[WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Ritzman [mailto:ritzman at gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 07:03 PM
>To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info, 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions
>
>On 3/25/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>> No, that's why we have BLP. Malicious material may be reverted and deleted without limit > by any user.
>
>And if it's deleted for that reason and no other admin restores it then fine.
>
>Quoting BLB 3
>
>"Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and
>controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to,
>should delete the article without discussion"
>
>I'm assuming that admins are reasonable people, otherwise they
>shouldn't be admins. Therefore, if admin Foo, speedy deletes a bio
>because he feels that there is no NPOV version to revert to and that
>deletion is reverted by admin BAR, then admin BAR reasonably believes
>that the bio can be made NPOV.
>
>At this point what would be better, to discuss the deletion "in
>process" or have wheel war with the article being deleted and restored
>over and over again?

Yes, discussion is appropriate, if it does not spread libelous or malicious material to another page, which it is extremely likely to do.

Bottom line, the user, whether they are an ordinary user or an administrator, may revert or delete libelous or malicious material without limit, for which they will receive, "Well done". Considerable slack will be cut if they make a mistake or are overly conservative. Users, whether they are an ordinary user or an administrator, who restore or repeatedly insert libelous or malicious material may be be blocked or desysopped. Little slack will be cut if there are obvious problems with the material. If you find yourself in such a "wheelwar", you would be well advised to let the deletion stand if the claim that the material is libelous or malicious is at least colorable. To take an obvious example, if someone has removed a statement that John Siegenthaler played a role in the Kennedy assassination, unless you have multiple reliable sources that the statement is sound, don't put that sort of information back in the article.

As to administrators being presumed to be reasonable, reasonable is as reasonable does. Repeated insertion of libelous or malicious material into a Wikipedia article is not reasonable. Nor are actions taken to block or otherwise discipline users or other administrators who are doing their duty by removing or deleting it.

Fred