Comment by others:

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

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

As a comment to Doc Glasgow, the corollary to "never any urgency to undelete something" is that there is never any urgency to delete anything either. In particular this article ahs been around for a very long time. Speedy deletion should never have been an option. SchmuckyTheCat 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As written this endorses wheel-warring exactly like that at issue here. On the other hand, there are lots of reasons that things get undeleted sometimes speedily without problems e.g. userfication, mistaken deletion, content review, etc. I'll try and think up a better version to propose below. Eluchil404 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. See "bold, revert, discuss" below for what I think constitutes acceptable practice, but reverting is never encouraged. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[5].Geni 13:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness to deletion review participants

4) In the interest of fairness to everybody (administrator or not), it is usually appropriate for prior revisions of articles being considered for deletion review to be restored, at the request of one or more participants, to ensure that all involved parties may see the content of the article whose ultimate fate is being discussed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Nope. It's become a convention to do this when there is no claim that the article is actively harmful. That doesn't make it an entitlement, and in this particular case, there were claims that the article posed problems based on

WP:LIVING. Admins may email the contents of deleted articles, at their discretion, to those who want to participate at DRV. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

In the general case, no. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is what I did and why I did it. How else is the average user able to make an informed comment in a deletion review discussion. —freak(talk) 00:40, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this completely; that's what I was attempting to do (albeit inefficiently) when I initially undeleted/restored the article to its then-most recent revision. Bumm13 13:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally no problem with this, but admins must first check why the article has been deleted and be sure they are not undeleting libellous or BLP violating histories.--

Doc^g 20:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Though frequently contested at the DRV talk page (e.g. here, this is an appropriate measure. "Fairness" is not so much the issue as the fact that DRV effectively decides to delete/undelete articles, and making deletion/undeletion decisions in ignorance of the content of an article is obviously a bad idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use the term fairness as a non-administrator would otherwise have only two choices: (a) refrain from commenting, or (b) voice an opinion and be primarily ignored on the basis that they most likely have no level of familiarity with the content. Feel free to rephrase as you see prudent. —freak(talk) 00:52, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary givn my comments linked above. In many cases the content is availible in other ways besides restoration or not particularly relevant to the decision of what the consensus was at AfD. Eluchil404 06:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merits of an article itself are more important than who says what and how many people agree with him/her, or how many of them are sockpuppets, or distinct people who received biased solicitation during the AFD (in cases where an AFD exists). —freak(talk) 07:59, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest changing the wording to "sometimes appropriate for one or more prior revisions". Most of what comes to DRV doesn't really need to be restored. --BigDT 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But no matter how worthless you think a page is, if a user in good standing requests to actually see it for the duration of a deletion review, you'd probably restore it, or paste it to a sandbox page or something, so that he or she can express an informed opinion on the issue, unless there was a compelling reason to deny the request, correct? —freak(talk) 19:49, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, Deletion review is specifically about process not content. I agree there will be some cases (particularly in the case of speedy deletes) the process is directly tied to the content, but suspect making this too broad will lead to the trolling type requests for the x th review of ED or some such, just so it's up for another 5 days. --pgk 13:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It may be done, as a courtesy, when requested, in cases where the actual content of the article is relevant to the debate (e.g. A7 speedies), but it is not routine and not an entitlement. Not that it's a big deal, but the statement is just not right. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history is usually made available if there is a reasonable request for it. It's done behind a screen so the history is only accessible to editors and not to the general readership (which for the most part is unaware of the edit history function). Also, during a DRV the article is protected from editing. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review should be respected

4b) When participants in the deletion review process have been asked to scrutinise a deletion, admins should generally await the outcome of that deliberation. Premature closing, whether to endorse or overturn deletion, or to move the debate elsewhere, should only be used where there is an obvious consensus to do so. Respect needs to be shown to all participants in the process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Respect is important. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Parties:

Proposed: I submit that events at DRV and disrespect, not so much of the process but of the views of the participants, was inflammatory and largely led to this wheel war. I'm trying to be even handed here. A disputed deletion had been carried out by Yanksox, Coolcat commendably took the matter to DRV - from that point we'd all have done better to read what the community was saying there. There was no need to rush.

1. The
   WP:SNOW
   closing of the DRV was unwise and inflammatory. Although nearly all participants at the time were endorsing the deletion - it should have been obvious that the debate still had far to go.
2. The undeletion, opening of an AfD, and closing of the DRV was also unwise. At that point the participants in the DRV were strongly endorsing the deletion - and few indeed calling for an 'undelete and relist'. Ignoring that putative consensus and taking action based on interpretations of process was also inflammatory. Consensus needs to be respected above process. There was no need to rush.

Admins reversed Yanksox's deletion as 'out of process' or unjustified. Perhaps it was. But, with respect, that decision would have been better arrived at corporately through the DRV debate. There was no need to rush.--

Doc^g 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not consitant with your !vote on DRV where you are trying to argue the quality of the article rather than policy and process.Geni 15:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, let consensus be fully formed in DRV first. -

Mailer Diablo 14:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Others:

Yes. If the DRV hadn't been closed early then this case wouldn't be about wheel warring, it'd be about inappropriate deletion. ST47Talk 11:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do No Harm

5) In borderline cases regarding biographies of living people, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

True, but not applicable to this article. Fred Bauder 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to case. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

I believe extraordinary attention to sources and neutral presentation of the material adequately separate Wikipedia articles from tabloid fodder. The article spoke very little of Brandt's life, focusing almost entirely on his public activism against the Vietnam War and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, his criticism of Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, and his role in the Seigenthaler incident. There was no sensationalism. —freak(talk) 00:58, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

This is unworkable and is a totally over-reaching interpretation of BLP. The result of this would be Positive POV articles. Those last two sentences are true but most people have things, well documented things, they would rather have swept under the rug. It isn't our job to censor negative information for the benefit of a living person. In some cases there are instances of untrue things that were still scandalous events. Coverage of those events is usually done in the article of the person. SchmuckyTheCat 05:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely with Schmucky. We have to deal with the messy reality of people's lives - that requires covering negative episodes (Monica Lewinsky, anyone?) as well as positive. -- ChrisO 13:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I thought that it was a verbatim excerpt from

WP:BLP#Non-public figures. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It is, but the article doesn't dig into his personal life. Fred Bauder 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore All Rules

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Exactly. Yes, you might think an action improves Wikipedia, and you might be right, but the ends of an action include not just the effect upon the article, but the effect upon the community. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The question of whether deleting Daniel Brandt improved the quality of the encyclopedia remains a matter of heated dispute. I believe it was both unnecessary and destructive. —freak(talk) 01:08, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the "spirit" of the

WP:IAR notion, but the idea of "ignore all rules" is extremely unworkable on a Top 15 website (in terms of Web traffic) edited by many thousands of people worldwide who come from different worldviews, etc. I think constructive discussion helps reduce the need for rushing into action regarding Wikipedia issues. Bumm13 14:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

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

While this is a widely followed idea, I oppose it: it makes it nearly impossible for the casual or new editor to know what to expect, and this leads to

them getting bitten, hard. Wikipedia's too big, and too many people with too many different ideas are involved, to be run on individual whim. -- Jay Maynard 14:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Editors and esp admins taking action under IAR should be ready to show that 1) the rules prevented them from taking appropriate action, and 2) that the action was necessary for improving or maintaining Wikipedia. IAR does not simply state: "Rules... ignore them." Jd2718 17:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much I like the idea of ArbCom putting a stamp of approval on IAR, especially considering that IAR is frequently misinterpreted as "do whatever the heck you feel like". A better resolution would be to state what IAR really is - permission to take an action that is not explicitly granted in the rules when that action is necessary and largely non-controversial. --BigDT 18:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BigDT. As it stands, IAR is a charter for reckless actions such as the one that set this controversy off in the first place. -- ChrisO 13:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this entirely; this dispute isn't about whether Daniel Brandt should have an article (as Jimbo explicitly stated, he couldn't care less), it's about the application of a set-in-stone policy. And while it's a valuable policy if properly observed by sensible editors, I'm of the (admittedly sad) opinion that

WP:IAR resists all attempt to introduce any form of reservation, and therefore isn't. Kinitawowi 01:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

BigDT has a perfect summary of what I think IAR was intended to mean. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding conflicted interpretation of deletion policy

7) If in doubt, don't delete. [6]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Nah. If in doubt, seek consensus. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

If this is true, the converse should be 'if in doubt, don't undelete either'. We should keep away from the tools until we're sure it is wise to use them.--

Doc^g 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

WP:BLP cases. I make no comment with regards to the article. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

No. This turns WP:BLP into the silver bullet I decry below. -- Jay Maynard 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not relevent to the current case. There is every reason to believe that all the admins in this case were confident of the correctness of their actions. Eluchil404 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who considers himself to be one of the more deletionist editors, this seems to be the clear penumbra surrounding the deletion policy for non-BLP issues. However, such a claim is difficult to make for cases where there is a BLP concern. JoshuaZ 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected violations of BLP

8) Pages suspected to contain unsourced or poorly sourced negative information may (and should) be edited, by any user and without penalty of

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but when challenged, the well-sourced portions of an article should be kept.

WP:LIVING is not an excuse for refusing to explain what you're doing, and it's not an excuse for refusing to discuss changes with other respected editors. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Steve, if I may reply here, my point is this: In the case of the

WP:BLP, it is most regrettable that none of them attempted these steps (selectively removing objectionable portions) prior to deleting the article outright. I believe a deletion citing BLP policy should only be undertaken if editorial remedies have already failed, or if there appears to be no salvageable content. I do not believe either of these conditions were met. —freak(talk

) 01:37, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —freak(talk) 01:31, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm loath to step in here, but believe that since the issue has been raised in this proceeding, it should be addressed. Some admins, in this case and other instances, including at least one party to this case, expanded WP:BLP to mean that any unsourced or poorly sourced information, negative or not, controversial or not, should be immediately removed. That's not what WP:BLP says. If the expanded interpretation is to be treated as policy, then the policy should be rewritten to reflect that. Please don't hit me if this isn't the place or manner in which this issue should be raised; just let me know, and I'll quietly go away again. -- Jay Maynard 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The BLP policy says that any unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, whether in articles or on talk pages, should be removed immediately, and that 3RR does not apply. Anyone adding such material should be warned, and if they continue to restore it, may be blocked. Articles may be protected by any admin, including admins who are editing the page, to keep such material out.SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying WP:BLP is a bad idea or should not be followed, despite what some admins appear to believe. The problem is that those admins are expanding it to remove the "contentious" part. If that is to be removed from the policy, fine, update the policy. If not, then the policy should be enforced as written. Enforcing an unwritten policy with incivility and banning is abusive, and destructive to the encyclopedia. -- Jay Maynard 14:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Contentious" doesn't mean derogatory. It means likely to cause contention, i.e. controversial. Tyrenius 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even with that meaning, it's often completely ignored. I got bitten hard by one admin who did exactly that. -- Jay Maynard 03:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

By way of background for anyone unfamiliar, the comments by Jay Maynard and others above refer to the events discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow and the pages linked from there. Although not necessarily relevant to this case, the various statements there are recommended reading for those concerned with BLP and privacy issues. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring

9)

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken from

► 01:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

While the intent is right I think that the phrasing is less than ideal. Admins undo each other's actions all the time and should... if an image was protected while it was on the Main page and it isn't there anymore you don't need the original admin's approval to unprotect it. Likewise, reversing a block which consensus agrees was inappropriate is fine even if you haven't been able to talk to the original blocker about it. Where it becomes 'wheel warring' is when you knew, or should have known, that your admin action was going to be widely contentious and you did it anyway... which I apply even to the first admin action. --CBD 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue seems to be here that some editors like Doc glasgow simply didn't look at the log in question and realize that they were even in a wheel war. This is presumably relevant in that such admins were only sloppy for not checking the log rather than deliberately wheel warring. JoshuaZ 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

10) Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Again taken from

► 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There is nothing unique about administrators needing to follow

WP:CIVIL, as all editors are expected to follow this policy. Administrators are expected to be role models of civility, but one temporary lapse should be forgiven.--MONGO 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Agreed. If a living person has a legitimate gripe about possible

libel/defamation of character, then that issue needs to be taken up with the Wikimedia Foundation directly. It's not even so much our policies that dictate this as much as U.S./Florida state law, etc. (as that is where the Foundation is based) Bumm13 14:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse per Bumm13. —freak(talk) 20:43, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed I'm tired of seeing "so and so doesn't like their article" used as an excuse to delete valid content. SchmuckyTheCat 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... and no... In some cases we should take into account the subject's desire to have a biography removed. These are the cases where the biography would have little or limited public interest, while the presence of the biography can cause serious troubles to the reputation and life of the subject. In the Brian Peppers case, the person's "claim to notability" is being made fun of in a particularily nasty way on a number of websites. Is the quality and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia severely compromised by lacking an article on him? I would say no, and it was one of the things I discussed with other Wikipedians at a meetup in Bergen in May last year (first and only time I have seen Jimbo in person!). Here I will tend to agree, the article was a burden to him and his family, and the only benefit for the readers would be satisfying a level of nosiness which tabloid newspapers are only too willing to satisfy.

Of course, there are limits. If

WP:BLP

guidelines, but we cannot go as far as to saying "This person doesn't want an article, so we won't have one".

Perhaps the Brandt case is one of the borderline issues which makes me so uncertain about what to do here. He is an active activist who maintains a number of sites, and has received a fair amount of media attention, but he is not the kind of person a lay person would be expected to know about, or would expect to see a biography about. I see a number of very strong, very sincere, and very convicted arguments on both sides here. I am torn as to whether the principle here applies for this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I think that polcing the grey area between Brandt and Clinton is too difficult. How notable do you have to be before your veto is removed? Much better to simply say that you have no more control over your article than anyone else. Eluchil404 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wishes of the subject and Wikipedia articles

11b) The subjects of Wikipedia articles do not dictate what Wikipedia says or does not say about them. However, given the power of this medium, and its potential for harm, the concerns of the subject should be considered. In cases of marginal notability, the subject's wishes may be a factor, although not the determining factor, in deletion decisions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Not relevant. This case is not about the article in question; the same issues would be before us if the article in question had been Mickey Mouse. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed: I cite as a clear indicator of consensus for this

Doc^g 15:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Endorse (at least as a policy matter, although I'm not sure this is an issue for the arbitrators). Newyorkbrad 15:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While not opposed to the subject of an article having a voice, I'm opposed to privileging that voice over the judgement of editors. Yes, there will be a time where the subject's opinion may be the difference--in the same way that there are times where a single !vote moves an afd from "no consensus" to delete. But introducing this as a principle is not a good idea. (And a single AFD case should not be treated as any kind of precedent.) Bucketsofg 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Endorse as true and good practice, but ... it's not relevant. This case is not at the root about whether Daniel Brandt should or should not be deleted. Lar 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators applying

WP:IAR

12) Administrators applying

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Definitely. If you have the boldness to ignore all rules, you also have the responsibility to stand up for your own actions. When IAR is invoked, it's generally because it's easier to get forgiveness than permission; but you still need to work to get the forgiveness. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This isn't directed solely at Yanksox and others involved here, but using less inflammatory language might have lessened the damage in this and other instances. More respectful use of

RxS 06:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This should be a rule that's applied generally. I'm still trying to get a civil explanation of admin action from a couple of days ago, and my repeated inquiries have led to the admin in question writing me off as a troll - which I most certainly am not. -- Jay Maynard 14:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be obvious. IAR doesn't say that you can do whatever you wish, so you have to have a good reason why you did it, not just "I ignored the rules". And if you have to ignore the rules, then nobody has foreseen your reason, so you should expect that people want an explanation, and comply civilly. -Amarkov moo! 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAR doesn't even apply where there is significant community opposition to a proposed action. If there is sufficient opposition/controversy to require the sort of extended excuses explanations you suggest, then IAR is being invoked inappropriately. Cynical 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of

WP:IAR

in deletion

13) Invoking

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Likewise. A more general principle is that IAR does not justify overriding clearly expressed community consensus. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. IAR has its place, but speedying an article that has survived so many AfDs is just horribly disruptive. jgpTC 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

How about something like "The general use of IAR for deleting articles which have survived multiple prior deletion attempts can be disruptive." JoshuaZ 05:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gross incivility by administrators

14) Derogatory personal attacks directed at the entire Wikipedia community by an administrator in good standing harm the community even more than personal attacks made in other contexts, and are considered a betrayal of the trust the community has placed in that administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Personal attacks are bad, regardless of their source. You're suggesting that the same offensive statement might be more harmful or less harmful depending on who uttered it, and I honestly do not believe that. —freak(talk) 08:33, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

It's not just who made the attacks; it's also who those attacks were directed at. I specified "directed at the entire Wikipedia community" for a reason. An administrator is someone who has had a large amount of trust placed in them by the community. Grossly attacking the community is a violation of that trust. jgpTC 08:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to defend Yanksox. His remarks show his frustration and are certainly disrespectful, but to suggest that bitching at the world in general in a deletion summary is worse than attacking a specified person is crazy. The wikipedia community has a corporate thick skin - individuals wound a lot easier. I've seen a lot worse in edit summaries.--

Doc^g 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Yanksox's "Are you even human?" comment, as well as his subsequent deletion comments, go beyond simply incivil. It has caused severe damage to the community. jgpTC 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you substantiate that last claim of 'severe damage', I'm not sure what that means. His actions certainly caused a row, but I think the edit summaries made little difference to that.--

Doc^g 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment...I don't see a history of personal attacks by Yanksox, only a few recent ones. Permanent or semi-permanent sanctions for incivility are generally based on a history of ongoing incivility--MONGO 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If something is directed at a body of people, it can't be definition by a personal attack. It is an impersonal attack. Tyrenius 02:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Make speedy deletion exception of

IAR

15) To reduce the risk of administrators to speedy delete a page based on biased and perhaps wrongly assumption, speedy deletion should be an exception of

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

No. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

As a policy discussion that belongs elsewhere, I recommend that we ignore all rules and speedy-delete this section. —freak(talk) 20:18, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

A glance at what the community tags a speedy suggests that there are a large group of people out there who support non literal interpritation of the rules. I really wish they wouldn't do that. It makes CSD harder than it needs to be but that's life.Geni 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy proposal, which I doubt ArbCom would want to pass. Even so, it is neither practical nor implementable. -

Mailer Diablo 14:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Proposed this might not only be directed to the parties involved, but to all administrators, to reduce the risk of going rouge. _→AzaToth 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short: adding exceptions to IAR defeats its purpose, and tonnes of perfectly valid IAR speedies would be forbidden in the hope that it'll prevent controversial ones every now and again... which it won't. –

Steel 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If an administrator must resort to ignore all rules to delete an article, then why isn't there a criteria for such action then specified? The reason I took this up, is that I have noticed some beeing a bit comfortable applying IAR when speedy deleting articles, even when such article is specified at

CSD as a NON-criteria. _→AzaToth 17:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If someone is hellbent on on speedying something, the existance (or lack thereof) of a page like

WP:IAR will not stop them. Such an addition to IAR is needless. --Deskana (request backup) 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose - as Steel writes, it's contradictory; We simply can't have rules on ignoring all rules. That said, IAR is the embodiment of risk, every time you use it, you should be well aware that there is a chance you will be desysopped, banned or worse. If you're not willing to face that, don't rely on it, pretend it's just not for you. It's not for the timid. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness no, there are times when something absolutely needs to be deleted that aren't forseen in the rules. For example, there was a phishing scam a few days ago. Technically, that probably doesn't fit anything in the CSD. Also, there are certain cases of images being uploaded under a claim of fair use that absolutely, positively, cannot be fair use and can get Wikipedia into a lot of trouble. Every time it comes up on

WT:CSD, it is agreed that they need to be speedied, but nobody can figure out with the exact wording for the rule as there are always exceptions. In both cases, IAR is a necessary tool in order to accomplish what needs to be done. --BigDT 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Reject as policy proposal. ArbCom does not create polciy. Eluchil404 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible idea. Spend some hours at the firehose of crap and you will immediately see that there are cases where immediate deletion is 100% appropriate regardless of the presence or absence of a relevant speedy criterion. That used to be one of our defences against spam, before spam ws added to the CSD criteria. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional distress

16) Emotional distress resulting from an article about a subject who is not particularly notable may be considered as a factor in consideration of deletion of an article, see Wikipedia:NOT evil and Wikipedia:Basic dignity, essays.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not relevant. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not yet ready for this as formal policy.--

Doc^g 00:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This isn't the place for policy creation. Much like the item directly above, these ideas would be best discussed elsewhere. —freak(talk) 02:39, Feb. 25, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I thought ArbCom wasn't in the business of creating new guidelines which have no basis in consensus...or am I missing something here?

Daniel.Bryant 00:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Furthermore, "emotional distress" to whom? The subject of the article, any one person, the community at large? —Krellis (Talk) 00:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

OK, I think that this new version is a much better reflection of current practice. I like it.

Daniel.Bryant 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

How about "some editors may choose to consider the emotional distress ..."? That is more in line with current practice and less likely to be misinterpreted at some future point in time. --BigDT 02:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note and agree with Daniel Bryant's statement. I also dislike that this conflicts with

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

]

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

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

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

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

I almost agree with both of you. If written into a policy/guideline then I think standard AfD can handle defining when this should apply. There is no need for this to be speedy. SchmuckyTheCat 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two concerns about this. Is this widely enough accepted that it can be considered current policy/practice? I'm not sure though I think that a concensus on this issue can and should be formed. Secondly, I am not sure that this is relevant to this case. Has Brandt ever complained about the article causing him emotional distress? I thought he had other, unrelated problems with it. Eluchil404 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Eluch, Brandt has never made any claim of emotional stress. That said, this policy as phrased is hopeless vague and makes it unclear what sort of person this would apply to (how many sources just about the person would override, 2,3 10, 100, what if they are an elected offical? Does that change it?). This is bad news all around, and in any event it is not the ArbCom's job to establish new policy, especially a vague and potentially controversial one such as this. JoshuaZ 05:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

17)Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be verifiable and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." This principle must be respected in all wikipedia articles, not merely the subject of a named article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Not relevant. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Page deletion by administrators may constitute vandalism

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Nah. "Vandalism" means a particular thing; this isn't that. Everyone was acting in good faith, as far as I can tell; just poorly performed good faith. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Vandalism is seldom a useful category for anything beyond patently bad-faith disruption. Indeed personal I think we'd be best shot of the term altogether--

Doc^g 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

I don't think good faith edits should ever be called vandalism. I think we should reserve the word vandalism for bad-faith editing.

RxS 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

We're required to

WP:VAND Bucketsofg 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

According to

WP:VAND good faith edits are never vandalism which makes the first sentence false. Replacing substandard content or removing large blocks of non-policy compliant material is a perfectly valid way of improving the encyclopedia. Eluchil404 22:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

However, this principle says that making major changes without first discussing or obtaining consensus can be vandalism. This is not controversial when appled to us peon editors; why should it be controversial when applied to admins? Are some pigs more equal than others? -- Jay Maynard 03:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't say that it can be, it says that it is. And that kills BLP, too, because "unsourced article on a living person" isn't a speedy criterion. -Amarkov moo! 03:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, you missed the next sentences of

WP:VAND which say "significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." The reason, both stated in the edit summary and readily apparent by examination of the content, was privacy, and protection of the Wikipedia. That's not frivolous. Therefore, it wasn't vandalism as such. I wouldn't say it was justified, but it could well be considered good faith, so we should, per Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Oh, by the way, oppose the proposal per Fred Bauder et al.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Undoubtedly, but in terms of accepted practice, bold, revert, discuss is an accepted model, and in terms of defining what constitutes a wheel war - or more specifically where it starts, and what degree of latitiude might be extended in reverting an admin action, I believe it expresses what might be understood as acceptable conduct. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, seeking a definition of what is commonly called "wheel warring" here, it seems. It's a 1RR for admins as a class. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed to fix issues with the definition of wheel war proposed above. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This works for me...although it needs to be applied equally to all. -- Jay Maynard 01:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endorse. BRD has stood us well but the trick is to move to D quickly. ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fred Bauder. Further, we are bold in updating articles. I don't know that we should be necessarily as bold with administrative functions. Jd2718 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not realistic to expect that every admin action will be discussed up front. BRD allows us to get things done, plus the "R" part helps maintain stability. Zocky | picture popups 03:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But no one asked that admins discuss every action. Fred Bauder suggested "Discuss before taking major actions" as a model, not a rule, and I added that boldness suits editing more than adminning. Jd2718 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course right about boldness in general, but we have to make it clear that the onus for initiating discussion before acting is on the admin that wants to take a major action, not on the admin that wants to revert it. Zocky | picture popups 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Precisely that. The wheel war starts once the reversion is reverted, which is the problem here. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While a shoot-on-sight approach may be appropriate for those well-versed in new page patrol, a high profile page — one with over 2,000 edits by over 400 registered users in the course of 18 months — should generally not be speedy-deleted under any criterion or pseudo-criterion. —freak(talk) 06:11, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

Not even G6? --cesarb 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-controversial maintenance tasks? Are you kidding? Glen 11:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

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

This is an excellent description of best practice but I am not sure what issues with the current situation it addresses. Eluchil404 22:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That articles can and should be undeleted while on DRV for voter's benefit. ST47Talk 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is fine, but the first sentence strikes me as flawed. As an admin, almost all my speedy-deletes have been while dealing with backlogs at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which by definition means someone else has {{db}}-ed them. If I come across what I feel is a speedy-candidate, I {{db}} it and go on my way, leaving the actual deletion to another admin. This means that at least two wikipedians have been involved in the decision. With the exception of libelous attack pages, I don't think we want to have admins speedy-deleting their own nominees as a regular practice. Bucketsofg 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agreed, but unfortunately, this isn't a common practice. Zocky | picture popups 11:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. Citing this in the decision, whatever it is, is absolutely necessary, establishing the basics. Then sides can claim that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was or was not applied properly, but we need to establish what the basics were that may or may not have been departed from. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral Undeletion

3c) If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with the

Comment by Arbitrators:

Talk first. There's never any emergency need to restore an article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Nonsensical. 1) If you undelete it then inform the admin, how do you know whether he disputes your undeletion? Discuss first, act later. There never an urgency to undelete anything - whilst there may be reasons for the deletion of which the undeleter is unaware, or are badly expressed in the deletion summary. 2) It interprets the whole thing as being between the deleter and an undeleter - and that's precisely stuff wheel wars are made of. If the items is on DRV, then that's where the decision should be made - not in the head of one individual admin - which may be in the teeth (as in this case) of the endorsement of many on DRV. We need patient discussion, not immediate unilateral process wonking. If a deletion is outrageous, then DRV will be swamped with calls of 'speedy undelete'.--

Doc^g 11:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Proposed as a version of 3b that doesn't endorse wheel-warring. Eluchil404 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Doc: Why is the

✉ 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment The first sentence is copied more or less verbatim from the

Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the policy is wrong it should be changed. Eluchil404 12:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree that this is an useful way to look at the situation. --FloNight 02:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sometimes they should be punishment. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If adminship is "no big deal", and admins are not better than non admins, and if adminship is merely a janitorship, then becoming an admin is not a reward, and having adminship removed is therefore not punishment. If ArbCom is not a court, and does not operate as a justice system, and ArbCom members are neither judges nor police, then ArbCom rulings are things that help our project operate better, not punishments that are meted out. ++Lar: t/c 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put whatever label on it makes you feel comfortable; it's still spinach. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I like this. But it is a bit of a charter to admins to think they can get away with a bit of abuse. Because as long as I ensure that my adminship is still considered of net benefit by the community, I can't be sanctioned. Great in theory, but may have unfortunate consequences...--

Doc^g 11:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Not at all! Net benefit or not, if your admin behaviour is such that (even if otherwise positive) it is damaging in some area or another, and a removal of the bit will stop the damage, it should be stopped. No free passes for admins on the strength of their many positive past (adminish) contributions, just as no free passes for non admins on the strength of their many positive past (articleish or whatever) contributions. Article authoring and adminship are different things, both useful to the project, but different. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. A lot of people did things that perhaps they shouldn't have (and perhaps weren't even aware were going to cause more trouble given how fast things were moving... perhaps in hindsight IRC wasn't used enough to make sure of that?) but have all of those people necessarily lost the trust of the community? I think not. Most if not all of the participants in this affair realise that more caution would have been better, but are not likely to make these mistakes again. That should be taken into account when deciding what to do... ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely endorse, one of our most important policies when dealing with disruptive activities. ST47Talk 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remedies in this case for removal of admin tools will be short cooling off periods not punishment IF they are given at all. Most admins involved seem aware that their action collectively caused a problem and likely will be more cautious in the future. Therefore most will not need any significant action against them at all. FloNight 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Preventative, not Punitive" applies to blocks. I would appeal to the ArbCom not to reapply it to temporary loss of administrative tools. Editing without the tools is neither preventative, nor punitive, but a good way to show the community that administrators are editors, and a good way for administrators to refamiliarize with how Wikipedia looks to non-admins. Jd2718 02:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that they're often seen as punitive, and certainly feel that way to the target, especially if there's reason to disagree. -- Jay Maynard 02:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They might FEEL punitive, but they're not SUPPOSED to be punitive. If a block feels punitive at first glance, talk it out, and try to see the preventative reasoning behind the action. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I was blocked, nobody bothered to ask if I was going to repeat the action that got me (unjustly, IMAO) blocked. If they had, they'd have gotten the answer "no". That made the block punitive. -- Jay Maynard 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to digress too much, but only because the admin at issue in your situation is a party here, I think it's fair to say that you'd taken a specific action once after being asked not to and that admin believed you were likely to take it again. He may have been wrong in believing you would have done it twice, but he still thought he was acting preventatively. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support with strong limits. Basically, I'd support it here for the admins who honestly acknowledge they made a mistake by not looking hard enough before taking their action, and have detailed what they plan to do in order so that it not happen again. Not for the ones who say "well I never did anything else wrong". That latter implies that they think they have a license to "misbehave a little". No one has that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

1) Administrators and other users are expected to generally conform to Wikipedia's core policies and to take its guidelines into consideration, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but why does it need to be spelled out? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When elementary policies are ignored, they need to be restated. Fred Bauder 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I want to say that it's not strong enough. We must follow the pillars (IAR doesn't apply to pillars if I recall). - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing and making policy

1) If a problem arises which cannot be satisfactorily addressed through application of existing policy, except for minor matters or in emergency situations, the matter should be discussed with other users before action is taken, Wikipedia:Consensus, official policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ignore all rules

1) There is limited scope for taking necessary actions which do not strictly conform to policy and which bypass extended discussion, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, official policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Purpose of Deletion Review

1) Deletion Review was created as the forum where admin error or abuse in applying deletion policy is discussed, and is un-appealable outside the dispute resolution channels. Its main function is to establish whether the need to discussion is exhausted, or whether the discussion should continue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Gah, ghastly. A discussion about whether to have a discussion?...please! That's when we end up sending stuff to AfD because it is 'out of process', when everyone agrees it should be deleted/kept. Common sense and discussion (whatever the forum) needs to be more important than wonkery.--

Doc^g 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is descriptive, whereas the Role of Deletion Review section above is instructional. Kla'quot 04:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat oppose because occasionally editors use DR to salvage information which may be basis of another article. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using appropriate venues

1. ) Various venues for debates on Wikipedia have different rules for commenting and for deciding the outcome of the debate. Holding a debate in an inappropriate venue can influence the outcome, and may constitute gaming of the system.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nah, respect discussions, wherever they may be. Don't unilaterally shut them down without some consensus to do so. It is when one person's idea of process is used to silence the group that we get into trouble. If you want to move venues, suggest it, don't chuck boilerplace at people.--

Doc^g 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think people would object if you attempted to carry out a deletion debate at say RFA.Geni 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. The wording may be a bit weak, but I believe it's a pertinent principle for understanding why some editors wanted to move the debate to AFD. Zocky | picture popups 15:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early closure of discussions based on

WP:SNOW

1) Discussions which show an overwhelming consensus for a particular view are sometimes closed early citing a principal explained at

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is essentially identical to my earlier proposal (2) under 'Early closure of discussions based on WP:SNOW is harmful' (see above). I'm happy to support it, although I prefer my wording as it factually notes that WP:SNOW has some support, whilst not inviting arbcom actually endorsing something that's not policy. Perhaps the best of both of these could be melded into one finding by a clever arb. Whilst I support WP:SNO, I certainly think that some arbcom caveats could help to prevent future disputes.--

Doc^g 12:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to 'Proposed decision' finding 7, 'Early closure of discussions based on WP:SNOW is harmful'. Essentially, WP:SNOW is a particular, relatively common, application of IAR. As such, it should be subject to the same sort of 'controversy' strictures as other IAR actions. --CBD 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yanksox' deletion of Daniel Brandt was inappropriate

1) The deletion of

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

The second paragraph isn't supported by any findings of fact or evidence. Mackensen (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one part isn't - it just hasn't been shown that the IRC discussions took place, as we know that he re-deleted it, that there was little discussion (timeline), and that the comments on the deletion log were not civil. Plus, it only says "reports of support". ST47Talk 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could ask around and see if someone could testify to the presence of such support. The people who posted barnstars and the like on Yanksox' talk page would be a good place to start. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not capture what happen. Says as given some things that are not proven by diffs. We need to stick to evidence from diffs or logs. A simple factual accounting of the time line would work, I think for a finding of fact. FloNight 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't usually have a separate section for analysis or conclusions I've put them here. I think that it is important for us to state that the article was not a candidate for deletion under WP:LIVING, because that was claimed, and because our approach in the case would be very different if it were. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Fred Bauder 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've broken this down into smaller pieces. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the IRC portion based on comments. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

'Despite reports of' - you know how hard we'd hit an uunsourced and unevidenced phrase like that if it were on an article??? {{

Doc^g 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

AnonEmouse, I should note that those comments and conversation came two days after the deletion. I didn't engage on any chatter on IRC about this action on that day, it was a build up. Yanksox 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Supporting evidence for second paragraph comes directly from Yanksox: "I discussed this in length my many people"; "I felt it was important to keep the quality of this encyclopedia without bringing in down to a sophomoric fight over keeping it just to "piss someone off," as one well respected Wikipedian as told me off-Wiki why they wanted to keep the article." (sic) OK, stricken; you may want to specify that in those 2 places in your evidence section. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not supported by deletion policy

1.1) The deletion of Daniel Brandt by Yanksox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was not supported by Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Fred Bauder 04:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse. I think we are making some real progress here. —freak(talk) 22:50, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not WP:LIVING

1.2) The article as a whole did not fall under the

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Fred Bauder 04:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse wholeheartedly. The article clearly should not have been deleted on these grounds. —freak(talk) 22:47, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse. WP:BLP says "unsourced and controversial". Both elements must be present for BLP to apply. -- Jay Maynard 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:CSD

1.3) The article did not fit any of the

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Fred Bauder 04:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse, clearly. —freak(talk) 22:48, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Insufficient discussion

1.4) Yanksox did not engage in a sufficient amount of on-wiki consensus-building or discussion, either before or after the fact, to justify Yanksox' actions under our doctrine of ignore all rules.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Fred Bauder 04:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re-deletion

1.5) Yanksox' subsequent re-deletion of the article without meaningful on-wiki discussion was also inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Fred Bauder 04:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inflammatory comments

1.6) Yanksox' comments on the deletion log for these and other related actions were unnecessarily inflammatory.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Fred Bauder 04:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bumm13's undeletion of Daniel Brandt was inappropriate

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

The policy there is really vague. It's one we might want to clear up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I wasn't aware of any guideline requiring the application of "temporary undeletion" templates or linking to applicable deletion review pages. I'd be more than happy to have it pointed out to me. Bumm13 13:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This isn't really what happened. Bumm13 undeleted one revision of the article with the express purpose of allowing non-admins to see the article while it was discussed on DRV. His undeletion was reverted in less than a minute, so there was no time to apply a temporary undeletion template. Zocky | picture popups 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaillimh's early closure of the deletion review was inappropriate

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Yeah. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure that "edit war" is the right language, as I reverted Mark's reversal once, and then removed myself from the DRV proceedings. I'm not sure how this constitutes an edit war gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, with further concerns as per MONGO, below. —freak(talk) 22:53, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Geni undeleted the article twice rather than discuss its deletion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Yes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Some supporting diffs pertaining to prior criticism would be helpful. —freak(talk) 01:27, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Should be undeleted, not deleted

GRBerry 19:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Doc glasgow deleted the article inappropriately

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Do not think this captures the situation exactly. Doc, like some of the other admins involved, was acting more in isolation of each other than the statement implies. The problem was too many admins doing too many actions in too short a time period. They were not aware of all the other stuff happening around them at the same time. FloNight 03:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Perhaps you would like to fix the wording. The central point yet remains, which is that Doc was aware that discussion was ongoing and probably ought to have checked the logs. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, part of the problem is that the article deletion doesn't show a recent deletion log; maybe we should ask that be added, so that there's no chance of any confusion in this regard again (the same way the block user page shows the block log)? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the same way the protect page shows the protection log. I think it's a great idea, and would log a bugzilla request for it if bugzilla wasn't down until tomorrow. --cesarb 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bugzilla:9118 --cesarb 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

True. Although I wasn't aware it had repeatedly been deleted and undeleted (although perhaps I should have been). My misguided actions were designed to defend the integrity of the DRV discussion and reverse a undeletion that had absolutely no support in that discussion. In hindsight I should have reopened the DRV without redeleting the article.--

Doc^g 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Question to arbs. If this was inappropriate (which, in hindsight, I'm willing to concede it probably was) to re-delete. What was the proper course of action? To reopen the terminated DRV, close the AfD (we don't want two venues) but to leave the article undeleted for the time? I'm quite happy with that interpretation, I'd just like clarity.--

Doc^g 20:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Why is "participating fully in discussion" a mitigating factor? We normally tell admins not to take admin actions in disputes where they are involved. Zocky | picture popups 04:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but discussing something doesn't necessarily make anyone more involved. All of the admins who deleted or undeleted the article expressed strong feelings about its ultimate fate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but awarding barnstars and suggesting cannonization for Yanksox certainly suggest that Doc was not a neutral party here. It's not a big deal, but holding "not being involved in the discussion" against Geni might be. Zocky | picture popups 05:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... All of the admins who deleted or undeleted the article expressed strong feelings about its ultimate fate. I don't see that. Some of them actually said that they don't care what ultimately happens to the article. Zocky | picture popups 05:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mailer diablo deleted the article inappropriately

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Undeleting with a link to the DRV sounds like a valiant attempt at compromise. In a charged atmosphere those in the middle always get pummeled from both sides. SchmuckyTheCat 21:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schmucky, the actions you describe are those of Geni, not mailer diablo. M.D. deleted the page and created a fresh one with only the deletion review template, and he and protected it in that form with no viewable content or edit history. Then Geni restored the edit history again, underneath the DRV message. —freak(talk) 01:23, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

Even better for Geni then. After reading two days worth of mailing list archives on this issue, I'm more convinced that Geni was right in policy even if wrong in "wheel-warring". I still think MD was trying for some compromise. SchmuckyTheCat 01:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been perfectly acceptable to add a link to the DRV discussion without deleting the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same question as above. Zocky | picture popups 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer, too. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freakofnurture undeleted the article inappropriately

While Freakofnurture's first undeletion of the article is defensible based on

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Everything should have stopped long before this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The second time I restored

WP:BLP. Additionally, I had spoken to CesarB and learned that the reason for his deletion, the possible existence of personal information in the edit history, no longer applied, as he and others informed me with great certainty that such revisions had been oversighted. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Evidence#The deletion by CesarB and the second restore by Freakofnurture were not wheel warring. —freak(talk

) 00:42, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the appropriate action, then, would have been to encourage CesarB to correct the error by undeleting the article. There was no rush. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's no problem with someone other than me undoing my deletion, especially since I had already said (on IRC) it was OK. Once I agreed with the undeletion, who actually did it doesn't matter. --cesarb 11:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Track record of the involved parties

1) Yanksox, Geni, Freakofnurture, Bumm13, Deskana, Doc glasgow, Mailer diablo and CesarB all have a strong record of using their editing and administrative tools in ways which almost always have been consistent with the best interests of the project. All of them have generously volunteered their time to combat vandalism, clear backlogs and keep Wikipedia free from nonsense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

The "almost always" might be interpreted as "already did something wrong before", which I think is not the intended interpretation here. --cesarb 15:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest change to 'usually' - sounds better but allows that we've made mistakes. We have tens of thousands of edits between us, I'm sure we've all had some bad days.--

Doc^g 16:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse per Doc. —freak(talk) 20:16, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think we should make it clear that we are dealing with users who have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, regardless of whether their actions here can be faulted. All of them have showed a strong willingness to maintain Wikipedia and do the often boring grunt work which ensues when someone is given the admin tools. Contrast that to people like this who simply decide to quit doing maintenance work when it makes him tired, and starts filling up the backlogs instead... Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also endorse, and per Doc I think the "almost always" should go; it is redundant anyway since we are talking about their having a long record of doing good - that record does not preclude occasional errors of judgement. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Endorse per JzG. Nobody's perfect, but the overall record is very much on the plus side fo the ledger. -- Jay Maynard 20:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This isn't a vote, but it sure feels like another endorsement ought to be made, so I'm making it. These are all good folk with the best interests of the project at heart even if they may not always agree about everything. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive deletion

2) Yanksox has unilaterally and disruptively deleted an article that has survived eleven nominations on

Comment by Arbitrators:

The point is well taken that there was, and is, substantial support for the deletion. Fred Bauder 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Do not support this wording. FloNight 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lose unilaterally. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

I don't see any reason to believe that it was unilateral. His talk page has plenty of support. The DRV shows that there was plenty of support. According to the discussion on ANI and elsewhere, there was discussion on IRC beforehand. That's not unilateral. It may have been incorrect, but it wasn't unilateral. As for disruptive? It was only disruptive to the extent that any wheel war or incivil comment is disruptive - there is nothing inherently disruptive about the deletion. The language would be better without the modifiers "unilaterally and disruptively". --BigDT 18:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Keep in mind that, although he received support for doing so, all that support came AFTER the deletion. Unilaterally means he deleted with without previous discussion, and without warning that he was going to do it.--Wizardman 23:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I raise an eyebrow at the point that there was a substantial support for the deletion. What does the number of people that support the deletion have to do with anything? WP:NOT a democracy, remember? "Unilateral" means "single-sided", not "single-handedly". Yanksox, and people he consulted with, knew that the "other side" will not agree with speedying of this article, and he went ahead and did it anyway. That's as unilateral as you can get. Zocky | picture popups 05:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral deletion, but Yanksox's actions came into bad light after he deleted the article once again. The second deletion was

disruptive. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

"substantial support for deletion" absolutely is not a replacement for

Consensus. The actions were both unilateral and disruptive, exactly the opposite of what we need to keep tempers low. SchmuckyTheCat 21:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Do not support this wording. FloNight 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, perhaps inappropriate expressions of opinion, but not personal attacks. Fred Bauder 19:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Somewhat offensive. Not highly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Highly incivil rants, yes. But not 'personal' attacks. The community is not a 'person'.--

Doc^g 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

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

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

Agree with Nick. Eluchil404 22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring by Yanksox

4) After his deletion was undone, Yanksox proceeded to wheel-war over the issue. The wheel warring was done in a highly incivil manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

What is the alternative formulation for administrators using their tools to reverse one another, would "misuse of administrative tools" be satisfactory? Fred Bauder 19:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support this wording. FloNight 03:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues. One can wheel war civilly. That's still bad. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does one "wheel war civilly (sic)?" Yanksox 21:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can politely have intense discussions about disputed actions without being incivil. One can even be downright angry without being incivil. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I misread your statement. I thought you were trying to say that it was possible to wheel war civility itself. Yanksox 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

I agree with this, though I believe that wheel-warring and personal attackery are separate issues which should be addressed separately. This finding of fact should not equal more than the sum of its parts. —freak(talk) 20:22, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

Wheel-warring by Geni

5) Geni wheel-warred by undeleting the article after it had been deleted by Yanksox, Doc Glasgow, and Mailer Diablo.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Way shoulda known better. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Given that past experence suggests that discussion would be actively supressed and indeed in this case that was what was happening I saw little value in such a course of action.Geni 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That attitude is worrisome, Geni. Discussion to reach consensus is the way business is done here. Your rejection of this core Wikipedia principle is the problem. FloNight 03:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't reject it. I just felt we were more likely to get to the point where it would be impossible to prevent discussion takeing place by actively resiting the out of process deletion.Geni 11:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Daniel Brandt

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

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt 2 (substantial debate)
3. WP:SNOW
   )
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (4th nomination) (nomination by apparent sock, speedy keep) see also [15]
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (5th nomination)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (6th nomination)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (7th nomination)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (8th nomination)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (9th nomination)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (10th nomination)
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (11th nomination)
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (12th nomination)

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Content is irrelevant. AFD stuff belongs in evidence, as proof of the summary deletion being out of process and counter to consensus. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse with slight modification as per Jay Maynard below. —freak(talk) 20:47, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Q: 12 nomination yes, but I'd be interested in trying to work out how many genuine debates we've had. How many of those 12 ran the course and weren't terminated early for some reason?--

Doc^g 21:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

A: Wow, I've checked. Most of these were speedy closed for process reasons in minutes - NONE ran the full course and only one looks like a genuine debate. Hey folks the impression we've endlessly debated this may be a mirage! The idea that there's a settled consensus on this is bollocks.--

Doc^g 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The link to the second AfD was incorrect, I fixed it (using the list on the deleted talk page as the source). --cesarb 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we did have one real debate, back in November 2005 - I stand corrected. Still the impression given by saying 'we've had 12 Afds' is deceptive,--

Doc^g 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Comment by others:

Shouldn't this mention the fact that 11 of those AfDs resulted in Keep decisions? -- Jay Maynard 20:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think "controversial internet activist" is appropriate here. His controversy extends almost exclusively to Wikipedia and outside of Wikipedia he would not be labeled so. For example, I don't think the NYTimes would call him controversial. I agree that the controversy is about his article. --Tbeatty 20:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was also a DRV back in April 2006 that endorsed the keeps in AFD3 and AFD4. diff of DRV closure

GRBerry 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Per Doc, we really should note that there has not really been a proper, thoguht-out debate on this certainly in recent times. The majority of the debates amount to "feh, we already did this" - but we didn't not properly, and certainly not with the present emphasis on

WP:BLP and proper, rigorous sourcing. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

AFDs nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were all properly closed as speedy keep since they were all made by sockpuppets of a banned contributor, and if that isn't enough (which it is), the nominator presented no new reasons to delete which hadn't been addresed before. There is plainly nothing to criticize about closing those AFDs (indeed, deleting them would have been perfectly in order.) Number 11 should probably have been allowed to run its course since it was a good faith nom, the first in a long while, and there were good faith arguments to delete from Starblind and Will Beback for instance. (There were good faith arguments to keep as well, including from Zoe and Kicking222, neither of them known as extreme inclusionists, and I guess that allowing it to run would have resulted in a "keep" or "no consensus".) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ANI links updated to archive (#206)

GRBerry 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

1) Daniel Brandt has edited under his own name Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and apparently anonymously and as a sockpuppet, often vigorously advocating deletion of the article on himself, see "HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR PRIVACY!" [16] [17] [18] [19]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Relevance?--

Doc^g 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Surely there are more, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel Brandt. —freak(talk) 22:51, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Just researching, as pointed out, relevance may be an issue. Fred Bauder 22:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yanksox

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BLP and Daniel Brandt

1) Although Daniel Brandt has expressed a desire not to have a wikipedia article about him, nothing about that article violated

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

A note, I assume? Content of the article is irrelevant. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree entirely with this analysis of the situation. I have no opinion on its applicability to this case (of which deletion procedures are the primary focal point), or its suitability as a finding of fact in this or any other case. However, some of us are familiar of a previous RFAR in which a handful of similarly flavored findings of fact were accepted without any objection on the basis of the arbitration committee's judicial scope, see [20], so a formal opinion whether or not "article X violates policy Y" would hardly be unprecedented. —freak(talk) 06:47, Feb. 25, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Bucketsofg 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A decision about this one question about this one article would hardly be legislating or precedent setting. At the root of the controversy (and raised several times by others above) is the fact that DB was unhappy that an article about him existed--not merely what the article said, but that it existed. It is perfectly reasonable to raise the question whether BLP was in fact violated. Bucketsofg 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be precedent setting. That establishes a precedent that Arbcom can to rule on article content, and whether or not it violates certain policies, at least so long as that is relevant to a dispute. And it would certainly be legislating, because community consensus can't overturn an Arbcom decision, and even if it could, far too many people will say "But Arbcom said so!" to get a consensus. -Amarkov moo! 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden#Findings of fact before commenting further. —freak(talk) 06:50, Feb. 25, 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it's already been done. I still am not going to support it, although I admit that makes my case weaker. -Amarkov moo! 06:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that case was the only time in Arbcom's history that they've made content rulings. Furthermore, the fact that it's been done before doesn't necessarily mean it's a good practice. Kla'quot 09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed it, but after looking through the AfD, the DRV, the evidence page here, and various other related pages I have not seen a single person identify any specific text in this article which they considered to be a BLP violation. The only 'BLP argument' advanced seems to be along the lines of, 'Brandt does not like the article existing, therefor the whole thing is a BLP violation and must be speedy deleted'. That's a policy interpretation and absolutely IS within the purview of the ArbCom. Does the BLP policy allow the removal of unsourced controversial text about living people OR, as proposed here, the removal of sourced text about living people which the subject (or others) want removed? I think the intent and wording of policy is already absolutely clear on this issue, but as people are disputing it an ArbCom statement on the nature of the BLP policy would be a good thing. If people felt that particular sources weren't valid they should have cited those and removed the text supported by them. That didn't happen because people wanted to use BLP as an excuse to delete the article entirely... not to make it better sourced. And that isn't what BLP exists for. Even articles deleted under BLP as hopelessly unsourced (which blatantly did not apply here) are intended to be recreated with proper sourcing. BLP is not an article deletion criteria... it is a vehicle for removing unsourced text which can cover the entire article in extreme cases, but even then allows immediate recreation if reliable sources are provided in answer to the stated BLP objections. Nobody even bothered to identify text 'violating BLP' here, because this wasn't about improving sources/BLP at all. --CBD 13:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have a culture in which WP:BLP is a silver bullet: shoot first, aim indiscriminately, use the biggest gun you can lay hands on, ask questions later if you're one of the fortunate few, or else never if you're not. That needs to change, or else WP:BLP needs to be rewritten to make that interpretation explicit policy. -- Jay Maynard 13:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

On the Daniel Brandt DRV (if anybody is interested they can just take a look) I did express some concerns over the article from looking at the Google Cache, namely the

neutrality, and the difficulty in maintaining neutrality, of the said article. I feel for instance that Jimbo Wales' opinion about Brandt was given undue weight in the biography, giving an entire paragraph of his letter in what is otherwise a fairly short article. Of course, except in very serious circumstances, an NPOV issue is rarely a reason to delete even a biography of a living person as long as the assertions are fully referenced as they were here. (If an NPOV dispute on a BLP were a reason to delete them, we would probably be deleting George W. Bush, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, John Kerry and others right now.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

1) Gaillimh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [21]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comments by Yanksox

1) The comments made by Yanksox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with respect to deletion of Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are strikingly similar to those made by Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppets, raising the possibility that Yanksox is a sock of User:Daniel Brandt.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just a hunch Fred Bauder 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the account was somehow compromised, possibly temporarily. I recall a similar situation involving an edit to Daniel Brandt while it was protected. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's not go down this path. We have enough to consider here without jumping at shadows. Kirill Lokshin 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr is not for fishing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Brandt is from Texas and is almost 60. I am from Massachusetts and am in college. Perform a checkuser, but I am not Brandt. Yanksox 03:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yanksox. Yanksox 03:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can also assure you that it was not. I don't know how checkuser works, but if you look at every IP I've editted from you'll see two-four different ones ranging from (I'm risking my privacy to emphasize this) Southeastern Massachusetts to Downtown Boston. Yanksox 04:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Fred Bauder 17:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Fascinating. Anyone asked for a checkuser? -- Jay Maynard 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Yanksox make it clear that he has consistently identified himself as a college student from the Boston area during the full year he has been editing here. I do not want to identify specific edits for privacy reasons but will be glad to provide diffs or excerpts of what I am talking about to the arbitrators via e-mail if appropriate. His contributions, prior to his becoming an administrator and focusing on admin actions, reveal a focus on the New England area and (befitting his username) on baseball. Several weeks ago, in an e-mail urging me to run for administrator, Yanksox mentioned that he was taking a Wikibreak due to college finals; he more recently e-mailed asking if sometime I could talk to him about law schools. Prior to this week, I do not know of any instance in which he took an admin or editorial action that overlapped actions that Daniel Brandt has urged be taken. I do not believe it is credible that Yanksox has been play-acting in this fashion for a full year so that he would have the opportunity to delete this article. Newyorkbrad 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser run by Mackensen has yielded an Unrelated result. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yanksox. Newyorkbrad 04:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SanPadre

1) SanPadre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yep, that looks just like Daniel Brandt. To quote SanPadre: "My familiarity with WP policies would not be based on the keystrokes I've submitted to Wikipedia as an editor, but instead on the extent to which I have read policies and guidelines." [22] PTO 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A major problem I have with the deletion of

SqueakBox 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Why, such info is rarely useful. We block abusive socks, and if Brandt is editing unproblematically, let him.--

Doc^g 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

I prefer 1b; "wheel warring" is an infelicitous phrase. Jimbo's later comments make it clear that ArbCom can do whatever it wants here regarding Yanksox. However, I'm not sure that we should put any time limit on it at all. If he has to go through RfA, he's going to find it a lot bigger hurdle than waiting one year ever would be. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Endorse 1, not 1a - at [23] the ArbCom found that Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status. True, that was a long time ago, but it seems to me that that sentiment still stands. ST47Talk 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support 1b, minus the time limit. I don't see it as necessary; if the community trusts him, the community trusts him.

masterka 09:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Either he's trusted to be an admin, or he's not; saying that he's not trustworthy—but only for three days!—is both punitive and rather pointless. Kirill Lokshin 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slap on the wrist. We have to be willing to adopt remedies that give our policies some sort of teeth. The idea that we can't impose meaningful sanctions on people we still trust doesn't work for me. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a slap on the wrist isn't inappropriate for a first violation. The next slap will be with a hammer. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If as you've said above, my first undeletion is defensible, then why is Bumm13's not defensible? —freak(talk) 01:05, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

Because he was aware of the discussion at DRV, and you (apparently) were not. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the discussion (it was in its early stages) but was (and largely still am) unaware of any guidelines stating that undeletion of content that was speedily deleted without the person who engaged in the deletion being contacted is specifically prohibited. It also appears that Wikipedia has the maxim that "undeletion of content should not occur while a DRV discussion is ongoing" but I haven't yet seen a page explicitly saying that this is policy (with a template including the checkmark and all that). I feel that such ambiguity makes it difficult for arbitrators to put their proposals into a solid decision if there isn't specific policy or at least a relevant page of applicable text that can be referenced as part of the decision-making process. There seems to be an overarching theme on Wikipedia that ambiguous maxims and norms suffice as policy (in addition to specific policy) until some highly serious matter occurs (such as this wheel-war situation). Again, if a page regarding these specific points can be pointed out to me, I'd be more than happy to read it and accept its authority. Bumm13 13:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have found a page referring to the contacting deleting admin issue when restoring an out-of-process deletion. [24] Bumm13 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the

undeletion policy page, it states that "A page listed for undeletion should remain on DRV for at least five days." [25] In the previously referred to simple undeletion section, it states that "If you (admin) are unclear as to whether it was out of process or not, it is better to take the matter to deletion review." Other than references to taking a disputed deletion to DRV and that the discussion should remain there for a proscribed length of time, nothing further is specifically mentioned about the deletion/undeletion status of the disputed article itself regarding an ongoing DRV discussion. I don't wish to split hairs, I only wish to be clear on what our policies actually state. Bumm13 15:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

I wholeheartedly share MONGO's concerns as expressed below, however, my lips are sealed. —freak(talk) 00:56, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

THis was a simple editorial decision, which anyone could have reversed. (In hindsight, I wish I had). It would very useful for arbcom to place some warning against using WP:SNOW in controversial cases, and particularly within hours of opening. But anything more than a caution against the individual seems excessive. Tell the community this is bad, then jump on the next person who offends.--

Doc^g 09:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

It seems to be UC's usual terminology for a ban. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision#User:Izzy Dot banned. I was just making sure there wasn't an inadvertent mistake. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems quite disproportionate to the other remedies you've proposed, particularly those against Geni and Freakofnurture, who come out of this with a far lighter admonition. Unless the message you wish to send is that the wheel warring was substantially less serious than the inappropriate closure of the DRV, this remedy would seem to be out of place. A ban on deletion closures or other semi-administrative tasks would seem more reasonably specific. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy I proposed for Geni is a lengthy suspension of administrator privileges, hardly a lighter admonition. Despite the currently fashionable moral panic regarding "wheel warring," it is my view that Gaillimh's actions contributed far more to the escalation than did Freakofnurture's second deletion of the article. Gaillimh's attempt to force closure of the deletion review took away the only suitable discussion forum and set the stage for people to continue to delete the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm surprised that you feel general bans and suspensions of administrator privileges are even comparable. Taking away someone's bit for a month, while letting them participate in all other activities, is far less severe than telling someone not to show their face, period, for ten days. As for the rest, I defer to your judgment of the facts of the situation; my point was simply that you were sending a certain message by handing down a more severe remedy for the DRV closure than for the wheel warring. If this was intended then by all means continue. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is our convention not to revoke administrator privileges except when administrator tools are misused. In that light, I thought a ban would be appropriate. You might think 10 days is excessive, and perhaps the case could be made that it is. I believe it is about right. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a punitive block? I understood that blocks were not to be punitive. Is the ArbCom revising that? Or will you find a different remedy? Jd2718 03:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is proposed is a ban, not a block. Bans are issued, among other reasons, to deal with behavioral problems. Both Gaillimh and Wikipedia can endure 10 days apart, and if the result is heightened sensitivity to closing off debate using WP:SNOW as an excuse, it will be worth it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't think this is necessary. His statement shows that realises he made a mistake in the closure and he's said he won't do a similar thing again. He reverted only once, so his edit warring was minimal. I don't see any need to sanction him for, what is essentially, a couple of poor decisions. Trebor 21:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This remedy seems very lenient as there is a lot more here than meets the eye.--MONGO 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have pertinent evidence then please state it rather than alluding to vague innuendo.

Catchpole 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe MONGO may be referring to something having to do with Gaillimh's activities under a prior user name. Perhaps Gaillimh would be willing to come forward with that information since it appears to have been disclosed on other web sites already, rendering its confidentiality here rather pointless. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though UC's comment suggests he knows what MONGO could be referring to, I have emailed the ArbCom mailing list "filling in the pieces". I do this (email rather than /Evidence) due to the circumstances regarding Gaillimh's appearance on Wikipedia, and the history involved.

Daniel.Bryant 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't believe Gaillimh's actions can be considered without also considering certain actions made under his previous name. Whether this is done publicly or privately is up to the committee, of course.

Thatcher131 17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Thatcher131. In fact I personally feel (and this is hard to comment on without revealing any info about his previous identity) that the committee must look at his actions under his previous username and the timing of his actions. I feel that this proposal may in fact be too lenient. Glen 07:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geni

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

[26][27].Geni 03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on the sins of others, but if mailing lists count as 'discussion' then so would 'IRC' - discussion for these purposes MUST be on-wiki. And given that a discussion was open on DRV, then a call to close that should at least have been floated there.--

Doc^g 10:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Mailing lists are recorded and public. IRC is not.Geni 13:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. But the way to avoid problems is to discuss it in the visible place with those who were currently expressing an opinion. That's why both IRC and mailing lists are not the places to generate consensus for action.--

Doc^g 13:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

no shortage of people expressing an opinion on that thread. Also much harder to shut down disscussion on the mailing list than it is onwiki.Geni 13:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. Wheelwars don't happen in IRC or on mailing lists, they happen on wiki. that's why we must explain ourselves, discuss and propose on-wiki. People were discussing this on-wiki. Rather than join the discussion, you terminated it and imposed your judgement. I don't care how much we explain ourselves on IRC or on mailing lists - or who claps us there - that's not the way to go.--

Doc^g 13:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

which discussion did I terminate? Unlike you I did not once stop or attempt to stop any debate.Geni 14:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(remove indent) Ahm yes, you didn't. But we were debating whether to undelete the article, rather than join that discussion with your view that we should, you simply did it. (I didn't really stop a debate - I reopened the original incomplete debate and closed the fork).--

Doc^g 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

we've been through this[28]. Throw the two together and we appear to have a fairly solid record of sttempting to stop deabte. Historicaly debate has not been required in order to follow policy.14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, and I've expressed my regret for that action elsewhere (although I didn't close the debate). But you and I are not going to reach a mind on this. Good job we have arbitration. Signing off.--

Doc^g 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, Geni would be unable to pass RFA again. I am unconvinced that such a remedy is in the best interests of the project. I would be willing to support a ban of a longer (but specific) duration. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I do not believe this remedy would be in the best interests of the project. Perhaps an administrative 1RR would be more appropriate, as Geni has been extremely responsible and productive in handling with image deletion and CSD backlogs [29]. I would prefer a remedy that did not prevent him from helping us in that manner. —freak(talk) 02:13, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disagree. Geni's actions were the most in-line with policy even if the involvement was just as much a problem as the rest. SchmuckyTheCat 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, shouldn't there be a finding of fact for the "repeated related problems in the past"? --

✉ 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Clearly needs supporttive findings if it is to be passed. I also don't think the time limit is necessary or helpful. RfA has a long (for a wiki) memory and there is no chance that someone desysopped by Jimbo/ArbCom would regain their trust in a month, IMO. Eluchil404 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: For version 4), is it intended that Geni's administrative tools will be automatically restored in 1 month? I would prefer that, or even longer, over forcing the admin through an RfA (unlikely to be successful). Or are there other finding which need to be listed that would demand a stronger reaction? Jd2718 03:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of a suspension would be that yes, the privileges would be restored after the time had been elapsed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4.2) For repeated undeletion of an article without discussion and in violation of policy, and in light of repeated related problems in the past, Geni's administrator privileges are revoked. He may re-apply for administrative privileges to the Arbitration Committee after thirty days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd rather adjust the duration to something we can all agree upon. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perhaps a compromise that might allow Geni to, at some point, regain adminship? I understand both UninvitedCompany's and Mackensen's points. Ral315 » 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an RfA is involved, we will have lost Geni's services as an admin. I don't think this would be good for Wikipedia. As per UIC, above, perhaps a longer loss of tools, but for a definite period, with them being returned when the period is up. (no RfA) Jd2718 05:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly why (I'm not very familiar with the circumstances around Geni), can you elaborate a little bit? Thanks. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be best since the practical limit at RfA would be 6 months-never. Eluchil404 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]