On 23/05/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
This seems needlessly heavy-handed, and gives too much leverage to deletionists to cry BLP in marginal situations.
In practice, it tends not to be a problem.
(I thought the preferred term of abuse for me was "radical inclusionist" ...)
I would prefer someting like allowing a consensus of BLP-aware and sensitive admins to reinstate the article. If the normal DRV process is too clumsy and likely to lead to BLP violations there has to be a suitable middle ground we can find, rather than funnelling all these through Arbcom.
And this is what actually happens in practice.
(Really, it is.)
I've been running some concerns around in my head for a bit, and this brings one of them up to the front. I'm wondering if structurally, we're at the point that a lot of things are too big for admin+involved user consensus, particularly contentious topics like these. Arbcom doesn't seem structurally set up, or to functionally be a good impedance match, for taking all those things on. Perhaps we need an intermediate level of "administration" here.
No, at the moment the problem is that people really think you can outvote fundamental content policies.
- d.