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.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Raymond [mailto:jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:20 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
On 23/05/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Not just any administrator, but any user may delete grossly inappropriate material which violates the Biography of living persons policy. They may revert without limit to keep the material out. An admistrator who blocks them for that behavior will be desysopped. Any administrator may delete and protect against recreation an article which violates Biographies of living persons. An administrator who reverts that action, whether or not they have community support, will be desyopped.
That's a great message, but fails to answer any questions. for instance, when articles do not violate BLP, but admins force the deletions anyway, what happens?
-Jeff
-- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly because you kind of get the impression she sang every song either about or to her cats. They seem to be the driving force in most of her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
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.
I woulda called it obvious myself, and I believe another arb said the same thing in rejecting the previous case.
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.
Not really - it's whether votes override policy.
- d.
On Wed, May 23, 2007 10:41 am, David Gerard wrote:
I woulda called it obvious myself, and I believe another arb said the same thing in rejecting the previous case.
They're different, but it's not something to discuss here anymore.
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.
Not really - it's whether votes override policy.
Yeah, but if the policy is misinterpreted, then what?
-Jeff