On 28 May 2007 at 17:28:38 +0100, "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.
Not that I've observed. There have been plenty of cases of admins
making changes or deletions to an article under BLP concerns which
have resulted in subsequent review, debate, modification, and
reversal without the ArbCom acting.
The way Fred originally put it, it would be possible for some admin
to wake up deciding that he didn't like Britney Spears and didn't
think she should have an article on Wikipedia, and then just go and
speedy-delete it, giving "BLP" as the magic word (does a wand need to
be waved along with this?); then, no discussion, debate, DRV, AFD, or
other questioning would be permitted, no other admin (or even all
other admins acting in concert) would be allowed to reverse the
action on penalty of desysopping, and only an ArbCom case would be
able to reverse it (even though the ArbCom says they don't get
involved in content disputes).
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site:
http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips:
http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
http://domains.dan.info/