| Revision as of 08:26, 3 July 2007 editDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,639 edits Fix different-sized header← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:39, 6 July 2007 edit undoJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,539 edits courtesy blankingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| courtesy blanking | |||
| <big>'''Case Opened''' on 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)</big> | |||
| <big>'''Case Closed''' on 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)</big> | |||
| Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the ], and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at ]. Evidence is more useful than comments. | |||
| Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at ]. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at ]. | |||
| Once the case is closed, editors may add to the ] as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at ]. | |||
| ==Involved parties== | |||
| <!--provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details. for users use form {{Userlinks|user name}}, for administrators use {{Admin|user name}}--> | |||
| *{{admin|Doc glasgow}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Badlydrawnjeff}} | |||
| *{{admin|David Gerard}} | |||
| *{{admin|JzG}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Tony Sidaway}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|MalcolmGin}} | |||
| ===Requests for comment=== | |||
| <!--provide links to any recent requests for comment regarding any party--> | |||
| *] | |||
| == Statement by Doc glasgow == | |||
| Badlydrawnjeff is known to all. While he is a highly respected and prolific editor, his consistent commitment to legalistic process and his extreme inclusionism are notorious. He routinely contests deletions and argues for restorations on even the most tenuous of process grounds. That's led many people to regard him as a pest - indeed some people to dislike him. Actually, I don't dislike him. Yes, his activities are annoying, but generally they are within the wider scope of wiki-philosophies - and we can disagree in friendship without making it personal. | |||
| However, when his activities begin to impinge on the subjects of ] we cannot agree to differ. When championing in-house processes has the potential of causing harm, or bringing wikipedia into disrepute - we cannot let things go on. | |||
| The article which is the subject of the current dispute concerns a young man who was exploited as a minor and ridiculed on the internet. Whilst there is some evidence he tried to make the best of it, we owe a duty not to be party to ridicule and not to demean our encyclopedia over freak shows with Google hits. ] is not just a policy to be applied - it is a mindset worthy of an encyclopedia. | |||
| Perhaps, so far, this looks like a deletion dispute, and not a matter for arbcom. However, the issue is not just 'should we have an article here?' - which is a matter for the deletion process. The issue here is, "should we allow a private individual to be continually used as a football by those fighting in-house process battles?" Not just the article, but the continual debate itself infringes the spirit of BLP. That's why, after the initial AfD, so many separate administrators have wished to shut down the continuous incessant debating. As one admin complained to Jeff: "The repeated fuckwittery is reinforcing the ] problem by continually reinforcing the link between this poor kid's name and his victimisation.". But Jeff is not dissuaded. | |||
| This article has had numerous AfDs, DRVs and comment elsewhere. In addition to his comments, Jeff <s>listed it on </s> † DRV three times: | |||
| , filed an arbcom case, then when that was rejected had another go at DRV before opening his sham RfC. This activity is damaging to the encyclopedia. He's been asked to stop. But he's indicated he will launch more attempts regardless of the RfC . I am asking arbcom to call a halt. This is disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point and is, in itself, flaunting BLP by continually linking this individual with his victimisation on our high-profile website. It is quite clear that no amount of discussion will dissuade him from this behaviour. | |||
| †Correction made, with apology, since my slight mis-description has been taken for bad-faith dishonesty.--]<sup>g</sup> 22:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Additional Comment by Doc=== | |||
| Keeping some of the arb's statements in view. Perhaps a little more on how the process-wonking at DRV is endangering BLP. | |||
| # Take this and , articles on children who are notable only notable for an unfortunate incident at birth. Clearly harmful to the individuals if their name is googled for the rest of their lives, and clearly unacceptable for Misplaced Pages Both speedily deleted. Both listed on DRV. Where process wonking leads to calls for undeletion. and supports. Actually the arguments get worse from that point (see for yourself) we now have a number of wikipedians disgracefully arguing to restore an unacceptable article on 'procedural grounds'. If they do so, I will simply delete the article, since process does not trump BLP policy. Tell me I'm wrong, or desysop me. | |||
| '''*NB''' The above articles were undeleted and reliested at afd per some form of procedural nonsense interpretation of DRV. I have closed the afd and re-deleted them per my interpretation of ] being more important that a dubious interpretation process. I invite arbcom to consider my actions and that of the person that undeleted. I'll find the diffs later.--]<sup>g</sup> 01:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| #Or take which I deleted "per ]". Here someone decided to contest my deletion (fair do - I get things wrong), but instead of discussing it with me, the user plomped it on DRV, where an admin, again without discussion or asking me what my concerns were, promptly restored its history (with an edit summary questioning my competency) to enable "badlydrawnjeff to answer a question requiring history visibility" . I challenged the admin on this - but he's unrepentant and still believes he has the right to undelete histories of articles, deleted as BLP violations, even without discussion, if he himself judges them not to be violations . Now, I'm not saying BLP deletions cannot be reviewed (I welcome people checking my mistakes) - simply that in the process obsession of the DRV clique, and in its unwillingness to trust deleters at all, it shows absolutely no respect for the biographies of living people. DRV is unfit for purpose - and the behaviour of many of its regulars is downright reckless. | |||
| ==Statement by Badlydrawnjeff== | |||
| I made my original statement . The points still stand, the diffs are clear there - the deletions are out of process, the wheel-warring was bad, and consensus is not being followed. | |||
| I have done nothing wrong here. Arbcom denied the original case as premature, I brought it to RfC as you asked. RfC goes exactly as expected - piling on with dishonesty and incivility abound, ''even in this very ArbCom request''. The RfC was going to have to end up here to at least discuss the wheel-warring, but I even said that the RfC was unnecessary if the issues surrounding the article at hand were dealt with. People instead decided to be nasty about it. See my talk page for the month of May, and see the commentary at the RfC - no editor should have to put up with what I'm putting up with here because I dare to disagree with administrators. | |||
| Yes, please, take this case. Let's get some real resolution here as opposed to allowing the usual suspects to shout down those who dare disagree with the power structure. As JzG says, I trust Arbcom as an honest broker, as it ''generally'' has been in the past. However, enough is enough. | |||
| A quick note, since I just caught it - I do not appreciate the implication that I somehow abandon rules/process when things don't "go my way," or that I've tossed process/policy to the wind in this case. The facts simply do not back up such scurrilous accusations, and I expect to have those false statements struck or addressed in the case if opened. --] <small>]</small> 16:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Excuse my new comment, but this needs to be seen on its own=== | |||
| It appears that it was decided, on IRC no less, that I was too much trouble, and they decided to block me. By the way, no forewarning or notice on my talk page from anyone until AFTER I was unblocked. ]. This is completely intolerable. Just thought people might like to know what's been going on behind closed doors. | |||
| By the way, if this needs to be handled in a separate case, just say the word. Something tells me this isn't going to need an RfC to sort out. --] <small>]</small> 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Additional statement in response to Newyorkbrad=== | |||
| Only because everything seems unorthodox at this point (i.e., clerks can feel free to move this up if need be, but I'd prefer not) - the only reason anything has "cooled off" is because we're all waiting for this. A decline will simply send it back to the masses, and I'll be surprised if a situation doesn't occur when we're back here anyway. The invective and the commentary above indicate the community is incapable of handling this situation on it's own, and the block situation is much more vile than is being admitted (it's really, really times like this when I wish I could just toss the logs up somewhere, but i'm still not convinced that's currently right). | |||
| Given the way certain parties have, are, and will continue to act - not allowing discussion, extreme bad faith, incivility, etc. - it's likely going to end up here anyway. Quite simply, when certain users think you should have been blocked months ago when you've done nothing wrong or improper, it does not make for a useful editing situation. Please accept this so parties involved can move on and the situation can be dealt with instead of stall out. On the contrary to Brad's claim, rejecting this request is likely to re-ignite the flames when we undoubtedly attempt to rectify a situation that a not-too-insignificant number of administrators has demonstrated, both publically and what they believed was privately, are incapable of doing properly. --] <small>]</small> 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Updating=== | |||
| This gets worse and worse. Along with NYB's issue above, we now have a former arbitrator who's now wheel warring over a deletion, erroneously citing BLP, following an out of process closure that fails to reflect deletion policy, BLP policy, or consensus. Is ArbCom going to step up to the plate or not? This is ''all'' related. --] <small>]</small> 01:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A ruling that BLP is not to be used as a bludgeoning device against articles individual administrators would be useful, too. Every moment Arbcom refuses to see this case, the situation gets worse, and the arrogance of disrupive administrators and people who are no longer administrators grows. --] <small>]</small> 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Comment by David Gerard== | |||
| The ArbCom does need to resolve the question of our policies on ] versus deletion review. People think that DRV can be used as an end-run around our living bio policies. I understand this is not the case. We are extremely harsh on crappy minor biographies for ''excellent'' reason - do you want people to keep thinking they can be voted around? Latest example: the ], which is a classic example of "I wanna" voters trying to outvote living bio policy. This followed a go-round on my ]. For added relevance to this case, note Jeff's claimed ignorance of BLP deletion policy. If you don't address this one, it will come around again and again and again. If you'd prefer this in a separate case, please let me know - ] 08:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Note re IRC-led blocking: This is a particular variety of foolishness that is expressly unwelcome on -admins, per rules on ] and past problems - it's one thing to come to -admins for sanity checking your urge to block someone, it's quite another not to flag it on ANI afterwards! I'll try to have a word with the guy and see what on Earth he was thinking. My apologies to all, and especially to Jeff - ] 10:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Statement by ] == | |||
| The only reason it has taken this long for this to be brought is that Jeff is a really nice guy. Doc states above that the problem is Jeff's devotion to process, but I don't feel that tells the whole story. What Jeff is devoted to, is popular culture. Where process can help him argue for that, he will pursue process to the bitter end, but, as we saw with the RFAR, if he believes process will not deliver the "correct" result, he will ] with the best of us, and the RfC he raised shows an absolute contempt for process. | |||
| It's not about process, I think, it's about the fact that there are some things on Misplaced Pages that are not as Jeff would like. These include the broadening of ] to include G11, strengthening of policy on living individuals, tightening and enforcement of fair use policy. All these come from Foundation, reinforcing Misplaced Pages's role as a responsible, credible provider of a free-content encyclopaedia, emphasis on encyclopaedia. These changes have been embraced by numerous long-standing Wikipedians, many of whom are of course admins by now, and applied. These long-standing admins are also inclined on occasion to go with judgement over process. | |||
| Jeff also approaches his desires in the wrong way. Rather than challenging the processes and policies with which he disagrees, he challenges their use, time after time. This ''can'' be an effective way of changing process, but when it repeatedly fails to change process, repeatedly trying it becomes disruptive, especially once it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that Jeff's personal inclusion threshold is well off in the ]. As Einstein said: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Some of the time Jeff is right but he is wrong so often, so loudly and with such persistence that this possibility is routinely discounted. | |||
| So: we have a tension between what Jeff wants and an ethos which seems to others to come right from the top and thus manifests itself in actions by the "admin cabal"; hence the admin cabal becomes the focus of Jeff's discontent. Dissatisfaction with some pretty fundamental parts of the project, including Misplaced Pages being a cluocracy not a democracy, becomes personalised in a group of individuals. In short: Jeff does not trust our judgement, and we don't trust his. And as FloNight says in ], the constant challenging of admin's best-efforts closures of hard cases is actively harmful to the project, weakening our ability to remain an encyclopaedia rather than a Google mirror. I seem to recall Jeff saying he basically gave up on ED because he was unable to remake it as a place to cover memes, something that particularly interests him. Perhaps we have simply hit the same crisis here. | |||
| "The Case of the Fat Chinese Kid" exemplifies Jeff's approach overall. He crusades for things he wants. This is not evil, but it is a pestilential nuisance when the right answer is to sit back and mull it over. He tries the same thing over and over, even though it has not worked before. It is obvious that the AfD/DRV process was not well suited to a mature discussion of this case, and that ] concerns must, in the short term at least, take precedence. Opening yet ''another'' DRV was never going to achieve a different result, but was absolutely certain to perpetuate the fire. | |||
| I do not think this is going to be fixed by any process other than arbitration. I have tried to steer Jeff into working on the source of the problem (e.g. educating speedy taggers rather than trying to "educate" admins) but he is not interested. I do not believe he trusts the kind of people who are telling him this stuff, quite a lot of people just wish he'd go away, he is probably suspicious of what motivates any kind of steer away from what he's doing. I do believe Jeff may trust ArbCom as an honest broker. | |||
| ==Statement by ]== | |||
| Needless to say, I don't see any of the claimed expansion to ] going on. The motivation is given here: ''Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.'' The grounds for ], just as for ] and ] of which it is largely an elaboration, are and always have been moral. I've no doubt that the Committee agrees with me on this, but there is some confusion within the community so clarification would be welcome. | |||
| : A comment on Doc's statement that he will destroy the switched-at-birth articles in the unlikely event that they are undeleted. I will also do everything in my power to have them deleted. Those articles will never again see the light of day on Misplaced Pages. --] 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Statement by ]== | |||
| I add myself directly to this case because I feel that if Badlydrawnjeff gets sanctioned for his role in these interrelated issues I am likely to take those sanctions on myself. | |||
| I admit that policy and procedure are very important to me. I've made reference to previous administrative positions I've held on collaborative communities. My experience of policy and procedure being ''vitally'' important to the health of a community divided by different custodial and administrative roles (i.e. editors/sysops/bureaucrats/developers) and as devices for the protection of all in my previous roles holds for me here as well. | |||
| If Badlydrawnjeff is to be sanctioned for following policy as remedy for issues where admins of various sorts appeared to be abusing power and not explaining themselves, then I think I really don't belong here in Misplaced Pages in any contributory capacity. | |||
| So please, Arbitrators, let me know whether users can be sanctioned for following policy as remedy when it seems to be the only recourse. I'd really like to know. | |||
| :After observing and trying to participate in the /Workshop page for a while, I think we are irrevocably tangled. There are at least 2 (possibly more) major factions who are primarily locked over who's the kettle and who's the pot. For each statement one party makes, its mirror could conceivably be applied the original author of the statement and his/her faction. | |||
| :I am still here, still trying to participate, because in good faith I'm trying to determine whether the folks in power/who have power (i.e. the admins and potentially other bureaucrats) will stop interfering with process that I see as vital to the continued healthy growth of Misplaced Pages (i.e. I am here trying to work for the good of Misplaced Pages). I completely understand that many of the folks arguing with me are of an opposite mind and that my philosophy has no useful meaning to them - they likely see themselves as doing good jobs and don't feel there's anything valid for other folks to complain about in what they choose to do with that power (of being an admin). | |||
| :If the Arbitration Committee can figure out ways to bridge the chasm, that would be fine. If I can improve Misplaced Pages by simply not being here and not participating except as a consumer, that's fine. I'm about done, about out of energy anyway. | |||
| :What I'd like to see is some way of reminding admins that they should listen in fairness to criticism they hear from the larger editor population, because most of my frustration here has to do with various forms of feeling and being unheard. Early-closed, speedy-closed deletion discussions, abrupt and hostile responses from admins on the talk page and the ever present accusations of WikiLawyering all seem to me to be symptoms of going and being unheard, and symptoms, if allowed to stand, of never-gonna-be-heard (so why should I bother to try?). If those issues are allowed to continue, I'll probably just move on to other projects not related to Misplaced Pages and leave you all to it. | |||
| :Whatever the outcome, I wish you and Misplaced Pages the very best of luck working through problems of continually integrating new blood into an ever-growing population, and absolutely no hard feelings (I hope) either way. | |||
| :I await your decisions. Thank you very much for your ongoing time and patience. --] <small>] / ]</small> 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!--Add additional statements if necessary, for each directly involved user. Comments by users outside the dispute go on the talk page.--> | |||
| == Clerk notes == | |||
| :Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. ] 16:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Reply to Mackensen: I doubt we can do much about people commenting on the request. However, if the case is accepted, <s>the clerks will</s> my inclination would be to list as involved parties those editors whose actions are disputed by badlydrawnjeff, such as early closures of AfD and DRV discussions (pending clarification to the contrary, of course). That seems to define the scope of the contested actions. ] 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Clarified my comment above. ] 19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Recuse again, as per my earlier recusal. ] | ] 03:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm almost positive that I'm as neutral in this case as possible, should a clerk be needed. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 12:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Since there is some uncertainty over the scope of this case, I have (after some discussion with Thatcher131 and Newyorkbrad) tried to cast a fairly wide net regarding who should be listed as a party. However, if any of the arbitrators want me to add someone else, I'd be happy to oblige. ]<sup>(])</sup> 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Preliminary decisions== | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/3/1/0) ==== | |||
| * '''Recuse. ''' ] ] 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Accept'''. Waiting isn't going to help matters here; it's pretty clear now that nothing short of an arbitration case is going to resolve the dispute. ] 16:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Decline. What do you need us for? If, indeed, he's announced his contempt for community and consensus and policy as stated above ("meteors" and "heaven"), the community can provide those meteors. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Reject. This is almost the same case we rejected a couple days ago. If there is a problem because a user is insisting on following existing guidelines, it seems to me the first step should be to rework the guidelines. - ] 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''': this is clearly not going to go away, especially after the extremely unwise blocking incident. I am going to insist that the evidence page for this not turn into a free-for-all continuation of the fight over this; irrelevant evidence and commentary will be deleted. I regret that I see no real effort has been made to do other than dump gasoline on the fire here. ] (]:]) 06:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Accept to consider only the behavior of BadlydrawnJeff. I think we should establish a policy that Misplaced Pages is not a drama site (Those that want to consult or contribute to such a site know where to go). I think we could make that policy, but a pronouncement from the Arbitration Committee does not do that. ] 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Accept''' primarily to examine how in this case the efforts of admins to apply ] policy in Afd and speedy deletes is being altered by users at DRV and other venues for discussion. (For those that may be wondering; I'm ''not'' going to recuse based on my ''Outside View'' on the RFC. As obviously, I'm not a party to the dispute.) ] 13:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept'''. I think the AC can at least clarify what is going on here. ] 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per Newyorkbrad. ] ] 04:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' for consideration of BadlydrawnJeff's actions (like Fred); the wider policy issue is, well, not an issue. ] ] 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept'''. ] Co., ] 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Temporary injunction (none)=== | |||
| <!-- uncomment/un-nowiki and fill in <nowiki> | |||
| 1) ... | |||
| :''Passed x to x at ~~~~~ | |||
| </nowiki> --> | |||
| =Final decision= | |||
| ''All numbering based on ]'' (vote counts and comments are there as well) | |||
| ==Principles== | |||
| ===Biographies of living persons=== | |||
| 1) Misplaced Pages articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Misplaced Pages editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. | |||
| '''''Passed''' 11-0 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ===Basic human dignity=== | |||
| 2) Implicit in the ] is the understanding that Misplaced Pages articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Misplaced Pages aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. | |||
| '''''Passed''' 11-0 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ===Do no harm=== | |||
| 3) In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. | |||
| '''''Passed''' 9-2 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ===Summary deletion of BLPs=== | |||
| 4) 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 ]. 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. | |||
| '''''Passed''' 9-1 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| === Administrators === | |||
| 6) ] are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow ]. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. | |||
| '''''Passed''' 7-0 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| == Findings of fact == | |||
| ===Locus of dispute=== | |||
| 1) The dispute involves the deletion, undeletion, and associated discussion of a number of articles covered by the ]. | |||
| '''''Passed''' 11-0 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ===Badlydrawnjeff=== | |||
| 2) {{userlinks|badlydrawnjeff}} has vocally argued against the deletion of certain articles that were deleted on the grounds of violating ]. He has explicitly rejected the need for ethical considerations when dealing with such articles ("). | |||
| '''''Passed''' 7-0 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ===Violetriga=== | |||
| 3) {{admin|Violetriga}} has, in a number of instances, undeleted content that was deleted under the BLP policy without a discussion to ensure that such content was appropriate (). | |||
| '''''Passed''' 9-0 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ===Night Gyr=== | |||
| 4) {{admin|Night Gyr}} has, in a number of instances, undeleted content that was deleted under the BLP policy without a discussion to ensure that such content was appropriate (). | |||
| '''''Passed''' 10-0 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ==Remedies== | |||
| <small>''Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.''</small> | |||
| ===Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned=== | |||
| 1.1) Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and spirit of the ] policy. | |||
| '''''Passed''' 8-1 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ===Violetriga cautioned=== | |||
| 2) Violetriga is cautioned to avoid undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined ]. | |||
| '''''Passed''' 10-0 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ===Violetriga admonished=== | |||
| 2.1) Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined ]. Any future administrator action that violates the BLP policy will result in her immediate desyopping once it is brought to the attention of the Committee. | |||
| '''''Passed''' 7-2 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ===Night Gyr cautioned=== | |||
| 3) Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined ]. | |||
| '''''Passed''' 11-0 at 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ==Log of blocks and bans== | |||
| Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it. | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 15:39, 6 July 2007
courtesy blanking