VOTE YES ON DELETION- Early and Often, Don Murphy Article Deletion Options

[ColScott]

Hey boyo -

why does SPA RTFA get to vote and do whatever he wants but SPA TOOMANYTOOLS does not?

what are you hiding and why?

[AB]

It is ridiculous for WP to complain about BADSITES
in a discussion about whether they should host
an attack page against ColScott. Anyway, WR
isn't a website that sends violent thugs after
people: WP is.

Dan Murphy is an obnoxious bombast and a hypocrite. WR is carrying his water.

Yes, ColScott is a jerk. This doesn't give WP
the right to smear and defame him, or even
have an article on him against his consent.

Remember, he wouldn't even be here if
they had not amorally kept that article. So,
if we want him to go away or at least calm
down, it is probably best for WP to delete
that article.

This post has been edited by AB:

[FCYTravis]

There is this overwhelming knee-jerk mentality among Wikipedians that if someone doesn't want an article on them, then they must be evil or trying to hide something or "we must have everything," and thus the best response is to find every single tiny trivial thing about this person and put it in the article, regardless of anyone's wishes, "because we can."

I'm ashamed to admit that I used to have that mentality; but then came Seigenthaler, and then came OTRS, where it became clear to me that Wikipedia entirely failed living people - over and over again. What do you say to someone who's been libeled and slandered on one of the world's top-10 Web sites? Does "I've fixed it, and I apologize" really cut it?

Freedom of the press inevitably entails a heavy burden of responsibility, and includes not only the right to print, but also the right not to print.

On Wikipedia, the latter is exercised far too infrequently.

[Aloft]

I have a few thoughts/questions:

Why is Joshua Zelinsky permitted to !vote in a deletion review after being desysopped for abusing that process?

Why do people keep saying, "He can't expect Wikipedia to help if he keeps being so abusive." He doesn't want Wikipedia's help; he wants Wikipedia to quit harming him.

I don't know why a guy that creates a website about himself objects to publicity, except that maybe he has his head crammed up his ass.

I don't want to speak for Mr. Murphy, but I doubt it's the publicity he objects to. It's Wikipedia's negligence when dealing with articles on living people. Wikipedia is not responsible enough to host articles on living people. Any arguments as to his "notability" are beside the point.

What do you say to someone who's been libeled and slandered on one of the world's top-10 Web sites? Does "I've fixed it, and I apologize" really cut it?

No. It's bad enough that it happens in the first place. What makes it worse is you can't even tell them, "It will never happen again." Seigenthaler's bio has been vandalized repeatedly, even after the widespread media attention it received. What chance does a lesser-known person stand?

This post has been edited by Aloft: