On 23/05/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)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.