Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Opening statements by uninvolved editors, moved to talk page 1.1 Statement by Hipocrite 1.2 Statement by MalcolmGin 1.3 Statement by GRBerry 1.3.1 Additional Statement by GRBerry 1.4 Statement by User:FrozenPurpleCube 1.5 Statement by DESiegel 1.6 Statement by AnonEMouse 1.6.1 Updated per Newyorkbrad 1.7 Statement by Night Gyr 1.8 Procedural comment by Mackensen 1.9 Comment by Newyorkbrad 1.10 Comment by Johnleemk 1.11 Comment by Sam Blanning 1.12 Statement by Zsinj 1.13 Comment by MONGO 1.14 Statement by Sean William 1.15 Statement by Prolog 1.16 Statement by Deskana 1.17 Statement by (mostly) uninvolved user Dark Shikari 1.18 Statement by Drini 1.19 Outside view by 75.62.6.237 1.20 Statement by uninvolved editor 1.21 Statement by another uninvolved editor 1.22 Short statement by yet another uninvolved user 1.23 Request by uninvolved kaypoh 1.24 Request for clarification by Daniel 1.25 Additional statement by Newyorkbrad 1.25.1 Updated statement 1.26 Statement by Thatcher131 1.27 Additional statement by Johnleemk 1.28 Statement by The way, the truth, and the light 1.29 Statement by Ghirla 1.30 Statement by uninvolved Titoxd 1.31 Statement by User:Jc37 1.32 Statement by User:Nandesuka 1.33 Statement by (technically) uninvolved editor Donald Albury 1.34 Statement by uninvolved user Walton 2 Request for Clarification on administrative reversals 3 Request for clarification of the role of the Committee in administrator action disputes in Biographies of living persons cases 4 When not to revert content deletion without consensus 5 Question about scope of this RfA 6 Fast Track? 7 Leaving 8 Another editor leaving 9 Yay symbolic resolutions. 10 So on what grounds is this page blanked?

[edit] Opening statements by uninvolved editors, moved to talk page

[edit] Statement by Hipocrite

There are serious issues in both WP:BLP and WP:DRV that the community has proven concretly unable to address. The comittee should accept this case to solve said problems. Specifically, DRV as another bite at the apple is either ok, or DRV is to consider process errors only, and BLP means "source" or BLP means "be good." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by MalcolmGin

If the Committee takes this case, I will be looking for an answer on whether users who follow process to try to bring meaningful feedback to otherwise unresponsive/uncommunicative admins can be penalized for trying to do so through multiple in-process methods.

[edit] Statement by GRBerry

I thought the committee should have accepted the QZ wheel warring case at the time it was first nominated, and resolved under much the same principles as the DB wheel war case. This is one small piece of the QZ case, and should not be accepted separately. There is a long running disagreement about how much process is important versus how much admins should be actively encouraged to ignore all rules, and whether certain admins are acting to override or prevent the formation of consensus when their actions are questioned. This is one root cause. Failure to make best efforts to adhere to WP:CIVIL is another; it has been violated by many, including people not named above. The closest to complete list of parties is probably found by taking everyone named in the bulleted list at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Description, and adding as evidence shows is appropriate.

While this is a piece of the QZ wheel warring case, there is a great deal of older history that is also relevant, and should affect the committee's discussion of the parties involved in that history. I think the process/ignore rules division that I outlined above constitutes the ground of most of the relevant older disagreements, and that a lack of civility is a long standing problem on the part of some involved.

[edit] Additional Statement by GRBerry

Parts, but not all, of Doc's additional statement are false and evidenced by actually reading the discussions/diffs to which he points. For example, in item 1, the deletions were garden variety A7 deletions, not BLP deletions. Concerns around BLP were raised in the DRV discussion by one of the DRV regulars he wishes to paint as not respecting BLP. In #2, Doc's statement as to the reason for undeletion is false, as has been explained to him in the discussion he links to. It was to check the validity of his action, which is debatable. Part of the reason that we trust administrators to act unilaterally with the tools is that other administrators can use the tools to review their actions. Because false claims about BLP are a persistent part of the problem, the ArbComm will have to examine all evidence with a critical eye, not just accept what is offered, even when offered by administrators that are generally trustworthy.

[edit] Statement by User:FrozenPurpleCube

I urge the Arbitrators to take up this discussion, not on the grounds brought up here, but on the original request made here: [1]

This isn't about badlydrawnjeff, or any one user in particular, it's about a problem of a different nature. FrozenPurpleCube 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by DESiegel

I was named as a party to the earlier, declined RfArb. I'm not sure whether I should be considered a party now, but I was involved in the events that led to this case being filed. (See my statement in the earlier case [2] [3])

AfDs are intended to be, in some sense, final, in that they are an expression of consensus. Specifically, content deleted by AfD is thereafter subject to speedy deletion as a recreation (WP:CSD#G4), and repeatedly posting such content may be grounds for a block or ban. The only recognized way to avoid this is through a discussion at deletion review, unless the admin who closed the AfD can be persuaded to reverse the close or relist the article. While an AfD with a KEEP result is less final -- repeated nominations are common -- a prior AfD normally prevents speedy deletion (See WP:CSD which says "If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion (except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements), another process should be used instead.") And generally re-nominations after a short period of time with no significant changes or new arguments are frowned on, and may be speedy closed with a pointer to the previous discussion.

DRVs are normally final in a somewhat similar sense. When a DRV discussion endorses a deletion, there are no further places to appeal, and the matter is generally seen as settled. When a DRV overturns a deletion, the article is undeleted and stands on the same basis as any other article, but rapid re-nominations are usually frowned upon as if the article had been kept by AfD. And when a DRV discussion is closed as "Relist" the article is normally listed for a new AfD discussion, where whatever problems the DRV discussion found to exist should normally be avoided.

To speedy close an AfD opened pursuant to a "relist" outcome of a DRV discussion, on the basis that the prior AfD (overturned by DRV) was sufficient is to ignore the DRV close, to disrespect the editors who participated in the DRV discussion, and in general to fly in the face of consensus. This should not be done. Just as recreating content deleted by an AfD should not be done.

(See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Statement by involved User:DESiegel for a longer version of my views on this.)

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to consider whether, under current policy, it is proper to speedy close an AfD opened pursuant to a relist decision on DRV, and otherwise to prevent such discussion from occurring. Matt Crypto's improper revert of Drini's close should also be considered. However, the ArbCom might wish to defer the matter until more discussion occurs at the RfC, since the arbcom specifically suggested that an RfC be filed. DES ^(talk) 20:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by AnonEMouse

Please reject, temporarily at least, and see if the parties can work something out. Per Tony Sidaway, more or less. Prod them hard to work something out, all are seasoned contributors, none are malicious vandals.

If accepted now, I can't help but be afraid that arbcom will come up with the wrong answer, if for no other reason that so many arbiters have expressed their opinions already. But, say that the arbiters can overcome their own opinions and follow procedures and listen to the community: well, community opinions about the article itself seem in favor of deletion, while process and community opinions about the way it was deleted seem equally critical. The best possible answer seems to be to slap the wrists of the deleting admins, and send the article back for another contentious AfD, which it will again fail, since Newyorkbrad's persuasive argument tugs at many heartstrings. It takes a hardened inclusionist to !vote to publically commemorate a kid being the target of teasing and bullying. So the RFAR will accomplish ... what? At best express the views of the community about BLP and process, which views seem to be being expressed in the RFC now, and without any official sanctions. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updated per Newyorkbrad

Strike that. I'm convinced as NYB, it needs to be taken. Accept, per Thatcher131, to decide what is the rule for deleting articles based on Wikipedia:Biographies of living people at the articles involved. Specifically, as Newyorkbrad writes, we need to know whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker was closed correctly. That's the real issue here, whether it is correct to delete a biographical article when anyone unilaterally decides there are unspecified BLP issues. It's not an issue of Badlydrawnjeff's behavior, because, frankly, I'm tempted to undelete that article myself. I need the arbcom to tell me what in the text of Robyn Dawkins I should look at to decide that's it's a violation of WP:BLP, because, frankly, I read it and can't see why it's so clear. Yes, it's an article that publicizes the life of a living minor, but so does Elian Gonzales - should that be deleted too? What's the bright line? Before I would have said "ask the community", but the AFD was unilaterally closed when it was not at all clear. If we admins can't ask the community, we have to ask the arbcom. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Night Gyr

If I'm reading this correctly, this complaint is being brought against Jeff because he wants to see misbehavior fixed. This is coming for all the wrong reasons and I recommend that this RFAr be considered evidence of the incivil hostility and harassment that's been repeatedly directed at Jeff. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Procedural comment by Mackensen

I'm recused from this case and I think my views are sufficiently well-known that I won't both repeating them here. I do suggest, however, that arbitrators adopt a strict view of who is and is not an involved party, and prevent the scope of the case widening beyond the central issues raised. I would suggest that, at this point, involved parties be limited to the bringers of the request and persons who conceivably face sanction. At issue, depending on who you talk to, is the proper role of deletion review, the limits of administrator discretion in closing a deletion debate, the relationship between Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and persons of marginal notability, specifically the subjects/victims of Internet memes, and the point when principled objection becomes disruption. Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Newyorkbrad

There appears to be a very strong consensus that the block of badlydrawnjeff tonight was unjustified and inappropriate. It should not be used against him in any way. Newyorkbrad 02:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Johnleemk

I lean towards suggesting this case be accepted; arbitration would probably be the best avenue for sorting out that fucked up blocking incident, at the very least. It's also clear to me that this RfC isn't going to go anywhere at this point, and only an Arbcom decision will lay it to rest. I have no comment on the substantive nature (or lack of it) of either arbitration request, but I do think the focus should be (as I stated in my comment on the earlier request) on whether disruptive wheel warring occurred, and whether the BLP policy has been followed correctly. Clarification on these two matters appears necessary now that RfC is reaching an impasse on them. Johnleemk | Talk 03:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Sam Blanning

If this case is accepted, it would seem an excellent opportunity for Jeff to follow up on his continual threats to have my supposed abusive closures and threats stopped (along with the rest of the deletionist conspiracy presumably, but I seem to be the worst of it). Certainly, I can't see the need for a separate case for this now or at any time in the future. So if he or anyone else wants to add me as a party, I confirm knowledge of the case in advance.

Incidentally, I am not attempting to bate Jeff, as at least one person has suggested in the past (understandably, though nonetheless wrongly). The reason for my increasing irritance over Jeff's threats is that I plan to be out of the country in a month or two for a significant period of time, and would prefer to know for certain a) whether I am going to have to answer an Arbcom case this year and b) if so, when. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Zsinj

To Badlydrawnjeff, members of -admins, fellow administrators, and to the community as a whole:

My actions last night are the result of trying to play the devil's advocate which resulted in an administrative action. For approximately two hours, I asked questions about the issue with the Jeff and in responce I received the impression that Jeff was doing more harm than good. Some voiced frustration about how the situation was becoming lenghty and filled with drama. However, realizing that this all took place in an internet chat room, and a private one no less, that those individuals have nothing to do with the action that only I committed.

I recognize that the decision to block the user was a relatively hasty and uninformed one. Part of the decision was based upon ending the frustration of my peers and trying to get the involved parties to calm down. Through two RFARs and an RFC, I did not see the discussion reaching any compromises and by myself decided to take the action I did. While I did ask for assistance in wording, the block length and reason are my original thinking. 60 hours would have been Friday and I would have hoped people would have been able to think rationally without Jeff breathing down their necks (figuratively) during that time.

In my opinion, last night I made one block that was clearly not in the community's interest. I have seen proposed consequences of my actions range from nothing and a "stern talking to" to desysopping via CSN. While my opinion on the consequences would be clearly biased, I would like to make it known that there are people out there who are asking for blood, while others are being more rational and realizing that I am not the person to go on an inappropriate blocking spree. Up until the block last night, I stuck mainly to CSD backlogs and the occasional blocking fo vandals (which I noticed on *gasp IRC). If my efforts are not welcome by the community, I will acknowledge that. If it can be seen that I cannot improve, I will disagree, but I am at the mercy of the community and the decisions they make. Zsinj^Talk 11:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, and in contributing constructively to this RFAR, I personally believe that when the first AfD closed with result Delete, this was done based upon community consensus. Community consensus overrides policy always because the community is what makes policy. If this whole event forces the community to change policy for BLP, it should be so. The fact that people are fighting over whether or not they are "right according to policy" or not should be where the problem is identified. Zsinj^Talk 11:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: If a fair uninterrupted deletion debate on AfD is allowed, I am sure no one would debate the outcome so long as the full term is run. Dark Shakari's comment below is spot on. I hope the ArbCom takes the case so that this whole catastrophe can be cleaned up so we can all just get on with our lives. Zsinj^Talk 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by MONGO

Zsinj comments above should be taken to heart...lesson learned and may all admins see the writing on the wall...never block established editors based on off wiki chat...period. I can't imagine any justification to sanction Zsinj for this one poorly executed admin decision. But did Badlydrawnjeff deserve a block...well I think so. Wikipedia is not a battleground, not a place to demand that we have articles about every single ephemeral subject and not a place to engage in argument just for the sake of arguing. Jeff needs to learn when to quit, that he will "lose" some arguments and that he shouldn't assume that others that disagree with him are the ones who are failing to assume good faith.--MONGO 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Sean William

Once again, the Committee will have to keep the scope of this case from getting out of control. If the Committee believes that IRC is relevant to this affair, then several parties (including me) will need to be added, and some logs will need reviewing. However, if this request is only about the QZ deletion debate and not last night's affair, then IRC affairs should be kept completely out of the arbitration. The fundamental question of jurisdiction will eventually have to be addressed, as it was in January. Not my call, obviously. Sean William 12:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Prolog

I think the RfC has already shown that it is false to claim that Jeff is the problem here. The block, "Jeff-opedia" and several incivil comments are all examples of what an editor has to go through when questioning admins' decisions. Although some editors might specifically have a problem with Jeff, the scope of the Zhijun issue is much larger than that. Since the first AFD was brought to DRV, editors that have disputed the BLP problems have been met with hostility and a general "go away, stop it, it's dead, we don't need this" attitude. The BLP issues were disputed not only because the article was well-sourced and the person in question has stated he does not mind the fame, but also because by the third AFD discussion the page had been turned into an article about the meme, and the personal information including the man's name had been removed.

It is easier to blame the inclusionist guy than to accept the fact that there is a whole bunch of established editors who believe this case includes several questionable administrative actions; controversial speedy closures and wheel warring, an admin closing three DRV's on the same subject, potential consensus ignoring, et cetera. Prolog 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Deskana

Given the blocking incident involving Jeff based on IRC discussion (detailed above by other people), I implore ArbCom to accept this case and examine the issue in closer detail. Personally, I feel that even if there was no case before that issue, there certainly is now. --Deskana (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by (mostly) uninvolved user Dark Shikari

I've been watching this catastrophe for a number of days. The instant I saw premature closes that were not justified by WP:SNOW, I knew things were going to end up in a total mess. And not surprisingly, they did.

There are two sides in this debate: one side believes the article should be deleted, the other believes it should be kept. Both have many good points, and the best thing to resolve this would be a single, uninterrupted AfD with a closer who is unrelated to the debate. What has happened is that involved users have been closing debates and discussions have been constantly interrupted to push one side's position over another.

Jeff is on the Keep side, but most of his actions as far as I can tell are simply in response to what could be seen as abuse by those on the Delete side. Jeff should not be sanctioned in any way for what he has done, though it might be advisable to caution him for the future. Those who are working on the opposite side, on the other hand, probably shouldn't be sanctioned either--they may have done things wrong, but nothing deserving desysopping or the like. However, what needs to be done is to have a single, uninterrupted, fair deletion debate. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Drini

Since this seems that's going to be accepted and since the scope seems to be broadening other than jeff's as it was initially, I'd ask the arbiters to also ponder on the issue: "if an AFD was valid, cand DRV overturn it?" and also what's the purpose and extent of DRV. Should the arguments usual on the AFD (like "X has Y google hits", "X should have an encyclopedia article") be valid on DRV (that is, is DRV a second AFD?).

Can Deletion REviews be reviewed to determine its validity? (just like deletion reviews should in theory be only about determining an AFD validity?) or are DRVs final, infallible and ultimate? Is it correct to open multiple DRVs when users disagree with a previous closing? -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by 75.62.6.237

Like Jeff's RFAR of a few days ago, arbcom should punt this one at least til the RFC or RFC's have run their course. Zsinj's block shouldn't affect this; the block was a dumb error that everyone now agrees was a mistake. Drama about the block beyond advising Zsinj to be more careful next time is unnecessary. This all said, the case is not just about the overweight Chinese guy or about Jeff or about AFD/DRV instruction creep, but also about fundamental sources of dysfunction in Wikipedia that may be insoluable by now, yet have to be examined one way or another. I'm not terribly hopeful about the RFC process vs. the dysfunction, but I don't think too-early arbcom involvement is likely to be of much help. 75.62.6.237 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved editor

Sorry to add to this very long list but anyway: I think it's important for arbcom to consider all the repeated early closing going on here, the same SNOW madness that happened in the Brandt wheel war. Several of the involved parties are admins known to be frequent early closers, whose early closes generally generate more hysteria than they prevent. And this isn't just this dispute, it's all the time. If, as Fred said, the idea is to reduce the catfighting/drama, than maybe these habitual drama-causing acts should be examined? GOD FORBID that anyone take the side of "the rules" here (which I'm all for, I've never even read a policy page in full), but it doesn't take rocket science to tell that all this RUSH TO DELETE practice, supposedly aimed at reducing time spent in deliberative process, only makes things worse with controversial subjects. When you have an admin(s) who fail to realize this after many many many times running through the same scenario... Doc G especially - he's been cautioned/admonished/whatever about this deletion stuff already in the Brandt wheel war case. As well as the now repeated use of blocking to make Jeff shut up when he's disagreeing with the wrong admin? How many times has that happened now? And it'll keep happening until someone says "this is not cool" and puts a stop to it.

But mainly what I wanted to say is this: I read Fred Bauder's acceptance, and just want to ask that all other arbitrators avoid pursuing this line of thought. An attitude focused STILL on that "other" website almost a year after the "incidents", in which Jeff has pumped out two featured articles and done more actual encyclopedic work than 99% of WP regulars is an attitude of resentment and of bitterness towards an irrelevant, powerless, non-notable, bandwidth-dead (last I checked) website Jeff doesn't even have any involvement in. In fact, it's this unwillingness to move on from obsessing over that website that makes so many editors resentful and hostile towards Jeff. Any commentary on the workshop or evidence page even acknowledging the existence of that website ought to be summarily removed by clerks or arbitrators. Milto LOL pia 23:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by another uninvolved editor

SimonP says, If there is a problem because a user is insisting on following existing guidelines, it seems to me the first step should be to rework the guidelines.

And that's just it. The administrators who have been shutting down discussions, votes, reviews, appeals, requests, etc, do not have consensus to put their actions into the words of our policies and guidelines. I keep seeing justification for these actions in WP:TLA; and yet no wording in WP:TLA exists. Then, to look on the discussion page of WP:TLA, and the wording that would put those actions into the guideline has been summarily rejected by the community.

So why is Jeff being hounded off of Wikipedia? Is it because the existing guidelines, policies, and processes disagree with him? No, it's because a group of admins are throwing their weight around. Summarily closing off discussions should be rare, and the reasons for doing so should be near unanimous, and obvious. If there are people here who are whining that they hate process for process sake, then they don't need to participate. Surely if consensus and the correct decision (ie, their decision) is so clear then their participation isn't necessary, right?

That isn't to say that ArbCom should take this. Obviously some (*ahem*) members have already made up their mind that Jeff is the problem, and that this won't examine whether there are admins completely over-reaching and harassing Jeff. If that kind of pre-decision is what's been made, then it's a poor idea to urge acceptance. SchmuckyTheCat 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short statement by yet another uninvolved user

Other people have said already most of what I wanted to say. So I'll just urge Arbcom to heavily restrict the scope of this case if accepted, because people will turn it into a free-for all "let's attack everyone I don't like!" thing. -Amarkov moo! 04:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request by uninvolved kaypoh

Yes, the ArbCom must look at Jeff's behaviour, because it is disruptive. But I think he is acting in good faith, and that he is trying to discuss real problems with Wikipedia. I agree with some of the things he is saying. Yes, some admins are acting improperly. Yes, BLP is being abused to remove information about living persons that is not libel. Please do not brush off his arguments just because of his behaviour. Consider what he is trying to say. --Kaypoh 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification by Daniel

Previously titled: Even shorter statement than-the-one-above-by-"yet another uninvolved user" by yet another uninvolved user

I'd ask the Arbitration Committee to immediately clarify the scope of this RfAr upon opening - is the QZ admins being arbitrated? Is this just Jeff and other parties related to the block scuffle? Daniel 07:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel (and all observers) see the talk page. Thatcher131 11:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to see I'm still on-the-ball...</sarc> Thanks TT. Daniel 11:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional statement by Newyorkbrad

For a few days, the fate of "QZ"'s article became the cause celebre du jour on Wikipedia. Tempers rose, shouts of misconduct flew in all directions, the level of process-obsession was exceeded only by the name-calling, the issue was debated in every possible forum on- and off-wiki, and two requests for arbitration were filed.

Just a couple of days later, with this case leaning toward acceptance but not yet accepted, matters already have cooled off significantly. I am sure that many Wikipedians regret various overreactions to events and instances of overheated rhetoric. Meanwhile, the substantive concerns raised by "QZ" and articles like it, which I and many other editors take very seriously as a major set of issues confronting the project, are being addressed on appropriate policy pages and elsewhere.

While I do not approve of some of the user conduct we saw in the past several days, I do not believe any of it rises to the level of requiring an arbitration case. That includes badlydrawnjeff's conduct, about which I have said my piece in the RfC. It also includes the other night's block of badlydrawnjeff, which has been universally condemned. The administrator who imposed the block has been given to understand by all and sundry that he erred; he does not need an arbitration decision to tell him that; but any request for desysopping for a single mistake would be disproportionate and such a remedy to my knowledge unprecedented.

In sum, accepting this request for arbitration would reheat passions that would better be left to cool. And if I am wrong, the committee and the participants will still be here in a week or so, and at least things can then be approached with a little bit more perspective.

Accordingly, I recommend that the case be declined. Newyorkbrad 03:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A few quick points in response to badlydrawnjeff and Thatcher131 who (both below) have summarized well the arguments for taking the case (and I will be as brief as I can, so please excuse some choppiness). I absolutely agree 100% with Thatcher that there are important issues of principle at play here (see my comments on the current RfC and on Doc glasgow's earlier one). The question presented, as he notes, is not whether we need to make progress in addressing these issues, but whether this case is a good vehicle for doing so. I also happen to agree with Thatcher that the ArbCom decision in the Protecting Children's Privacy case was a helpful one, and that some of the best ArbCom decisions are the ones that end without any bans, desysoppings, or other coercive remedies. On the other hand, some useful principles emerged from the so-called Giano decision too, but one could question whether it was worth the trauma the community suffered in the process of getting there. Next, the fact that the arbitrators in voting to accept the case actively disagree on what they are accepting presents a serious issue before any case, if accepted, could move forward (it's not a just matter of defining the precise borders of a case; some of the acceptances literally say the exact opposite of each other). Finally, I have not seen anything that may or may not have happened on IRC in connection with the block, so am unable to factor that into the equation one way or the other. Newyorkbrad 12:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updated statement

I regret that in light of developments this evening at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23#Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker, I now am significantly less confident that the issues at play here can be resolved without an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Thatcher131

With all due respect to Brad, I think Jeff is more correct here regarding the need for someone to do something. Maybe we don't need a case, but someone needs to speak to the expansion of WIkipedia:Biographies of living people. There are some people who believe that BLP is meant only to protect Wikipedia from legal liability, and that as long as an article has a reliable source, it should be kept. There is another faction that believes BLP should be expanded to include moral and ethical concerns. I am in this second group. I believe that Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for the perpetual ridicule of private individuals who are probably more or less decent people who are unfortunate enough to be caught doing something stupid in front of their own or someone else's camera and are made sport of via the internet. The QZ article is just one of many in this class. But it is vital that the community be on the same page, no matter what the specifics are. Maybe jeff is right and certain admins are overzealously applying BLP and abusively stifling debate. Maybe Doc and others are right that Wikipedia should be more humane and ethical, even if that means deleting articles with legitimate sources. Either way, the alleged disruptive behavior here, whether overzealous interpretation of BLP by some admins, or abuse of process by badlydrawnjeff and others in trying to keep such articles, seems likely to continue until this issue is clarified. In fact, there is another such dispute at deletion review right now.

Jimbo could endorse the expansion of BLP beyond mere sourcing and liability issues if he wanted to. The arbitration committee may not feel it has the jurisdiction to set policy, but this is not a matter of naming conventions or other more trivial issues, and as the appointed representatives of Jimbo and final stop in the dispute resolution process, ArbCom probably does have the authority to redefine BLP if it chooses to do so. (The pose that ArbCom has no role is making policy is also somewhat disingenuous. In the Protecting children's privacy case, ArbCom declined to endorse a particular version of a proposed policy, but did endorse principles that have resulted in the de facto adoption of the policy by admins.)

It seems to me unlikely that ArbCom will ban jeff from the deletion review process, or desysop any admins for attempting to expand BLP beyond its previous boundaries, and holding a drawn out case ending up with some "admonishments" might seem like weak tea indeed. However, unless ArbCom or Jimbo wishes to make a pronouncement about this ex cathedra, an arbitration case would be a reasonable venue to review some recent deletions of diputed articles and have the committeee clarify (either by voting on principles or admonishments or both) how far admins may go in defense of BLP, and how far editors may go in support of inclusionism. Without settling this issue, this dispute will arise again.

(I will recuse as clerk if requested, however, we are rapidly running out of clerks and I don't believe my statement is prejudicial to either party.)

• Recused. I no longer feel like I can sit aside and endorse by my silence the enshrinement of the personal problems of private individuals in perpetuity simply because there are enough sources to protect the Foundation from a libel suit. How sad that the private lives of children who were abused will be googlable forever, by friends, employers, co-workers, suitors, and just plain pervs, and how much sadder that Wikipedia should participate in this. Thatcher131 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional statement by Johnleemk

I agree with Thatcher131 and to a slightly lesser extent, Jeff. To limit the scope of this case to Jeff's actions alone is, IMO, ludicrous. In any event, it is impossible to consider the appropriateness of his actions without in turn considering the policies his actions and the actions of others were based on.

We really need to clarify the scope and extent of BLP - as I said, we must know whether it was applied correctly here. The fact that Fred Bauder and a few involved admins have been pushing an interpretation of BLP on the mailing list that few Wikipedians follow indicates that this is a very grey area of policy that must be clarified. At the very least, the Arbcom should indicate whether or not the wide scope of BLP as applied by the admins here is a valid usage of the policy.

As Thatcher131 said, if we do not clarify these macro issues, we will continue to see such disputes arising on a micro level. It may seem painful to have to address this now, but as they say...prevention is better than a cure. Johnleemk | Talk 22:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by The way, the truth, and the light

I agree with Jeff, Thatcher131, etc. regarding the scope of this case. If it is accepted, it must be expanded to include all of this. There have now been three disputed deletion cases in quick succession involving the same issues and the same people on both sides. A general policy is needed addressing BLP claims and wheel warring over it.

As to the issue at hand, I strongly believe that process should be followed and an effort be made to maintain neutrality. Processes do not exist merely for the sake of process, but to keep the peace, as has been demonstrated quite well here. WP:IAR is not an excuse to go against consensus, ever. As far as the actual facts I think they have been amply covered by the previous submissions.

I have no strong opinion concerning the mistaken block of Jeff. I can't believe it was an innocent mistake, but it was quickly reversed and the blocking admin knows not to do it again.

Finally I urge taking into consideration the flagrantly belligerent comments of the side endorsing deletion, especially Tony Sidaway who has a long history of this and has been censured by arbcom over it. Jeff may have been a bit intemperate but it is understandable considering the other side. The way, the truth, and the light 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Ghirla

I don't see anything to arbitrate here and would have urged the arbitrators to reject the case, if it were not for the controversial block. On that subject, I have expressed my opinion too many times to count. Still, I think that the issues raised in that essay (and that one, too) remain basically unresolved. Until the answers are provided and implemented as policy, we will see more similar cases in the future. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved Titoxd

I apparently missed all of the fun while I was away. However, I see that David brought up above the question of whether DRV is being used to go around BLP concerns. That concern goes hand in hand with the notion of BLP being used to circumvent whatever consensus occurs at DRV. If those two issues are not addressed, we'll all be here next week. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Jc37

The following text was my RfAr statement for the previous attempt at RfAr. It seems while I was writing it, User:jpgordon closed the request. It's more about process than about the content in question, but I thought I would post it here nonetheless. - jc37 09:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(As I've noted previously, staying neutral to the content discussion involving the article in question.)

I noticed a question about recalling User:Xoloz on his talk page, concerning some closure he made on WP:DRV. So I did a quick search to see what was going on. I read over the material and saw that relisting was rather obviously the best course of action (since so many still had POV/perspectives/opinions/information to share). While reading, I somehow didn't notice User:thebainer's closure of the relisted AfD, and so closed a new DRV discussion saying that both an AfD and a subsequent DRV shouldn't be open at the same time. When alerted to this mistake, I went to fix it, but another editor (who was involved in the discussion) reopened it. And from there, people were editing/commenting/revert warring rather quickly, to the point where trying to keep up simply by refreshing the page(s) was at times becoming problematic. And the gross incivilities towards each other, from editors in typically such good standing, was troubling to say the least.

One thing I tried to do during all of this was find some guideline or policy regarding "speedy closures". All I've found so far is Wikipedia:Snowball clause (which seems to be/not be an essay) and Wikipedia:Speedy keep which doesn't seem to apply in this case. And of course the WP:IAR elastic clause.

So far I have not found anything regarding speedy closures for deletion being acceptable.

Indeed, the guidelines (WP:CSD and WP:PROD, for example) seem to lean towards only fairly strict guidelines allowing for speedy deletions, with the rules saying that, if opposed, the discussion then needs to be relisted at the appropriate XfD discussion page. And WP:BLP clearly applies after the AfD discussion. (See several sections under WP:BLP#Preventing BLP violations.)

And finally, Wikipedia:Deletion_policy also makes it clear that: "If it is doubtful whether a page is or is not speedily deletable, a deletion discussion takes precedence."

All of this suggests that relisting was truly the best outcome. It's a shame that we apparently have editors who are too impatient to wait a few days to allow consensus to be determined by process.

That said, please pardon me if I find irony in that most of the arbitrators so far have declined this request as being too early in the dispute resolution process. (That itself, seems almost a statement by the committee that Process is important.) - [This was a comment related to the Arbitrators' opinions on hearing the previous RfAr attempt.]

While I would agree that the grievous incivilities of the discussions should start off with an RfC process, the delete/restore close/open of the article and the discussions (I'm attempting to avoid naming it "wheel-warring") is, I believe, more than merely a concern, and I hope that the arbitrators change their minds per my request and others above, to actually accept this request, if only concerning admin and editor actions.

- jc37 09:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Nandesuka

I urge the acceptance of this case, specifically to consider the breathtaking scope of badlydrawnjeff's disruptive behavior. Nandesuka 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by (technically) uninvolved editor Donald Albury

I say that I am technically uninvolved in this case in that I have not participated in the events that led up to this request for arbitration. However, I am quite clear on where I stand on the issues involved here. Leaving aside the personalities involved, this request, IMHO, is about which is more important, adhering to process, or avoiding harm to living persons. As I see it, Wikipedia, as an institution and a community, has certain responsibilities. It has a responsibility to readers to present reliable information (verifiability) in an unbiased manner (NPOV), It has a responsibility to treat all the members of the community in a courteous and cooperative manner. And it has a responsibility to do no harm to living persons. (I am not excluding other responsibilities here, but these three seem relevant to this request.) I would deny, however, that Wikipedia has any responsibility to present every possible bit of information that can be cited from sources. I would affirm, instead, that the responsibility to avoid harming living persons takes precedence over completeness, considerations of 'notability' (however ephermeral or long-lasting it may be) or strict adherence to 'process'. Doc is doing the right thing, and the issue of the repeated attempts to revert him and obstruct the implementation of the WP:BLP policy needs to be resolved. -- Donald Albury 22:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved user Walton

I firmly support Jeff's stand in this case. BLP is not an excuse to ignore process and other users' opinions, nor is it a call for a crusade to censor Wikipedia. The only reason for having BLP at all is to avoid the spread of false and libellous information; it isn't to protect people from the spread of the truth. If the truth hurts someone, then so be it. Any article in which all controversial information is sourced and verifiable, and multiple independent sources are cited, should not be deleted. Nor should process and consensus be circumvented by the few admins who seem to regard themselves as a kind of BLP police. Unfortunately, a number of the admins involved in this case seem to believe that "consensus" consists of arguments which they agree with, and trot out the "voting is evil" line as an excuse to ignore other people's opinions. Walton^Assistance! 18:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Clarification on administrative reversals

In the Pedophilia userbox wheel war, Arbcom found in principle:

8.2) 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." (12-0) [4]

I've always since regarded that as absolute. However, sometimes admins reverse deletions without prior discussion, and insist that arbcom "worded that poorly" - and that they are entitled to undelete and then discuss. The argument is that "wheel warring" is only such if you repeat an action once reversed. I find this troubling, especially in the case of deletions under WP:BLP. I believe admins should discuss while the material remains deleted - and seek agreement, if that's not forthcoming then seek dispute resolution (or deletion review?). Certainly the first step is to invite the deleter to reconsider, rather than reversing. I'm asking arbcom to clarify - 1) do they adhere to this finding 2) is my interpretation correct (particularly with BLP). I had someone trawl my logs yesterday and undelete six items without discussion - but I'm seeking to avoid a disciplinary case by inviting arbcom to clarify the principle.--Doc^g 08:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't think there was much give in that wording myself. I've already commented on this matter elsewhere [5], but I find no fault with your interpetation. In particular, reversing six items without discussion is inappropriate. Arbcom specifically rejected the idea the repition was required. Mackensen (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend that the arbcom make changes to Wikipedia:Wheel war as this interpretation is clearly different to what it states on that policy page. Without clarification there it is not appropriate to make an arbcom judgement against somebody for reversing the action just once. violet/riga (t) 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording is taken directly from the lead, which hasn't changed since the case. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording implies repetition and is obviously not clear if this debate is happening. Some minor rewording would clarify the situation. violet/riga (t) 12:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, I also regard rewording of that phrase highly necessary. Admins are all human beings, they often make mistake (and often serious) without noticing. If reverting another admin's administrative action, whatever circumstance it is in, is always considered wheel warring, then the backlog-revert principle of Wikipedia will soon break down. For a quick example, see this one which I'm personally involved. Mailer Diablo had made quite an obvious mistake in deleting this multiply used image in collateral damage. It would be too inefficient a process if I had to get Diablo's concern before reverting his change. What I did is that, I undeleted, and then left a message at Diablo's talk page. This process is far more sensible than discussing before editing. These evidence show that reversion of another admin's sysop action without prior should not be indiscriminately considered wheel warring. Adding the definition "repetitive" should be a good change. --Deryck C. 06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One more problem spotted: according to the syntax of the sentence, we can interpret it as "Undoing an administrative action by another administrator without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable." This sentence has a critical and problematic grey area: how if the reversion is an attempt to resolve the issue? Is it acceptable then? And even if we have a clear definition for this, how do we classify whether the reversion is an attempt to resolve the issue? I just want to give everybody some ideas on what problems do we need to solve and to what direction is the remedy likely to go. --Deryck C. 17:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP deletions are probably in a different category. But given wheel waring is now a question in an open case, this request for clarification is now moot. I withdraw it.--Doc^g 17:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification of the role of the Committee in administrator action disputes in Biographies of living persons cases

This may not be the right time, but I wonder if the arbitrators would be willing to make a statement on the procedure to be followed in the case of a disputed Biographies of living persons (BLP) deletion.

Is Deletion review to be used to determine by consensus whether the BLP was correctly invoked, or is the correct process in this case Dispute resolution, culminating in arbitration?

Or are either of these suitable, at the discretion of the disputing party? --Tony Sidaway 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on the situation. If it possible to discuss the contents of the article without spreading whatever is offensive in it all over, normal debate is appropriate. If you can't have a debate without repeatedly referring to malicious or libelous material, no. It needs to be in confidential dispute resolution, assuming there is a dispute. Fred Bauder 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who decides what's "offensive?" We're more concerned over what isn't malicious or libelous, which current policy deals with just fine, the stuff that may have negative subject matter (not a negative tone) and that people dislike seeing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The recent debates seem to have been over material that while entirely true and sourced, placed undue weight on a portion of a person's life if it was kept down the line. Is there a rush to remove such material or can we wait for process in dispute cases? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If Jimmy Wales' recent change to the deletion review section of the deletion policy stands, I think the problem is largely moot. There was a problem with people packing deletion reviews in an attempt to overturn reasonable biographies of living persons (BLP) deletions they didn't like; now the voting element has been removed there is ample scope for the closer (who must evaluate BLP claims seriously) to make the right decision without taking into account mere numbers. "Voting is evil, this is nonsense. Admins are encouraged to ignore the results of idiotic votes, and to listen to thoughtful discussions" is pretty unequivocal. --Tony Sidaway 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. So this would also mean that simply shouting BLP would be soundly ignored, which is really what's been causing most of the recent problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Second the above. Without a thoughtfully worded !vote that invokes some part of BLP policy it can be ignored. That makes it much easier to deal with. Viridae^Talk 13:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My question is specific to those where G10 doesn't explicitly apply, though, because they don't contain any libelous or even unreliable statements. Is there an unwritten speedy criteria for BLPs or should AFD be considered the appropriate venue for deletion of well-sourced biographies? It's not in DRV's mission to decide whether content should exist directly, it's there to decide if process was followed, and (IMO) most of these BLP cases deserved to be thrown back to AFD as invalid speedies. Am I missing something? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is such a contentious issue really appropriate for a request for clarification? Would a full case not be a more suitable venue, should the committee decide that it wishes to address this issue? David Mestel^(Talk)

Yeah, this is basically the issue at heart of the separate case I wanted to consider opening on the talk page here. Instead of getting wrapped up in the wheel warring and bad behavior, let's just settle the ambiguity about a policy that's been used as a club. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Night Gyr. If a BLP article is sourced and neutral in tone, then unilateral deletion is inappropriate. It should be taken to AfD for the community to decide. All admins who have unilaterally deleted neutrally-written non-attack pages, citing BLP as an excuse, have been misusing (I won't go so far as to say abusing, since that implies bad faith, which isn't the case here) their admin tools. Wikipedia is not censored, and admins are not dictators; we have extra tools only to carry out the will of the community. Walton^Assistance! 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When not to revert content deletion without consensus

I believe that "when not to revert content deletion without consensus" is best characterized as when it is cluefully claimed as potentially illegal due to Florida/US law on copyright, privacy rights, or libel. Specifically,

• the issue is content deletion and not article deletion
• the criteria for reverting in extraordinary cases should be consensus rather than arbcom or some other criteria
• "extraordinary case" should be include these considerations:
  • cluefully:a trusted editor or cluefully expressed reason
  • claimed: they must claim it but need not prove it
  • potentially: we are not lawyers
  • illegal:nothing less requires this
  • Florida/US law: we don't and can't go by every nation's laws
  • specify the laws as we are not lawyers
    • people keep leaving out privacy rights which are a key reason to not have a bio on semi-notable people. WAS 4.250 23:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about scope of this RfA

One of the issues that was raised in this RfA that I am interested in, is the role of IRC with Wikipedia, but I haven't seen a statement by the ArbCom whether or not this will be covered. I'm not making an argument one way or the other; I'm seeking information. A yes or no would be adequate, but I would received a explanation for this decision as a bonus. -- llywrch 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The statements made up to this point suggest that the issue is going to be dodged. Unfortunate, but understandible given the crazy scope of this case as is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd still like an explicit yes or no from the ArbCom. For no other reason than it's one less item on Wikipedia I need to track. -- llywrch 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fast Track?

At this point, we're reaching a sort of tipping point regarding these issues. Can we start moving toward a resolution on this so we can move on already? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving

Hi. I've been somewhat involved in the discussion about this.

However, I will no longer be commenting. I'm going on indefinite leave from Wikipedia again, and don't intent to come back any time soon.

This whole arbitration case, and how people have responded to it has been one of the factors in this decision.

The continuing trend of administrators to grab at additional levels of power, closed shop and private bureaucracy, and shrugging of responsibility and openness is going to increasingly make this a combative and hostile place to spend time in. Under false guise of 'keeping bureaucracy down' they instead increase unwritten bureaucracy by substituting a hoard of 'unwritten ways' and secret handshakes to get things done. They interoperate vague guidelines and policy in arbitrary and authoritarian ways. They are uncivil and aggressive in their action.

So far not a single thing has been done to correct this, and things are moving in the wrong direction.

Admin prefer to pass the buck and make more work on DRV than take due care when closing on AFD, and admin who consistently make poor choises at AFD shrug it off with 'You can always take it to DRV'.

The attitude is that if an admin takes action agains an editor, the editor has to prove his innocence rather than the admin prove guilt.

Decisions to block are taken off-wiki in private discussions between cliques and cabals.

Admin feel they should be given deference in decision making.

Admins are allowed to be uncivil if they have a high edit count in admin actions.

for these reasons, their implications, and their apparent deep rootedness in the current Wikipedia, I no longer feel this project to be a worthwhile way to spend my time.

I hope the arbitration committee will take this into account on this and other decisions they make. --Barberio 11:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Before everyone gets all up in arms about an editor leaving, bear in mind Barberio has done this before. – Steel 11:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I left earlier this year following personal attacks and incivility from JzG and Radiant and a feeling that administrators were abusing their powers. I returned in an attempt to see if that could be rectified if the community put effort into cleaning things up, and I thought the calls for reform following the Essjay mess would do that. Unfortunately, it hasn't. So unless things change, I don't see any reason to come back again. --Barberio 11:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, you're back. Thought you'd gone. This should be moved the the users own page - it has nothing to do with arbitration. Goodbye.--Doc^g 11:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another editor leaving

Unless there are some major changes dictated by the Arbitration Committee here about how admins should behave in interpreting relevant policy, closing discussions, and supporting the community, both new and old, I'll probably be moving on as well.

I don't blame Barberio one bit for moving on (whether or not he decides it will be a permanent departure). For my part, I think it will be permanent, but I guess I have to see how it goes with the eventual decision-making on this case.

As I have made clear in nearly all my interactions with administrators, I think the community (both the larger one and the community of administrators) needs to really decide what's important about what jobs you do, what responsibilities you have and what your commitment is to the community.

I've seen it claimed in various essays, policies and guidelines, that part of everyone's duty to Wikipedia is to make sure that editors feel supported in their ability to reasonable contribute to the Wikipedia, and supported in their ability to decide what qualifies as good content and what does not, what rules/consensus decisions are reasonable and not to follow, what contributions they can ultimately make are really worth everyone's time.

In the few months since I've joined Wikipedia and contributed, I've had differences of opinion with many of the administrators I've worked with, but with few users. I get the feeling that when one does not have the tools to be patronizing/condescending with users, one finds other, potentially less contentious ways of resolving conflict.

When I got to DRV and had IAR quoted to me as a reason not to follow the consensus-developed policies in speedy deletions, it was the beginning of the end for me. Since then, with the prevailing attitudes among most of the extremely unresponsive (to criticism/feedback) admins being rather negative about fielding anything that could potentially be called negative criticism about how they implement their roles, I've pretty much been reduced to seeing how this arbitration case turns out.

If there are calls from the Arbitration Committee for admins to straighten up and fly right and start (again) really thinking about how all their actions affect other editors, maybe I'll feel okay about sticking around.

But since that seems a very slim chance at this point, my bags are packed, and I'm ready to do a triple backflip and warp on out of here (so long and thanks for all the fish).

So I guess we'll see what happens. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yay symbolic resolutions.

So, after going through all this, the result of the arbitration case is three symbolic resolutions against those who undeleted, stated intent to undelete, or even wanted BLP content undeleted. Nobody at all is sanctioned, and there aren't even symbolic resolutions about people on the other side of the debate. Yaay. -Amarkov moo! 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the administrators was warned that if they repeat the behavior, they'll be desysopped. That's a serious warning and a little more serious than symbolic. CLA 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, this ArbCom decision mainly stated fairly obvious principles. Where I am suprised and disappointed is that ArbCom found nothing in the actions of those on the other side of this question, or at least nothing worth admonishing. BDJ was blocked by the decision of an off-Wiki (what can I call them, since there is no cabal) group of admins; Statements about BDJ, by one admin particularly, have ranged from bombastic to mildly offensive to the purest of distilled vitriol.

ArbCom has, in effect, affirmed the idea that while an admin can, without one iota of respect for the community, delete anything they feel doesn't measure up to BLP, no one may reverse their action directly, no matter how egregious or unsupported, and all disputes must go through process. This is supremely ironic because the arguments of "ignore all rules" proponents have created a situation where more & more of the time, process will have to grind out a resolution to what would have been an easily reverted deletion. There is, under the terms of this ArbCom decision, no direct resolution for deletion against consensus. It frightens me that ArbCom has created, from whole cloth, an entirely new & unchecked power for admins. With one stroke, and without community consensus, the mops & buckets traditionally wielded by admins have been remade into swords & shields. I can't help but be apprehensive at the implications of this change. --Ssbohio 22:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So on what grounds is this page blanked?

While contentious, it seemed impersonal; especially this final decision page. Did someone ask, or what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales reported that he blanked the page by personal request of someone mentioned. There was a thread on Jimbo's userpage, although I can't quickly find it in the archives. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here; It seems very odd, there are quite few real names involved; all I see are members of ArbCom and clerks, who should be used to it. Thanks for the explanation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it is a courtesy. That means it doesn't really need a good reason. Just that somebody's feelings are hurt and it's easy enough to peek under the top revision. --Tony Sidaway 03:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The link to the discussion is enough for me. If it had been here, I wouldn't have commented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, "in the judgment of the community" it says at WP:CBLANK#Courtesy_blanking. So the "community" in this instance was the person who requested it blanked and you know who. By anyone's standards, a rather small number for a "community". Meowy 00:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)