On 26/03/07, stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray
<shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if
the history is visible or
not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't
want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was
(asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this
is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it.
Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more
people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
This is a circular argument, and one that seems prejudiced toward deletion.
And you don't actually give the reason for this prejudice until your next email:
Er. It's not "prejudiced towards deletion", it's prejudiced against
*not continuing to publish defamatory material unless we have to*. And
I note I said "the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history
was actually defamatory"; I'm not sure how this is "hiding my
prejudice".
I did not
say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as
defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly
imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
In this case, because the removal is based on a fear of WP:SUIT, it should be
an OFFICE action, and not a deletion. Not that I think office actions
are a legitimate
way of editing, nor do I think that a fear or SUIT is a healthy
attitude, but the point is
is that if its a WP process, this notion of sanitizing content in a
prejudicial way is unwiki
and against the community spirit.
I have honestly no idea what that alphabet soup of things meant; as
far as I know the Office has no opinion on this and is firmly staying
that way, at least until actual papers turn up.
Perhaps I should be crystal clear here. My opinion is that this is a
non-objectionable article, on someone who is a) non-notable and b) a
scammer pretty much as described in loving detail by TNH et. al. I
don't feel we are at any legal risk should we continue to publish it,
but I am ambivalent as to whether or not our notability policies say
we should keep it. (In short: I don't give a damn. Please note my not
participating in the deletion debate)
However, some people are. There have been issues raised with the
article; people are arguing in good faith that it was an attack page,
potentially libellous, what have you. This is why we don't undelete;
because if those people are right, undeleting it would be wilfuly
stupid, deliberately continuing publication after initial decision to
remove. You can go look at the google cache if you want to see what it
looked like - it's still there, IIRC...
There is a good-faith concern here - non-admins can get pretty
frustrated if the Google cache and so forth aren't good coverage for a
now-deleted, but up for review, article.
It's the one thing which has suprised me about how much happier I am
now that I am an admin. The rest of it was work effort reductions I
was expecting, for the most part; actually being able to look at
normal deleted content as part of the review process made me
unexpectedly much happier.
Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look
at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my
nonexistent spare time...
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com