[WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review

[David Gerard]

On 23/05/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_23#Crystal_Gail_Mangum


Hah. I was going to post this one myself earlier. (I deleted the
article. See my talk page for fun on the subject. It's a group of
editors who can't distinguish between an encyclopedia and
investigative journalism.


> 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
> persons<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons>."
> However, doesn't the decision *if* something violates BLP subject to
> consensus?


Not when "consensus" means "ten partisans voting 'bugger the rules' on
a page somewhere."


> Who gets to make 'final' decisions on whether an article violates BLP, to
> merit deletion?


We have a really harsh BLP policy for good, long and painful reason.
But this question could do with addressing, so I flagged it as a
matter of concern in the QZ arbitration.

The question is that both views are important. But is there any way to
reconcile them?


- d.