David Gerard wrote:
On 24/05/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident.
Could some argue that based on this [[Monica Lewinsky]] should be deleted?
I'm sure they could argue anything they got it into their heads to, particularly for the sake of a querulous argument. And, on Wikipedia, probably have.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Which is exactly why we -shouldn't- give a blanket license stating "Do whatever you want, and you're not subject to community censure or an overturn by consensus, only if someone cares enough to take it to ArbCom -and- manages to get it accepted." At the very least, if the ArbCom is going to set itself up as an arbiter of BLP disputes, it should be -required- to accept any such case (especially if the threat of anyone who acts without ArbCom's blessing is banning or desysopping, in this case, ArbCom effectively sets itself up as the only way the matter -can- be resolved.)
I'm not really sure this is the most efficient way to deal with that. The community deals with a lot of things on its own. Sometimes, we need the ArbCom to sort out a particularly nasty mess. More often, consensus swings pretty clearly one way or the other. Taking an -entire class- of articles out of the hands of the community (and don't be fooled, if this does become policy, any edits to BLP's will depend on who first yells "It's a BLP issue!" and becomes immune to reversal until the ArbCom can get around to saying it's not) is a major shift in policy, practice, and basic philosophy, and I think (with all due respect) that such a shift requires more than Fred Bauder saying "I said it's so, now deal with it."