New discussion started on BLP, The Real Thing, or more wikidrama? Options

[Daniel Brandt]

A discussion has opened on possible changes in BLP that would tilt AfDs for BLPs in the direction of "delete" as the default, instead of "keep."

I suspect that something along these lines will be implemented as official policy within the next few weeks. I also predict that it will be sufficiently watered down so that the new AfD on my bio will be a close one. The cabal will want my bio deleted — I think they already feel this way — and will unceremoniously squish the next DennyColt who shows up to frontload the process. With the emails flying behind the scenes, there is a good chance that my bio will get deleted and salted.

However, the policy itself will represent only a minor improvement. I may decide that while it barely got my bio deleted, it won't be of much help to any future BLP victims, and I'll be tempted to file a lawsuit anyway. The damages I'll claim have to do with the fact that it took me 19 months of hard work to get my bio taken down, and I took a lot of abuse along the way. (Just today, for example, David Gerard called me a "sociopath.")

If my bio is deleted, it would forestall an appeal by me to the Foundation Board of Trustees, but it won't necessarily preclude a lawsuit by me against Jimbo and the Foundation.

[GlassBeadGame]

Any revision will be fundamentally flawed because they will approach it from an internal WP perspective. In order to work whatever they come up with will have to not please the "community" but be acceptable to complete strangers to WP process, values and ends. The answer cannot be found in WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. The answer is not to be found in WP at all. They need to assume the viewpoint of a person who aggrieved by the article.

What is needed is a process that is outside, neutral and independent. I would propose something like the process below:

1) Notice
The creator of an BLP must make reasonable efforts to inform the subject about the existence of the article. These efforts should be documented in the article talk page. If the subject provides objections to the article the article will deleted pending the outcome of the processes provided below:

2) Review Panel
If the subject feels that she/he not sufficiently notable enough to warrant the intrusion of the article she may be given an opportunity to have the matter reviewed by an independent panel. What I have in mind is similar to the "God Committees" that hospitals have for treatment/termination decisions. The panel would consist of trusted neutral and independent experts on this issue. They would not be appointed by Mr. Wales or elected by the "community." That would never be acceptable to an aggrieved BLP subject. They would administered by an independent entity such as the American Arbitration Association or various other professional dispute resolution providers. The panel member would be something like historians or journalists, people who have expertise in determining if someone is "notable". They would work off of written submissions of the creator/editors and the BLP subject. The panel would be charged with determining if an article is justified balancing the public interest in inclusion against the intrusion into the privacy of the BLP subject. If the Panel determines that an article is not appropriate it is deleted and salted without further recourse. If the panel determines an article is justified the BLP subject may appeal to the full arbitration process described below.

3) Full Arbitration
Any Subject of a BLP who feels that she has been defamed, portrayed in a false light or believes her privacy has been invaded may apply for arbitration of the matter. The Arbitrator shall be selected and governed by the policies of the American Arbitration Association, or other independent provider. The parties to dispute shall be the BLP subjects, the creator/editors of the article, any administrators closing discussion of internal processes concerning the article and a representative of the WMF. The arbitration will permit legal counsel, a record by transcript, permit testimony under oath, experts witnesses and documentary evidence. The arbitrator shall provide a written opinion elaborating the decision. The decision shall be limited to the status (delete or permit) of the article, the article's content and the appropriate level of article protection, if any.

The expense of administrating these processes shall be borne by the WMF. Parties shall bear there own respective costs for counsel and experts.

Do not confuse this independent process with any of the flawed and convoluted process, including ArbCom that exist currently in WP.

I would contribute this suggested process to the WP discussion but I am banned so I'll discuss it here instead.

What do you think Daniel?

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Mon 23rd April 2007, 10:29pm

[Daniel Brandt]

Any revision will be fundamentally flawed because they will approach it from an internal WP perspective. In order to work whatever they come up with will have to not please the "community" but be acceptable to complete strangers to WP process, values and ends. The answer cannot be found in WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. The answer is not to be found in WP at all. They need to assume the viewpoint of a person who aggrieved by the article.
...

What do you think Daniel?

I'm losing all hope for a new BLP process. Jimbo will have to roar into the current discussion on a white Ferrari loaded with cluesticks and Bomis babes, and chase off some idiot editors, while giving some others carte blanche to come up with a policy that makes deletion almost automatic for semi-notables who request it. This is not likely to happen in the next few weeks, and I'll end up appealing to the Board.

[GlassBeadGame]

Any revision will be fundamentally flawed because they will approach it from an internal WP perspective. In order to work whatever they come up with will have to not please the "community" but be acceptable to complete strangers to WP process, values and ends. The answer cannot be found in WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. The answer is not to be found in WP at all. They need to assume the viewpoint of a person who aggrieved by the article.
...

What do you think Daniel?

I'm losing all hope for a new BLP process. Jimbo will have to roar into the current discussion on a white Ferrari loaded with cluesticks and Bomis babes, and chase off some idiot editors, while giving some others carte blanche to come up with a policy that makes deletion almost automatic for semi-notables who request it. This is not likely to happen in the next few weeks, and I'll end up appealing to the Board.

Daniel, you have the patience of a saint in dealing with these arcane and cultish WP processes. If the pile of stones the WP "community" is collecting for it next go at you is any indication I'd say that would be specifically St. Stephen. I do have some concerns with your voluntary participation in processes that permit repeated opportunities for "community' members malign you in a public fashion.

I would encourage you to discuss what non-public processes might be acceptable from your viewpoint to address BLP privacy and defamation issues. As I have previously stated I believe these matters should be taken away from the "community" and placed in the hands of responsible, neutral and independent persons with a professional understanding of the issues involved.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Thu 3rd May 2007, 1:10pm