User:KoshVorlon/WierdWiki/BLP

BLP deletions

Initiated by –Juliancolton | ^Talk at 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Juliancolton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Rdm2376 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• DESiegel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Added 03:21, 21 January 2010
• Firsfron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Added 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Nick-D (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Added 05:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Added 06:14, 21 January 2010

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions
• User talk:Rdm2376

Statement by Juliancolton

On January 20, Rdm2376 (talk · contribs), formerly Kevin, began selectively deleting unsourced biographies of living persons with the log summary "Unwatched and unsourced biography that has not been edited for at least 6 months". A subsequent ANI thread was received by both endorsements and objections. Geni (talk · contribs) blocked him for 10 minutes, citing "dissruption through the mass use of admin tools unsupported by policy and failing to stop when asked". After the block expired, Rdm2376 continued his deletions, and Geni blocked him again, this time for three hours. Coffee (talk · contribs) subsequently unblocked, and at 01:46, 21 January 2010, following continued deletions, DESiegel (talk · contribs) blocked Rdm2376 for 12 hours.

I believe this constitutes inappropriate wheel warring, and requires immediate attention. Note that I have been a vocal participant in recent discussions related to BLPs, so I have tried to make this summary as neutral as possible. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt: WP:ADMIN states that "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action." The multiple blocks and unblocks are in violation of this policy, I feel. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

DESiegel: I was not involved in blocking or unblocking any of the listed parties. Your statement is inaccurate and misleading; please revise it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with the proposed motion, but as per WJBscribe, we need a full case here. Deciding this by motion leaves us in about the same place as we started. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fences and Windows: Please see WP:CONSENSUS for what to do when the community disagrees with your viewpoint. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. Regardless of whether or not consensus currently exists, it's unacceptable to submit, in most hyperbolic language, that admins and ArbCom are abusing their power and committing a coup and whatnot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Also, we're not losing 50,000 articles just like "that". How many of the BLPs in question were deleted between Kevin, Scott MacDonald and Lar? A couple hundred? Seriously... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee

Geni was desysopped back in 2007 for BLP undeletion issues, and it seems that he's picked up the fighting stick again. Rdm2376, had proceeded to selectively delete articles that had not been edited for 6 months, were completely unreferenced, and had were not on anyone's watchlist. This can technically be cited in policy at the BLP page:

• Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
• However in many cases the appropriate use of administrative tools such as page protection and deletion is necessary for the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy.
• If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion.
• In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources.

Now the definition of what "contentious material" is considered to be is up for individual interpretation, but I can't say that what Kevin was doing was necessarily wrong in any way per policy.

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

— Jimmy Wales [9]

Geni proceeded to block Kevin for 10 minutes, while failing to cite an actual policy for the action. Juliancolton, Lar and I on his talk page told him that the block was unwarranted and unaccounted for, except for a punitive reason. When the block expired Kevin continued to delete more of these articles. Geni blocked again, this time for 3 hours. I unblocked Kevin, as Geni had not sourced any policy that Kevin had breached in his deletions, and any block (especially on a fellow admin) not supported directly by policy other than your own POV is strongly frowned upon. I would appreciate if the ArbCom did not view my actions as wheel-warring, as it was only a move to undo what I saw as a completely unwarranted block and was absent of any cited policy.

@DESiegel: You still have Julian's name listed 2 more times in your statement, please revise. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Fences and Windows, and Cyclopia, are both avid inclusionists, it would be totally ignorant to think that they wouldn't support a block on someone who was mass deleting. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Hesperian: There's more to being chosen as an admin then simply quoting off of policy pages and acting solely on them, which is why IAR is a policy. We're expected to use the tools we were given, using our own judgment sometimes, this appears to be one of the times that Kevin has invoked this clause. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Orderinchaos: Mass removal of PROD tags without any added sources or other improvement is disruptive, and is full basis for someone to be added to this case. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: The subject of that email pretty much sums up what Jimbo's feelings are: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I added Nick-D as he mass reverted Firsfron's prod tags on multiple articles, without any sourcing or other improvements. --— Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Wehwalt

I agree with Coffee. The fact that it usually isn't done to delete unsourced BLPs, doesn't mean it shouldn't be. I do not see that Kevin broke any policy. This matter needs to be worked out, but Arbcom is not the people to do it yet. Other avenues need to be tried, not only because that is usual for cases coming before Arbcom, but also because they are faster than waiting months for ArbCom to issue a decision. @Juliancolton, I do not see how this is wheel warring, can you expand your argument to show me? Or show me off page?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC) @Juliancolton. Ah, OK, I thought you were talking about Kevin's actions, not the block and unblock parade.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

The BLP situation has gotten completely out of control in recent days; the behaviour of some admins and users has been almost a textbook case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Yes, we have an unreferenced BLP problem. No, mass-deleting / nominating / prodding them in a botlike fashion and demanding dictatorial powers against those who disagree is not the way to deal with it. Rdm (one of the named parties in this case) is one of the main offenders in this, although there are a number of others. I would suggest User:Firsfron should also be a party. Am 100% in agreement with Nathan's comment following. Orderinchaos 02:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd add as a comment that I fully support and endorse Nick-D's detagging of several articles, which was not in any way disruptive, nor could it be constituted wheel warring. I'd suggest he be removed as a party, although I'll leave that decision with clerks/arbitrators. Orderinchaos 06:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The temporary decision being proposed here flies in the face of the community and reminds me why ArbCom are so poorly thought of in the editing community. I'm not surprised that the arbitrator who drafted it was the author of the autocratic (and failed) ACPD last year. Disruptive conduct must be dealt with, even if it's in the name of a "right" cause - end of story. I find myself entirely in agreement with Rebecca and Hesperian in their comments on the temporary decision. Orderinchaos 09:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Apoc2400

I urge the committee to accept this case and set up temporary injunctions immediately. This can only possibly get worse. There will likely be several more parties than the five listed now. This requires formal dispute resolution where evidence weights more than bullying and use of administrative tools. --Apoc2400 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful. Now Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is on a deletion spree. --Apoc2400 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason Wikipedia has not come further in overcoming the very serious problems related to biographies of living people is that many of those that demand something done have refused to participate in discussion and consensus building. Instead, they have been using offsite forums and private communication to talk about how evil or stupid the others are. They have been completely unwilling to make any kind of compromise, choosing instead to make demands and posture positions. The demands have often focused more on disrupting Wikipedia than on what would actually mitigate the problems. While we have been working out the details of how to make flagged revisions work well, they have been plotting coups like this. Many or all of the articles deleted were not BLP problems in any way. These actions did not stop any libel from happening on Wikipedia, and it actually makes finding workable solutions harder by turning the discussion into a battleground with fixed lines. They knew that, but they only care about impressing on each other and fighting the evil ordinary Wikipedians. Notice the hostility shown against anyone who disagrees even the slightest. I believe there are many with me who are serious about finding and implementing measures against the BLP problem, because it is the right thing to do and we must do it, but who have no respect for the crusade of self-righteousness we have witnessed here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber

Note that this could be the tip of the iceberg with escalating antagonism. Note also User_talk:Scott_MacDonald#Stop and Scott MacDonald's logs.

I'd suggest some injunctions might be in order, given the escalation of tone betwixt editors.

Statement by DESiegel

My block was not a simple overturn of Coffee's unblock. Rather, it was for repetition of the non-policy deletions after Rdm2376 (talk · contribs) was unblocked. Note that in this edit I specifically warned Rdm2376 "I fully support Geni's block and will reimpose it if there are further deletions after it expires. [[[WP:BLP]] says that Unsourced contentious material from BLPs may be removed. Deletion of non-contentious BLPs for lack of souring is not current policy, and judging by the discussion on WT:CSD deleting them on sight with with no process has a strong consensus against it. That makes such deletions, after warnings, disruption." Note also the discussion on WT:CSD#Add new criteria to CSD shows strong opposition to permitting speedy deletions for unsourced but uncontentious BLPs. That means that there is not consensus support for Rdm2376s action -- indeed I think the page at the moment can fairly be read as a consensus against them, and as noted above, was notified of this discussion. In addition, in the thread User talk:Rdm2376#Please stop multiple editors requested him not to continue these deletions, thereby placing him on notice that such deletions did not have consensus support. DES ^(talk) 02:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Now as to whether the deletions were supported by existing policy. WP:DEL says "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it." the many objections to these deletions demonstrate clearly that there was not such consensus. WP:DEL also says that one of he reasons for deletion is "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", but in this case it is clear that Rdm2376 made no attempt to find sources. His talk page says as much, and the fact that I and other editors were quickly able to find sources for many of the deleted articles confirms it. WP:BLP says "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." (emphasis added). Several of the pages deleted contained no contentious material. For example Watari Kakei, Tetsuyasu Mitani, Thierry Pauwels, Orlando A. Naranjo, Hitoshi Shiozawa, Atsushi Takahashi, and Masanori Matsuyama are all completely non-contentious stubs, of no harm to any person. WP:BLP also says "Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., due to questionable notability or if the subject has requested deletion) then this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard."(emphasis mine) But these deletions, by being done in relatively large numbers, and being done summarily, tended to prevent or at least hinder discussion. They were therefore not supported by policy and disruptive. This was clearly not a "last resort" but a first option in dealing with these articles by Rdm2376.

Now as to the issue of Wheel Warring. Geni (talk · contribs)'s block was undone by Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Coffee (talk · contribs), without any previous discussion. So be it. But that does not grant future immunity from blocks for future actions. Rdm2376 made at least 8 deletions, quite similar to his previous deletions, after he was unblocked by JuliancoltonCoffee. It was for those new deletions that I blocked him, not to undo Juliancolton'sCoffee's unblock. I also note that the block was limited to 12 hours.

All that said, i ask the ArbCom now to consider a temporary injunction restraining Rdm2376 from further deletions of uncontentious BLP articles that do not fit any of the WP:CSD without going through WP:PROD, WP:AFD or another established deletion process. Having made this request I will leave the matter in the hands of the ArbCom, and will unblock, hoping that Rdm2376 will not engage in further deletions of this sort until and unless he obtains consensus for them. DES ^(talk) 03:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Unitanode: "wildly inappropriate reblock, based solely on his/her own opinions of the original block" I point out above that it was based on the opinions of many editors on both the original deletions and of the new set after the unblock. And also that multiple editors indicated support for the original block, including Rd232 (talk · contribs) and Cyclopia (talk · contribs). Fences and windows (talk · contribs) said "An admin going on a rampage like this in any other area would rightly be desysopped faster than you could say 'I deleted the mainpage'." Enric Naval (talk · contribs) said "If Rdm2376 has deleted unsourced BLPs that had uncontentious material then he wasn't following BLP." And many editors opposed such deletions at WT:CSD, and in the WP:AN/I thread. DES ^(talk) 03:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Coffee, #Juliancolton: Incorrect mention of Juliancolton as having made a block in this matter struck. DES ^(talk) 13:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Coffee: Support of others for the block is support, whatever the motives and views of the supporters. DES ^(talk) 13:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@ArbCom: I am distressed by the proposed motion. I think it makes policy in a way the ArbCom should not do. On its face it is an interpreation of policy, but one that goes agaisnt at least the letter of existing policy statements on the matter. I also think it is misguided, but this is not the forum to debate that. More importantly, it endorses and commends actions taken agsist the then existing consensus, and in explicit defiance of community opnion. This is not, in my view, a good way to build the project. DES ^(talk) 13:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

Removing unsourced material from BLPs is within policy. For those who argue that it may not be within the current letter of policy, remember that policy is descriptive, that BLP concerns trump (most) other policy while complementing the fundamentals, and that we are supposed to do the right thing by our victims. Further, while what Jimbo says isn't law, it is guidance. Jimbo has exhorted us that unsourced material (especially in BLPs) should:

be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

I am happy to userify (for a short period) any BLP that was deleted for lack of sources today, with the understanding that whoever asks me intends to rigorously source it right away. 12 hours should be sufficient I should think.

Geni's actions escalated the situation (as did others, but his seem the most precipitous). This isn't the first time that Geni has done something that precipitated an escalation or a wheel war, IIRC. He lost his adminship over it before. It perhaps is appropriate again. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Enric, no worries about being added, sort of expected it. When are you and GWH getting added?

Addendum: I repeat my offer made elsewhere. Anyone who wants to take one or more of these unsourced articles to user space so they can fix them up, I will be glad to userify as many articles as they reasonably think they can handle for them, just let me know. There's only 50 or 60,000 or so, if we all pitch in, we should be done in no time, right? I may also keep a running tab of who volunteers (or refuses to) and how many... a lot of the biggest "it's out of process, it's out of process" squawkers so far have taken on exactly... 0. ++Lar: t/c 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Unitanode

I support an immediate, emergency desysop of DESiegel for WHEEL-warring, with his wildly inappropriate reblock, based solely on his/her own opinions of the original block. Completely, wholly, and without question, unacceptable. The problem with BLPs is the defining issue of this project, and how we deal with it will say a lot about the direction in which the project is going to go. What DESiegel did injures the project, in that it keeps a good admin, doing good work, from removing problematic BLPs. The quicker DESiegel loses his tools, the better off the project will be. UnitAnode 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
@Ikip: I'm making no secret of who I am or who I've been. Save your "advice" for someone who gives a crap what you think. Focus on the issue, not the people discussing the issue. UnitAnode 07:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
@GRuban: The bureaucratic nonsense that derails such "proposals" is exactly why WP:IAR is one of the most important aspects of the project. UnitAnode 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Chunky Rice

I urge the committee to take up this case, if only to institute some sort of preliminary injunction on any sort of mass action while the community discusses the issue. Per the Date Delinking finding on Fait Accompli "Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." Right now we have a few admins determined to reach a fait accompli solution the issue of unsourced BLPs despite the fact that there are several somewhat contentious discussions taking place on how the community should proceed. -Chunky Rice (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Rd232

It's possible that User:Scott MacDonald should also be brought into the mix. The only reason he's not been blocked is the evident willingness of some admins to permit the mass deletion which he has been doing along with Rdm2376. And this response in a discussion on his user talk page is worth quoting in full: Q: "Are you aware that your deletions are directly against established Wikipedia community consensus?" A: "I am indifferent to any such moronic consensus". Rd232 ^talk 02:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Echo Hesperian, Orderinchaos, and Brownhairedgirl, with referenced to Enric Naval's discussion. Stated my very similar views repeatedly elsewhere (and seemingly will make no difference anyway at this point). Rd232 ^talk 09:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

+Rebecca's point. Rd232 ^talk 14:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

Rdm2376 was convinced that WP:BLP allowed for the removal of all unsourced material from BLPs, but, if you read carefully, it only allows for the removal of "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced". This has prompted a bout of edit warring in the policy, see here.

Rdm2376 should be trouted very hard and instructed to read policies with more attention. I'm not sure that more action is needed here. You could make a general case about admins that go rogue without waiting for community discussions to end. I'm not sure that Rdm2376 should be punished for being over-enthusiastic, and I would find dessysopping to be overkill unless this is a recurring behaviour.

P.D.: and please restore all the unsourced BLPs that were deleted out of process. There is not any WP:CSD speedy deletion criteria that is called "unsourced BLPs". The community should discuss if this criteria should be added to WP:CSD. The addition of an "unsourced BLP" speedy deletion criteria has already been rejected multiple times: November 2006, July 2007, December 2007, June 2008, April 2009, May 2009 and November 2009, (I used this archive search [10]). A page that consists only of contentious unsourced material can already be speedied as an attack page under WP:CSD#G10,. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

P.D.D.: Coffee's quote of Jimbo is incomplete. Jimbo's email has one more sentence in that paragraph (in bolded text):

"Message subject: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about

living persons. [snipped lamentation about lousy writers]"[11]

And BLP cites a second message by Jimbo to support the "contentious" wording:

(...) If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it

makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and

ask a question on the talk page [snipped example of what he means]".[12]

Jimbo mentioned negative, libelous and suspicious unsourced BLP info. He didn't mention all unsourced BLP info. So please stop citing WP:JIMBO, since it only helps to undermine your point. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

P.D.D.D.:I added Lar as a party. He stopped deleting articles after being warned by an admin, but he's now still PRODding articles even after being told that he uses a rationale that goes against BLP policy [13]. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

P.D.D.D.D: The the Badlydrawnjeff case was closed in July 2007, the WP:BLP has contained the "contentious" word or a synonymous since May 2006, see [[14]].

Statement by Scott MacDonald

Together with a number of other administrators, I am deleting biographies of living people which have been unsourced for considerable lengths of time, and have not improved. Currently, my deletion have been of articles unsourced for over three years.

I am doing this because it is the right thing to do, and is consistent with the BLP polcy that unacceptable unsourced material on living people should be removed from this project. This has nothing to do with the notability or otherwise of the article. Deletion is, naturaly, a last resort. It would be better if these articles were fixed. However, three years of tagging and waiting and improvement and this fixing has not happened for these articles. Three years or more of discussion and the community has put in place no other realistic remedy. Thus it is time for the last resort. I encourage other administrators to follow this lead - as I am following those who began this.

Of course, removing unsourced BLPs does not solve the BLP problem, but it is a start.

If anyone believes an article should be kept, they are at liberty to restore it (or ask an admin), providing they properly fix the sourcing issues, and any other BLP issues it may raise. As ever, the ownus is on the person wishing to restore or retain material on living people to make sure that it is verified, sourced, and policy compliant.

I will be hapy to desist when and if the community puts in place some alternative means of dealing with the problem. However, after years of being involved in discussion, I trust I can be forgiven for having lost any faith in that process.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for the tone of the previous statement here, which was written in the heat of the fray, and not so helpful. I trust that people will, in good faith, accept my considered response as reflecting my real feelings and thoughts.

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

I warned Kevin yesterday that I believed he had exceeded legitimate WP:BOLD expansion of the existing BLP delete criteria and urged him to stop while the discussion established if there's either a policy interpretation or a new community consensus to support this. He obviously disregarded.

We are expected to use our judgement and WP:BOLD as required. But BRD applies. Bold actions can be taken - but may be challenged and reverted, and if so must then be discussed to adequate community consensus.

Regardless of the ultimate decision by the community on BLP deletion and whatever comes of our policies regarding that, we did not yesterday and do not today have a consensus or standing policy that what he did is OK. A number of senior admins and editors are standing on principle that something's fundamentally enough wrong with the BLPs in question that we have to ignore the "discuss" process here, and must obviously blatantly just act. No specific emergencies relative to either the articles in question (generally or individually) or Wikipedia as a whole has been established to support that.

Kevin refused to enter good faith discussions after his bold actions were challenged, therefore breaking admin policy and the community/admin authority contract, as it were. He has been egged on in this by a number of good-intentioned but equally wrong senior admins.

In case of true emergency, this would be acceptable or perhaps laudable. This was not an emergency, and the behavior was instead unacceptable. Kevin should be desysopped and warnings should be issued to several senior members who egged him on, in defiance of widespread requests for normal discussion on the problem.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added Scott MacDonald and am notifying - he has been participating in substantially the same behavior as Kevin, initiated disruptively after the incident started w/Kevin. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Rebecca

I urge the committee to accept this one - and quickly. I'm not familiar with the initial request that brought this on, but I am very concerned at Scott MacDonald's recent interventions into this mess. This morning, he speedy deleted a number of articles that not only didn't fit under any of the CSD criteria, but were explicitly noted as notable in WP:POLITICIAN. There wasn't even so much as a courtesy warning to any relevant editors - the only reason I knew the articles were gone at all was because thankfully I had them watchlisted. There's just no excuse for this behaviour - while I'm a strong advocate of a strict line on BLPs, Scott MacDonald has clearly stated above he doesn't give a damn about policy or consensus here, and he needs to be emergency desysopped. Rebecca (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I find the temporary decision in this really concerning. There is - or at least should be - broad agreement by this point that we need to seriously tackle the problem of unsourced BLPs, and that this is probably going to require some sort of drastic action. Yet, after lengthy productive discussion looking at options like moving any unsourced articles out of mainspace and somewhere where they can be nofollowed, this is about the most profoundly unhelpful action imaginable.

Mass deleting articles at random, and telling people to go to buggery when met with howls of protest, is the sort of solution you get when you're giving badly socialised young men with the social skills of your average four year old admin rights. The only thing you'll do with that sort of action is antagonise the hell out of editors the project needs to actually maintain and watch those BLPs. Take a look around the project this morning, and look at how many good content editors these idiots have royally pissed off. If the likes of Scott MacDonald are allowed to run around knocking off articles without so much as a courtesy heads up, you're just going to be creating a significant exodus of the people the project most needs to maintain these - and that's a mindbogglingly counterproductive result. Rebecca (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

This is pretty much what WP:IAR was meant to address; if the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ten ignore them. The Wikipedia is most certainly improved by deleting scads of unreferenced or poorly-referenced BLP articles.

It is rather unfortunate that admins chose to block other admins for improving the Wikipedia in this fashion, and they should be dealt with accordingly. I would note that several of the users cited by DESpiegel in support of his block are users who are not exactly viewed too highly in the area of BLP editing, so take the endorsement list with a grain of salt. Tarc (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cyclopia

I think the statement above by Scott MacDonald pretty sums up the real problem underlying all this drama. He writes: This deplorable community is totally irresponsible and deserving of nothing but ethical contempt.

We have a vocal and persistent minority of admins with strong views on the so-called BLP problem, and while most of them are obviously well-intentioned people, some of them are finally showing their real nature. That is, explicitly dismissing and insulting the WP community in order to carry out a personal, moral crusade.

I understand there are some possibly reasonable concerns behind this behaviour, yet it doesn't make it more acceptable. If admins like Scott MacDonald or Kevin believe that the community deserves "nothing but ethical contempt", they simply ought to resign and leave the community. For sure, they cannot be trusted anymore as admins, since they now despise the same community who gave them the tools. And their actions show that: Unilaterally destroying the good-intentioned efforts of hundreds of editors just because of a lack of rigour which is more often than not solvable through editing and source-digging, and ignoring blatantly every policy, community consensus, past and present discussions on the subject etc. just because they think they're in the right should be enough for immediate desysopping, block and, if unblocked, at least a topic ban on anything remotely looking like deletion process.

I want to stress that this has little to do with BLPs and has much to do with admin behaviour and trust, and ultimately with WP functioning. Either we make this place a battlefield where the strongest tagteam wins, or we restore correct process and take severe measures to prevent further disruption. --Cyclopia^talk 03:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I also endorse completely and wholeheartedly this observation by MickMacNee. ArbCom, what you're ruling has wider consequences than BLPs. You're essentially disconneting admins by the community who gave them the tools. You're giving carte blanche to them to ignore systematically the will of the community they should help with their tools. You're making the whole concept of consensus pointless. You're basically making this place a chiefdom at the random admin's will.

Please, please, think about all that before committing yourself to a decision. There is a wider and wider divide in the community, and actions like this are only going to widen it even more. I don't think further pushing such a divide will help. --Cyclopia^talk 15:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Scott MacDonald has just redacted his own statement. I desire to preserve it, since it shows with brilliant sincerity and clarity what are the real feelings and thoughts of such admins:

Hm, I summarise the complaints: if admins will just play by the rules of consensus, discussion, and take no disruptive unilateral action, then the community consensus will deal with the BLP issues this project faces. That's so ridiculous it is funny. Hasn't happened in my 4 years of caring, and won't happen anytime soon.

This deplorable community is totally irresponsible and deserving of nothing but ethical contempt. No one should abide by "consensus" when consensus has time and time again shown itself to be as mature as a baby on acid. And this case? Either it will be dismissed or it will strain on the wikilawyering gnats of who blocked whom, and what was out of process - while swallowing every available camel and (to mix metaphors) elephant in the room. Arbcom may "feel the BLP pain" but they won't actually do anything useful.

Actually, even speedy deleting all unreferenced BLPs won't make all that much difference. But the community will not even go that far. Until it starts to do things like this, it will not even begin to tackle the real problem - which is that current structures can only realistically maintain the 20% of most notable BLPs to an acceptable quality wrt to libel threats.

If the community believes it is acceptable to keep wholy unreferenced articles about living people around for THREE YEARS (and that's what I was deleting) then sod the community.

User:Scott MacDonald in [15]

Statement by Jennavecia/Lara

Scott MacDonald pretty much stated it perfectly. The "community" is irresponsible. Consensus, like perfection, is unattainable. As always, if people are opposed to the idea of taking out the garbage because they can make art out of it, get to making or take your seat. This garbage (and let's be real, that's what it is) has been sitting for years. People want to argue that these articles can be improved... SOFIXIT!

Scott was also right about discussion here being pointless (been there, bought the thong).

P.S. There is no cabal.

Added point: An unfortunate effect of the model is that when no consensus is reached, the default is to do nothing. Community wide decisions on contentious issues cannot reach consensus. It just creates pages and pages of worthless discussion and further polarizes the community to no productive end. And it really is worthless, because we can't refer back to it for anything more than proof that consensus cannot be reached in these matters. I commend the editors and admins who finally stood up and said screamed "Enough!" The project has been irresponsible for too many years, and in all the bickering, no one has ever given a single reasonable response to the question of why we should maintain unreferenced biographies of living people.

Not everything should default to keep. The argument that the biographies should all be restored and kept because they can be sourced is inane. Tens of thousands of unsourced biographies have been sitting. We could barely get volunteers to add a single category to that many articles. A Wikiproject was created for the specific purpose of working on the BLP problem, but check the names of that participation list against those who argue so strongly for keeping BLPs. Who are the volunteers that are going to research sources for that many articales in any sort of reasonably timely fashion? If they even exist, I promise you they wouldn't have come out without such a prompting. The proof is in archives. We've been fighting for change in BLP for years. It's only in these situations that people start actually doing and not just saying what could be done... and even in these times, the number of editors doing is still a mere fraction of those saying it can be done.

Statement by uninvolved(?) Pohta ce-am pohtit

I admit to the cardinal sin of creating an unreferenced biography of a living person: this stub. I think it's obvious it should have been speedily deleted. I should be indef blocked too for creating that stub in gross violation of BLP. By the way, Romanian presidential election, 1990 should be speedily deleted too as an article that's practically biographical, and citing no references. That's how Wikipedia is built! The ArbCom should, of course, reject this "case" and just ban the trolls that had the gall to bring it! For great justice! </sarcasm> (Added this !tag in reply to User:the ed17's concerns.)

Request that Bali ultimate be added to this case

For his serial "stubbifying" actions like this (discussed on ANI).

A clarifying question only - why is that unreasonable / within the scope of this case? Orderinchaos 09:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That question is probably moot given the motion just passed by the ArbCom, but I don't see much difference between deleting the entire article and deleting 90% of it on the same grounds. Besides, it was a ploy to delete the claims to importance from these articles, so they can then be speedily deleted as A7 (see the ANI thread).Pcap ping 10:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they're the same thing - a deletion gets rid of everything forever, whereas stubbifying leaves the material easily available if someone wants to source the article and bring it back up to scratch. World of difference, in my view. Obviously, stubbing an article to get rid of it A7 is already frowned upon, and an entirely separate matter. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

I'm not going to generalize, but in that particular article the claim removed was that he was the commander of the entire Turkish military air force, which is quite a bit more than being just another general. Luckily someone found references a few minutes later. Pcap ping 12:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn lies and statistics

Of the 53,000 "unreferenced" BLPs, about 17,000 have the tag incorrectly applied. It goes without saying that mass deletion appears poorly conceived.

ArbCom is enacting policy against the community's (lack of) consensus

By endosing the speedy deletion of unreferenced BLPs the ArbCom has ignored the fact that there was never widespread support for such measures. See this archived discussion (which involved two of the arbitrators active in this case, Coren and Fritzpoll) and the latest attempt.

Statement by R. Baley

If you guys don't put at least a temporary halt to these out of process deletions, I fear the result. R. Baley (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MuZemike

Regardless of your thoughts about consensus, the responsibilities of admins versus the community's, the deletion policy, or the biographies of living persons policy, wheel-warring is completely unacceptable regardless of the circumstances, and that needs to be addressed before anything else. Nothing hurts the community's perceptions of and confidence in administrators more than wheel-warring. –MuZemike 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BirgitteSB

To Arbocom: Injunctions, please, NOW There will be time to sort it out later. Let cooler heads prevail.--BirgitteSB 04:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely foolish of Arbcom to think that it may successfully judge the appropriateness of yesterday's action today. This is not cut and dry stuff. It requires time and consideration. Perhaps Arbocom will luckily fall into a good decision in this moment. But any final decision made today can only ascribe it's unlikely success to luck, more likely it will fail to resolve the problem. Wisdom, or even sense, requires a little more time and space. Even if it is a mere pretense for some arbs, taking your time about this case will help people better accept your decision.--BirgitteSB 16:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ikip

User:Rdm2376 12 December 2009 violation of Wikipedia:INVOLVED

Rdm2376 was an involved editor at Marc Sinden.[16] Rdm2376 warned User:Little grape " [RE:] Marc Sinden…you are very close to being blocked for edit warring" 21:35, 17 November 2009. [17] Rdm2376 blocked Little grape for comments made on Marc Sinden, reason given: "Personal attacks or harassment" 22:52, 12 December 2009.[18] Rdm2376's reason: "This [19] was way over the line, and as I've previously warned you about this kind of thing you have been blocked for 2 days. When you return I do not expect to see you at Marc Sinden, as you have now clearly shown your total inability to work collaboratively with the other editors there, notwithstanding that their behavior has also been poor." (emphasis my own) Little grape had wrote: " Rotate shotgun 180 degrees. Engage toe. "PULL!"…Hang your head in shame, sir, for despoiling a brave man's death in favour of yet more crass Sinden-puffery."[20] Note: I notified User:Little grape of this thread.[21]

User:Scott MacDonald's continual violation of WP:DELTALK
Several editors ask Scott MacDonald to restore his talk page, Scott MacDonald's response, "go away" 09:20, 26 May 2007.[22] Talk page history partially restored, "to stop the whingers (sic)" 09:23, 26 May 2007.[23] Scott Macdonald does not fully undelete his talk page after request from User talk:Graham87 13:52, 12 December 2009.[24]

I urge the arbcom to take this case and consider revoking adminship over this pointy disruption today.

RE: Unitanode's comments. Unitanode, Scott Macdonald gave you some very good advice:

"I've no problem with an old user with a new account posting on arbcom cases...However, is it wise?...if you post in prominent pages, and engage in the type of discourse you are doing with MZMcBride, people will speculate about who you were. And once people do that, people start scrutinizing you...you'd be well advised to keep a much lower profile" December 23.[25]

RE: Ed and Cla68 comments. I didn't know that we rewarded WP:POINTy WP:Disruption with policy changes that reward disruptive editors. Scott Macdonald is one of the biggest cheerleaders for flagged revisions, helping launch a petition to demand flagged revisions. His disruptive actions today created this emergency, which his supporters are now demanding arbcom reward Scott Macdonald's disruption. WP:Disruption states: "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of...disrupting progress toward improving an article...disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." Rdm2376 and Scott Macdonald severely abused their administrative authority repeatedly today. Rdm2376 was asked to stop repeatedly by numerous editors and refused. Both editors "disrupt[ed] progress toward improving an article...disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia"

Question: should User:Bali ultimate be included as a party? Bali Ultimate has been going through BLPs reducing them to one-line stubs, the articles then get tagged with CSD A7.[26] Bali Ultimate is as unrepentant and belligerent in his disruption as Scott Macdonald and Rdm2376.

I suggested the same above.Pcap ping 13:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Note, I made a mistake in reading the deletion log.[27] My apologies to User:Rdm2376.

Statement by Tznkai

The BLP argument has reached the levels of rhetoric and viciousness equal to arguments about abortion, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and other controversial subjects that we expect editors to behave with aplomb and neutrality. Apparently, neutrality stops at mainspace's edge.--Tznkai (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the words of my favorite fictional President "Every once in a while, every once in a while, there's a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts."--Tznkai (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Begging the indulgence of the clerks, the following is a bit over 430 words, which takes my overall statement past length limits:

My take on the events is simple: a political dispute between two opposing groups of like minded editors in ideological opposition to one another has erupted over a genuinely divisive issue. To achieve victory for the partisan positions, individuals within these camps have escalated to using administrative tools, inflated rhetoric, inappropriate moral scolding, and threats explicit and implied of blocks, summary desysoppings and worse. The action at hand, the deletion of certain BLPs, is not even all that effective in and of itself as I have already argued- but it seems to be some sort of partisan victory on principle. In otherwords, we have many editors, many admins and functionaries, treating Wikipedia as a partisan battleground over their conflicting ideologies surrounding the BLP issues.

All this perhaps, inevitable - and it is hardly fair of me to expect the Arbitration Committee to come down on all those who have been naughty when the issue is genuinely difficult and divisive. I do however, expect the Committee not to take sides, and I feel that, if the motion passes, it will have done so.

By commending a series of administrators, and implicitly their supporters, for under taking a rash action which had little more urgency tonight than it did yesterday, and likley a similar amount tomorrow seems beyond the pale. These administrators and supporters have been rude and nasty to their opponents, for no other reason than that they were on the wrong side of an argument. Their opponents have been rude and nasty as well to be sure, but they don't deserve to be patronized by the Committee:

The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.

I do not believe that one can fairly encapsulate all of the disagreements with the deletion as editors putting process over the substance of the BLP policy. There is such thing as a legitimate disagreement, and I expect the Committee to recognize it. I believe this Committee has not only thus far refused to confront the battleground behavior, but it now proposes to take a side.

I maintain no illusion that I am in the majority here. I have no doubt that my position on the merits of the BLP problem will be incorrectly inferred and seen as the source of my discomfort. It is not.

I have served the community and the Arbitration Committee in particular with great energy. I believe that has at the very least, earned me the tenure to say at least this much and to be taken seriously. --Tznkai (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The relevant principal regarding any mass action is:

Fait accompli

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Fait_accompli

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Fait_accompli

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

With respect to BLPs, there appears to be a campaign, even a battle, by some admins to get their way via fait accompli and off-wiki collusion, rather than by transparent on-wiki formation of consensus. Like the East European mailing list case, this cabal needs to be broken up, and the participants need to sanctioned to discourage further disruption of the community and articles, if they refuse to observe the consensus. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Scott MacDonald, if the boogers have been around three years, prod them at a reasonable rate, and wait five days in case somebody wants to dig up references. This should not be too burdensome. By proceeding in a way that is reasonable and collaborative, you'll get lots of people to help you, and the problem will be resolved better faster. Jehochman ^Brrr 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we please start a proposal some place to discuss a process for mass deleting unsourced BLPs? The process ought to go something like this:

1. Speedy delete any attack pages per CAT:CSD#G10.
2. Propose deletion of (prod) all unsourced BLPs. A human should check each one to make sure that there are actually no sources, that the sources are not merely formatted in a non-standard way.
3. The rate of prodding should be reasonable. Editors who want to save the articles by finding sources should be given fair opportunity. Discussion can establish what a reasonable rate of prodding is.

If this process were followed, the BLP mess could be cleaned up withing a realistic timeframe without creating undue disruption. Many of these articles have existed for years. It may take a few weeks or months to address them all. Please proceed collaboratively, without extremism or rancor, to fix the problem. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cross posted to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal_for_mass_deleting_unsourced_BLPs. Please comment there. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

You guys could help Wikipedia take a big step forward in its treatement of BLP issues with this case. Declare that mass deletions of unsourced, unwatched BLPs are within policy, demand flagged revisions be implemented for all other BLPs, and desysop Geni, GeorgeWilliamHerbert, and any other admins who just don't get it. You (The Committee) have the underutilized authority to get things done by fiat. I suggest you use it. Cla68 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by MBisanz

Some things:

• DESiegel's statment is well over the word court, a clerk should ask him to shorten it.
• Firsforn is added as a party, but there isn't a confirmation link.
• I think there is more prior history involving Scott MacDonald, Geni and BLPs that needs to go under the other steps in DR.

MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Themfromspace

This is ArbCom's chance to address the BLP issue once and for all. First, please issue an injunction to stop the out-of-procedure deletions. Whether they are warranted or not, they are creating a drama-fest so they should be stopped for now. Then in conjunction with the case, please help set up a widely-advertised community BLP RfC to address the underlying issues that led up to this case. Here the community can finally establish a consensus on what exactly the "BLP issues" are, which issues are more severe than others, and what if any special methods we may use to handle these issues. If the community or ArbCom doesn't establish a set of proper procedures for dealing with this situation, we'll be back here again in the future. ThemFromSpace 05:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by The_ed17

Honestly, I don't really care what happens here. However, one of these two things really needs to happen: the deleting of unwatched/unsourced should be declared to be within policy, or a demand for flagged revisions on BLPs should be passed. BLP errors are beyond embarrassing for not just the encyclopedia, but for us (the editors) as well. Let's end this problem and the Wikipedian Civil War. Quickly... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Ikip, how is your original post even relevant to this case? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Pohta ce-am pohtit, no need to call Juliancolton (talk · contribs) a troll... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Ikip, ...you didn't address my question. How are the two incidents concerning Scott (ie the INVOLVED/DELTALK diffs) relevant to this case? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Hesperian

There is a meta-issue of deep concern to me here: the use of administrative tools, knowing that one is not enacting community consensus, and just not giving a shit. This thread sums it up:

The deletions are well out of process, if the current process isn't working then it should be changed but the community should be involved in making that decision. Camw (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The community is incapable of such a conversation and decision. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hence my actions. Kevin (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, adminstrators are given the tools to enact community consensus, not to do whatever they want. There is, and should be, plenty of latitude given when administrators get this wrong. If an administrator believes they are enacting community consensus, but it turns out they are not, the error is fixed and we move on. No big deal. But to use the tools, knowing full well, in advance, that there is not and never will be consensus for your actions! That is an abuse of power and a betrayal of trust. Hesperian 05:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Coffee: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is an excellent policy, and I'm proud to endorse it. I sure am glad Wikipedia:Ignore consensus is still a redlink. Hesperian 10:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

IAR will eat itself

Kirill's motion paraphrases as

"The rules are so darn important that you can exceed all bounds of community expectations and standards of behaviour in upholding them."

If I can nuke articles out of process simply because they breach a content policy, can I also indefinitely block on sight every uncivil contributor I come across? Same thing. No, it is.

Hesperian 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm really pissed off about this. There are two issues here: the unsourced BLPs quandary, and the behaviour of certain administrators. Kirill's statement makes it clear that he (and apparently ArbCom as a whole) endorses the deletion of unsourced BLPs. Fine. But the behaviour we've seen here is no different from the behaviour we've seen from the worst nationalist POV-pushers. Nationalist POV-pushers feel strongly about things too; nationalist POV-pushers are convinced they're right too; and they know their cause is just; and they know that people who disagree with them are ignorant if not malicious; and therefore they don't give a hoot about consensus; and they are perfectly willing to martyr themselves for their cause. We condemn this behaviour in nationalist POV-pushers. Apparently the same behaviour can be condemned or commended depending on whether ArbCom likes the end that the behaviour is driving at. So sad. Hesperian 09:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Vyvyan Basterd

What Cla68 said. We're being jerked around by the foundation who won't even make flagged revisions available as an option and we have an alarming number of admins who refuse to take the BLP problem seriously. We've been discussing this for years now and enough is enough now. ArbCom has the power to cut through the endless debating and get the show on the road. Do it. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JBsupreme

Unsourced BLP articles should be deleted. Especially those that have remained tagged as unsourced for years --not to mention they generally have a history of being unsourced before they were marked as such. I applaud the bold actions of these editors who stepped forward and did the right thing. JBsupreme (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Chick Bowen

These articles are currently being undeleted, selectively, by admins who wish to add sources. I have just undeleted Yury Yarov, since Yarov is a fairly significant historical figure and should definitely have an article (to which I have now added sources). It would be useful if the Committee would make an immediate motion that such undeletions do not constitute wheel-warring, but even if they don't, I wanted to bring this problem to their attention. It seems likely that such undeletions will continue, particularly since some of these subjects (like Yarov) are undeniably notable. Chick Bowen 05:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: just as someone who's been going through the deleted pages -- some of these were libellous and undoubtedly needed to be deleted. No comment on the larger policy questions or the blocks. Chick Bowen 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by A Nobody

Unsourced BLP articles should be sourced. Removing unsourced material from BLPs without showing evidence of attempting to first source them is not within policy. An admin should make a good faith effort to find sources and discuss with article creators before unilaterally deleting per WP:BEFORE. Outright libelous content should indeed be removed and any specifically libelous edit can be deleted, but the articles themselves (barring they are hoaxes or articles for which no sources exist and for which the deleting admin can demonstrate he thoroughly checked for sources prior to deletion and could not find any) should remain if even as stubs. Moreover, those who seek to reduce this discussion to name calling only enflame the situation or diminish its level of mature academic discourse. Blanket denigration of 331 editors and admins cannnot be considered productive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

The good thing about unsourced BLPs is... er... oh, there is nothing good about them. Oh, wait, I suppose they might be valuable as part of a breaching experiment by a banned user, is that good? Maybe not. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Run out the bunting, I agree with Cla68 again. How often does that happen? The RfC currently underway should fix this, could I suggest that a few uninvolved and calm folks take on a clerk role for that RfC to stop it getting acrimonious. For the record, if a non-adfmin such as DuncanHill had tagged these article with PROD then I would have been in the queue to give him a barnstar. Here is the complete and exhaustive list of goods reasons for retaining an unsourced blp: . Actually it might not even be as many as that. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by James Kalmar (uninvolved)

Wikipedia has always operated on the principle of community consensus. The total and outright disdain for this process expressed by some members of the self-appointed "BLP-Deletion Squad" is disturbing. They claim a moral imperative to do basically whatever they wish, without regard to their fellow editors. Such is completely antithetical to the Wikipedian way. Using advanced permissions to force one's view on the community is the definition of both disruptiveness and, unfortunately, arrogance. Administrators MUST have their permissions removed if they have:

• Deleted articles in a controversial manner
• Refused to stop deleting when significant concerns and widespread dissent became apparent
• Started deleting after concerns had been manifest - in a clear WP:POINT violation

An individual's views on BLP policy are irrelevant to the underlying and fundamental issue of administrator judgement and respect for collaborative policy-making. The involved Deletion Squad editors are undoubtedly well-intentioned. However, there is no question that they have lost the trust of the community due to their stubborn persistence in a course of disrespect. The Committee must stand up for what is right. — James Kalmar 07:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: My above statement is somewhat strongly worded. I want to reiterate that I have sincere respect for the long-term good work of all the administrators involved. That was what made their actions all the more surprising to me. In any event, while I support the removal of permissions for ignoring the community, I do not in any way call into question the value of these editors in general. — James Kalmar 07:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@ the Committee: I am somewhat disappointed with the proposed commendation of administrators for confusing WP:Ignore all rules with WP:Ignore consensus, WP:Admin by fiat and WP:Ignore the community. Please listen to Tznkai's comments above. — James Kalmar 18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BrownHairedGirl (uninvolved)

I urge arbcom to take this case, because the polarisation which this has generated will escalate even further unless order is restored. Given the admin wheel-warring, I urge arbcom to make temporary injunctions to allow a cooling-off period while the case is considered.

Procedural issues

A clear ruling from arbcom is needed on whether it is acceptable for admins to use their tools in support of their interpretation of policy, when that interpretation does command not a clear consensus, and is vocally contested. Several of the admins involved have explicitly rejected requests to seek consensus for their actions. Is this acceptable?

Substance

This dispute appears to be a conflict between two sound principles:

1. That wikipedia should not host unreferenced BLPs
2. That not all of these articles are contentious, and many of them could easily be sourced rather than being deleted

It seems to be common ground between both sides that far too many BLPs have remained unreferenced for far too long. A decision needs to be made somehow on how to resolve this situation, and both sides have made many valuable points.

• It is unfortunate that the mass deletions have followed so quickly after the excellent work of User:DASHBot in notifying editors of any unreferenced BLPs which they had created. That work could have formed the basis of a wider push for BLP articles to be either deleted or improved, possibly involving the notification of relevant wikiprojects.
• Selecting unreferenced BLPs for unscrutinised deletion may have unintended adverse effects, such as encouraging malicious editors to include any old reference for even one minor point in the article, and thereby escape this automatic deletion.
• If automatic deletion takes place, then an article can be pushed into that queue simply by deleting references.

These points suggest that while policy is clear, its application is a more complex issue. Arbcom should give guidance or direction on how these questions are to be resolved. --08:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Firsfron

I am an inclusionist who believes that we can have all sorts of articles on Wikipedia, but they must be sourced, particularly on Biographies of Living People. Sourcing helps protect against inaccuracies, and, in the case of WP:BLP, libel and harm to people in the real world (of course it does not guarantee it). Yesterday I PRODded 40 WP:BLPs with no sources tagged as such since April 2007 because there was a very strong measure of support (near 100%) for PRODding these boogers at WP:AN/I (this discussion is now here). Actually, the proposal was for a bot to tag them; I figured it would be better if they were tagged by a human being, because a human will spot when an article has a few poorly cited references, while a bot may not. I did very limited PRODding, working only on letters A and B in the pile of boogers marked as wholly unreferenced since April 2007: I PRODded a total of 40 articles, and skipped the ones with references but still mistakenly tagged as unsourced, even if those references were kind of cruddy references. However, even this small measure has proved "too controversial", and I've found myself added as a party to this Arbitration case by user:Orderinchaos.

Nick-D removed the PROD tags on 11 articles, following my edits and reverting. He unfortunately did not source any of the articles he de-prodded (to his credit, he did not revert every PROD). These articles, however, were completely lacking references. Per WP:SOURCE: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article". Because the articles are completely unsourced, removing the unsourced material would blank the article; I'd prefer not to do that. Also from WP:SOURCE: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references." Thus the PRODding, rather than mass deletion by fiat. I'm happy to note, however, that several other editors have sourced (or partially sourced) some of the PRODded articles. Cheers to them. That is excellent. There is a danger, however, in following an editor's edits and declining PRODs on unsourced BLP without trying to source them. I'd like Nick-D to take responsibility for sourcing the BLPs he de-PRODded yesterday.

I'm also saddened to see Nick-D added as a party to this case. Although I do not believe he fully understands the WP:BLP policy and its gravity, he absolutely did not wheel war, block, threaten to block, or otherwise misuse his administrative privileges. Any sanctions taken against wheel warring administrators in this case should not extend to Nick-D. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved HJ Mitchell

Of the comments above, I agree most with that of Themfromspace. I would urge the committee to issue a temporary injunction against the summary deletion of BLPs until the matter is resolved. That said, I applaud Rdm2376 and the other administrators involved for bringing this to the forefront of editors' minds- any attention given to the ~53,000 unreferenced BLPs we currently have can only be a good thing. This topic is currently under discussion at WT:PROD and, I believe, WT:CSD and it is my opinion that consensus should be allowed to emerge there, which would seem a more appropriate venue for the discussion than this. I strongly support the deletion of many of these unsourced BLPs, but there needs to be some form of due process, thus, consensus on what the process should be. Again, I applaud Rdm's actions for bringing this issue to everybody's attention, but urge the committee to issue an injunction of some form against further such deletions without due process. Thank you for your time. HJMitchell You rang? 08:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by involved The Wordsmith

When I noticed that Kevin had begun deleting these pages without anything resembling a consensus that it was okay to do so, was tempte to ask him to stop until it could be discussed, but saw that others ha already done so and were brushed off with what appears to be a disdain for consensus. While there is a small but vocal minority of community members who approve of these actions, they do include some of the most influential Wikipedians, including several that I respect and admire. The current discussion at WT:CSD seem to be clearly against summary deletion of unsourced BLPs, as has it for much of the day. Despite this, Kevin has persisted in his deletions. I looked over 15 or so of the articles that he had deleted during a span of roughly 20 minutes. During a similar time period, I was able to source almost all of them with the briefest of Google searches. Just because Kevin doesn't feel like looking around for sources, doesn't mean its okay to just delete these articles without discussion. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Sandstein

I agree with most of the concerns above about the mass deletions and the proposed motion. Most of us agree that wrong or even simply unsourced BLPs are a problem that needs to be addressed, if necessary by deletion. But we are above all a project that operates by consensus. While it might be defensible to delete BLPs without apparent consensus (as established in deletion discussions) if they are actually wrong and harmful, it is not at all clear that the mass deletion without consensus of articles that might possibly be wrong because they are old and unsourced is a net positive to our encyclopedia, especially in the light of Wikipedia:General disclaimer.

Apart from that, while I am the first to argue that admins need to have sufficient discretion to carry out their job, that is not the same as enabling a small group of editors to run roughshod over the reasonable objections of others simply because they have the technical ability to do so. Admins have no particular authority in content matters and for that reason do not have broad licence to unilaterally delete any article they dislike for whatever reason.

I recommend that the Committee reject Kirill's motion and disallow indiscriminate mass deletions of BLPs until the community has arrived at a consensus about how to handle the problem.  Sandstein  10:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Editors who are concerned about the possible ramifications of the motion about to be passed are invited to consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#View by Sandstein.  Sandstein  19:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement from Ohms law

I don't pretend to be a political genius or anything like that (especially here in en.wikipeida), but either this body or some other body/mechanism really needs to address this whole issue soon. I believe that the summary motion embodies a sense of good faith, but I'm fairly certain that it will be perceived as a whitewash by many (if not most), and that additionally it will be seen as a confirmation of some peoples' perception that the Arbitration Committee itself is ineffectual, powerless, or irrelevant. I'd like to point out that a couple of us had a conversation about "the BLP problem" which seemingly presaged something just like this at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Some Stats about Wikipedia BLPs.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement from Collect

No good deed goes unpunished, and all fast actions have repercussions beyond any positive value.

Empirically, the BLPs I ran across in bot-notifications were all readily referenced. And WP policy in the past was not viewed as finding that statements of a person;s existence were intrinsically controversial or contentious.

If the ArbCom feels that the status quo ante should be altered, it ought to be done through normal RfC mechanisms.

Meanwhile I would suggest that the list of deleted people be placed where all can see it, and determine what real percentage would failt notability. I note no assertions that any significant percentage actually contain controversial or contentious material, and I doubt a bot would be able to so discern. I would also hope that the ArbCom determine thst a halt pending adoption of a true community consensus is valid, and preferable to an adversarial proceding. I would also hope that the aarbitrators reconsider supporting any motions which do not place the WP RfC system as having primacy here. Collect (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Observation by Viridae

Potential harm to people's lives trumps petty rules. QED. Anyone who lacks the ethics to appreciate that this is true, lacks the ethics to be a constructive member of this project. Viridae^Talk 12:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

Don't decide this by motion. That would just adding another knee-jerk action on top of a series of knee-jerk actions. I urge you to take a bit of time to reflect on the effect your decision is likely to have. Rebecca makes sound points above. This decision will have consequences well beyond this case, and I hope you will take the time to make sure that they're ones that you intend... WJBscribe (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GRuban

By endorsing this action, the ArbCom is essentially adding a Speedy deletion criterion which didn't exist before "A11:Unreferenced Biography of Living Person". This blatantly goes against the idea that the Arbitration Committee doesn't make policy. If the community decides we should have this speedy deletion criterion, we can add it, but the ArbCom shouldn't take over that role. --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/blp where this exact proposal was made, just April, by one User:Kevin. Now he's using his tools to put into action what he couldn't find community consensus for before? --GRuban (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Observation by MickMacNee

On your head be it is all I can say to you arbcom. It seems to have escaped your collective notice with your motion that the technicality of whether the BLP policy supported these rogue admins in these deletions or not was pretty much a secondary afterthought to their actual motives, goals and ideals.

The only thing they invoked, and the only thing you seem to think matters, is that they ignored all rules, only the bit you and they left out is the inconvenient part where you have to show support for your idea of what constitutes 'improvement' among the community. Otherwise, you are not ignoring rules, you are ignoring the community. They started their moronic vandalism spree to ignore policy and ignore the community, both seen as mere inconvenient trifles in their Good Work.

They do not, despite your motion, give a flying fuck about our actual mission, or if their idiotic ideas actually make evidential sense or not, or even if the Badlydrawnjeff case referred to all BLP articles or just those that represent contentious material in their entirety. Or have I just missed a Request for Clarification somewhere? No? I didn't bloody think so. The central idea of WP:PRESERVE, that keeps this entire site going, because it is not just run by, or for, these few admins, means nothing to this tiny unrepresentative group, not a damn thing.

Fixing their vandalism is somebody else's problem. Figuring out if they have actually fixed anything or not, is someone else's problem. Basic respect for others is merely an obstacle to be overcome. They have all the usual qualities of real world extremist groups, which are quite rightly ignored. They exhibit the classic traits of having a loud voice but little to say, while collectively ego-stroking each other for 'doing something', whether it achieves anything real or useful, or not. Ultimately, their collective clue level is zero.

They, as supposed administrators, certainly don't care that they exist to serve the community will, not lead it. They all said so in black and white. And they have got away with it. With this motion, arbcom has ignored all the evidence of their actual motives and intents, have decided to retroactively endorse this outrage by rewriting the story, and have consigned the notion of WP:NOBIGDEAL to history. So I've deleted that little fantasy of the admin policy as the first of what will no doubt be many undesirable but inevitable ripple effects of this rampage. It's sticking so far, because it's a correct reflection of this motion.

With their ill-conceived actions, and your ill-advised reading of events, you have irrevocably changed the nature of the entire site. Let battle commence, it is now well and truly the era of admins v. others for this site. Time to start recruiting some admin socks, its they way of the future if you want to get shit done around here, and that pesky community is harshing your mojo. Onwards and upwards, eternal conflict will set us all free from having to worry about the potential harm of our content. MickMacNee (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And apparently it was a bit pointy to remove BIGDEAL, and I've been reverted by TheDJ [28]. You have to laugh at this place I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

deleted - makes no sense now it's been dissociated from Ikip's statement reff'ing me! Little grape (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

Scott MacDonald's statement above highlights the single most troubling aspect of this issue for me: "If the community believes it is acceptable to keep wholy unreferenced articles about living people around for THREE YEARS (and that's what I was deleting) then sod the community." (emphasis mine). While I have little doubt that these actions are taken with good faith, the only group on this project that gets to say "sod the community" is the Foundation. I am troubled by the real issue of WP:OWN, not just of articles, but of the project itself. The attitude displayed in these actions strongly suggest a battleground mentality. Unilateral mass deletion of articles, an unwillingness to discuss or compromise and an apparent willingness to fight not only other editors, but the community as a whole over this issue is a major problem. The issue of unsourced BLPs does require investigation and cleanup, but some people seem to believe that trampling over everything Wikipedia stands for is the solution. Personally, I think they are dead wrong. Lets find a more constructive way forward. Resolute 15:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Revising my statement per Scott's revised argument. As we have seen however, there are a lot of passionate feelings surrounding this issue - quite justified in my view - that are only getting worse the longer issues such as flagged revs and semi protection of BLPs are left twisting in the wind. I am very leery of using WP:IAR to support any such actions, given I believe you could easily argue that deleting an un- or undersourced article could also prevent us from improving Wikipedia. When IAR is justifiable on both sides of an issue, then it becomes unjustifiable on both sides. For ArbCom to support such actions which are very obviously contentious and not supported by anything close to a consensus of editors while using IAR as a shield is very disappointing. ArbCom should be reminded that reprimanding editors and administrators for "interfering" with highly contentious actions on the basis of a personal interpretation of BLP policy is counterproductive. I will single out Kirill in this instance, as I feel he should recuse himself given the wording of his motion has displayed a clear bias in how he would hear this case. Resolute 16:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

"Sod the community", says Scott. "Good work, Scott", says ArbCom. In that case, "sod you, ArbCom", says this member of the community. You have just proved that you have absolutely no standing with the people who write Wikipedia.--Kotniski (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this thread shows how much opposition there is to speedy deletion of BLPs just because they're unreferenced. There should be no doubt at all that what was done here was unwelcome disruption and abuse of admin tools against the will of the community.--Kotniski (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by DuncanHill

With the best will in the world I can't see Arbcom supporting a non-admin who tagged so many articles for CsD despite repeated requests to stop, nor can I see such an editor getting much in the way of support from any admins. But we've known for a long time that behaviour that gets non-admins blocked gets roars of approval from elements in the admin community when done by one of their own. The admin in question in this case has decided that he really can't be bothered with either process or discussion, and has used his tools to try to force a major policy change on the community. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by SB_Johnny

The facts are on the table here, and the relative weight of BLP concerns vs. inclusionism and/or eventualism is pretty clear to most contributors who think it through. Resolving by motion is a much better approach in this case than would be a drawn-out case, particularly given that even this Request has gotten quite ugly. No reason to stretch this one out. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

For old articles, a procedure of summary deletion is particularly reckless. Of course we should we should work on them also, at the pace at which we can manage it, with the special problem that the author is generally no longer be around to help. What I think is extremely dangerous is people nominating them or any article for deletion without first looking for sources, because it takes no more work to try for basic sourcing. We might even have a priority category for "I tried, but further help is needed." -- that's the sort of think I'd like to work on. What is even more dangerous is deletion without looking. As a related example, let me give the 40 prods of this nature I worked on in the last two days, about 10 were easily sourceable. About 5 were a real challenge--for some I too needed some help to do it right--and trying and not succeeding with them is not something anyone should be blamed for. The other half I decided could not be sourced in any reasonable way, or were so unlikely I at least wasn't going to bother, and I let them stand. But since they were prods, anyone else could look at them and try. Frequently I see ones I've given up on done easily by someone else. Some of the ones I found easily were ones where I can understand another person in perfect good faith might not think were likely enough to be worth the bother. That is the reason summary deletion is inappropriate--there are only a few special classes of things where one or two people can securely decide. Among the articles listed for deletion, and which could be deleted under the proposed ruling was one which was easily verifiable that the person was an ambassador, and one a member of a state legislature--things said on the face of the article. In both cases, it took about a minute to source them. With respect to the arbitrary deletions we are concerned with, I note what Rebecca said abocee--deleting an article that is on its face probably notable without checking is about as destructive to the encyclopedia as one can get.

The offer to undelete on request in ludicrous as a solution--for most editors cannot see the articles to tell. For those of us who can, we would of course be able to check and see if we could source, and undelete if we could. I certainly would not undelete in this circumstance unless I could source. But relying on a few of us to check is only practical if the people deleting are more responsible than some of them so far have been.

ArbCom is moving too fast on this--they should think more carefully. I endorse DESiegel's statement, though not all of his actions. I endorse the general import of Cyclopia's. I endorse the spirit of MickMacKnee's.

As a very minimal practical suggestion to prevent misuse of the motion, in the 3rd point the phrase "but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources;" the word providing" should be replaced by "checking". And the word "aggressively" in the 5th point of motion should be replaced by " appropriately"

As the real way of dealing with it, I urge the community to change the policy to reverse the effect of the motion. If they do not do so, I urge those concerned admins who share my view to check the deleted articles. I asked for the bit primarily to do just that, and was almost unanimously approved at the time. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment regarding biographies of living people

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people --MZMcBride (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Karanacs

Given the recently posted RfC, I request that ArbCom instructs the community to DO SOMETHING, while also instructing the admins in question to stop mass deletions while the RfC runs its course. I think it is time for the community to understand that they must decide to do something, but ArbCom shouldn't be the ones deciding what that is (i.e., approving controversail deletions). Perhaps the RfC timeframe should be compressed from the usual 30 days, but the community, not a small number of passionate editors, needs to decide which BLPs should be deleted and how quickly that should happen (prod, AfD, CSD). Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by David Eppstein

I find the summary motion by the arbitrators extremely troubling. It greatly expands WP:BLP and WP:CSD, with essentially no community input nor consensus, so that entire articles may be deleted if they are unsourced regardless of whether it is contentious: from all accounts, that is an accurate description of the deletions that the motion endorses. Additionally, it reprimands the administrators who took action to prevent out-of-process and out-of-control admins from having their way. This is an extremely important issue which should not be dismissed summarily in this way; it deserves a full arbitration hearing, and one that does not attempt to make policy so immediately and capriciously. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fences and windows

This is a coup by a handful of admins and hangers on, which is being supported by ArbCom. These editors have repeatedly tried and failed to convince the community to change policy on BLPs (e.g. closing BLP AfDs to default to delete, adding a speedy deletion criterion, etc.) There is no consensus for these actions, but instead admins and ArbCom are abusing their positions to impose their own opinions. Those making mass deletions are making no effort to discriminate between notable and non-notable bios, and making no effort at finding sources. This laughs in the face of WP:PRESERVE. ArbCom should be trying to calm this fanatical deletion spree, but instead they are encouraging it. 50,000 articles are being deleted without thought. Fences&Windows 17:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: there is no consensus, don't be delusional. This is what consensus says on changing policy: "Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important if the community is to have confidence in them. Editors are therefore typically expected to propose substantive changes on the talk page before making them. Don't do big things suddenly; the community is more likely to accept your edits if you do them slowly and make effort to keep the community involved." Instead, some admins began mass deleting out-of-process, and ArbCom have sided with them. That's not consensus, it's abuse of power. Fences&Windows 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: If my comments are "unacceptable", you should definitely do something about it. We can't have "unacceptable" comments being made on an ArbCom case, can we? Fences&Windows 19:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Add new criteria to CSD, currently 2:1 against speedy deletion for unsourced BLPs. But what does the community matter, with admins and ArbCom doing a passable Judge Dredd impersonation? "We are the Law!" Fences&Windows 19:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Coren & Shell: you don't understand the impact of your motion. You can urge Kevin, Scott et al. not to do mass deletions until you're blue in the face, but you've stated in black and white that "the deletions carried out by Rdm2376, Scott MacDonald, and various other administrators are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the policy on biographies of living people." They will continue regardless of any calls for restraint as there is apparently nothing to stop them doing so. So we lose 50,000 articles just like that. Fences&Windows 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nsk92

I must say that I find the current situation and the ArbCom motion below completely mind-boggling. The WP:BLP policy talks about quick removal of contentious and controversial material related to living persons, not about deletion of articles themselves. There has never been anything even close to community consensus for summarily deleting articles on those grounds and it is directly contrary to the spirit of the WP:DEL policy. In any event, the mass deletions in question were done entirely out of process. There were no prods, AfDs or even speedy deletion tags for these articles; they were simply deleted because a few particularly militant admins decided that they have a right to delete the articles in question unilaterally. In my opinion, all admins who are involved in this sort of activity are by definition abusing their tools and should be immediately desysopped. By appearing to endorse these out-of-process unilateral deletions, the ArbCom is rewriting WP:BLP and WP:DEL policy, which it has no right to do. We can't go back to the Wild West days of Wikipedia and WP:IAR cannot be used to justify this sort militancy and the anarchy it is likely to create. Nsk92 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Clayoquot

The other day I was thinking about how the law of unintended consequences applies to BLP. A BLP for someone with a fairly common name had been seemingly vandalized with reports of that person's death, and it occurred to me that maybe someone else with the same name actually did die. Maybe a new article should have been created for the person who died, but we've made it difficult to create new articles - in the name of BLP.

Echoing points made by others, unintended consequences you might be getting here are:

• People inserting fake references, and the rest of the world noticing that you can insert fake references into Wikipedia and get away with it'.
• Cementing a leadership style in the area of BLP that, by the leaders' own admission, is not effective. I care about BLP. Approximately 16 of my past 50 edits have been for BLP. But I avoid BLP policy discussions like the plague because of the levels of rhetoric, incivility, and groupthink that I find intolerable. Think about what kind of leadership style would help to solve the BLP problem. Cultivate good leadership in others and don't think you're helping the cause by propping up bad leadership style. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Christopher Parham

The current motion needs more guidance for administrators on how to procede going forward. Is it safe and appropriate to resume the type of deletions that sparked the current case? The description of the previous deletions as "reasonable exercise of administrative discretion" would seem to say yes, but this should be clearer. I've got no problem with ArbCom deciding that BLP is to be interpreted in this fashion for the moment, but the lack of clarity in the current motion is not helpful in resolving the problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Cenarium

I agree with the views expressed by Tznkai, arbitrator SirFozzie and many others; the motion put forward is neither comprehensive nor helpful, and is even inconsistent and inaccurate. I am tired of seeing rushed and flawed motions like this which do more harm than good. How could it make sense to declare the deletions "reasonable but chaotic" ?, and inaccurate and even dismissive because at the time of writing, the deletions are on-going (check the parties' logs) and Scott MacDonald asked other admins to do the same, so they cannot be described in the past time. The motion does not resolve at all what should be the crux of the matter for arbitration: the continuation of those mass deletions, it makes as if they won't occur anymore. The motion seems rather to endorse them by implicitly commending those actions and at any rate, allows their continuation. I completely agree with Tznkai that "this Committee has not only thus far refused to confront the battleground behavior, but it now proposes to take a side.". Their continuation is obviously - and independently of any perceived moral justification - harmful to a collaborative debate on this matter and threatens a middle-term resolution of the issue of unreferenced or poorly referenced BLPs. In short, it doesn't resolve the arbitration-demanding issue at all, and only adds fuel to the fire. I ask ArbCom: what is the intended effect of the motion ? I also note that this motion is a prejudice to the case, if it were to be opened, and motions should never be so (as some actually useful motions explicitly mention: "it doesn't prejudice the outcome of ..."), I wonder if a case is viable after such a motion (considering the issue is unlikely to be resolved after this motion). I ask that the motion be not adopted before at least more arbitrators can review it, and also that arbitrators respond to the criticism. I must say, that arbitrators seem rather to be driven by their political opinions or the desire to 'act' on the blp issue to please some persons, and completely forget what they are supposed to do: arbitrating disputes (which the motion does not do in the slightest) rather than mandating policy (which the motion does by endorsing the mass deletions). Cenarium (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

Any unsourced edit may be removed. An unreferenced biography is, by definition, nothing but unsourced edits. There is no need to invoke IAR to remove them, as long as appropriate care is taken to ensure that the article really is unreferenced. Thatcher 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

p.s. While I know a prophet has no honor in his home country, it appears that this was my idea in the first place. Can't I get a block too? Thatcher 19:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Question by Cool Hand Luke

I strongly endorse the committee's statement, but it seems ambiguous about one important point: should summary BLP deletions be tolerated by the community, or must the supporters use other avenues (like a revamped PROD policy with teeth)?

The term "amnesty" implies that some users may have crossed lines they should not have. If so, it would probably be valuable to say that deletions ought not continue unless our policies cannot be brought in line with BLP principles. Cool Hand Luke 19:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation by Scott MacDonald

I'd interpret this to mean (correct me if I'm wrong).

1. Keeping unreferenced BLPs hanging about indefinitely is contrary to the spirit of our policies.
2. The community ought to have a process, with teeth, to realistically deal with this.
3. Controversial speedy deletion is generally a Bad Thing which tends to disrupt.
4. Given that the community has no realistic mechanism for dealing with this problem, and has had years to come up with one, admins using speedy deletion (under an IAR application of BLP) is understandable and justifiable, but still highly regrettable.
5. The community ought to develop a realistic alternative (Prod+ etc) to render speedy deletion unnecessary and no longer justifiable.
6. If the community can't do that pretty damn quickly, then unfortunately, admins speedying would need to be the default position. The committee would find this regrettable.

I could be wrong.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Recused In case it wasn't obvious. MBisanz ^talk 12:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/1/1/0)

• Oh, well. Recused with regards to Geni. - Mailer Diablo 02:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Accept. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Accept; it appears that the digestion byproducts have collided with the rotating air displacement device. I would urge everyone involved to stop everything now before things degenerate further. — Coren ^(talk) 02:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Accept. While I have been on friendly terms with both Scott Macdonald and DESiegel, I don't believe that either compromises my impartiality in this matter. Steve Smith (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Accept - Per Coren. KnightLago (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• sigh I mean, Accept. SirFozzie (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Accept  Roger Davies ^talk 07:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Accept Fritzpoll (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline. Trouts all round and gentle pointers to the myriad of essays on civility, working together and building an encyclopedia. Shell ^babelfish 18:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse, seeing as I supported "civil disobedience" in favor of BLP, and mass deletion in particular, just hours before these events occurred. I'm not sure that I had a role here, but I think it's best not to deliberate on resolving these particular events. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Motions

Summary motion in lieu of a full case:

The Committee has examined this matter. In light of the following considerations:

• That the core principles of the policy on biographies of living people—in particular, neutrality and verifiability—have been set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation as a mandate for all projects;
• That the policy on biographies of living people, and this Committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case, call for the removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included;
• That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources;
• That Wikipedia, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment; and
• That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.

The Committee has determined that the deletions carried out by Rdm2376, Scott MacDonald, and various other administrators are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the policy on biographies of living people.

The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.

The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.

The Committee hereby proclaims an amnesty for all editors who may have overstepped the bounds of policy in this matter. Everyone is asked to continue working together to improve and uphold the goals of our project. The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people.

Votes

(There being 17 arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, the majority is 8)

Support

1. Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Sufficient statements to conclude this by motion. I particularly urge the community to seek better means of more general enforcement here Fritzpoll (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Per Fritzpoll and Kirill. Risker (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Per my colleagues.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
5. SirFozzie has a point that the administrators who objected to the deletions did have policy "on their side", so to speak, but this does not justify the kind of behavior we have seen or diminish the propriety of the original deletions. — Coren ^(talk) 11:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

   I'll add that the chosen language, "commended [...] but urged" is intended to mean something along the lines of "You did something of positive value but in a poorly chosen manner"; it is by no mean an unconditional endorsement of the manner in which the deletion have taken place, although it acknowledges that deletion of poorly referenced biographies is defensible and reasonable under the circumstances. This is one of those rare cases where, ultimately, the good of the project comes ahead the desires of the community; anyone is welcome to research and write properly referenced biographies on those subjects but there is no argument of policy or community desire that can justify the continued — and damaging — existence of bad BLPs.

   There is no question that mass deletion without consensus has been both overly dramatic and less than optimal; but there is even less question that mass undeletion is deleterious to the project and should not take place. Unless the articles are individually demonstrated to be both neutral and verified (and not merely hypothetically verifiable), then deleting them is not only permissible, but obligatory. — Coren ^(talk) 14:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Per Kirill and Coren. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Clearly could have been handled with less dramah, but the deletions did have a sound basis in policy. Let's not get so carried away with "procedure" that we miss the big picture here - the community needs to have a way to deal with articles of this type that doesn't involve deciding its Somebody Else's Problem. Shell ^babelfish 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

   One follow up - as Coren mentioned, this is not a suggestion that mass deletion (or any deletion) is the way forward nor a carte blanche to act (deletion or otherwise) before the community has a chance to sort this out. The community needs to find some way forward on these articles to bring them in compliance with the Foundation's policies on BLPs; how that's best handled is already being discussed in several places. Shell ^babelfish 18:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

8. I agree with Shell. While I still am not convinced that mass deletions were they way to go here, it was not entirely improper and was at least doing something about the problem the community has passed around like a hot potato for years. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Per Shell and others. KnightLago (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No. I agree with a majority of the statement, but cannot commend administrators for making this much much worse then it could have been. I do not support the "interfering" statement that infers what those who were opposing the administrative deletions did not have other policies on their side. The ones who did this even after multiple colleagues were blocked even stated that they expected to lose their bit, but they didn't care because they felt so strongly on this. So can I Clear them?, yes. Exonerate them?, yes. Commend them? no. I cannot. SirFozzie (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Broadly agree with the motion, but this is sufficiently complex that it merits a full case. Steve Smith (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Abstain/Recuse

1. Recused. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Recused. Cool Hand Luke 19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about votes

Discussion moved to talk page

Discussion about moving discussion about votes

• Move it back. If ArbCom makes a unprecedentedly stupidcontroversial decision, the discussion should be out in the open, where people actually see it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)