[WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions

[David Gerard]

2010/1/21 Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Apoc 2400 <apoc2400 at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Is there anyone here who can do something about this before it becomes an
>> even bigger wheel-war?

> Yes, the Arbcom has done something about it. Specifically, it has
> patted them on the head and said, 'good job, guys! Just be quieter in
> the future'.
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Motions


Excellent and proper, per BLP. This isn't actually an IAR case, IMO -
it's clear by BLP.


>     The Committee hereby proclaims an amnesty for all editors who may
> have overstepped the bounds of policy in this matter. Everyone is


Good one.


> our project. The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request
> for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient
> way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on
> biographies of living people."


Yep.

Policy formation and change on English Wikipedia has been
fundamentally *broken* for about four or five years. Finally, enough
prions have accumulated to demonstrate actual symptoms of severely
advanced Mad Cow Disease.

Fortunately, we have enough sensible stuff encrusted in with the
prions that when the ArbCom have a mind to sensible action, they have
the tools they need.


> Translation: BLP now means anything whatsoever unsourced is evil & to
> be burned with fire; anything is justified in pursuit of previous;


I believe that's what BLP meant in 2006, but I was just writing the
policy draft, so don't mind me.


> IAR
> now means flagrant admin abuses are justified if you can cite
> imaginary bits of a policy, and other admins have to sit there and
> take it;


"admin abuses" of users or of policies that BLP overrides? 'Cos it is,
and was always intended to be, a trump card.


> silent mass deletions are now an acceptable admin tactic.


That bit's not ideal, I'd think they should be listed first. Perhaps a
{{BLP-prod}}, where someone has a few days to put the references in.
OR THE ARTICLE DIES.


> I particularly enjoy the 'innocuous statements' point. It's
> reminiscent of the best Cold War paranoia: your friend, your
> co-worker, or even your dog could secretly be a Commie agent! No one
> is safe! Not even *you*. I have a list of 55 unsourced
> innocuous-seeming statements in the [[State Department]]...


I think you're getting a bit silly there.


- d.