Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision

Archives: 1 2

Arbitrators active on this case

1. Blnguyen
2. Charles Matthews
3. FloNight
4. Fred Bauder
5. Jdforrester
6. Jpgordon
7. Kirill Lokshin
8. Matthew Brown (Morven)
9. Paul August
10. Raul654
11. SimonP
12. UninvitedCompany

Recused

1. Mackensen

Inactive/away

1. Flcelloguy
2. Neutrality

How many active arbitrators?

There are 12 active arbitrators listed here, however Paul August noted that there are 13 on the proposed decision page. Since some of the votes are close, this could make a difference. Chaz ^Beckett 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There are 13 arbitrators listed as active, but one (Mackensen) is recused in this case, so there are 12 actually participating. Newyorkbrad 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And so the majority is...? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Seven. (At least on proposals with no abstentions). A majority has to be more than half the number of sitting arbitrators (to avoid "passing" something on a tie vote). Newyorkbrad 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanction

To be totally honest I don't understand why I'm being admonished. I don't accept that my actions or what I have said afterwards warrant such a severe reprimand. I truly hope that the arbitrators have read the above and the fact that I've spent hours over the past few weeks trying to work with others to make the BLP policy less vague and more enforceable. This seems to have been largely ignored, and seeing comments like "Unfortunately so", "We have no choice", and "Very regrettable" makes me feel that the reasoning behind the sanction is less than clear. violet/riga (t) 15:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding administrators: "Occasional lapses may be overlooked". This currently has four votes to none. So my one "lapse" is not covered by this then? It can't be "overlooked"? Personally I find it impossible to accept that my discussions here have simply served to increase my sanction.

Consider these: opinion is divided on both the BLP policy and the legitimacy of my actions, BLP has caused debate and confusion amongst numerous users, and my actions have actually led to movements towards remedying the problems. Most of the articles I restored have now been properly evaluated and all involved are happy with the outcome, and there still hasn't been a bit of evidence to show that the deletions were valid. I therefore assume that the sanctioning is purely "did not discuss" based. Well as far as I'm concerned there wasn't a need to discuss before restoring as detailed in the "Talking before acting" section, but now that the BLP policy has advanced it would be the necessary action now. violet/riga (t) 19:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

People are watching, violet, and speaking for myself, I want to thank you for standing up for the processes that are the glue that allow (thousands?) of editors to somewhat work together on a project this big. With the exception of the initial undeletes, from what I've seen, you go far and beyond in the area of discussing and persuasion to get consensus in the most unlikely of consensus achieving circumstances (and your intention to discuss the material whaich was undeleted is also clear).

Re: the arbitration committe, with all due respect to the hard work and fairness you must have displayed in the past (to achieve your current status) I don't see it here in this case. It is a shame that this committee has so far, taken action to discourage discussion, in a one sided way (the extra "admonish". . . c'mon). I can't even tell that people on the committe have looked at this talk page except to punish violet a little extra. And that you allow (by all appearances) Tony Sidaway to speak for you, while adding to the toxicity ("process should be roundly fucked in all available orifices" -thinking of adding that to my user page. . .) is also appalling. Tony did get at least one thing sort of right, "The problem here was failure to adopt the commonsense "do no harm" rule of thumb in the underlying policy" (my italics). But it's not right to punish on principles that we can't first widely agree on (and if we could get consensus, then it's just plain lazy to punish first and enact, or adopt, the policy later).

I also want to add that it's not just the individual articles that violetriga has actively participated in, but violet has also been proactive in trying to achieve consensus so that BLP will say what people want it to say. That people try to divine the intent of BLP and then turn around and say violet doesn't understand it, is laughable on some level (especially when, fundamentally, we don't even know if the 'L' in BLP means what it says). To want to clarify a policy is not the same as being against it. Sorry for the long post, but this has been frustrating to watch as it plays out. . .Thanks Violetriga! (For the record, I too support a clearly defined BLP policy and oppose a "deletion without discussion" policy for any article, especially articles that have been on wiki over a year). R. Baley 20:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the arbitrators would recoil in horror at the thought that I speak for them. Of course I don't. I mean it about process, of course. It's very very bad stuff and keeps being substituted for thought, with some rather unfortunate results (qv). --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the arbitrators nor the admins either, Violet. I'd say that you are correct in lack of understanding, insofar as BLP was in flux when you made the changes you're being sanctioned for, and "policy" at that time could be a tricky thing to define. I've looked at the diffs from a two months before, to one month before, to one week up through 29/30 May. I don't think I saw that in /Evidence anywhere. But: A) you seem to accept above that you made one mistake in your undeletions. B) Instead of being contrite and recognizing that one BLP mistake might be a leetle more important than one NPOV mistake (or pick another,) you continued to push the philosophical boundaries of the argument. It appears to be at that moment FloNight decided that you required a greater level of discipline than simply being cautioned. In other words, if you hadn't kept pushing it after you acknowledged you were in the wrong (however retroactively,) I doubt this would be beyond a "Caution."

Aside from all of that, you seem to be missing a fundamental point. Unsurprising, because I didn't see it in the principles brought up concerning the decision. At least from what I understand, from WP:WHEEL, "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it.". Let's say that you're completely lily-white innocent of everything in this case, and BLP is on your side. You still reversed the decision of another Admins, without first consulting the other Admin. That is sanctionable, if I understand things correctly. Sorry for the ultra-long post, and for speaking up when you're really seeking clarification from the Arbitrators, I'd guess. But that's the way I'm seeing this, and I hope that if I'm wrong others will correct my misapprehensions. LaughingVulcan 00:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As was discussed on other pages the definition of WHEEL uses the word "repeat" and at no point did I repeat an administrative action. Following the policy of WP:BRD I see Doc's actions as bold, mine as the revert and, I suppose, all this as discuss. While I accept that discussing things before acting is generally best practice it is worth noting that the deleting administrator failed to accept the BRD policy. violet/riga (t) 08:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as repeating goes, you might well be right. I see reversing an administrative action without request or discussion as the repetition. (i.e. an Undelete repeats the action -though not result- of the delete/keep decision, an unprotect repeats the action -though not result- of the protect/unprotect decision. If a red light turns on and then changes to green, the red light hasn't repeated itself. But the traffic light illumination has repeated, only changing its state. The status of the article has changed back to what it was - in this case, its' existence has now repeated.) But it appears to me now that this is not what is described in WHEEL.

In a similar manner to my error, I'd say BRD does not apply. BRD applies to Editing, not Administrative action. Also, according to its header is not policy, only clarification of consensus as it applies to editing. Is there a parallel? Yes. Do you have a point? Yes. Does BRD apply here? No.

And FTR, I don't think that you deserve the admonishment to the degree proposed. But you might want to ask the arbitrators that if you acknowledge that reversing another Admin's BLP delete action without discussion is a Bad_thing, if you then understand BLP sufficiently to only warrant a caution here and not the full admonishment proposed. LaughingVulcan 12:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• violet/riga, your reply here is an example of the reason that we are moving from a caution to an admonishment. We need for you to understand that BRD is not acceptable practice for most admin actions and rarely to never acceptable for an undeletion if the admin cites WP:BLP or attack as a reason. Your reject of ArbCom's clarification of the wheelwarring policy from your last ArbCom case is factoring into our harshly worded sanction this time around. A wheelwar starts when the first admin undoes another admins action without discussing just because they disagree with it. In this case, several users asked you to reverse your action and discuss but you refused, demanding that discussion to justify the deletion must occur first. This is clearly against the letter (as interpreted by ArbCom) and spirit of both the WP:WHEEL and the WP:BLP policy. FloNight 16:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the policies has been explained. While you might be interpreting some different this shows that they are not worded to avoid such confusion. You have ignored most of what I have said and I find it impossible to accept any sort of ruling when you are not explaining why I am the only one actually being punished here. Sorry but admonishing me for trying to actually sort out this situation is pathetic and it appears to me that you simply wanted me to say "sorry I was wrong, I'll be good" rather than explain it. You clearly have a flawed misunderstanding of my actions and thoughts behind them. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, I am grateful that you are monitoring and responding to comments on this talk page - it seems that others are no doing so. violet/riga (t) 18:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me respond to some of your points. You want me to understand something? Well I'd like to think that I'm capable of understanding such things but this is actually the first time you've stated some of them. Where is the finding of fact that BRD does not apply to admin actions? If this is your interpretation fair enough I can accept that but it doesn't say anything of the sort on WP:BRD. Same with WHEEL - I can barely remember that arbcom case and if the policy has not been clarified since that ruling then I have to question it. No, arbcom don't set policy but if they have the ability to sanction based on the spirit of them then such a ruling really should be reflected in a change/rewording of the applicable pages. You completely ignore the fact that I was trying to do the right thing (which you say admins shouldn't be punished for) and the fact that BLP is a mess. You simply can't deny that last bit and to admonish someone on such a flawed policy is not really fair. violet/riga (t) 18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I discussed this specific issue with you 3 days ago. "As I have stated several times, you drew attention to yourself and got the strongly worded sanction largely because of your statements and conduct after you undeleted the articles. I assumed good faith...that you undeleted because you wanted to help the project. People make mistakes. That can not be helped. But you do not seem to grasp the fact that undeleting was inappropriate. Discussion was needed before the articles were restored. If you had acknowledged that and moved on then we would not be here now. But you lost my confidence when you said that WP:BRD was approprite. In cases where BLP is given for a reason BRD should never be done. That you do not yet understand this idea means that you do not understand the BLP policy. FloNight 19:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)"

It is extremely obvious that the BLP and Wheel war policy precludes BRD in this situation. The problem is that "you" do not understand it. That is the reason that "you" are getting the admonishment and not other users. FloNight 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's so very hard discussing things when people simply don't listen and ignore what you are saying. I think you'll find that you don't understand the BLP policy just as none of us can - the arbcom can't even make a judgement on it! I really don't care if you don't see my actions as "good faith" or not - I know the truth and am happy with my actions. violet/riga (t) 07:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Flonight (above): FloNight, first of all, thanks for responding to concerns on this talk page. I disagree that one action makes a edit/wheel war (caveat: exceptional cases involving lots of users, but I digress). I don't think that interpretation reflects the community's opinion either, as there would be a 0RR rule not a 3RR rule. In this particular case, Violet had been editing the pages in question (or at least that's why I have pages on my watch list, but I think Violet also has said as much) when Doc, who had not been editing the pages (and presumably less familiar with them), went on a deletion spree without discussion, either prior to the deletion or (to my understanding) any time since (also against community policy). By not at least cautioning Doc, the ArbCom is endorsing this behavior.

At the top of every official policy page there is a box that says, in effect, that the principle described therein has wide acceptance and should not be changed without discussion and consensus. I agree that ArbCom should make interpretations where policies are unclear, but some are using your decisions to run roughshod over the consensus process on the official policy pages. I think that ArbCom interpretations should be used as a jumping off point for discussions to determine, or fix, unclear policies; not just inserted, to in effect make new policy.

In the end, or why this case is unfair, is that:

1. This case looked to be rejected. . . until BDJeff was "poked" one last time with a no-warning-out-of-process block due to an off-wiki IRC discussion, but some Arbs would only accept this case on the basis of looking exclusively into his behavior.
2. 2 editors (confining this part to Violet and Doc here) used admin tools initially without discussion. But only 1 editor did it in order to discuss, has a history of discussing issues that are directly related to this, and continues to discuss (yes, sometimes arguing with passion, but always calmly and without threatening to disrupt; unless getting people to agree with you is a disruption). It appears more and more that discussion is frowned upon or discouraged -unless you say the right things.
3. BLP is being expanded into a deletion cudgel -not through discussion, persuasion, and general agreement (which is the "wiki" way; and this way is not only possible, but appropriate to our project) but instead is being expanded by a smaller group of users (ArbCom) with what is, in effect, a court case with one side being handed out punishments while the other is being given implied permission, if not encouragement, to carry on with their agenda.

I'm sorry this was so long, and I'm sure you and most of the commmittee don't agree with my assessment. But I'm glad for the opportunity to get my thoughts out there on this. And even though I'm relatively new here (got here in Oct. '06) I hope that you and the rest of the administrators on ArbCom will consider the above, and consider how it looks to a lot of people. Perception is important, sometimes moreso than reality. 'Do no harm' should also apply to the wiki-editors here and the process being used here to achieve #3 (above) is hurting editors and driving good people away. R. Baley 19:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In contrast to FloNight, I do not see the refusal to reverse an admin action as contrary to the wheel war policy. It seems to me that one essential feature of a war is its length. An admin who decides not to act is actually ending the conflict. To reason as FloNight did seems quite a reach. I think it would be better for arbcom to interpret things as narrowly as possible.Eiler7 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The origin of "do no harm"

I thought it would be interesting to see who added the phrase "do no harm" to BLP and when. It seems to appear first here, on 19 December 2005, when User:SlimVirgin was busy building up the page. Here is what it said:

... there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, may nevertheless feel that they are private individuals, and who may object to being on the receiving end of public attention. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and, in the case of a dispute, should err in favor of respecting the individual's privacy.

[examples]

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing.

The context is very interesting. Both of the examples given are of damaging negative comments of questionable veracity - do we repeat allegations of misconduct made in the New York Times (answer: yes); do we repeat allegations of misconduct made in a student newspaper or satirical magazine (answer: no). Funny how this has grown in the a full-blown ethical position, which results in the redaction of the names of minors, the deletion of articles on sight, etc. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading the same words as you, and I see an ethical statement there: "It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing." I hope there is no serious objection to the redaction of the names of minors, as you seem to imply. We routinely removed the names of minor children from biographies of even very famous living persons. I hope there is no serious objection to the immediate removal of harmful material, up to and including whole articles, as you seem to imply. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That is an absolutely stupid position for any encyclopedia with a claim to objectivity and neutrality to take. It is very much our job to expose people's wrong-doing. Fraudsters, scam artists, hucksters of patent medicines, incompetent or corrupt officials, Scientology, all would probably all face great harm from a neutral, balanced, and completely accurate article. Our goal is not to protect people from any harm, nor to conceal misdeeds or true facts. Our goal is to present reliable facts in a balanced way so that everyone may know the truth, and those who deserve to be hurt by the truth will be, and those who do not will have nothing to fear from our articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not investigative journalists. We don't flinch from reporting bad stuff, but we don't make things worse. The difference is this: if in the course of your research you uncover what you believe to be evidence of a terrible bad thing, put it on your blog. If it's important enough it'll become public currency and then someone will put it into the encyclopedia. Expose scientology? No. Report the many very public exposees of scientology, including the times they were caught trying to hide the evidence? Absolutely. This is inherent in our core policies. If you think the BLP is some terribly new thing that destroys our capacity to pursue our existing policies as well, then you might like to consider that you misunderstood our aims in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the distinction you're drawing is. What would constitute an inappropriate exposé when draw entirely from reliable published secondary sources? I can understand not digging through tax records and property forms and parking tickets to find some screwup recorded in a primary record but not by any secondary media, but if an investigative journalist has exposed something, are we supposed to sit on our hands and not mention it? I look at this the same way as classified material. To meet our sourcing guidelines, it already has to be public information, so we won't be making anything worse as long as we stick to them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do make things worse if we're indiscriminate. In a recent rape case, the defense dug up all kinds of muck about the alleged victim's background. It's a standard defense in rape to denigrate the alleged victim. But we, reporting the case, chose not to retain in full an article, a purported biography, that contained all that detail. The information was all out there, but the alleged victim was a private individual--her identity protected by the court until an advanced stage because of that--so we decided that it wasn't appropriate to have a biography containing all that muck. The case is fully covered, but it doesn't dwell on what is not relevant, and the alleged victim does not have a biographical article about her. --Tony Sidaway 08:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The case is fully covered? Well that's not what happens if you just go around deleting things - you don't even give people the chance to come up with an acceptable solution. And I'm not talking about obvious speedy deletion candidates here but more of the "I'll claim BLP" deletions that have no basis for their removal. violet/riga (t) 08:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We are going around in circles, aren't we? Perhaps one last try:

• The diff that I linked above provides context for the so-called "ethical" statement - It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing. It is clear (to me, at least) that that statement was simply counselling against including poorly-sourced negative comments in a biographical article. It does not deal with well-sourced, neutral comments, like the ones in issue here. In what sense do the articles undeleted by violetriga and others "expose people's wrong-doing"?
• Routinely removing the names of minor children? Like the articles listed in categories like Category:2007 births? Like the children of Jamie Oliver, for example?
• Yes, as you say, we are absolutely not investigative journalists - we do not publish original research; we simply compile information from reliable sources, presenting it in a neutral manner. We do flinch from reporting bad stuff, actually, if the sources are not good enough. On the other hand, we should not flinch from reporting well-sourced, reliable information, even if it is capable of causing "harm" of one sort or another.
• The crux of this discussion is the assertion that a well-sourced, neutral article can be "harmful". How so? To whom? Who decides? How is that decision reviewed? It seems that there are differences of view amongst the arbitrators, for goodness sake. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  An article that does disproportionate harm to an individual cannot possibly be described as neutral. It is inherently predisposed to the detriment of that individual. A classic example of this was the Star Wars kid article prior to my removal of the boy's name. Drawing attention to a case of bullying will be taken by bullies as a license to bully. --Tony Sidaway 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  It's so easy to give one example of an obvious case. Shame that you use it to justify the removal of any names you personally decide should be redacted. violet/riga (t) 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  We all make edits based on our personal judgement. This is unavoidable because it is after all our best judgement. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  Ah, but there's the problem. I don't trust the a large amount of editors to use their best judgement for a subjective concept like ethics. For example, admins are chosen because we trust them with admin tools, but there was never anything that said they would also be making these kinds of judgement calls for deletions. One's personal judgement does not replace the community's consensus. -- Ned Scott 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think we have a choice. To clarify, we must depend on all of our editors acting ethically. This is required by the BLP, at a very minimum (see as an example of this resolution, the proposed remedy "Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy."). In particular, we must depend on our administrators acting ethically. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI.[1] Durova^Charge! 06:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova makes an interesting point, among several; "do no harm" implies that Wikipedia is entitled to request evidence of harm, which will often be none of our business. (I suppose it is possible that we could just assume that all claims of harm are meritorious, as some of the discussion here appears to suggest; I think this very doubtful.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do no harm is not our only ethical responsibility. We are not doctors; we do not claim to heal; we do not ask consent to enter patients' homes or their privacy. If it were, we would be morally compelled to shut down; that is the only way we can guarantee doing no harm.

We have in fact already done harm, and we justify it, I think correctly, in terms of our other ethical responsibilities. We certainly gave pain to dozens (they said millions, but dozens were pained enough to revert war) in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Yet we refused (I was one of those who refused) to give an inch; to warn, to make the illustration a link, or make any other compromise.

Regards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Concern about discouraging admins

As I see it currently, the proposed cautioning of two admins who may have been acting in accordance with deletion policy may have the effect of discouraging them. Perhaps it would be better to "inform" them and recognise that the deletion policy is not phrased as well as it should be. An improvement to the policy would be a good thing to come out of this process. It could be as simple as "... an admin may choose to undelete it immediately unless the stated reason for the deletion was a BLP concern. In that case, the admin should start a discussion rather than undelete" Eiler7 21:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it would be good to realize that the living persons policy is a lot more important than the deletion policy. --Cyde Weys 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a clarification, BLP is a primary policy. It tells us what our encyclopedic content should be like. Deletion is a secondary policy — it tells us the process of dealing with our content. But secondary policies do not ever supersede primary policies. --Cyde Weys 16:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, I can understand what you're saying in that some policies take precedence over others. Can you point somewhere it is objectively stated which are "primary" and which are "secondary"? I can find no such reference. LaughingVulcan 00:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think it's written down anywhere, though it should. It's self-evidently obvious that some policies are core policies regarding what Wikipedia is, and other policies are just roadmaps on how process is conducted. --Cyde Weys 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Self-evidently obvious"? That's what most of our POV-pushers say in article space: it's self-evidently obvious that the moon is made of green cheese, and anybody who reverts them is Suppressing the Truth. So here; if you don't have a source, please don't claim it. I see that WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V no longer identify themselves as core policies; but if anything has a claim to be so, it is those three and WP:CIVIL, under which we have always operated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's some truth in the notion that the BLP policy takes precedence over the others. In particular, it tends to override the proceduralism that has crept into those policies--as can be seen from this proposed decision, which I believe is about to close if there are no last minute changes. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the deletion policy is marked as official. I would suggest we update it if it is inaccurate. If no one objects, I may be bold and update it myself along the lines I suggested above. It seems like a good idea to keep on top of the policy accuracy issue for the sake of admins who are reading policy to find out how to act. Eiler7 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You should make this proposal on that talk page, to get more than a handful of discussants. I support the idea that policy should describe what we actually do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it may actually prove pretty difficult to get the written BLP in sync with the policy as it is practised. When it works well, nobody notices it. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it unfair to read these words as an admission that BLP is enforced in a manner that is against consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I have no great love for BLP, nor for articles deleted where the specific points of why they violate BLP can't seem to be defined in a way which can be understood, let alone agreed with (i.e. "BLP", "It's doing harm," etc. without describing what the specific part is that does that.) But I think it's evident that policies occasionally clash with one another. And thus, those who believe there is consensus for BLP enforcement may conflict with those who believe NOT#CENSORED conflicts (or pick any two policies and it may be conceivable how the policies, and therefore personalities, clash.) It would be a lovely world (well, lovely Wiki) if policy could be coordinated so that doesn't happen. It would be a smoother running Wiki if conflicting policy values would be resolved so that there is no conflict. But I doubt either of those will happen, so if a policy is felt to be enforced against consensus, the proper answer is probably to ask "against consensus about what?" In the meantime, we'll have the Arbcom to settle individual cases of policy clash by judgments and enforcements of the editors/Admins involved. LaughingVulcan 23:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson/Septentrionalis, I think you should take the words as a pretty accurate statement of how a good editing policy works. It's inherent in the BLP that damaging, unfounded statements about a living person are removed without discussion from any page on the wiki that they are found. The intention is that those damaging statements will not be discussed. If the BLP works, nobody notices and they are not discussed. This is why the policy exists. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And yes,one of these days I will get tired of pointing out that I wrote "not censored", and it has nothing to do with keeping damaging rubbish on the encyclopedia. But that day is not today. --Tony Sidaway 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like your claim that you wrote "not censored" is meant as if it should convey some special status to you to interpret it for the rest of us. And that you somehow feel the authority to define what is and is not "rubbish" at Wikipedia in a way which is different from the rest of us. Or that your values of what rubbish is therefore control by fiat over what someone else believes may be a diamond. I don't really believe that, but it appears that way to me sometimes. Sorry if that sounds like a knock. (And, to clarify the above of mine, I meant that it is probably unfair to read that BLP is administered out-of-consensus by the words above. Also that policy clashes existed, still exist, and I would not be surprised that most arbitrations arise because of policy clash. But that also might just be my several years as a extemporaneous speaking and Lincoln-Douglas/Policy debate judge speaking.) LaughingVulcan 01:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And which of us has argued against removing "damaging, unfounded statements about a living person" "without discussion"? That is an excellent statement of policy, and would have consensus - so where's the problem writing the policy? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive clarification

Is there going to be a BLP speedy criterion, or can be invoked without clear rules limiting when it is applicable? If it isn't explicitly added, I am certain we will run into conflicts with those deleting under claims of expanded powers and admins who do as I did and undelete articles which did not meet any explicit speedy criteria. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to clearly put a speedy criteria in CSD to avoid confusion. At the present time, I think there is no consensus as to what the BLP speedy criteria is. The old consensus recorded in the BLP policy was that all versions of an article were unsourced (or poorly sourced) and negative in tone. The ArbComm is obviously massively expanding that criteria for the purpose of this case, but Fred has also said that the principle used in this case should not automatically get written into policy, that is a matter for community consensus. My personal opinion is that the version that has been in the BLP policy is much more workable as a speedy deletion criteria. The tests in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Read this before proposing new criteria imply that only an explicitly defined criteria that does not depend on subjective administrative judgment is going to be viable. "Do no harm" obviously requires subjective judgment, due to requiring a judgment about the status quo ante and in some cases balancing harm to the subject versus harm to others (an article on a scammer, for example). "Do no harm" is unworkable as a speedy deletion criteria, and will regularly lead to controversy, as this case has proven.

It also should be a different criteria than G10. G10 needs to continue existing, as it applies to attacks on organizations, companies, governments, social clubs, etc... which a BLP criteria would not apply to. G10 also applies to a well sourced article, which the consensus BLP speedy deletion criteria has explicitly excluded from speedy deletion. GRBerry 23:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you've got it the opposite on sources, g10 is for unsourced attacks, not well-sourced pages that report negative information (like articles about scammers). The new BLP criterion would allow deletion of perfectly sourced articles judged harmful to someone (which is what every contested deletion in this case has been). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that this won't become a process but will remain within the discretion of administrators subject to the post-hoc adjudication of the arbitration committee. A particularly unreasonable use of admin powers under the BLP, or a record of poor application of the BLP in such circumstances, could lead to sanctions, but judicious application of administrator discretion (which is what the arbitration committee has endorsed here) is likely to be part of the BLP going forward in the future. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What happens if inappropriate deletions (or undeletions) are uncovered months after the fact? Will there be a statute of limitations on this? Oh, and I predicted all this when the proposed decisions were first being voted on, but I'm waiting until an arbcom case involving this arises before repeating myself. Carcharoth 12:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If a mistake is discovered, inappropriate deletions or undeletions can be reversed if there is consensus to do so. In theory there is no limitation to applicability of evidence at arbitration. In practice there is usually a limitation because there is only an ongoing problem if the evidence suggests that the problematic behavior is likely to occur again. Obviously evidence of deceptive behavior would carry more weight there than simply ill-conceived or flawed attempts to do the right thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Oh, and I predicted all this when the proposed decisions were first being voted on"? What did you predict? --Tony Sidaway 14:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

People think it makes them look smart if they retroactively predict what has already happened. --Cyde Weys 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they just write a long reply and get edit conflicted by the short and sweet response... Carcharoth 16:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

>:-D Cyde Weys 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Ill-conceived" and "flawed" would be less of a problem only if the offenders recognise their mistakes and agree with whatever the current ArbCom's interpretation is. Deception, as you say, is unacceptable, but that is difficult to carry out as most Wikipedia deletion processes are transparent enough to avoid this. Faking or misapplication of deletion log summaries might be something to watch out for.

My predictions? Well, they haven't come true yet, but this sort of thing will increasingly get debated as a result of this policy interpretation, which may turn out to be too difficult to implement in practice. Some quotes (search here or in the archive for the full contexts):

"Will we need an arbcom case everytime someone veers too far from the middle ground?"; "Surely that way lies a superclass of 'BLP admins'"; "what happens when someone with an extreme expansionist viewpoint comes along and deletes lots of borderline stuff that (after lots of DRVs) gets restored?"; "Where is the deleting admin left when they are overturned at DRV? They may still think they are right, in which case they will have no option but to wheel-war to uphold their interpretation of BLP policy. Chaos will ensue, and won't die down until an admin is desysopped for ultra-conservative deletion and wheel-warring over BLP policy to keep something deleted."; "There will be many admins, unaware of all this, who will undelete articles and then unwittingly find themselves up for desysopping in front of ArbCom. At the very least, a widely advertised community notice is needed to make sure no reasonably active editor and admin remains unaware of this."; "Another concern is there will often be relevant discussion on the article's talk page. Some will itself fall foul of BLP concerns, but some of it will be relevant deletion discussion. I have little hope that deleting admins will make the effort to preserve relevant discussion or copy it to the DRV."; "Many admins at their RfA were given the tools by community approval to carry out tasks such as speedy deletions, and determining consensus on AfD discussions. Making judgements on BLPs is a different mattter again. What you will end up with is a de facto group of self-appointed BLP admins, distinct from the rest of the admins (who will either on principle or in fear of getting it wrong, stay away from such actions). The basic questions are: (1) Are all admins suitable for BLP duty? (2) Is a pool of BLP admins necessary or desirable?" - Large chunk of my quotes from the talk pages archives

Sorry to drag all that out of the archives at once, but I'm not clear if all or any of these concerns have been addressed. If someone could take the time to go through and address each proposal/concern, that would be great.

My larger concern is that I fail to see how the "anyone can edit" model can ever be an ethical model. The current plan and model relies on the admins prepared to deal with BLP issues having good ethical judgement, and since the pool is self-selecting at the moment, I fail to see how the admins carrying out such deletions will be able to be consistent. Is the intention for the ArbCom to winnow this self-selecting pool by desysoppings until the only admins left dealing with BLP issues are the ones approved by ArbCom? This is why I started the section way back on 18 June titled "How to sanction overzealous admins? Roadmap to BLP admins?" (a reference to a resurrection of some form of the rejected proposal Wikipedia:BLP Admin) - that sums up my 'predictions' if you like, so I hope that answers your question! :-) Carcharoth 16:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think these are basically "what if somebody speedies George W. Bush"-style arguments. Over-zealous admins will find themselves asked to stop, and then told to stop, and then stopped, if they keep it up. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Doc was asked to stop, and he basically replied 'make me.' That's the last thing we need to encourage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Doc would have been sanctioned if he had shown egregiously poor judgement. --Tony Sidaway 16:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He did show egregiously poor judgment; he then gave up the admin bit. Sanctioning him would have been irrelevant at that point; although comments to that effect should be considered to refute fallacious arguments like that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He left in good standing. Were he to have acted badly the committee could have made a finding and ruled that he had to go through RFA to get his bit back. There is no such finding and no such remedy. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And that is one of the things over which they have been irresponsible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you're entitled to your view, but in this community it is the arbitration committee's job to decide such things. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why so defensive, Tony? If you are so confident that you have done nothing of which an ethical man could possibly regret, why are you still arguing? We congratulate you on being, like John Connally, "declared innocent"; must you, as he did, go campaigning on it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have switched targets. Recall that we were discussing Doc glasgow, who is not here to defend himself and at whom you have repeatedly leveled false and damaging accusations. --Tony Sidaway 03:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom can do what they like; but they cannot make it just - unless it is. (I am disputing, here, Tony's argument, not the proposed decision.) Some may argue that Might does make Right; but it is less clear that such people are entitled to speak of ethics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You dispute the arbitration committee's findings. That is, as I said, okay. As I remarked above, you have repeatedly made false accusations against Doc glasgow, implying that he gave up his admin bit as a result of wrongdoing. I am telling you that he did not. He informed those whom he has worked with closely on behalf of Wikipedia for many months that he had to stop because of real world obligations. --Tony Sidaway 03:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would bother to read what I actually wrote: I did not say, or imply, that he gave it up because of wrongdoing; I said that, once he had given it up, for whatever reason, sanctions against him were pointless and unfair. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I gave you an example of a sanction that would have been both fair and useful if there had been a serious issue with Doc's actions: require him to go through RFA if he wanted his bit back. However the passing of Principle 4, "Summary deletion of BLPs", and the absence of any finding of wrongdoing by Doc in this case, suggest that no sanctions would be appropriate in any case. Which was the reasoning I believe you were trying to refute. --Tony Sidaway 14:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would have been appropriate; and I would expect to support him in any such RfA, btw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggested an update to the deletion policy above to help with future admin actions. Eiler7 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Any future BLP deletion spree can be handled when it occurs. If it does truly impact the quality of wikipedia and the issue is not resolved in a timely fashion, then we can look at what needs doing to address the matter.Eiler7 14:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not going to look at anyone else then

So you want to close this without even replying here about why you have not included anything about anyone else. That's very poor form. violet/riga (t) 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone here has acted in poor form, including yourself. I would suggest leaving it at that. -- Kesh 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but who is being sanctioned? Not to worry, I'm not interested in biased or poorly run adjudications. violet/riga (t) 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you including me in that? Eiler7 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposed decision looks biased.

So, the people who believe BLP is about "do no harm" are right. That does not mean their actions are right. For example, a few users gave evidence that Tony Sidaway made comments with a lot of f-words. This should be mentioned in the decision, and he should be punished, or at least warned. If everyone in Wikipedia is like that, I don't want to be a part of Wikipedia. Also, some complained that the deletions were out of process, and that the AFDs and DRVs were closed too early. Again, that means process was not followed and there was never a proper discussion and decision on whether we should keep or delete the articles. If the deletions were out of process, the admins who did the deletions should be warned or punished. If the deletions were not out of process, the decision should note that. You can't just deal with one side of an issue. You have to deal with both sides. --Kaypoh 12:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. I would like to hope that arbitrators have enough time to look at the issue in detail. It seems bizarre to sanction admins over actions that go against policy and to also say that policy is not determined by the arbitrators, a have-your-cake and eat-it position. Also, Violetriga is being admonished for merely saying that she did not understand something (the reasoning of FloNight). This seem highly dubious reasoning.Eiler7 14:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And several arbs, including FloNight, are members of OTRS; the appearance of conflict of interest is difficult to avoid here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The impression I got was that Violetriga was being sanctioned for demonstrating that she didn't understanding BLP, specifically for not accepting the "delete first then discuss", preferring to apply "bold, revert, discuss", which is not appropriate here. Carcharoth 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Without purporting to speak for the arbitrators, I am certain the decision is not meant to endorse every instance of user conduct that has not been specifically commented on. My own view is that the desirability of remaining civil and using moderate language is, if anything, greater when contentious or stressful issues are being discussed. However, it will often be overkill to redress deviations from this goal with an ArbCom sanction. Newyorkbrad 15:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone ask ArbCom to read this before the case is closed? And Newyorkbrad, I understand that it can be difficult to stay civil in such a situation. If someone loses his temper once, I can understand that. But if he repeatedly throws f-words at others, that's not acceptable. Right? --Kaypoh 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about that, I suggest Requests for comments (the user section), though taking this to Tony's talk page would be best first (to try and resolve the dispute). Carcharoth 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Really not worth it. This decision is wrong on every possible level, but there's no use dragging this case out any further. Basically, it seems that from now on, admins have carte blanche under BLP to delete anything tangentially related to a living "private" individual (and where do you draw the line between "private" and "public"?) without discussing. Unfortunately, there's nothing much we can do - the ArbCom's word is final, so we'll just have to sit back and watch as verifiable, sourced and encyclopedic articles disappear one by one. WP:FUCK is the principle I will now apply in relation to this case. Walton^talk 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Since our admins are generally competent, we wouldn't delete random things on a whim. The articles that have been deleted recently under BLP were certainly not verifiable, absolutely not encyclopedic, and barely sourced. Perhaps we should start worrying about things that a encyclopedia should have good articles on, such as events that are undoubtedly notable? Sean William @ 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, admins are generally competent, and I'm not assuming bad faith here. Certainly, everyone who passes RfA is not likely to make bad or careless judgments - however, admins are human beings, and we disagree on things. Consider this case: there are at least two admins on one side of the dispute (Doc and JzG) and at least three on the other side (myself, Night Gyr and Violetriga). Because admins have extra powers denied to the average user, it is essential that our powers should be circumscribed and limited by clear and unequivocal policy and process - not because we have poor judgment, but because controversial decisions should be made by the community as a whole. This whole BLP thing is just too vague. "Do no harm" is too vague. Where do you draw the line? Jenna Bush, as I said below, is a private individual who is famous against her will. She'd probably rather we didn't include her past arrest for underage drinking in her article. Yet we include it, even though it might "do harm" to her. So we can't apply an inconsistent patchwork of standards based on vague, broad ethical principles. If we are going to remove things that might hurt private individuals, then OK, but we need to do it consistently (which would create a much smaller, and much less comprehensive, encyclopedia). But my preferred option is to say that if something is sourced, verifiable and neutral, we shouldn't take "potential harm" into account. Walton^talk 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, if Tony's comments were the only issue not addressed by ArbCom, yes, an RFC would be the way to go. But Tony's comments are only an example, and the out of process deletions are only another example. There are many more examples of improper conduct by those who have the right ideas about BLP, conduct that ArbCom must look into.

Other content issues must also be settled. Will the articles, such as QZ, stay deleted, or be undeleted? The last time I asked, Tony said the community decided they will be deleted. Someone else replied that Tony's decision is the decision of the community. You can check the archive. ArbCom also needs to clarify more grey areas of BLP policy before closing this case. --Kaypoh 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly someone made a facetious comment that you misinterpreted. Obviously it was never likely that this arbitration would subvert, overturn, second guess, countermand, reactivate, ignore or in any other way overrule the decision of the community in deletion debates. Those who were misled into believing that it was should look to whoever told them this. --Tony Sidaway 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, you said the community decided the articles will stay deleted. Others disagree with you. Can you please show me a link to a proper discussion where the community decided that the articles will stay deleted? Most or all of the AFDs and DRVs were closed too early and out of process. And I think ArbCom needs to look at your comments which are full of f-words, as I said earlier. --Kaypoh 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement that "Most or all of the AFDs and DRVs were closed too early and out of process" is a matter of opinion. The statement that the community decided that the articles will stay deleted is a matter of fact. The QZ article is not present on Wikipedia. This is very strong evidence that the community does not want it. --Tony Sidaway 06:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There was wheel warring. There were many AFDs and DRVs. I don't think it's because the community decided that the article is still deleted. I think it's because after ArbCom decided to handle this, those who want it kept do not want to wheel war. --Kaypoh 06:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The QZ article was dead and buried long before this arbitration. Indeed it was Badlydrawnjeff's exhaustive attempts to force the undeletion of the article, long after it had become a dead issue, that led to Doc's decision to call for this arbitration. I don't know how various editors managed to mislead themselves into the belief that this arbitration case was called to pre-empt the community decision process. Possibly they found Badlydrawnjeff's statements convincing and believed that they represented community opinion in some way. Perhaps if you examined the RFC that preceded it, that would help you to get a good feeling for community opinion on this matter.. --Tony Sidaway 06:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the RFC? If the RFC shows the community decided the article should stay deleted, maybe ArbCom can list that as a finding of fact, and a remedy. If you vandalise an article and nobody sees it for a month, can you say that the community decided the article should stay vandalised? --Kaypoh 15:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope the community still holds that decision making role. Many of us fear that the evidence of deletion will simply be what one or a few admins think, rather than what the community thinks, and that the community might be improperly cut out of the process all together. So if you have an article deleted, but not by the community, then there's more fear that someone will say "oh look, we have a consensus" and mislead others (making more problems). (As for QZ example, though, you are more than likely correct, we don't want the article.) -- Ned Scott 06:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I also hope the community will decide whether the articles will stay deleted or be undeleted. But if the community can't decide, ArbCom must decide. Otherwise, there will be more wheel warring and chaos. The problem is that the AFDs and DRVs are closed early and out of process. I suggest ArbCom open a page where we can discuss for two weeks or a month. After that, ArbCom will read the discussion, see what the consensus is and make a final decision. ArbCom would be like the bureucrats closing an RFA.

Also, ArbCom needs to look at the conduct of those who are on the right side. For example, Tony and his comments with f-words. Can someone please ask ArbCom to look at this discussion? --Kaypoh 06:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Do No Harm

Let's imagine this scenario: We get a call from the sister of Gaëtan Dugas, who says that her elderly mother is very upset that her son is being described as a psychopath. We go into the article and decide it wouldn't hurt to apply full BLP standards to someone who has been dead for 20 years, so we take out the "psychopath" part.

A few weeks later, Dugas's sister calls back and says her children are being teased and bullied at school because of their uncle, and one of them is on the verge of dropping out. Can we make it not show up so high on Google searches? After much debate, we move the article to Patient Zero (AIDS) and pull Dugas's name and photo from the article. The sister calls back a few weeks later and says that while she appreciates what we've done, her kids' schoolmates already know who Patient Zero is, so the teasing hasn't stopped. She is afraid that one of the bullies will choose to write a term paper about Patient Zero in order to humiliate her child. Can we take the article down for the rest of the school year?

Clearly, in this scenario, our article is doing harm to living people. At what point do we say, "I'm very sorry, Ms. Dugas, but although we don't like harming anyone, we have a duty to report the truth."?

Now apply the same question to articles about living politicians whose kids are being teased in school because of their parents' scandals. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Under the new interpretation of BLP, are we going to have to take out the references to Jenna Bush's underage drinking? She didn't choose to be famous, after all. In fact, why not delete it altogether? And Chelsea Clinton. And Leo Blair. And Prince Harry. Where do we stop? I swear, there are some people here who'd be happier if we didn't have an article on anyone, in case it might hurt them or their relatives. Walton^talk 16:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a fairly good argument, though, that Wikipedia being right up-to-date is a bad thing in this case. If you had to wait until people were 5 or 10 years in their graves before writing the definitive Wikipedia article on them, that might not be such a bad thing. Compare Isaac Newton with Stephen Hawking, and Neville Chamberlain with Tony Blair, and James I of England with Queen Elizabeth II of England. All those articles are about a person, but the ones about living people inevitably suffer from recentism. The Wikipedia articles on those curently living people will look very different in 100 years time. You can't have historical perspective on living people, and so you can't really have a proper encyclopedic article, only the beginnings of one. Ditto for events like Hurricane Katrina and 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake. The literature on those is still expanding, and the story (of recovery) is not yet finished, so the articles are not yet finished. Compare them with 1755 Lisbon earthquake and 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Carcharoth 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A mainstream encyclopedia does not restrict its coverage to past events and dead people. A big part of Wikipedia's utility as a reference work is its up-to-date nature. Yes, it's true that articles on dead people are often better when it comes to "historical perspective", but we're not all about historical perspective. We're trying to create the most comprehensive free encyclopedia in the world, and so far we've succeeded. Yes, we need to trim the thing down a bit, and make sure we don't unintentionally spread false rumour. But severely limiting coverage of living people and current events just to avoid recentism is like burning your house down because you don't like the colour of the wallpaper. Walton^talk 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was searching for encyclopedia inclusion criteria, and found this. Not strictly relevant but interesting (it does briefly allude to Oxford DNB inclusion criteria). I then found this, which said "The first criterion [for inclusion in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography] is that you have to be dead." Note that the Oxford DNB is described thus: "What is the importance of this publication? Gibbon said of all the people who have died in the past that they are the authors of our existence. So all of these people in this dictionary — the 50,000 — in one way or another have had some small impact, not only upon the society in which they lived but upon the society in which we live today. That is the historical concept behind this great dictionary." - now, why can't Wikipedia have the same lofty goals? (Did anyone notice that the website on which I found that Hansard (House of Lords) debate was linking to Wikipedia articles?) Another description of the Oxford DNB says "The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography tells the stories of over 50,000 people who shaped the history of the British Isles and beyond, from the earliest times to those who died in the year 2000 - from the 4th-century BC Greek Explorer Pytheas to Princess Diana, and from the founding fathers of America to the Nawabs of Bengal.". So the idea of only writing about people who are dead is not outside the mainstream. Indeed, from what I can gather, national biographies in general limit themselves to dead people. Now, obviously, Wikipedia will never remove all its articles about living people, and Wikipedia is a melting pot of various types of encyclopedias, but a clear distinction should be drawn, in my opinion, between writing about historical subjects, and writing about living people. That was the original intent behind Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, and the creation of Category:Living people. Living people are different and you have to write about them in different ways. No-one disputes that. But a lot of the stuff about living people could easily be moved over to Wikinews, as reports, rather than biographical stuff. In an ideal world, Wikinews would have lots of articles about a living person, carefully sourced from different newspapers, and Wikipedia would have a short, sober, informative article, going beyond the newspaper headlines, and avoiding the newspaper headlines, and detailing some of the historical context and background. You could have lots of Wikinews links in the Wikipedia article, but anything sourced from a newspaper would be turfed over to Wikinews instead. A lot of the angst could be solved by having Wikipedia use published/online books and journals as references, with Wikinews using newspapers as references. Lots of people talk about "reporting" things in Wikipedia articles, to which the response is: Wikinews is that way. 193.82.16.42 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Do no harm" is not about sparing people's feelings. These are straw man arguments. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I was responding to what Carcharoth said above me. However, the problem with "do no harm" is that lots of coverage has the potential to do harm. Like I keep saying, Jenna Bush might well be harmed by the fact that her article details her arrest for underage drinking. She never chose to be famous - just as Alison Stokke didn't - and would doubtless prefer that we didn't retain the story of one of her youthful errors for posterity. If we follow "ethical" principles, they have to be consistent principles; either we avoid spreading stuff that could do harm to people's lives - in which case we'll have to take out large chunks of the encyclopedia - or we just accept that a side-effect of free information is that people get hurt. Walton^talk 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who shifted the frame of the debate from "do no harm" to "don't hurt people's feelings" but it was a brilliant move by the opposition in this case. I don't know of any objective way to place articles like Baby 81, Jennifer Mee, Allison Stokke, Jenna Bush and Prince Harry on a scale that will precisely define how they should be treated under BLP. But I do know that they are fundamentally different in important ways (such a the difference between a public person who unquestionably belongs in an encyclopedia versus a person who is private but for a single incident). How we treat Jennifer Mee is and should be different than the way we treat Jenna Bush, and to lump the two together shows either a fundamental distrust of administrator judgement or deliberate obfuscation of the issue. The important result of this case is to shift the burden of proof from the deleters to the keepers. Thatcher131 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed the direction of the tide of policy. The deleter doesn't get carte blanche, but the keeper must justify a living bio by establishing that the bio passes, or can pass, all parts of the BLP. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No one said anything about "don't hurt people's feelings", at least I didn't. What I was doing was extrapolating the logical consequences of the "do no harm" policy, and of basing editing decisions on "ethics" rather than clearly defined rules. It is ethically inconsistent to say "we will protect Allison Stokke from information that might harm her life, but we won't do the same for Jenna Bush, or Prince Harry." If we are going to "do no harm", then we have to do so consistently. Alternatively, we can just accept that a free and comprehensive information resource will, inevitably, cause harm, but that this harm is outweighed by the inherent good of Wikipedia's existence. Walton^talk 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The appeal to large and vague "ethical" sentiments is the proclamation that every admin do what seems right in his own eyes, which is a state of anarchy - one of the things Wikipedia is not. In this case, there is also a large thumb on the scale, saying VioletRiga shall not do what is right in her eyes, as she did here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We can indeed heed "do no harm" inconsistently, and we should do so. For highly "notable" people, even those only notable by virtue of their parentage such as baby princes and the like, we may still seek to minimise harm by avoiding posting their nanny's private phone number, the nursery school they attend, and so on, but we obviously cannot write an encyclopedia without giving them pretty thorough coverage which would be inappropriate for, say, the newborn daughter of a random police constable who happened to be born with a certain neonatal condition. I think it's a bit early to claim that the sky is falling down just because this tendency to apply commonsense to our coverage is being dealt with explicity instead of just assumed to happen by magic. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You write "thorough coverage which would be inappropriate for, say, the newborn daughter of a random police constable who happened to be born with a certain neonatal condition" If that was what your policy proposals said, they might get widespread support; but they never have said that. If this were explicitly limited to a handful of articles, I would probably support it myself. But no, it is a general principle. Hard cases make bad law. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Which policy proposals? As far as I'm aware all of my non-trivial past policy proposals for the BLP are now an active part of the policy. --Tony Sidaway 05:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's only because its opponents are not willing to revert war, like your couple of irresponsible supporters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should withdraw that attack, whoever your targets may be. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for my assertion is in the history of WP:BLP; it will be presented if necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any evidence can support such an egregious lapse of judgement as to descend to personal attacks. Please reconsider. --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I find this odd from someone who has a long record of profane and abusive language himself. If someone else feels that repeated exact reversions (within the limits of 3RR) is not revert warring, I will certainly abide by consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Reply to Thatcher131: The interpretation of "do no harm" as "don't hurt anyone's feelings" is how I read this statement by jpgordon: "If my Dad dies and a Wikipedia editor decides to stick something in his article which wouldn't have been allowed the day before he died under BLP, it's hurtful in much the same way." Referring back to my question about Gaëtan Dugas, which nobody has answered yet: If innocent children are teased at school, is this considered harm? If not, I would like to know what our definition of harm is.

For the record, with all due respect to everyone, I do not place my views in any camp which categorically rejects the idea of inscribing ethics into Wikipedia's content policies. I hope we are headed in the direction of developing a policy explicitly about ethics, not just in relation to living people but also making provisions for things such as respect for the dead, articles like this one, and publication bans on the results of elections while they are in progress. However, "do no harm" is a hopelessly simplistic basis for an ethics policy on biographical information. Modern societies have put a great deal of deep thought into the question of balance between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to information,[2][3] and when you say we treat Jenna Bush differently from QZ, this question of balance is probably what you are referring to (please correct me if I've misunderstood you). But balance is not what the ArbCom principles ask for. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 02:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Principle 5 and closing

I am somewhat disappointed to see two arbitrators seeking to prolong this case so that the arbitrators can go on record as to whether the BLP policy applies to the deceased in any way.

Regardless of whether one sees this as a matter that has a consensus one way or another or is under discussion, this is an active policy discussion. The arbcom should not be interjecting themselves into it as decision makers. The most accurate thing to say is that there is not consensus that BLP does or does not apply to the deceased at present. And it is clear that no declaration that it does not, at least, will pass. I would be surprised if a declaration that it did would pass the arbcom either.

But to demand that all of the arbitrators go on record comes uncomfortably close to a notion that the arbcom is what decides the reach of this policy. It's not. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that, regrettably, this is a necessary part of the arbitration case. This question will form a crucial part of a coming arbitration and it were well that the shape of the question be delineated now. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Which "coming arbitration" would that be? Carcharoth 08:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just crystal balling. For now it has no name. Somebody will make it happen, I can tell. --Tony Sidaway 10:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony appears to be threatening this purge elsewhere, as well. I trust ArbCom will disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What purge? You seem to be reading a lot into my suggestion that a future arbitration case will have to consider whether, and to what extent, a recently dead person is covered by the BLP. It isn't rocket science. The link you cite simply says that if we don't let people know how to react to deletion under the BLP we may well lose some admins whom we might otherwise have kept. It has nothing specifically to do with the recently deceased. --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have voted to oppose closing for now, so that I could comply with Raul's request to go on record with my opinions. I am not "seeking to prolong this case" so that other arbiters can render an opinion, only so that I can. Paul August ☎ 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So you'll be changing your vote to close any time now? Phil Sandifer 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes as soon as I finish reviewing the case. Paul August ☎ 19:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't nice to badger the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Phil Sandifer 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From my PoV, this delay has had the advantage of demonstrating that there is no consensus on such an extension among the members of Arbcom, as elsewhere. There is consensus that unsourced, negative assertions about living people should be removed; the consensus to extend this to unreliable sources is limited only by the usual argument about what is a reliable source. There is no consensus on any broader scope. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

To be nitpicky, arbitration proposals are votes, and those proposals that obtain majority support pass.

Of the proposals that will pass if this case closes soon, principles 1, 2 and 6, all findings of fact, and remedies 2 and 3 are unanimous.

Of the proposals that will pass that are not unanimous, principle 3 passes (9 2 0), principle 4 passes (9 1 0), remedy 1.1 passes (8 1 0) and remedy 2.1 passes (7 2 0).

The only proposed principle that failed was 5, "BLP applies only to living people", which suggested a narrow view of the BLP. There was no dissent at all on the facts. The remedies were controversial and it took some time to find ones that nearly all could agree on--there was no doubt that the editors under sanction acted in good faith.

If this were replicated across the wiki (and I don't suggest that it is) we'd be calling it overwhelming consensus. We appoint bureaucrats on such numerical margins. So if one were playing the "if this were a vote on policy" game (and I'm not) we would be saying "this a thumping endorsement for a very broad view of the BLP." --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it

I don't get it. I was never part of Badlydrawnjeff's obviously stupid comments about ignoring BLP, but why is there no mention of the constant opening-and-closing of discussions (which has been called wheel-warring) for which I gave evidence, and for which even Flonight said there would be consequences for the parties if they didn't promise to stop. This is ridiculous. I believe this is enough for me to quit this encyclopedia. I've put so much time and effort into this (on this and other accounts). Can anyone explain this, why there are no sanctions for wheel warring? The Evil Spartan 00:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I'm kind of surprised that huge swathes of bad behavior have simply been unaddressed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm asking an arbitrator to address this. Can someone respond? I'm not out to grind anyone into the dust, but even Jimbo has said that wheel-warring is worse than BLP violations (e.g., User:Yanksox). The Evil Spartan 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an arbitrator, but I would observe that both Violetriga and Night Gyr have been sanctioned for undeleting deleted BLPs without discussion. This seems to me to be a pretty loud and clear statement on abuse of admin powers. While other allegations were made during the course of the arbitration, I see no sign that any arbitrators who commented in the workshop found any evidence so compelling as that pertaining to those two admins. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Evil Spartan, what you detailed was not wheel-warring. Some of editors involved are not even admins so they could not have used their admin tools to undo another admins action without discussion. FloNight 17:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. OK, I suppose I mis-used the words. What I should have said was repeatedly undoing another administrator action. Something needn't be wheel-warring to still be inappropriate and admonished. In essence, a lack of even noting the constant undoing of administrator actions (i.e., re-opening and closing discussions opened by other admins, etc.) is a completely acceptable action. If you have not already done so, please look into the diffs I provided on the evidence page. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly FloNight is unwilling to even discuss the wrong-doings of others, so it's just best to ignore this whole arbitration. violet/riga (t) 17:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I carefully reviewed them before I replied the first time. That is how I knew that that some of the editors were not admins. We generally do not sanction editors or admins for involving themselves in issues if they do not handle the situation perfectly. We want editors to feel empowered to act. Usually only serious breaches of policy and the concern that the action will be repeated get a mention in an ArbCom case. I do not feel the situation that you describe can be addressed without severely restricting the normal practices in Xfd, DRV, and other discussions. FloNight 17:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not mentioning anything else, of course. The least you could've done is replied to the myriad of points raised on this page rather than dismissing the odd few. This case has been poorly handled and some arbitrators seem to neither understand the issues nor bother to look into them. violet/riga (t) 17:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga, I wonder if you had noticed that, in the workshop of this case, FloNight made some 40 comments? Looking at this talk page and its archives, I see that she has also made over a dozen comments here. She has, I think covered just about everything put to her, but obviously has an opinion that differs considerably from the opinions of some non-arbitrators who also edit this talk page. Having a different opinion from other editors is, I believe, still permitted on Wikipedia. She has engaged fully in this case and I don't think it's good to insinuate that she has not. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

FloNight has replied to some things while ignoring lots of others within the text she is replying to - selective reading. That was obvious from what I said Tony so try not to read other things into my comments (just as you do with certain policies). violet/riga (t) 07:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

but no one has even claimed that I violated policy, and I'm still getting a caution for following it to the letter. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think that no one has claimed that you violated policy, you have forgotten the contents of your own talk page, failed to check the evidence page and the workshop page of the arbitration and (most important of all) failed to read and understand |the finding of fact that applies to you in this arbitration. You may disagree that you violated policy (although I think that would be cause for concern) but you cannot say that nobody has claimed that you violated policy. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'll check the deletion policy, and the wording of that decision, no where do they say I violated policy. To quote the policy: "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the admin who deleted the page should be informed." No requirement for discussion. They say I should have discussed, not that it was mandated to do so by policy. The finding of fact is accurate, in some cases I did not discuss, but doing so is not a policy violation. If they're going to sanction people for actions that did not violate policy, there's a lot of bad behavior that's being missed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You're an administrator. You should know better than to try to appeal to what is on the page when the arbitration committee is the body empowered with clarifying and interpreting policy in the course of settling disputes. "But the page never said..." is a poor excuse for doing the wrong thing. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm appealing to the text of the arbcom decision! There's no mention of policy violation in there because they're not saying I violated policy! You are saying I violated policy, you are outright misrepresenting their decision to say things it doesn't! Anyway, when I said "no one", I was referring to arbitrators and the text of the decision. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Compare finding of fact 4 (Night Gyr) which describes what you did with Principle 4 (Summary deletion of BLPs) and I think you'll find that they're saying you violated the biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't. I violated the behavior they recommend, which is not a policy. Until edits that have taken place since this case began, the BLP policy contained no such requirement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you really cannot see why you're being sanctioned, you might like to consider "Don't worry the arbitration committee" to be an unwritten policy. I think what you did was more fundamentally wrong than that, but if you'll accept nothing else then this ad hoc rule might serve you well instead. --Tony Sidaway 08:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Meaningful BLP DRVs

Given that one thing we have had constantly rammed into us all over Wikipedia is that admin are just editors with a few extra tools, why exactly is this ArbCom making it so that only admins can have a meaningful discussion about BLP articles that have been deleted, seeing as only they will be able to see it? How can the community possibly have any kind of sensible discussion about something they cannot see? Why the hell has this not occurred to anyone on ArbCom?

With this decision, we will now move towards a world where anyone can have their work destroyed by one biased admin and the community, blind to what has been deleted, shrugging their shoulders and saying "WP:AGF", leaving only the 0.003% of editors who have admin powers to fight the cause. Which is ridiculous. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Those who can't see what has been deleted shouldn't blindly say "AGF". Equally, those who have concerns about what has been deleted shouldn't "fight" to keep it. They should present clear, reasonable arguments. And deleting admins should also give clear reasons for deletion. If an admin is persistently biased, in your opinion, keep talking to them about it, and work your way through the dispute resolution process until you arrive back here at ArbCom. But remember, your conduct will be examined as well. That seems to be an adequate summary of how things will work. I'm not happy about not being able to see what has been deleted, either, and I hope admins with BLP concerns will chose to edit articles rather than delete outright. Outright deletion should only take place after an examination of the page history to see if the article can be reverted to an earlier version, with all subsequent page revisions deleted. Carcharoth 08:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The community shouldn't say AGF, but they will, as they do now. Admins should provide an adequate explanation for deletion and do as much as possible to avoid it, but you and I both know that the people most likely to use this new policy won't, as they do not now and they already insist on closing DRVs early despite objections. If this policy is abused as others fear it will, and many hours of editors' work are destroyed on the whims of an admin citing only "BLP" as a reason, we will lose many more competent editors than we do now, and the loss to the encyclopedia will far outweigh any benefits brought by this censorship. I cannot see how this policy is advantageous to anyone other than marginally notable jobseekers, but who, no doubt, will not be the only subjects of this policy, as we can see even now on the proposed decision. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith is a pretty good guideline. If you disagree with a deletion, ask the administrator why he did it. Explain the reasons why you think it should not have been performed, and ask him to reconsider.

The biographies of living persons policy section I wrote on this matter currently says:

The deleting administrator should be willing to explain the deletion to other administrators, by e-mail if the material is sensitive; administrators and other editors who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not.

There will (very rarely) be issues of content so serious that a meaningful discussion would in itself risk, for instance publishing a libel, and administrators with access to the material should be able to assess whether such a claim is correct, though obviously they should not discuss the material at length unless there is consensus that the claim is unfounded. --Tony Sidaway 09:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you give any such example where we couldn't even mention the existence of an accusation in an internal, unindexed discussion? (deletion discussions are already excluded in robots.txt, and there's also courtesy blanking available.) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they're rare but they happen on Wikipedia as on every website. OTRS handles a steady dribble of such cases, but it isn't the only way we spot them. A libellous claim published on the internet is libellous even if a search engine doesn't catalog it. Can I give an example? Easily. Will I give an example? No, that would be defeating the object. --Tony Sidaway 12:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Essay

I've written an essay on this topic at Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. It doesn't actually reflect my own views on BLP; rather, I think it reflects the broad opinion of most people on this, and I hope it will form an appropriate compromise. Walton^talk 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Libelling the dead

In most Anglo-American law, it is impossible to libel the dead. Does anyone happen to know whether Florida is an exception? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not just Florida we're worried about — we're worried about all of the USA, at least, because Wikipedians aren't just from Florida. But so far as I know, there is no such thing as libeling a dead person. Of course, that's not really the issue we're talking about with "do no harm". --Cyde Weys 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

But it has come up on the project page; and Raul's opinion on principle #5 seems quite clear on what he means by BLP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The other principles in this arbitration make it clear that the law is not the sole consideration here. --Tony Sidaway 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And when the law is not the sole consideration, we should not use the word "libel". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "libel" should (and does) appear in the policy. The law isn't the only consideration, but it is a consideration. --Tony Sidaway 12:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Another red herring. Libel should, and does, appear when considering libel, which we are legally bound to avoid. It has no wider meaning; implying that it does approaches making legal threats to settle content issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You've really, really lost me here. Could you explain whose point you are arguing against? It really looks to me like you're responding to the statements of some person who (in some part of the discussion I perhaps have not read) says that libel applies to the dead. --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Septentrionalis makes a valid point though, that there is tension between WP:NLT and WP:BLP. The essence of many BLP arguments is an assertion that certain statements in Wikipedia may constitute libel, and this being used to justify (often correctly) the removal of content. On the other hand, I have seen people blocked for saying "remove this content immediately, or I will sue you". This veers very close to being in opposition to a case where an admin says "I am blocking you because you have restored, and continue to restore, defamatory content that was removed per WP:BLP". This seems to be saying that it is OK to remove content to avoid potential legal action, but it is not OK to threaten legal action to get such content removed. I see that this is not mutually exclusive, but I see how it can be confusing. Carcharoth 13:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference being that between threatening legal action on-wiki, and threatening it off-wiki. In an attempt to demonstrate that I do understand WP:NLT... Carcharoth 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot see any connection between no legal threats and taking reasonable steps to remove potentially libellous statements. An expression of belief (even an incorrect one) that a statement is libellous is not a legal threat, and anyone blocked solely on those grounds is not being blocked legitimately. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The connection point comes when dispute occurs and one side uses legal arguments to try and enforce their view. "You must delete this because it is libellous". This may be true, but saying it in a threatening way reminds some people of why WP:NLT ("no legal threats") was written in the first place - the need to avoid people editing Wikipedia to feel they can shout at the other side and claim the full force of the law is on their side in an edit war. Though WP:NLT is specifically about the people who would take the legal action making direct legal threats (rather than a random editor pointing out libellous content), I can see why the concern is there over aggressive actions involving legal aspects of BLP. The same thing is seen in fair-use, where people who don't understand fair-use (or rather, the Foundation's more restrictive licensing policy) cave in pretty quickly if someone waves the fair-use card and pretends they know what they are talking about. In essence, I am probably talking about a form of wiki-lawyering, using real-world legal aspects of policy to intimidate other editors into doing something. If the editor in question is correct, then it is nothing more than a bit bitey, but if the editor is wrong (knowingly or unknowingly), it can appear to be a form of intimidation. Carcharoth 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Jenna Bush test" and BLP removals

I'd like to invite comment on the proposed "Jenna Bush test" for BLP cases, that I outlined in the essay I wrote (WP:HARM) as mentioned above. I think this is a pretty good guideline for determining what information about a living individual should be included in their article. I also think the ideas at Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm#Suggested_procedure might be a useful compromise in BLP cases. Walton^talk 19:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Jenna Bush test seems reasonable to me; you may want to look at Talk:Al Gore III/Archive 1 for a similar situation where the first clause might apply.
• As for mechanism: it would be nice if everyone concerned, would recall one of the marks of a failing process: Do people keep complaining that it's hard to understand or that it excludes outsiders? Do regulars express distrust of non-regulars, or dislike the idea of any random person interfering? Then something needs fixing, even if ignoring the rule isn't the answer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we be entirely open here? No.
  • Should we be as open as possible? Yes.
  • Have we had dislike of random interference expressed already? Look around you, as they said of Sir Christopher Wren. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was just hoping to hammer out a compromise between the opposing points of view here. It looks like the ArbCom has ruled that "do no harm" in BLPs takes precedence over normal consensus and process; that's not what I hoped for, but better to accept the situation how it is, and try to establish a definite process that will clarify how admins should act in these cases. So I hope the ArbCom will read WP:HARM and take it into account. Walton^talk 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom settles disputes, they don't set policy. "Do no harm" has no consensus, and it's only a matter of time before we're able to rid our policies of this nonsense. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

But I do like where you're going with WP:HARM. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. ArbCom need to consider the very real possibility that the community may end up writing, discussing and enacting policies similar to, but crucially different, to what ArbCom have indicated in this and other cases. The differences may be subtle, but they may also demonstrate that the community's judgement ends up being better than that of ArbCom. Essentially, different areas of the community will take different interpretations of what "do no harm" means. What the end result of that will be, I don't know. I personally disagree with the Jenna Bush case, as that article reads to me like the sort of article that no-one will be interested in in 50 years time, and likely won't be that interested in now. The classic example of newspaper-generated stories would be Paris Hilton. Carcharoth 07:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin phrase

I noticed Charles Matthews (one of the arbitrators) used an interesting Latin phrase in one of his comments. From De mortuis nil nisi bonum: "This expression is used in modern parlance with two nearly contradictory significances. In legal contexts, it refers to the principle of British, American, and other legal systems that defaming a deceased person is not actionable. In colloquial contexts, it indicates that it is socially inappropriate to say anything negative about a (recently) deceased person." - thought that explication might be relevant here, and worth some discussion if anyone wants to work out in which sense Wikipedia should apply this principle... (yes, the answer is "both"!) Carcharoth 12:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Case closing soon (by the looks of it). Discussion moved to here (WT:BLP). Carcharoth 12:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)