Miraculous Baby Charlotte, maybe User:CharlotteWebb? did she use proxies? Options

[BobbyBombastic]

if she used proxies to hell with her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Cleverley-Bisman

This article was deleted by an administrator due to concerns that it may violate Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. A review of the deletion has overturned that result and referred the article to "Articles for Deletion" for further discussion of the issues raised regarding the article originally. Pursuant to a previous recommendation by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, this page has been protected from editing without any of the previous content on it until the discussion results in a consensus either to restore or delete the content. The previous contents may be viewed for discussion via the "history" feature.

[1]

version that wasn't blanked

AfD

any other BLP related AfDs being handled like this?

[GlassBeadGame]

if she used proxies to hell with her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Cleverley-Bisman

This article was deleted by an administrator due to concerns that it may violate Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. A review of the deletion has overturned that result and referred the article to "Articles for Deletion" for further discussion of the issues raised regarding the article originally. Pursuant to a previous recommendation by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, this page has been protected from editing without any of the previous content on it until the discussion results in a consensus either to restore or delete the content. The previous contents may be viewed for discussion via the "history" feature.

[1]

version that wasn't blanked

AfD

any other BLP related AfDs being handled like this?

Don't say it.

Can't help myself.

Don't...

Never make it through AfD...

Shut-up damn it.

Article doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Bastard.

[Somey]

So as I understand it, the parents of this little girl want the article kept, because it helps them generate publicity, which in turn helps them raise money for medical expenses? And the consensus so far is to keep the article, presumably on that basis...?

Sounds like there are more proxies involved here than we realize.

[GlassBeadGame]

So as I understand it, the parents of this little girl want the article kept, because it helps them generate publicity, which in turn helps them raise money for medical expenses? And the consensus so far is to keep the article, presumably on that basis...?

Sounds like there are more proxies involved here than we realize.

This is interesting. This would seem to test some of the the underlying assumptions of semi-notable opt-out. I don't have a problem with parents speaking on behalf of very young children. That is appropriate. But the article does highlight how outside factors, other than notability and privacy, can distort the nature of the decision to opt-out or opt-in.

I believe a better approach is to place the determination of notability, weighed against the intrusion into the subject's lives, into the hands of a committee of non-Wikipedians. The "BLP Review Committee" members would have backgrounds that make them trustworthy for this determination (journalist, historians, ethicists.) The expressed desire of the subject (or parent/guardian) would be one consideration. Initial review could be based on the face of the article, with further review available if the article subject wishes. Such a panel should be able to address a fairly large number of BLP articles in a short period of time.

This process is likely to be unappealing to Wikipedians for a number of reasons. It undermines the hegemony of the "community" in editorial decisions. It engaged people with real expertise. It cannot be implemented without some expense.

From the view of the wider community it is very attractive. It provides protection without the need to engage in WP processes. It provides protection to those unaware of the article's existence. It assures a decision made by trustworthy people. Most importantly it makes sure that the interests of stakeholders wholly absent from WP "community" processes are respected.

[BobbyBombastic]

So as I understand it, the parents of this little girl want the article kept, because it helps them generate publicity, which in turn helps them raise money for medical expenses? And the consensus so far is to keep the article, presumably on that basis...?

Sounds like there are more proxies involved here than we realize.

Unless you're Tony, then you vote delete on the basis of basic human decency[1]

Which begs the question, "Tony, what the hell are you talking about?" And so it was asked!

** Dear Tony, that is a wonderful goal, but which human are you trying to be decent to, please? Surely not Charlotte or her parents, who actively seek out publicity, at least partly because they need donations to pay for her artificial limbs.[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=10369798] [http://www.babycharlotte.co.nz/trust.html] [http://www.babycharlotte.co.nz/donate.html] [http://www.babycharlotte.co.nz/projects.html] Or do you believe you know their needs better than they do? --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] 00:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC) [2]

To which Tony "Sweet Courtesy Blanker" Sidaway replies

*** Charlotte, her parents, and most of all, myself. I would not be a human being if I supported the abuse of Wikipedia for trash like this. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC) [3]

But the good news is that he'll accept the decision and do his best not to vomit.