Hi all,
Ok, so recently I suggested that there were three categories of
deletion - inappropriate topics (non-notables etc), overly-prominent
articles (fancrufts deserving of merging) and bad contents (copyvios,
libel etc). It now seems to me that the second category should never
end up in AfD at all, as it can be dealt with by any user, simply by
merging the content and redirecting the original page.
Hence, I would like to propose that AfD be split into two quite
separate problems: Topic blocking and content wiping.
Topic blocking would be a request to remove the content for a page (in
the normal Wiki way, so that it still shows in history), and then
protect the page. The goal is to say "The Wiki community has decided
that the Garage Mops are not sufficiently notable to warrant a place
in our encyclopaedia. Please do not create an article about them." An
admin in the future could of course unprotect the page if the band
becomes notable, or the community changes its mind.
Content wiping would be a request to permanently wipe the content of
page. It would be used primarily for copyvios, libel and other
*content* we really just don't want in Wikipedia. The history would be
erased, then the content reduced to a stub (or blank).
Two separate problems, two separate processes, two separate solutions.
Thoughts, anyone?
Steve
Hi,
today there was a hearing at the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Berlin
(municipal court) about the preliminary injunction against the German
Verein. The injunction was prohibiting Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. to
redirect wikipedia.de to the German Wikipedia as long as the full civil
name of a dead hacker ([[en:Tron (hacker)]]) is shown at de.wikipedia.org.
In the hearing, the judge gave more than just a hint that he does not
agree with the argument from Tron's parents that telling a (already
publicly known) civil name is violating the post-mortem
Persönlichkeitsrecht (right of personality).
The decision, whether the preliminary injunction is withdrawn will be
announced on thursday at 9 a.m. (CET).
Here are two reports from the court hearing:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/69056 (the author was present at
the hearing)
http://www.golem.de/0601/43060.html (I am not sure if he was there)
There is one question left and I would love to see some research from
you. Ivo Floricic, the owner of the trademark "Tron" and father of Boris
Floricic (aka. [[en:Tron (hacker)]] claims that he thinks that he is the
only one with the name "Floricic" in Germany and these special
circumstances would somehow violate his rights if wikipedia is
mentioning the full name of Tron.
Does anyone know any other person by the name of Floricic?
According to Google, there is an artist "Alen Floricic" from Croatia who
might be notable (if he is notable, it would be nice to consider taking
the CV from certain sites and write an article about him). There is also
a professor of linguistics, Franck Floricic from France.
Greetings,
Mathias
Hello All,
We've been mulling dumping all the Northern Ireland Assembly member's
email addresses onto the relevent page on wikipedia, and then writing
a scraper script to keep our own WriteToThem systems up to date.
This raises a policy question:
Is it permissable to put email addresses on wikipedia, if they're
already public?
We've noticed that they're *not* featured for most MPs.
many thanks,
Tom
--
Director, mySociety
07811 082158
www.HearFromYourMP.com
Tony Sidaway wrote:
>I've decided to act on this, and have placed the following notice on the page:
I should note that I've had a notice on my user page that I'll make
the text of a deleted article available for a while now, and I've had
zero requests.
- d.
Rob wrote:
>If someone disagrees with a deletion result, then lists it on DRV, this is
>generally (with the exception of vanity self-promoters, trolls, and the
>like) accepted as a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.
>If someone disagrees with a keep result, then lists it on DRV, this is seen
>by many as an "abuse of process" and an effort to "get the result he
>wanted".
>It seems that if one type of result can be reviewed and possibly overturned,
>what's wrong with reviewing another type of result? What's the difference?
The difference is that keeping and deleting are not symmetrical. It' s
like innocent until proven guilty - it's *supposed* to be keep unless
deletable. So the first is appealing a "guilty", the second is double
jeopardy.
- d.
I've asked this a couple places around Wikipedia (including Kelly Martin's
page) but haven't gotten a reply, so I'm going to try again here.
I'm currently preparing an RfC (or RfAr) regarding a long series of personal
attacks that are being genereated against me by User DreamGuy. One of the
attacks (the first one, actually) is at [[Talk:Eenasul_Fateh]], a temporary
page that was made to hold information during an AfD discussion.
One user tried to remove DreamGuy's attacks, but DreamGuy just went right
back in and restored them.
Anyway, I have the opportunity to speedy-delete the page as no longer
needed. However, if I delete it, does that mean that I can no longer refer to the
personal attack on that page as part of the RfC? Do I have to keep it around
for evidence? Or can I go ahead and get rid of it?
Or should I blank it "in preparation for deletion", but hold onto it so that
the diffs will work?
Thanks,
Elonka
[[User:Elonka]]
>A user with a legitimate interest in the subject has asked me to undelete
>one of the incarnations of 'Gang Stalking.' It had been recreated as a
>subpage of 'Conspiracy theory' and I speedily deleted it. Can I just
>undelete it so he can have a look, or can I email him the text from the
>page, or should he list it somewhere requesting temporary undeletion?
If there's no copyright violation or libel issue, I see no problem
with emailing him the text. I'd do the same if asked.
(If he then uses it to recreate the deleted page, it'll be speedyable
again, but that's his problem :-)
- d.
>> Now to comment on your suggestion: I think this is fundamentally
>> unworkable. Articles can change rapidly,
>Yes, some articles do change rapidly. Some articles change *very
>slowly* (like one substantive edit per 6 months, or even slower). This
>method is not appropriate for articles which are not stable. But the
>vast majority of Wikipedia articles *are* stable. When we've got all
>the stable articles fully referenced, we can work out a way to handle
>the last 2% or so that change quickly. This is not a issue of
>feasibility, just a ~2% limit on the domain for which this applies.
Yes. We have the numbers to prove this (see earlier posts to this
list). Almost all articles are uncontroversial. (A large proportion of
articles don't even have a talk page yet.)
Although intense discussion focuses on the small percentage of
troublesome articles, we must always keep in mind that these are the
*exceptions*. And that edge cases make bad law.
(The last is the problem with AFD - almost all deletions are
uncontroversial, it's the rest that make it troublesome.)
- d.
Elonka wrote:
>I am a public figure who has contributed over a thousand edits to Wikipedia,
>and created dozens of articles. I was attempting to go through the dispute
>resolution process to build an RfC to address a series of personal attacks
>that were generated towards me by user DreamGuy, but earlier today I was
>accused by Admin Bishonen of harassment, and then blocked
"indefinitely", without
>warning, by Admin David Gerard, with the comment, "clearly not here to write
>an encyclopedia in any way."
>More information is available here, including a link to the related
>discussion on the Admin noticeboard: _http://www.elonka.com/wikipedia/_
>(http://www.elonka.com/wikipedia/)
There's a pile of discussion on WP:ANI on this case. There's been a
pile of socks after DreamGuy for a while, and when Elonka started as
well, several admins (me included) presumed this was another one. This
probably isn't the case. Someone else has dropped the block to a week.
I've exchanged email with Elonka on the matter, and strongly suggested
that the abovelinked page be removed or severely toned down if she
wants a happier involvement in general with Wikipedia.
ps: I'm probably about that famous, but I don't state a claim of such
every breath I take. I'm just picturing WMC or someone doing that sort
of thing ... nah.
- d.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> My secret dream is to see the United States Congress hauled up before
> the Arbitration Committee. Maybe we could get them to pass clearer
> fair-use legislation as part of their parole.
Clearer fair use legislation is not likely to do us any good. What we
want is *more generous* fair use legislation.
--Michael Snow