-----Original Message----- From: Trebor Rowntree [mailto:trebor.rowntree@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 03:11 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
This just goes round in circles. Admins can delete unsourced or attack articles based on BLP concerns. This can then be reviewed. The review should be closed based on consensus, not votes. But consensus is subjective, people judge it based on who they think has the stronger argument. Those who feel that the article should be deleted think that the consensus is to keep deleted for the BLP issues; those who feel the article should exist think the consensus is to undelete it, because the fact the article is sourced means that BLP isn't an issue. Both sides seem utterly convinced that they're indisputably correct, and spend most of the time talking past each other.
As I see it, at some point the goal of being a perfectly neutral encyclopaedia and the goal of not being dicks can't coincide; the dispute is over where the line should be drawn.
It does not run in a circle. If BLP is invoked the article remains deleted until it is determined by the arbitration committee that BLP does not apply.
Fred
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It does not run in a circle. If BLP is invoked the article remains deleted until it is determined by the arbitration committee that BLP does not apply.
What other cases and articles has this happened in, before, with this method?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It does not run in a circle. If BLP is invoked the article remains deleted until it is determined by the arbitration committee that BLP does not apply.
This is news to me. I don't recall this happening, and thought the ArbCom stayed away from content disputes. Surely whether BLP applies is a community decision?
On 5/23/07, Trebor Rowntree trebor.rowntree@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It does not run in a circle. If BLP is invoked the article remains deleted until it is determined by the arbitration committee that BLP does not apply.
This is news to me. I don't recall this happening, and thought the ArbCom stayed away from content disputes. Surely whether BLP applies is a community decision?
Though I am unhappy with Fred's stated policy that ArbCom is now the arbiter if BLP is invoked, I tend to agree with him that applying current "community consensus" process to BLP applicability and other highly contentious topics isn't working so well.
I think we're seeing signs both of mob activity and of lone holdouts / marginal fringes holding up process. When you have this simultaneously, it's not a sign that the process works, it's a sign that there's a structural problem.
Fred Bauder wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Trebor Rowntree [mailto:trebor.rowntree@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 03:11 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
This just goes round in circles. Admins can delete unsourced or attack articles based on BLP concerns. This can then be reviewed. The review should be closed based on consensus, not votes. But consensus is subjective, people judge it based on who they think has the stronger argument. Those who feel that the article should be deleted think that the consensus is to keep deleted for the BLP issues; those who feel the article should exist think the consensus is to undelete it, because the fact the article is sourced means that BLP isn't an issue. Both sides seem utterly convinced that they're indisputably correct, and spend most of the time talking past each other.
As I see it, at some point the goal of being a perfectly neutral encyclopaedia and the goal of not being dicks can't coincide; the dispute is over where the line should be drawn.
It does not run in a circle. If BLP is invoked the article remains deleted until it is determined by the arbitration committee that BLP does not apply.
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
Is that to state, then, that every BLP deletion which is challenged will require an arbitration request?
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It does not run in a circle. If BLP is invoked the article remains deleted until it is determined by the arbitration committee that BLP does not apply.
This seems needlessly heavy-handed, and gives too much leverage to deletionists to cry BLP in marginal situations.
I would prefer someting like allowing a consensus of BLP-aware and sensitive admins to reinstate the article. If the normal DRV process is too clumsy and likely to lead to BLP violations there has to be a suitable middle ground we can find, rather than funnelling all these through Arbcom.
I've been running some concerns around in my head for a bit, and this brings one of them up to the front. I'm wondering if structurally, we're at the point that a lot of things are too big for admin+involved user consensus, particularly contentious topics like these. Arbcom doesn't seem structurally set up, or to functionally be a good impedance match, for taking all those things on. Perhaps we need an intermediate level of "administration" here.
On 23/05/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
This seems needlessly heavy-handed, and gives too much leverage to deletionists to cry BLP in marginal situations.
In practice, it tends not to be a problem.
(I thought the preferred term of abuse for me was "radical inclusionist" ...)
I would prefer someting like allowing a consensus of BLP-aware and sensitive admins to reinstate the article. If the normal DRV process is too clumsy and likely to lead to BLP violations there has to be a suitable middle ground we can find, rather than funnelling all these through Arbcom.
And this is what actually happens in practice.
(Really, it is.)
I've been running some concerns around in my head for a bit, and this brings one of them up to the front. I'm wondering if structurally, we're at the point that a lot of things are too big for admin+involved user consensus, particularly contentious topics like these. Arbcom doesn't seem structurally set up, or to functionally be a good impedance match, for taking all those things on. Perhaps we need an intermediate level of "administration" here.
No, at the moment the problem is that people really think you can outvote fundamental content policies.
- d.
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No, at the moment the problem is that people really think you can outvote fundamental content policies.
But where is the fundamental content policy that advocates deletion of _sourced_ articles about individuals famous for negative reasons? I'm not saying it's wrong, but I don't see it in the fundamental content policies.
On 23/05/07, Trebor Rowntree trebor.rowntree@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No, at the moment the problem is that people really think you can outvote fundamental content policies.
But where is the fundamental content policy that advocates deletion of _sourced_ articles about individuals famous for negative reasons? I'm not saying it's wrong, but I don't see it in the fundamental content policies.
Is the fame itself notable? This is explained in some detail in WP:BLP.
e.g. I have (on request of the subject) zapped an article on the alleged girlfriend of an MP (she may well have been) who had been in a couple of newspapers. The article was immaculately sourced, and it was still basically an attack piece on someone of no particular fame at all. The references section was longer than the text. Fucksake, they even looked her up on the electoral roll. The article was zapped and killed and salted and jumped up and down upon, and that was absolutely the proper course of action. If she does something herself, rather than merely having the misfortune of being linked to someone famous, that might be worth an article; but it hasn't happened yet.
It's not just sourcing - it's that the incidents or events themselves are notable. And the article doesn't have to be written tomorrow, and insistence on keeping it in RIGHT NOW is deeply missing the point.
- d.
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/05/07, Trebor Rowntree trebor.rowntree@gmail.com wrote:
But where is the fundamental content policy that advocates deletion of _sourced_ articles about individuals famous for negative reasons? I'm
not
saying it's wrong, but I don't see it in the fundamental content
policies.
Is the fame itself notable? This is explained in some detail in WP:BLP.
<snip> It's not just sourcing - it's that the incidents or events themselves are notable. And the article doesn't have to be written tomorrow, and insistence on keeping it in RIGHT NOW is deeply missing the point.
I broadly agree. But I'm still not seeing anything related to _deletion_ of these biographies in BLP. It says to "include *only* material relevant to their notability", and to pare back to a version that "completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic"; it doesn't actually say to zap them unless they're unsourced. At the moment, BLP is being quoted in support of positions in situations it doesn't explicitly say anything about.