[WikiEN-l] ArbCom Legislation

[Ron Ritzman]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:


> And now we are seeing an expanded "enforcement" provision come into
> place. I think, before we worry about -enforcing- BLP more strictly,
> it needs a good reining in. It needs to be strictly defined as "no
> unsourced negative information," and perhaps "no undue weight to
> negative information."

Perhaps it's the "undue weight" clause that's causing most if the
controversy over BLPs and enforcement. If a negative fact is unsourced
then it's a no brainer. It goes and it stays out until sourced. No
consensus, no 3RR, no "bold/revert/discuss" and you can LART anybody
who tries to put it back in.

However, if the negative fact is properly sourced and the issue is
"undue weight", then that's subjective and "reasonable" editors can
disagree on it. However, with the BLP policy, the side with the admin
bit automatically "wins" because he can remove it and invoke the magic
word "BLP". This may alienate the "reasonable" editors who think it's
not undue weight.