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
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.
If you could say that on the current querulous DRV, that would be nice to make clear.
- d.
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
David Gerard wrote:
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.
If you could say that on the current querulous DRV, that would be nice to make clear.
- d.
_
I'll go further: I want a framed copy on my user page. -kc-
On 5/23/07, 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.
This is good advice, Fred. The question comes up though, that I originally posited, of what if people disagree with that decision--even other admins? What is/should be the appropriate public recourse process or method for questioning and reviewing such a decision? Let's say [[Joe Szilagyi]] gets made and then deleted as a BLP vio by Admin #1. Admin #2 disagrees with this decision.
Then what?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
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.
Todd,
While the below sounds like a reasonable concern, I suggest that you're missing an important point. If a Wikipedian encounters something being published through the site that looks potentially libelous, they should remove the content, and that content should stay removed, until all reasonable concerns have been addressed, and anything that needs fixing has been fixed.
There still seems to be this idea that potential libel, potential copyright infringement, etc. should continue to be published onsite until it has been voted off in strict accordance to bylaw something or other of the policy of the week.
Reversing the removal of this kind of material is just as bad as the original use of the site to publish it. We need to hold accountable any admin who uses Wikipedia to publish potential libel. That's not giving every user "office powers". It's a statement that someone who thinks reversing BLP removals just because there's no policy against it, or because the user didn't cite the correct combination of letters when removing it, shouldn't continue to be an administrator.
Jkelly
Quoting Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
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.
jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Todd,
While the below sounds like a reasonable concern, I suggest that you're missing an important point. If a Wikipedian encounters something being published through the site that looks potentially libelous, they should remove the content, and that content should stay removed, until all reasonable concerns have been addressed, and anything that needs fixing has been fixed.
There still seems to be this idea that potential libel, potential copyright infringement, etc. should continue to be published onsite until it has been voted off in strict accordance to bylaw something or other of the policy of the week.
Reversing the removal of this kind of material is just as bad as the original use of the site to publish it. We need to hold accountable any admin who uses Wikipedia to publish potential libel. That's not giving every user "office powers". It's a statement that someone who thinks reversing BLP removals just because there's no policy against it, or because the user didn't cite the correct combination of letters when removing it, shouldn't continue to be an administrator.
JkellyQuoting Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jkelly, did you actually read what I said?
What I said is that it should -stay gone- until discussion takes place. However, my concern is that Fred effectively said that even if the matter is discussed, and consensus is "This is not problematic, it does not violate policy", anyone-even who acts on that consensus-would be penalized for doing so.
I agree that if someone brings up BLP concerns, we should err on the side of caution until the matter is discussed, and that no one who acts on a BLP concern should be reversed unilaterally. But it shouldn't be closed to discussion or immune to consensus.
Todd,
I'm not sure that it makes sense at this point to use the word 'consensus' at all when referring to en:. Regardless, if you mean "such that every single person involved, including the editor who originally raised the concern, agrees that the problem is fixed", we are probably in agreement about what should happen. If you are using "consensus" to mean "51% of the voters at Deletion Review", then we don't agree.
Your complaint about "giving every user office powers" suggests that you are using the word 'consensus' to mean something more like the latter. You are assuming in your concern that the person raising the concern cannot be satisfied that the problem is fixed, and you want it to be possible to outvote them. That's precisely the problem that needs fixing, and taking away the ability to undelete from some users who don't seem to be using it wisely is one way of tackling that problem.
Jkelly
Quoting Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
What I said is that it should -stay gone- until discussion takes place. However, my concern is that Fred effectively said that even if the matter is discussed, and consensus is "This is not problematic, it does not violate policy", anyone-even who acts on that consensus-would be penalized for doing so.
I agree that if someone brings up BLP concerns, we should err on the side of caution until the matter is discussed, and that no one who acts on a BLP concern should be reversed unilaterally. But it shouldn't be closed to discussion or immune to consensus.
jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Todd,
I'm not sure that it makes sense at this point to use the word 'consensus' at all when referring to en:. Regardless, if you mean "such that every single person involved, including the editor who originally raised the concern, agrees that the problem is fixed", we are probably in agreement about what should happen. If you are using "consensus" to mean "51% of the voters at Deletion Review", then we don't agree.
Your complaint about "giving every user office powers" suggests that you are using the word 'consensus' to mean something more like the latter. You are assuming in your concern that the person raising the concern cannot be satisfied that the problem is fixed, and you want it to be possible to outvote them. That's precisely the problem that needs fixing, and taking away the ability to undelete from some users who don't seem to be using it wisely is one way of tackling that problem.
JkellyQuoting Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
What I said is that it should -stay gone- until discussion takes place. However, my concern is that Fred effectively said that even if the matter is discussed, and consensus is "This is not problematic, it does not violate policy", anyone-even who acts on that consensus-would be penalized for doing so.
I agree that if someone brings up BLP concerns, we should err on the side of caution until the matter is discussed, and that no one who acts on a BLP concern should be reversed unilaterally. But it shouldn't be closed to discussion or immune to consensus.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's a false dichotomy fallacy. (We have an article on that.) Consensus is not a simple majority vote, but it's not unanimity either. (If I had meant "a simple majority vote", or "a unanimous agreement", I would have said that. I'm familiar with the terms.)
On 23/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
What I said is that it should -stay gone- until discussion takes place. However, my concern is that Fred effectively said that even if the matter is discussed, and consensus is "This is not problematic, it does not violate policy", anyone-even who acts on that consensus-would be penalized for doing so. I agree that if someone brings up BLP concerns, we should err on the side of caution until the matter is discussed, and that no one who acts on a BLP concern should be reversed unilaterally. But it shouldn't be closed to discussion or immune to consensus.
FWIW, the last actually stupid case of BLP concern I was involved with was the one I mentioned on the list earlier, where an editor was concerned that we were saying that [[David Gaiman]] (a somewhat famous Scientologist, more in the 1960s than presently) was the father of [[Neil Gaiman]] (a really quite famous comics and fantasy writer). We had to take it all the way through showing it was likely the case to showing it was clearly the case to showing this was public knowledge and neither acted in any way ashamed of it to multiple newspaper articles. Apparently we're still at risk of Neil Gaiman getting upset that we associate him in some way with Scientology. [*] But the articles do in fact associate the two now. (FFS.)
- d.
[*] Scientology-watchers note that Neil never, ever speaks of Scientology and politely declines to discuss the matter in any manner whatsoever. Finding a source for such a negative is, of course, difficult.
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.