Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Baby 81

I have been discussing Baby 81 over on Talk:Baby 81, where Tony Sidaway elliptically referred to an ArbCom case - I guess this is it? - and I now see Tony taking my name in vain for "supporting" a move of the article back under the name of the child in question without his permission. I have supported no such thing - I have disputed the need for the article to be moved in first place, and questioned the need for the name of the child to be excised from our article.

For what it is worth, this seems to me to be completely different to the case of the sexual abuse victims. This child's name is widespread in respectable public sources (such as the BBC) and there is little chance of it disappearing from public view. The child's parents are named, and links are given to other sources that give the name. Deleting it from our article seems to me to be entirely misguided. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And I've commented over on the talk page for that article. Carcharoth 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope Creep

As an outside observer, I notice that an immediate possible issue with this evidence phase will be many people weighing in that don't necessarily have anything to do with this case, and may be simply posting evidence (that may even possibly taken out of context) to "bandwagon a cause". I highly recommend that all clerks involved in the arbcom process do their best to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio when considering the facts.--RWilliamKing 14:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the scope isn't established. One group wants it to be Badlydrawnjeff, anything and everything he has ever done. Another group wants it to be speedy deletion of articles and short-circuiting of debate about them on the basis of WP:BLP, whether and when it is justified. Newyorkbrad, well known clerk, complained about this very fact. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I think this is going to be a mess for quite a while. It's going to need the arbitrators involved to clean things up right, otherwise this will not result in a resolution. FrozenPurpleCube 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply hoping the arbitrators start in on this sooner rather than later at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is still an active discussion. In any case, it will set a precedent (I think).--RWilliamKing 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winifred Sackville Stoner, Jr.

FCYTravis complains that "There may never be a reliable source which tells us that after being the subject of a messy, expensive and tabloid-covered 10-year custody battle, little Jeff Doe goes on to have a successful career as a union carpenter, raising a family and living his life." Then what? What do we do with the Winifred Sackville Stoner, Jr. article; obliterate a useful article, or deal with the fact that we will never know anything useful--that in fact there's probably nothing hugely interesting to cover--in fifty years of her life.--Prosfilaes 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)