Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
BLP deletions		21 January 2010	{{{votes}}}
Craigy144		20 January 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

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)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

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)

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 [5]

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.

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)

Comment from Nathan

Most of my article editing, such as it is, has been cleaning up BLPs. I've opposed the proposed implementation of Flagged Revisions because I believe it doesn't go far enough in addressing the problem. But the idea that a single administrator should be allowed to delete whatever articles he wants, without process or consensus, is incredible to me. That otherwise reasonable administrators, like Alison, Coffee, Juliancolton and others support this attempt to shotgun the problem... is troubling.

Yes, we have a problem. No, that is not sufficient to license any administrator with "cojones" to do whatever they like. It's not civil disobedience to ignore the community, to disregard the value of consensus or to use administrator tools like weapons in a holy war. It's arrogance, pure and simple. Administrators who arrogate to themselves the authority to act in any way they wish should be desysopped. Period. Nathan ^T 02:21, 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)

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.

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 aslso 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."

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 other policy 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)

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)

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)

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. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald

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.

Discussion is really pointless here (been there, bought the t-shirt). I call on every sysop to start deleting all unreferenced, and badly referenced, BLPs. If the "community consensus" dislikes that, then it better ask for some desysoppings - and I volunteer.

I've nothing more to say, and will not be participating in this case.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Oy gevalt. Durova⁴⁰³ 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• 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)

Craigy144

Initiated by Guy (Help!) at 18:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Craigy144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [6]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• ANI thread

Statement by JzG

Craigy144 is an administrator. As the AN thread cited shows, he is currently blocked for systematic violation of copyright policy. There appears to be consensus that this is incompatible with his status as an administrator. Separately, he is currently blocked for copyright violation.

I would request that the arbitration committee review this case speedily and decide whether a desysop is warranted, what other sanctions may be merited, and for what duration. Specifically, I think that if there is to be a discussion of any mitigation (e.g. a sincere belief that he was in the right), this is the right venue since this is distinctly sensitive and I don't think we need WP:PITCHFORKS. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

Barring the emergence of private issues the motion should probably be voted on on-wiki. Assuming the underlying facts are not at issue, the larger question is cut and dry: repeated copyright infringement is not consistent with even the lowest standards of good judgment and sense required of an administrator. Or an editor.--Tznkai (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by involved MLauba

To keep this brief, I reaffirm the statements I made at ANI and stand by them. I blocked Craigy144 after reviewing the first entries added to today's due WP:CP listing, finding October 2008 warning that an ODNB author had complained about copyright infringement, took note of both Craigy144's admin status and the fact that he had not edited since January 3rd.

At that stage, under the impression that there was an ongoing pattern not only of systematic copyright violation but also misuse of a Public Domain attribution template and a pattern of ignoring warnings, I decided to issue a block, selected an indefinite duration for it to ensure the block would still be in place when and if the user returns, and submitted my course of action for review at ANI.

I concur with the sentiments expressed by Guy and Tznkai that no matter what else goes down, the function of administrator on enwiki should not be maintained under the present circumstances until Craigy144 explains himself, acknowledges the issues, helps the cleanup effort arising from his actions, and spends editing time without further copyvio issues. I will also join the two aforementioned editors in recommending an expedited process with no drama.

For completeness, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Craigy144, once populated, will also be material to this request. MLauba (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Craigy144 has been advised that he may request temporary unblocking for the purpose of commenting here. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/3)

• Decline Normally I wouldn't vote until all parties had a chance to promote this statement, but the matter has already been brought to the attention of ArbCom, and we are considering possible responses and actions to this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline full case; in favor of handling this by summary motion. I do not believe that the underlying facts are in question, and absent a compelling explanation from Craigy144 they would justify a desysop. Hold this request open until Craigy144 has had the opportunity to provide an explanation or that it is clear that no such explanation is forthcoming. — Coren ^(talk) 19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Leaning towards accept as the evidence so far doesn't seem controversial but I would like to hear from Craigy144 first. On the face of it, this can probably be best dealt with by open motion here, unless compelling reasons to hear it in private are made.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Handle by open motion after waiting for an explanation by Craigy144 Fritzpoll (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Per Fritzpoll. Steve Smith (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Hold pending a response from Craigy, although I agree this probably doesn't need a full case. Waiting to see what Craigy's response is before I decline/accept, although at the moment this definitely doesn't seem like full case material. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Hold (for a few days, if necessary) so that we can hear from Craigy144. Clerks, please note that Craigy144 is currently indefinitely blocked; please ensure that there is a notice on his talk page advising him that he may request unblocking for the purpose of addressing this issue, should he prefer to do so onwiki rather than via email. Risker (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)