-----Original Message----- From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 02:52 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
Fred Bauder 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.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 07:30 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_23#Cryst...
The article was deleted, and at least one ex-admin is rather vociferously stating that it was due to BLP concerns, such as, "Consensus does not govern Biographies of living personshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons." However, doesn't the decision *if* something violates BLP subject to consensus? Without getting into the specific merits of THIS article, as this also relates to the current Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom about the QZ/Little Fatty BLP issue:
Who gets to make 'final' decisions on whether an article violates BLP, to merit deletion? Certainly, any admin can delete anything, but any and all actions on-wiki are subject to community review and summary overturn if they are found to be violating established and widely *accepted* community standards. If some are trying to establish a new precedent here, that's fine, but could they also please encode this new change in policy to see if they do in fact have the wide support of their administrative and community peers?
Deleting stuff for BLP (the idea, again, not inherently bad if it's a pure hatchet job as *agreed to* by your peers upon widespread review), and then fighting tooth and nail in a backwater virtual ghetto like Deletion Review is not the right way to do things. Be bold and put it on WP:BLP that an admin can delete an article failing given thresholds of the BLP policy. Let's say what a wider group of admins and editors have to say!
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So basically, Fred, what you're saying is, any admin can basically invoke powers equivalent to OFFICE at will, including that anyone who reverses them (even with consensus support!!...) will be automatically desysopped? I don't think that's a great idea, and I think it's a tremendous and unwarranted expansion of BLP's scope.
I have no issue saying we should be exceptionally demanding of good sources in BLP's, and that any unsourced material should be taken out of them sooner rather than later. That's all very good. But there's a reason we restrict unilateral action with no opportunity for review to only Jimbo, the Foundation, and a very few which they may trust to extend that to. Extending that this far, to all admins in general (and even all users!) is a bad, bad idea. Yes, we should act quickly where BLP concerns are invoked, no, that shouldn't be reversed until the situation is cleared up. But it shouldn't be totally irreversible, period. If consensus says "This is not a BLP concern", and OFFICE declines to step in and say "Oh yes it is", then that's the decision.
It is not irreversible, just irreversible pending a full hearing. There is no effective way for OFFICE to do what you suggest.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 02:52 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
Fred Bauder 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.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 07:30 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_23#Cryst...
The article was deleted, and at least one ex-admin is rather vociferously stating that it was due to BLP concerns, such as, "Consensus does not govern Biographies of living personshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons." However, doesn't the decision *if* something violates BLP subject to consensus? Without getting into the specific merits of THIS article, as this also relates to the current Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom about the QZ/Little Fatty BLP issue:
Who gets to make 'final' decisions on whether an article violates BLP, to merit deletion? Certainly, any admin can delete anything, but any and all actions on-wiki are subject to community review and summary overturn if they are found to be violating established and widely *accepted* community standards. If some are trying to establish a new precedent here, that's fine, but could they also please encode this new change in policy to see if they do in fact have the wide support of their administrative and community peers?
Deleting stuff for BLP (the idea, again, not inherently bad if it's a pure hatchet job as *agreed to* by your peers upon widespread review), and then fighting tooth and nail in a backwater virtual ghetto like Deletion Review is not the right way to do things. Be bold and put it on WP:BLP that an admin can delete an article failing given thresholds of the BLP policy. Let's say what a wider group of admins and editors have to say!
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So basically, Fred, what you're saying is, any admin can basically invoke powers equivalent to OFFICE at will, including that anyone who reverses them (even with consensus support!!...) will be automatically desysopped? I don't think that's a great idea, and I think it's a tremendous and unwarranted expansion of BLP's scope.
I have no issue saying we should be exceptionally demanding of good sources in BLP's, and that any unsourced material should be taken out of them sooner rather than later. That's all very good. But there's a reason we restrict unilateral action with no opportunity for review to only Jimbo, the Foundation, and a very few which they may trust to extend that to. Extending that this far, to all admins in general (and even all users!) is a bad, bad idea. Yes, we should act quickly where BLP concerns are invoked, no, that shouldn't be reversed until the situation is cleared up. But it shouldn't be totally irreversible, period. If consensus says "This is not a BLP concern", and OFFICE declines to step in and say "Oh yes it is", then that's the decision.
It is not irreversible, just irreversible pending a full hearing. There is no effective way for OFFICE to do what you suggest.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Of course there is. Jimbo has OFFICE, so does the Foundation. If they place an OFFICE tag on the article, along with "Any creation or unprotection of this page must first be discussed with the office", that's the end of the story. But they decline to do that except in very rare cases, and that's a Good Thing-it is and generally should be up to the community to decide.
Now, that's not even to say I'm saying it would be bad for ArbCom to decide. In many cases, that really might be the best thing. But I'm not sure it would be in all cases, nor am I sure about ArbCom's area of authority extending over content issues without so much as a discussion of whether or not that should happen. I might, myself, even support such a step. But it shouldn't just happen.