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

[Ray Saintonge]

Fred Bauder wrote:

>  
>
>>From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen at gmail.com]
>>    
>>
>>1. Set up some kind of secondary arbitration committee, which deals
>>solely with BLP-type issues.
>>
>>Pros: This won't put more load onto an already heavily-burdened ArbCom,
>>and could be a good way to resolve such matters without them blowing up
>>(like they tend to do now.)
>>
>>Cons: Since we do have so many living bios, a body like this could still
>>become overwhelmed if it's responsible for all such disputes. It also
>>takes a lot of decision-making out of the hands of the community at
>>large, which I imagine a lot of people would object to.
>>    
>>
>We want to move toward more responsibilities for users and administrators, away from the arbcom bottleneck. Administrators naturally form committees by their choices of what to attend to. What I would look for is development of a group of administrators who actively monitor BLP problems.
>
Whatever one thinks of Arbcom, its members only have so much time to do 
so many things.  With so many BLPs it takes more than just monitoring.  
Anyone can monitor and report.  The problem is what to do when the 
material has been found.  Certainly, something needs to be done, but a 
heavy-handed approach tends to alienate many who would never dream of 
putting up questionable material themselves.  For them, maintaining an 
atmosphere of fairness is important, and that fairness applies to 
editors and living subjects alike.

I think that the number of situations where the kind of authoritarian 
approach that you previously supported would be needed are not that 
frequent.  Most can be settled amicably well before they get to that.  
Even if there is some justification for that approach its importance 
must not be magnified to the extent that it was earlier in this thread. 

Some sort of committees to deal with the problem pages would probably be 
a good thing.  Choose the committee members from trusted individuals 
with a track record for keeping their cool, and for being able to 
rewrite sensitive topics in a balanced way.  It is rare that a 
legitimately debatable artiicle needs immediate deletion, but the reader 
including the subject himself needs to be cautioned that there are known 
problems with the article, and that steps are being taken to rectify the 
situation

Serious action will still be necessary sometimes, but adherence to 
strict process beomes most important in just that kind of situation.

>>2. Leave it as-is. (That's always an option, after all.)
>>
>>Pros: Doesn't really require any change at all. We can always hope the
>>community will, with time, come to some sort of agreement or consensus.
>>
>>Cons: "As-is" seems to be causing a lot of heated disagreements between
>>very sincere editors, and many argue that it's also resulting in (take
>>your pick) the retention of a lot of unacceptable BLP articles, or
>>alternatively in the deletion of a lot of perfectly acceptable ones.
>>    
>>
>Some of the invocations of BLP, including mine, are not really a good fit with the policy. If BLP doesn't apply we need to rapidly determine that and not use it to solve problems it's not fitted for. Rather focus on whatever the real problem is and discuss it.
>
Yes.  And more importantly, Arbcom is not suited to quick action.  When 
it does so it damages its own credibility, and our confidence in its 
objectivity.

>>3. Ask OFFICE (Jimbo or the Foundation) to take a more active role.
>>
>>Pros: These are people who are generally highly-trusted for good
>>judgment, and really do have the authority to act unilaterally if they
>>believe it to be necessary. When OFFICE takes an action, there's
>>absolutely no doubt-you don't touch it until and unless you talk to them
>>and they say it's alright.
>>
>>Cons: Wouldn't scale well. Those responsible for implementing office
>>actions have a lot of other responsibilities as well, and it would
>>probably become an inordinate demand on their time to ask them to deal
>>with all such cases. Also takes a lot of decision-making power out of
>>the hands of the community, which again, may become controversial.
>>    
>>
>Doesn't scale well at all unless more people were hired and they took an active interest in details. I would much rather focus on improving user and administrative handling of these issues.
>
The biggest problem with involving Jimbo in this is the fly-by nature of 
his activity.  This is to be expected with all the travelling that he 
does.  Those who must deal with problems as they arise need to be 
available when the problem becomes evident, not a week later.

>>4. Clarify the BLP policy. There seems to be a serious dichotomy between
>>those who interpret it largely as written ("unsourced or poorly-sourced
>>controversial information about a living person should be removed
>>on-sight, and if that's all there is and has ever been to an article, it
>>should be deleted at once") and those who seem to interpret an extended
>>version of it ("we shouldn't have negative biographies of living
>>persons, even if that really -does- reflect the balance of coverage by
>>reliable sources.")
>>
>>Pros: I think, no matter which one of the other solutions we choose, we
>>should do this. More than anything, the problem seems to be between
>>those who say "BLP means what the BLP page says it means" and those who
>>say "Well, there's more to it than that." If there is more to it than
>>that, it should lay that out explicitly.
>>
>>Cons: Such a discussion would probably be a heated, difficult one, as
>>we've seen. However, I think it's necessary, even so-better to have one
>>such discussion than rehash it again and again every time such an issue
>>comes up.
>>    
>>
>We need to focus on the issue BLP was intended to address, poorly sourced controversial information. We can't write a balanced article about a life marred by tragic error.
>
Sure, but each article's survival depends on a balance of 
probabilities.  There can be no one shoe fits all for all articles.  We 
can't simply draw a line in the sand to separate the good articles from 
the bad. 

>>5. Change AfD to default to "delete" if a discussion on a BLP comes out
>>no consensus and the nomination was based on BLP concerns. A clear
>>consensus to keep would be required to keep in such cases.
>>
>>Pros: This was suggested before, and seemed to have at least a decent
>>degree of support. Could ease some concerns about marginal bios being
>>kept. Leaves the decision in the hands of the community (it just changes
>>what the default is if the community comes to no clear decision).
>>
>>Cons: Might not be able to achieve a genuine consensus. Could also
>>result in good bios being discarded, especially when (as often happens)
>>an article is greatly improved midway through an AfD, resulting in
>>earlier arguments leaning toward "delete" and later ones toward "keep",
>>and the whole thing coming out with no clear consensus.
>>    
>>
>If BLP is mentioned in a deletion debate the closer needs to consider whether the policy applies, and if it does apply it.
>
Yes, but again we need to avoid artificial AfD rules of thumb.  That's 
not the best place for finding equitable solutions.

Ec