Wikipedia talk:BLP deletion process

message: #It increases the workload of ArbCom - probably by a very significant amount.  This is bad.  ArbCom already has too much work.
#It requires ArbCom to make content decisions - while they will "quasi"-address these from time to time, they strongly avoid it.  They're likely to get really pissed off (and possibly uncooperative) if we slap a bunch of inappropriate work on them
#It fails to really address the disputed area.  The disputes aren't clearly frivolous deletions (do we really need a policy to say "de-sysop people who delete Pythagorean Theorem claiming BLP"? I hope not) nor are they clearcut - clearcut ones are G10s.  
#The area that needs to be addressed is where people are using their own morality to decide whether articles are harmful or not - we can't sanction people who are acting in good faith and making reasonable decisions in a grey area - and make no mistake, most of the strongly disputed deletions are on articles where a quasi-reasonable person acting in good faith could come to the conclusion that the article is reasonable, or unreasonable.  These are people proposing speedy deletion of Monica Lewinsky because her article talks too much about how she blew some old guy, or Anna Ayala because she is basically famous only for being a con artist.  
Since I don't condone bitching without offering suggestions, let me set out where I think the answer lies:
#Delete (and salt?) BLP violations that don't meet G10
#Template the talk page with your name and (where appropriate) some information on why you speedied
#No speedy undeletions, except in crazy cases (See: Pythagorean Theorem)
#Anyone wanting to undelete an article should talk to the deleting Admin first, if at all possible
#If people are still in dispute bring it to some appropriate discussion forum (which might need to be developed at WP:BLP/N or such).  Realistically, we're not "immoralising them forever" - realistically in any "disputed" cases, the top google hits apart from Wikipedia are going to say the same thing anyhow.  Or discussions could be moved to someplace that isn't well found by google, and (probably) blanked after discussion.  
Remember what we're talking about are "Well sourced articles" anyways - The claim that we're harming a person by discussing what'd be the top google hit for their name if there was no Wikipedia article, which'll be blanked in a week anyhow, is pretty frivolous. WilyD 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a better starting point, if nothing else. Where the current proposal is opaque, it is transparent, and where the current proposal is convoluted, it's straightforward. I am already of the opinion that the 2007 BLP dial-back (I guess that's more NPOV than saying "crackdown") is a further wedge between editors and admins, in terms of power differential expressed as a knowledge differential. We already have a lot of back-channel stuff going on wrt to BLPs as there has, I assume, always been with speedies and other matters. With this proposal, important discussions are being deliberately moved to the back-channels. I'm also disturbed a bit by the moralizing that accompanies some BLP discussions; there's an AFD current that appeals to "human decency" instead of policy. Perhaps the non-policy WP:DIGNITY was intended, but when you start to wonder if you'll be seen as a bad person for expressing a contrary opinion, I think things are out of hand. --Dhartung | Talk 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with this proposal

message: *Perhaps the last weeks of discussion will lead to a greater responsibility and common sense in application of our present procedures. Maybe I am not a good admin, as I am certainly not an experienced one, but I would not trust myself or any one person with a decision in a difficult or non-obvious situation of this sort--in either direction. A group decision will always get more respect from the community. 
*However, if we still cannot find a way of proceeding, it will represent a continuing disagreement on the principles, not just the process. One view, represented on WikiEn-L more than here, is that we should accept he judgement of the responsible major media, such as the NYT, Washington Post, Guardian, BBC, and PBS--they are professionals at knowing what is acceptable to the general community, and they are very careful indeed about libel: if they think something suitable, so should we amateurs. The opposite, is we should disregard the media, and hold ourselves to the more stringent standard expressed perhaps in the US by the C S Monitor, of being above all considerations that might in any one's mind resemble sensationalism or invasion of privacy; as judged by any established and generally responsible member of the community.  If this is true, and there cannot be compromise on a middle standard, the recourse is to split Wikipedia: an admittedly recentist WP accepting any sourcing the media accept, and printing whatever may be legal, and a stricter admittedly censored WP that might find itself limited to coverage of the dead. DGG 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can just see it: "Transwiki to WikiDead." YechielMan 23:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there's disagreement - BLP is fundamentally about controlling information based on morality.  Since we all have different morals - we all have different ideas of what should be done.  Don't worry about trusting yourself or anyone else - any action you take can always be undone.  And that's what we need for the super secret BLP speedy deletion criterion - a way to undo it we can all agree upon. WilyD 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: optimism & pessimism

message: This is a boatload of legalistically-worded instruction creep. Simplify, man! Radiant! 08:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think I'd go so far to say that the existence of this proposal constitutes instruction creep.  Administrators are already empowered to delete harmful articles, as established by very successful existing practice.  The arbitration committee will undoubtedly have comments to make about the way in which disputes should be handled in delicate cases.  So consensus modified by adoption of best practice is likely to resolve any uncertainties. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: The author of this proposal writes above that "this proposed process appears to be the best available method".  On the contrary, as said above, it is nigh on the worst policy proposal of the year.  It incorporates everything that is bad about the recent events, including mis-use of administrator tools to win discussions by fiat, exclusion of non-administrators from discussions, involvement of off-wiki discussion fora that not everyone has access to, and byzantine procedural hoops to jump through before content can even be mentioned; and it excludes pretty much all of the good ideas that people have had.I can almost see the "rouge administrators" waiting in the wings to delete this page, citing simply "WP:BLP" as the reason for deletion and demanding that John254 present an argument to the arbitration committee via a private IRC channel before allowing its restoration to even be discussed, simply in order to prove the point of exactly how wrongheaded and bad this proposal is.This proposal is so bad that the egregiously erroneous idea that deletion is the only way to solve the problems with articles is almost a minor problem with it. Uncle G 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Uncle G stated it even more strongly than I would have, but got the basic idea quite right, as usual. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is consensus for the rejected tag, DGG 03:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it - I'd rather fix it than just leave the enormous problem unsolved. WilyD 03:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst policy proposal of the year