Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: EricBarbour

Here's your outrageously self-promoting BLP of the week:

Dana Countryman (T-H-L-K-D)

Being manicured by an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.147.223.1 that happens to come from the Seattle area--
hometown of Dana Countryman. Said IP address has also spent a great amount of time editing
articles that Dana Countryman is clearly interested in, such as Seattle (T-H-L-K-D),
Jean-Jacques Perrey (T-H-L-K-D), Perrey and Kingsley (T-H-L-K-D), Ondes Martenot (T-H-L-K-D), etc.

And he's been doing it since 2004. And nobody has said a word.

(PS: http://www.danacountryman.com/not%20yet.html is one of the ugliest I have seen in years.)

Posted by: EricBarbour

Well, now we know http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Countryman&diff=434314769&oldid=432024708 watching the BLP forum for things to delete.......

Posted by: Alison

Posted by: gomi

I hate it when we do their work for them.

Posted by: EricBarbour

I would agree, if a huge number of bad BLPs had been deleted at once.
But it's just one--out of uncounted thousands. Unnotable people can still create their own
vanity BLP, just by creating an account for the article creation. It can then be edited
freely with IP address only, as Countryman did.

Look at the backlog--just of BLPs they know about.

http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=Articles+for+deletion&basedeep=1&mode=cs&tagcat=Living+people&tagdeep=1&go=Scan&userlang=en: 186
http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=All+articles+proposed+for+deletion&basedeep=2&mode=cs&tagcat=Living+people&tagdeep=1&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en: 215.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs (4,546)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Biographies_of_living_people_possibly_eligible_for_deletion (331)
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Completely_unreferenced_biographies_of_living_people_%28newest%29" (800)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Living_people_on_EN_wiki_who_are_dead_on_other_wikis (ha ha ha)

And those are only the ones they know about......they've made some progress on the
old list that MZMcBride devised. But there is an endless source of new ones.

Posted by: thekohser

Hmm... isn't that strange how nothing has been done since the time when I pointed out that the WP article about JeffreyM Consulting (a company with http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22JeffreyM+Consulting%22&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1 Google News archive hits) was created by the firm's office manager?

Or, what about the biography about that famous Estonian orienteering competitor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_Sild? That's an important keeper, huh?

Posted by: Alison

Personally, I don't give a rodent's patootie what's a keeper and what's not, these days, Greg. It's Wikipedia

Posted by: EricBarbour

That's the spirit. It's here to be mocked and belittled. (Especially if you're permablocked, yes?)

Posted by: Kelly Martin

This happens entirely because there is nobody responsible for content on Wikipedia. If someone was ultimately responsible, then there would be delegation of that responsibility, and command structures, and performance metrics, and so forth and so on, and things would get done. But because there is no individual responsibility, nothing ever gets done, except once in a rare while when someone runs across one of these lists and feels embarrassed by it. And even then the effect is only transitory: new absurdities are being introduced far faster than they are being removed.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Minor addendum:

Whoever edited the Dana Countryman BLP, and related articles, may have also been using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=204.147.223.1
to edit many of the same articles. An IP address that belongs to a medical center in Seattle.
An IP address that has been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:204.147.223.1 of "vandalism" over the past 4 years.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Oh looky: 2 months after Alison deleted it, Tomwsulcer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Countryman&action=history.....
and someone called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mrs.miller1 stated expanding it.

Posted by: Detective

I was intrigued by this edit summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Countryman&diff=448862916&oldid=448861637

"Reverted edits by Mrs.miller1 (talk) unexplained removal of content (HG)"

As a result of this reversion, the article dropped in size from 8,401 bytes to the 7,356 that Alison left it with. Thus Mrs.miller1 must have added more than she removed, so Jeff G is at least as guilty as she is of unexplained removal of content.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrs.miller1&oldid=448862925

In his or her message to Mrs.miller1, Jeff_G. links to the following revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Countryman?diff=448856252

Jeff_G. apparently didn't believe The New York Times reference should've been removed. The bad part is that Jeff_G. reverted everything Mrs.miller1 revised in order to restore a single reference. Sounds as if it was done out of laziness, because rollbacking those revisions wholesale was easier than trying to work with those revisions.