On 5/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
But, then, I've also developed some doubts
about your own judgment
given your activity on this list last week, when you developed out of
whole cloth an entirely bizarre interpretation of [[WP:BLP]] that
held that this policy could be used as a Harry-Potter-esque magical
incantation by any admin in order to take unilateral action that
would not be permitted to be questioned, debated, reversed, or
subjected to any sort of process or consensus save the unlikely
possibility of a full-blown ArbCom case. The fact that nothing in
the actual wording of the policy itself even hinted at this
interpretation didn't faze you one bit, though you later backed down
after a storm of controversy here.
What on earth? It's been practice since WP:BLP was instituted.
I think the issue is that to date most BLP actions have been benign; now
admins are speedy closing AfDs and DRVs citing BLP - sometimes even when the
article does not appear to have any immediate BLP issues.
I think if such is the case, we probably ought to rewrite BLP to reflect
practice - you know, descriptivism and all.
Johnleemk