User:Thatcher/Sandbox2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Zscout370

Initiated by Thatcher131 at 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not applicable.

[edit] Statement by Thatcher131

I am filing this case as an interested bystander, to give the full Arbitration committee the opportunity to review and either confirm or repudiate the emergency desysopping of Zscout370. At least two arbitrators supported the request for emergency desysopping; a third has publicly questioned the "emergency" nature of the request but expressed interest in hearing the case via the normal process [1]. I believe an open hearing of the events in question is best way to move forward on the issue of BLP deletions in general and this incident in particular. I do not have a stake is this situation and while I am interested in the outcome, I do not plan to argue for a particular outcome.

Timeline of events
  • 04:32, 14 December 2007 Avruch created the article Carolyn Doran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • 06:15, 14 December 2007 deleted by Admin Dmcdevit (Putting someone on a top 10 website with a bio consisting of "X is a criminal" and sourced to a tabloid is not appropriate. Do not recreate without consensus, per WP:BLP.)
  • 06:21, 14 December 2007 restored by Zscout370 (8 revisions restored: try an AFD)
  • 06:29, 14 December 2007 deleted by Admin Drini (Dmcdevit is right. Half article is possible libel whose source isn't more reliable than vanilla blog. BLP issues)
  • 06:55, 14 December 2007 recreated as a redirect to Wikinews by Penwhale
  • 06:56, 14 December 2007 protected by Zscout370 (meaning that anyone who wanted to blank or delete the article would have to reverse her action)
  • 07:20, 14 December 2007 deleted by Penwhale (I re-read the redirect article. Link target would fail WP:RS criteria on here, so deletion.. (Think of this as a self-revert))
  • 07:24, 14 December 2007 recreated as a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation by EconomicsGuy
  • 07:25, 14 December 2007 protected by Zscout370
    • 14:11, 14 December 2007 Zscout370 desysopped [2]
    • 20:57, 14 December 2007 Zscout370 re-adminned
  • 03:27, 15 December 2007 deleted by Admin Jossi (As per Dmcdevit and Drini)


Context—BLP
“ Administrators should obtain consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article. The deleting administrator should be willing to explain the deletion to other administrators, by e-mail if the material is sensitive; administrators and other editors who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but any protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. ”
  • In an Arbitration case involving multiple deletions and undeletions of BLP articles, the Committee cautioned two administrators "to avoid undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness" and passed the following principle:
“ Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy. ”
Context—Wheel-warring
  • There is disagreement and uncertainty about the meaning of "wheel-warring" and about what kinds of communication are necessary to "safely" reverse another administrator without the threat of blocking or desysopping.
“ A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article. Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. ”
  • The Arbitration committee accepted the BJAODN case but dismissed it without findings as the community had worked the problem out on its own. However, a look at the workshop shows considerable disagreement about whether the deletion and undeletion of BJAODN constituted a wheel war or not, although there is a general consensus that a single reversal does not constitute a wheel war.
Questions for the Arbitration committee
  1. What are the standards and consequences for reversing an administrative action without discussion?
  2. Are the rules for deletions that cite the BLP policy different than the rules for general deletions and how will they be enforced?
  3. Shall Zscout370 be desysopped and on what grounds (violating the BLP policy, the wheel-warring policy, or both)?

[edit] Statement by {party 2}

[edit] Clerk notes

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

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)