Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

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 - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute, 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.

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.

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:

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)

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 )

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), 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 Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute 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)

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)

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 Biographies of living people at the articles involved. Specifically, as Newyorkbrad writes, we need to know whether 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. ZsinjTalk 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. ZsinjTalk 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. ZsinjTalk 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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•S hik ari [T] 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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... Thanks TT.  Daniel  11:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Updated statement
I regret that in light of developments this evening at Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23, 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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 Snowball clause (which seems to be/not be an essay) and 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.)

And finally, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.--Docg 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, 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 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.--Docg 17:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.--Docg 11:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. 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". <font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">Meowy 00:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification : Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by EconomicsGuy II
To help clarify to what degree the ruling applies to articles submitted to Articles for Deletion I'm filing this request for clarification.

The ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case says:


 * (Principle 4) Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

I would like the arbitrators to clarify if this means that:


 * Administrators are not required to delete such articles but are merely entitled to do so even when closing Articles for Deletion debates
 * Articles that would otherwise qualify for speedy deletion per this principle may be submitted to Articles for Deletion instead. Specifically, if an article is submitted to Articles for Deletion before an administrator spotted it and invoked the ruling the ruling no longer applies but is superceded by deletion policy?
 * Consensus on Articles for Deletion is enough to satisfy the consensus requirement and effectively change the burden of proof back to the party concerned about BLP violations since the burden of proof on Articles for Deletion is on the person wishing to have the article deleted

The ruling also says:


 * (Principle 3) In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

I would like the arbitrators to clarify if this means that:


 * Material removed even by non-administrators in good standing may be reincluded by anyone, specifically non-administrators, as long as this is done per consensus on Articles for Deletion even before the debate has been closed
 * The burden of proof when such an article is submitted to review on Articles for Deletion is on the person making the deletion rather than the person who reincludes the disputed material thus effectively changing the burden of proof back despite Principle 4 as cited above.

Thanks.


 * The article that prompted this is Thomas Muthee but I've seen this happen before. To JzG: I'm not asking for that. Please re-read what I said. I'm asking to what degree the arbitrators believe that normal deletion process can be applied to BLPs that happen to end up at AfD rather than be speedy deleted per the ruling. If deletion policy takes precedence over the ruling then the ruling can be gamed by taking the article to AfD where the requirements for consensus are less strict because the burden of proof has then been reversed back. I find that very problematic because according to the ruling the burden of proof is on the party that wants the article kept. Are you telling me that "I see no BLP problems" is a sufficient argument to establish such a consensus? If so I think I've overestimated the usefulness of this ruling. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kirill and Flonight. That clarified it for me. I was not aware of the Footnoted quotes ruling. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One more question or actually two questions. Per your responses below do you believe that such AfDs should be closed early by non-administrators and would you please explain how this edit history is possible if administrators are expected to keep disputed material out of BLPs and sanction those who keep reinserting it. It seems to me that the ruling is a lot of words that aren't being enforced. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
I don't see any ambiguity here. The principle does not limit the venues at which a deletion may be made, the presumption is always that contentious material be excluded until there is clear consensus to include (that burden of proof exists for all disputed content, anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter). The only unclear thing here is that the requester seems to be asking for a reversal of the normal burden of proof at DRV, solely for BLPs, which seems perverse to me - contentious BLPs should be more likely to be undeleted? Why would we do that?

I have no idea which article prompted this question, it might be helpful to know which one. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Scott MacDonald
The burden of proof when such an article is submitted to review on Articles for Deletion is on the person making the deletion rather than the person who reincludes the disputed material thus effectively changing the burden of proof back despite Principle 4 as cited above.

Em? No. Need we say more?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Portions of the Badlydrawnjeff ruling have been superseded by the broader enforcement provisions of the Footnoted quotes ruling. Absent an unambiguous, active community consensus to restore disputed BLP material (as provided for in the latter decision), administrators are authorized and expected to ensure that it remains removed, regardless of whether the article happens to be undergoing AFD. Kirill (prof) 09:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kirill that the BLP policy applies on every page in Wikipedia-English including articles up for Afd and where the deletion discussion is happening. The intent of the BLP policy is to modify the application of every policy on Wikipedia as it relates to content about living people. In the case of Afds, this change means that the past practice of keeping content on site if there is not consensus to delete is altered. In the short term, deletion (or blanking) is needed in some instances for articles about notable people as the content is researched for accuracy or reliable sources are found. For articles about living people the past default practice of "Keep" for notable people does not work unless the content is changed so it complies with our core polices and the BLP policy. This applies during the deletion discussion if an user raises concerns about the content and cites the BLP policy or the Footnted quotes case ruling. I hope that helps. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Kirill and FloNight. As a side note, the mentality of dealing with BLP articles the way tabloids do has to change. That is not really what Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is about or should encourage. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">fayssal  - <font style="background: gold">wiki  up®  03:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff
Initiated by  TS at 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * Notifications of named users are linked after the names
 * (initiator)
 * , formerly Docglasgow
 * I would prefer that the clerks make all other notifications.
 * All admins are affected by this so perhaps the clerks should make a note at WP:AN
 * The Committee of 2007 should be informed as a matter of courtesy


 * Clerks please inform me if they would prefer me to perform all relevant notifications.

Statement by Tony Sidaway
A long time ago on an internet far away...


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

<!-- That was a different Arbitration Committee and there has been a lot of history since then, so I'd really like the Committee as it is now composed to revisit this. I think it's still true but I think it's fair to ask for a reappraisal. They said:

Summary deletion of BLPs
 * Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

So, have things changed? Is it still the case that "[a]ny administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy?"

I've been told repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that this is bullshit.

Assuming the statement of the 2007 Committee is still substantially true, is this also true?


 * this deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

I thought we got a good result in the Badlydrawnjeff case, but here we are three years later, the unsourced BLP problem is far greater than it was then, even the fact of the case is being challenged, and the prospect of removing unsourced crap about living persons from Wikipedia seems to be very far away.

I want Wikipedia to celebrate its tenth anniversary with a clean conscience: no unsourced crap about living persons. But we need to get the interpretation of policy straight, first.

A clarification from the Committee of 2010 is required. Tell us, was the Committee of 2007 wrong? If the Committee of 2007 was substantially right, is there something else that the Committee of 2010 can add? Would the Committee of 2010 have any other clarifications to make on this topic? --TS 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased that Thparkth agrees that "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step." Obviously the determination of "contentious" is a matter for administrative discretion and so it can be stipulated that the administrator must make that determination which (as the Badlydrawnjeff case establishes) may be challenged by the usual methods before the article is restored. Arbitrators will appreciate that the principle of 2007 reverses the normal principle of "if in doubt, do not delete". --TS 22:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

From a discussion on my user talk page, clarifying my own interpretation of the Badlydrawnjeff principle:
 * I completely agree with the "due diligence" criterion. The deleting admin must know that the article is unsourced (by actually looking at all revisions) and believe that it is potentially damaging. That establishes a very low watermark from which I hope sensible discussion can proceed.

For what it's worth. --TS 22:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see us clear the crap out by out tenth anniversary on January 15, 2011. To do that we need to have a basic agreement that admins can handle the mounds of crap en masse subject to basic principles that I thought had been laid down. When the BLP was created Wikipedia was less than five years old, now it's twice that age and the problem is much worse than it was then. The BLP will fail unless we can agree that it actually means that crap will be deleted. --TS 23:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

--> (I cut a load of superfluous mumbo jumbo that is better covered by Doc, who knows a lot about what has happened since 2007).
 * And what Doc says below, although as far as I can tell he's saying pretty much the same thing in 2010 language and is quoting a motion of the 2010 committee. But I was too busy failing to make the climate change probation work to notice it much. --TS 23:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I take the point Carcharoth makes about "tailing off" of enthusiasm in recent months. It's quite noticeable in a graph that has been plotted. Won't it always be a problem moving forward that we'll always have more BLPs than anybody can be bothered to watch over except to jump the hoops they're forced to jump to keep them alive? The answers to those questions must await the arrival of a strategic deletion policy. I wrote something about this about five years ago, must dig it out. --TS 05:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I really love Uncle G's suggestion. It answers all of my concerns without upsetting anybody. --TS 13:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the fruit of an idea I had about improving our day-to-day coverage of BLP edits:
 * User:Tony Sidaway/Living people/tranches

8 editors have volunteered already but we could always use more eyes on these sensitive edits. The system is quite simple but I promise that the targeting of the most vulnerable BLPs will improve in the course of time. --TS 19:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Thparkth
Contrary to the wording of this request, the issue at hand is not "was the Committee of 2007 wrong?" but rather "what did the Committee of 2007 mean?". Did they mean that any unsourced BLP could be summarily deleted by any admin who might choose to do so? Or did they mean that any unsourced BLP which was contentious or negative could be summarily deleted?

This is the key issue about which it would be helpful to obtain clarification.

The 2007 decision said that administrators might summarily delete a BLP "if they believe that it significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." The relevant policy is, I believe WP:BLP. Nowhere in this policy does it state that merely being unsourced is grounds for deletion of an article. It says that If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step (my emphasis). So my understanding is that unsourced BLPs may be (and should be) deleted summarily if they are signifantly contentious or contain negative material - but the great majority of unsourced BLPs do not.

Obviously I read this in conjunction with WP:BLPPROD which does specifically allow for the deletion of unsourced BLPs created after March 18th this year; but even then it is not a summary deletion.

It would be very helpful if we could have clarification on which interpretation is correct for unsourced BLPs created before March 18th; summary deletion on sight, or summary deletion for problematic articles only? To be fair to all the people involved in this discussion, a significant degree of interpretation is required to determine what the practical effect of the 2007 wording is, and there is room for good faith disagreement at present.

Statement by Scott MacDonald
Pertinent here is the more recent Summary motion regarding biographies of living people deletions.

I took this to mean that while speedy deleting unreferenced BLPs was consistent with policy, the community would be better served achieving the goal (not having unreferenced BLPs) by "less chaotic means". And that the hope was that this would be secured through a centralised discussion "on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy."

With that in view, speedy deletion were discontinued (indeed as soon as the case opened there was a moratorium - the speedy deletion ended as soon as their was some momentum to find a "less chaotic" way) and I an others worked for an agreed "way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy" ( here and elsewhere). After many months the best we got was stickyprod. Stickyprod only deals with new unreferenced BLPS (created since May) - and it took a lot of effort to get through.

It was suggested at that point that the backlog could be fixed. I can't find the diff, but I agreed that we should give this some time (months) to see whether that was realistic. I was not at all sure it would prove the "way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy" arbcom desired. It has turned out not to be.

Ten months later 24,000 articles are still tagged as unreferenced BLPs - that's 24,000 individuals who are written about in this encyclopedia with nothing checked and no quality control or evident maintenance. The rate of decrease has slowed. If the current rate continues, I estimate it will take three years to eliminate the backlog. (And this is only one of many aspects of the BLP problem.) I regularly scan these articles using Google metrics and find serious BLP violations. This is simply not a ""way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy".

I agree with arbcom that a "less chaotic" means is desirable - but it also has to be "effective enforcement". I have judged that there comes a point where some chaos may be a lesser evil than continued ineffective enforcement of the BLP policy. That is, after all, the spirit of "if the rules prevent you improving..." which I think arbcom was referencing.

I'm still earnestly, but not optimistically, hoping there can be a better way, which is why I have not resumed any speedy deletions. Any help you can give would be appreciated.--Scott Mac 22:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ways forward

 * Two fairly sane solutions have been offered, which ensure a certain end to unreferenced BLPs, but don't entail mass deletions.
 * 1) UncleG's proposal to blank (and I'd add {noidex}) the remainder. A category can be kept, and they can be unblanked by any user who references them. If more are discovered they can be instantly blanked too. No adim actions.
 * 2) Set deadline and use stickypod: My own suggestion was set (say) 30 weeks, stickyprod 1/30 of the backlog per week. End deadline, no backlog - but as many saved as possible. (Remember prods can be undeleted if anyone offer to fix them up.)
 * Both of these are better than mass-deletions (I'm marginally more excited by UncleG's). However, if mass deletions are taken off the table, the thing will stall with filibustering. That's why I suggested a deadline for an agreed process: it focuses minds and says "no" to an endless status-quo.--Scott Mac 13:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Milowent
TS stated on his talk page that, under this 2007 arbitration decision, "All admins are empowered, on their own cognizance, to kill unsourced articles about living persons." I asserted in response that such a claim was "bullshit," hence TS referenced that term in his statement. But its also true. TS also stated "I have absolutely no intention of ever sourcing an unsourced BLP." TS started this same ill-advised assertion at AN, and with consensus clearly against him, has now come here.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 22:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Note: I revised my language slightly once smoke started coming out of my ears.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  01:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to request for additional information from Kirill

 * How large of a problem are we faced with? In other words, how large is the backlog, how quickly is it being processed, and how much new material is added per month?
 * I believe the backlog of uBLPs was about 50,000 in early 2010 and is now about 23,300. However, about 6,000 of the current number are uBLPs tagged since March 2010, so the original backlog would be down to about 16,000, but we have found more along the way (not surprising, as I am sure there are more to be found).


 * How effective are the currently available community processes in dealing with the backlog?
 * Everyone can easily access backlog articles to source them (and can search by topic), or evaluate for prod, afd, or copyright problems, etc. New articles are subject to BLPPROD to prevent new unsourced BLPs for adding to the burden.
 * Projects which are doing the sourcing such as Unreferenced BLP Rescue have found very very few occurrences of defamatory material in the backlog.


 * Can the existing processes be improved to deal with the backlog more efficiently, and how?
 * see below

What can we do to clear the backlog by the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia's founding? Do we need some sort of centralized drive to source and/or remove these articles? Is there some other method we haven't tried yet?
 * Its a simple matter of work that has to be done, and can be done. More volunteers, and the backlog can easily be eliminated by that anniversary -- a centralized drive would be great, if that sort of thing even works.  We have 3.5 million articles, attending to 23,300 is a drop in the bucket.  Its a shame that those re-raising this debate aren't actually sourcing articles or know what the true landscape is like in the backlog.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  15:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Snottywong
It is the responsibility of the article's creator(s) (and/or those who argue against the article's deletion) to ensure that reliable sources are cited. If they failed to do so, then the article clearly "significantly violates an aspect of the relevant policy", in particular WP:V. So, per the 2007 ruling, these articles are all fair game for deletion by an administrator. Any deleted BLP's which are actually about a notable person will eventually be recreated by an interested editor who will take the time to cite sources. However, in the interest of preserving some of the work that was put into creating these articles, I think it would be best to set a deadline and delete them in phases, per this proposal. <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#F2F9FA;color=#225DC8">Snotty<font color="#33CC33">Wong gab 23:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by The Pope
I'd disagree with a few statements made by others that overstate the problem. TS said " the unsourced BLP problem is far greater than it was then". I don't know how bad it was in 2006 or 2007, but we have brought the number down from over 50,000 at the beginning of the year to about 16,000 of them, plus we've found or had created or had tagged another 7000. We have allocated to WikiProjects over 10,000 articles. That is a lot of checking and cleaning that's been done this year.

Scott Mac said "that's 24,000 individuals who are written about in this encyclopedia with nothing checked and no quality control or evident maintenance" This is also plainly not true. The true number of individuals written about in the encyclopedia with no quality control is MUCH HIGHER than 24,000 and includes most referenced stubs and articles. Watchlist stats, other cleanup tags, "Newly created article still tagged from 2009", etc etc show that focussing only on UBLPs is, in a way, pretty stupid and misguided. And lots of the UBLPs do have some form of referencing in them - to IMDB, to related organisations (ie University faculties, sporting organisations) or offline or poorly formatted links. Not good enough, but higher than the "nothing checked and no quality control" that Scott refers to. I would guess that MOST people (not bots) who tag an article with the BLPUnref tag would give it a quick check for unreferenced negative comments.

The bottom line is that we are working on it, and what we need is more involvement from more editors, a better way to stop new articles being created without references (force new editors to edit before creating?) and more involvement from more editors. Deletion by "unusual means" isn't the solution. By all means attempt to delete them, but one at a time, AfD, PROD or BLPPROD please. The-Pope (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback
I don't see how this issue is within the mandate of the ArbCom. This decision sets policy. The community should develop policies through the traditional means. I suggest that the decision be withdrawn and parallel language be added to the BLP policy with community input and consent. <font color="#595454">Will Beback  <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessary to withdraw an old decision to de-emphasize it. What's needed here is more community action, not less ArbCom action. Rather than revisit an old decision it'd be better to update the policy itself. I agree to action on this topic, but this is the wrong venue for it.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    11:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement By WereSpielChequers
Deleting unsourced or poorly sourced uncontentious material on notable subjects is very controversial and disruptive to the community, especially when done insensitively and without informing the authors. The shift to a hierarchical and threat driven editing environment with priorities and targets set by deletionist admins has been disruptive and damaging to the whole project. It has also been counterproductive for the BLP project, as the uBLP debates and RFCs have been a major distraction that has diverted attention away from more contentious material elsewhere in mainspace. The drive to focus on articles identified as unreferenced BLPs ahead of various higher risk areas such as unreferenced BLPs not yet identified, and high risk words and phrases, is a classic example of the pitfalls of targeting that which is easily measured above that which is truly important. Arbcom should reaffirm that admins are to respect the work of goodfaith contributors, give a ruling that part of the deletion tagging process is the informing of goodfaith editors, and encourage those who wish to remove unsourced content because it has been tagged as unreferenced BLPs to prioritise unsourced controversial content instead.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Kirill - how well is sticky prod working?
Arbcom want to know how effective the changes are that were made earlier this year. User:Epbr123 has now gone through several thousand of the uBLPS tagged in recent months and reports that: "'I've prodded about 210 and I think I'll be prodding about another 40 (although I should probably make an effort to source some instead). There are about a further 400 'unsourced BLPs' created after March which I'm hesitant to prod because they contain a source of some kind, usually a primary source or imdb. The number of old uBLPs I found was about 3,000. Epbr123 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)'"

That broadly confirms my experience. BLPprod works fairly well at dealing with newly created uBLPs, but as with any new system some bedding in is necessary. Totally unsourced articles are now being deleted or sourced fairly quickly, we still have some work to do in re-educating some longterm editors about the new minimum requirement, I've deflagged 3 Autopatrollers and I suspect we will need to identify and deflag more. Of course a system where every month hundreds of goodfaith articles are tagged for deletion, and in many cases deleted is close to institutionalised newbie biting and we need to improve the way we communicate our article requirements to new contributors.

The vast majority of the articles being added to the backlog are actually old articles that are being found, and we have no idea how many there are still out there to find, though one can assume it is a small subset of the 2.9 million articles we have that are not currently tagged as living people. Setting a target for eradicating the unknown backlog of unreferenced BLPs that have yet to be identified is probably not helpful as it is a "known unknown" situation.

That still leaves an anomaly re articles that are tagged as uBLPs but have some sort of link that names the subject. These are still coming in and whilst some are simply tagging errors, poorly sourced articles are a bit of an anomaly re BLPprod. Some of them can simply be corrected/amended to BLP sources BLP IMDB-only refimprove or BLP IMDB refimprove, but there is a difference between the criteria for BLPprod and unreferencedBLP. In the last RFC I tried unsuccessfully to broaden the sticky prods to ignore articles where the only attribution was to MySpace, Utube, Facebook or LinkedIn, and I suspect that many of the 400 will be in that group.

The way forward
I would suggest to Arbcom that:

For the known backlog of 23,000 uBLPs the community should celebrate a successful major cleanup exercise, and encourage the team that has been working on this to continue doing so. A message from Jimbo to the 600 or so participating projects would be timely, and might well prompt people to see how much more of this could be cleared by the tenth anniversary. Replacing a successful and hardworking team with a different approach such as batch deletion or mass blanking would not in my view be the best way to improve the pedia.

For new articles my preference is that we tighten the BLPprod criteria as I've previously suggested, though I appreciate such a policy change is outside of Arbcom's remit.

If we were to launch a major initiative with the aim of completing it for the tenth anniversary, then I would suggest that we do so for one of the higher priority BLP problems. The known uBLPS are by definition a lower priority in BLP terms than the unknown uBLPs, so completing some sort of audit of our old articles to identify unspotted BLPs should be a higher priority than tackling the known uBLPs. However the work this year by various people has established that the old uBLPs are rarely our articles with problematic BLP material, so if we want to encourage editors towards a particular task for the tenth anniversary, there are more pressing problems elsewhere. Other much higher priorities include auditing all the articles containing certain troublesome words or phrases and blanking or referencing unsourced negative statements. Using reports generated by User:Botlaf from the whole of mainspace I've checked through "Douchebag" and am working through other high risk words and phrases at User:Botlaf/Abuse, and for less serious vandalism at User:Botlaf/Poop Patrol I've got a regular patrol for pubic and similar vandalism.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
As noted by others, parts of the statements by Scott is at best disingenuous and at worst deliberately deceptive. He seeks to portray his pet peeve in the worst possible light in the hopes that Arbcom will overrule community consensus to allow a resumption of the indiscriminate destruction of Wikipedia articles. Indeed, Scott will complain that there are still 24,000 articles in the backlog, but he'll never admit that at the start of the mess he helped create, it was over 50,000. Given the number or articles tagged this year, it means that over 35,000 articles have been sourced in some way in the last 10 months and argues that the process the community agreed upon is working.

For whatever reason, this is not good enough for some, and so they come here in the hopes that ArbCom will once again step outside of its scope and try to behave like a legislative body. ArbCom has no right to dictate policy, and ArbCom frequently makes it clear its mandate excludes content disputes. What to do about any class of article is related directly to content, and as such the 2007 ruling, the 2010 motion and this request are all outside of ArbCom's mandate. ArbCom needs to do the right thing here and vacate all existing decisions that attempt to set policy, and instead show its respect the work of the community, which has already proven that it can deal with the issue. As there is no issue brought forth related to user conduct, there is nothing ArbCom can do to satisfy the wishes of certain editors.

But since it has been raised, now would be an excellent time for ArbCom to fix its past mistakes. Resolute 01:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

@Kirill: "The BLP policy will be enforced, one way or another" The BLP policy is being enforced - unless you can show me that contentious unsourced material is consistently not being removed or sourced once identified. What purpose does your veiled threat serve? Resolute 14:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

@Scott MacDonald - either solution has potential, but this is not the proper forum to propose or decide upon either. A clean discussion in a centralized location that focuses on presenting ways to ensure the backlog continues to be cleared, done so in a positive rather than thretening way, should achieve a desired result. Certainly the first set of BLP RFCs resulted in good policy changes. Resolute 16:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jclemens
I propose the following two findings of fact, each of which can be substantiated, and one conclusion: Conclusion: While the use of administrator discretion to deal with inappropriate or problematic BLPs on a case-by-case basis should continue unfettered, the use of wide-spread deletion without individual review of potentially problematic BLP articles is harmful to the encyclopedia's content and should be avoided. The Arbitration Committee should remand the processes involved in cleaning up the rest of the "BLP not meeting V" issue to the community, and specifically disallow mass deletions of unreferenced articles for which no specific assertion of a problem exists. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Unreferenced BLPs" and "problematic BLPs" are orthogonal classes. No evidence exists that Unreferenced BLPs are more likely to be defamatory than those which claim to have references.  Anecdotal evidence from Joe Decker and DGG suggests that the vast majority of unreferenced BLPs are  innocuous, sourceable, and appropriate encyclopedic content.
 * The community has developed a number of mechanisms for dealing with BLPs which do not meet V. The evidence that this has been working is the decline in unreferenced BLPs, despite their ongoing creation, since this issue was last brought up.

Statement by The Wordsmith
This is not just about libel. The question of whether or not unreferenced BLPs are demonstrably more problematic than sourced ones is irrelevant. This is about our basic commitment to verifiability, as well as our responsibility to living people in particular to get it right. Some people point out that the 23,000 unsourced BLPs is not our biggest problem. They are correct. However, that is not an excuse to do nothing. The unsourced BLPs are a good place to start, though. After that, we can work on improving the poorly sourced BLPs, of which there are more than 36,000. When you add the number of unsourced BLPs to the number of inadequately sourced BLPs (most of which were unsourced BLPs before this sourcing drive) the total is startlingly close to the 57,000 we originally had, with plenty of room for those BLPs that were discovered later. Just how much has been accomplished, then? I urge Arbcom to uphold the principles behind Badlydrawnjeff, and allow us to handle the problem where the community has failed. The Wordsmith Communicate 02:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Llywrch
There are a number of biographical articles on living people (referred to in Wikipedia jargon as "unreferenced BLPs") which lack sources. Many of these have been identified, although reportedly more exist. Over the last several months a small group of Wikipedians have worked to reduce the number of known unreferenced articles from roughly 52,000 to somewhere around 23,500. Now comes Tony Sidaway who, instead of complementing these Wikipedians for their diligence, declares this number is unacceptable & wants the remaining articles deleted. He had first gone to WP:AN/I with his demand, but apparently failed to find there a response he was satisfied with, so now he seeks from you his desired response. Based on these facts, I ask that the ArbCom decline Sidaway's request for the clarification he seeks, & ban him from further petitions to the ArbCom in any form relating to these articles, until he has provided sources for a specified number of these biographical articles on living people. I leave it to my fellow Wikipedians Milowent & Jclemens, who have been working on these articles & have participated in this petition, to specify this number -- or anyone they believe should help decide. -- llywrch (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
The earlier discussions this year and the processes instituted to remove unreferenced BLPs make this now a "content dispute" where the underlying policy issues have been properly addressed already. Collect (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber
I used to be strongly opposed to mass-deletion, however having some method of indexing removed ones makes it much more acceptable. Uncle G's proposal has merit in that regard.


 * To carcharoth 'maintenance of wikipedia' is such a non-concrete term as to defy description. To what level? Ask SandyGeorgia about watching medical articles or anyone in any one of many contentious areas. You simply can't assign an absolute and anyone looking for perfection or anywhere near that may as well leave now, as it won't happen. We just try and make the best 'pedia we can.

Statement by Joe Decker
''How large of a problem are we faced with? In other words, how large is the backlog, how quickly is it being processed, and how much new material is added per month?''
 * As per Millowent, we've reduced the total backlog size by about 25K from about 50K to about 25K. There were a lot of articles newly tagged in this period, and it was my observation that many of those predated the BLPPROD cutoff date, so I think the actual rate of sourcing was somewhat higher than this. At the present rate, how long it's going to take to catch up is a matter of how much people are willing to put time and effort into it.  (I've done my thousand articles and more) I'd guess as little as six months, as much as three years, if nothing at all changes.
 * As per several folks, in my experience only a tiny tiny fraction of these articles are deeply problematic (BLP attacks, copyright violations, etc.)

How effective are the currently available community processes in dealing with the backlog?
 * Sourcing articles continues to make progress every month. I suspect BLPPROD has helped, although that's difficult to measure. There was an increase in newly-tagged-as-unsourced-but-unsourced-for-longer articles, or seemed to be, this Summer, which confounds making precise guesses. Would I like the process to be easier and faster? Sure.  But it's still making relatively consistent progress, with occasional plateaus but not... yet... .consistently stalled. Still, I understand impatience, I feel impatient too. I think the critical variable for solving this problem is "the number of hands on deck."

Can the existing processes be improved to deal with the backlog more efficiently, and how?
 * I suppose this depends on what one means by efficiency. As I don't support mass deletion, I won't recommend that option but would have to admit that it's highly efficient. It also probably bites ten thousand relatively unfrequent, many "new" editors, of course, and throws out a lot of content, some of which (by my observation) has been worked on pretty well. There's nothing "efficient" to my mind about throwing out an hour of editing work because someone hasn't spent five minutes searching in Google News. Similarly, there's nothing to my mind efficient about mass BITEing.

''What can we do to clear the backlog by the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia's founding? Do we need some sort of centralized drive to source and/or remove these articles? Is there some other method we haven't tried yet?''
 * We have some wikiprojects, I'm not great at marketing so I don't know how we can get people actually excited about doing the "work" that's required to source articles. But, Shell asks:

''I strongly suggest everyone commenting here re-read Uncle G's highly relevant comments in the recent AN thread. There are ways to resolve this situation without drama.''
 * I've been enormously impressed by the copyright cleanup effort Uncle G refers to. Enormously impressed.  As an initial impression, and realizing I haven't thought out every possible unintended consequence, it seems to me that such an approach might be a very constructive way of getting more hands on deck for sourcing. Leveraging the BLPunsourced tag, or another like it, having it blank the page, etc., might allow for lots of hands to go and put sources on those articles without every step requiring administrator assistance. That seems huge to me, and I would fully support a trial of this solution on a scale of 1000-2000 articles immediately (I think that a smaller set wouldn't really show how effective this tactic was at recruiting new people to the effort of sourcing), with a full rollout a few weeks later if we didn't get bitten by some "surprise" in the process, and assuming that this really did expedite the process of getting those articles well-sourced. In a full rollout, there might be a (completely correct) increase in CSD/PROD/AfD activity, I doubt that would be huge (in my experience the vast vast majority of these articles can be well-rescued), but if it was too large an effect I'd recommend simply throttling the blanking process. --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 19:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I have views on this topic, but will await further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of what would be useful going forward, I largely agree with Kirill's comments (except that I think he meant to refer to SirFozzie rather than Risker). The most useful input will be along the lines he outlines. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like productive discussion is continuing in other forums. This should continue and result in further progress. I agree with the comments of several of the other arbitrators. I don't see any need for clarification or action by the Arbitration Committee at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee. I'm surprised this argument made it from ANI to here. Really I am. (deadpan). I'm going to wait for further statements, but I also have views on this topic. Also, please consider this a fervent request... keep all statements brief, concise and cordial. The Clerks will have full reign to refactor or remove overly lengthy, or flame-fanning statements. SirFozzie (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my suggestion, not as an arbitrator (we dealt with this in January as arbs, and while the problem has lessened, it's still there), but as a fellow editor. Looking at the WikiCup and the honoring of those who do the most Featured (X)/GA/DYK (and thus, honoring those who do the most to improve the encyclopedia's content), let's create a competition.. starting, say, December 1, and running through Feb 1, 2011 (three months). The top 10 editors who add references to bring articles up to basic Wiki standards get special one-of-a-kind barnstars or banners (I'm thinking the Bronze BLP Barnstar for 10th through 6th, the Silver BLP for 5, 4, 3, the Gold BLP Barnstar for #2, and the Platinum BLP Cup for the top editor who brings them up). Harness Wiki-editors basic competitiveness and creativity while we make sure that we never get in this state again, where the threats of mass deletions are considered necessary. I will participate, either as a judge or as a plain participant, although I certainly do not have any designs on winning one of the prizes myself. I'm going to post this to the ANI Subpage to see what people think. SirFozzie (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be possible to increase efficiency here and for people to work together to both: (a) clear backlogs; and (b) identify the truly problematic areas and prioritise cleaning those areas up (e.g. the metrics Scott MacDonald mentioned). I hate to say it, but more and smarter work, and less discussion, might be better here, with the encouragement of staged batches of BLP prods, but certainly no 'threat' of mass speedy deletions. The backlog may look big, but generate and maintain enthusiasm for good-quality work, and it is possible to tackle such things. The problem here seems to be that the motivation tailed off. Find a way to keep people motivated to continue working on this, and watch the backlog go down. The bigger problem is making sure that the growth of the encyclopedia doesn't outstrip the potential for editors to maintain it, if it hasn't already done so (or at least find ways to counter that problem). But whatever happens, please don't fight and argue over it. There are enough clueful people out there to reinvigorate and drive existing processes, rather than coming over all heavy-handed and full of drama. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WereSpielChequers, thanks for the update on the stats. I have a question about some BLPs I worked, but I'll ask that at your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find myself in agreement with Risker SirFozzie: I am shocked, shocked to see this come up again. The question of whether the Badlydrawnjeff decision technically "authorizes" the course of action that Tony is proposing is a bit complicated—note, in particular, that the clause in question is a principle, not a remedy, and thus might arguably better be characterized as stating the Committee's understanding of existing policy at the time—but strikes me as ultimately uninteresting. Whether or not the suggested mass deletions are permitted, I think it's obvious to just about everyone that they are hardly an ideal solution, in that they are difficult to sustain in the long term, and cause significant collateral damage of various sorts. Rather than continuing to debate the wording of a three-year-old ruling, I would ask that those commenting here submit statements that address the following questions:<ul><li>How large of a problem are we faced with?  In other words, how large is the backlog, how quickly is it being processed, and how much new material is added per month?<li>How effective are the currently available community processes in dealing with the backlog? <li>Can the existing processes be improved to deal with the backlog more efficiently, and how?<li>What can we do to clear the backlog by the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia's founding?  Do we need some sort of centralized drive to source and/or remove these articles?  Is there some other method we haven't tried yet?</ul>The BLP policy will be enforced, one way or another; but I would very much like to see this discussion result in an approach that we can all collectively move forward with, rather than resulting in further division within the community. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest everyone commenting here re-read Uncle G's highly relevant comments in the recent AN thread. There are ways to resolve this situation without drama. Shell   babelfish 03:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An expansion on Uncle G's postings now that the thread has been moved to a subpage is located here. A pointer to this discussion has been placed at WP:VPP. It would be of considerably more benefit to the project if this can be resolved at the community level. I note particularly Uncle G's reference to the "editors with the teaspoons" - and urge everyone to remember that this project is largely built and maintained by such editors. Thinking out of the box is useful in situations like this. Risker (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff
Initiated by   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    at 01:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Will Beback
Does an ArbCom decision made four years ago have precedence over current policy? Specifically, does Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff override Biographies of living persons? If so, do all ArbCom decisions nullify community-written policies indefinitely?

The context of this question is that Scott MacDonald has been deleting sourced articles on the grounds that they are inadequately sourced, with no apparent effort to improve them and without notifying anyone, in violation of both WP:BLP and WP:SD (IMO). He cites Badlydrawnjeff as justification. At least two of the articles did not qualify for deletion under those policies: Swami X and Jerry Mezzatesta. Scott has indicated that he will continue doing so unless the ArbCom tells him otherwise. <font color="#595454">Will Beback  <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    01:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is not a request for any enforcement nor for any determination of a policy violation. I am simply asking which text takes precedence: WP:BLP or Badlydrawnjeff.


 * To Cla68: The ArbCom policy gave a general principle. The current policy fleshes out that principle with some additional requirements, including a requirement to try to fix the article and a requirement to initiate a discussion after the deletion. The question is, if there is a conflict between a current policy and an ArbCom decision made four years ago takes precedence, which takes precedence?   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    02:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To Scott: I respect the authority of the ArbCom. The decision they made four years ago is a definitive interpretation of the policy as it existed then. But I don't think that a four-year-old decision by nine people binds the community indefinitely. Is the community not allowed to adopt any policies that modifies Badlydrawnjeff by setting limits or imposing reasonable requirements on admins before and after deleting articles? Does the community set policy or are any parts of WP:BLPDEL which contradict or aren't included in Badlydrawnjeff void and inapplicable?  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See also: User talk:Scott MacDonald#Swami X User talk:Scott MacDonald#Bonnie Bleskachek and User talk:Scott MacDonald#Incorrect use of G10  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    02:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To SirFozzie: I'm asking for this clarification to find out if a four-year old ArbCom decision binds admins instead of a current policy. The details of Scott's deletions aren't relevant to that question. No evidence is required to determine which page has precedence. That said, my specific concerns are that he made little or no effort to improve the articles before deleting them, that were not so bad they they had to be deleted outright (as opposed to just deleting the under-sourced material), and that he should have initiated discussions following the deletions. Those are all part of BLP but not necessarily of Badlydrawnjeff.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    03:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't see anything in Arbitration/Index/Cases/2010 that seems relevant to this matter. Was there a recent case that says Badlydrawnjeff trumps WP:BLP?  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    03:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To SirFozzie: Are you saying that the ArbCom makes policy instead of the community, and that the ArbCom's current statement of the BLP policy is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding BLP deletions? If so, should we copy that text into WP:BLP and delete any text that disagrees with it?  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, after that January motion, the community conducted a very large RFC. Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase I. The conclusion drawn by the closing admin in that (and the subsequent Phase II and Phase III) seems to be that the community has not supported summary deletions outside of policy. The BLP policy has been amended to cover summary deletions since then. My question is whether that current policy is superseded by Badlydrawnjeff, or even by the January 2010 motion. If it is, does the ArbCom have the general power to nullify community-written policies?


 * To Coren: WP:BLP adds details about how and when summary deletions should be conducted. That policy says, in part:
 * Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., due to questionable notability or if the subject has requested deletion) then this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard.
 * Does the ArbCom feel that it is unreasonable to ask admins to try to improve or rectify articles before deleting them, that it is unreasonable to say deletion should be the last resort used only for articles that can't be fixed, and that it's unreasonable to ask them to start a post-deletion discussion? If so, then I suggest those provisions should be removed from the policy in order to bring it into compliance with the ArbCom' old motions.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    05:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, all ArbCom candidates were asked about this exact issue in question #5 a month ago.
 * ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.
 * Similar questions have been asked in past ArbCom elections.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    06:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: There's no reason this needs to be decided immediately. Given all factors, it'd be fine to defer this to January. Maybe it'd be best to put his on the back burner to develop slowly. <font color="#595454">Will Beback  <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    10:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From Arbitration/Policy/Draft:
 * The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy may be enforced. Previous Committee decisions are considered useful and informative, but are not binding on future proceedings.
 * If the ArbCom decides that its motions override WP:BLP or other policies then this section should probably be removed or altered significantly.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    07:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To Tony Sidaway: This clarification request is not intended as a referendum on Scott's administrative work. It is simply a question of which text is the governing policy: the ArbCom's Badlydrawnjeff/January motion or the community's WP:BLP.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad: There are, in fact, several significant differences between Badlydrawnjeff and the current BLP policy. I've posted the relevant passage above. For example, Badlydrawnjeff specifically says that admins should only delete if every single revision is in violation, a requirement missing from BLP. OTOH, BLP requires that the admin make an effort to fix the problem, that deletion is only a last resort for unfixable articles, and that a discussion should be started after the deletion. So the question remains - which of these texts takes precedence: a motion by the ArbCom or a policy written by the community. <font color="#595454">Will Beback  <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

To SirFozzie: The issue that I'm asking for clarification about it being ignored by the ArbCom. I am not asking for a decision on Scott's administrative actions. I am not asking for the ArbCom's interpretation of what the BLP policy should be, or how BLPs should be handled. I am asking one simple question: which text takes precedence: the motion passed by the ArbCom or the policy written by the community. <font color="#595454">Will Beback  <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Although I have only been asking for a clarification of the policy (which hasn't been forthcoming), others have treated this request as being about Scott MacDonald's deletions. In that regard, Scott deleted today an article on a pedophile priest that had references to articles in the National Catholic Reporter and the Irish Independent, and a transcript of a documentary shown on the BBC. He called the article "poorly sourced" and deleted it out-of-process. When I asked him to undelete it he refused and threatened to block me. See User talk:Scott MacDonald. I believe that Scott may have taken some of the comments here to mean that he has carte blanche to delete sourced articles without following either WP:BLP or WP:DELETE. <font color="#595454">Will Beback  <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    03:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To Shell: Badlydrawnjeff is currently being used as a tool to "beat people about the head". That ArbCom motion passed four years ago. The BLP policy has been updated since then. The simple question, which the ArbCom seems unwilling or unable to answer, is whether the BLP policy written by the community is overridden by the ArbCom's old decisions. The default answer is that the ArbCom does not set policy and therefore Badlydrawnjeff and the January 2010 motion are not policy. WP:BLP is the policy. If I am incorrect in that assumption please say so explicitly.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To JzG: Scott refused to restore a sourced article that he deleted out of process. See Tarcisio_Tadeu_Spricigo. Note that there is a difference between a roadblock and a legitimate procedure to prevent abuses or mistakes.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    15:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To Cool Hand Luke: CHL is misinformed that Scott has always been willing to undelete articles upon request. (See above). When he has done so, it's been subject to his terms. If the ArbCom sets policy, the policy which would seem to be implied here is that admins may delete any sourced BLP upon their personal judgment, and may hold the articles hostage to their idiosyncratic views of adequate sourcing.
 * If consensus doesn't normally exist on Wikipedia then we need to rethink the entire project. WP:CONSENSUS says: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Has the Arbcom abolished this policy?
 * Wikipedia has policies, not "policy clouds". There is nothing in Arbitration/Policy nor Arbitration/Policy/Draft that says the ArbCom may issue fiat decisions binding on the whole community or the administrators. That is what Badlydrawnjeff and the January 2010 purport to do. If the ArbCom wishes to start making policies that bind the whole community or the admins then members should announce that intention and try adding that change to Arbitration/Policy and Policies and guidelines.
 * The ArbCom exists to resolve interpersonal behavioral disputes. If individual arbitrators, or anyone else, think that WP:BLP needs revision then they may make or propose changes. That hasn't happened in regard to summary deletions, the text of which has been mostly stable for more than a year. Until they are changed, I would expect admins and other community member to follow WP:BLP and WP:DELETE [more or less] as written.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    15:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald
I review hundreds of BLPs every month using various methods to hunt for unreferenced negative material. Mostly I simply remove the material from the articles when I find it, and there is not controversy.

Occasionally, when the violating material is basically the entire article, I delete it. My justification is found in the arbcom ruling:


 * Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy. 

Of course, an administrator acting on their own judgement can be wrong - and I sometimes am. (I could point to dozens of horrible things I've uncontroversially removed using this policy in mitigation of any alleged errors. Although in truth I delete very few articles.) Be that as it may, when someone approaches me about any deleted bio, I am always open to finding a way forward. I've regularly undeleted articles where an established user has agreed to fix the violations, or I've userfied it. If the challenging user isn't satisfied, then we can always amicably take the thing to DRV for a wider discussion.

The discretion given to admins here is an essential tool in dealing with BLP problems. The principle is simple, if an admin judges there to be a problem, he may remove the material, and delete when necessary. The action is always open to challenge through discussion and review - but we err on the side of keeping the material OUT until either the deleting admin, or a consensus on DRV is satisfied the article can be restored. It is better that a few marginally notable BLPs are gone for a bit, than we weaken our already inadequate safeguarding against problematic material.

In the case in point. Will beback didn't agree with my deletion. Fair enough. However, what he then did was simply restored the BLP prior to our discussion. That's clearly not acceptable and could be dangerous - even if he was right here, he's not infallible enough to be reversing BLP deletions without discussion. (After the discussion, I restored the article myself.)

Worryingly, Will rejects arbcom's authority on this matter - but insists on the exact letter of the deletion policy being followed, in the way that he, rather than the Committee interpret it. I believe arbcom has given admins more discretion: because on balance the danger of bad BLP material remaining outweighs the minor loss of some debatable stuff occasionally being unnecessarily removed.--Scott Mac 02:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear. One of the negative BLPs I deleted did have some reliable sources - it also had deadlinks and unsourced statements. It would have been possible, on that occasion, to have taken a different view and repaired rather than deleted the article. As I said to Will when he brought it to me attention, I am always happy to admit mistakes and back up. The price of my willingness to make difficult calls on the margins is that occasionally I get it wrong. In this case, after discussion, and Will's indication he'd reviewed the off-line sources, I restored the article and improved it myself. My difficulty was with Will restoring it himself prior to any discussion, and with his demand that I stop using my judgement to delete BLPs. I have always been willing to make bold judgement calls and then listen carefully to any comments and objections - the mantra with debatable BLP material is: REMOVE - DISCUSS - REPLACE (where appropriate). In this one case it was appropriate.--Scott Mac 09:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nutshell - 2 separable things: 1) My interpretation of policy is correct. Arbcom don't need to "clarify" anything, the admin discretion on poorly sourced BLPs is quite clear to everyone except Will beback. 2) The article in question may have had better sourcing that I gave credit for. Thus my deletion may have been mistaken or over-zealous. However, that was resolved on my talk page (and if it hadn't been belongs at DRV) - there is nothing to arbitrate here.--Scott Mac 13:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Perspective. Slap me for my mistakes if you must, but surely Will et al should be more concerned with things like this and this (found my me just this morning) than with stalking my deletion logs looking for any mistakes on marginal articles.--Scott Mac 14:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @Carcharoth. I'm not sure what you mean. Naturally, I'd encourage as many people as possible to seek to identify and remove BLP violating material. The fact that I can pretty much guarantee to find a significant violation with less than 10 min looking speaks for itself. However, I'm not sure how I'd do that collaboratively. I'm not working through any backlog. If there were a queue of "BLP violating articles" to work through that would be a worry in itself. My MO is to use various metrics to search for unreferenced negative material. Once I've found it, there's generally little to discuss - I remove it. I salute those who systematically work through unreferenced BLPs and source them - but that's not by chosen area. I spent nearly a year searching the unreferenced BLP categories and removing negative material - I've now moved back to searching for offending material more widely. More people should do this, but I'm not sure how one does it collaboratively. For me it is simply a "seek and remove" mission. That's my contribution.--Scott Mac 00:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step. Current policy supports summary deletion of contentious material awaiting verification. So, any assertion that the past ArbCom decision is contrary to current policy is false. Cla68 (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony Sideaway's fairly strong statement below on this matter. In my opinion, admins who don't seem to understand that we should err on the side of caution with regards to BLPs should be barred from further involvement with BLP articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lar
A review of Scott's talk page recently is quite enlightening, Will Beback gave the appearance of rules lawyering. In this case Will Beback gives the appearance of putting a false spin on this by suggesting that current policy and the cited precedent are not in harmony. Scott's analysis of how he is in full compliance with both the case finding and current policy is spot on. I ask that ArbCom swiftly and clearly affirm Scott so we need not waste more time and effort on this. As a bonus, please admonish Will for restoring BLP material without first discussing matters. ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I too agree with Tony Sidaway's strong statement, as well as with Cla68's assessment of those admins who obstruct progress. ++Lar: t/c 05:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cyclopia
I endorse the statement of User:Resolute on Scott talk page: ''But whether you like it or not, a fully fleshed cite to a newspaper article that is not online remains "fully compliant with every aspect of the policy". If you don't like that fact, go build a consensus to change WP:V. As an administrator, your job is to enforce policies as they are, not as you personally wish they were.''

The only thing that worried Scott Mac was that references to negative statements were not directly accessible online. To delete an article on the suspicious that offline references are false is way beyond the standards that we require for BLP and it is a requirement not written in any policy. BLP requires the article to be fully verifiable and sources to be fully reliable, but it doesn't require, to the best of my knowledge, for them to be online.

In deleting the article and in arm-twisting with Will Beback about the restoration of the article, Scott Mac did not enforce BLP, because there is nothing in BLP that requires fully online sources. So we can be sure that an enforcement of BLP policy is out of the discussion. Scott Mac could have at most asked for confirmation of the sources' content at WP:REX if he wanted to be sure, and raise perhaps the issue at the BLP noticeboard to get some editor's attention: but even if both attempts yielded no result, in no way deletion of the article was proper.

I also want to personally note that this is only the last in a long number of attrition incidents between Scott Mac's overzealous interpretation of BLP policy versus the rest of the community. While a significant number of members of WP community are sympathetic with Scott Mac's reasonings and actions, it must not be forgotten that an at least equivalent, if not larger, number of members of the community -including myself- feel that firm enforcement of BLP policy must not become a regular jolly card for administrators to act regularly outside of policy. Such actions have a deep impact in the community by endangering the delicate relationship between admins and common editors, and making many editors feel that BLP overzealous application has a generic, negative chilling effect on editing and consensus-building. I recommend this essay as an interesting read on the subject. Scott Mac in particular seems regularly unable to understand that his own personal interpretation of BLP spirit and ruleset and his personal ethical weighting of BLP interests versus the other encyclopedia interests is not necessarily the only right one.

I hope ArbCom, while recognizing that Scott Mac acted for sure in good faith and with the best intentions, will warn Scott Mac that his own personal interpretation of BLP spirit and policy is not necessarily the only right one, and to confront the concerns of other editors on his actions less defensively and more collaboratively.-- Cycl o  pia  talk  03:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Question from Timotheus Canens
Coren, in your statement that "BLP trumps consensus", do you mean the version that is viewable at WP:BLP, or the committee's view on what WP:BLP should be? T. Canens (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. First, can the committee give an up-or-down answer on whether the deletions at issue here are acceptable? I think no one here disputes the basic rule that unsourced or poorly sourced controversial or negative information must be removed; it's the applications that are generating the controversy. Second, since you seem to think that the "general principle" is something separate from what is written in WP:BLP: if I were someone new to this whole BLP thing, where would I be able to find the documentation of this "general principle" that you are referring to? That is, if someone, who has never encountered this BLP business before (perhaps because they only wrote about, I don't know, moths?), wants to figure out if a particular action is consistent with the "general principle" you refer to, how can they learn about it? T. Canens (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
Cyclopia already stated my position on Scott's talk page, and I suspect my opinion of the January 2010 motion is quite well known, so won't rehash that either. What is highly concerning here is that Scott has moved beyond his habits of attacking unsourced articles and has now turned his zealotry towards sourced articles. And he is using an ArbCom judgment that pre-dates the current WP:BLP policy. Coren - your statement is nothing more than the canned response I've come to expect, but the facts of this issue go beyond simply unsourced material. Scott is attempting to unilaterally re-write WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:AGF because he disagrees with how those policies are currently interpreted, and he is using an ancient ArbCom decision to justify it. Scott deleted an article that was sourced. It met BLP, V, RS. He deleted it anyway because *he* couldn't read the offline cites, and because *he* disagrees with these policies as written. To be blunt, this is borderline abuse of power. As someone who routinely spends time digging up offline sources and old newspaper articles to turn crap biographies into something valuable, this attitude is highly concerning to me, as I would hate to think my work could be so easily deleted because another admin simply disagrees with policy. Deleting unsourced negative articles? Wholeheartedly endorse. Remove unsourced contentious content, reducing an article to a sub-stub if necessary? Endorse. But to delete properly and sufficiently sourced content on a whim? Surely ArbCom was not so shortsighted in 2007 or January 2010 to believe this is a logical extension of those decisions. Resolute 05:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @TS, Lar and Cla68 - Administrators who show an utter disregard for Wikipedia's policies and community and who willingly choose to abuse both in the name of their zealotry should be regarded as incompetent, and lose their bits. BLP is not a shield that grants immunity from the consequences of that incompetence.  Inappropriate deletions in the name of BLP are just as wrong as inappropriate deletions based on any other policy. Resolute 14:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity
To emphasize Resolute's point: the material Scott deleted was not unsourced. It appears (though he hasn't answered my question to this effect) that Scott was simply unwilling to make the necessary effort to acquire them himself. The sources in question were entirely normal newspaper articles, and so there was not even a problem of "poorly sourced". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by 87.254.87.2
There's a false conflict being set up here between policy on the one hand and Arbcom's well established power to apply remedies that give additional enforcement options to administrators in areas in which Arbcom has identified problems. Arbcom have found severe problems in the area of BLPs. Arbcom have remedied this by giving administrators discretionary powers to act in supporting the policies requiring e.g. reliable sourcing of all contentious material, and the Foundation's mandate. That's the clarification. A review of Scott's and Will's particular actions might be warranted, that's something else entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.87.2 (talk • contribs)

Questions to Coren by Cyclopia
Given that the articles under debate were not (I repeat, not) unsourced, but that the sources were merely not immediately available online:
 * 1) Could you clarify the meaning of your statement below in this respect?
 * 2) Do you have anything to comment on articles that are fully verifiable and sourced but from offline sources, as apparently were the articles herein discussed?

Also, when you declare that "BLP trumps consensus" -- Cycl o  pia  talk  11:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you mean that every editor claiming BLP for an edit/action has a free card to do whatever they want disregarding every policy? Should I delete statements fully sourced but from offline sources in BLPs today, against all consensus of editors, would my actions be endorsed by BLP policy and ArbCom?

Question to Coren (and other arbitrators) by Cyclopia (II)
Thank you Coren for your reassuring answers. It is now clear that your statement is not an endorsement of Scott Mac's actions. Now, however, an unsolved point remains, that is, the problematic statement that "BLP (or any policy FWIW) trumps consensus". -- Cycl o  pia  talk  14:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If you declare that "BLP trumps consensus" and then say that "just claiming something is done to enforce BLP doesn't give a free pass" ; then, how can we distinguish mere claims of a single editor from genuine BLP enforcement? For, if BLP application does indeed trump consensus, in practice a free pass is given, since whenever I claim I am applying it, this gives my actions freedom from editorial consensus, and I can safely ignore any claim of my actions being not proper. Conversely, if the genuinity of BLP concerns are to be decided by consensus, then BLP application does not trump consensus but merely applies it. For example, this very RfClarification is basically done to build consensus around an action claimed in the name of BLP. So, actually, consensus seems to be queen. Could we clarify the relationship between BLP and consensus?

Statement by WereSpielChequers
Whilst Scot is to be commended for his removal of unsourced and poorly sourced BLP material, his attempted broadening of the definition of poorly sourced to include offline sources and deadlinks is more troubling. I would accept that if the editor who originally added that information had subsequently turned out to be faking their references then we should regard all of their offline sourced info as poorly sourced. But it is the way of the Internet for links to go dead or be hidden behind paywalls, and if we concede the principle that only currently clickable online sources can be treated as good sources then we do great damage to the pedia.

I appreciate that if we were to start getting vandals who assert fictitious offline sources then we would need to put measures in place for trusted users to check and mark such references as confirmed. But that would be a more logical route than to arbitrarily redefine offline sources as poor sources and start deleting such information.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Milowent
Epic breaching experiment fail. Mezzatesta was a rash and unnecessary deletion; obviously many folks are monitoring Scott's actions to catch these things. I traipsed through Will and Scott's discussion when it started, saw the deleted article via google cache, and quickly was able to verify that the content of the article was substantially accurate. All the bad news stories about the guy are among first hits on google. In the past, Scott has stubbed out articles like this, like he did with Anita Bryant here on October 27. That move was also criticized and the article restored with sources, but it was no doubt a less drastic and much preferable move to outright deletion. We don't want to discourage Scott from removing truly unsourced contentious BLP content, but don't endorse this deletion.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 13:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway
As far as I can tell Doc is quite happy to restore a deleted article whenever somebody undertakes to improve it to Wikipedia standards. Hounding him like this can only deter other willing admins from doing the right thing, and gives the general users the false impression that substandard BLPs are acceptable. --TS 22:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem, and it's a pretty obvious one over five years after Siegenthaler, is that we knowingly and perversely retain crappy articles that we're not prepared to maintain, on the subject of living people. Only arbcom can motivate us to resolve this problem, which has only grown since the principle of deletion was established in 2007. I will ask the new Committee to take this problem on as a matter of urgency. The community is not only failing in this primary objective, it's openly and vociferously thwarting reasonable attempts to mitigate the problem. --TS 00:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Carcharoth is missing the point really. The point about admin discretion in deletion is that it requires only one person (that's what discretion means). It scales because there's absolutely no reason why any other admin should not do the same (and indeed that's how speedy deletion works). Doc has tried working with others and can continue to do so at the same time as he takes the initiative in removing problematic articles. All admins should do this, not just Doc. If they don't, that isn't Doc's fault. --TS 01:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Gigs
One of the major points of WP:V is that "the principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". This is a fundamental and important part of WP:V. We should not allow any concern, no matter how important, to override this principle. If we let this happen, we become a mere summary of public internet sources instead of an encyclopedia. The policy of verifiability is not a policy of verification. While I'm aware of breaching experiments which have exploited the fact that we AGF on offline and otherwise inaccessible sources, we must not let these rare exceptions drive our rules.

I share the concern of TS and Scott that we are allowing the creation and existence of thousands of articles that we are not fully able to maintain. I see this as a fundamental problem with our notability standards, the subject specific ones, which allow for articles to be created on subjects which have not drawn much or any biographical secondary source coverage. I don't think the problem with notability should be addressed through perhaps more expedient means of invoking BLP or perverting Verifiability standards, but rather we need to address that at the core. Gigs (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not saying we should retain exceptional claims sourced to dubious sources, especially inaccessible ones. I view our policies as minimum standards for inclusion, and subscribe to the ideas in WP:Editorial discretion.  That said, I don't think we should let exceptions shape the rules. Gigs (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466
Nothing to add to what Tony Sidaway said here, except my agreement. -- JN 466  03:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by DGG
Though widely said, it is actually impossible that "BLP trumps consensus". First, the policy is in fact the result of the overwhelming consensus of everyone here about the general issue, arb com included. I do not think anyone raises an argument that BLP policy should be ignored or disregarded. Rather, there is disagreement about how to use it, and which of various wordings of it is official. How is BLP to be interpreted, except by consensus? The only thing that can be meant by the statement is that a local consensus that some element of BLP policy is to be interpreted in a particular way does not override the general consensus about how it is to be applied--for example,  we cannot use IAR to decide that the need for reliable sourcing for negative BLP does not apply to a particular article.

In a sense, arb com does make the final interpretation of whether a particular individual has violated BLP policy, and to that extent, does interpret the policy. Presumably it can use whatever interpretation of policy it chooses to use. It could, for example, decide that someone insisting on a particular interpretation was being disruptive, and apply sanctions accordingly. But if this should be an instance where the consensus of the community had been that the person was not being disruptive because their interpretation was correct, this would be a matter of arb com substituting its consensus on interpretation for that of the community. It has the power to do so; that does not necessarily mean it ought to exercise it. We have not yet really had a case where arb com's interpretation of something and the community's interpretation came into direct conflict; if it ever should, presumably the community would resolve the conflict at the next arb com election if it should still consider the issue sufficiently important.

With respect to the specific issue, what we are really asking arb com to say here, is whether in its opinion Scott's interpretation of the rules for sourcing BLP was a reasonable one. (I assume they would not decide to support it even if they judged it unreasonable. )  Here's two examples of what I think would clearly be unreasonable: Suppose  I did not read any language except English, and decided to  remove every BLP where a significant or key part of the material depends on a citation in any language but English, on the grounds that they are inadequately sourced. What would be the attitude of arb com? Or suppose I remove all the articles where the online source is behind a wall that I do not have immediate ability to penetrate, on the same grounds?

My own opinion is that Scott's view here is equally unreasonable, and violates basic policy that Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia, by limiting it to what is available in the internet. It amounts to giving a free pass to whatever Scott thinks are reliable sources.

Further, suppose that the articles Scott deleted are taken to deletion review, and it is decided there that they should be restored. Can Scott delete them over again, on the ground that his interpretation of BLP policy on sourcing trumps any consensus otherwise?  DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bearian
DGG as usual said what I would, but more succinctly. In any case, Scott can't just push his view of what is reliable. We all have to follow consensus. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Can anybody provide a concrete example of an article deleted by Scott which he has then refused to userfy, WP:REFUND or otherwise facilitate some form of fixup? As far as I see it, this clarification is an attmpt to place roadblocks in the way of removing crap WP:BLPs. However sincere the motives, crap BLPs are crap BLPs and we're better off without them. Ask any OTRS volunteer. Guy (Help!) 01:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion
I'm disappointed that things have flared up again. My personal thoughts, both as an editor who's gone through multiple iterations of the BLP policy, and as an arbitrator... Wikipedia must take the utmost care in its articles as they can mislead or actively do harm. BLP articles are especially prone to this. The Arbitration Committee has specified time and time again in rulings (as recently as the beginning of this year) that the utmost care be taken with these articles, and mandated that editors and administrators take every reasonable precaution against doing unjustified harm with BLP articles.

So, my thoughts fall to the following point of evidence. Was the action taken to remove the un-verified (or inadequately verified), negative BLP information and as necessary delete the article (with no prejudice against recreation should a NPOV, sourced article be written) fall under the phrase "reasonable precautions" ? That's what I'll be looking at in this clarification request, and I would request that the parties and interested onlookers answer. SirFozzie (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Will, Here is a 2008 case regarding BLP and the January 2010 motion that affirmed the deletion of unverified or poorly verified BLP articles as a reasonable action. SirFozzie (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as what you say.. the Committee knows that the community is deeply divided over the issue, as the care taken in those two motions state. Those are the facts on the ground. SirFozzie (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Will's further comments: The onus is not on the person removing un-sourced or poorly sourced information, it is on the person wanting to put the information INTO the article adequately sourcing the info. In other words, So Fix It does not apply to the person removing the unsourced/inadequately sourcing (or deleting the article if it completely falls under the prior).. it's for the person wanting to retain the information/article to fix the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is that, in the end, BLP does and must trump consensus. While the efforts of the community in crafting a reasonably orderly manner of dealing with biographies of living persons that are "merely" unreferenced is to be commended, negative statements not supported by a reliable source must be summarily removed, and if the article as a whole is substantially negative and unreferenced then it must be deleted (provided there isn't a proper version in its history to revert to). The onus of providing references for a BLP lie on those wishing to keep it, not on those protecting the article subject (and the project) by removing unsourced negative material.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Cyclopia: No, offline sources are just as good as online sources, if a little less convenient for verification (which is why it's preferable to point at online source when possible). To answer your second point, just claiming something is done to enforce BLP doesn't give a free pass&mdash; but I was answering the general question posed and not commenting on the precipitating incident specifically. Like any other policy, it can be abused or misapplied.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Timotheus Canens: I mean to the general principle, but WP:BLP is clear there too: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced [...] or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability."  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a point is being missed here: the claim that Scott MacDonald deleted articles because the sources were not available online for him to verify. I think this does need clarification, though on balance I agree that the approach Scott MacDonald takes is OK, as long as he does continue to discuss any contested deletions. Pointing to other clean-up work he does (e.g. the years-old BLP diffs he removed) makes a case for more people getting involved with that - Scott, have you tried to get a group of people together to adopt your approach and do more work than you could do alone? You could, for example, include people that had access to sources you might not have access to. The administrator discretion clause doesn't mean administrators have to work alone - they should still work with others as needed where needed, rather than rely too much on their own judgment. What tend to happen there is that admins end up in a 'defensive' mindset, which can be avoided if you work within a group steadily clearing backlogs. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Scott: My point was simple, "I spent nearly a year searching the unreferenced BLP categories and removing negative material - I've now moved back to searching for offending material more widely. More people should do this, but I'm not sure how one does it collaboratively. For me it is simply a "seek and remove" mission. That's my contribution." - you can still do that, but why not work with other people as well, unless you think you can do all this by yourself? Efforts such as the one you are undertaking have to scale, otherwise they make very little impact. Discuss with others how you find and remove negative material, and encourage more people to do what you do. It is possible that others will find ways to improve what you are doing, and discussions will reduce the chances that standards will diverge widely among those doing this work. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tony (TS), my point was that Scot MacDonald could teach others the approach he takes (i.e. spreading good practice) and if while doing that, he comes to realise ways in which he could improve what he does, then the obvious things to do would be to change the way he does things (i.e. improve current practice). I'm not suggesting he avoid exercising discretion, but that he should work with others so they can develop the discretion he has (or realise why he applies the discretion he does). Or are you contending that all admins apply discretion uniformly and get the same results? Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Will, it would be better to re-create such articles as NOINDEX'ed userspace drafts first, to discuss them with the deleting administrator, rather than recreating in articlespace and then having an AfD on it - Scott, is there a reason you created an AfD on this article you and Will are arguing about, rather than moving it to Will's userspace and suggesting the route of DRV before it is moved from userspace to article space? Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also @Will, to the original question you raised, I would say that the community-edited page describes the policy, but that if the editing of that page moves out of line with prior ArbCom enforcement statements, then some new ArbCom statement may be needed, or (better), new discussions on the policy talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see any direct contradiction between the BLP policy and this Committee's decisions in cases such as Badlydrawnjeff. With regard to the appropriateness of outright deletion of problematic BLPs, this needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through a uniform rule or practice. In general, deletion (rather than removal of particular bits of problematic content) is more likely to be warranted where the problems with the article are of long standing, they are serious (rather than more technical in nature), and where the notability of the article subject to begin with is borderline. Of all the BLP related priorities (and there are several), the greatest focus should be on article content that actually poses a threat of harm to the article subject. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, I think the reason that people are answering in this manner is because your request seems to indicate that you want a ruling on which specific wording should be used and plan to go beat people about the head with it. That's an overly legalistic view of policy (where wording often lags behind actual practice) and I think we're saying that it's just not a helpful approach to a complicated situation like this.  BLP is not an all or nothing situation where one set of rules will aptly cover anything that could come up; it's very important here to consider the spirit of the policy, be willing to disagree and discuss things calmly. Shell   babelfish 02:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't believe consensus normally exists on Wikipedia, I prefer the adage "BLP trumps all." I am a bit cynical about this request, like JzG above. I don't think there's anything that needs revisiting on Badlydrawnjeff, and I don't think this is a constitutional crisis. Like NYB, I believe the decision is consistent with the cloud of BLP policy. Articles with long-standing BLP problems are excellent candidates for discreet deletion.

If Scott is deleting sourced articles, as Cyclopia alleges, that seems like a problem. However, as Tony Sidaway says, Scott appears willing to restore any articles that will be improved; seems very reasonable to me. Cool Hand Luke 21:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)