On 5/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@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