-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Raymond [mailto:jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:39 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
On Wed, May 23, 2007 11:36 am, Fred Bauder wrote:
If the person removing or deleting material asserts Biography of living persons as a basis then that policy rules until there is community consensus or an Arbitration Committee decision to the contrary.
So you're essentially saying that an administrator can remove an article completely from view of anyone else, claim BLP regardless of whether there was a violation, and we simply have to live with it until ArbCom gets around to it? Your prior comments seem to indicate that a DRV of the material would not be appropriate, after all, and it's not like anyone's actually allowed to review it.
-Jeff
You get review though dispute resolution ending in arbitration.
Fred
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You get review though dispute resolution ending in arbitration.
You are saying ArbCom will be taking on cases to decide if an article violates BLP?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 23/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You get review though dispute resolution ending in arbitration.
You are saying ArbCom will be taking on cases to decide if an article violates BLP?
Note that in almost all cases (and there are a lot), BLP problems are resolved with invocation of "Don't be stupid" and a good understanding of BLP amongst admins - that is, that no article at all beats a dubious one, and - and this is a point a lot of the people in the Crystal whozis debate don't grasp - that Wikipedia doesn't have to be finished tomorrow, that we're not working to a deadline, that writing an encyclopedia article is not investigative journalism and that having *no article at all* on someone is not a gaping hole in the encyclopedia and it can *wait*.
- d.