletionist or inclusionist agendas. This, like many of the proposed findings here, is an attempt to tip that balance. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

If in doubt, please delete. The particular statement you are referring to revolves around articles that assert borderline notability etc. Does not apply to WP:BLP cases. I make no comment with regards to the article. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there was no doubt by those who did the deletion, that the article needed to be deleted.--MONGO 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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 [6] [7]. In extreme cases an article may be shortened to a stub [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but when challenged, the well-sourced portions of an article should be kept. WP:LIVING is not an excuse for refusing to explain what you're doing, and it's not an excuse for refusing to discuss changes with other respected editors. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

By way of background for anyone unfamiliar, the comments by Jay Maynard and others above refer to the events discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow and the pages linked from there. Although not necessarily relevant to this case, the various statements there are recommended reading for those concerned with BLP and privacy issues. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 25 February 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:

I don't like the term "wheel warring" and believe that the purported policy on it places too much emphasis on who made the first action or first revert. The real point is that people have to be reasonable and be willing to discuss, and that the state of the page (etc) while the discussion is ongoing is secondary. Policies like 3RR and the "wheel warring" policy encourage people to try to create facts on the ground then claim that there isn't a sufficient supermajority to overturn the facts on the ground. We have 3RR, for better or worse, but I don't think it's wise to extend such a policy to "wheel warring." The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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:

While true, this fails to speak to administrators' unique responsibilities in this area. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

There is nothing unique about administrators needing to follow WP:CIVIL, as all editors are expected to follow this policy. Administrators are expected to be role models of civility, but one temporary lapse should be forgiven.--MONGO 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

True enough, but that isn't what this is about. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

I believe there's a great deal of support for this point of view, but I don't believe that it is germane to this case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I don't think it's germane to this particular case. However, for those who think it is, take a look at how the discussion is going at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28people%29#Proposed_courtesy_deletion_for_persons_of_borderline_notability . Kla'quot 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

I support this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

I agree with the sentiment but not the phrasing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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. jgpTC 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Disagree. We have to work on a case by case basis: this is too broad and the activity described is not necessarily disruptive. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

Such comments are certainly in bad form. I'm not convinced that criticism of the Wikipedia, even if poorly worded, ever quite rises to a betrayal of trust for ordinary administrators. If it were coming from a press contact I would be more concerned. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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. jgpTC 08:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. jgpTC 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Irrelevant. "Impersonal attack". I doubt if Yanksox wanted to insult anybody. There was no gross incivility either. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, and I think this deserves a tough response from the ArbCom. Let me highlight the specific incivility from Yanksox's edit summaries: 1st deletion - "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"; 2nd deletion - "How do you make so many Wikipedians go apeshit? By arguing agaisnt their squewed logic that is based upon sophmoric revenge. This site has gone to the pits, let's clean it up."; 3rd deletion - "note: I'm not gone, but I'm sick of lemmings that follow a scribe from above without even thinking twice". Reasonable people may disagree about the notability of Brandt and the worth of keeping the article. It's unreasonable to insult them. As an administrator myself, I feel that Yanksox's actions and especially his comments are totally unacceptable for an administrator - he clearly meant to be provocative and I haven't seen any sign of contrition from him since. I'm not surprised that Jimbo Wales took him to task about it. It brings the rest of us administrators, and Wikipedia as a whole, into disrepute. -- ChrisO 18:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You show a few examples, all in one short time frame, of incivility. Though not acceptable, as I stated, permanent or semi-permanent sanctions regarding incivility are based on ongoing examples, and all I see is a very temporary lapse in his efforts to be civil.--MONGO 19:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

As I stated above, I don't believe that is the Committee's role to tip the balance between inclusion and deletion of articles. People bend the CSDs all the time. It isn't our role to stop that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Policy proposal, which I doubt ArbCom would want to pass. Even so, it is neither practical nor implementable. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Self-contradictory. And too broad. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

I think there's a broader principle at work here, which is that articles on marginally notable subjects should do no harm. But then, I don't believe that any of this is germane to this case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

I note and agree with Daniel Bryant's statement. I also dislike that this conflicts with WP:COI. I'm currently editing an article where the subject (a corporation) wrote the article on itself and founder, voted to keep both on AfD, but now that other editors have neutered the PR fluff and added negative information is requesting re-write or deletion. Wikipedia simply is not here for the benefit of the subject of articles. SchmuckyTheCat 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Fred on this. The law draws distinction between a public person and one who is not public. This is a reasonable distinction to draw. "Marignally notable" here means that there is little, if any, substative coverage of the subject, although there may be coverage of his relationship to another subject - in that case, it might well better be covered tactfully and with impeccable sourcing in that other subject. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The law is a red herring, lets not go there. My experience being involved in that other site that can't be mentioned I'll just state there is no legal issue here for WP nor is there in 99.9% of any BLP issue, notable or not. The legal issue of libel/slander is a red herring that shouldn't even be considered or raised. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't fix bad biographies when people complain.) SchmuckyTheCat 19:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This completely fails to understand the issue of libel. If a subject is only minimally notable and the article on Wikipedia causes them emotional distress, then due to the fact that this is an anonymous open editing encyclopedia, we should be generous to the subject of the article and delete it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia", should apply even more explicitly to biographies.--MONGO 20:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO. We currently have some articles that are unlikely to be consulted by anyone doing research using our encyclopedia. Their main practical function is to show up high in a Google search and reveal embarrassing information about the otherwise non-notable person. Those articles should go. Newyorkbrad 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

I commented above where a similar proposal was made. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

First sentence is acceptable. Fred Bauder 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Page deletion by administrators may constitute vandalism

1) Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism. The same rule applies to administrators' use of the page deletion tool in circumstances where consensus has not been obtained and the criteria set out in CSD have clearly not been met. Such instances of administrative vandalism may be reverted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not really, questionable judgement is not vandalism. We want administrators to act when they believe it necessary. Fred Bauder 19:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed for discussion (disclaimer: I'm an administrator of 2½ years' standing). If an editor uses his tools to remove the content of an article without discussion, consensus or a satisfactory reason, we generally call that vandalism and revert it. (The first line of the principle quoted above is taken straight from Wikipedia:Vandalism.) If an administrator does the same thing with his page deletion function, as happened in this case, is that functionally equivalent to vandalism? I am concerned that we may be establishing a de facto two tier system where vandalism by editors may be reverted immediately, but vandalism by administrators has to go through a convoluted process before it can be reverted. Either way, Wikipedia:Vandalism needs to be clarified either to say that all undiscussed, non-consensual, non-policy deletions are vandalism, or to give administrators immunity from that rule. (I don't support the latter approach.) -- ChrisO 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• This assumes that there was no satisfactory reason. I don't believe anyone would dispute that the reason was thought by some to be satisfactory, whatever anyone else thought about it. See "bold revert discuss" below for what may be a better way of saying this. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Surely the question should be whether the deleter's reasons were satisfactory, not what other people thought. I find it very difficult to believe that Yanksox's comments set out a reasonable rationale for deletion - to quote: 1st deletion - "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"; 2nd deletion - "How do you make so many Wikipedians go apeshit? By arguing agaisnt their squewed logic that is based upon sophmoric revenge. This site has gone to the pits, let's clean it up."; 3rd deletion - "note: I'm not gone, but I'm sick of lemmings that follow a scribe from above without even thinking twice". That's not a rationale, that's a rant. (See #Timeline discussion below). -- ChrisO 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think good faith edits should ever be called vandalism. I think we should reserve the word vandalism for bad-faith editing. RxS 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming that Yanksox's edits were made in good faith. His disgraceful comments give me reason to question that. -- ChrisO 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We're required to assume good faith, or at least (I think) assume the best faith possible. I cannot believe that any damage done to the project by this episode was intentional--and the term vandalism should be reserved for intentional attempts to harm wikipedia, as per WP:VAND Bucketsofg 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss

1) "Bold, revert, discuss" is a long-standing Wikipedia model. Any editor may make an edit in good faith, any other editor may revert that edit in good faith, at that point discussion must begin. An edit war starts when the reversion is itself reverted. In the same way, any administrator may take an administrative action in good faith, another administrator may revert that action in good faith, and at that point discussion must begin. A wheel war starts when the reversion of the administrative action is itself reverted. This does not preclude a temporary compromise which may itself involve privileged actions (e.g. replacing the article with {{delrev}} and protecting, with history visible for review).

Comment by Arbitrators:

While it is a better model then a prolonged wheel war, Discuss before taking major actions might be a better model. Fred Bauder 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed to fix issues witht he definition of wheel war proposed above. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Pages which, in an individual administrator's judgment, conform to the criteria for speedy deletion may be deleted without discussion. In general, it is good practice to take disputed deletions to deletion review. The issue typically should be put up for review and consensus should be reached before a reversal is made, especially in the case that a deletion is clearly not accidental or an undeletion is clearly controversial. The article can be undeleted temporarily to allow users at Deletion Review to review the content and determine whether the Criteria for Speedy Deletion were applied properly. Persistently circumventing the review process with recreations, undeletion, or redeletions may constitute disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as a broader version of 4 and 4b, from /Guanaco. ST47Talk 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Yanksox' deletion of Daniel Brandt was inappropriate

1) The deletion of Daniel Brandt by Yanksox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was inappropriate. It was not supported by Wikipedia:Deletion policy. In particular, the article as a whole did not fall under the WP:LIVING guidelines for deletion of unsourced derogatory information, and the article did not fit any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Yanksox did not engage in a sufficient amount of on-wiki consensus-building or discussion, either before or after the fact, to justify Yanksox' actions under our doctrine of ignore all rules.

Despite reports of support from IRC, Yanksox' subsequent re-deletion of the article without meaningful on-wiki discussion was also inappropriate, and Yanksox' comments on the deletion log for these and other related actions were unnecessarily inflammatory.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bumm13's undeletion of Daniel Brandt was inappropriate

Bumm13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undeleted the article while a deletion review was running 14-4 in support of endorsing deletion. Bumm13 was aware of the deletion review and undeleted the article anyway, without applying a "temporary undeletion" template or otherwise linking to the deletion review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gaillimh's early closure of the deletion review was inappropriate

Gaillimh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed the deletion review, citing WP:SNOW, while active discussion was underway, and then compounded this mistake by attempting to force closure through an edit war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Geni undeleted the article twice rather than discuss its deletion

Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), despite being aware of the discussions on the deletion review page, undeleted the article twice rather than participate in discussion. Geni has been criticized for such behavior in the past.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Given that DRV had already been closed once by that stage and that I'm not too bothered what the commmunity decides one way or the other on this issue I didn't see any reason the get involved in the !vote. I did make some comments on the mailing list.Geni 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Should be undeleted, not deleted GRBerry 19:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow deleted the article inappropriately

Despite being aware that the article was being repeatedly deleted and undeleted, Doc glasgow deleted it. As a mitigating factor, Doc was participating fully in discussion at WP:DRV and discussion there supported deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Mailer diablo deleted the article inappropriately

Despite being aware that the article was being repeatedly deleted and undeleted, Mailer diablo deleted it. As a mitigating factor, Mailer diablo was participating in discussion at WP:DRV and discussion there supported deletion. Also, Mailer diablo re-created the article with a notice directing users to the deletion review page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Freakofnurture undeleted the article inappropriately

While Freakofnurture's first undeletion of the article is defensible based on undeletion policy, this user's subsequent undeletion is not, having been made in the awareness that the article was being repeatedly undeleted and redeleted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

I believe that this suffers for a lack of specificity. The track records of these individuals are not identical. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This question has to be addressed in a discrete fashion (darn you UC, stop beating me to the punch!) Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

I don't believe that Yanksox' action was unilateral; it had widespread support. It did prove to be disruptive. More to the point, it was out of process. Of greater concern, however, was the deletion summary and Yanksox' ensuing actions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Proposed. jgpTC 11:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Unilateral deletion, but Yanksox's actions came into bad light after he deleted the article once again. The second deletion was disruptive. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral? All admin actions are unilateral to an extent, apart form maybe closing an xFD with many tens of !votes. Disruptive? Only if someone else chooses to dispute it. I don't see that this advances the case at all. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this FoF is useful for this case, but let's not be silly. Should we change the dictionary definition of unilateral? The idea that disruption is only disruption if it gets challenged is preposterous. That's like saying that burglary is a crime only if the victim presses charges. Zocky | picture popups 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in deletion summaries

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think they were highly offensive. They were ill-considered and inappropriate for an administrator. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Proposed. jgpTC 11:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Offensive, but not highly offensive. We are more mature than that. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

Though perhaps true, I dislike the use of the term "wheel war." The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

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. jgpTC 11:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yanksox wheel-warred disruptively, but you need to tone down highly incivil a bit. I don't see any evidence of gross incivility. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

I think the more important point is that Geni undeleted the article, repeatedly, instead of discussing it, even though it should have been abundantly clear to Geni that undeleting the article was not going to settle the matter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Agree. Geni wheel-warred and that amounts to disruption. However, it cannot be said that her logic was flawed. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Geni's actions appear to be the most in-line with policy of everyone involved. SchmuckyTheCat 18:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

6) Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) concerns an internet activist, a recent iteration of the article. Whether there should be an article regarding him has been controversial and there have been 10 unsuccessful nominations for deletion:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt 2 (substantial debate)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (3rd nomination) (substantial debate, but speed keep, citing WP:SNOW
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (4th nomination) (nomination by apparent sock, speedy keep) see also [13]
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (5th nomination)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (6th nomination)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (7th nomination)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (8th nomination)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (9th nomination)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (10th nomination)
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (11th nomination)
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (12th nomination)

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

I don't believe a summary of the article or Brandt's notability is helpful. The AFDs are worth pointing out. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Per Doc, we really should note that there has not really been a proper, thoguht-out debate on this certainly in recent times. The majority of the debates amount to "feh, we already did this" - but we didn't not properly, and certainly not with the present emphasis on WP:BLP and proper, rigorous sourcing. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Community discussions

1) WP:ANI#Daniel_Brandt_and_DRV, WP:ANI#Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#IRC_and_WP:SNOW

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

The ANI discussion will be archived shortly, and we should fix the link so it remains active.

Noted, as I have added a new one. Fred Bauder 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ANI links updated to archive (#206) GRBerry 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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!" [14] [15] [16] [17]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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)

Comment by others:

Yanksox

1) Yanksox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Talk:Daniel_Brandt (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Daniel_Brandt|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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:

I don't like the wording, but the article, at least in its latest iteration, conforms to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Fred Bauder 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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 [18], 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Excellent observation, and I'd add "be sanctimonious about it." to your list. Kla'quot 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - I don't really think the article violated BLP: I also think this is within ArbCom's remit. So, this is valid, though I still don't think Brandt is notable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse per Moreschi. Brandt isn't clearly notable. The article focuses on something for which we have trivial sources. There is much more to the drama than meets the eye. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaillimh

1) Gaillimh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [19]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 20:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1b) For repeatedly deleting an article in defiance of policy and without discussion, Yanksox's administrator privileges are revoked for a period of one year, after which time Yanksox may reapply for adminship via the usual means.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

I added an alternate version. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Endorse 1, not 1a - at [20] the ArbCom found that Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status. True, that was a long time ago, but it seems to me that that sentiment still stands. ST47Talk 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bumm13

2) For undeleting an article in opposition to policy and consensus, Bumm13's administrator privileges are suspended for a period of 3 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gallimh

3) For inappropriate early closure of a Deletion Review discussion, and edit warring regarding the same, Gallimh's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 10 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is that meant to say "administrator privileges," or "editing privileges"? Newyorkbrad 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As written. The edits didn't involve the misuse of admin tools. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So, then, would this be equivalent to a "ban" in a normal ArbCom case? Ral315 » 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Geni

4) For repeated undeletion of an article without discussion and in violation of policy, and in light of previous related problems, Geni's administrator privileges are suspended for a period of 30 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Doc glasgow and Mailer diablo cautioned

5) Doc glasgow and Mailer diablo are strongly cautioned regarding involvement in repeated deletion/undeletion of pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Freakofnurture

6) For undeleting an article in opposition to policy and consensus, Freakofnurture's administrator privileges are suspended for a period of 3 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

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. jgpTC 11:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

What freak said. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the personal attacks should not be noted as a cause for a desysop, but as a cause for a block, if necessary. ST47Talk 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

No way. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 25 February 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. jgpTC 11:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

Oppose any ban per freakofnurture. If he's desysopped, what problem does this solve? Trebor 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Trebor. This is not on. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It would serve no useful purpose. Zocky | picture popups 15:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Jpg clearly feels that simply deleting the Brandt article was evil. I disagree. Whether it's right or wrong to have that article, there are enough editors of long standing on both sides of the debate that punitive measures based simply on the fact that it was this particular article seem wholly unjustified. It is also not clear to me how Yanksox is supposed to repeat the disruption (i.e. how the proposal would be preventive), since he will no longer have the sysop bit. So I join the small chorus opposing this. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, however a shorter block or a personal attack probation, as is used against other troublesome users, may not be out of place. ST47Talk 20:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Oppose. His comments [21] [22] 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.[23] The issue isn't with the specific article, but with admin powers. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Given Jimbo specifically stated that Geni and Freakofnurture were temporarily desysopped, whist Yanksox was immediately desysopped, I'm not sure any proposal involving any automatic resysopping can fly. --pgk 14:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking as a Christian, I have seen long and angry arguments on interpretations of textual nuances where going back to the source, as one might have it, would be more productive. Have we asked Jimbo what he meant? Guy (Help!) 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Timeline discussion

Thanks to Thebainer (talk · contribs) for preparing the timeline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Legend

Admin actions performed on article

Edits to DRV debate

Edits to AfD debate

All times are in UTC. Note that the whole thing takes less than five hours; beginning with the first undeletion, all actions take less than two hours. Many actions occur within minutes of each other.

Time	Action	Performed by	Comments	Discussion
12:53	Article deleted	Yanksox	Deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"	Troubling. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
12:55	Talk page deleted	Yanksox	Deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Do you people use common sense at times? We are not obliged to do this nor are we proveyers of knowledge"	More troubling. "article page deleted" would have been sufficient. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
13:54 - 13:56	Listed at DRV	Cool Cat	NB: listing was actually done in two edits.	We ought to give Cool Cat a medal since listing the article at DRV was exactly the right thing to do. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
15:47	Article undeleted	Bumm13	Undeletion summary: "1 revisions restored: This deletion was not discussed and is current under review at DRV"	Unwise for GFDL reasons, but appears to be an honest mistake in that regard. The undeletion itself is premature. At this point, DRV was running 14-4 in favor of endorsing deletion. Bumm13's comments are hardly exculpatory. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
15:48	Article deleted	Deskana	Deletion summary: "drv currently in process, do not recreate this page in the mean time"	See Deskana's comment below. This is no big deal. . The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
15:50	Deskana to Bumm13 Deskana notifies Bumm13 that he re-deleted the article, since Bumm13 had only restored one revision (presumably this one, the most recent) and Deskana thought that an IP had recreated the article. After seeing that it had been an undeletion, informed Bumm13 that if any revisions are to be restored, all of them must be, for GFDL purposes.
15:52	Talk page undeleted	Bumm13	Undeletion summary: "540 revisions restored: Talk page is associated with an article that was deleted without prior discussion; article talk pages shouldn't be deleted without discussion"	Bumm13 is incorrect insofar as the CSDs allow deletion of talk pages of nonexistent articles. No big deal though. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
15:55	Deskana to Bumm13 Deskana further asserts to Bumm13 that "typically something being on DRV isn't a reason to undelete it".			Deskana is correct although policy is unsettled in this area. Minimally, the appropriate template should have been applied (was it?) The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
16:01	Bumm13 to Deskana Bumm13 agrees with Deskana about the GFDL issue, says he will not take any further action on the article.
16:24	Article undeleted	Freakofnurture	Undeletion summary: "2,270 revisions restored: everything here is referenced. there are no defamatory statements, nor unsourced ones."	At this point, Freakofnurture has not participated in the DRV or commented elsewhere on this matter. After undeleting, he leaves a comment on Yanksox' talk page. Wikipedia:Undeletion Policy provides that an admin may undelete any page that has been deleted out of process, provided that a message is then left on the talk page of the admin who deleted the article. Freakofnurture states that he was unaware of the intervening deletion and undeletion by Bumm13 and Deskana, and in that light, complied with the policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
16:26	Article deleted	Yanksox	Deletion summary: "How do you make so many Wikipedians go apeshit? By arguing agaisnt their squewed logic that is based upon sophmoric revenge. This site has gone to the pits, let's clean it up." NB: this action was performed at 16:26:10.	Way over the line. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
16:26	DRV discussion closed	Gaillimh	Comment made on closure: "deletion endorsed per WP:SNOW and more importantly WP:BLP"	This is a serious problem. The deletion support was hardly unanimous and closing the DRV accomplished nothing useful and left no appropriate venue remaining for discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC) NB: this action was performed at 16:26:31.
16:26	Talk page deleted	Yanksox	Deletion summary: "note: I'm not gone, but I'm sick of lemmings that follow a scribe from above without even thinking twice"	One cannot help but wonder whether Yanksox' account has been compromised. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC) NB: this action was performed at 16:26:43.
16:27 - 16:40	Article nominated for deletion	Chacor	NB: the page was prepared over several edits.
16:32	Freakofnurture to Yanksox Challenges Yanksox to identify "any sentence, any word in that entire article that violates BLP", asserts that "The article itself is not libellous". Criticises Yanksox's deletion summaries for containing "personal attacks [which] are quite offensive."
16:35	Yanksox to Freakofnurture Says "this isn't about the rules. The rules don't exist, the rules were made to endorse kids who giggle and torment people when they can. This is the most absurd thing I've ever seen..."
16:37	Edits made after Gaillimh's closure removed from DRV debate	Doc glasgow	Edit summary: "rv edits to a cloded debate"	Inappropriate but the fire was already burning at this point. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
16:39	DRV discussion reopened	Mark	Edit summary: "revert closure of active debate that is by no means uncontested and is in fact not snowballing the way of 'endorse' "	Appropriate
16:40	Doc glasgow to Freakofnurture Advises Freakofnurture not to wheel war: "the deletion may have been irregular, but it has been endorsed by DRV."			Unfortunate because the WP:SNOW closure isn't valid. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
16:41	Reversion of reopening of DRV discussion	Gaillimh	Edit summary: "rv back to previous version by doc"	Inexcusable, in my view. Closing the first time was bad enough. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
16:50	Reversion of reversion of reopening of DRV discussion	Bumm13	Edit summary: "undoing unilateral archiving action by User:Gaillimh"	A better choice would have been to wait a day for the dust to settle. Not serious, though. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
16:57	Second closure of DRV discussion	Steel359	Edit summary: "Daniel Brandt DRV closed, article has been taken to AfD"	Should be investigated further. Was Steel359 a partisan in this or did he just show up? Looks like venue shopping, and it's not at all clear that the DRV supported this action. This is another significant turning point for the worse, since the lack of clarity regarding discussion venue contributed significantly to the escalation. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17:04	Recreated as redirect	Hipocrite	Edit summary: "redirect to what he's notable for"
17:07	Article protected	CesarB	Protection summary: "creating a redirect nulifies the cascade protection, protecting by hand instead [edit=sysop:move=sysop]"	Housekeeping. The title had been protected through cascading protection earlier. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17:09	Article edited to display AfD notice	Malo	Edit summary: "article is back on AFD again"	Housekeeping. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17:10	Article undeleted	Geni	Undeletion summary: "2,270 revisions restored: out of policy and process deletion. The guy's long history of campianing makes him noteable."	Geni did not participate in the discussion regarding this article either at DRV or AFD, before or after this undeletion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17:12	Revert closure of DRV discussion	Doc glasgow	Edit summary: "no consensus to relist - clearly being endorsed, let it run"	Interesting change of heart. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17:14	Article deleted	Doc glasgow	Deletion summary: "still on DRV - leave it thre - no consensus to undelete and relist"	The best construction I can put on this is that Doc is trying to push discussion towards DRV, where it (arguably) belonged. He had been participating extensively in the discussion there. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17:15	AfD closed	Doc glasgow	Edit summary: "close - no consensus to relist"	Reasonable given that Doc's point of view was that the AFD listing was part of an inappropriately early closure of the DRV. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17:16	Article undeleted	Geni	Undeletion summary: "2,274 revisions restored: no that would still be out of process deletion AFD is thata away"	Geni has a point (that is, that it's not appropriate to sidestep AFD by deleting an article out-of-process and then listing it at DRV) but the summary is a poor substitute for discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17:19	Article deleted	Mailer diablo	Deletion summary: "going back on DRV; let's settle that first"	Mailer diablo had previously endorsed deletion of this article, making his contention that this is a mere housekeeping action a little difficult to swallow. Mailer diablo does participate in many discussions at AFD, however. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17:20	Geni to Doc glasgow Says "Unless you are acting for the foundation do not delete this article again." NB: this action was performed at 17:20:31.			I find Geni's intimidating presumption of authority inappropriate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17:20	Article recreated with DRV notice only	Mailer diablo	Edit summary: "on deletion review, period." NB: this action was performed at 17:20:46.
17:21	Article protected	Mailer diablo	Protection summary: "{{Delrev}} [edit=sysop:move=sysop]"
17:22	Article undeleted	Geni	Undeletion summary: "2,274 revisions restored: the arogence of asking people to vote on an article they cannot see is incredible"	Inappropriate. Again Geni is not participating in the discussions at DRV or elsewhere.
17:23	Geni to Mailer diablo Says "Unless you are acting for the foundation do not delete this article again." The same message previously given to Doc glasgow.
17:29	Article deleted	CesarB	Deletion summary: "The careless restore restored revisions with personal information which should not be restored (check the deletion log). Please restore only the revisions which were not already deleted before."	In good faith. CesarB had no way to know that the affected revisions were oversighted.
17:32	CesarB to WP:ANI Advises anyone considering restoring the article to be careful not to accidentally restore previous deleted revisions containing personal info; presumably referring to Majorly's deletion of certain revisions on 4 February. NB: it appears that at some point those particular deleted revisions were oversighted, but CesarB didn't seem to be aware of this.
17:45	Article undeleted	Freakofnurture	Undeletion summary: "2,276 revisions restored: i've just been told the revisions were oversighted. restoring so sheep voters can actually read the article."
17:45	Article protected	Freakofnurture	Protection summary: "drv [edit=sysop:move=sysop]"
17:52	Doc glasgow to Geni Described Steel359's closure of the DRV discussion, in favour of the AfD discussion, as "Ridiculous and disruptive" and argues that "My action in reversing disruption was perfectly sane. And I'll do it again if need be."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

About the cascading protection: where was it done? I couldn't find a diff, and I thought I got it confused with Brian Peppers (see my entry on the evidence page), which is cascade protected. I was looking at both at the time (they were next to each other on the DRV page). As an aside, I did voice my concern that the use of the cascading protection trick would cause the log entries to become separated (on a discussion on the Village Pump before the Wikipedia:Protected titles page was created[24]), but was assured that the "unorthodox bookkeeping" was an "exceedingly minor issue" compared to the problems of {{deletedpage}}; looks like I was at least a little bit right on being concerned about it. --cesarb 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This helps to make a lot more sense of the dispute. An outstanding piece of work by Thebainer. -- ChrisO 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)