Slim inconsistency on BLP? Options

[Doc glasgow]

I'm wondering what SlimVirgin's game is.

She's objecting strongly to the "default to delete" close on the [[David Shankbone]] afd. Indeed she dresses down the closing admin stating: "The policy and best practice is default to keep on borderline notables, unless the subject has requested deletion". Apparently default to keeping is "best practice".

This is really strange.

Because I worked with Slim not that long ago to argue for a "default to delete".

Indeed, she took my ideas and made a concrete proposal that: "When the biography of a living person is submitted for deletion, whether at the request of the subject or not, the default presumption in favor of retention is reversed. That is, if there is no consensus to keep the BLP in the opinion of the closing admin, the article will be deleted. See here.

In that debate she stated that "I believe we have a responsibility to do this, both to the project and to the people affected by it".

Now, I suppose one might argue that her proposal never actually became policy. But how can she now say that a "default to keep" is "best" practice?

Why is she now seeking to enforce a practice she once held to be irresponsible?

Sarah, I'm guessing you read this, so I'll be interested in your response?

[anthony]

I'm wondering what SlimVirgin's game is.

She's objecting strongly to the "default to delete" close on the [[David Shankbone]] afd. Indeed she dresses down the closing admin stating: "The policy and best practice is default to keep on borderline notables, unless the subject has requested deletion". Apparently default to keeping is "best practice".

This is really strange.

Because I worked with Slim not that long ago to argue for a "default to delete".

Indeed, she took my ideas and made a concrete proposal that: "When the biography of a living person is submitted for deletion, whether at the request of the subject or not, the default presumption in favor of retention is reversed. That is, if there is no consensus to keep the BLP in the opinion of the closing admin, the article will be deleted. See here.

In that debate she stated that "I believe we have a responsibility to do this, both to the project and to the people affected by it".

Now, I suppose one might argue that her proposal never actually became policy. But how can she now say that a "default to keep" is "best" practice?

Why is she now seeking to enforce a practice she once held to be irresponsible?

Sarah, I'm guessing you read this, so I'll be interested in your response?

This is a relatively rare situation where the subject of the biography has explicitly come out and told us that he is not opposed to the article being kept. Thus, I don't see how BLP concerns are relevant to the deletion question. "Shankbone" knows what it means to have a BLP on Wikipedia, and he's fine with it. Why bend over backwards trying to protect him when he doesn't want the protection? Let all the vandals and other miscreants waste their time fighting a battle royale on the one article on Wikipedia with a subject who's okay with having an article. If nothing else, at least they'll have less time to spend vandalizing other articles.

"SlimVirgin"'s wording is a bit troubling, in that it suggests defaulting to keep for a biography on someone who has not "requested deletion" because they don't know they have one (or don't know they can request its deletion). But I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that this is just careless wording, since it contradicts what she has said previously.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Doc glasgow]

I'm wondering what SlimVirgin's game is.

She's objecting strongly to the "default to delete" close on the [[David Shankbone]] afd. Indeed she dresses down the closing admin stating: "The policy and best practice is default to keep on borderline notables, unless the subject has requested deletion". Apparently default to keeping is "best practice".

This is really strange.

Because I worked with Slim not that long ago to argue for a "default to delete".

Indeed, she took my ideas and made a concrete proposal that: "When the biography of a living person is submitted for deletion, whether at the request of the subject or not, the default presumption in favor of retention is reversed. That is, if there is no consensus to keep the BLP in the opinion of the closing admin, the article will be deleted. See here.

In that debate she stated that "I believe we have a responsibility to do this, both to the project and to the people affected by it".

Now, I suppose one might argue that her proposal never actually became policy. But how can she now say that a "default to keep" is "best" practice?

Why is she now seeking to enforce a practice she once held to be irresponsible?

Sarah, I'm guessing you read this, so I'll be interested in your response?

This is a relatively rare situation where the subject of the biography has explicitly come out and told us that he is not opposed to the article being kept. Thus, I don't see how BLP concerns are relevant to the deletion question. "Shankbone" knows what it means to have a BLP on Wikipedia, and he's fine with it. Why bend over backwards trying to protect him when he doesn't want the protection?

"SlimVirgin"'s wording is a bit troubling, in that it suggests defaulting to keep for a biography on someone who has not "requested deletion" because they don't know they have one (or don't know they can request its deletion). But I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that this is just careless wording, since it contradicts what she has said previously.

The original policy proposal, that Slim supported, made the desires of the subject irrelevant. See the "whether at the request of the subject or not" bit.

The point was that wikipedia ought to remove marginally notable BLPs, unless there was a consensus to keep them, because wikipedia was structurally incapable to protecting and maintaining such subjects. The policy had nothing to do with what the subject of a particular article wanted -because that got us into a subjective mind field, and left the door open for people saying "I'll demand deletion unless you whitewash". Consistently, Wikipedia has always ignored people who have a desire or willingness to have an article on themselves.

Subjects should not be treated to the BLP horrorshow, and they should not have to opt out, opt in, or be personally involved in any way. As the Danny Brandt demonstrated, that type of interaction is not healthy for Wikipedia or its subjects/victims.

I've never encountered Shankbone, have no quarrel with him, and care little what he wants. Wikipedia is structurally incapable of maintaining BLPs of the marginally notable, and therefore morally and pragmatically should not keep them - particularly if there's not a consensus of users thinking they are needed.

Slim once believed this too - or so I thought.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[anthony]

The point was that wikipedia ought to remove marginally notable BLPs, unless there was a consensus to keep them, because wikipedia was structurally incapable to protecting and maintaining such subjects.

I've never encountered Shankbone, have no quarrel with him, and care little what he wants. Wikipedia is structurally incapable of maintaining BLPs of the marginally notable, and therefore morally and pragmatically should not keep them - particularly if there's not a consensus of users thinking they are needed.

By that argument they should remove everything.

I'd go one step less. They should remove everything except articles on subjects who have opted-in. I see nothing morally wrong with that.

Alternatively, they could build a structure that's capable of maintaining articles. You know, one with accounts and usernames and trust mechanisms and hierarchies.

I'm sure an article on [[David Shankbone]] would have vandalism fixed a lot quicker than one on the vast majority of "more than marginally notable" individuals. This has the dual advantage of wasting the time of both Shankbone proponents and Shankbone opponents. Shankbone might only be "marginally notable" (*), but he draws a lot of editor interest. I'm sure the watchlist on [[David Shankbone]] is 10-20 times as big as that of the median BLP.

(*) Which I'll agree to for the sake of the argument, as I have no idea whether this is true or not.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Kelly Martin]

Slim's actions here are plainly political. She has no real care for what Wikipedia's policy is, and will, without a moment's thought, alter her position, no matter how strongly felt previously, if doing so will gain her political favor.

That's all there is to see here. Anyone who is surprised by this hasn't been paying attention.

[CharlotteWebb]

Ought to fix the first url as it has two "http://" at the front.

Even if there is a generally accepted policy to default to delete on "no consensus" BLPFD's, I'd argue that there is no practical reason to apply it when the subject has unmistakably and ad nauseum gone on record to say he doesn't really care.

While I realize he didn't say "yes, keep it" (at face value at least, putting aside all speculations and second-guessing as to his thoughts)... he does seem to have opted out of any prerogative he might have had to opt-out, or at least given sufficient opportunity he has declined to exercise it.

In most cases we don't know what the subject wants because most people don't have (or have but do not take) the opportunity to make their thoughts known while they are up for deletion, and even if they do register an account and say "yes, delete me", we usually cannot be sure they are who they say (remember the Rod Dreher shenanigans).

So WP might just use the principles of "if we aren't 100% sure they're 'OK with' having an article, we assume they don't want an article", and "if there is a protracted disagreement about what to do with the article, their opinion (or presumed opinion, in absentia) will take precedence", hence "default to delete" for most BLPFD tie-breakers would be a reasonably fair solution.

However as most of Shankbone's exploits (okay maybe that's a distasteful choice of words) have been on WP using the same account, and he has uploaded more than enough photos to prove the rest of them, there is no reasonable doubt that he speaks as the subject of this article... however he has not objected to it, and in fact offers no clear preference which might otherwise trump a "no-consensus" deadlock.

So given this level of apathy I would honestly and with a straight face say let's ignore the special BLPFD procedures for the time being and treat it as any other article (though this advice might be a bit too optimistic given his status as a polarizing figure, but whatever...), at least until he and/or the WP "community" reaches some clear position regarding the article.

I realize this isn't what Slim said, and neither do I mean to claim this is what she meant.

I'm just saying "default to what the subject wants" (when there is otherwise no consensus) is not much more revolutionary than "default to delete because we presume that's what the subject would want if had some idea how bad WP really is".

"Don't default to anything when even the subject doesn't know what the subject wants" shouldn't be terribly earth-shattering either, I don't think.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[gomi]

Sarah, I'm guessing you read this, so I'll be interested in your response?

The "last active" date and time of any member is available in their profile. In Hell/Slim/Sarah/Linda's case, it was 5 October. So she reads regularly, if not frequently, even when she's not posting. However, she only takes on arguments she thinks she can win, and I'll guess this isn't one of them.

[Cedric]

This is really strange.

No, it isn't. Not even remotely. As Kelly Martin suggests above, you simply have not been paying attention. Any alliance or collaboration with Stroynaya lasts only as long as she deems it useful, or deems that it has that potential.

Why is she now seeking to enforce a practice she once held to be irresponsible?

Sarah, I'm guessing you read this, so I'll be interested in your response?

Expect Linda to respond on or about the 12th of Never.

[Random832]

This is really strange.

You're new here, aren't you?

(That said, I do think the BLP delete arguments here are specious. He clearly wants the article; so in that regard it can be his problem. The arguments about self-promotion and bias are a bit more genuine)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Slim's actions here are plainly political. She has no real care for what Wikipedia's policy is, and will, without a moment's thought, alter her position, no matter how strongly felt previously, if doing so will gain her political favor.

That's all there is to see here. Anyone who is surprised by this hasn't been paying attention.

While I generally agree, it should also be remembered that in addition to simply clawing her way up the WP hierarchy, SV is also interested in pushing POV, so she may have an agenda here that relates to that. Check to see what recent BLPs she has authored or edited.

[Jon Awbrey]

Moderator's note: In the original title of this thread, the word "inconsistency" was misspelled. We apologize for any confusion that may result.

"Slim inconsistancy [sic] on BLP?"

O swear not by the moon, th'inconsistant† moon
That monthly changes in her circled orb …

[Picture removed, no one needed to see that - Selina]

I'm sure there's a m☺☻n i c ☼ n out there somewhere, but I didn't have time to go looking for it.

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

† Sorry, Bill …

This post has been edited by Selina:

[grievous]

Slim's actions here are plainly political. She has no real care for what Wikipedia's policy is, and will, without a moment's thought, alter her position, no matter how strongly felt previously, if doing so will gain her political favor.

That's all there is to see here. Anyone who is surprised by this hasn't been paying attention.

While I generally agree, it should also be remembered that in addition to simply clawing her way up the WP hierarchy, SV is also interested in pushing POV, so she may have an agenda here that relates to that. Check to see what recent BLPs she has authored or edited.

Slim extensively edited much of the puffery that was in the Shankbone article. This is what has primarily precipitated her participation in this discussion and whose deletion has given her "pause for thought" about her original support for the "default to delete" change in policy.

Scratching Shanker's back seems to be more evidence for the conspiracy theory that she's part of the propaganda effort on Wikipedia by the Israeli government.

This post has been edited by grievous:

[gomi]

"Slim inconsistancy [sic] on BLP?"

O swear not by the moon, th'inconsistant† moon
That monthly changes in her circled orb …

Let me be he first to say that it's nice to have Jon back.

[Lar]

"Slim inconsistancy [sic] on BLP?"

O swear not by the moon, th'inconsistant† moon
That monthly changes in her circled orb …

Let me be he first to say that it's nice to have Jon back.

You're (at least) second. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Plus, I already got insulted back. Top that, bobbleheaded one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

"Slim inconsistancy [sic] on BLP?"

O swear not by the moon, th'inconsistant† moon
That monthly changes in her circled orb …

What shall I swear by?

Do not swear at all;


(Or, if thou wilt, swear by thy gracious self,
Which is the god of my idolatry,
And I'll believe thee.) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

"Slim inconsistancy [sic] on BLP?"

O swear not by the moon, th'inconsistant† moon
That monthly changes in her circled orb …

Let me be he first to say that it's nice to have Jon back.

You're (at least) second. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Plus, I already got insulted back. Top that, bobbleheaded one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Insult?

How wikli they 4get wut a real insult is like …

Anyway, the only thing that really drug me bak — aside from the OC need to comment on wut pour spielers u r — is the fact that some Staff Infection seems to have killed all the links bak to WR that I've posted allover the Web by way of signature links to my WR ³icle.

Wut's ↑ with that?

Have you WeiRdos gotten even more para-nerd than you used 2 bee that someone might be Board Enuff to bee tracking your online beehaviour?

Siriusly !!!

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[Somey]

Wut's ↑ with that?

Have you WeiRdos gotten even more para-nerd than you used 2 bee that someone might be Board Enuff to bee tracking your online beehaviour?

Sorry about that - we were having a problem with Spamborgs, or human-assisted spambots. At one point we were getting about 20 per day, and one of the best tell-tale signs of spamborginess is the new member's signature, which (for a spambot/borg) always contains a link to a dubious commercial website of some kind. So, we decided to reduce the problem by hiding the user profiles from non-members.

It might be time to reconsider that solution, since the problem does seem to have subsided, and I can't prove conclusively that hiding the profiles was the key factor. However, if you've got a lot of external links to your profile, another thing I could do is set up a server redirect from that URL to some other page on the site - and I could do that for anyone else who is similarly inconvenienced. (Within reason!) Just let me know the preferred destination URL - and if you want to get fancy with it, you could send me a simple HTML page that we could keep in a separate folder, subject to approval of course (i.e., no porn, libel, adverts, viruses, or references to the Nazis).

[Lar]

(i.e., no porn, libel, adverts, viruses, or references to the Nazis).

Libertarian references are OK though????

Insult?

I'm sorry! It was a slow news day so I made shit up. (you know, kinda how I make CU stuff up, or so they say)

[Somey]

Libertarian references are OK though????

Only if it's to point out how awful they all are... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Seriously, though, it depends on how you define "libertarian." There are political, social, and cultural "flavors" of libertarianism, and we're mostly concerned with the last of those three, right? And of course, there's also the Randroid problem, but (for example) we've allowed Kurt Weber to keep Randroid links in his signature for months without complaining too bitterly. After all, it's important for people reading his posts to know where he's coming from.

Another possibility for someone like Jon here would be to simply save the member profile page (which you can see whilst logged in) as a static HTML file, upload it to a public/profile folder of some sort, and then redirect to that. We might have to upload new versions every time he changed something, of course, but hopefully that won't be a regular occurrence. We could also redirect offsite, but then people would get "suspicious redirect" warnings, which are annoying.

[everyking]

I think this is a strange discussion to be having. Shankbone is officially neutral about having an article, and of course we all know he really wants the article--either way, there's no basis for BLP concerns. Personally, I think it's worth considering a "default to delete" provision for the handful of people who actually complain about their articles, but why would anyone want to apply it to someone who is fully aware of his BLP and completely unconcerned about it? What I see here is simple deletionism dressed up as a BLP fixation. I don't think Shankbone should have an article because I think he's non-notable, but I would rather see his article kept than see people abusing the BLP policy to advance a deletionist agenda.