On 7/2/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
Unfortunately, this is not the first time you've
"stirred" something
up unnecessarily as a result of your failure to properly understand
policy or the facts of a situation. A couple of months ago, on this
list, you were pushing an odd interpretation of the WP:BLP policy
that allegedly held that, if any admin claimed that BLP was being
violated, and deleted an article as a result, then this decision was
unreviewable and unassailable, except by a full-blown Arbcom case,
even if the original admin was completely wrongheaded about it.
(And, given that somebody recently even attempted a serious argument
to the effect that [[Jesus Christ]] was covered by BLP because he
rose from the grave, one can't be sure of the policy always being
applied sensibly; the checks and balances of normal policy and
process are important for helping this.) You were claiming (with no
justification) that all of this was provided in the BLP policy, but
had to back down from that, and the policy now is that normal process
such as DRV can in fact be applied, though there's a presumption in
favor of keeping deleted in the case of BLPs anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnj…
Kirill