Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Badlydrawnjeff ( talk · contribs)

Specific user conduct issues regarding deletion

It's worth noting on these the severe problem with these deletions. The expectation from many of these administrators is that it's up to those who want to keep the material to explain why without giving us the opportunity to see the material that they're hiding from us. Thus, it puts users in an impossible situation - the administrators are not required to provide a legitimate reason when deleting, but will not even undelete a history in order to allow other users to make the rationale they're demanding. See the issue with Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby at the DRV log for 28 May.

Improper activity toward BDJ based on his position regarding the conflicts

It's very hard to assume anything other than malice when you have to deal with comments such as the following:

  • Tony Sidaway and his continued condescending remarks: [2] [3] [4] [5]
  • User:Chairboy and continued condescending remarks and poor faith commentary: [6] [7] [8] [9]
  • User:Drini and continued condescending remarks: [10] [11]
  • User:JzG's false statements and improper block threats: [12] [13], and also see his ArbCom statement, where he falsely accuses me of being "devoted to...popular culture" (which is not at all true given my areas of editing), that my "personal inclusion threshold is well off in the long tail" (which is not true, as my personal beliefs are consistently put aside in favor of our needlessly strict guidelines), that my "constant challenging of admin's best-efforts closures of hard cases is actively harmful to the project" (dissent isn't harmful.
  • User:H (HighInBC) and his condescending accusations: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Please also see the IRC logs forward to ArbCom last week, as well as the e-mail sent to me through the Wikipedia "E-mail this user" link.
  • User:Pilotguy and gross incivility, warnings, and disruptive accusations: [19]. Please also see the IRC logs forwarded to ArbCom last week.
  • User:Doc glasgow's activity in particular has been especially egregious. His opening statement [20] makes four false statements: That I listed the Qian Zhijun article at DRV a total of four times (I did so twice [21] [22]) , that I promote "in-house processes [with] the potential of causing harm, or bringing wikipedia into disrepute," that my "activity is damaging to the encyclopedia" regarding Qian Zhijun, that I was "disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point," or that I was "flaunting BLP by continually linking this individual." None of this is true or substantiated, or can be because it never happened. Incivility is one thing - impugning my character the way Doc has and continues to do is unacceptable, and ironic given his desire to protect BLPs.

For other pieces of evidence, see AN/I, AN/I, RfC, AN/I, and the IRC logs that were forwarded to the ArbCom mailing list.

Incivility toward me continues: [23] Another untrue statement.

Doc glasgow has continued his campaign against me. Following this edit, entirely compliant with policy, he improperly rolled me back, and threatened to block me if I re-added sourced, neutral information, even as he rolled back to an unsourced version of Allison Stokke. He then dishonestly referenced the relevant deletion review closure during the AfD discussion. If you check the history of the Stokke article, you'll note that Doc reverted the sourced, neutral information 5 times, and, when approached about it, said "So block me, i'll see you in arbitration." [24] When I again told him that his interpretation of the DRV closure was incorrect and that he'd have to deal with that, he removed the comment as "troll." [25] Further warnings based on that were removed through another improper rollback. [26]

Improper BLP deletions continue unabated

See the following:

Note that a variety of editors are protesting these.

Tanya Kach

Doc glasgow has since continued this improper activity. A speedy deletion of Tanya Kach was overturned at DRV [27], and Doc speedied the article again almost 7 hours later. The content was verifiable, and no one was arguing that the sourcing was poor. =

Allison Stokke

A second AfD [28] was closed as delete, against the arguments made at the discussion. User:Coredesat, who closed the AfD, recommended DRV. [29] [30] The relevant DRV was speedy closed by three separate administrators disruptively. This has to stop. User:^demon, did it the first time, and accused me of trolling three times [31] [32] [33]. User:Daniel did it the second time, and Glasgow the third, with yet another improper use of rollback [34] A discussion at AN/I was shut down with nasty comments abound. [35] This must end.

On BDJ

Badlydrawnjeff often gets fed up

Plenty of evidence may be brought up based on my possible incivility. I own up to anything I've said, and I try very hard to keep a cool head, and don't always succeed. I have nothing more to say on the matter, although one can certainly understand a reaction when being threatened with various blocks and being accused of various false things to lose one's head. The following may be worth noting in the interests of full disclosure: [36] [37] [38]

And yes, I got fed up again tonight: [39] [40] [41]. I don't regret a word. So now there's reason to keep this under my name, and the peasants rejoiced. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply

BDJ does not have a history of extending issues past the state of consensus

DRV is the only place this would qualify - I've relisted one DRV after an incorrect closing ( Darvon cocktail), and I relisted Qian Zhijun before the RfC in an attempt to avoid said RfC. Other than that, I typically don't bother with situations once a proper closing has been reached, whether i agree or not. Contrary to the myth perpetuated by Doc glasgow, I listed Qian Zhijun twice, and reverted disruptive closures of the DRV twice. Very different things.

I do often act as the lone voice in the wind. There's a good chance that people may try to hold that against me - at no point is my voice being put out there in a way that is contrary to policy or inclusion guidelines.

BDJ's general record regarding these issues is good, even though a lot of people dislike him for it

I'm an m:inclusionist, possibly the highest profile one on the project. Inclusionists aren't well-liked on this project as a whole, but we manage. At no time do I petition for egregious material to be kept on the site, especially in terms of BLP issues. I definitely find the BLP policy to be detrimental to this project's success, but at no point does my activity live up to any reputation many would like to peg on me regarding BLP issues. I can't adequately prove a negative, and I have over 10000 non-automated edits since BLP was instituted, so there's plenty of strong evidence to suggest that a) my mainspace edits, and b) my DRV/AfD record has been well within policy and BLP grounds.

BDJ does not have a history of acting outside of policy or consensus, even if he disagrees with it

In fact, one of the main complaints people have is that I'm too married to policy. Let's be straight - I don't knowingly violate policy in my edits or activity, and I work hard to fix the problems if it turns out I made an error. At no point have I attempted to buck consensus, ignore consensus, or ignore policy to exert my will. It does not happen.

The article in question

On 4 May, Qian Zhijun, "the most famous face in China" with fame that he did not initially pursue, but later cultivated, was nominated for deletion. [42] After the requisite five day period, the discussion was closed as delete by Daniel ( talk · contribs) , [43] but later re-opened by Bryant following an appeal. [44] Drini ( talk · contribs) closed the discussion again not too long after as delete, citing that the meme might be notable, but the kid isn't. [45] This was appealed at deletion review on 13 May, and eventually overturned by Xoloz ( talk · contribs) on the grounds that the subject met all the relevant policies (having multiple reliable sources, the cornerstone of inclusion - one user put the rate of sourcing at 1.7 refs/sentence [46]), and relisted the article on AfD. [47] This discussion was quickly responded to by a number of people before being closed by thebainer ( talk · contribs) less than an hour after the relisting. [48] I then nominated it for deletion review [49] following an appeal to thebainer [50] which was declined. This is where the issues began, over the course of around 24 hours:

The discussion spilled over to a number of project pages, talk pages, and userpages. It's emblematic of the general situation the project is currently encountering regarding the actual role of deletion review, the ability of administrators to use their abilities to shut down useful discussion, and the inability to have a consistent, clear appeals process, without even getting into the specifics of user conduct, which is highlighted by the numerous case of incivility and lack of good faith toward contributors on both sides of the debate, as evidenced by commentary below mine. At one point in this discussion, JzG even tried to imply that, since so many OTRS admins were supporting the deletion, that those opinions should be given more weight, which is patently false.

There was no process problem with the first AfD or the first DRV. The first AfD was properly closed on process grounds, but the first DRV properly noted that there were issues with the result.

You'll note a great deal of administrative wheel warring as well as non-administrative wheel warring. You'll notice a deletion for BLP, although the article was more than well-sourced. BLP IS NOT A BLUDGEONING DEVICE.

Current consensus is unknown. The third AfD suggested a major shift, but there's no way an AfD can derive such a consensus after less than one day. It was disclosed by one admin [diff forthcoming] that IRC discussion aided in the decision, leaving a significant group of editors out of the process. That's a major problem.

Meta issues

Deletion review too often fails to achieve proper results in disputed cases

  • See User:Badlydrawnjeff/DRV is Broken. A 6 week look at DRV results that went the full time period ended up with the incorrect result per process or policy 15% of the time, and that number includes uncontroversial decisions where no one disputes the result during the discussion.

Inclusionist Wikipedians are held to a different standard than other self-styled Wikipedians

BDJ is very intent on holding administrators accountable for their actions

Absolutely, and I'm sure there are diffs galore for it there, as well, that are too numerous to dig up. JzG notes in his ArbCom statement that he doesn't like me going after those pushing the button on deletions, for instance, as if administrators are simply there to not inspect whether a speedy deletion is legitimate. As a threat to the power structure, people don't trust me. I can accept that personally, but not when it bleeds over like this.

Responses

Response to Tony Sidaway

Tony claims my objections are "fluid and inconsistent." He fails to note my admittance of being "hasty" in said response to NYB. [51]

Response to Phil Sandifer's evidence section

The first set do not demonstrate any disruption whatsoever, as deletion discussions are just that - discussions. Could I be less heated at times? Yes, and I'm the first to admit it.

The second part about the RfC is irrelevant - if 50 editors can come around to endorse a disruptive closure by Sam Blanning, those 50 editors can change the policy if they so choose. Sam was incorrect.

Violetriga, per WP:WHEEL, did not wheel war. Ironically, on Qian Zhijun, Phil, per WP:WHEEL, did wheel war, as he re-deleted an article overturned by consensus as well as by administrators who reversed the original improper deletion. See the Qian Zhijun deletion log and the timeline above.

Response to JzG

I disagree that I misunderstand the purpose of BLP. Quite simply, it was a knee-jerk response to situations that could have gotten the Foundation into legal hot water, so I see absolutely no reason to sugarcoat it or participate in revisionism. Of course, having an opinion on such a matter is certainly not actionable, nor does my behavior or activity on the project show any sort of inappropriate behavior regardless of the circumstances surrounding BLP's orders implementation.

My approach is binary - there's policy, and then there's people who ignore policy for their own goals.

Response to FCYTravis

Wikipedia:Assume good faith only requires me to assume good faith until there's evidence to the contrary. When people blatantly lie about the outcome of a DRV (see the Allison Stokke situation w/Doc) or make blatantly rude statements about evidence I've presented, as Travis did on this very workshop page ( see claim that my evidence is nothing more than "I disagree, thus it's wrong", [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop&diff=135783311&oldid=135782405 see claim that I "believe that we are supposed to follow process to the letter at all times, even when that would result in nonsensical results for the encyclopedia"). Note that I have not been incivil as much as told people that such lies will not be tolerated, while making such false statements about me, as Travis has multiple times in this case (as well as Doc and JzG in their opening statements).

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway

The issue is not hostility to inclusionism

In 2005 in loose collaboration with others I undertook an avowedly inclusionist and highly successful project to stop what I perceived to be unwarranted campaign of deletion of articles related to high schools.

It's still running, although I myself subsequently focused my interests elsewhere. In general I have found Wikipedia to be an intensely inclusionist environment, as evidenced by the high success rate of the project to turn deletion debates around and focus on improving Wikipedia's coverage of schools. The deletion debate record for 2005 read:

  • Nominated: 424. Kept: 362; Deleted: 41; Merged/redirected: 13; Other: 8.

This was an extraordinarily high keep rate. Note that most of the deletions were in the earlier part of the year, before I started the project. In particular, of 12 school articles listed for deletion in January, all but 3 were deleted. In December of that year, 22 articles were listed for deletion and all were kept. I myself had left the project in September.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute results suggest that Badlydrawnjeff's complaints do not come close to enjoying consensus

At the request of the arbitration committee, Badlydrawnjeff took his dispute with actions over the QZ article to Requests for comment.

  • Original complaint alleging wheel warring, disregard for consensus, and incivility:
    • Certified by 6 editors (not all of whom could validly certify)
    • Endorsed by 7 editors

The most significant responses in terms of support or opposition can be summarised as follows:

  • Commentary by User:JzG strongly disputing the case, particularly with respect to the claim that administrators had engaged in wheel warring:
    • Endorsed by 30 editors
  • Outside view by BigDT saying simply: "This whole thing is stupid. It's time to move on with life":
    • Endorsed by 28 editors including Badlydrawnjeff who however added "but there are reasons why we can't."
  • Response by Doc glasgow critical of Jeff's focus on that particular article and describing it in terms of "Articles about fat Chinese kids who get mocked on websites":
    • endorsed by 23 editors
  • Another outside view by " Radiant!" critical of the unjustified blocking of Badlydrawnjeff in relation to this case:
    • Endorsed by 23 editors
  • Outside view of FloNight, essentially: "Please respect the closing admin unless there is a clear undisputed error":
    • Endorsed by 21 editors

Note that no comment critical of administrator activity in deletion or deletion reviews enjoyed to date (31 May) more than 19 endorsements.

User:Badlydrawnjeff's objections are fluid and inconsistent

Here I present a recently compiled bit of evidence which illustrates the difficulty of understanding Jeff's objections, because they often seem to contradict his prior statements.

In discussing the deletion of two articles on the child victims of abduction and serious sexual abuse, Newyorkbrad said on my talk page on 27th May:

  • ...I have gone ahead and deleted both articles. They concern two juveniles, still alive and still minors, who were the victims of kidnapping and horrific multiple sexual assaults. The mass media would probably not have printed their names but for the fact that they were kidnapped before being assaulted, resulting in "missing children" publicity, and the media may have felt it was too late to put the genie of publicity back into the bottle. Wikipedia need not follow this course and as these teenagers seek to recover from their ordeals, there is no reason to publicize them further under the innocent victims' names, so that Wikipedia joins in ensuring that years from now, the first bit of information that will be available about these people is what a predator did to them. For legitimate encyclopedic purposes, sufficient coverage can be found in our article about the criminal, from which I have redacted only the victims' names—probably a symbolic gesture, but one I am comfortable with. And I truly urge those who support the inclusion of virtually all disputed content to consider whether a line must be drawn somewhere, and this is an appropriate place. [52]

Badlydrawnjeff's response was:

  • For the record, current minors is an area we shouldn't touch. I don't disagree with that. You want to draw a clear line, that's a good one [53]

Today I moved an article in the name of a four-month-old minor who survived the recent Indian Ocean tsunami, to the name by which the baby was called by the press prior to identification of his parents, Baby 81, and removed the name of the minor from the article. All links were updated. The name is still given by some references, but at least it's no longer being broadcast by this top ten website. Jeff now opposes this, with the support of ALoan and without waiting on my response to his request for clarification of BLP concerns, moving the article back to the original place [54] and restoring the wording [55]. His justification:

  • "Four month old baby" is not part of BLP. [56]

On my request, the article was then move-protected on BLP grounds by an administrator. Two orphaned redirects were also deleted following the move.

Violetriga has demonstrated a high degree of insensivity to concerns about biographies of living persons policy

Doc glasgow deletes some biographies of minors on Biographies of living persons grounds:

  • 23:30, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Kian and Remee Hodgson" (WP:BLP and WP:NOT take it away)
  • 23:27, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Manar Maged" (eak, no WP:BLP)
  • 23:26, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Abhilasha Jeyarajah" (WP:BLP and WPNOT)
  • 23:23, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Charlotte Wyatt" (WP:BLP attack)
  • 23:22, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman" (WP:BLP and WP:NOT)
  • 20:13, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Rumaisa Rahman" (unreferenced child bio - per WP:BLP feel free to recreate with sources)
  • 20:06, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Montana Barbaro" (unreferenced bio per WP:BLP without prejudice to properly sourced recreation)

Violetriga restores the same articles without consultation:

  • 00:42, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Montana Barbaro" (25 revisions restored: invalid reason for deletion)
  • 00:40, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman" (28 revisions restored: invalid reason for deletion)
  • 00:39, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Charlotte Wyatt" (99 revisions restored: invalid reason for deletion)
  • 00:38, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Manar Maged" (70 revisions restored: invalid reason for deletion)
  • 00:37, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Kian and Remee Hodgson" (48 revisions restored: invalid reason for deletion)
  • 00:34, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Abhilasha Jeyarajah" (32 revisions restored: should never have been deleted)
  • 00:10, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Rumaisa Rahman" (24 revisions restored: don't just delete!)

00:34, 30 May 2007 Violetriga leaves message on User talk:Doc glasgow:

  • BLP is not an acceptable reason to arbitrarily go around deleting valid articles. You cannot just delete a decent article without giving any sort of notice when the article is in no way defamatory to the subject. [57]

Although repeatedly asked to undo her restorations, she point-blank refused and maintains moreover that she was entitled to restore the articles.

Badlydrawnjeff has demonstrated a high degree of insensitivity to concerns about Biographies of living persons policy

See for instance talk page Talk:Baby 81

Also: disputing QZ deletion on the grounds that he's no longer a minor and has attempted to exploit his widespread recognition to get an acting job.

Night Gyr has repeatedly undone deletions by administrators who cited BLP concerns without conferring beforehand

Restores history of article explicitly protected as a no-history redirect on BLP grounds:

  • 17:53, 22 May 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs) protected Crystal Gail Mangum (BLP redirect [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)))
  • 22:33, 22 May 2007 Zsinj (Talk | contribs) deleted "Crystal Gail Mangum" (content was: '#redirect 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal')
  • 22:34, 22 May 2007 Zsinj (Talk | contribs) restored "Crystal Gail Mangum" (1 revisions restored: only the locked redirect.)
  • 22:35, 22 May 2007 Zsinj (Talk | contribs) protected Crystal Gail Mangum (per david gerard [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 00:50, 23 May 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs) deleted "Crystal Gail Mangum" (delete for salting against mission posters)
  • 19:38, 23 May 2007 BigDT (Talk | contribs) protected Crystal Gail Mangum (Protecting from recreation while this is at DRV [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 22:08, 23 May 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Crystal Gail Mangum" (WP:COATRACK)
  • 02:40, 24 May 2007 Thebainer (Talk | contribs) protected Crystal Gail Mangum (protect as redirect [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 02:56, 24 May 2007 Night Gyr (Talk | contribs) restored "Crystal Gail Mangum" (785 revisions restored: restore history behind redirect)

Prior discussion: Night Gyr maintains that he discussed this beforehand. I have searched and this is all I can find on the subject from him prior to his restoration of the history:

  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23:
    • 00:12, 24 May 2007 Comment on deletion review of Crystal Gail Mangum. Nothing about intent to restore. [58]
    • 00:14, 24 May 2007 Comment on deletion review of Crystal Gail Mangum. Nothing about intent to restore. [59]
    • 00:33, 24 May 2007 Comment on deletion review of Crystal Gail Mangum. Nothing about intent to restore. [60]

Afterwards I asked him to redelete the history:

There was quite a bit of this toing-and-froing but eventually I accepted that he wasn't interested in remedying his restoration without consultation. [63]


Restores article "Jeffrey Baldwin", deleted by admin citing BLP:


  • 16:08, 29 May 2007 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) deleted "Jeffrey Baldwin" (Poor taste article with insufficient justification of notability. Falls afoul of BLP in that it very much hurts the living.)
  • 23:23, 30 May 2007 Night Gyr (Talk | contribs) restored "Jeffrey Baldwin" (23 revisions restored: It makes an assertion of notability and violates neither a7 nor g10. take it to afd.)

Prior discussion: I find no evidence of any prior discussion.

Afterwards he wrote the following message on User talk:Phil Sandifer:

  • 23:28, 30 May 2007 disputing that the article passes A7 criterion (no claim of notability) [64]

Phil Sandifer responded

  • 00:15, 31 May 2007 "You seem to be ignoring the BLP issues I raised - the material in the article still has the possibility of hurting the living, making it very much a BLP issue." [65]

Night Gyr made to more replies but did not budge.

Restores article "Alison Stokke", deleted by admin citing BLP:

  • 18:07, 30 April 2007 Walton monarchist89 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Allison Stokke" (CSD G7 author requests deletion/has blanked page; content was: '{{db-bio}}{{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|doesn't meet criteria for posting in Wikipedia in my opinion. Should not have created this entry. }}}|mon...')
  • 21:14, 31 May 2007 David.Monniaux (Talk | contribs) deleted "Allison Stokke" (non encyclopedic; no evidence of notability (except fringe Internet phenomenon): WP:BLP concerns (minor); WP:NOT a tabloid)
  • 22:10, 31 May 2007 Night Gyr (Talk | contribs) restored "Allison Stokke" (14 revisions restored: not a valid CSD, take this through AFD)
  • 22:20, 31 May 2007 RoySmith (Talk | contribs) deleted "Allison Stokke" (CSD A7 with special regard to WP:BLP and especially the subjet's age)

Prior discussion: David,monniaux had speedied the article during a deletion discussion, citing BLP grounds.

There is a discussion on this at User_talk:David.Monniaux/archive3#Allison_Stokke. In this instance David Monniaux did make the following offer "undeletions can be obtained from any admin" so Night Gyr's undeletion was in order.

Badlydrawnjeff's statements reflect poorly on him and on Wikipedia

  • Maybe what's occurring to her is "offensive" to "basic human decency," all subjective terms that have no place in this discussion, but may otherwise. If we were simply plastering the pictures all over the place and renamed the article "pole vaulting vixen," maybe you'd have a point. But none of that is or was happening, nor would anyone let it at this point. But you have to demonstrate how an article that works off of numerous sources does any harm first. [66]
  • "Four month old baby" is not part of BLP. Again, what justification are you using - if you want to add it to ArbCom go right ahead, but that simply avoids the question. Two separate people are questioning your activity here. [67]

Badlydrawnjeff makes egregiously argumentative and repetitive demands

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Did_you_know&dir=prev&offset=20070114205704&limit=14&action=history

VioletRiga edit wars on a protected page

Template:Did you know is a protected template which is transcluded from Main Page, hundreds of pages in user space, and thousands of pages in user talk space.

It is routinely protected because of its importance. Only those with administrator privilege may edit it. To edit war on this page is arguably wheel warring, certainly an abuse of administrator privilege, and very bad form.

The edit history for 15 January, 2007, in part, carries this sequence of edits:

  • 03:47, 15 January 2007 Lar (Talk | contribs) (Reverting to Dard Hunter version. i will place a version of the Toy Safety hook in NEXT that will be selectable and I ask that people select it.)
  • 02:42, 15 January 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) (<!-- null edit, that's 4 reverts, do you want to be blocked?? -->)
  • 02:40, 15 January 2007 Violetriga (Talk | contribs) (nobody is arguing anything about why it should not be included so consensus is impossible - there is no acceptable reason for it not to be included, and if not now it will time out!)
  • 02:38, 15 January 2007 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) m (get consensus first...)
  • (cur) (last) 02:32, 15 January 2007 Violetriga (Talk | contribs) (you are joking? you haven't given any reasons and only one user made a comment which a) was not followed up, and b) doesn't really matter; let's look at this - is it a major problem to include it?)
  • 02:31, 15 January 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) (True; but you selected at for the Next Update. We already gave you valid reasons for why it shouldn't be on DYK.)
  • 02:27, 15 January 2007 Violetriga (Talk | contribs) (please don't wheel war; self-selection is acceptable)
  • 02:26, 15 January 2007 Yomangani (Talk | contribs) (tidy some)
  • 02:21, 15 January 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) (Add pictured.)
  • 02:19, 15 January 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) (no self selecting)
  • 02:10, 15 January 2007 Violetriga (Talk | contribs) (replace correct article per draft page)
  • 01:46, 15 January 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) (economise)
  • 01:44, 15 January 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) (update)

See actual template edit history.

Violetriga justifies her edits by saying that opinion that conflicts with her own "does not matter", "nobody is arguing anything about why it should not be included so consensus is impossible" and "there is no acceptable reason" for opposing her edits.

The recently deceased

There is an ongoing debate over whether, and to what extent, the BLP applies to the recently deceased

Generic Evidence (Created by User:Phil Sandifer)

Because I suspect that there are certain claims that are going to be echoed by many parties, it seems easiest for the arbcom to condense some of these into one section. Accordingly, I am opening this section with the intention that anybody may contribute to it. I may refactor in order to keep this section relatively concise and on-target, but if you have a diff supporting a claim here, please feel free to make it.

I will note that this evidence section is, shall we say, a bit prosecutorial. That is not to dismiss those who wish to support Jeff's actions, but it becomes confusing to have a schizophrenic evidence section, and so I'm going to say no to that. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm not sure this is a good idea unless you can find a way to format it so that editors sign their submissions individually, otherwise accountability becomes difficult. Thatcher131 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Jeff is incivil and disruptive in deletion discussions

Jeff has posted the same critique of another user in multiple deletion discussions, which is needlessly inflammatory. [73]

Jeff has made many incivil and overly hostile comments in deletion debates: [74] [75] [76] [77] ("since some people need to be spoonfed..." response to being asked to provide sources for an undeletion request of a multiply-deleted, multiply-endorsed article); trolling.

Jeff engages in argumentation in deletion debates rather than simply stating his case ( Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]); ( List of Muslims involved in a crime (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100])

Jeff is unwise in repeatedly attempting to obtain the same outcome even after it is clear that a different forum or solution is needed: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]

Badlydrawnjeff's complaints do not come close to enjoying consensus (2)

Submitted by Steel359.

In addition to Tony Sidaway above:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning.

  • Original complaint alleging disruption and abuse of trust on the part of Samuel Blanning ( talk · contribs):
    • Certified by 3 editors;
    • Endorsed by 2 editors.
  • Outside view by Redvers: "This was never going to be anything other than an obvious "keep deleted". The "discussion" that was being held was generating heat but no light. Samuel Blanning therefore correctly used his judgment to end a broken process. Wikipedia processes exist to facilitate the creation of an encyclopedia. They are not a means unto themselves.":
    • Endorsed by 41 editors.

Evidence presented by violet/riga (t)

Articles deleted and restored

Rumaisa Rahman

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "unreferenced child bio - per WP:BLP feel free to recreate with sources"
  • Not referenced (created in 2004 before referencing was so prevalent).
  • Not defamatory in any way; the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: significant rewrite

Merged into Premature birth by JzG. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

This deletion was not appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative.

Abhilasha Jeyarajah

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP and WPNOT"
  • Four references (not inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: created

Presently at Baby 81 without mention of the name.

This deletion was not appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative and is referenced.

Kian and Remee Hodgson

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP and WP:NOT take it away"
  • Two references (not inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way; the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: none

Turned into article Mixed twins by FCYTravis. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

This deletion was not appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative and is referenced.

Manar Maged

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "eak, no WP:BLP"
  • Seven references (three inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of the person and the events.
  • My work on the article: none

Notability is clearly established by references and mention of several television programmes. Currently on AfD heading for a keep decision or a merger into Conjoined twin. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

This deletion was not appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative and is referenced. The subject is deceased and the application of BLP in such cases is not clear.

Charlotte Wyatt

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP attack"
  • Six references (all inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way; everything is fully referenced.
  • My work on the article: none

Article has been re-deleted by Swatjester (this constitutes a "slow-motion wheel war").

Neither deletion was appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative and is referenced.

Update: Serpent's Choice created a new article which was subsequently tagged for speedy deletion (G4) by Tony Sidaway, contested... it's still ongoing.

Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP and WP:NOT"
  • No references
  • Not defamatory in any way; the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: none

Article has been re-deleted by Swatjester (this constitutes a "slow-motion wheel war").

Neither deletion was appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative and is referenced.

Montana Barbaro

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "unreferenced bio per WP:BLP without prejudice to properly sourced recreation"
  • No references (but four external links that could be used as such)
  • Accusation of bigamy could be seen as defamatory
  • My work on the article: none

Prod by FCYTravis. Taken to AfD by Burntsauce. Article has been re-deleted by Nick ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (this constitutes a "slow-motion wheel war" and very poor judgement given the situation).

This deletion was not appropriate - any offending material could have been removed very easily.

Rebeca Martínez

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "unreferenced child BLP - recreate with compliant sources if you wish"
  • No references
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: none

Currently on AfD heading for a merger into Conjoined twin. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

This deletion was not appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative. The subject is deceased and the application of BLP in such cases is not clear.

Delimar Vera Cuevas

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP unsourced child bio"
  • No references
  • Some content could be controversial but would have easily been removed rather than the entire article deleted.
  • My work on the article: none

Deleted by AfD. I accept this, having commented that I did not mind if it were kept or not as long as it went through due process.

This deletion was not appropriate under BLP - any offending material could have been removed very easily. AfD was the correct process and openly gathered consensus for the deletion.

Final status

Of the nine articles one was deleted by AfD, two were re-deleted by another admin (in violation of wheel-warring), one is being prodded. The other five have followed the evolutionary process of a wiki and are being worked on as appropriate.

Article speedy deletions

Articles are being speedy deleted by a handful of admins who think that BLP allows this. However, according to the policy as it stands, this is not correct. Articles being deleted are sourced and pass NPOV yet they claim that the age of the person matters, the fact that they are dead does not, and that they are (by their personal definitions) not notable. While ethically these articles could be removed it is not appropriate to speedy delete them based on one person's ethical viewpoint when our policy does not support that action.

Evidence presented by AnonEMouse

This case is not "about" Badlydrawnjeff, it is about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

The most obvious evidence for this is this very page. Substantial evidence is being given here about the actions of (on the "include/undelete side" in as much as there are "sides" here - no two people agree on all questions)

Note Badlydrawnjeff was not very involved in their actions. (on the "delete side" - same caveat)

Note all of these are at least former admins. "Community consensus" keeps vacillating - are the shiny buttons important, or no big deal - but in any case, these are all highly experienced users who at least once were "trusted by the community". I'm not quite sure why Newyorkbrad and I don't each have "sections" yet, (one on each "side", I guess) - perhaps because of our kind and lovable personalities? :-) But we're darn close to it (and we're both admins too - everyone who doesn't have the shiny buttons, duck for cover!).

Earlier, Thatcher131 commented that this case is about the policy, rather than one person. It's pretty clear to me that he was right, but it seems that even the obvious needs to be spelled out.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is being misused by people who don't read it

Specifically, the policy is being cited for deleting articles that don't violate it, and for closing discussion on articles that are disputable whether or not they violate it.

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker speedily closed for the reason that "a number of editors in the DRV debate expressed the opinion that these are are unacceptable per WP:BLP." Note that there is no claim that those editors had achieved consensus, or even were in the majority - they hadn't, and they weren't. The claim is merely that some people said so, so merely that claim is a reason to overrule the DRV decision.
  • Here are the deletion log entries in question:
    • 21:26, May 26, 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Robyn Dawkins" (per [[WP:BLP][] not to be restored for procedural reasons) (Restore)
    • 20:54, May 26, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Robyn Dawkins" (4 revisions restored: restore for afd, per DRV)
  • The deleted content of Robyn Dawkins contained the following content (rephrased to avoid restoring deleted content):
Robyn Dawkins, (born -/-/-), was switched at birth with (another boy) shortly after their births in (location) hospital. Their story attracted international news coverage. [1]
Each went home with the other's biological mother. The switch was discovered 2 years later by paternity test on (the other boy).
Robyn missed his biological mother, called her often, until eventually at 15 moving in with his biological family, upsetting the host family. He continues to live with them. [1]

The reference is to 60 Minutes. ""Switched at birth"". "Sixty Minutes". 2007. Retrieved May 23, 2007.

  • You will notice this meets the standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The information is sourced, not derogatory, not controversial, not even disputed. The alleged BLP violation cited in the DRV were:
    • "A 60 min programmes will not Google on this child's name later in life - we will." First, that's not a BLP deletion reason. Second, it's simply not true, as that very article used as a reference is the first Google hit for this child's name.
    • "This is a hospital fuck-up and will be forgotten next time a hospital fucks up." The 60 Minutes article is from 2007, the incident was from 1989 - it hasn't been forgotten in 18 years. Here it is from 2004. Also, that's not a BLP deletion reason.
    • "Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Come back when mainstream sources have proper substantial biographical articles on these individuals" 60 Minutes is hardly a tabloid newspaper, it is a respected program, considered by many to be the preeminent investigative television program in the United States. It is a mainstream source and the citation is to a proper substantial biographical article.
  • Note that the boys, now over 18, no longer minors, are still giving these interviews voluntarily. They've been giving these interviews for years. They aren't objecting to being the subjects of international news coverage, instead Wikipedia admins who never asked them are objecting to their article in their name.

-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

This isn't a black/white issue, there are multiple points and a continuum of views here

At a guess, I'd say that Crystal Gail Mangum would have the most views to "delete or merge", then QZ, while many of the later ones probably have consensus to be kept. One of those that hasn't even been brought up on this page before has been Divine Brown, though Tony Sidaway proposed it for deletion on much the same BLP/notability grounds, then when that was unanimously kept, he immediately turned it into a redirect. I restored, and he and I discussed it for a few days.

I believe that this arbcom case needs to be decided with a clarification of such issues.

In reading all these debates, the issues seem to include:

  • were the article subjects minors at the time of the event?
  • are they minors now?
    what " minors" means is also debatable, probably either "minor in their country", or per the US standards, 18 years old.
  • is merely writing about the incident derogatory towards the subjects?
  • did the article subjects actively participate in the event making them notable?
  • do they still participate in retaining that notability?
  • were they only written about at the time of their incident?
  • were they only written about as a side effect of writing about their incident?
  • what is known about the subjects besides about their participation in the incident?
  • did the incident have an important and lasting effect outside the immediate participants?

QZ was a minor at the time of his incident, didn't participate in the incident, is only written about in connection with the incident, and the incident is clearly derogatory. It is debatable whether he is intentionally participating in retaining notability, since a number of reliable sources say he is merely making the best of a bad situation, and if he could, would chuck the whole thing. If not for that, it would be a clear delete, most of the people arguing to restore it are leaning on that point. For me, even as is, I lean towards a delete even so. I don't believe in "do no harm", since everything we write about harms someone (even if we help someone it harms their enemies), but I do believe in "do more good than harm", and in this case this article seems to do more harm to QZ than good to people trying to find out who "Little Fatty" was. I'd weakly support rewriting it not mentioning his name specifically, but maybe not even that.

Crystal Mangum was not a minor, did participate in the incident, but does not still participate, and the incident is highly derogatory. Her life is ruined already (and wasn't all that great even before). Possibly most important is that essentially nothing notable is known about her life other than participation in the incident. It seems clear she should be a redirect to the event, the only debate is how much about her should be in that article, how much of her editing history should be retained, etc.

Divine Brown was not a minor, participated in the incident, still participates, shows up on talk shows and has had multiple movies primarily about her (for example, titled after her), shows up in minor news bits years later, and a documentary researched her life outside the incident somewhat. The incident would usually be considered highly derogatory, but she doesn't seem to treat it that way. I think it's a clear keep, and has survived two AFDs now, the second unanimously.

Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker were minors, but aren't minors now, didn't participate in the incident, but did participate in retaining the notability, have been discussed internationally for years, and the incident isn't derogatory towards them. I think it's a keep, but would not mind a real AfD.

The Star Wars kid was a minor, didn't actively participate before or after, and doesn't have much to be known about him beside the incident. The incident is derogatory. However, it has had an impact on the world - #1 viral meme of all time. Tony Sidaway changed that article to remove the kid's name, I support that action, that is just the right compromise to make here. (Every so often I want to give Tony Sidaway a barnstar, and his admin bit back. Then he goes and does something like directly contradict a unanimous AFD rejection by 15 people. Sigh.)

Elian Gonzales was a minor, didn't actively participate before or after, and while a lot is known about him, he was so young that it is highly debatable whether anything is really known about him besides the incident. It's debatable whether the incident was derogatory towards him, but the best reasoning for keeping that article seems to be that last point, that since the incident had such an important effect we do need to write about it, and we can't really name it anything but after him. I don't think anyone will even nominate this article for AfD, though if WP:BLP really were more important than anything else, it would be an important test case.

In short, the issues are complicated, and represent a continuum instead of an obvious choice. They deserve to be discussed. Discussion is the way we do things around here, and that means discussion of the article, not appeal to every single admin who happens to want to delete. That's at WP:AFD and WP:DRV, and that discussion should not be short-circuited when there are reasonable points to bring up. The community are the people who established the WP:BLP policy, after all, trust the community to be able to follow it, don't shut them up because we have the bright shiny buttons. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons meets Wikipedia:Featured articles, with a loud crash

Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. ( WP:FA) The Bus Uncle was made a Featured article on May 7, 2007, after review by 6 editors. Before that, it was peer reviewed on Wikiproject Biography on 22 April 2007, Peer reviewed on June 17, 2006, and an earlier FA review by 3 other experienced editors on July 15, 2006.

From 23:48-55 June 4, 2007, Tony Sidaway deleted large cited swathes of the article, most with the edit comment "Removing per WP:BLP concerns. Do not restore." His talk page comment went further, it read:

In accordance with the Biographies of living persons policy, and personal dignity, I have removed the most egregious breaches of personal privacy from this appalling bit of muck. The names of the individuals involved, and irrelevant details of their private lives, have been removed. With immediate effecit, I am removing this rubbish from the list of featured articles.

Less than 2 hours later, User:Raul654, an administrator, bureaucrat, oversight, and arbitrator, besides being the "Featured Article Director", generally considered to be the only person qualified to make the final promotion to or demotion from FA status, reverted Tony's article edits. Over the next 5 hours, 11 other edits from User:Kylohk, User:Kusma, and User:Pomte attempted to address Tony's concerns, but on 06:21, June 5, 2007, User:Pjacobi, also apparently an administrator, reverted them all to Tony's version. 5 hours later Kylohk reverted Pjacobi's reversion. Other editors were involved with their own edits on one side or the other.

Tony Sidaway's further reasoned constructive comments on the article talk page included "This is disgusting rubbish. Every single person involved in any stage of editing this shit, or in assessing it, should be bloody well ashamed of himself." Per the 4 reviews above, and the article's edit history that seems to be a personal attack on at least twenty different editors, including of course Raul654, but also User:SandyGeorgia, User:Yannismarou, User:Miborovsky etc. Or possibly not Sandy, since she would be a "herself"... For what it's worth, it doesn't include me, since I've never had the pleasure/honor/duty/revolting dirty task/pick a noun of editing that article, or assessing it so I guess I am an uninvolved party , and don't have to be bloody well ashamed of myself. Whew! Dodged a bullet! and doesn't include Badlydrawnjeff.

In short, several days later, the article is finally at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/The_Bus_Uncle, with no fewer than 16 editors and 2 WikiProjects notified. But that's probably where it should be, for reasoned discussion with the community. That's not the point of this evidence. The point is that this isn't about Badlydrawjeff. This isn't even about Tony Sidaway. Or Pjacobi, or Raul654, or WikiProject:Biography or WikiProject:HongKong. This is about the fact that people are reading things into WP:BLP that it doesn't say, including, apparently, this time, the ability to demote an article from the Wikipedia:Featured articles list, and to be rude, with use of obscenity, to dozens of experienced, respected members of the Wikipedia community.

Can we please have a statement from the arbcom about this? I'm not even asking whether WP:BLP is the most important thing since sliced cheese, maybe it is. But it doesn't say a thing about these other uses of it. People are reading things into it it just doesn't say, and wrapping themselves in it like a flag attempting to justify the most blatant rudeness and disruption. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Silliness escalation block

This incident isn't in the theme of the other evidence I'm presenting, but should probably be somewhere on the evidence page. Yummifruitbat's description as "a foolish comment in a wider silly argument which was exacerbated by a silly block." about covers it. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive257#Input_requested:_Badlydrawnjeff_physical_threat

02:24, 10 June 2007, User:Chairboy posted to WP:AN/I alleging the comment "I can't wait for the day you piss off the wrong person, Tony." by Badlydrawnjeff on Tony Sidaway's talk page was a physical threat. Half a dozen people quickly responded that it was not a physical threat; but, however, that it, and further comments by Bdj were uncivil.

02:43, 10 June 2007 Coredesat ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "blocked him for a week for the incivility alone". Comments were heated but mixed. 02:49 Tony Sidaway asked Coredesat to unblock at once. 03:00, 10 June 2007 Coredesat unblocked due to Tony's request.

-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by User:JzG

Badlydrawnjeff misunderstands the purpose of WP:BLP

WP:BLP in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect subjects' lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. Jeff misunderstands the purpose of WP:BLP as being primarily about "covering one's legal behind". [107]. This is false. Legal responsibility can be managed by WP:V and WP:NPOV, as for other potential subjects of defamation (e.g corporations); no special policy is required to fulfil this purpose. WP:BLP exists because of the unique potential for harm where real people's lives are concerned.

Badlydrawnjeff's approach is excessively binary

See [108], [109], other examples. It appears that Wikipedia divides into those who agree with Jeff, and those who are simply wrong. It is highly unlikely that it is anything like that simple.

Here [110] Jeff asserts that those who have a different view from him are "lying".

Fundamentally, Jeff appears unwilling or unable to consider that others may be in part right, that he may be in part wrong, and above all that some solution other than his preferred solution may be appropriate. This is a form of ownership.

Badlydrawnjeff's does not accept the validity of any other opinion but his own

Badlydrawnjeff has repeatedly stated that, and acted as if, he is right and those who disagree with him are both wrong and mendacious. He continues to escalate the dispute, and to pursue his own personal version of how the contended subjects should e covered rather than allowing for other .

Violetriga uses admin tools capriciously

Of the articles Violetriga undeleted, as listed above, I believe all are now deleted or merged by consensus. While this does nto endorse speedy deletion of these subject per se, it does indicate that an alternative solution should have been sought, and preferably one that did not result in weeks of angry posturing debate to reach pretty much the same conclusion.

Preterm births

One focus of the controversy has been articles on extreme preterm births. Where such cases are the earlies, smallest or otherwise notable examples, there is no bar to coverage. See these merges: [112], [113]. However, Violetriga inappropriately reverted at least one such case, to a standalone "biography" of an extreme preterm infant [114]. Rumaisa Rahman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently a redirect.

Charlotte Wyatt

Be it known that I am British. I vaguely remember the name Charlotte Wyatt. I do remember the case slightly better than the name; it appears to be a significant event in the ongoing debate over right to live, voluntary euthanasia and related topics in the UK. And here is what we know about this infant and her family: virtually nothing. Because once again it is the case which is notable, not the individual. By presenting the article as a biography, we do something the sources do not do. Excessive focus on an ideological commitment to having an article in this form impedes treatment in a way which is more in line with the sources and less problematic in terms of the impact on real people's lives. The case of Diane Pretty achieved considerably more notice, due I think to her ability to communicate her own mind; the BBC calls her "an extraordinary woman". What is extraordinary about Charlotte Wyatt?

The Bus Uncle

As noted by Anon E Mouse, there was a brief dispute over The Bus Uncle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Be it noted that this is currently at Wikipedia:Featured article review#The Bus Uncle, where the concerns raised by Tony appear to have been given somewhat more weight than is assigned to them in Anon's evidence summary. Much of the disputed content apears to be out of the article, and looks like staying that way.

Some people are just not getting it

As well as User:Violetriga above, User:Prolog has edit-warred over inclusion of the names of living individuals [115], [116].

Crotalus horridus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) says: " Undelete this and get rid of BLP before it destroys Wikipedia. Enough."

Badlydrawnjeff: " No vocal minority here - I'm correct, you are wrong. This is something you'll have to deal with sooner rather than later".

WP:NOT

This change [117] to WP:NOT was specifically motivated by the QZ case. Message-Id: <04AADAAA-191B-4CCC-914B-64769EA5615C@wikia.com> on otrs-en-l from Jimmy Wales, copy on request if this is in doubt.

JzG not evil

According to Prolog's proposed remedy, I have "a history of improper deletions, protections, block threats and closures of discussions as an involved admin".

Deletions

I have nearly finished reviewing my entire deletion history in response to this claim.

As of yesterday evening, I had performed 7711 deletions. Of these, 91.7% were still deleted. Of those which are bluelinks:

  • 22% were uncontroversial housekeeping
  • 27% are redirects
  • 20% are complete rewrites (e.g. after removal of copyvios)
  • 7% are articles on malls created by User:Dvac, a representative of the operating company, deleted en bloc, and since recreated by independent editors
  • 8% are images (these tend to be deleted for sourcing, new images often have the same title even if they are a different image; Image:Boa.jpg has been uploaded twelve times by various users, each time with no source).
  • 5% are duplicates (multiple deletions)

Sundry other things.

Around 50 articles of the total of over 7,700 exist as overturned, either because I closed an AfD which was subsequently overturned, or because a speedy was subsequently overturned, or because a speedy was reposted, taken to AfD and survived. This includes a film which is still not released, at least two autobiographies and so on. That makes an error rate of around 0.6%, or slightly fewer than one per week. Could be lower, of course, but then, I am known for taking on hard cases and OTRS complaints. I suspect the number would be lower if a certain editor could bring himself to start reviewing CAT:CSD and educating those who tag incorrectly, instead of hounding admins. This has been suggested and rejected more than once.

Blocks

I reviewed my last 100 blocks. Of these, three were subsequently overturned. These are all the contended ones:

So "a history" amounts to two instances where the block is problematic, of which one I dispute and the other I don't.

In amongst there we also have Jeffrey Vernon Merkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), where both the block and the unblock were equally controversial. If anyone wants to take me to task over that they are welcome to do so, but this is not the right venue for that particular issue I think.

I will review the next hundred blocks when I get time.

Block threats

Not sure what that refers to; on occasion I have been known to point out the obvious, as per the citation for "Raul's common sense brick": [118]. Is that an inappropriate threat? Sometimes kids need a dose of reality. Perhaps some of the problem here comes from the fact that I tend to draw my view of teenagers and their testing of the rules from my own experience as a parent of two sons, one of whom is a teenager by now. As a rule, teenagers are very resentful when testing the limits results in a loss of face. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, testing the rules often has consequences beyond the individuals concerned (hence WP:BLP).

Prolog identifies a threat below: correct. The user was deliberately evading the sitewide regex filter to insert content he knew had been added to the regex filter specifically to stop this text being added. Stupid. Why the hurry to add it? Do we really have to include content and see if we get sued, or can we sometimes, yiou know, wait until a bit more thought has been applied? Naive question, I know. See AACS below anyway.

See also [119]. The text in full:

What you are doing is intensely disruptive. The way to proceed is through dispute resolution, not by repeatedly asking for deletion review until you get the answer you want. Do that again and so help me I will block you. The repeated fuckwittery is reinforcing the WP:BLP problem by continually reinforcing the link between this poor kid's name and his victimisation. We do not need it.

Double whammy: rude and a threat. Yup. Which rather misses the point that I was suggesting that Jeff pursue some more reflective process rather than opening yet another deletion review. Previous suggestions had fallen on deaf ears. Still are, for that matter.

Civility

To look at a couple of the diffs, chosen at random:

[120]. The user I was responding to had been trolling for ages in numerous thread son my talk, the noticeboards and other venues. Elsewhwere in the incredibly protracted argument this user raised he freely acknowledges, and indeed takes pride in being an argumentative sod. [121]. I think this [122] sums it up quite neatly.

[123], removing material asserting that a living article subject (two actually) had been in a brawl, sourced from the Fark forums, with the comment "what idiot thought Fark forums were a reliable source?" which, even if it had been directed at a named editor (which it wasn't) is, I venture to suggest, fair comment. Fark forums are pretty much the definition of an unreliable source, I'd say. WP:SPADE applies.

[124]: told Jeff to fuck right off and would cheerfully have said the same to his face. He said "No, Guy wants it escalated and wants to be a dick about it, so we'll do it. Can't fault a guy for trying." I was outraged by that remark, absolutely outraged. And that is exactly how that comment would be understood side of the pond, ask David Gerrard.

[125] - comment on wiki was "the answer is go away", edit summary was "actually it's fuck off". Which it was. The target was a spammer who had come here to spam his firm's products, was disruptive when the spam was removed (AfDing competitors' products etc), and then demanded that all reference to his company's name be removed from the debates about the problems he caused, because they were coming up in Google searches, posting "advice to new users regarding trademark and libel laws" ( [126]), a highly creative interpretation of libel law which says that if company A's representative spams Wikipedia we must obfuscate all references to company A's name or company A can sue us for trademark infringement. Which was hysterical, but also an implied legal threat. Oh just read the diff link and the debate, you will see what I mean.

So the allegation of incivility comes down to: will call a spade a spade, will eventually snap if trolled hard enough. Guilty as charged, I guess.

AACS encryption key

Editors were using obfuscation to deliberately subvert the sitewide regex filter; I do not recall any previous incidents where this feature has been used to prevent addition of content with potential legal ramifications (not to say it hasn't happened). Where users are wilfully subverting the regex filter, it seems to me they are doing something wrong. The debate highlighted a tension between the idea that content we like must be included at all costs as early as possible and any obstacles placed in the way must be bulldozed, and the idea that we can afford to wait before including content where other sites have received DMCA takedown notices. Of course it's not that simple, but you get the drift. To characterise as evil an attempt to prevent evasion of features which exist to protect us legally, seems like a bit of a stretch.

This is in any case (a) unrelated and (b) ancient history by now.

QZ

Yup, I closed the debate. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Worse, the arguments raised by those advocating undeletion did not change. The idea of bringing better arguments did not seem to occur to them. Neither did any kind of nuanced solution which recognises the issues identified. DRV is not the best venue for such debates, too binary. I thought I'd made it pretty clear that something creative was the way to go, but apparently not.

Evidence presented by Phil Sandifer

Violetriga Wheel Warred

Violetriga undid several of Doc Glasgow's BLP deletions. [127] This was done without discussion with Doc Glasgow - an astonishingly bad idea for a sensitive matter like BLP concerns.

Furthermore, two of the articles were ones she created, making her actions inappropriate and a conflict of interest [128]

She subsequently acted quite uncivilly to Doc Glasgow [129].

An Actual Timeline for QZ Deletion Discussions

Since, shockingly, nobody has offered one of these yet...

First AfD Closed and Re-Opened by Daniel Bryant

The first AfD of the QZ article was closed as a deletion six days after it opened by User:Daniel.Bryant. At this point the article had four people arguing for deletion and three for keeping. Although this would, by numerical conventions in use at AfD, result in a keep, Daniel Bryant felt that the arguments made for deletion were more persuasive and decided to delete. [130]

About a day later, following discussion on his talk page in which User:DeLarge presented the case for keeping the article [131] Daniel Bryant overturned his closure and asked for the debate to run for another five days, citing DeLarge's arguments as new information requiring further discussion.

First AfD Re-Closed by Drini

Following a few hours of further debate which brought the numerical tally to 6 in favor of deletion, 4 in favor of keeping, User:Drini re-closed the debate. Although the numerical tally would have, by convention, been sufficient to delete, Drini opted to cite the ethical issues in keeping the article when deleting [132].

Following Drini's closure of the AfD, User:Matt Crypto reverted the closure [133]. He did not discuss this decision on Drini's talk page, but subsequently apologized for wheel-warring [134]. Subsequently he was reverted by Daniel Bryant, who argued against reversing other administrator's closings. Daniel Bryant did not re-close the debate, but rather restored Drini's closure, and in doing so erased several more comments that would have numerically brought the debate to 8 in favor of keeping, 7 in favor of deletion. [135]

First DRV opened

User:DESiegel, shortly after Daniel Bryant's restoration of Drini's closure, listed the QZ article on deletion review, claiming that the closure was made early and without consensus. [136] This DRV marked Jeff's first contribution to deletion discussions of this article.

After an appropriate amount of time, User:Xoloz closed the deletion review with a decision to relist. At that point, the deletion review had a numerical breakdown of 13 people arguing in favor of overturning Drini's closure and 10 arguing in favor of keeping it. Many of those arguing in favor of overturning cited the contentiousness of the debate and claimed that the closures were out of process. Xoloz did not explain his reasoning at length on DRV [137], but subsequently cited out of process closures as his reasoning when listing the article for a second AfD [138]. When starting the AfD, Xoloz vowed to revert all attempts to closet he nomination early.

Second AfD closed

Very shortly after the second AfD was started, User:Thebainer closed the AfD on the grounds that Xoloz was wrong to say that the previouse AfD was closed improperly and subsequently noting that he found the BLP concerns persuasive in this case. [139]. Further explanation of his reasons was made at his talk page [140].

Second DRV

Within a few hours of Thebainer's close, Jeff made another DRV nomination [141] arguing that the previous deletion discussions had come to no consensus. This DRV was closed within minutes by JzG [142] who noted, as Thebainer had, that the procedural errors did not exist. Jeff twice reverted this closure [143] [144] and was reverted by Doc Glasgow and Drini [145] [146]

Third DRV

A few hours later, DESiegel listed the article for a third DRV. In a very strongly worded request, he condemned the early closure of the second AfD. [147] This DRV ran for seven hours, with a numerical tally of 11 people arguing for overturning the second AfD and 21 arguing in favor of keeping the article deleted. After seven hours, User:Viridae closed the DRV and relisted the article on AfD, citing the failures of process and noting that the article did not have any BLP concerns. [148].

Third AfD

The third AfD ran for eight hours. In those eight hours no consensus was formed to delete, but many of the people from previous discussions did not weigh in. After eight hours, the AfD was closed by User:Nick. Nick noted that previous discussions had formed a consensus and that the repeated process-based discussions were unhelpful. [149]. At this point, the situation errupted into a full-blown edit war, with Viridae and Neo-Jay making particularly unhelpful reversions [150] [151]. In the course of this edit war, I deleted the article, citing BLP issues, and protected it from recreation.

Fourth DRV

Jeff then listed the article for a fourth DRV. [152]. This DRV was swiftly closed by JzG. [153]

Evidence presented by Doc

Jeff was personally obsessive about the QZ deletion

Apparently, somehow claiming this is false. But I count four (re)openings of DRV [154] [155] [156] [157] plus a request for arbitration and an RfC. He stated his intention to carry on with DRV attempts after the RfC, and regardless of the outcome. [158] [159] That's in addition to dozens of comments. Why does it always have to be Jeff that pursues these things? If a deletion needs challenging, someone will challenge it.


Jeff shows no regard for BLP

Jeff's contention is that process matters. However, he appears more concerned with being a radical inclusionist, regardless of BLP and indeed process. I will cite the most recent example.

  • Allison Stokke an article with privacy implications was speedied under BLP. The deletion was contested and it was listed on DRV by Night Gyr.
  • During the debate Jeff made twenty-five separate contributions arguing with those who endorsed it [160], he engages in intemperate remarks [161], and bizarrely claiming that 'basic human decency' has no place in Wikipedia's discussions [162]
  • The DRV was finally closed by uninvolved admin Xoloz [163], who in a complicated summarising indicated that the "original BLP deletion [was] endorsed" but that the issue should return to AfD to see whether a "national high-school record-holder passes WP:BIO". In short, consensus indicated that mention of the meme should be removed per WP:BLP, but the athletics stuff should be considered separately. A stub stripped of the BLP violation was then sent to AfD.
  1. Jeff then reinserted the violating material [164] and was reverted by Ned Scott [165]
  2. I then warned him against replacing material deemed by consensus to be a BLP [166]
  3. He immediately replaced it again [167]. I reverted him [168]
  4. He then replaced part of the violating material, and sources (previously removed under BLP) refering to the whole meme [169]. He was again reverted, and the article eventually protected.
  • Jeff then comes to this page to claim I am running a "campaign against him" [170]

Nothing personal, Jeff

Since Jeff has asserted that I am running a "campaign against" him, let me rebut. I have long been on record as being tough on BLP, however, I have never borne Jeff any ill will. Indeed, I've often worked well with him in the bast. This comment, supporting his RfA just 6 weeks ago, summed up my opinion until recently. [171]See further my offer of help here [172]. The issue here is blatant disregard for the biographies of living people, it is not personal. If anything that I've unwisely said has given that impression, I am deeply sorry. I wish him every happiness in life [173] and a fruitful future in his excellent article work.-- Docg 22:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Doc is (generally) competent in deletion judgements

I spend a lot of time helping to clean-up wikipedia from problematic biographies of living people. I am active on OTRS. I believe Wikipedia has a major problem and an obligation to sort it. I am intolerant of those who feel process is more important that product in this regard. It matters to me - I get snappy - sorry. I carry out BLP/OTRS related deletion fairly often. [174].. They are actually seldom challenged, and I can't recall the last time I was not endorsed on DRV. That indicates the community generally agrees with my judgement.

But as it states on my userpage "*I will review any of my administrative actions on request. I'm not infallible but I'm humble enough to admit error."" [175]. If approached, I will review my actions and back up if I think I've misjudged it. See recently this discussion, where I reversed myself on review. Jeff himself will recall that I carried out an WP:IAR deletion of a bio in response to an OTRS privacy request, only after discussion with him on IRC, and an indication that I'd undelete and AfD if anyone objected. As I recall he concurred with my use of IAR on that occasion. Here is another instance of me being flexible when when Dragonfly67 offered to rewrite a BLP violating article [176]

  • I will not defend the specific deletions that violetriga cites. Although, I note that not one of these articles is likely to be left as an independent article. I may, or may not, have been hasty in deleting them. I have actually not reviewed that, since they were undeleted before I was questioned.
  • Jeff mentions 10 supposed bad deletions of mine in his evidence. Please note that at this time, despite DRV, nine are redlinks and the other one is is the one I restored when Dragonfly67 kindly offered to re-write it as BLP compliant. I'm hardly a rouge deleter that needs stopped.-- Docg 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Closing statement by Doc=

I note Jeff has added dozens of diffs and a multitude of findings designed to present me (and others) in a bad light. In many he has assumed bad faith, taken incidents out of context, and accused me of dishonesty and even lying. Frankly, with the sheer bulk of material added, I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to it all and offer a proper context. I certainly have no desire to continue a fruitless debate on the workshop with someone who believes they are always right. My patience is simply exhausted.

Whilst I'm sure some of my actions could have been better judged (unlike Jeff I'm not infallible) - I'm happy to stand by my approach, motives, and general judgement and explain any of my actions against a proper background on request. If any arbiter wishes further comment on an incident, I will provide it in full. However, I believe it is in both my and and the project's interests if I cease otherwise to comment on this case. I am content to leave the rest to your good judgement.-- Docg 14:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Prolog

Tony Sidaway's comments regarding Qian Zhijun have been unhelpful

Comments like these are disruptive and generate flame wars rather than constructive discussion.

Tony Sidaway has closed AFD and DRV discussions improperly

  • On June 4, Tony Sidaway closed the the AFD discussion of Rebeca Martínez early as "delete in the name of human dignity and our own self respect". [177] Tony Sidaway is not an administrator, so he can not close a discussion as delete. Also, closure was not very neutral as it seems to be part of Tony Sidaway's campaign to remove certain real names from Wikipedia: "the name of the unfortunate infant should not be used on this encyclopedia."
  • On June 6, Tony Sidaway closed the deletion review of Tanya Kach early as "deletion endorsed", [178] while the discussion showed a nearly unanimous consensus to restore the article. This action was reversed by me.

JzG has a history of unilateral administrative actions

JzG has continuously engaged in several types of questionable behaviour in different types of articles. Looking at the past two weeks:

  • On AACS encryption key controversy, the user removed the encryption key that was added after a talk page discussion. [179] After being reverted, he removed it again, [180] was reverted and reverted back. [181] After reverting one more time and being reverted back, [182] he protected the page, [183] and reverted back to his favoured revision. [184]
  • In the case of Qian Zhijun, JzG closed a DRV on this article three times, [185] [186] [187] which would be bad on its own, but he was also an involved admin. [188] [189]

While all editors can be hasty once in a while, this shows a pattern of disruptive behaviour.

JzG has a history of incivility

JzG has a long history of incivility, including comments in which he has told other users to "fuck off", [190] [191] and called them "idiots". [192] [193] What the past few weeks have shown is that this problem is not going to go away. He has told Jeff to "Fuck off", [194] and "Fuck off. Fuck right off" [195], threatened to block Jeff, [196] threatened to block another established user, Aktron, with whom he was engaged in a content dispute, [197] and in addition, there have been incivil edit summaries [198] and comments such as "My God, you really are stupid, aren't you?." [199] In this very ArbCom case, JzG used admin rollback against another admin without leaving a note on the user's talk page or participating in the talk page discussion on the issue. [200]

Doc glasgow has made a number of inappropriate deletions

I will not dig deep into Doc's deletion log, but just recently the user deleted five articles within eight minutes citing WP:BLP and WP:NOT as reasons. One of these articles, Manar Maged (deleted with summary "eak, no WP:BLP" [201]), was actually about a dead person and none of these met any speedy criterion and were either sourced from reliable sources or contained such coverage as external links. More problems that have been noticed are;

  • Rebeca Martínez (deleted with summary "unreferenced child BLP - recreate with compliant sources if you wish" [202]) – Also a dead person.
  • Anna Mae He (deleted with summary " WP:BLP not this" [203]) – No BLP issues, well-sourced, 15 citations. This could be merged, renamed et cetera, but not after one admin has chosen to unilaterally delete it instead.

Unfortunately these are merely from the last few days. — Prolog 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by The way, the truth, and the light

Tony Sidaway's comments continue to be unhelpful

Tony continues to reply in a tone that is borderline uncivil or trollish:

  • [204] - arrogance.
  • [205] Implying that Jeff 'hasn't grown up'.
  • [206] - arrogance.
  • [207] 'Smug preening'.
  • [208] 'Trollish' and 'stupid'. (Tony later attempted to close this DRV after less than 2 days.)
  • [209] 'Fuck process.'
  • [210] 'Jeffopedia'.
  • [211] - vague threat.
  • [212] - goading.

This is only a sampling from the last week, and I deliberately ignored this arbitration case.

The deletion of Crystal Gail Mangum was improper

See the page history for more detail.

On May 22, David Gerard deleted this article without discussion. It was then created as a redirect, which it still is. The evidence shown in the log indicates that actions taken over this article may constitute wheel warring. The history of this article is now available again at this page, and this was endorsed by David Gerard (only the log of the history remains now).

A DRV on this article was opened ( [213]) soon after the out-of-process deletion, with the apparent intent of restoring the full article. This DRV attracted a very large comments within a short period of time, testifying to the importance of the article. 24 hours after it opened, with no consensus (actually there were more votes for undeletion), it was speedy-closed by Thebainer ( [214]). After this was quickly overturned by another admin, it was closed again the following day ( [215]). The closing admin required the history be present, but this was undone by David Gerard until the solution mentioned above was agreed on.

This person became notable because of her own action, and due to the fame of the case, will remain semi-notable for quite some time. The persons advocating for the deletion of this article may well have been working from irrelevant political considerations, i.e. that they considered Mangum to be an innocent victim despite the evidence. Indeed JzG as much as admitted to this bias: in the DRV [216] [217] [218] [219] and also here [220]; this also constitutes assuming bad faith about the other side. It may be worth noting that at this time JzG also personally attacked me on an unrelated subject: [221] [222] - note that consensus on Talk:Cirque disagreed with the position he was then advocating.

Speedy closure of DRV

Despite the earlier problems with speedy closes, involved admin Doc glasgow closed ( [223]) a contentious BLP DRV after having overturned ( [224]) a previous speedy-close that did not agree with his side. Quickly, the DRV was then unclosed (by Jeff and me) and reclosed (by Doc and others) 5 times, before finally being properly closed.

Evidence presented by Crotalus horridus

  • I wanted to correct a couple of small errors in the above statement by The way, the truth, and the light. First of all, the intention of the DRV that I opened was not necessarily "with the intent of restoring the full article." I conceded that some of the history was problematic and suggested one of two alternatives. The first was that the article could be deleted, re-created as a stub, protected, and discussed carefully on talk (as we've done in the past with various problematic biographies); the second alternative was to create a protected redirect. I would have preferred the former, but the latter (which is what ended up happening) is reasonably acceptable. I do have serious problems with what I perceive to be a slippery slope on the application of BLP: first it was Brian Peppers, then Qian Zhijun, and finally unquestionably prominent individuals like Crystal Gail Mangum and Shawn Hornbeck. I genuinely fear that if this continues we'll have a redlink at Monica Lewinsky in a couple of months, so I do urge that Arbcom take these issues seriously.
  • Also, while some of JzG's comments do indeed show political bias in the Mangum case, this seems isolated from the larger issue, and I see no evidence that this was true of other deletion advocates such as David Gerard or Tony Sidaway. Indeed, since David and Tony live outside of the United States, I think this may have led them to underestimate how much media coverage Mangum had actually gotten here. In any case, treating this as primarily an issue of user conduct is probably a mistake. Rather, there needs to be a line drawn that says that WP:BLP only applies to unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people — not anything that someone, for whatever reason, might find offensive. I see no reason to believe that all contributors involved in this case did not act in good faith. *** Crotalus *** 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by RockMFR

Inappropriate application of BLP by Tony Sidaway resulted in extreme incivility

[225] - These sorts of comments by Tony Sidaway are damaging to the project. Hostile threats are far more serious than run-of-the-mill incivility and wheel warring. --- RockMFR 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by User:Uncle G

A conversation with JzG

If JzG's later edits reflect a change from that point onwards (I haven't looked.), you might want to consider this issue satisfactorily addressed via an unsolicited third opinion. Uncle G 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Serpent's Choice's case below

For reference, the editor who tagged a redirect that had an edit history as {{ db-empty}} was Javit ( talk · contribs), who is not an administrator. Uncle G 14:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Per this request I confirm that the person who tagged the rewrite from scratch as {{ db-g4}} on 2007-06-03T23:56:23 was Tony Sidaway ( talk · contribs). A {{ hangon}} pointing to Talk:Charlotte Wyatt was placed by DGG ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who also initiated a discussion section on the talk page) on 2007-06-04T01:11:42 and the speedy deletion request was removed by Badlydrawnjeff ( talk · contribs) on 2007-06-04T01:33:42. There is discussion between Tony Sidaway and Badlydrawnjeff on the talk page and in the summaries of the deleted edits as to whether the article should redirect to right to life. Further input was given by H ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Mackensen ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Uncle G 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by FCYTravis

We cannot write true biographies on every person associated with a newsworthy event

There is a fatal flaw in WP:BIO, and that is that a strict reading of its wording allows for the creation of articles on every single person who ever gets mentioned in a newspaper or magazine. With modern wire services being what they are, and the Internet being what it is, matters of local interest are spread around the world. But 99 percent of these people will be just as quickly forgotten. We will never find out who these people really are beyond the single newsworthy incident they happen to be involved in. There will never be any other information about their lives. This presents a major problem of undue weight.

If we allow the creation of Wikipedia articles on every single one of these people, then, what we get are not biographies at all, but instead out-of-context snapshots of a random moment in their lives which happened to intersect with media or public interest for however long it took them to change the channel on the television. That means that everyone who ever ends up in a newspaper will end up with that moment defining them for the rest of their lives on this encyclopedia, regardless of anything they may have done before or after.

There may never be a reliable source which tells us that after being the subject of a messy, expensive and tabloid-covered 10-year custody battle, little Jeff Doe goes on to have a successful career as a union carpenter, raising a family and living his life. Instead, for the rest of his life he'll be defined by Wikipedia as, "Jeff Doe is a man who was the subject of a massive custody battle in 1992."

Is that what Wikipedia is supposed to do? Define people forever by their worst, most tragic, scandalous or Internet-memed moment? I don't think so.

If we cannot write a balanced, sourced biography on someone which goes beyond whatever 15 minutes of infamy they happened to be involved in, we should not write a biographical article on them at all. Instead, an article on the incident, if it's deemed encyclopedic, should be written. We need to focus on what happened, not who it happened to.

Badlydrawnjeff assumes bad faith in an uncivil manner

When presented with good faith opposition and debate, Badlydrawnjeff often responds in an unhelpful manner, impugning the motives and participants rather than addressing their arguments.

  • Jeff calls an argument "rude" and "dishonest" rather than respond to the argument's substance. [226] [227]
  • According to Jeff, editors who disagree with him on the application of WP:BLP are liars. [228]

Evidence presented by Nandesuka

One of the primary purposes of WP:BLP is to fulfill an ethical purpose

-As stated in the policy.

Badlydrawnjeff has publically and repeatedly mischaracterized the purpose of WP:BLP

Badlydrawnjeff has claimed that WP:BLP is not about ethics, and that the policy exists to "cover one's legal behind". ( [229], as a reply to Phil Sandifer's comment [230]).

Badlydrawnjeff argues that the idea that WP:BLP has an ethical purpose is "propaganda"

When it was pointed out to Jeff that one of the main purposes of WP:BLP is to maintain high ethical standards, he replied "I don't buy into that propaganda for a second." [231].

Evidence presented by Serpent's Choice ( talk · contribs)

Anatomy of a chilling effect

Diffs where I can, quite a bit of this relates to deleted content.

Some previous article existed at Charlotte Wyatt. It was deleted over BLP concerns. I undertook to write a wholly independant replacement article, feeling that one could in fact be written. Although I included news media sources as convenient means to cite gross facts, I primarily referenced scholarly journal publications to discuss context and significance. I requested that Doc glasgow , the (primary) deleting admin of the previous version, review my work. [232] He replied, largely in agreement. [233] I followed up on his concerns about significance, [234] but seeing no further response, went ahead and promoted the new content to article space. Shortly after, DGG advised me that Tony Sidaway was dissatisfied with the material. I attempted to converse with him at his User Talk (see much of this section, although was concerned that little substantive dialogue was occurring. By this time, someone had already tagged the article CSD-G4 (repost) and had the template reverted. Tony had in fact tagged the article CSD-G4 (repost); DGG had notified me after placing a {{hangon}}. The CSD template had been removed by Badlydrawnjeff by the time I returned to the article, leading me to believe that things were settled. I apparently missed some drama.

Someone Tony reduced it to a redirect to right to life; he who added a one-line mention of the case (with the name redacted) to that article, [235] citing The Guardian and The Independant but none of the journal sources. Apparently, revert warring ensued. Briefly, Mackensen protected the page in an effort to stop the war. Then, on the 7th, Jimfbleak deleted the page as CSD-A3 (empty page) and (initially) protected it. Someone Javit had replaced the redirect with {{db-empty}}. Prolog questioned was what going on. [236] Jimfbleak cited the revert war, and deleted the page to "call a halt" and allow it to be "start[ed] from scratch" [237] (probably without knowing that was just what I had tried to do). Tony became involved in the discussion, [238] with the assertion that "the page was just a redirect" that is "only of encyclopedic interest because of the ethical implications" and again citing only The Guardian. He concludes, "The encyclopedic content is somewhat less than one would get from a newspaper search on the name."

I find this to be an archetype of why this entire situation is problematic. Assuming it was done by an admin, tagging the article CSD-G4 without checking history seems problematic. Tony's merge was unsatisfying because it ignored the scholarly sources (setting aside entirely the name-redaction issue for the moment). Javit's A3 speedy deletion tag was simply disruptive a misuse of the tag. Jimfbleak's deletion, while in good faith, was improper, as he was aware that the speedy template was incorrectly applied (former content wholly aside, redirects aren't valid A3). And Tony's response stifles discourse over an article that, at least since my recreation, was never a "newspaper search". I am also particularly concerned to see crystal-ball assertions about this very case's outcome employed in a manner that I interpret as attempting to lend finality to debate. [239] [240]

I'm not here to try to get Tony, or Jimfbleak, or Javit, or Badlydrawnjeff, or anyone sanctioned. There may or may not be actionable user conduct issues here (or elsewhere), but I've had minimal contact with any of the editors in this case and am in no position to judge. What I do hope, however, is to bring ArbCom's attention to the chilling effect resulting from a BLP policy that is this expansive in scope and execution. I'd consider appealing this particular content's fate, but where, and at what risk? DRV? I am not so naive. Talk:Right to life? Why, when none of the redactions, mini-merges, redirects, or deletions were brought to article (or my) talk? BLP, as I understand it, was never meant to prejudice against later article creation, but folding even the most recent content into right to life or recreating Charlotte Wyatt over the invalid A3 speedy is for braver men than I; when I began writing here, WP:BRD meant "Bold, Revert, Discuss" -- not "Bold, Redirect, Delete" -- and didn't risk earning me a BLP-violation block for the temerity of citing Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, Medical Law Review, Current Anaesthesia & Critical Care, and Journal of Child Health Care because the topic they were discussing was a sick child who had also been on the evening news.

Fighting sensationalism and recentism are goals of the highest nobility, but they, too, can go too far. Serpent's Choice 21:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by ^demon

I stand by my closure

I quote part of my closing statement here for ease of reading:

The article has been established as non-notable via the second AfD. Deletion Review was designed to debate xFDs that were not carried out properly, or ones that had been closed improperly, not as a "second chance AfD" to try and get the result you want. [241]

On WP:ANI, I was endorsed by FloNight and [242] Chacor [243]. As I said on WP:ANI, I was making what I saw as a good faith early-closure of a nongermane DRV, and I'm standing by that. ^ demon [omg plz] 14:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes I was rude

But show me an administrator or user who hasn't been? All of us get a bit tense working with users who we find difficult. While I haven't been directly involved with Jeff up until now (which is why I considered myself a neutral party to close the DRV), I had definitely seen the tension surrouding him. When he started reverting my closure and bugging me, I felt what others have complained about, that I was dealing with someone who trolls DRV. Calling him such may have been a bit harsh, but I stand by my right to remove comments from my talkpage. ^ demon [omg plz] 14:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by The Evil Spartan

Many of the "deletionist" administrators utter lack of respect for other administrators or allowing discussion

We've contentious discussions in the past, whether BLP or other deletion debates; however, the issue here is often that these administrators are failing to so much allow for a discussion, and are often closing (and re-closing) debates in a very conflict of interest way. None of these issues would ever have been nearly as contentious, as history shows, had the administrators not refused to let the community talk it out.

This is wheel warring, plain and simple. And yet it is rampant. It has occurred how many times in recent days? Surely, Wikipedia was never perfectly lovey-dovey, but this wheel-warring is deeply hurting our community.

First incident I could find: QZ deletion dispute

Diffs already listed above

Second incident: Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker

  • [244] DRV speedy closed by Tony Sidaway after having been involved in discussion.
  • [245] Reverted by Amarkov.
  • [246] Reclosed by Doc.
  • [247] Reverted by Amarkov.
  • [248] reclosed by David Gerard
  • [249] Utterly deleted from the page by The way, the truth, and the light
  • [250] restored by Ryulong
  • [251] Closed by Viridae as relist.
  • [252] Reverted (again) by Doc
  • [253] Doc reverts self, but only because immediately:
  • [254] AFD speedy closed by Doc with the note that per [[WP:BLP][] not to be restored for procedural reasons.
  • [255] Reopened by The way, the truth, and the light
  • [256] Doc reverts
  • [257] Badlydrawnjeff opens dicussion back up
  • [258] Tony Sidaway closes it again
  • [259] Closed as delete by Kurykh

Third incident: Tanya Kach

This episode is particularly frustrating, as Doc Glasgow has often complained that it's the undoing of closures that's disruptive here (e.g., directly below, [260] claiming a cabal and WP:OWN, [261] claiming "wheel warring"). Yet Doc was the first person to engage in discussion re-opening in this case:

  • [262] Deleted by Dalbury
  • [263] DRV Speedy closed as list at AFD by Mangojuice
  • [264] DRV Speedy close undone by Doc Glasgow
  • [265] AFD closed as speedy delete by Doc Glasgow
  • [266] DRV closed by Tony Sidaway as delete
  • [267] Closure undone by Prolog as improper
  • [268] Closed as relist at AFD by Xolox
  • [269] Second AFD closed as speedy delete by Doc (again)
  • [270] Undeleted by Tone.
  • [271] Fully-protected by JzG as a redirect with the summary: "No thanks".

Compare all this to how the deletion was handled Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby - no one closed it early (though Tony Sidaway suggested it), and Doc Glasgow and Tony Sidaway both voiced their opinions civilly. Though I believe this was a wretched decision, you will notice there was no unnecessary controversy - because people were able to wait a few days until it was properly closed.


Rebuttal evidence

NB some of the above is plainly inaccurate - constructed to make an argument it doesn't support.

  • With Tanya Kach I reverted a speedy close of the DRV and did not close the first AFD as 'speedy delete' but as premature [272]. Evidence needs to get facts straight. It was those arguing for inclusion that were closing down that debate. Selective remembering here

I'm afraid much of this whole evidence page is selectively engineered and spun. To suggest that the problem is caused by 'deletionists' (how I hate that pejorative term - I am not) closing discussion is unhelpful. At least as disruptive have been multiple (re-)openings, forum shopping, refusal to accept consensus, and silly procedural relistings. Perhaps if the above evidence offered accurate descriptions and a time frame it might be more enlightening.-- Docg 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I apologize if I was unclear, or if I was distorting the facts. May I ask for some examples of how I have distorted them, though? The point I'm trying to make here is that each of these edits wars has been started by an administrator speedy closing a discussion. If this hadn't happened, the problems never would have escalated. I do not believe that the re-opening of a discussion is disruptive, either, when it was improperly closed in the first place. In fact, you will notice several non-involved admins who reverted these actions, yet not one non-involved admin improperly closed as delete. The Evil Spartan 18:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Pmanderson

Tony Sidaway edits policy to assert absolute deletion power

Tony Sidaway rewrote WP:BLP to say: "Admininstrators who dispute a deletion of a page where this policy has been cited by the deleting administrator should not reverse it before contacting the deleting administrator and obtaining his agreement." (emphasis added)

  • Diff: 22:46, 12 June 2007 Edit summary: before contacting the deleting administrator *and obtaining his agreement*. I think this is the key. Otherwise go to other admins/DRV/etc.

This is the assertion of a liberum veto: A may delete any article (at least any article which may come under BLP) and nobody can reverse him unless he consents. The consequences of such a policy would be regrettable; this permits one admin to bully the consensus of all Wikipedia that he has misread BLP. Presumably ArbCom would step in; but better they should step in now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Discussion of this policy was limited to a few editors, and divided

The discussion, while lengthy, was limited to five editors, three for, two against. I provide a link to the present version of the section, rather than diffs, because it would be a lot of diffs, and all the discussion is there.

Evidence presented by Miltopia

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

JzG and Lolcat

JzG ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) went against a keep-consensus Afd ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lolcat - that's keep, not no consensus) and redirected lolcat to image macro. He then preceded to edit war over the redirect [273] [274] with no comment on the talk page. And then protected the page on his preferred version. So JzG has no problem just ignoring consensus for deletion-related issues just because he thinks a subject is stupid or not worth covering. I'd say he just uses BLP as a vehicle for doing so when applicable... pretty dishonest. Milto LOL pia 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by GRBerry

Doc Glasgow resigned as an administrator

[275], described in the log summary as "Per personal request / In good standing". GRBerry 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.


  1. ^ a b ""Switched at birth"". "Sixty Minutes". 2007. Retrieved May 23, 2007.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence&oldid=1142571801"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Badlydrawnjeff ( talk · contribs)

Specific user conduct issues regarding deletion

It's worth noting on these the severe problem with these deletions. The expectation from many of these administrators is that it's up to those who want to keep the material to explain why without giving us the opportunity to see the material that they're hiding from us. Thus, it puts users in an impossible situation - the administrators are not required to provide a legitimate reason when deleting, but will not even undelete a history in order to allow other users to make the rationale they're demanding. See the issue with Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby at the DRV log for 28 May.

Improper activity toward BDJ based on his position regarding the conflicts

It's very hard to assume anything other than malice when you have to deal with comments such as the following:

  • Tony Sidaway and his continued condescending remarks: [2] [3] [4] [5]
  • User:Chairboy and continued condescending remarks and poor faith commentary: [6] [7] [8] [9]
  • User:Drini and continued condescending remarks: [10] [11]
  • User:JzG's false statements and improper block threats: [12] [13], and also see his ArbCom statement, where he falsely accuses me of being "devoted to...popular culture" (which is not at all true given my areas of editing), that my "personal inclusion threshold is well off in the long tail" (which is not true, as my personal beliefs are consistently put aside in favor of our needlessly strict guidelines), that my "constant challenging of admin's best-efforts closures of hard cases is actively harmful to the project" (dissent isn't harmful.
  • User:H (HighInBC) and his condescending accusations: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Please also see the IRC logs forward to ArbCom last week, as well as the e-mail sent to me through the Wikipedia "E-mail this user" link.
  • User:Pilotguy and gross incivility, warnings, and disruptive accusations: [19]. Please also see the IRC logs forwarded to ArbCom last week.
  • User:Doc glasgow's activity in particular has been especially egregious. His opening statement [20] makes four false statements: That I listed the Qian Zhijun article at DRV a total of four times (I did so twice [21] [22]) , that I promote "in-house processes [with] the potential of causing harm, or bringing wikipedia into disrepute," that my "activity is damaging to the encyclopedia" regarding Qian Zhijun, that I was "disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point," or that I was "flaunting BLP by continually linking this individual." None of this is true or substantiated, or can be because it never happened. Incivility is one thing - impugning my character the way Doc has and continues to do is unacceptable, and ironic given his desire to protect BLPs.

For other pieces of evidence, see AN/I, AN/I, RfC, AN/I, and the IRC logs that were forwarded to the ArbCom mailing list.

Incivility toward me continues: [23] Another untrue statement.

Doc glasgow has continued his campaign against me. Following this edit, entirely compliant with policy, he improperly rolled me back, and threatened to block me if I re-added sourced, neutral information, even as he rolled back to an unsourced version of Allison Stokke. He then dishonestly referenced the relevant deletion review closure during the AfD discussion. If you check the history of the Stokke article, you'll note that Doc reverted the sourced, neutral information 5 times, and, when approached about it, said "So block me, i'll see you in arbitration." [24] When I again told him that his interpretation of the DRV closure was incorrect and that he'd have to deal with that, he removed the comment as "troll." [25] Further warnings based on that were removed through another improper rollback. [26]

Improper BLP deletions continue unabated

See the following:

Note that a variety of editors are protesting these.

Tanya Kach

Doc glasgow has since continued this improper activity. A speedy deletion of Tanya Kach was overturned at DRV [27], and Doc speedied the article again almost 7 hours later. The content was verifiable, and no one was arguing that the sourcing was poor. =

Allison Stokke

A second AfD [28] was closed as delete, against the arguments made at the discussion. User:Coredesat, who closed the AfD, recommended DRV. [29] [30] The relevant DRV was speedy closed by three separate administrators disruptively. This has to stop. User:^demon, did it the first time, and accused me of trolling three times [31] [32] [33]. User:Daniel did it the second time, and Glasgow the third, with yet another improper use of rollback [34] A discussion at AN/I was shut down with nasty comments abound. [35] This must end.

On BDJ

Badlydrawnjeff often gets fed up

Plenty of evidence may be brought up based on my possible incivility. I own up to anything I've said, and I try very hard to keep a cool head, and don't always succeed. I have nothing more to say on the matter, although one can certainly understand a reaction when being threatened with various blocks and being accused of various false things to lose one's head. The following may be worth noting in the interests of full disclosure: [36] [37] [38]

And yes, I got fed up again tonight: [39] [40] [41]. I don't regret a word. So now there's reason to keep this under my name, and the peasants rejoiced. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply

BDJ does not have a history of extending issues past the state of consensus

DRV is the only place this would qualify - I've relisted one DRV after an incorrect closing ( Darvon cocktail), and I relisted Qian Zhijun before the RfC in an attempt to avoid said RfC. Other than that, I typically don't bother with situations once a proper closing has been reached, whether i agree or not. Contrary to the myth perpetuated by Doc glasgow, I listed Qian Zhijun twice, and reverted disruptive closures of the DRV twice. Very different things.

I do often act as the lone voice in the wind. There's a good chance that people may try to hold that against me - at no point is my voice being put out there in a way that is contrary to policy or inclusion guidelines.

BDJ's general record regarding these issues is good, even though a lot of people dislike him for it

I'm an m:inclusionist, possibly the highest profile one on the project. Inclusionists aren't well-liked on this project as a whole, but we manage. At no time do I petition for egregious material to be kept on the site, especially in terms of BLP issues. I definitely find the BLP policy to be detrimental to this project's success, but at no point does my activity live up to any reputation many would like to peg on me regarding BLP issues. I can't adequately prove a negative, and I have over 10000 non-automated edits since BLP was instituted, so there's plenty of strong evidence to suggest that a) my mainspace edits, and b) my DRV/AfD record has been well within policy and BLP grounds.

BDJ does not have a history of acting outside of policy or consensus, even if he disagrees with it

In fact, one of the main complaints people have is that I'm too married to policy. Let's be straight - I don't knowingly violate policy in my edits or activity, and I work hard to fix the problems if it turns out I made an error. At no point have I attempted to buck consensus, ignore consensus, or ignore policy to exert my will. It does not happen.

The article in question

On 4 May, Qian Zhijun, "the most famous face in China" with fame that he did not initially pursue, but later cultivated, was nominated for deletion. [42] After the requisite five day period, the discussion was closed as delete by Daniel ( talk · contribs) , [43] but later re-opened by Bryant following an appeal. [44] Drini ( talk · contribs) closed the discussion again not too long after as delete, citing that the meme might be notable, but the kid isn't. [45] This was appealed at deletion review on 13 May, and eventually overturned by Xoloz ( talk · contribs) on the grounds that the subject met all the relevant policies (having multiple reliable sources, the cornerstone of inclusion - one user put the rate of sourcing at 1.7 refs/sentence [46]), and relisted the article on AfD. [47] This discussion was quickly responded to by a number of people before being closed by thebainer ( talk · contribs) less than an hour after the relisting. [48] I then nominated it for deletion review [49] following an appeal to thebainer [50] which was declined. This is where the issues began, over the course of around 24 hours:

The discussion spilled over to a number of project pages, talk pages, and userpages. It's emblematic of the general situation the project is currently encountering regarding the actual role of deletion review, the ability of administrators to use their abilities to shut down useful discussion, and the inability to have a consistent, clear appeals process, without even getting into the specifics of user conduct, which is highlighted by the numerous case of incivility and lack of good faith toward contributors on both sides of the debate, as evidenced by commentary below mine. At one point in this discussion, JzG even tried to imply that, since so many OTRS admins were supporting the deletion, that those opinions should be given more weight, which is patently false.

There was no process problem with the first AfD or the first DRV. The first AfD was properly closed on process grounds, but the first DRV properly noted that there were issues with the result.

You'll note a great deal of administrative wheel warring as well as non-administrative wheel warring. You'll notice a deletion for BLP, although the article was more than well-sourced. BLP IS NOT A BLUDGEONING DEVICE.

Current consensus is unknown. The third AfD suggested a major shift, but there's no way an AfD can derive such a consensus after less than one day. It was disclosed by one admin [diff forthcoming] that IRC discussion aided in the decision, leaving a significant group of editors out of the process. That's a major problem.

Meta issues

Deletion review too often fails to achieve proper results in disputed cases

  • See User:Badlydrawnjeff/DRV is Broken. A 6 week look at DRV results that went the full time period ended up with the incorrect result per process or policy 15% of the time, and that number includes uncontroversial decisions where no one disputes the result during the discussion.

Inclusionist Wikipedians are held to a different standard than other self-styled Wikipedians

BDJ is very intent on holding administrators accountable for their actions

Absolutely, and I'm sure there are diffs galore for it there, as well, that are too numerous to dig up. JzG notes in his ArbCom statement that he doesn't like me going after those pushing the button on deletions, for instance, as if administrators are simply there to not inspect whether a speedy deletion is legitimate. As a threat to the power structure, people don't trust me. I can accept that personally, but not when it bleeds over like this.

Responses

Response to Tony Sidaway

Tony claims my objections are "fluid and inconsistent." He fails to note my admittance of being "hasty" in said response to NYB. [51]

Response to Phil Sandifer's evidence section

The first set do not demonstrate any disruption whatsoever, as deletion discussions are just that - discussions. Could I be less heated at times? Yes, and I'm the first to admit it.

The second part about the RfC is irrelevant - if 50 editors can come around to endorse a disruptive closure by Sam Blanning, those 50 editors can change the policy if they so choose. Sam was incorrect.

Violetriga, per WP:WHEEL, did not wheel war. Ironically, on Qian Zhijun, Phil, per WP:WHEEL, did wheel war, as he re-deleted an article overturned by consensus as well as by administrators who reversed the original improper deletion. See the Qian Zhijun deletion log and the timeline above.

Response to JzG

I disagree that I misunderstand the purpose of BLP. Quite simply, it was a knee-jerk response to situations that could have gotten the Foundation into legal hot water, so I see absolutely no reason to sugarcoat it or participate in revisionism. Of course, having an opinion on such a matter is certainly not actionable, nor does my behavior or activity on the project show any sort of inappropriate behavior regardless of the circumstances surrounding BLP's orders implementation.

My approach is binary - there's policy, and then there's people who ignore policy for their own goals.

Response to FCYTravis

Wikipedia:Assume good faith only requires me to assume good faith until there's evidence to the contrary. When people blatantly lie about the outcome of a DRV (see the Allison Stokke situation w/Doc) or make blatantly rude statements about evidence I've presented, as Travis did on this very workshop page ( see claim that my evidence is nothing more than "I disagree, thus it's wrong", [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop&diff=135783311&oldid=135782405 see claim that I "believe that we are supposed to follow process to the letter at all times, even when that would result in nonsensical results for the encyclopedia"). Note that I have not been incivil as much as told people that such lies will not be tolerated, while making such false statements about me, as Travis has multiple times in this case (as well as Doc and JzG in their opening statements).

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway

The issue is not hostility to inclusionism

In 2005 in loose collaboration with others I undertook an avowedly inclusionist and highly successful project to stop what I perceived to be unwarranted campaign of deletion of articles related to high schools.

It's still running, although I myself subsequently focused my interests elsewhere. In general I have found Wikipedia to be an intensely inclusionist environment, as evidenced by the high success rate of the project to turn deletion debates around and focus on improving Wikipedia's coverage of schools. The deletion debate record for 2005 read:

  • Nominated: 424. Kept: 362; Deleted: 41; Merged/redirected: 13; Other: 8.

This was an extraordinarily high keep rate. Note that most of the deletions were in the earlier part of the year, before I started the project. In particular, of 12 school articles listed for deletion in January, all but 3 were deleted. In December of that year, 22 articles were listed for deletion and all were kept. I myself had left the project in September.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute results suggest that Badlydrawnjeff's complaints do not come close to enjoying consensus

At the request of the arbitration committee, Badlydrawnjeff took his dispute with actions over the QZ article to Requests for comment.

  • Original complaint alleging wheel warring, disregard for consensus, and incivility:
    • Certified by 6 editors (not all of whom could validly certify)
    • Endorsed by 7 editors

The most significant responses in terms of support or opposition can be summarised as follows:

  • Commentary by User:JzG strongly disputing the case, particularly with respect to the claim that administrators had engaged in wheel warring:
    • Endorsed by 30 editors
  • Outside view by BigDT saying simply: "This whole thing is stupid. It's time to move on with life":
    • Endorsed by 28 editors including Badlydrawnjeff who however added "but there are reasons why we can't."
  • Response by Doc glasgow critical of Jeff's focus on that particular article and describing it in terms of "Articles about fat Chinese kids who get mocked on websites":
    • endorsed by 23 editors
  • Another outside view by " Radiant!" critical of the unjustified blocking of Badlydrawnjeff in relation to this case:
    • Endorsed by 23 editors
  • Outside view of FloNight, essentially: "Please respect the closing admin unless there is a clear undisputed error":
    • Endorsed by 21 editors

Note that no comment critical of administrator activity in deletion or deletion reviews enjoyed to date (31 May) more than 19 endorsements.

User:Badlydrawnjeff's objections are fluid and inconsistent

Here I present a recently compiled bit of evidence which illustrates the difficulty of understanding Jeff's objections, because they often seem to contradict his prior statements.

In discussing the deletion of two articles on the child victims of abduction and serious sexual abuse, Newyorkbrad said on my talk page on 27th May:

  • ...I have gone ahead and deleted both articles. They concern two juveniles, still alive and still minors, who were the victims of kidnapping and horrific multiple sexual assaults. The mass media would probably not have printed their names but for the fact that they were kidnapped before being assaulted, resulting in "missing children" publicity, and the media may have felt it was too late to put the genie of publicity back into the bottle. Wikipedia need not follow this course and as these teenagers seek to recover from their ordeals, there is no reason to publicize them further under the innocent victims' names, so that Wikipedia joins in ensuring that years from now, the first bit of information that will be available about these people is what a predator did to them. For legitimate encyclopedic purposes, sufficient coverage can be found in our article about the criminal, from which I have redacted only the victims' names—probably a symbolic gesture, but one I am comfortable with. And I truly urge those who support the inclusion of virtually all disputed content to consider whether a line must be drawn somewhere, and this is an appropriate place. [52]

Badlydrawnjeff's response was:

  • For the record, current minors is an area we shouldn't touch. I don't disagree with that. You want to draw a clear line, that's a good one [53]

Today I moved an article in the name of a four-month-old minor who survived the recent Indian Ocean tsunami, to the name by which the baby was called by the press prior to identification of his parents, Baby 81, and removed the name of the minor from the article. All links were updated. The name is still given by some references, but at least it's no longer being broadcast by this top ten website. Jeff now opposes this, with the support of ALoan and without waiting on my response to his request for clarification of BLP concerns, moving the article back to the original place [54] and restoring the wording [55]. His justification:

  • "Four month old baby" is not part of BLP. [56]

On my request, the article was then move-protected on BLP grounds by an administrator. Two orphaned redirects were also deleted following the move.

Violetriga has demonstrated a high degree of insensivity to concerns about biographies of living persons policy

Doc glasgow deletes some biographies of minors on Biographies of living persons grounds:

  • 23:30, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Kian and Remee Hodgson" (WP:BLP and WP:NOT take it away)
  • 23:27, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Manar Maged" (eak, no WP:BLP)
  • 23:26, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Abhilasha Jeyarajah" (WP:BLP and WPNOT)
  • 23:23, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Charlotte Wyatt" (WP:BLP attack)
  • 23:22, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman" (WP:BLP and WP:NOT)
  • 20:13, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Rumaisa Rahman" (unreferenced child bio - per WP:BLP feel free to recreate with sources)
  • 20:06, 29 May 2007 Doc glasgow deleted " Montana Barbaro" (unreferenced bio per WP:BLP without prejudice to properly sourced recreation)

Violetriga restores the same articles without consultation:

  • 00:42, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Montana Barbaro" (25 revisions restored: invalid reason for deletion)
  • 00:40, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman" (28 revisions restored: invalid reason for deletion)
  • 00:39, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Charlotte Wyatt" (99 revisions restored: invalid reason for deletion)
  • 00:38, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Manar Maged" (70 revisions restored: invalid reason for deletion)
  • 00:37, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Kian and Remee Hodgson" (48 revisions restored: invalid reason for deletion)
  • 00:34, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Abhilasha Jeyarajah" (32 revisions restored: should never have been deleted)
  • 00:10, 30 May 2007 Violetriga restored " Rumaisa Rahman" (24 revisions restored: don't just delete!)

00:34, 30 May 2007 Violetriga leaves message on User talk:Doc glasgow:

  • BLP is not an acceptable reason to arbitrarily go around deleting valid articles. You cannot just delete a decent article without giving any sort of notice when the article is in no way defamatory to the subject. [57]

Although repeatedly asked to undo her restorations, she point-blank refused and maintains moreover that she was entitled to restore the articles.

Badlydrawnjeff has demonstrated a high degree of insensitivity to concerns about Biographies of living persons policy

See for instance talk page Talk:Baby 81

Also: disputing QZ deletion on the grounds that he's no longer a minor and has attempted to exploit his widespread recognition to get an acting job.

Night Gyr has repeatedly undone deletions by administrators who cited BLP concerns without conferring beforehand

Restores history of article explicitly protected as a no-history redirect on BLP grounds:

  • 17:53, 22 May 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs) protected Crystal Gail Mangum (BLP redirect [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)))
  • 22:33, 22 May 2007 Zsinj (Talk | contribs) deleted "Crystal Gail Mangum" (content was: '#redirect 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal')
  • 22:34, 22 May 2007 Zsinj (Talk | contribs) restored "Crystal Gail Mangum" (1 revisions restored: only the locked redirect.)
  • 22:35, 22 May 2007 Zsinj (Talk | contribs) protected Crystal Gail Mangum (per david gerard [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 00:50, 23 May 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs) deleted "Crystal Gail Mangum" (delete for salting against mission posters)
  • 19:38, 23 May 2007 BigDT (Talk | contribs) protected Crystal Gail Mangum (Protecting from recreation while this is at DRV [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 22:08, 23 May 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Crystal Gail Mangum" (WP:COATRACK)
  • 02:40, 24 May 2007 Thebainer (Talk | contribs) protected Crystal Gail Mangum (protect as redirect [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 02:56, 24 May 2007 Night Gyr (Talk | contribs) restored "Crystal Gail Mangum" (785 revisions restored: restore history behind redirect)

Prior discussion: Night Gyr maintains that he discussed this beforehand. I have searched and this is all I can find on the subject from him prior to his restoration of the history:

  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23:
    • 00:12, 24 May 2007 Comment on deletion review of Crystal Gail Mangum. Nothing about intent to restore. [58]
    • 00:14, 24 May 2007 Comment on deletion review of Crystal Gail Mangum. Nothing about intent to restore. [59]
    • 00:33, 24 May 2007 Comment on deletion review of Crystal Gail Mangum. Nothing about intent to restore. [60]

Afterwards I asked him to redelete the history:

There was quite a bit of this toing-and-froing but eventually I accepted that he wasn't interested in remedying his restoration without consultation. [63]


Restores article "Jeffrey Baldwin", deleted by admin citing BLP:


  • 16:08, 29 May 2007 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) deleted "Jeffrey Baldwin" (Poor taste article with insufficient justification of notability. Falls afoul of BLP in that it very much hurts the living.)
  • 23:23, 30 May 2007 Night Gyr (Talk | contribs) restored "Jeffrey Baldwin" (23 revisions restored: It makes an assertion of notability and violates neither a7 nor g10. take it to afd.)

Prior discussion: I find no evidence of any prior discussion.

Afterwards he wrote the following message on User talk:Phil Sandifer:

  • 23:28, 30 May 2007 disputing that the article passes A7 criterion (no claim of notability) [64]

Phil Sandifer responded

  • 00:15, 31 May 2007 "You seem to be ignoring the BLP issues I raised - the material in the article still has the possibility of hurting the living, making it very much a BLP issue." [65]

Night Gyr made to more replies but did not budge.

Restores article "Alison Stokke", deleted by admin citing BLP:

  • 18:07, 30 April 2007 Walton monarchist89 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Allison Stokke" (CSD G7 author requests deletion/has blanked page; content was: '{{db-bio}}{{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|doesn't meet criteria for posting in Wikipedia in my opinion. Should not have created this entry. }}}|mon...')
  • 21:14, 31 May 2007 David.Monniaux (Talk | contribs) deleted "Allison Stokke" (non encyclopedic; no evidence of notability (except fringe Internet phenomenon): WP:BLP concerns (minor); WP:NOT a tabloid)
  • 22:10, 31 May 2007 Night Gyr (Talk | contribs) restored "Allison Stokke" (14 revisions restored: not a valid CSD, take this through AFD)
  • 22:20, 31 May 2007 RoySmith (Talk | contribs) deleted "Allison Stokke" (CSD A7 with special regard to WP:BLP and especially the subjet's age)

Prior discussion: David,monniaux had speedied the article during a deletion discussion, citing BLP grounds.

There is a discussion on this at User_talk:David.Monniaux/archive3#Allison_Stokke. In this instance David Monniaux did make the following offer "undeletions can be obtained from any admin" so Night Gyr's undeletion was in order.

Badlydrawnjeff's statements reflect poorly on him and on Wikipedia

  • Maybe what's occurring to her is "offensive" to "basic human decency," all subjective terms that have no place in this discussion, but may otherwise. If we were simply plastering the pictures all over the place and renamed the article "pole vaulting vixen," maybe you'd have a point. But none of that is or was happening, nor would anyone let it at this point. But you have to demonstrate how an article that works off of numerous sources does any harm first. [66]
  • "Four month old baby" is not part of BLP. Again, what justification are you using - if you want to add it to ArbCom go right ahead, but that simply avoids the question. Two separate people are questioning your activity here. [67]

Badlydrawnjeff makes egregiously argumentative and repetitive demands

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Did_you_know&dir=prev&offset=20070114205704&limit=14&action=history

VioletRiga edit wars on a protected page

Template:Did you know is a protected template which is transcluded from Main Page, hundreds of pages in user space, and thousands of pages in user talk space.

It is routinely protected because of its importance. Only those with administrator privilege may edit it. To edit war on this page is arguably wheel warring, certainly an abuse of administrator privilege, and very bad form.

The edit history for 15 January, 2007, in part, carries this sequence of edits:

  • 03:47, 15 January 2007 Lar (Talk | contribs) (Reverting to Dard Hunter version. i will place a version of the Toy Safety hook in NEXT that will be selectable and I ask that people select it.)
  • 02:42, 15 January 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) (<!-- null edit, that's 4 reverts, do you want to be blocked?? -->)
  • 02:40, 15 January 2007 Violetriga (Talk | contribs) (nobody is arguing anything about why it should not be included so consensus is impossible - there is no acceptable reason for it not to be included, and if not now it will time out!)
  • 02:38, 15 January 2007 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) m (get consensus first...)
  • (cur) (last) 02:32, 15 January 2007 Violetriga (Talk | contribs) (you are joking? you haven't given any reasons and only one user made a comment which a) was not followed up, and b) doesn't really matter; let's look at this - is it a major problem to include it?)
  • 02:31, 15 January 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) (True; but you selected at for the Next Update. We already gave you valid reasons for why it shouldn't be on DYK.)
  • 02:27, 15 January 2007 Violetriga (Talk | contribs) (please don't wheel war; self-selection is acceptable)
  • 02:26, 15 January 2007 Yomangani (Talk | contribs) (tidy some)
  • 02:21, 15 January 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) (Add pictured.)
  • 02:19, 15 January 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) (no self selecting)
  • 02:10, 15 January 2007 Violetriga (Talk | contribs) (replace correct article per draft page)
  • 01:46, 15 January 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) (economise)
  • 01:44, 15 January 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) (update)

See actual template edit history.

Violetriga justifies her edits by saying that opinion that conflicts with her own "does not matter", "nobody is arguing anything about why it should not be included so consensus is impossible" and "there is no acceptable reason" for opposing her edits.

The recently deceased

There is an ongoing debate over whether, and to what extent, the BLP applies to the recently deceased

Generic Evidence (Created by User:Phil Sandifer)

Because I suspect that there are certain claims that are going to be echoed by many parties, it seems easiest for the arbcom to condense some of these into one section. Accordingly, I am opening this section with the intention that anybody may contribute to it. I may refactor in order to keep this section relatively concise and on-target, but if you have a diff supporting a claim here, please feel free to make it.

I will note that this evidence section is, shall we say, a bit prosecutorial. That is not to dismiss those who wish to support Jeff's actions, but it becomes confusing to have a schizophrenic evidence section, and so I'm going to say no to that. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm not sure this is a good idea unless you can find a way to format it so that editors sign their submissions individually, otherwise accountability becomes difficult. Thatcher131 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Jeff is incivil and disruptive in deletion discussions

Jeff has posted the same critique of another user in multiple deletion discussions, which is needlessly inflammatory. [73]

Jeff has made many incivil and overly hostile comments in deletion debates: [74] [75] [76] [77] ("since some people need to be spoonfed..." response to being asked to provide sources for an undeletion request of a multiply-deleted, multiply-endorsed article); trolling.

Jeff engages in argumentation in deletion debates rather than simply stating his case ( Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]); ( List of Muslims involved in a crime (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100])

Jeff is unwise in repeatedly attempting to obtain the same outcome even after it is clear that a different forum or solution is needed: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]

Badlydrawnjeff's complaints do not come close to enjoying consensus (2)

Submitted by Steel359.

In addition to Tony Sidaway above:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning.

  • Original complaint alleging disruption and abuse of trust on the part of Samuel Blanning ( talk · contribs):
    • Certified by 3 editors;
    • Endorsed by 2 editors.
  • Outside view by Redvers: "This was never going to be anything other than an obvious "keep deleted". The "discussion" that was being held was generating heat but no light. Samuel Blanning therefore correctly used his judgment to end a broken process. Wikipedia processes exist to facilitate the creation of an encyclopedia. They are not a means unto themselves.":
    • Endorsed by 41 editors.

Evidence presented by violet/riga (t)

Articles deleted and restored

Rumaisa Rahman

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "unreferenced child bio - per WP:BLP feel free to recreate with sources"
  • Not referenced (created in 2004 before referencing was so prevalent).
  • Not defamatory in any way; the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: significant rewrite

Merged into Premature birth by JzG. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

This deletion was not appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative.

Abhilasha Jeyarajah

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP and WPNOT"
  • Four references (not inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: created

Presently at Baby 81 without mention of the name.

This deletion was not appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative and is referenced.

Kian and Remee Hodgson

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP and WP:NOT take it away"
  • Two references (not inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way; the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: none

Turned into article Mixed twins by FCYTravis. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

This deletion was not appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative and is referenced.

Manar Maged

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "eak, no WP:BLP"
  • Seven references (three inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of the person and the events.
  • My work on the article: none

Notability is clearly established by references and mention of several television programmes. Currently on AfD heading for a keep decision or a merger into Conjoined twin. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

This deletion was not appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative and is referenced. The subject is deceased and the application of BLP in such cases is not clear.

Charlotte Wyatt

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP attack"
  • Six references (all inline)
  • Not defamatory in any way; everything is fully referenced.
  • My work on the article: none

Article has been re-deleted by Swatjester (this constitutes a "slow-motion wheel war").

Neither deletion was appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative and is referenced.

Update: Serpent's Choice created a new article which was subsequently tagged for speedy deletion (G4) by Tony Sidaway, contested... it's still ongoing.

Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP and WP:NOT"
  • No references
  • Not defamatory in any way; the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: none

Article has been re-deleted by Swatjester (this constitutes a "slow-motion wheel war").

Neither deletion was appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative and is referenced.

Montana Barbaro

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "unreferenced bio per WP:BLP without prejudice to properly sourced recreation"
  • No references (but four external links that could be used as such)
  • Accusation of bigamy could be seen as defamatory
  • My work on the article: none

Prod by FCYTravis. Taken to AfD by Burntsauce. Article has been re-deleted by Nick ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (this constitutes a "slow-motion wheel war" and very poor judgement given the situation).

This deletion was not appropriate - any offending material could have been removed very easily.

Rebeca Martínez

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "unreferenced child BLP - recreate with compliant sources if you wish"
  • No references
  • Not defamatory in any way - the article was an accurate description of events.
  • My work on the article: none

Currently on AfD heading for a merger into Conjoined twin. I accept this as an appropriate action but the source information was needed in order to perform the merge.

This deletion was not appropriate - it was not covered by BLP because it is in no way negative. The subject is deceased and the application of BLP in such cases is not clear.

Delimar Vera Cuevas

  • Doc glasgow's reason for deletion: "WP:BLP unsourced child bio"
  • No references
  • Some content could be controversial but would have easily been removed rather than the entire article deleted.
  • My work on the article: none

Deleted by AfD. I accept this, having commented that I did not mind if it were kept or not as long as it went through due process.

This deletion was not appropriate under BLP - any offending material could have been removed very easily. AfD was the correct process and openly gathered consensus for the deletion.

Final status

Of the nine articles one was deleted by AfD, two were re-deleted by another admin (in violation of wheel-warring), one is being prodded. The other five have followed the evolutionary process of a wiki and are being worked on as appropriate.

Article speedy deletions

Articles are being speedy deleted by a handful of admins who think that BLP allows this. However, according to the policy as it stands, this is not correct. Articles being deleted are sourced and pass NPOV yet they claim that the age of the person matters, the fact that they are dead does not, and that they are (by their personal definitions) not notable. While ethically these articles could be removed it is not appropriate to speedy delete them based on one person's ethical viewpoint when our policy does not support that action.

Evidence presented by AnonEMouse

This case is not "about" Badlydrawnjeff, it is about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

The most obvious evidence for this is this very page. Substantial evidence is being given here about the actions of (on the "include/undelete side" in as much as there are "sides" here - no two people agree on all questions)

Note Badlydrawnjeff was not very involved in their actions. (on the "delete side" - same caveat)

Note all of these are at least former admins. "Community consensus" keeps vacillating - are the shiny buttons important, or no big deal - but in any case, these are all highly experienced users who at least once were "trusted by the community". I'm not quite sure why Newyorkbrad and I don't each have "sections" yet, (one on each "side", I guess) - perhaps because of our kind and lovable personalities? :-) But we're darn close to it (and we're both admins too - everyone who doesn't have the shiny buttons, duck for cover!).

Earlier, Thatcher131 commented that this case is about the policy, rather than one person. It's pretty clear to me that he was right, but it seems that even the obvious needs to be spelled out.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is being misused by people who don't read it

Specifically, the policy is being cited for deleting articles that don't violate it, and for closing discussion on articles that are disputable whether or not they violate it.

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker speedily closed for the reason that "a number of editors in the DRV debate expressed the opinion that these are are unacceptable per WP:BLP." Note that there is no claim that those editors had achieved consensus, or even were in the majority - they hadn't, and they weren't. The claim is merely that some people said so, so merely that claim is a reason to overrule the DRV decision.
  • Here are the deletion log entries in question:
    • 21:26, May 26, 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Robyn Dawkins" (per [[WP:BLP][] not to be restored for procedural reasons) (Restore)
    • 20:54, May 26, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Robyn Dawkins" (4 revisions restored: restore for afd, per DRV)
  • The deleted content of Robyn Dawkins contained the following content (rephrased to avoid restoring deleted content):
Robyn Dawkins, (born -/-/-), was switched at birth with (another boy) shortly after their births in (location) hospital. Their story attracted international news coverage. [1]
Each went home with the other's biological mother. The switch was discovered 2 years later by paternity test on (the other boy).
Robyn missed his biological mother, called her often, until eventually at 15 moving in with his biological family, upsetting the host family. He continues to live with them. [1]

The reference is to 60 Minutes. ""Switched at birth"". "Sixty Minutes". 2007. Retrieved May 23, 2007.

  • You will notice this meets the standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The information is sourced, not derogatory, not controversial, not even disputed. The alleged BLP violation cited in the DRV were:
    • "A 60 min programmes will not Google on this child's name later in life - we will." First, that's not a BLP deletion reason. Second, it's simply not true, as that very article used as a reference is the first Google hit for this child's name.
    • "This is a hospital fuck-up and will be forgotten next time a hospital fucks up." The 60 Minutes article is from 2007, the incident was from 1989 - it hasn't been forgotten in 18 years. Here it is from 2004. Also, that's not a BLP deletion reason.
    • "Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Come back when mainstream sources have proper substantial biographical articles on these individuals" 60 Minutes is hardly a tabloid newspaper, it is a respected program, considered by many to be the preeminent investigative television program in the United States. It is a mainstream source and the citation is to a proper substantial biographical article.
  • Note that the boys, now over 18, no longer minors, are still giving these interviews voluntarily. They've been giving these interviews for years. They aren't objecting to being the subjects of international news coverage, instead Wikipedia admins who never asked them are objecting to their article in their name.

-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

This isn't a black/white issue, there are multiple points and a continuum of views here

At a guess, I'd say that Crystal Gail Mangum would have the most views to "delete or merge", then QZ, while many of the later ones probably have consensus to be kept. One of those that hasn't even been brought up on this page before has been Divine Brown, though Tony Sidaway proposed it for deletion on much the same BLP/notability grounds, then when that was unanimously kept, he immediately turned it into a redirect. I restored, and he and I discussed it for a few days.

I believe that this arbcom case needs to be decided with a clarification of such issues.

In reading all these debates, the issues seem to include:

  • were the article subjects minors at the time of the event?
  • are they minors now?
    what " minors" means is also debatable, probably either "minor in their country", or per the US standards, 18 years old.
  • is merely writing about the incident derogatory towards the subjects?
  • did the article subjects actively participate in the event making them notable?
  • do they still participate in retaining that notability?
  • were they only written about at the time of their incident?
  • were they only written about as a side effect of writing about their incident?
  • what is known about the subjects besides about their participation in the incident?
  • did the incident have an important and lasting effect outside the immediate participants?

QZ was a minor at the time of his incident, didn't participate in the incident, is only written about in connection with the incident, and the incident is clearly derogatory. It is debatable whether he is intentionally participating in retaining notability, since a number of reliable sources say he is merely making the best of a bad situation, and if he could, would chuck the whole thing. If not for that, it would be a clear delete, most of the people arguing to restore it are leaning on that point. For me, even as is, I lean towards a delete even so. I don't believe in "do no harm", since everything we write about harms someone (even if we help someone it harms their enemies), but I do believe in "do more good than harm", and in this case this article seems to do more harm to QZ than good to people trying to find out who "Little Fatty" was. I'd weakly support rewriting it not mentioning his name specifically, but maybe not even that.

Crystal Mangum was not a minor, did participate in the incident, but does not still participate, and the incident is highly derogatory. Her life is ruined already (and wasn't all that great even before). Possibly most important is that essentially nothing notable is known about her life other than participation in the incident. It seems clear she should be a redirect to the event, the only debate is how much about her should be in that article, how much of her editing history should be retained, etc.

Divine Brown was not a minor, participated in the incident, still participates, shows up on talk shows and has had multiple movies primarily about her (for example, titled after her), shows up in minor news bits years later, and a documentary researched her life outside the incident somewhat. The incident would usually be considered highly derogatory, but she doesn't seem to treat it that way. I think it's a clear keep, and has survived two AFDs now, the second unanimously.

Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker were minors, but aren't minors now, didn't participate in the incident, but did participate in retaining the notability, have been discussed internationally for years, and the incident isn't derogatory towards them. I think it's a keep, but would not mind a real AfD.

The Star Wars kid was a minor, didn't actively participate before or after, and doesn't have much to be known about him beside the incident. The incident is derogatory. However, it has had an impact on the world - #1 viral meme of all time. Tony Sidaway changed that article to remove the kid's name, I support that action, that is just the right compromise to make here. (Every so often I want to give Tony Sidaway a barnstar, and his admin bit back. Then he goes and does something like directly contradict a unanimous AFD rejection by 15 people. Sigh.)

Elian Gonzales was a minor, didn't actively participate before or after, and while a lot is known about him, he was so young that it is highly debatable whether anything is really known about him besides the incident. It's debatable whether the incident was derogatory towards him, but the best reasoning for keeping that article seems to be that last point, that since the incident had such an important effect we do need to write about it, and we can't really name it anything but after him. I don't think anyone will even nominate this article for AfD, though if WP:BLP really were more important than anything else, it would be an important test case.

In short, the issues are complicated, and represent a continuum instead of an obvious choice. They deserve to be discussed. Discussion is the way we do things around here, and that means discussion of the article, not appeal to every single admin who happens to want to delete. That's at WP:AFD and WP:DRV, and that discussion should not be short-circuited when there are reasonable points to bring up. The community are the people who established the WP:BLP policy, after all, trust the community to be able to follow it, don't shut them up because we have the bright shiny buttons. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons meets Wikipedia:Featured articles, with a loud crash

Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. ( WP:FA) The Bus Uncle was made a Featured article on May 7, 2007, after review by 6 editors. Before that, it was peer reviewed on Wikiproject Biography on 22 April 2007, Peer reviewed on June 17, 2006, and an earlier FA review by 3 other experienced editors on July 15, 2006.

From 23:48-55 June 4, 2007, Tony Sidaway deleted large cited swathes of the article, most with the edit comment "Removing per WP:BLP concerns. Do not restore." His talk page comment went further, it read:

In accordance with the Biographies of living persons policy, and personal dignity, I have removed the most egregious breaches of personal privacy from this appalling bit of muck. The names of the individuals involved, and irrelevant details of their private lives, have been removed. With immediate effecit, I am removing this rubbish from the list of featured articles.

Less than 2 hours later, User:Raul654, an administrator, bureaucrat, oversight, and arbitrator, besides being the "Featured Article Director", generally considered to be the only person qualified to make the final promotion to or demotion from FA status, reverted Tony's article edits. Over the next 5 hours, 11 other edits from User:Kylohk, User:Kusma, and User:Pomte attempted to address Tony's concerns, but on 06:21, June 5, 2007, User:Pjacobi, also apparently an administrator, reverted them all to Tony's version. 5 hours later Kylohk reverted Pjacobi's reversion. Other editors were involved with their own edits on one side or the other.

Tony Sidaway's further reasoned constructive comments on the article talk page included "This is disgusting rubbish. Every single person involved in any stage of editing this shit, or in assessing it, should be bloody well ashamed of himself." Per the 4 reviews above, and the article's edit history that seems to be a personal attack on at least twenty different editors, including of course Raul654, but also User:SandyGeorgia, User:Yannismarou, User:Miborovsky etc. Or possibly not Sandy, since she would be a "herself"... For what it's worth, it doesn't include me, since I've never had the pleasure/honor/duty/revolting dirty task/pick a noun of editing that article, or assessing it so I guess I am an uninvolved party , and don't have to be bloody well ashamed of myself. Whew! Dodged a bullet! and doesn't include Badlydrawnjeff.

In short, several days later, the article is finally at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/The_Bus_Uncle, with no fewer than 16 editors and 2 WikiProjects notified. But that's probably where it should be, for reasoned discussion with the community. That's not the point of this evidence. The point is that this isn't about Badlydrawjeff. This isn't even about Tony Sidaway. Or Pjacobi, or Raul654, or WikiProject:Biography or WikiProject:HongKong. This is about the fact that people are reading things into WP:BLP that it doesn't say, including, apparently, this time, the ability to demote an article from the Wikipedia:Featured articles list, and to be rude, with use of obscenity, to dozens of experienced, respected members of the Wikipedia community.

Can we please have a statement from the arbcom about this? I'm not even asking whether WP:BLP is the most important thing since sliced cheese, maybe it is. But it doesn't say a thing about these other uses of it. People are reading things into it it just doesn't say, and wrapping themselves in it like a flag attempting to justify the most blatant rudeness and disruption. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Silliness escalation block

This incident isn't in the theme of the other evidence I'm presenting, but should probably be somewhere on the evidence page. Yummifruitbat's description as "a foolish comment in a wider silly argument which was exacerbated by a silly block." about covers it. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive257#Input_requested:_Badlydrawnjeff_physical_threat

02:24, 10 June 2007, User:Chairboy posted to WP:AN/I alleging the comment "I can't wait for the day you piss off the wrong person, Tony." by Badlydrawnjeff on Tony Sidaway's talk page was a physical threat. Half a dozen people quickly responded that it was not a physical threat; but, however, that it, and further comments by Bdj were uncivil.

02:43, 10 June 2007 Coredesat ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "blocked him for a week for the incivility alone". Comments were heated but mixed. 02:49 Tony Sidaway asked Coredesat to unblock at once. 03:00, 10 June 2007 Coredesat unblocked due to Tony's request.

-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by User:JzG

Badlydrawnjeff misunderstands the purpose of WP:BLP

WP:BLP in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect subjects' lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. Jeff misunderstands the purpose of WP:BLP as being primarily about "covering one's legal behind". [107]. This is false. Legal responsibility can be managed by WP:V and WP:NPOV, as for other potential subjects of defamation (e.g corporations); no special policy is required to fulfil this purpose. WP:BLP exists because of the unique potential for harm where real people's lives are concerned.

Badlydrawnjeff's approach is excessively binary

See [108], [109], other examples. It appears that Wikipedia divides into those who agree with Jeff, and those who are simply wrong. It is highly unlikely that it is anything like that simple.

Here [110] Jeff asserts that those who have a different view from him are "lying".

Fundamentally, Jeff appears unwilling or unable to consider that others may be in part right, that he may be in part wrong, and above all that some solution other than his preferred solution may be appropriate. This is a form of ownership.

Badlydrawnjeff's does not accept the validity of any other opinion but his own

Badlydrawnjeff has repeatedly stated that, and acted as if, he is right and those who disagree with him are both wrong and mendacious. He continues to escalate the dispute, and to pursue his own personal version of how the contended subjects should e covered rather than allowing for other .

Violetriga uses admin tools capriciously

Of the articles Violetriga undeleted, as listed above, I believe all are now deleted or merged by consensus. While this does nto endorse speedy deletion of these subject per se, it does indicate that an alternative solution should have been sought, and preferably one that did not result in weeks of angry posturing debate to reach pretty much the same conclusion.

Preterm births

One focus of the controversy has been articles on extreme preterm births. Where such cases are the earlies, smallest or otherwise notable examples, there is no bar to coverage. See these merges: [112], [113]. However, Violetriga inappropriately reverted at least one such case, to a standalone "biography" of an extreme preterm infant [114]. Rumaisa Rahman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently a redirect.

Charlotte Wyatt

Be it known that I am British. I vaguely remember the name Charlotte Wyatt. I do remember the case slightly better than the name; it appears to be a significant event in the ongoing debate over right to live, voluntary euthanasia and related topics in the UK. And here is what we know about this infant and her family: virtually nothing. Because once again it is the case which is notable, not the individual. By presenting the article as a biography, we do something the sources do not do. Excessive focus on an ideological commitment to having an article in this form impedes treatment in a way which is more in line with the sources and less problematic in terms of the impact on real people's lives. The case of Diane Pretty achieved considerably more notice, due I think to her ability to communicate her own mind; the BBC calls her "an extraordinary woman". What is extraordinary about Charlotte Wyatt?

The Bus Uncle

As noted by Anon E Mouse, there was a brief dispute over The Bus Uncle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Be it noted that this is currently at Wikipedia:Featured article review#The Bus Uncle, where the concerns raised by Tony appear to have been given somewhat more weight than is assigned to them in Anon's evidence summary. Much of the disputed content apears to be out of the article, and looks like staying that way.

Some people are just not getting it

As well as User:Violetriga above, User:Prolog has edit-warred over inclusion of the names of living individuals [115], [116].

Crotalus horridus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) says: " Undelete this and get rid of BLP before it destroys Wikipedia. Enough."

Badlydrawnjeff: " No vocal minority here - I'm correct, you are wrong. This is something you'll have to deal with sooner rather than later".

WP:NOT

This change [117] to WP:NOT was specifically motivated by the QZ case. Message-Id: <04AADAAA-191B-4CCC-914B-64769EA5615C@wikia.com> on otrs-en-l from Jimmy Wales, copy on request if this is in doubt.

JzG not evil

According to Prolog's proposed remedy, I have "a history of improper deletions, protections, block threats and closures of discussions as an involved admin".

Deletions

I have nearly finished reviewing my entire deletion history in response to this claim.

As of yesterday evening, I had performed 7711 deletions. Of these, 91.7% were still deleted. Of those which are bluelinks:

  • 22% were uncontroversial housekeeping
  • 27% are redirects
  • 20% are complete rewrites (e.g. after removal of copyvios)
  • 7% are articles on malls created by User:Dvac, a representative of the operating company, deleted en bloc, and since recreated by independent editors
  • 8% are images (these tend to be deleted for sourcing, new images often have the same title even if they are a different image; Image:Boa.jpg has been uploaded twelve times by various users, each time with no source).
  • 5% are duplicates (multiple deletions)

Sundry other things.

Around 50 articles of the total of over 7,700 exist as overturned, either because I closed an AfD which was subsequently overturned, or because a speedy was subsequently overturned, or because a speedy was reposted, taken to AfD and survived. This includes a film which is still not released, at least two autobiographies and so on. That makes an error rate of around 0.6%, or slightly fewer than one per week. Could be lower, of course, but then, I am known for taking on hard cases and OTRS complaints. I suspect the number would be lower if a certain editor could bring himself to start reviewing CAT:CSD and educating those who tag incorrectly, instead of hounding admins. This has been suggested and rejected more than once.

Blocks

I reviewed my last 100 blocks. Of these, three were subsequently overturned. These are all the contended ones:

So "a history" amounts to two instances where the block is problematic, of which one I dispute and the other I don't.

In amongst there we also have Jeffrey Vernon Merkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), where both the block and the unblock were equally controversial. If anyone wants to take me to task over that they are welcome to do so, but this is not the right venue for that particular issue I think.

I will review the next hundred blocks when I get time.

Block threats

Not sure what that refers to; on occasion I have been known to point out the obvious, as per the citation for "Raul's common sense brick": [118]. Is that an inappropriate threat? Sometimes kids need a dose of reality. Perhaps some of the problem here comes from the fact that I tend to draw my view of teenagers and their testing of the rules from my own experience as a parent of two sons, one of whom is a teenager by now. As a rule, teenagers are very resentful when testing the limits results in a loss of face. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, testing the rules often has consequences beyond the individuals concerned (hence WP:BLP).

Prolog identifies a threat below: correct. The user was deliberately evading the sitewide regex filter to insert content he knew had been added to the regex filter specifically to stop this text being added. Stupid. Why the hurry to add it? Do we really have to include content and see if we get sued, or can we sometimes, yiou know, wait until a bit more thought has been applied? Naive question, I know. See AACS below anyway.

See also [119]. The text in full:

What you are doing is intensely disruptive. The way to proceed is through dispute resolution, not by repeatedly asking for deletion review until you get the answer you want. Do that again and so help me I will block you. The repeated fuckwittery is reinforcing the WP:BLP problem by continually reinforcing the link between this poor kid's name and his victimisation. We do not need it.

Double whammy: rude and a threat. Yup. Which rather misses the point that I was suggesting that Jeff pursue some more reflective process rather than opening yet another deletion review. Previous suggestions had fallen on deaf ears. Still are, for that matter.

Civility

To look at a couple of the diffs, chosen at random:

[120]. The user I was responding to had been trolling for ages in numerous thread son my talk, the noticeboards and other venues. Elsewhwere in the incredibly protracted argument this user raised he freely acknowledges, and indeed takes pride in being an argumentative sod. [121]. I think this [122] sums it up quite neatly.

[123], removing material asserting that a living article subject (two actually) had been in a brawl, sourced from the Fark forums, with the comment "what idiot thought Fark forums were a reliable source?" which, even if it had been directed at a named editor (which it wasn't) is, I venture to suggest, fair comment. Fark forums are pretty much the definition of an unreliable source, I'd say. WP:SPADE applies.

[124]: told Jeff to fuck right off and would cheerfully have said the same to his face. He said "No, Guy wants it escalated and wants to be a dick about it, so we'll do it. Can't fault a guy for trying." I was outraged by that remark, absolutely outraged. And that is exactly how that comment would be understood side of the pond, ask David Gerrard.

[125] - comment on wiki was "the answer is go away", edit summary was "actually it's fuck off". Which it was. The target was a spammer who had come here to spam his firm's products, was disruptive when the spam was removed (AfDing competitors' products etc), and then demanded that all reference to his company's name be removed from the debates about the problems he caused, because they were coming up in Google searches, posting "advice to new users regarding trademark and libel laws" ( [126]), a highly creative interpretation of libel law which says that if company A's representative spams Wikipedia we must obfuscate all references to company A's name or company A can sue us for trademark infringement. Which was hysterical, but also an implied legal threat. Oh just read the diff link and the debate, you will see what I mean.

So the allegation of incivility comes down to: will call a spade a spade, will eventually snap if trolled hard enough. Guilty as charged, I guess.

AACS encryption key

Editors were using obfuscation to deliberately subvert the sitewide regex filter; I do not recall any previous incidents where this feature has been used to prevent addition of content with potential legal ramifications (not to say it hasn't happened). Where users are wilfully subverting the regex filter, it seems to me they are doing something wrong. The debate highlighted a tension between the idea that content we like must be included at all costs as early as possible and any obstacles placed in the way must be bulldozed, and the idea that we can afford to wait before including content where other sites have received DMCA takedown notices. Of course it's not that simple, but you get the drift. To characterise as evil an attempt to prevent evasion of features which exist to protect us legally, seems like a bit of a stretch.

This is in any case (a) unrelated and (b) ancient history by now.

QZ

Yup, I closed the debate. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Worse, the arguments raised by those advocating undeletion did not change. The idea of bringing better arguments did not seem to occur to them. Neither did any kind of nuanced solution which recognises the issues identified. DRV is not the best venue for such debates, too binary. I thought I'd made it pretty clear that something creative was the way to go, but apparently not.

Evidence presented by Phil Sandifer

Violetriga Wheel Warred

Violetriga undid several of Doc Glasgow's BLP deletions. [127] This was done without discussion with Doc Glasgow - an astonishingly bad idea for a sensitive matter like BLP concerns.

Furthermore, two of the articles were ones she created, making her actions inappropriate and a conflict of interest [128]

She subsequently acted quite uncivilly to Doc Glasgow [129].

An Actual Timeline for QZ Deletion Discussions

Since, shockingly, nobody has offered one of these yet...

First AfD Closed and Re-Opened by Daniel Bryant

The first AfD of the QZ article was closed as a deletion six days after it opened by User:Daniel.Bryant. At this point the article had four people arguing for deletion and three for keeping. Although this would, by numerical conventions in use at AfD, result in a keep, Daniel Bryant felt that the arguments made for deletion were more persuasive and decided to delete. [130]

About a day later, following discussion on his talk page in which User:DeLarge presented the case for keeping the article [131] Daniel Bryant overturned his closure and asked for the debate to run for another five days, citing DeLarge's arguments as new information requiring further discussion.

First AfD Re-Closed by Drini

Following a few hours of further debate which brought the numerical tally to 6 in favor of deletion, 4 in favor of keeping, User:Drini re-closed the debate. Although the numerical tally would have, by convention, been sufficient to delete, Drini opted to cite the ethical issues in keeping the article when deleting [132].

Following Drini's closure of the AfD, User:Matt Crypto reverted the closure [133]. He did not discuss this decision on Drini's talk page, but subsequently apologized for wheel-warring [134]. Subsequently he was reverted by Daniel Bryant, who argued against reversing other administrator's closings. Daniel Bryant did not re-close the debate, but rather restored Drini's closure, and in doing so erased several more comments that would have numerically brought the debate to 8 in favor of keeping, 7 in favor of deletion. [135]

First DRV opened

User:DESiegel, shortly after Daniel Bryant's restoration of Drini's closure, listed the QZ article on deletion review, claiming that the closure was made early and without consensus. [136] This DRV marked Jeff's first contribution to deletion discussions of this article.

After an appropriate amount of time, User:Xoloz closed the deletion review with a decision to relist. At that point, the deletion review had a numerical breakdown of 13 people arguing in favor of overturning Drini's closure and 10 arguing in favor of keeping it. Many of those arguing in favor of overturning cited the contentiousness of the debate and claimed that the closures were out of process. Xoloz did not explain his reasoning at length on DRV [137], but subsequently cited out of process closures as his reasoning when listing the article for a second AfD [138]. When starting the AfD, Xoloz vowed to revert all attempts to closet he nomination early.

Second AfD closed

Very shortly after the second AfD was started, User:Thebainer closed the AfD on the grounds that Xoloz was wrong to say that the previouse AfD was closed improperly and subsequently noting that he found the BLP concerns persuasive in this case. [139]. Further explanation of his reasons was made at his talk page [140].

Second DRV

Within a few hours of Thebainer's close, Jeff made another DRV nomination [141] arguing that the previous deletion discussions had come to no consensus. This DRV was closed within minutes by JzG [142] who noted, as Thebainer had, that the procedural errors did not exist. Jeff twice reverted this closure [143] [144] and was reverted by Doc Glasgow and Drini [145] [146]

Third DRV

A few hours later, DESiegel listed the article for a third DRV. In a very strongly worded request, he condemned the early closure of the second AfD. [147] This DRV ran for seven hours, with a numerical tally of 11 people arguing for overturning the second AfD and 21 arguing in favor of keeping the article deleted. After seven hours, User:Viridae closed the DRV and relisted the article on AfD, citing the failures of process and noting that the article did not have any BLP concerns. [148].

Third AfD

The third AfD ran for eight hours. In those eight hours no consensus was formed to delete, but many of the people from previous discussions did not weigh in. After eight hours, the AfD was closed by User:Nick. Nick noted that previous discussions had formed a consensus and that the repeated process-based discussions were unhelpful. [149]. At this point, the situation errupted into a full-blown edit war, with Viridae and Neo-Jay making particularly unhelpful reversions [150] [151]. In the course of this edit war, I deleted the article, citing BLP issues, and protected it from recreation.

Fourth DRV

Jeff then listed the article for a fourth DRV. [152]. This DRV was swiftly closed by JzG. [153]

Evidence presented by Doc

Jeff was personally obsessive about the QZ deletion

Apparently, somehow claiming this is false. But I count four (re)openings of DRV [154] [155] [156] [157] plus a request for arbitration and an RfC. He stated his intention to carry on with DRV attempts after the RfC, and regardless of the outcome. [158] [159] That's in addition to dozens of comments. Why does it always have to be Jeff that pursues these things? If a deletion needs challenging, someone will challenge it.


Jeff shows no regard for BLP

Jeff's contention is that process matters. However, he appears more concerned with being a radical inclusionist, regardless of BLP and indeed process. I will cite the most recent example.

  • Allison Stokke an article with privacy implications was speedied under BLP. The deletion was contested and it was listed on DRV by Night Gyr.
  • During the debate Jeff made twenty-five separate contributions arguing with those who endorsed it [160], he engages in intemperate remarks [161], and bizarrely claiming that 'basic human decency' has no place in Wikipedia's discussions [162]
  • The DRV was finally closed by uninvolved admin Xoloz [163], who in a complicated summarising indicated that the "original BLP deletion [was] endorsed" but that the issue should return to AfD to see whether a "national high-school record-holder passes WP:BIO". In short, consensus indicated that mention of the meme should be removed per WP:BLP, but the athletics stuff should be considered separately. A stub stripped of the BLP violation was then sent to AfD.
  1. Jeff then reinserted the violating material [164] and was reverted by Ned Scott [165]
  2. I then warned him against replacing material deemed by consensus to be a BLP [166]
  3. He immediately replaced it again [167]. I reverted him [168]
  4. He then replaced part of the violating material, and sources (previously removed under BLP) refering to the whole meme [169]. He was again reverted, and the article eventually protected.
  • Jeff then comes to this page to claim I am running a "campaign against him" [170]

Nothing personal, Jeff

Since Jeff has asserted that I am running a "campaign against" him, let me rebut. I have long been on record as being tough on BLP, however, I have never borne Jeff any ill will. Indeed, I've often worked well with him in the bast. This comment, supporting his RfA just 6 weeks ago, summed up my opinion until recently. [171]See further my offer of help here [172]. The issue here is blatant disregard for the biographies of living people, it is not personal. If anything that I've unwisely said has given that impression, I am deeply sorry. I wish him every happiness in life [173] and a fruitful future in his excellent article work.-- Docg 22:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Doc is (generally) competent in deletion judgements

I spend a lot of time helping to clean-up wikipedia from problematic biographies of living people. I am active on OTRS. I believe Wikipedia has a major problem and an obligation to sort it. I am intolerant of those who feel process is more important that product in this regard. It matters to me - I get snappy - sorry. I carry out BLP/OTRS related deletion fairly often. [174].. They are actually seldom challenged, and I can't recall the last time I was not endorsed on DRV. That indicates the community generally agrees with my judgement.

But as it states on my userpage "*I will review any of my administrative actions on request. I'm not infallible but I'm humble enough to admit error."" [175]. If approached, I will review my actions and back up if I think I've misjudged it. See recently this discussion, where I reversed myself on review. Jeff himself will recall that I carried out an WP:IAR deletion of a bio in response to an OTRS privacy request, only after discussion with him on IRC, and an indication that I'd undelete and AfD if anyone objected. As I recall he concurred with my use of IAR on that occasion. Here is another instance of me being flexible when when Dragonfly67 offered to rewrite a BLP violating article [176]

  • I will not defend the specific deletions that violetriga cites. Although, I note that not one of these articles is likely to be left as an independent article. I may, or may not, have been hasty in deleting them. I have actually not reviewed that, since they were undeleted before I was questioned.
  • Jeff mentions 10 supposed bad deletions of mine in his evidence. Please note that at this time, despite DRV, nine are redlinks and the other one is is the one I restored when Dragonfly67 kindly offered to re-write it as BLP compliant. I'm hardly a rouge deleter that needs stopped.-- Docg 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Closing statement by Doc=

I note Jeff has added dozens of diffs and a multitude of findings designed to present me (and others) in a bad light. In many he has assumed bad faith, taken incidents out of context, and accused me of dishonesty and even lying. Frankly, with the sheer bulk of material added, I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to it all and offer a proper context. I certainly have no desire to continue a fruitless debate on the workshop with someone who believes they are always right. My patience is simply exhausted.

Whilst I'm sure some of my actions could have been better judged (unlike Jeff I'm not infallible) - I'm happy to stand by my approach, motives, and general judgement and explain any of my actions against a proper background on request. If any arbiter wishes further comment on an incident, I will provide it in full. However, I believe it is in both my and and the project's interests if I cease otherwise to comment on this case. I am content to leave the rest to your good judgement.-- Docg 14:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Prolog

Tony Sidaway's comments regarding Qian Zhijun have been unhelpful

Comments like these are disruptive and generate flame wars rather than constructive discussion.

Tony Sidaway has closed AFD and DRV discussions improperly

  • On June 4, Tony Sidaway closed the the AFD discussion of Rebeca Martínez early as "delete in the name of human dignity and our own self respect". [177] Tony Sidaway is not an administrator, so he can not close a discussion as delete. Also, closure was not very neutral as it seems to be part of Tony Sidaway's campaign to remove certain real names from Wikipedia: "the name of the unfortunate infant should not be used on this encyclopedia."
  • On June 6, Tony Sidaway closed the deletion review of Tanya Kach early as "deletion endorsed", [178] while the discussion showed a nearly unanimous consensus to restore the article. This action was reversed by me.

JzG has a history of unilateral administrative actions

JzG has continuously engaged in several types of questionable behaviour in different types of articles. Looking at the past two weeks:

  • On AACS encryption key controversy, the user removed the encryption key that was added after a talk page discussion. [179] After being reverted, he removed it again, [180] was reverted and reverted back. [181] After reverting one more time and being reverted back, [182] he protected the page, [183] and reverted back to his favoured revision. [184]
  • In the case of Qian Zhijun, JzG closed a DRV on this article three times, [185] [186] [187] which would be bad on its own, but he was also an involved admin. [188] [189]

While all editors can be hasty once in a while, this shows a pattern of disruptive behaviour.

JzG has a history of incivility

JzG has a long history of incivility, including comments in which he has told other users to "fuck off", [190] [191] and called them "idiots". [192] [193] What the past few weeks have shown is that this problem is not going to go away. He has told Jeff to "Fuck off", [194] and "Fuck off. Fuck right off" [195], threatened to block Jeff, [196] threatened to block another established user, Aktron, with whom he was engaged in a content dispute, [197] and in addition, there have been incivil edit summaries [198] and comments such as "My God, you really are stupid, aren't you?." [199] In this very ArbCom case, JzG used admin rollback against another admin without leaving a note on the user's talk page or participating in the talk page discussion on the issue. [200]

Doc glasgow has made a number of inappropriate deletions

I will not dig deep into Doc's deletion log, but just recently the user deleted five articles within eight minutes citing WP:BLP and WP:NOT as reasons. One of these articles, Manar Maged (deleted with summary "eak, no WP:BLP" [201]), was actually about a dead person and none of these met any speedy criterion and were either sourced from reliable sources or contained such coverage as external links. More problems that have been noticed are;

  • Rebeca Martínez (deleted with summary "unreferenced child BLP - recreate with compliant sources if you wish" [202]) – Also a dead person.
  • Anna Mae He (deleted with summary " WP:BLP not this" [203]) – No BLP issues, well-sourced, 15 citations. This could be merged, renamed et cetera, but not after one admin has chosen to unilaterally delete it instead.

Unfortunately these are merely from the last few days. — Prolog 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by The way, the truth, and the light

Tony Sidaway's comments continue to be unhelpful

Tony continues to reply in a tone that is borderline uncivil or trollish:

  • [204] - arrogance.
  • [205] Implying that Jeff 'hasn't grown up'.
  • [206] - arrogance.
  • [207] 'Smug preening'.
  • [208] 'Trollish' and 'stupid'. (Tony later attempted to close this DRV after less than 2 days.)
  • [209] 'Fuck process.'
  • [210] 'Jeffopedia'.
  • [211] - vague threat.
  • [212] - goading.

This is only a sampling from the last week, and I deliberately ignored this arbitration case.

The deletion of Crystal Gail Mangum was improper

See the page history for more detail.

On May 22, David Gerard deleted this article without discussion. It was then created as a redirect, which it still is. The evidence shown in the log indicates that actions taken over this article may constitute wheel warring. The history of this article is now available again at this page, and this was endorsed by David Gerard (only the log of the history remains now).

A DRV on this article was opened ( [213]) soon after the out-of-process deletion, with the apparent intent of restoring the full article. This DRV attracted a very large comments within a short period of time, testifying to the importance of the article. 24 hours after it opened, with no consensus (actually there were more votes for undeletion), it was speedy-closed by Thebainer ( [214]). After this was quickly overturned by another admin, it was closed again the following day ( [215]). The closing admin required the history be present, but this was undone by David Gerard until the solution mentioned above was agreed on.

This person became notable because of her own action, and due to the fame of the case, will remain semi-notable for quite some time. The persons advocating for the deletion of this article may well have been working from irrelevant political considerations, i.e. that they considered Mangum to be an innocent victim despite the evidence. Indeed JzG as much as admitted to this bias: in the DRV [216] [217] [218] [219] and also here [220]; this also constitutes assuming bad faith about the other side. It may be worth noting that at this time JzG also personally attacked me on an unrelated subject: [221] [222] - note that consensus on Talk:Cirque disagreed with the position he was then advocating.

Speedy closure of DRV

Despite the earlier problems with speedy closes, involved admin Doc glasgow closed ( [223]) a contentious BLP DRV after having overturned ( [224]) a previous speedy-close that did not agree with his side. Quickly, the DRV was then unclosed (by Jeff and me) and reclosed (by Doc and others) 5 times, before finally being properly closed.

Evidence presented by Crotalus horridus

  • I wanted to correct a couple of small errors in the above statement by The way, the truth, and the light. First of all, the intention of the DRV that I opened was not necessarily "with the intent of restoring the full article." I conceded that some of the history was problematic and suggested one of two alternatives. The first was that the article could be deleted, re-created as a stub, protected, and discussed carefully on talk (as we've done in the past with various problematic biographies); the second alternative was to create a protected redirect. I would have preferred the former, but the latter (which is what ended up happening) is reasonably acceptable. I do have serious problems with what I perceive to be a slippery slope on the application of BLP: first it was Brian Peppers, then Qian Zhijun, and finally unquestionably prominent individuals like Crystal Gail Mangum and Shawn Hornbeck. I genuinely fear that if this continues we'll have a redlink at Monica Lewinsky in a couple of months, so I do urge that Arbcom take these issues seriously.
  • Also, while some of JzG's comments do indeed show political bias in the Mangum case, this seems isolated from the larger issue, and I see no evidence that this was true of other deletion advocates such as David Gerard or Tony Sidaway. Indeed, since David and Tony live outside of the United States, I think this may have led them to underestimate how much media coverage Mangum had actually gotten here. In any case, treating this as primarily an issue of user conduct is probably a mistake. Rather, there needs to be a line drawn that says that WP:BLP only applies to unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people — not anything that someone, for whatever reason, might find offensive. I see no reason to believe that all contributors involved in this case did not act in good faith. *** Crotalus *** 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by RockMFR

Inappropriate application of BLP by Tony Sidaway resulted in extreme incivility

[225] - These sorts of comments by Tony Sidaway are damaging to the project. Hostile threats are far more serious than run-of-the-mill incivility and wheel warring. --- RockMFR 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by User:Uncle G

A conversation with JzG

If JzG's later edits reflect a change from that point onwards (I haven't looked.), you might want to consider this issue satisfactorily addressed via an unsolicited third opinion. Uncle G 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Serpent's Choice's case below

For reference, the editor who tagged a redirect that had an edit history as {{ db-empty}} was Javit ( talk · contribs), who is not an administrator. Uncle G 14:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Per this request I confirm that the person who tagged the rewrite from scratch as {{ db-g4}} on 2007-06-03T23:56:23 was Tony Sidaway ( talk · contribs). A {{ hangon}} pointing to Talk:Charlotte Wyatt was placed by DGG ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who also initiated a discussion section on the talk page) on 2007-06-04T01:11:42 and the speedy deletion request was removed by Badlydrawnjeff ( talk · contribs) on 2007-06-04T01:33:42. There is discussion between Tony Sidaway and Badlydrawnjeff on the talk page and in the summaries of the deleted edits as to whether the article should redirect to right to life. Further input was given by H ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Mackensen ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Uncle G 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by FCYTravis

We cannot write true biographies on every person associated with a newsworthy event

There is a fatal flaw in WP:BIO, and that is that a strict reading of its wording allows for the creation of articles on every single person who ever gets mentioned in a newspaper or magazine. With modern wire services being what they are, and the Internet being what it is, matters of local interest are spread around the world. But 99 percent of these people will be just as quickly forgotten. We will never find out who these people really are beyond the single newsworthy incident they happen to be involved in. There will never be any other information about their lives. This presents a major problem of undue weight.

If we allow the creation of Wikipedia articles on every single one of these people, then, what we get are not biographies at all, but instead out-of-context snapshots of a random moment in their lives which happened to intersect with media or public interest for however long it took them to change the channel on the television. That means that everyone who ever ends up in a newspaper will end up with that moment defining them for the rest of their lives on this encyclopedia, regardless of anything they may have done before or after.

There may never be a reliable source which tells us that after being the subject of a messy, expensive and tabloid-covered 10-year custody battle, little Jeff Doe goes on to have a successful career as a union carpenter, raising a family and living his life. Instead, for the rest of his life he'll be defined by Wikipedia as, "Jeff Doe is a man who was the subject of a massive custody battle in 1992."

Is that what Wikipedia is supposed to do? Define people forever by their worst, most tragic, scandalous or Internet-memed moment? I don't think so.

If we cannot write a balanced, sourced biography on someone which goes beyond whatever 15 minutes of infamy they happened to be involved in, we should not write a biographical article on them at all. Instead, an article on the incident, if it's deemed encyclopedic, should be written. We need to focus on what happened, not who it happened to.

Badlydrawnjeff assumes bad faith in an uncivil manner

When presented with good faith opposition and debate, Badlydrawnjeff often responds in an unhelpful manner, impugning the motives and participants rather than addressing their arguments.

  • Jeff calls an argument "rude" and "dishonest" rather than respond to the argument's substance. [226] [227]
  • According to Jeff, editors who disagree with him on the application of WP:BLP are liars. [228]

Evidence presented by Nandesuka

One of the primary purposes of WP:BLP is to fulfill an ethical purpose

-As stated in the policy.

Badlydrawnjeff has publically and repeatedly mischaracterized the purpose of WP:BLP

Badlydrawnjeff has claimed that WP:BLP is not about ethics, and that the policy exists to "cover one's legal behind". ( [229], as a reply to Phil Sandifer's comment [230]).

Badlydrawnjeff argues that the idea that WP:BLP has an ethical purpose is "propaganda"

When it was pointed out to Jeff that one of the main purposes of WP:BLP is to maintain high ethical standards, he replied "I don't buy into that propaganda for a second." [231].

Evidence presented by Serpent's Choice ( talk · contribs)

Anatomy of a chilling effect

Diffs where I can, quite a bit of this relates to deleted content.

Some previous article existed at Charlotte Wyatt. It was deleted over BLP concerns. I undertook to write a wholly independant replacement article, feeling that one could in fact be written. Although I included news media sources as convenient means to cite gross facts, I primarily referenced scholarly journal publications to discuss context and significance. I requested that Doc glasgow , the (primary) deleting admin of the previous version, review my work. [232] He replied, largely in agreement. [233] I followed up on his concerns about significance, [234] but seeing no further response, went ahead and promoted the new content to article space. Shortly after, DGG advised me that Tony Sidaway was dissatisfied with the material. I attempted to converse with him at his User Talk (see much of this section, although was concerned that little substantive dialogue was occurring. By this time, someone had already tagged the article CSD-G4 (repost) and had the template reverted. Tony had in fact tagged the article CSD-G4 (repost); DGG had notified me after placing a {{hangon}}. The CSD template had been removed by Badlydrawnjeff by the time I returned to the article, leading me to believe that things were settled. I apparently missed some drama.

Someone Tony reduced it to a redirect to right to life; he who added a one-line mention of the case (with the name redacted) to that article, [235] citing The Guardian and The Independant but none of the journal sources. Apparently, revert warring ensued. Briefly, Mackensen protected the page in an effort to stop the war. Then, on the 7th, Jimfbleak deleted the page as CSD-A3 (empty page) and (initially) protected it. Someone Javit had replaced the redirect with {{db-empty}}. Prolog questioned was what going on. [236] Jimfbleak cited the revert war, and deleted the page to "call a halt" and allow it to be "start[ed] from scratch" [237] (probably without knowing that was just what I had tried to do). Tony became involved in the discussion, [238] with the assertion that "the page was just a redirect" that is "only of encyclopedic interest because of the ethical implications" and again citing only The Guardian. He concludes, "The encyclopedic content is somewhat less than one would get from a newspaper search on the name."

I find this to be an archetype of why this entire situation is problematic. Assuming it was done by an admin, tagging the article CSD-G4 without checking history seems problematic. Tony's merge was unsatisfying because it ignored the scholarly sources (setting aside entirely the name-redaction issue for the moment). Javit's A3 speedy deletion tag was simply disruptive a misuse of the tag. Jimfbleak's deletion, while in good faith, was improper, as he was aware that the speedy template was incorrectly applied (former content wholly aside, redirects aren't valid A3). And Tony's response stifles discourse over an article that, at least since my recreation, was never a "newspaper search". I am also particularly concerned to see crystal-ball assertions about this very case's outcome employed in a manner that I interpret as attempting to lend finality to debate. [239] [240]

I'm not here to try to get Tony, or Jimfbleak, or Javit, or Badlydrawnjeff, or anyone sanctioned. There may or may not be actionable user conduct issues here (or elsewhere), but I've had minimal contact with any of the editors in this case and am in no position to judge. What I do hope, however, is to bring ArbCom's attention to the chilling effect resulting from a BLP policy that is this expansive in scope and execution. I'd consider appealing this particular content's fate, but where, and at what risk? DRV? I am not so naive. Talk:Right to life? Why, when none of the redactions, mini-merges, redirects, or deletions were brought to article (or my) talk? BLP, as I understand it, was never meant to prejudice against later article creation, but folding even the most recent content into right to life or recreating Charlotte Wyatt over the invalid A3 speedy is for braver men than I; when I began writing here, WP:BRD meant "Bold, Revert, Discuss" -- not "Bold, Redirect, Delete" -- and didn't risk earning me a BLP-violation block for the temerity of citing Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, Medical Law Review, Current Anaesthesia & Critical Care, and Journal of Child Health Care because the topic they were discussing was a sick child who had also been on the evening news.

Fighting sensationalism and recentism are goals of the highest nobility, but they, too, can go too far. Serpent's Choice 21:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by ^demon

I stand by my closure

I quote part of my closing statement here for ease of reading:

The article has been established as non-notable via the second AfD. Deletion Review was designed to debate xFDs that were not carried out properly, or ones that had been closed improperly, not as a "second chance AfD" to try and get the result you want. [241]

On WP:ANI, I was endorsed by FloNight and [242] Chacor [243]. As I said on WP:ANI, I was making what I saw as a good faith early-closure of a nongermane DRV, and I'm standing by that. ^ demon [omg plz] 14:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes I was rude

But show me an administrator or user who hasn't been? All of us get a bit tense working with users who we find difficult. While I haven't been directly involved with Jeff up until now (which is why I considered myself a neutral party to close the DRV), I had definitely seen the tension surrouding him. When he started reverting my closure and bugging me, I felt what others have complained about, that I was dealing with someone who trolls DRV. Calling him such may have been a bit harsh, but I stand by my right to remove comments from my talkpage. ^ demon [omg plz] 14:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by The Evil Spartan

Many of the "deletionist" administrators utter lack of respect for other administrators or allowing discussion

We've contentious discussions in the past, whether BLP or other deletion debates; however, the issue here is often that these administrators are failing to so much allow for a discussion, and are often closing (and re-closing) debates in a very conflict of interest way. None of these issues would ever have been nearly as contentious, as history shows, had the administrators not refused to let the community talk it out.

This is wheel warring, plain and simple. And yet it is rampant. It has occurred how many times in recent days? Surely, Wikipedia was never perfectly lovey-dovey, but this wheel-warring is deeply hurting our community.

First incident I could find: QZ deletion dispute

Diffs already listed above

Second incident: Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker

  • [244] DRV speedy closed by Tony Sidaway after having been involved in discussion.
  • [245] Reverted by Amarkov.
  • [246] Reclosed by Doc.
  • [247] Reverted by Amarkov.
  • [248] reclosed by David Gerard
  • [249] Utterly deleted from the page by The way, the truth, and the light
  • [250] restored by Ryulong
  • [251] Closed by Viridae as relist.
  • [252] Reverted (again) by Doc
  • [253] Doc reverts self, but only because immediately:
  • [254] AFD speedy closed by Doc with the note that per [[WP:BLP][] not to be restored for procedural reasons.
  • [255] Reopened by The way, the truth, and the light
  • [256] Doc reverts
  • [257] Badlydrawnjeff opens dicussion back up
  • [258] Tony Sidaway closes it again
  • [259] Closed as delete by Kurykh

Third incident: Tanya Kach

This episode is particularly frustrating, as Doc Glasgow has often complained that it's the undoing of closures that's disruptive here (e.g., directly below, [260] claiming a cabal and WP:OWN, [261] claiming "wheel warring"). Yet Doc was the first person to engage in discussion re-opening in this case:

  • [262] Deleted by Dalbury
  • [263] DRV Speedy closed as list at AFD by Mangojuice
  • [264] DRV Speedy close undone by Doc Glasgow
  • [265] AFD closed as speedy delete by Doc Glasgow
  • [266] DRV closed by Tony Sidaway as delete
  • [267] Closure undone by Prolog as improper
  • [268] Closed as relist at AFD by Xolox
  • [269] Second AFD closed as speedy delete by Doc (again)
  • [270] Undeleted by Tone.
  • [271] Fully-protected by JzG as a redirect with the summary: "No thanks".

Compare all this to how the deletion was handled Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby - no one closed it early (though Tony Sidaway suggested it), and Doc Glasgow and Tony Sidaway both voiced their opinions civilly. Though I believe this was a wretched decision, you will notice there was no unnecessary controversy - because people were able to wait a few days until it was properly closed.


Rebuttal evidence

NB some of the above is plainly inaccurate - constructed to make an argument it doesn't support.

  • With Tanya Kach I reverted a speedy close of the DRV and did not close the first AFD as 'speedy delete' but as premature [272]. Evidence needs to get facts straight. It was those arguing for inclusion that were closing down that debate. Selective remembering here

I'm afraid much of this whole evidence page is selectively engineered and spun. To suggest that the problem is caused by 'deletionists' (how I hate that pejorative term - I am not) closing discussion is unhelpful. At least as disruptive have been multiple (re-)openings, forum shopping, refusal to accept consensus, and silly procedural relistings. Perhaps if the above evidence offered accurate descriptions and a time frame it might be more enlightening.-- Docg 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I apologize if I was unclear, or if I was distorting the facts. May I ask for some examples of how I have distorted them, though? The point I'm trying to make here is that each of these edits wars has been started by an administrator speedy closing a discussion. If this hadn't happened, the problems never would have escalated. I do not believe that the re-opening of a discussion is disruptive, either, when it was improperly closed in the first place. In fact, you will notice several non-involved admins who reverted these actions, yet not one non-involved admin improperly closed as delete. The Evil Spartan 18:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Pmanderson

Tony Sidaway edits policy to assert absolute deletion power

Tony Sidaway rewrote WP:BLP to say: "Admininstrators who dispute a deletion of a page where this policy has been cited by the deleting administrator should not reverse it before contacting the deleting administrator and obtaining his agreement." (emphasis added)

  • Diff: 22:46, 12 June 2007 Edit summary: before contacting the deleting administrator *and obtaining his agreement*. I think this is the key. Otherwise go to other admins/DRV/etc.

This is the assertion of a liberum veto: A may delete any article (at least any article which may come under BLP) and nobody can reverse him unless he consents. The consequences of such a policy would be regrettable; this permits one admin to bully the consensus of all Wikipedia that he has misread BLP. Presumably ArbCom would step in; but better they should step in now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Discussion of this policy was limited to a few editors, and divided

The discussion, while lengthy, was limited to five editors, three for, two against. I provide a link to the present version of the section, rather than diffs, because it would be a lot of diffs, and all the discussion is there.

Evidence presented by Miltopia

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

JzG and Lolcat

JzG ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) went against a keep-consensus Afd ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lolcat - that's keep, not no consensus) and redirected lolcat to image macro. He then preceded to edit war over the redirect [273] [274] with no comment on the talk page. And then protected the page on his preferred version. So JzG has no problem just ignoring consensus for deletion-related issues just because he thinks a subject is stupid or not worth covering. I'd say he just uses BLP as a vehicle for doing so when applicable... pretty dishonest. Milto LOL pia 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by GRBerry

Doc Glasgow resigned as an administrator

[275], described in the log summary as "Per personal request / In good standing". GRBerry 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.


  1. ^ a b ""Switched at birth"". "Sixty Minutes". 2007. Retrieved May 23, 2007.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence&oldid=1142571801"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE