[WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi at gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 01:02 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
>
>On 5/23/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's pretty much the rule Jimbo declared and the ArbCom and really
>> quite a lot of the admins work to, yes. As I said, BLP beats DRV.
>
>
>Back to the problem: as an admin, you say [[Joe Szilagyi]] is a BLP vio.
>Nuke it. Admin Bob says, "No, it wasn't a BLP vio. I will DRV this." He
>does. 10 people say, "Overturn. No BLP issues. Sourcing good." You and two
>others say, "BLP vio. Closing as endorsed deletion."
>
>Who is right? Why is your interpretation of BLP more valid than Bob's? If
>DRV is not a valid place to decide if [[Joe Szilagyi]] is a BLP vio, where
>is? Who gets to play Solomon? ArbCom? ANI? You? Bob?
>
>Regards,
>Joe
>http://www.joeszilagyi.com

If an article has been deleted as a BLP violation a DRV is inappropriate. The appropriate venue is dispute resolution. The article stays deleted until there is an Arbitration Committee to the contrary.

Fred