Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Recusal request

1) Per the statement here, it appears Fred Bauder has already made a determination on my behavior before seeing any evidence. I request Bauder's recusal on this case based on his statement as I do not believe he will be able to examine this case properly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If every arbitrator who'd made an utterance on this case was recused we wouldn't have any arbitrators left. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with an "utterance." Plenty of utterances have occurred that I'm not concerning myself with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions

1) Badlydrawnjeff is, for the duration of this case, banned from deletion discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have never once been disruptive during a deletion discussion. This is not at all supported by any evidence, contrary to Phil's diffs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me. Jeff is a tremendously disruptive presence on deletion discussions, as can be seen with his comment spamming [1] and incivility [2] [3]. More to the point, Jeff does not recognize the fundamental fact that BLP is a policy about ethics. In doing so, he necessarily disregards the heart of the policy. That he does so loudly and disruptively is inexcusable and needs to stop immediately. Phil Sandifer 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Or Jeff holds an opposition view and you wish to silence him. That is how it can appear - I have not looked through all his comments but I think that removing him from discussions will bias the proceedings. violet/riga (t) 19:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's fanaticism causes him to be disruptive to reasonable discussion on issues like this. This problem has been ongoing for quite some time. Friday (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. It's no secret that I have been frustrated with this user too from time to time, not least when he's challenged my own closures and deletions, and I'm sure that his conduct is going to be a major focus of this case (hence the name). The proposed provisional remedy, however, is overbroad and excessive. It would also be counterproductive: quite apart from this arbitration case, this is a critical time for the community in refining consensus on application of BLP and related issues through a whole series of discussions on policy pages and in relevant deletion debates, and it would be a poor time indeed to jeopardize the perceived legitimacy of whatever policies or consensus may evolve by silencing one of the key players in the debates. Newyorkbrad 19:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Violetriga added to case

2) User:Violetriga is added to the case as a party to look at her overturning of deletions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Deletions of articles about dead people; deletions based on notability; deletions of referenced articles; deletions with the inadequate summary "eak, no WP:BLP". I reversed some of Doc glasgow's deletions based on all of these. Several of these articles are now at AfD and going through a sensible process - at least one is heading to a "merge" decision clearly showing that numerous people see the worth of some of these articles. This issue of wheel-warring is down to interpretation of Wikipedia:Wheel war which implies repetition and not just one action. violet/riga (t) 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me, as this is a related matter. Violetriga overturned a number of User:Doc glasgow's deletions of BLP-concern articles without any discussion with him. [4] This is, obviously, a huge problem. I have notified Violetriga of this motion on her talk page. Phil Sandifer 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also that VIoletriga undeleted articles that she had previously created without first discussing with the deleting admin. [5]. This is a serious issue of wheel warring, and is germaine to this RFAr. Phil Sandifer 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sensible choice if arbitrators are going to investigate wheel-warring. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga, you were a party to Pedophile Userbox wheel war case, and at one point sanctions were considered, but dropped [6]. Did you ignore that case or forget? Mackensen (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just what I was about to link here - David Gerard 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My actions were common sense and were very appropriate given the situation. I am happy with the end result there and it was a massive and important step that this project had to undertake. violet/riga (t) 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moratorium on DRVs of BLPs

3) Due to the high amount of controversy surrounding this and the widespread disagreement as to what the policy actually says, articles deleted for reasons related to our policy on biographies of living people are not to be listed for deletion review until the conclusion of this case. Any administrators making BLP-related deletions should log them at create an appropriate page for this so that they can be reviewed after the case is resolved. Administrators are warned not to use this latitude to make deletions that violate or push the limits of policy and good practice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Only if a moratorium of the speedy deletion of BLPs that do not fall under CSD G10 is instituted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It does Wikipedia no harm to not have an article for a few weeks, and it can do considerable harm to have a bad one. Phil Sandifer 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It does great harm to our coverage and the concept behind what we do here. Removing an appeals process because you don't like the fact that people disagree with you is absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me. This is getting to be a mess. Losing a bunch of articles for a month or so while we sort out the mess isn't going to harm anybody, and is something we can easily recover from after a cooling down period and some clarifications of the basic issues. Phil Sandifer 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the bulk of this, but logging BLP-related deletions for review (by default) would be a step in the right direction, as these are more likely to be controversial than any other admin action, and as Jeff says, they do directly affect the quality of the encyclopedia. The big challenge would be getting random admins to follow that procedure. — CharlotteWebb 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Disputes

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See evidence section.--badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, but this applies to everyone. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Interpersonal communication

2) Insulting, intimidating, or acting in a condescending manner toward other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. WP:RPA is an essay, not a guideline, and as it turns out, removing personal attacks on sight tends to escalate rather than reduce hostilities. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See evidence section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note, I removed the RPA section. I didn't mean for that to be included here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Civility enforcement is effectively a dead letter and rarely stands by itself. I welcome the sentiment though. Mackensen (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How to handle disputes

3) The Wiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. When disputes arise editors are expected to engage in research, discussion with other users, and make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Based on long-standing principles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Consensus

4) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Self-explanatory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

True, but see proposal "Sensitive matters" below. Phil Sandifer 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

5) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons specifically refers to the removal of negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden#Biographies_of_living_persons_2.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Really speaks to the crux of this discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is nothing to say to this other than that Wikipedia:Biographies of living people is a very, very different guideline from the one that Jeff describes here. Among its statements that flatly contradict this reductive reading: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion." "In borderline cases, 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. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, this can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Phil Sandifer 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

At no point does anything you've posted here related to the topic at hand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And our policy on undue weight does not apply to BLPs? Moreschi ^Talk 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

6) Wikipedia:Deletion review is the proper forum to review the decision to keep or delete material via policy or consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Evidence suggests that many administrators, former admins, and arbiters believe that DRV is not the proper forum for some deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Early closures

7) Early closures of discussions are harmful. (per [[7]])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per linked ArbCom principle. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose; overstated and oversimplified. The paraphrase above exaggerates and oversimplies the quoted principle from the Brandt case. There are certainly circumstances in which early closure of an XfD or DRV discussion is completely appropriate. Incidentally, that includes early closures in favor of keep as well as delete results. Newyorkbrad 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oversimply. Check DRV today (Wayne Crookes): stub recreated, DRV closed early, history gone, everyone's happy. No harm done. Moreschi ^Talk 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the title of the principle; you'll note the wording is more complicated. You're free to assert that if you like but don't point the finger at the committee. Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion and exclusion

8) Differing views on inclusion/exclusion exist on this project, and deserve mutual respect, even in disagreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Much of this could have been avoided with this simple principle in mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but also irrelevant. I'm somewhere in between. And Arbiters with a knowledge of the parties will know that some of our most inclusionist and deletionist admins are in total agreement here on the fundamental importance of protecting living people. This is NOT an inclusionist vs deletionist squabble.--Doc^g 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it has its roots in it. See the initial statements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Speedy deletion

9) Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is the document that governs the deletion of material without discussion, and is expected to generally be followed as written with few extraordinary situations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per discussion at WT:CSD, per long-standing practice, per the amount of improper speedies that are overturned, and per the fact that, again, if this were followed, this could be avoided. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jeff, please proofread this; I think you may have inadvertently left something out (maybe "except in"). Newyorkbrad 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wheel Warring

10) Wikipedia:Wheel warring is disruptive to the project, whether by an administrative act or a non-administrative act.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Again harkening back to the Brandt case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wheel-warring refers specifically to administrative actions. The term you're looking for is 'edit-warring'. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There's some discussion elsewhere about "non-administrative" wheel warring that may be worth looking at here. The concept of closing discussions being adminstrative acts that non-admins can accomplish is related to this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethics

11) Wikipedia is not an experiment in ethics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. To clarify, we don't have an ethical base, as we are an encyclopedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Even a tabloid newspaper has ethics. "When in doubt do no harm" in WP:BLP is an ethical reflection. We use judgement in wikipedia not rules, and judgement is always informed by values. Sure values differ - but that's where consensus comes in. We have some shared values. We are here to do good not bad.--Doc^g 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. And how we do good is what's causing these problems. It's one person's set of ethics against anothers, and Wikipedia is not an experiment in that. We are an encyclopedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a poor proposal. Wikipedia is a project about improving the world. You can't do that without an ethical base. That said, it is true that we are not an experiment in ethics. There is no novelty to our ethics - they are things that virtually anyone should be able to understand intuitively. Phil Sandifer 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Plain silly. If you're an encyclopedia, of course you have ethics, those of giving knowledge to the world. In addition, what ethics we do have are hardly "experimental" in any sense of the word. They're just ordinary man-in-the-pub common decency. Moreschi ^Talk 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Treatment of editors

12) Attempting to drive people off the project by using false statements, nasty statements, or derogatory statements intended to diminish an editor's reputation is harmful to the project and inappropriate behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence and the concept behind the Giano case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Adminship is no big deal

13) Adminship is no big deal. Having the extra tools does not give weight or precedence to a specific opinion or point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence that suggests that many administrators attempt to claim that their opinion holds more weight due to the role they serve in the community. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:BLP is a policy about ethics

14) Our policies on biographies about living people exist so that we can be sure to behave in an ethical manner appropriate to our status as a top ten website.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As ethics are not shared by any particular group (see the discussions revolving around suicide method, for an example), this is basically untrue in practice. In reality, as well, the timing of the creation of BLP does not match up with ethical situations as much as a possible legal one. If the Siegenthaler issue never comes up, BLP doesn't until one like Siegenthaler does. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The ethics of "don't put material that intrudes on people's privacy on one of the largest websites in the world" do not seem to me as arcane as Jeff suggests. Phil Sandifer 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the idea that widely-reported information "intrudes on people's privacy" is hardly universal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Simple and to the point. Also true, as clearly stated in the policy. This is the single most important principle in this case, as it gets to the heart of what is wrong with Jeff's actions - that he follows process with no pause to consider the ethical mandates involved. Note that this is clearly stated in the first paragraph of the "rationale" section of the policy: "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominance comes a measure of responsibility. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding." Phil Sandifer 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Do no harm. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sensitive matters

15) Although we have a number of processes for dispute resolution, issues surrounding material that is harmful to real-world people are sometimes not suitable for these avenues, and are especially unsuitable for protracted discussion in these avenues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nothing in the policy notes this, and the idea that we're not equipped to discuss these issues is completely contrary to our principles as a project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Common sense really.--Doc^g 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is not common. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A vital point regarding BLPs. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not just BLPs, surely Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom was an example of this? Moreschi ^Talk 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't know, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Primum non nocere

16) Articles concerning living persons that are well sourced, but exist only to document a misfortune in the subject's life, should be deleted. Such articles have the potential to cause harm to the subject, due to the creation of a technically permanent documentation of a traumatic or embarrassing event.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

ArbCom doesn't make policy. If they decided to, however, this certainly wouldn't preclude the discussion thereof, which is what's at issue here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not deleted, necessarily, but they are inappropriate as faux-biographies. If the case itself is a notable example of its type then we can cover it appropriately somewhere, and if the person is prominently identified with that case (e.g. Megan's Law) then a redirect may well be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Far too strong. Such articles probably should not exist as pseudo-biographies - but the information can exist, where appropriate, elsewhere.--Doc^g 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sean William @ 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What JzG said, almost always these are not appropriate as stand-alone biographies. Moreschi ^Talk 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Persons of minor interest

17) In many cases, multiple, non-trivial sources such as newspapers will create timely reports of murders, rapes, kidnappings, medical oddities and other news items. However, these stories do not constitute biographical treatments of the subjects of the reports, and the fact that the events relating to these persons have been reported upon in newspapers does not necessarily support the existence of stand-alone Wikipedia biographies of persons involved. It follows from Wikipedia is not a newspaper that merely being in a newspaper does not make someone encyclopedic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Maybe this is true, but see above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, because it makes sense. FCYTravis 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's not that we can't or mustn't cover such things, but that covering them in the form of stand-alone biographies of individuals who have no real claim to encyclopaedic notability is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, to the letter. Moreschi ^Talk 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Minors

18) Particular care should be taken where article subjects are minors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement, but that doesn't excuse heavy-handed action. Note that the article that brought this situation to ArbCom dealt with an adult. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Privacy

19) As a matter of course Wikipedia should not include private information about living individuals which is not commonly included in mainstream coverage of those individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty standard - we write from sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

before using the last blank template, please make a copy for the next person

20) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

before using the last blank template, please make a copy for the next person

21) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

before using the last blank template, please make a copy for the next person

22) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Requests for comment

1) WP:RFC is not a pre-requisite for arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per practice and per a lack of an actual required process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Irrelevant. Arbitration is the method of last resort. We urged an RfC because earlier steps in the dispute resolution process hadn't been tried and the matter was so fresh. Of course, that you regarded the RfC as a joke from the outset guaranteed that we'd arrive here. Mackensen (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a principle, should be moved. Thatcher131 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Move per Thatcher, and then reject as overstated. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of WP:BLP

2) The auspice of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons does not cover articles such as Qian Zhijun at the time of its first deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per written language of WP:BLP and per the discussion at the RfC and here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

False. BLP is a principle and not just a set of rules about sources.--Doc^g 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A principle that the article undoubtedly met. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is not true. BLP talks specifically about the ethical mandates of being a top ten website - these apply to all articles that can affect the lives of living people. Phil Sandifer 19:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true. BLP issues were nonexistent with this article, it met the proper standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not a show of force

3) WP:BLP is not a tool to bludgeon other editors with, or to delete sourced material that individual administrators deem improper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. BLP is clear on how it should be used, even with recent changes. Abuse of BLP helps no one, and harms the community as a result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a principle, should be moved. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of WP:BLP

4) WP:BLP is not owned by anyone, and the interpretation of the policy is subject to discussion. (See [8] for an example) and suggest that their interpretation is not subject to discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per link and evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a principle, should be moved. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP and ethics

5) WP:BLP deals with the way we handle articles of living persons. It is not designed to allow for any specific editor's ethical base to take precedent over another's.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence and continuing use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a principle, should be moved. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant - the case is not about specific editor's ethical bases, but about an ethical base that is inscribed in policy and left to the judgment of specific editors to implement. In this regard, it is like all of our policy. Phil Sandifer 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

6) The deletion and re-deletions of Qian Zhijun following the first deletion review were improper, as the article did not violate any core policies or WP:BLP, and the consensus was to overturn the initial deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per policy, per the last legitimate deletion review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A number of experienced administrators disagreed. Is it arbcom's role to overrule them on content judgement? (That's genuinely a question).--Doc^g 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether "experienced administrators" disagreed is as relevant as the fact that a number of experienced editors agreed. No one's more special than anyone else, and this principle is designed not to comment on the status of the article long-term, but to simply re-affirm the last proper consensus result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Why? Needs fleshing out. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Status of Qian Zhijun at the time of deletion

7) Qian Zhijun, at the time of its deletion, met all relevant inclusion policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per policy, per the last legitimate deletion review, per the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would prefer not to see the arbcom rule on our inclusion policies at this stage. Phil Sandifer 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Early closures

8) The early closures of the subsequent deletion reviews and AfDs of Qian Zhijun were improper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Let's put it out there, since it's true.

Comment by others:

Badlydrawnjeff and BLP

9) While badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) has been a vocal opponent of BLP as written, he has not shown evidence of editing outside of the BLP policy, or pushing for the undeletion of blatant violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence, because it's true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is begging the question. First of all, your content-editing is not at issue. Second of all, what constitutes a "blatant violation" is hotly disputed. Naturally you've acted completely correctly in your own mind--but that's why we're here, isn't it? Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm allowed to say why I think we're here. This is simply a statement regarding the evidence that a) exists, and b) will be forthcoming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You can say this if you wish, though I think the latter half is untrue. The Barbara Bauer DRV springs to mind - a blatant coatrack article that attacked a living person, if ever there was one. Moreschi ^Talk 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethics count

10) The Biographies of living persons policy gives Wikipedia an ethical compass for its biographical coverage of living people. For this reason, the policy is not only necessary from a legal standpoint, but desirable insofar as it improves the quality of our encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, because Wikipedia is supposed to be a force for good in the world. Without an ethical footing, we are destined to fail. FCYTravis 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a principle, should be moved. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

8) Wheel-warring is a Wikipedia term of art defined in Wikipedia:Wheel war, and in the encyclopaedia as wheel war. It is defined as follows: A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article. A conflict in which non-privileged actions are repeatedly reversed is an edit war, as defined at Wikipedia:Edit war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

before using the last blank template, please make a copy for the next person 8) {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.

Badlydrawnjeff placed on civility parole

1) badlydrawnjeff is placed on civility parole for three months. If he violates said parole, blocks will begin at 24 hours, and escalating to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Wording is not what is normally used, but that can be fixed in the transfer over. Per evidence, perhaps the only actual thing that could be held against me, but I also have never been sanctioned by ArbCom before, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Useless, civility is not the issue.--Doc^g 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Civility parole is almost impossible to enforce objectively. If an editor has been repeatedly uncivil in a certain area of the project, whether teletubby articles or deletion discussions, it is simpler (and far more common in past cases) to ban the editor from that area for a period of time. Thatcher131 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.

2) badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, second choice. Per whatever people might be thinking, although I don't think there's much evidence for this either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A general caution? I think this needs some elaboration to be useful. ChazBeckett 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but people seem to think I should be held accountable for something, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Much too vague. Newyorkbrad 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff is warned

3) No action is taken toward badlydrawnjeff for any excessive zeal he has displayed, although he is warned to be aware of the situation around him for the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per MONGO arbitration last year. Still unnecessary in my mind, but throwing it out there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole

4) Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole. Escalating blocks, etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Based not only on the most recent evidence, but on years of activity. Enough is enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nonsense. Tony delivers, from time to time, a needed dose of hardened common sense, but I am unaware of a circumstance where he has caused an escellation of tensions in relation to this matter. Phil Sandifer 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read the evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see four diffs that you unconvincingly describe as condescending. Phil Sandifer 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see why. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is wishful thinking at best - David Gerard 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR

5) Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR, which includes deletions and closing of discussions and debates per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war#Doc_glasgow.2C_Bumm13.2C_and_Mailer_diablo_cautioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Had he not been warned about this in the Brandt case, I wouldn't bother, but his action shows a lack of understanding of the magnitude of the situation. For the record, removal of administrative rights may be too strong at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be founded on a misapprehension as to what exactly constitutes wheel-warring, and a misreading of the referenced arbitration case. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should just ask for a removal of powers, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussions and debates is not an administrative action. Other than that, I have always considered myself on a 0-1RR as regards admin actions. If I've broken that, then detail it, I will explain or apologise.--Doc^g 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See the evidence page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The intent of this is more to hold Doc more accountable for his activity. If 1RR-style stuff is out, then maybe a different rationale is necessary - restricted from making decisions on deletions without secondary input or restricted from non-OTRS deletions. I'd like to refrain from a complete loss of tools, as this isn't a chronic situation but rather a recent problematic one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If you violate adminstrative 1RR, you're probably wheel-warring, which you shouldn't be doing anyway. This is not in line with current practice. Doesn't actually say anything. Moreschi ^Talk 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All administrators are on administrative 1RR regardless under normal circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow placed on civility parole

6) Doc glasgow placed on civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Doc glasgow strongly cautioned

7) Doc glasgow is strongly cautioned regarding BLP deletions, especially when challenged in good faith by other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding what? Makes no sense?--Doc^g 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Doc glasgow admonished

8) Doc glasgow is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Again, due to Brandt case. Weakest scenario. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

JzG admonished

9) JzG admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

JzG placed on administrative 1RR

10) JzG placed on adminstrative 1RR, which includes deletions and closing of discussions and debates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per long history of disruptive closures of discussions and questionable deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, that does not seem to be good remedy. Sean William @ 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Per above, not in line with current practice and attitudes towards wheel-warring. You violate admin 1RR, you're probably wheel-warring. We've moved on since the Tony Sidaway arbitration case. Moreschi ^Talk 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

H placed on civility parole

11) H (talk · contribs) placed on civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a remedy, not an enforcement, isn't it? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per evidence submitted to the arbcom-l list and evidence page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Private communications are not within ArbCom's scope barring extraordinary circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this is fairly extraordinary. Also, the MONGO case noted that off-wiki attacks were permissable as evidence. ArbCom has the relevant logs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd say extraordinary is when somebody's life has been threatened off-wiki. That happens, incidentally. It's admissable, sure, but is it actionable? Mackensen (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

General caution

12) Administrators are cautioned to not disrupt the community via the short-circuiting of discussion or the unilateral activity on controversial or contentious situations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. General precaution to the rest of administrators not involved in this particular case, but doing the same things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

And if that "unilateral activity in a controversial situation" is completely the right thing policy-wise and is later roundly endorsed? Moreschi ^Talk 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions

8) Badlydrawnjeff is banned from deletion discussions for X amount of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As noted above, there's actually no evidence for this except that people don't like what I have to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Extension of my proposed temporary injunction. Is well-supported by the evidence - Jeff disrupts these pages, plain and simple. Phil Sandifer 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Too broad. Perhaps restrict to BLP deletion discussions, at best. Moreschi ^Talk 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP discussions are where Jeff causes the most harm, but they are not the whole of his problem. Phil Sandifer 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This still falsely assumes I'm disruptive in these discussions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff put on civility parole

9) We have some standard civility parole boilerplate, right? Can someone put it in here for me? Thanks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Supported by the evidence, though this may not be an issue if he's simply banned from deletion discussions. Phil Sandifer 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility parole is about the hardest remedy to enforce objectively. Thatcher131 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And I've already proposed this myself. Not that I'm chronically uncivil. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff banned from Wikipedia:Deletion review

10) Badlydrawnjeff is banned from commenting at Wikipedia:Deletion review for X amount of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, no evidence that this remedy is necessary. I have not been disruptive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Alteration of Phil Sandifer's proposal above. Sean William @ 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you have been. Why else would we be here? Sean William @ 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We're here because of the disruptive deletions of an article. People simply want to make it about me because I dare to challenge them. I haven't been disruptive, and there's no evidence to suggest it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff restricted

11) Badlydrawnjeff is restricted to one comment in any deletion debate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jeff often makes valid points, they get lost in the noise. Keep it to one comment per debate (which may be amended, perhaps with an upper limit on size or number of edits) and it would be easier to tell the two apart. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

5)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: