-----Original Message----- From: Ron Ritzman [mailto:ritzman@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 07:03 PM To: fredbaud@waterwiki.info, 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions
On 3/25/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
No, that's why we have BLP. Malicious material may be reverted and deleted without limit > by any user.
And if it's deleted for that reason and no other admin restores it then fine.
Quoting BLB 3
"Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion"
I'm assuming that admins are reasonable people, otherwise they shouldn't be admins. Therefore, if admin Foo, speedy deletes a bio because he feels that there is no NPOV version to revert to and that deletion is reverted by admin BAR, then admin BAR reasonably believes that the bio can be made NPOV.
At this point what would be better, to discuss the deletion "in process" or have wheel war with the article being deleted and restored over and over again?
Yes, discussion is appropriate, if it does not spread libelous or malicious material to another page, which it is extremely likely to do.
Bottom line, the user, whether they are an ordinary user or an administrator, may revert or delete libelous or malicious material without limit, for which they will receive, "Well done". Considerable slack will be cut if they make a mistake or are overly conservative. Users, whether they are an ordinary user or an administrator, who restore or repeatedly insert libelous or malicious material may be be blocked or desysopped. Little slack will be cut if there are obvious problems with the material. If you find yourself in such a "wheelwar", you would be well advised to let the deletion stand if the claim that the material is libelous or malicious is at least colorable. To take an obvious example, if someone has removed a statement that John Siegenthaler played a role in the Kennedy assassination, unless you have multiple reliable sources that the statement is sound, don't put that sort of information back in the article.
As to administrators being presumed to be reasonable, reasonable is as reasonable does. Repeated insertion of libelous or malicious material into a Wikipedia article is not reasonable. Nor are actions taken to block or otherwise discipline users or other administrators who are doing their duty by removing or deleting it.
Fred
The message that started this thread quoted a message from the Barbara Bauer situation. It may look and sound malicious to the untrained eye and ear at first glance, but anyone who dives deeper into the material will find all of the sources are truthfull and reliable.
Mgm
On 3/26/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Ron Ritzman [mailto:ritzman@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 07:03 PM To: fredbaud@waterwiki.info, 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions
On 3/25/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
No, that's why we have BLP. Malicious material may be reverted and
deleted without limit > by any user.
And if it's deleted for that reason and no other admin restores it then
fine.
Quoting BLB 3
"Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion"
I'm assuming that admins are reasonable people, otherwise they shouldn't be admins. Therefore, if admin Foo, speedy deletes a bio because he feels that there is no NPOV version to revert to and that deletion is reverted by admin BAR, then admin BAR reasonably believes that the bio can be made NPOV.
At this point what would be better, to discuss the deletion "in process" or have wheel war with the article being deleted and restored over and over again?
Yes, discussion is appropriate, if it does not spread libelous or malicious material to another page, which it is extremely likely to do.
Bottom line, the user, whether they are an ordinary user or an administrator, may revert or delete libelous or malicious material without limit, for which they will receive, "Well done". Considerable slack will be cut if they make a mistake or are overly conservative. Users, whether they are an ordinary user or an administrator, who restore or repeatedly insert libelous or malicious material may be be blocked or desysopped. Little slack will be cut if there are obvious problems with the material. If you find yourself in such a "wheelwar", you would be well advised to let the deletion stand if the claim that the material is libelous or malicious is at least colorable. To take an obvious example, if someone has removed a statement that John Siegenthaler played a role in the Kennedy assassination, unless you have multiple reliable sources that the statement is sound, don't put that sort of information back in the article.
As to administrators being presumed to be reasonable, reasonable is as reasonable does. Repeated insertion of libelous or malicious material into a Wikipedia article is not reasonable. Nor are actions taken to block or otherwise discipline users or other administrators who are doing their duty by removing or deleting it.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/26/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
The message that started this thread quoted a message from the Barbara Bauer situation. It may look and sound malicious to the untrained eye and ear at first glance, but anyone who dives deeper into the material will find all of the sources are truthfull and reliable.
The deleting admin didn't think so. If my idea was in effect and the foundation didn't have the Bauer article in limbo, then you, if an admin, could have restored it and that would have been the end of the story as far as super fast ultra-speedy deletes are concerned. The "truthfullness" and "reliability" of the sources could then be argued on AFD if necessary. Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person without nuking the article.
On 3/26/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person without nuking the article.
But is that the point? If a credible legal threat it made, we might as well just delete the thing first and ask questions later. No single article is worth getting sued over - whether the Foundation would win the case or not.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/26/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person without nuking the article.
But is that the point? If a credible legal threat it made, we might as well just delete the thing first and ask questions later. No single article is worth getting sued over - whether the Foundation would win the case or not.
This all depends on what you mean by a "credible" legal threat. Bauer has gone beyond the threat stage, but was her threat credible in the first place? There comes a point where a person has to take a stand or be forever backpeddling. Litigious people are well aware that most of the population is deatly afraid of being sued, and have no compunctions about taking advantage of the fact.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
But is that the point? If a credible legal threat it made, we might as well just delete the thing first and ask questions later. No single article is worth getting sued over - whether the Foundation would win the case or not.
This all depends on what you mean by a "credible" legal threat. Bauer has gone beyond the threat stage, but was her threat credible in the first place? There comes a point where a person has to take a stand or be forever backpeddling. Litigious people are well aware that most of the population is deatly afraid of being sued, and have no compunctions about taking advantage of the fact.
This is regrettably true. I know some folks who ran an early web community site. They received something like a legal threat a week for a period of years. Nothing ever with merit; just people unhappy with something someone else said on the web. The site was polite but unyielding. Nothing other came of the threats, not one. But from the polish on some of them, it was clear that making hollow but plausible-sounding legal threats were a standard maneuver for some bottom-feeders.
I'd be very uncomfortable with a delete-first-and-wait-for-the-lawyers approach to articles under threat. Assuming we feel the content meets appropriate standards like BLP, then I'd prefer we just carry on. If that makes some people too nervous or there's a legitimate content dispute, I'd rather someone trimmed the contentious text and put something like [[User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute]] at the top of the article so that people know they are not getting the whole story.
William
On 3/26/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person without nuking the article.
But is that the point? If a credible legal threat it made, we might as well just delete the thing first and ask questions later. No single article is worth getting sued over - whether the Foundation would win the case or not.
Such cases are why we unfortunately have the necessary evil that is WP:OFFICE.
On 27/03/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person without nuking the article.
But is that the point? If a credible legal threat it made, we might as well just delete the thing first and ask questions later. No single article is worth getting sued over - whether the Foundation would win the case or not.
Such cases are why we unfortunately have the necessary evil that is WP:OFFICE.
Indeed.
And in the absence of an Office intervention, surely an admin speedily deleting an article that has already failed an AfD is acting beyond his powers?
On 3/26/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
And in the absence of an Office intervention, surely an admin speedily deleting an article that has already failed an AfD is acting beyond his powers?
If you are talking about the Barbara Bauer article, the AFD on that was closed "keep". These are the previous AFDs on "Daniel Brandt" which a recent "out of process" delete ignited a wheel war...
Keep AFD 2 March 2007 Speedy close, AFD 23 February 2007 Keep, AFD 28 December 2006 Speedy keep, AFD 12 August 2006 Speedy keep, AFD 13 July 2006 Snowball keep, AFD 19 June 2006 Speedy keep, AFD 10 June 2006 Speedy keep, AFD 5 June 2006 Invalid, AFD 13 April 2006 Speedy keep, AFD 12 April 2006 Snowball keep, AFD 05 April 2006 Keep, AFD 13 November 2005 Speedy keep, AFD 07 November 2005
The "office" is the only way that one's going away.
On 27/03/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
And in the absence of an Office intervention, surely an admin speedily deleting an article that has already failed an AfD is acting beyond his powers?
If you are talking about the Barbara Bauer article, the AFD on that was closed "keep".
I was, yes.