[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 57, Issue 60

Tue Apr 22 01:17:28 UTC 2008

If you want to know the article to which Geni refers you need to read the di Stefano article, do that and it is obvious

if we fear editing this article because we are British and/or based in Britain surely it is time to review how we edit

Thanks,
SqueakBox

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:50pm
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 57, Issue 60

Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikien-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
wikien-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Nathan)
2. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Thomas Dalton)
3. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (geni)
4. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Sam Blacketer)
5. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Thomas Dalton)
6. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (David Gerard)
7. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Thomas Dalton)
8. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Matthew Brown)
9. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Ron Ritzman)
10. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (David Gerard)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:01:48 -0400
From: Nathan 
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: fredbaud at fairpoint.net, "English Wikipedia"

Message-ID:
<7e948df10804211201y683eb9d6ldd1e9c39f7ea80c9 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Clearly notable folks have articles that stay despite the obvious risk of
tendentious editing. Giovanni di Stefano is one of those. I have no problem
monitoring this article for uncited and controversial additions, and
apparently neither do you and a number of other people. The issue of
deleting BLPs on people of marginal notability is separate - clearly the
proposal as written (and intended) wouldn't apply to di Stefano at this
point. There is no way the AfD can be interpreted as "no consensus." At
least its more or less out of the way - there can be no question in the
future that this article ought to remain, despite the risks outlined in
Doc's essay. Bonus for the project is that the GdS issue provided the
impetus to change policy so that many other marginal notability BLPs can be
deleted, so no one has to watch them forever.

Nathan

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:

> > It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal
> > operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its
> > backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will
> > be
> > this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no
> consensus
> > for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how
> > that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can. Maybe
> > we
> > need a new process - Articles for Keep, where all nominated articles are
> > deleted unless enough people come by to make argue for keeping them.
> >
> > Nathan
>
> I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep
> Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I
> wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years
> monitoring it.
>
> Fred
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:03:18 +0100
From: "Thomas Dalton" 
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: fredbaud at fairpoint.net, "English Wikipedia"

Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

> I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep
> Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I
> wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years
> monitoring it.

Firstly, I haven't seen anyone actually give any reasons to delete
other than the subject demanding it. Secondly, this article is no more
uncontrollable than any other BLP about a controversial figure, and we
manage just fine with those.

Our principles have to take precedence over being nice to people,
otherwise we might as well just give up now.

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:02:12 +0100
From: geni 
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: fredbaud at fairpoint.net, "English Wikipedia"

Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 21/04/2008, Fred Bauder wrote:
> I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep
> Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I
> wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years
> monitoring it.

What about researching it?

In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would
appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is
more of a concern.

-- 
geni

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:32:13 +0100
From: "Sam Blacketer" 
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM, geni wrote:
>
>
> In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would
> appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is
> more of a concern.
>

In fact the information is spread on several articles. It seems that no
English court has attempted to enforce contempt of court on foreign
publications (though one Judge seems keen to try it with defamation
actions). Would the article talk pages benefit from a reminder that the law
on whether British editors are subject to the injunction is as yet untested,
or would this just draw attention?

-- 
Sam Blacketer

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:42:13 +0100
From: "Thomas Dalton" 
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 21/04/2008, Sam Blacketer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM, geni wrote:
> >
> >
> > In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would
> > appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is
> > more of a concern.
> >
>
>
> In fact the information is spread on several articles. It seems that no
> English court has attempted to enforce contempt of court on foreign
> publications (though one Judge seems keen to try it with defamation
> actions). Would the article talk pages benefit from a reminder that the law
> on whether British editors are subject to the injunction is as yet untested,
> or would this just draw attention?

Could people please provide links when they bring up a specific example?

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:46:21 +0100
From: "David Gerard" 
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 21/04/2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 21/04/2008, Sam Blacketer wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM, geni wrote:

> > > In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would
> > > appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is
> > > more of a concern.

> > In fact the information is spread on several articles. It seems that no
> > English court has attempted to enforce contempt of court on foreign
> > publications (though one Judge seems keen to try it with defamation
> > actions). Would the article talk pages benefit from a reminder that the law
> > on whether British editors are subject to the injunction is as yet untested,
> > or would this just draw attention?

> Could people please provide links when they bring up a specific example?

They're in the UK (as are you and I), so I for one don't want to know.
And I make a point of not touching the articles of UK-based article
subjects with any reputation for litigousness - there's quite enough
admins based in the US to deal with that sort of thing.

- d.

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:51:05 +0100
From: "Thomas Dalton" 
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

> They're in the UK (as are you and I), so I for one don't want to know.
> And I make a point of not touching the articles of UK-based article
> subjects with any reputation for litigousness - there's quite enough
> admins based in the US to deal with that sort of thing.

You can't avoid something if you're not aware of it. I'd rather know
it's there, even if I decide it's safest not to touch it.

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:05:13 -0700
From: "Matthew Brown" 
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: fredbaud at fairpoint.net, "English Wikipedia"

Message-ID:
<42f90dc00804211405u4269aee3xb0e11e317ced0692 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep
> Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I
> wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years
> monitoring it.

I'd rather change our policies to permanently protect a short, baldly
factual and uncontroversial stub than change our policies to delete an
article on someone of quite unquestioned importance who actively
courts press attention and about whom there is much information
published by reliable sources.

That said, I am in favor of an easier standard for deleting marginal
BLPs - which this is not.

-Matt

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:34:53 -0400
From: "Ron Ritzman" 
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Nathan wrote:

> It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal
> operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its
> backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be
> this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no consensus
> for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how
> that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can.

If they're going to do this then it needs to be in a venue besides
AFD. Perhaps call it "BLPs for discussion". That way "normal noms"
where the issue is notability etc. can proceed with the usual rules.

------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:50:31 +0100
From: "David Gerard" 
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia" 
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 22/04/2008, Ron Ritzman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Nathan wrote:

> > It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal
> > operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its
> > backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be
> > this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no consensus
> > for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how
> > that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can.

> If they're going to do this then it needs to be in a venue besides
> AFD. Perhaps call it "BLPs for discussion". That way "normal noms"
> where the issue is notability etc. can proceed with the usual rules.

That's actually a really good idea.

- d.

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 57, Issue 60
****************************************