Rumble over BLP Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Once again, let me apologize in advance if this matter is already being discussed in another thread that I haven't read.

There is an interesting battle over BLP policy, involving many familiar personalities, here at Arbitration Clarification Requests, with a sideshow at Lar's talk page. As is typically the case, the whole learned debate is dancing around the elephant in the room, which is that Will Beback routinely uses WP as an agenda-driven platform for defamation, but since he is a senior Wikipediot, that matter is not up for discussion, so instead there must be a prolonged discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of BLP.

[A Horse With No Name]

...with a sideshow at Lar's talk page.

Lar sure knows how to host a party!

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

...with a sideshow at Lar's talk page.

Lar sure knows how to host a party!

[Lar]

...with a sideshow at Lar's talk page.

Lar sure knows how to host a party!

I do?

[SB_Johnny]

...with a sideshow at Lar's talk page.

Lar sure knows how to host a party!

I do?

Dude, you're the hoster with the moster.

[Lar]

...with a sideshow at Lar's talk page.

Lar sure knows how to host a party!

I do?

Dude, you're the hoster with the moster.

Thank you for not saying I'm the hostess with the mostest.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Are you sure you wouldn't be on the other side of this question if the bio was on the other side of your POV? But in any case I think your reinserting material via discussionless reversion is problematic. We should err on the side of safety. As I said before, I trust Scott's judgment more than I do yours. He seems willing to engage in discussion. You seem willing to engage in wikilawyering rather than meaningful discussion. I'm not sure there's much more to say here. I'm hopeful that ArbCom will continue to vigorously assert the principles they have in the past. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that AGF is a policy, not just a suggestion. What POV am I supposed to have about these BLPs? Will Beback talk 22:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that AGF is only a starting assumption and once disproved, no longer applies. Your POV on Scientology is fairly well known I think. Perhaps not quite as well known as on LaRouchism but nonetheless. Was there anything else? As I said, I don't really trust your judgment much. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant.

Subsequent edit: Will may not have been involved in POV crusades over Scientology. His present focus is on the Transcendental Meditators.

[GlassBeadGame]

...with a sideshow at Lar's talk page.

Lar sure knows how to host a party!

This?



I think you over thought it:

CODE

[youtube]
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vrONIb9gQ-k?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vrONIb9gQ-k?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
[/youtube]

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Are you sure you wouldn't be on the other side of this question if the bio was on the other side of your POV? ... ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, I can recall a case where it was, and he was. Beback argued for the deletion of Dennis King (T-H-L-K-D) (there is a new article by that name that used to be called Dennis King (actor) (T-H-L-K-D) .) He did this because very little flattering information could be found on King, and Beback loves to use King's anti-LaRouche book as a source.

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank: Thu 16th December 2010, 3:12am

[A Horse With No Name]

...with a sideshow at Lar's talk page.

Lar sure knows how to host a party!

I do?

Really...if I had a choice of chilling with Hef at the Playboy Mansion or Lar at his palatial estate, it is obvious where I would be!

[Jon Awbrey]

Really … if I had a choice of chilling with Hef at the Playboy Mansion or Lar at his palatial estate, it is obvious where I would be!

Yeah, either way, out back, in the barn …

Jon

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Meanwhile, back at the AE board, there is a some good shit going down, including the following (am I the first person ever to praise Tony Sidaway on this board?)

The problem, and it's a pretty obvious one over five years after Siegenthaler, is that we knowingly and perversely retain crappy articles that we're not prepared to maintain, on the subject of living people. Only arbcom can motivate us to resolve this problem, which has only grown since the principle of deletion was established in 2007. I will ask the new Committee to take this problem on as a matter of urgency. The community is not only failing in this primary objective, it's openly and vociferously thwarting reasonable attempts to mitigate the problem. --TS 00:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And Cla68 sums the matter up thusly:

In my opinion, admins who don't seem to understand that we should err on the side of caution with regards to BLPs should be barred from further involvement with BLP articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

[Jon Awbrey]

Will may not have been involved in POV crusades over Scientology. His present focus is on the Transcendental Meditators.

Hey! They could change the name of ArbCon to “Transcendental Mediation” —

That might be just the ticket to drive him over the edge —

Oh wait …

Jon

[taiwopanfob]

And Cla68 sums the matter up thusly:

In my opinion, admins who don't seem to understand that we should err on the side of caution with regards to BLPs should be barred from further involvement with BLP articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Alas, this is just another avenue for argument: does the editor 'understand'? An entire bureaucracy to allow for appeals and reviews. "BTDT".

No.

There should be a "BLP Bit", and the WMF (and only the WMF) hands it out only to those it can identify to the point that, if necessary, legal process can be initiated. To deal with nightmare the WMF has allowed to come into existence, all existing BLP's are taken down, and only brought back up when a BLP-bit editor steps forward, willing to accept ultimate responsibility for it.

[Lar]

And Cla68 sums the matter up thusly:

In my opinion, admins who don't seem to understand that we should err on the side of caution with regards to BLPs should be barred from further involvement with BLP articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Alas, this is just another avenue for argument: does the editor 'understand'? An entire bureaucracy to allow for appeals and reviews. "BTDT".

No.

There should be a "BLP Bit", and the WMF (and only the WMF) hands it out only to those it can identify to the point that, if necessary, legal process can be initiated. To deal with nightmare the WMF has allowed to come into existence, all existing BLP's are taken down, and only brought back up when a BLP-bit editor steps forward, willing to accept ultimate responsibility for it.

Would that mean this editor would be the only person who could pass (using flagged revisions or the like) changes on from proposed to accepted?

I think your idea has merit. But then I think everyone should use their real name when they edit WP>

Really...if I had a choice of chilling with Hef at the Playboy Mansion or Lar at his palatial estate, it is obvious where I would be!

Dude, if I was faced with that choice I'd choose the Playboy Mansion.

[Milton Roe]

There should be a "BLP Bit", and the WMF (and only the WMF) hands it out only to those it can identify to the point that, if necessary, legal process can be initiated.

And to take this further, that would only be the foundation lawyer. Who would authorize BLPs for a few of the most famous politicians, and that's all.

All fixed!

[Cla68]

To their credit, so far the arbitrators appear to be unanimous in their support for Scott McDonald's interpretation of BLP policy.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Fri 17th December 2010, 1:20am

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Great stuff from User talk:Scott MacDonald:

You really don't get it do you? We've got a festering sump of BLPs, unmaintained, of questionable importance, and capable of damaging innocent people, who never asked for any involvement in Wikipedia. We need to encourage MORE vigilance and develop far stricter methods of damage limitation. If that occasionally means a bid of a trivial article or some low-interest material is inadvertently removed, then that is a price well worth paying. You, however, are utterly indifferent to the problem, and rather are myopically and selfishly concerning yourself with an inhouse squabble about how rules are written and processes followed. I have as much contempt for such such priorities as you have long had for BLP issues. I've had your card marked for a number of years.--Scott Mac 08:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Scott, with all due respect. Just because I disagree with you on some issue doesn't mean that I shit upon BLPs. I've added more sources to BLPs than you have, I'd bet.
I've had your card marked for a number of years
What does that mean? Why so combative?
If by "get it" you mean understand the importance of getting BLPs right, then of course I get it. Just about every day that I edit I revert or remove inappropriate material about living people. I work as hard as anyone can be expected to in improving articles on BLPs. There are few editors who "get it" better than I do...
Will Beback talk 11:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

[Milton Roe]

If by "get it" you mean understand the importance of getting BLPs right, then of course I get it. Just about every day that I edit I revert or remove inappropriate material about living people. I work as hard as anyone can be expected to in improving articles on BLPs. There are few editors who "get it" better than I do... Will Beback talk 11:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT:

I really do NOT think Beback gets it. Most of the time, most people (myself included, alas) only "get it" until "it" happens to THEM or somebody they care for very much. Then, their eyes are opened.

Now hear this, Beback: most evil in the world is not due to actively evil people, but due to ordinary people who don't have enough imagination to "get it" without having their noses rubbed in it, from real and personal nasty experience.

Read the following and try REAL hard. Note that you must paste the address into your browser and ADD the period at the end of "Jr." Otherwise the link doesn't work. I dunno how to paste the address in here, since this HTML helpfully removes the period in the URL which is needed to actually make the link work:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Will_McWhinney_Jr.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If by "get it" you mean understand the importance of getting BLPs right, then of course I get it. Just about every day that I edit I revert or remove inappropriate material about living people. I work as hard as anyone can be expected to in improving articles on BLPs. There are few editors who "get it" better than I do... Will Beback talk 11:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT:

I really do NOT think Beback gets it.

Actually, I think that he does get it. Like any other Wikipedia policy, BLP works either at odds with your POV, or in concert with it. As Lar so insightfully asked,

Are you sure you wouldn't be on the other side of this question if the bio was on the other side of your POV?

The answer, of course, is "yes." Will's comment above would be more truthful if it read as follows:

If by "get it" you mean understand the importance of getting BLPs right, then of course I get it. Just about every day that I edit I add or remove inappropriate material about living people. I work as hard as anyone can be expected to in exploiting articles on BLPs. There are few editors who "get it" better than I do...