| Revision as of 06:00, 19 January 2008 editFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 editsm →Request for guidance: tweak← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:05, 19 January 2008 edit undoTyping monkey (talk | contribs)865 edits →Request for guidance: request protection of articleNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| : (The emphasis here, lest anyone take this to extremes, is if there were consensus in an appropriate forum that there is indeed a probable BLP problem, then we deal with it appropriately. It's not a green light to edit war, edit over protection, or such during arb cases, it's a one way ticket that communally agreed decisions on BLP concerns are a bit more important than edit wars and arbcom cases. They can more easily affect people in real life. Thus recognizing the importance of BLP when rightly used.) ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 05:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC) | : (The emphasis here, lest anyone take this to extremes, is if there were consensus in an appropriate forum that there is indeed a probable BLP problem, then we deal with it appropriately. It's not a green light to edit war, edit over protection, or such during arb cases, it's a one way ticket that communally agreed decisions on BLP concerns are a bit more important than edit wars and arbcom cases. They can more easily affect people in real life. Thus recognizing the importance of BLP when rightly used.) ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 05:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't know why I was under the impression that the ] was protected pending outcome of this arbitration. Since it is not, and given the furor surrounding the subject, perhaps it should be.] - ] 06:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:05, 19 January 2008
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.
Request for guidance
I recently closed the 3rd AfD debate for this article, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matt Sanchez (3rd nomination) Per that, the consensus of the decision was both to keep the article, but alleviate BLP concerns, by taking a hard look at the sources involved, and make sure the article complies with WP:BLP. When I attempted to do this (full admission, the article is fully protected), I was convinced to self-revert, as I was told that this fell under the perview of the ArbCom. Can ArbCom please provide guidance on how best to implement the AfD consensus? Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BLP within its limits, is fairly non-negotiable. We do not allow unsourced negative material to stand for example, and biographies should be written with an eye to being conservative if there is doubt. I can understand why editors might be hesitant to deal with it if it's protected and at Arbcom, but if there is a consensus at BLP/N or its talk page that there is a genuine or probable BLP violation, I would consider that appropriate to deal with whether or not the page is protected or being discussed at Arbcom. Take it there and if there is consensus, deal with it.
- (The emphasis here, lest anyone take this to extremes, is if there were consensus in an appropriate forum that there is indeed a probable BLP problem, then we deal with it appropriately. It's not a green light to edit war, edit over protection, or such during arb cases, it's a one way ticket that communally agreed decisions on BLP concerns are a bit more important than edit wars and arbcom cases. They can more easily affect people in real life. Thus recognizing the importance of BLP when rightly used.) FT2 05:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know why I was under the impression that the biographical article in question was protected pending outcome of this arbitration. Since it is not, and given the furor surrounding the subject, perhaps it should be.Typing Monkey - 06:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)