-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Raymond [mailto:jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:37 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
On Wed, May 23, 2007 9:36 am, Fred Bauder wrote:
That depends on whether they claimed there was a violation. If they claim there is a violation, and you think there was not, follow dispute resolution procedures. Avoid wheelwarring. If they don't claim there was a Biographies of living persons' violation then it is just an ordinary dispute where you should participate in discussions about what to do and see where it goes. If an article does not violate Biographies of living persons, it reverts to the usual decision process regarding deletion. I should say, usual awful process. With respect to your own behavior, I think it is probably better to accept decisions once they are made rather than indefinitely continuing to try to reverse it.
If you're making statements like this before an ArbCom case that specifically discusses this, I'm really rather disturbed by it.
As for the rest, you pretty much avoided my question by essentially saying "if it does violate, it violates. If it doesn't, it doesn't." Well, yeah. The issue is when you have two separate opinions.
-Jeff
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.
Fred
On 23/05/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info 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.
Is that consensus or [[WP:CONSENSUS]] (whatever that is)? In the present case, someone is citing something linked at WP:CONSENSUS and it's pretty damn clear they mean a vote count on DRV.
- d.
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Is that consensus or [[WP:CONSENSUS]] (whatever that is)? In the present case, someone is citing something linked at WP:CONSENSUS and it's pretty damn clear they mean a vote count on DRV.
To be fair, if 3-5 admins say, "This is bogus," and an overwhelming majority say otherwise, odds are the position of the 3-5 in question is the minority and not automagically the right decision. Even senior WPers play by the same rules as everyone else. ;)
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
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
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
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.
That's pretty much the rule Jimbo declared and the ArbCom and really quite a lot of the admins work to, yes. As I said, BLP beats DRV.
- d.
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's pretty much the rule Jimbo declared and the ArbCom and really quite a lot of the admins work to, yes. As I said, BLP beats DRV.
Back to the problem: as an admin, you say [[Joe Szilagyi]] is a BLP vio. Nuke it. Admin Bob says, "No, it wasn't a BLP vio. I will DRV this." He does. 10 people say, "Overturn. No BLP issues. Sourcing good." You and two others say, "BLP vio. Closing as endorsed deletion."
Who is right? Why is your interpretation of BLP more valid than Bob's? If DRV is not a valid place to decide if [[Joe Szilagyi]] is a BLP vio, where is? Who gets to play Solomon? ArbCom? ANI? You? Bob?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info 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.
What venue is appropriate for community consensus to form? DRV? Only ArbCom? Something that non-admins can fully participate in?
The other issue is that on DRV, individuals are simply saying "This is over. 'We' have decided." Who is 'we' and why are they empowered to supercede decisions or views by any others?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com