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

[Todd Allen]

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 at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 07:30 AM
>> To: wikien-l at 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#Crystal_Gail_Mangum
>>
>> 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? 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>   
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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070523/c28f8d1c/attachment.pgp