David Gerard 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.
Of course it hasn't been. WP:BLP allows admins to ignore certain usual rules, but it doesn't prohibit any sort of questioning or reversal of those actions if other editors feel they were incorrect. If I go and delete large sections of [[George W. Bush]] citing WP:BLP, then it does not require a full-blown ArbCom case to reverse me.
-Mark