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

[Fred Bauder]

Responses by Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi at gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:58 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
>
>On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>> No, any user or administrator who is following the terms and intent of
>> Biographies of living persons may remove grossly inappropriate material or
>> delete an offending article even if almost everyone else on Wikipedia
>> objects.
>>
>
>The problem is that ArbCom doesn't do content disputes. Do they act as a
>final voice on what violates BLP? Here, there are 3-5 people saying that the
>Crystal Gail Magnum article violates BLP and is an attack page. Having read
>it's deleted form, I'm torn on that. But you have many more people
>disagreeing. In this case, who gets the final decision? Any admin can simply
>delete it, yes--I agree, this is in and of itself needed. If I wrote, "Jimmy
>Bob McGee of Backwater Arkansas sucks off turtles and beat his wife" as an
>article, delete it on sight. But on cases that some disagree on, do we defer
>to the first admin to delete it? What if others say he's wrong? If he won't
>agree to restore the article, it has to go to DRV. Which is good: it's a
>sanity check on rogue actions of deletion.

We are responsible for enforcing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The alternative is OFFICE which is unworkable. If any administrator deletes it and cites Biographies of living persons that is the end of it until the Arbitration Committee says the deletion was unfounded. Yes, you do defer to any administrator who deletes on that basis. However, they should be thoroughly familiar with the policy and be applying it correctly. If they habitually overreach they will soon be in trouble with us.

>The problem here is that people are basically saying any keep or overturn
>deletion opinions are invalid, by invoking BLP. In essence, the argument is
>that any admin can, citing BLP, delete any article and have it stick, even
>if others disagree with the admin's BLP reasoning. The problem obviously is
>that the only way to then stop this--if the admins close the DRV that
>supports retaining/overturning the deletion as "Delete/keep gone per
>BLP"--is to wheel war.

They are invalid if a the deletion was made under BLP. Yes, if they cite BLP it sticks until the Arbitration Committee has ruled otherwise. Anyone who wheelwars in this circumstance will be desysopped without the question of whether BLP was applied properly being considered.

>It reads awfully like people are treating BLP as an I-WIN button in a case
>like this, implying that differing opionions that no BLP vio occurred have
>no credence. The implication is that the opinions of the 3-5 outweigh
>anything else.

It's more like an Eject the Warp Core button. Using it inappropriately will lead to serious trouble. Those who differ are welcome to use the dispute resolution procedures. Those who invoke the policy inappropriately will be straightened out. (All this assumes nerve the Arbitration Committee may not have).

>
>Regards,
>Joe
>http://www.joeszilagyi.com
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>