Of interest to EnWP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_9#A ngela_Beesley
There is also some related talk at [[WT:BLP]] regarding deletion discretion.
I might duplicate the WT:BLP at village pump.
Nathan
NavouWiki wrote:
Of interest to EnWP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_9#A...
There is also some related talk at [[WT:BLP]] regarding deletion discretion.
I might duplicate the WT:BLP at village pump.
Hijacking this thread slightly but on what I suspect is a related note, the history for [[Daniel Brandt]] has been deleted. This is not actually legal as far as I'm aware; the contents were merged into several other articles after the last AfD and the GFDL requires that the contribution history of GFDLed material be maintained.
Though frankly, I expected this would happen eventually anyway. This issue is so deeply partisan that it doesn't seem like any "compromise" position is ever likely to be satisfactory. The reason for the deletion was "unneccessary redirect - privacy reasons" - is Brandt's very _name_ now impossible to associate with Wikipedia? I notice that he's not mentioned on [[Criticism of Wikipedia]], though [[Wikipedia Review]] redirects there.
On Dec 9, 2007 9:02 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
NavouWiki wrote:
Of interest to EnWP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_9#A...
There is also some related talk at [[WT:BLP]] regarding deletion
discretion.
I might duplicate the WT:BLP at village pump.
Hijacking this thread slightly but on what I suspect is a related note, the history for [[Daniel Brandt]] has been deleted. This is not actually legal as far as I'm aware; the contents were merged into several other articles after the last AfD and the GFDL requires that the contribution history of GFDLed material be maintained.
Though frankly, I expected this would happen eventually anyway. This issue is so deeply partisan that it doesn't seem like any "compromise" position is ever likely to be satisfactory. The reason for the deletion was "unneccessary redirect - privacy reasons" - is Brandt's very _name_ now impossible to associate with Wikipedia? I notice that he's not mentioned on [[Criticism of Wikipedia]], though [[Wikipedia Review]] redirects there.
I believe the issue was that it was deleted at his request because it was
the #1 google hit for his name. Given the reasons for his request for deletion in the first place, I guess this should not come as a surprise.
Risker
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Risker wrote:
I believe the issue was that it was deleted at his request because it was the #1 google hit for his name. Given the reasons for his request for deletion in the first place, I guess this should not come as a surprise.
I'm not surprised since I figured it was coming eventually anyway, but I am disappointed nevertheless. There's a constant pressure to delete certain pages and since procedures are weighted in favor of keeping deleted things deleted every attempt at compromise simply inches things farther toward that end.
On Dec 9, 2007 9:02 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Hijacking this thread slightly but on what I suspect is a related note, the history for [[Daniel Brandt]] has been deleted. This is not actually legal as far as I'm aware; the contents were merged into several other articles after the last AfD and the GFDL requires that the contribution history of GFDLed material be maintained.
I have a copy of the history and would be willing to extract the list of authors and put it on the appropriate talk pages, if that'd satisfy anyone.
Anthony wrote:
I have a copy of the history and would be willing to extract the list of authors and put it on the appropriate talk pages, if that'd satisfy anyone.
I've got a copy too, though somewhat fragmentary since I got it back when the export function had a 100-revision limit. I don't recall ever making any substantial edits to the page so I've got no direct personal interest in the matter. I'm mainly just upset at the inability of compromise to "stick" even when it's mandated by the license we're using this material under.
On Dec 9, 2007 9:46 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I have a copy of the history and would be willing to extract the list of authors and put it on the appropriate talk pages, if that'd satisfy anyone.
I've got a copy too, though somewhat fragmentary since I got it back when the export function had a 100-revision limit. I don't recall ever making any substantial edits to the page so I've got no direct personal interest in the matter. I'm mainly just upset at the inability of compromise to "stick" even when it's mandated by the license we're using this material under.
The license mandates that the authors be listed in a section entitled History, not that you keep a redirect to the page which contains the full edit history. If you'd like me to create an appropriate section entitled History on the pages where things have been copied I can do that, but I seriously doubt it's going to stick.
Anyway, the info is at [[User:Anthony/DBC]]. Move it somewhere, link from the talk pages, and at least the "spirit of the license" or whatever you want to call it can be fulfilled. Although, the special characters didn't translate right. Someone should look into that. I nominate you, Bryan.
Anthony wrote:
Anyway, the info is at [[User:Anthony/DBC]]. Move it somewhere, link from the talk pages, and at least the "spirit of the license" or whatever you want to call it can be fulfilled. Although, the special characters didn't translate right. Someone should look into that. I nominate you, Bryan.
Why? I had nothing to do with making this mess.
And unfortunately, on inspection of my files, it looks like I don't have a complete history dump of the article after all. Dratted export function.
Quoting Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
Anthony wrote:
I have a copy of the history and would be willing to extract the list of authors and put it on the appropriate talk pages, if that'd satisfy anyone.
I've got a copy too, though somewhat fragmentary since I got it back when the export function had a 100-revision limit. I don't recall ever making any substantial edits to the page so I've got no direct personal interest in the matter. I'm mainly just upset at the inability of compromise to "stick" even when it's mandated by the license we're using this material under.
Satisfying the GFDL by putting things on the talk page is highly questionable. And frankly, almost any Wikipedia article that mentioned Brandt is going to be highly ranked, he won't be happy with this. And he's not going to stop. We had something of a compromise among the community and this isn't it.
Furthermore, there's no justification under even the most broad interpretation of BLP to allow this deletion. We don't delete redirects simply to lower google page rankings. The material that was left doesn't talk about Brandt by and large and thus isn't subject to any BLP concern whatsoever. The notion that we would go out of our way to violate the GFDL simply to lower the page rank of a variety of pages is absurd.
On Dec 9, 2007 9:49 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
Anthony wrote:
I have a copy of the history and would be willing to extract the list of authors and put it on the appropriate talk pages, if that'd satisfy anyone.
I've got a copy too, though somewhat fragmentary since I got it back when the export function had a 100-revision limit. I don't recall ever making any substantial edits to the page so I've got no direct personal interest in the matter. I'm mainly just upset at the inability of compromise to "stick" even when it's mandated by the license we're using this material under.
Satisfying the GFDL by putting things on the talk page is highly questionable.
It certainly doesn't satisfy the GFDL. But then again, none of the pages on the entire website satisfy the GFDL. The only thing that'd satisfy the GFDL would be to create a section, ==History==, and put the names there, along with the years, title, and publisher. If that's what we want to do, I'll be all for it.
If, on the other hand, the reason you don't want this deleted has nothing to do with the GFDL, I can't help you.
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Dec 9, 2007 9:49 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
Anthony wrote:
I have a copy of the history and would be willing to extract the list of authors and put it on the appropriate talk pages, if that'd satisfy anyone.
I've got a copy too, though somewhat fragmentary since I got it back when the export function had a 100-revision limit. I don't recall ever making any substantial edits to the page so I've got no direct personal interest in the matter. I'm mainly just upset at the inability of compromise to "stick" even when it's mandated by the license we're using this material under.
Satisfying the GFDL by putting things on the talk page is highly questionable.
It certainly doesn't satisfy the GFDL. But then again, none of the pages on the entire website satisfy the GFDL.
That argument has been made before and a number of lawyers have considered it to be incorrect. I'm not a lawyer so I won't comment too heavily in that regard.
The only thing that'd satisfy the GFDL would be to create a section, ==History==, and put the names there, along with the years, title, and publisher. If that's what we want to do, I'll be all for it.
Er no, as I understand it (again, I'm not a lawyer) having an explicit link to the history is ok because we treat them more or less as one document.
And in any event, there's an obvious good faith difference between questionably satisfying the GFDL and definitely not satisfying it. This is clearly in the second category.
If, on the other hand, the reason you don't want this deleted has nothing to do with the GFDL, I can't help you.
I already listed the many other reasons not to delete this.
On Dec 9, 2007 10:10 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
It certainly doesn't satisfy the GFDL. But then again, none of the pages on the entire website satisfy the GFDL.
That argument has been made before and a number of lawyers have considered it to be incorrect. I'm not a lawyer so I won't comment too heavily in that regard.
The only thing that'd satisfy the GFDL would be to create a section, ==History==, and put the names there, along with the years, title, and publisher. If that's what we want to do, I'll be all for it.
Er no, as I understand it (again, I'm not a lawyer) having an explicit link to the history is ok because we treat them more or less as one document.
And in any event, there's an obvious good faith difference between questionably satisfying the GFDL and definitely not satisfying it. This is clearly in the second category.
I agree, but do you believe that having the information in the history of an article which redirects to the one in question does satisfy the GFDL? And what about the part of the merge that went into a different page from the one the redirect went to? How does that questionably satisfy the GFDL? I don't see it. Not at all. Whether you get to the information by following "What links here" and then clicking on "history" or you get it by clicking on "Talk" and then "merged page history", it seems equally (non)compliant to me.
And what about the article on Angela? Are we sure that nothing has been merged from that article anywhere? I have a copy of that one too if someone wants the list of editors.
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Dec 9, 2007 10:10 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
It certainly doesn't satisfy the GFDL. But then again, none of the pages on the entire website satisfy the GFDL.
That argument has been made before and a number of lawyers have considered it to be incorrect. I'm not a lawyer so I won't comment too heavily in that regard.
The only thing that'd satisfy the GFDL would be to create a section, ==History==, and put the names there, along with the years, title, and publisher. If that's what we want to do, I'll be all for it.
Er no, as I understand it (again, I'm not a lawyer) having an explicit link to the history is ok because we treat them more or less as one document.
And in any event, there's an obvious good faith difference between questionably satisfying the GFDL and definitely not satisfying it. This is clearly in the second category.
I agree, but do you believe that having the information in the history of an article which redirects to the one in question does satisfy the GFDL? And what about the part of the merge that went into a different page from the one the redirect went to? How does that questionably satisfy the GFDL? I don't see it.
That's actually a very good point. Is there anyway to merge page histories into multiple articles? Alternatively the closest thing is to copy and paste the list of difs into a dif on the article noting that in the edit summary that it has that there and then removing the list on the next dif (we've done this before and somone I don't remember who commented that this was probably ok).
Not at all. Whether you get to the information by following "What links here" and then clicking on "history" or you get it by clicking on "Talk" and then "merged page history", it seems equally (non)compliant to me.
And what about the article on Angela? Are we sure that nothing has been merged from that article anywhere? I have a copy of that one too if someone wants the list of editors.
I'm pretty sure nothing's been merged from there. Point of fact even if a tiny bit of content has been merged that's likely usable within fair use, but using almost all the material of an article, not so much.
And again, GFDL issues aren't my only concern. We should know by now that Daniel Brandt doesn't stop. Ever. He just keeps demanding more and more. And to do this after we had a very difficult compromise just makes matters worse. The pages that mention him still will still have very high google rankings. This just sends the message to trolls that they can get anything changed on Wikipedia if they harass us long enough. That's not good. Furthermore, there is no, I repeat, no interpretation of BLP that allows for this deletion since it was simply a redirect. Nor for that matter, does BLP justify deleting a page to help lower google rankings at all. If I recall, Fred Bauder a while back floated briefly the idea of having some BLPs not google indexed and the response was pretty negative.
On Dec 9, 2007 10:34 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I agree, but do you believe that having the information in the history of an article which redirects to the one in question does satisfy the GFDL? And what about the part of the merge that went into a different page from the one the redirect went to? How does that questionably satisfy the GFDL? I don't see it.
That's actually a very good point. Is there anyway to merge page histories into multiple articles?
It *could* be done with the import function, but it'd be very very ugly. The histories would be intertwined, such that doing a diff of one version to the next would give you a diff of two different articles.
Alternatively the closest thing is to copy and paste the list of difs into a dif on the article noting that in the edit summary that it has that there and then removing the list on the next dif (we've done this before and somone I don't remember who commented that this was probably ok).
Honestly, I don't understand what that means.
And again, GFDL issues aren't my only concern.
Right, but as I said, I can't help you on your other concerns. I haven't even decided my position on them. You're gonna have to argue with someone else about that part :).
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Dec 9, 2007 10:34 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I agree, but do you believe that having the information in the history of an article which redirects to the one in question does satisfy the GFDL? And what about the part of the merge that went into a different page from the one the redirect went to? How does that questionably satisfy the GFDL? I don't see it.
That's actually a very good point. Is there anyway to merge page histories into multiple articles?
It *could* be done with the import function, but it'd be very very ugly. The histories would be intertwined, such that doing a diff of one version to the next would give you a diff of two different articles.
Alternatively the closest thing is to copy and paste the list of difs into a dif on the article noting that in the edit summary that it has that there and then removing the list on the next dif (we've done this before and somone I don't remember who commented that this was probably ok).
Honestly, I don't understand what that means.
Ok, say article X needs the first five edits of an article deleted for privacy concerns. Admin Y deletes those edits, and makes an edit to the article with the edit summary of something like "Look at this dif for list of authors who had edits deleted" and in that edit append to the bottom a list of editors. Then Y makes another edit to remove the list from the page.
A different, probably more acceptable variation is what was done at Justin Berry . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Berry See the note at the end of the article.
And again, GFDL issues aren't my only concern.
Right, but as I said, I can't help you on your other concerns. I haven't even decided my position on them. You're gonna have to argue with someone else about that part :).
<whine> But I wanna argue now! </whine>
You mean you are slowly thinking about a position rather than going with your gut instinct and defending it to the death? What kind of Wikipedian are you?
On Dec 9, 2007 10:59 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Dec 9, 2007 10:34 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Alternatively the closest thing is to copy and paste the list of difs into a dif on the article noting that in the edit summary that it has that there and then removing the list on the next dif (we've done this before and somone I don't remember who commented that this was probably ok).
Honestly, I don't understand what that means.
Ok, say article X needs the first five edits of an article deleted for privacy concerns. Admin Y deletes those edits, and makes an edit to the article with the edit summary of something like "Look at this dif for list of authors who had edits deleted" and in that edit append to the bottom a list of editors. Then Y makes another edit to remove the list from the page.
That'd probably work, although the oversighters often like to deny that something was even oversighted in the first place. If oversight just deleted the text and the summary, and left the rest of the information, that'd also accomplish this.
A different, probably more acceptable variation is what was done at Justin Berry . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Berry See the note at the end of the article.
Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I was suggesting all along.
On 12/10/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If oversight just deleted the text and the summary, and left the rest of the information, that'd also accomplish this.
Alternatively we could give the "oversighters" the ability to retroactively edit the old revisions (and the corresponding edit summaries) replacing strings of offensive text with "[redacted]", or "[redacted by [USER]], or a long black streak, or whatever.[2]
This would leave the remainder of the edit history intact, ensuring that nobody loses attribution[3] for their edits by failing to notice that section 8 contained Paris Hilton's cell phone number at the time of their (innocent) edits to section 3.
[1] FSVO "offensive", http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hiding_revisions#Use [2] With a little extra thought, the devs could create a non-spoofable placeholder syntax for any redacted text. [3] I would prefer a definition of "attribution" which exceeds the GFDL requirements, namely the ability (from here to eternity) to look at every diff of every article and be able to see which text was added, modified, or removed by which user, except in situations where *that particular* text has been "hidden".
-C.W.
Oh boy, black lines over redacted text... The critics would absolutely love the opportunity for comparison that would present.
On Dec 17, 2007 10:08 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If oversight just deleted the text and the summary, and left the rest of the information, that'd also accomplish this.
Alternatively we could give the "oversighters" the ability to retroactively edit the old revisions (and the corresponding edit summaries) replacing strings of offensive text with "[redacted]", or "[redacted by [USER]], or a long black streak, or whatever.[2]
This would leave the remainder of the edit history intact, ensuring that nobody loses attribution[3] for their edits by failing to notice that section 8 contained Paris Hilton's cell phone number at the time of their (innocent) edits to section 3.
[1] FSVO "offensive", http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hiding_revisions#Use [2] With a little extra thought, the devs could create a non-spoofable placeholder syntax for any redacted text. [3] I would prefer a definition of "attribution" which exceeds the GFDL requirements, namely the ability (from here to eternity) to look at every diff of every article and be able to see which text was added, modified, or removed by which user, except in situations where *that particular* text has been "hidden".
-C.W.
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 Dec 17, 2007 10:08 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If oversight just deleted the text and the summary, and left the rest of the information, that'd also accomplish this.
Alternatively we could give the "oversighters" the ability to retroactively edit the old revisions (and the corresponding edit summaries) replacing strings of offensive text with "[redacted]", or "[redacted by [USER]], or a long black streak, or whatever.[2]
Well, if all you let the oversighters do is replace text (including summaries) with "[redacted]", they wouldn't be able to make the kinds of oversights they have made in the past. I'm not sure how much detail I'm allowed to get into when explaining what I mean by that, but for instance you can't hide the fact that User X made an edit to Article A at Time T by simply deleting or redacting text or summaries.
Hmm, let me bring up a hypothetical. Say I edit the article for my old high school and insert that the bathrooms often overflowed. Then a bunch more edits get made, keeping my text in there. Then I decide that my old high school is private information and that by inserting that the bathrooms often overflowed I've revealed that I went to that high school. Should the oversighters be allowed to remove this edit of mine? And if so, how would they manage to do that by inserting [redacted]s?
Now, if you let the oversighters actually edit the old revisions freely, they could do what they've done in the past even more effectively. They could change my edit into a spelling fix, my summary into "fix spelling", and then change the following person's edit into a reversion of the spelling fix and the insertion of the bathroom overflowing statement. But that'd be way way too much power and ability for abuse. Not to mention unfair to the poor person making the subsequent edit.
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Now, if you let the oversighters actually edit the old revisions freely, they could do what they've done in the past even more effectively. They could change my edit into a spelling fix, my summary into "fix spelling", and then change the following person's edit into a reversion of the spelling fix and the insertion of the bathroom overflowing statement. But that'd be way way too much power and ability for abuse. Not to mention unfair to the poor person making the subsequent edit.
And possibly leading to massive violations of the GFDL. Retroactive modifications to the history of this sort are just a really bad idea.
On Dec 17, 2007 9:05 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
And possibly leading to massive violations of the GFDL. Retroactive modifications to the history of this sort are just a really bad idea.
Which is why the oversight thing is very limited in the first place.
Besides, any indicators of what stuff has been removed are bad; it's simply a red flag saying "Hey! Something got removed here! Look in the mirrors and dumps to see if any of them have it!". That's what happened when the oversight feature was first implemented, which is why the oversight log is no longer public.
-Matt
Exactly! It is limited, as it should be. Nobody except Oversights (and above) needs to know that something has been oversighted, because I am sure that oversighted stuff can still be found externally, if you look in the right places. Why take a chance?
-Rjd0060
On Dec 18, 2007 11:35 AM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 9:05 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
And possibly leading to massive violations of the GFDL. Retroactive modifications to the history of this sort are just a really bad idea.
Which is why the oversight thing is very limited in the first place.
Besides, any indicators of what stuff has been removed are bad; it's simply a red flag saying "Hey! Something got removed here! Look in the mirrors and dumps to see if any of them have it!". That's what happened when the oversight feature was first implemented, which is why the oversight log is no longer public.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The problem (and solution) is there is a perception that the GFDL isn't in "compliance" with Wikipedia.
If Wikipedia can't be GFDL compliant, the GFDL will have to change around Wikipedia to make Wikipedia compliant. It can do this and the board seem to want this happening (if only going as far as to say that they want this to happen in order to permit CC-BY-SA compatibility).
The ethics of that process, I leave to others, however.
On Dec 9, 2007 10:40 PM, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem (and solution) is there is a perception that the GFDL isn't in "compliance" with Wikipedia.
If Wikipedia can't be GFDL compliant, the GFDL will have to change around Wikipedia to make Wikipedia compliant.
Wikipedia certainly *can* be GFDL compliant. The easiest way, from the viewpoint of editors, would involve making changes to the software, but it's certainly possible.
In terms of this particular problem (merges), for instance, we could mark these merges in the database, and create a unified history listing from the information. Personally, I'd like to have some sort of editable "History" tab to list authors. This was discussed previously on the list wrt crediting image authors.
At this point it's probably not worth discussing GFDL-specific compliance, as the move to CC-BY-SA will *probably* (IMHO) be forthcoming. But there are still software features helpful for compliance with even that license. At the same time as we debate the move to CC-BY-SA we should think about how to make Wikipedia truly compliant with whatever is chosen. A semi-editable "Authors" page (separate from the detailed history page) would probably still be useful. Then copy-paste merges can remain compliant simply by merging the authors lists. Mediawiki's history pages are pretty obviously designed for reasons other than license compliance and/or attribution of authors.
On 10/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
And frankly, almost any Wikipedia article that mentioned Brandt is going to be highly ranked, he won't be happy with this. And he's not going to stop.
That would be because he is a sociopathic liar.
We had something of a compromise among the community and this isn't it.
Which is of course nothing to do with that.
- d.
On 10/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
And frankly, almost any Wikipedia article that mentioned Brandt is going to be highly ranked, he won't be happy with this. And he's not going to stop.
That would be because he is a sociopathic liar.
Right.
So why the hell are we trying to accommodate him?
On 10/12/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That would be because he is a sociopathic liar.
Right. So why the hell are we trying to accommodate him?
When and where it would make sense to do so for nice people too, in terms of our basic content rules. We can do inadvertent but real harm when a questionable-quality Wikipedia article is the first Google hit on someone's name. So single-issue bios tend to be named after the incident rather than the person.
- d.
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 10/12/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That would be because he is a sociopathic liar.
Right. So why the hell are we trying to accommodate him?
When and where it would make sense to do so for nice people too, in terms of our basic content rules. We can do inadvertent but real harm when a questionable-quality Wikipedia article is the first Google hit on someone's name. So single-issue bios tend to be named after the incident rather than the person.
But we've been over this before. Brandt isn't a single issue person, we have at least 4 separate "issues" (one of which the CIA Cookie matter wasn't able to survive on its own, in part because it had to do with Brandt.). And there's not hing of questionable quality in the PIR article. BLP doesn't allow deletions simply to harm our own google rankings. It doesn't work that way.
On 10/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
But we've been over this before. Brandt isn't a single issue person, we have at least 4 separate "issues" (one of which the CIA Cookie matter wasn't able to survive on its own, in part because it had to do with Brandt.). And there's not hing of questionable quality in the PIR article. BLP doesn't allow deletions simply to harm our own google rankings. It doesn't work that way.
*And* Wikipedia is not Google, and is not responsible for what Google does.
([[WP:WING]] exists, but not to make this point.)
Quoting James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com:
On 10/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
And frankly, almost any Wikipedia article that mentioned Brandt is
going to be
highly ranked, he won't be happy with this. And he's not going to stop.
That would be because he is a sociopathic liar.
Right.
So why the hell are we trying to accommodate him?
I don't know. Stockholm syndrome? A misguided interpretation of BLP?
Quoting Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
NavouWiki wrote:
Of interest to EnWP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_9#A...
There is also some related talk at [[WT:BLP]] regarding deletion discretion.
I might duplicate the WT:BLP at village pump.
Hijacking this thread slightly but on what I suspect is a related note, the history for [[Daniel Brandt]] has been deleted. This is not actually legal as far as I'm aware; the contents were merged into several other articles after the last AfD and the GFDL requires that the contribution history of GFDLed material be maintained.
Though frankly, I expected this would happen eventually anyway. This issue is so deeply partisan that it doesn't seem like any "compromise" position is ever likely to be satisfactory. The reason for the deletion was "unneccessary redirect - privacy reasons" - is Brandt's very _name_ now impossible to associate with Wikipedia? I notice that he's not mentioned on [[Criticism of Wikipedia]], though [[Wikipedia Review]] redirects there.
Oh, wow, that's wow. I've left a note on the talk page of the deleting admin. We can't do that. The fact that Brandt isn't mentioned at Criticism of Wikipedia is not good at all either. But violating the GFDL is a whole other level of bad. I do wish people would just leave things alone.