The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Brandt's article deleted, undeleted, stubbed, ad infinitum..., The BLP war era continues
Alex
post Fri 23rd February 2007, 4:36pm
Post #1


Back from the dead
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined: Wed 24th Jan 2007, 4:39pm
Member No.: 867

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



So it's gone now. Deleted by Yanksox, speedily endorsed by our friend Gaillimh. Three cheers all round? cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Fri 23rd February 2007, 4:53pm
Post #2


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



Bravo. Now I want a box seat for the inevitable wheel war.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex
post Fri 23rd February 2007, 4:55pm
Post #3


Back from the dead
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined: Wed 24th Jan 2007, 4:39pm
Member No.: 867

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 4:53pm) *

Bravo. Now I want a box seat for the inevitable wheel war.

It's currently being AfD'd, but I expect it'll produce a similar result.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Fri 23rd February 2007, 5:12pm
Post #4


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 10:55am) *
...I expect it'll produce a similar result.

Similar = deleted, or similar = restored?

I think there's actually reason for optimism this time. Some of the "heavy hitters" are clearly fed up, and maybe this whole Fuzzy Zoeller business has affected their thinking somewhat - there's going to be a LOT of scrutiny of WP's BLP policies and procedures over the next couple of weeks, and deleting this now will help them enormously on that score.

I just wonder what we'll talk about here once that article is gone... Anybody know any good bran-muffin recipes? smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymouse
post Fri 23rd February 2007, 5:41pm
Post #5


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 10:50pm
Member No.: 963



Now it's on WP:DRV, and staying deleted. Here's a permalink, decide for yourself: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:l9nE4...lient=firefox-a
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
taiwopanfob
post Fri 23rd February 2007, 5:42pm
Post #6


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm
Member No.: 214



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 5:12pm) *

I think there's actually reason for optimism this time. Some of the "heavy hitters" are clearly fed up, and maybe this whole Fuzzy Zoeller business has affected their thinking somewhat - there's going to be a LOT of scrutiny of WP's BLP policies and procedures over the next couple of weeks, and deleting this now will help them enormously on that score.


Wales and company must be quite relieved that Wikipedia was not listed as a defendant. But I suspect that if one quietly asked the plaintiff it may have been more to do with not wanting to suffer the image of being the guy who takes on (and perhaps down) WP than any legal hand-waving about section 230.

Anyways, a reasonable prediction of the theory is a spike in AFD's for borderline bios begins soon. Definitive evidence being an WP:BLP edit to the effect of "subject deletion requests honored".

This is an excellent opportunity for Wales to actually assert some executive authority.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
No one of consequence
post Fri 23rd February 2007, 5:45pm
Post #7


I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri 23rd Feb 2007, 2:34am
Member No.: 1,010

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Well, so far they're holding a clusterfuck over where the real clusterfuck should be held. The sleeper issue here is the super secret admins-only IRC channel. Can one deletion lead to 3 CFs on the same day? How about 4?
The third CF

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Fri 23rd February 2007, 5:46pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unrepentant Vandal
post Fri 23rd February 2007, 6:25pm
Post #8


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 6th Sep 2006, 12:38pm
Member No.: 394



QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 5:45pm) *

Well, so far they're holding a clusterfuck over where the real clusterfuck should be held. The sleeper issue here is the super secret admins-only IRC channel. Can one deletion lead to 3 CFs on the same day? How about 4?
The third CF


Wikipedia is living in interesting times, and I'm loving it biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 23rd February 2007, 8:26pm
Post #9


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 12:42pm) *


This is an excellent opportunity for Wales to actually assert some executive authority.


Uh, oh. That's a surefire recipe for Mixed-signal-talky-out-of-one-side-of-my-mouth-but-me-do-different-thing-altogether-with-other-side-of-my-mouth Disease.

Please -- this is an excellent opportunity for Brad Patrick and the Board to grow some gonads and actually set a policy that is decidedly NOT of the typical knee-jerk variety!

I'm not holding my breath, though. That would subvert the power of the God-King, so it's not likely to happen.

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alkivar
post Fri 23rd February 2007, 8:35pm
Post #10


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 3:12am
Member No.: 211

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Look Jimbo wading in is probably a bad idea... we all know a fiat declaration will not be a popular thing.

The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it.

Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process.

So best of luck to you DB... hopefully the status quo of delete... remains the status quo.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anon1234
post Fri 23rd February 2007, 9:10pm
Post #11


Senior Member
****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat 8th Apr 2006, 2:40am
Member No.: 111



QUOTE(Alkivar @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 8:35pm) *
The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it.

Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process.
While this is a solution to this article, it isn't a globally optimal solution. What this is, is an instance where sustained retaliation and pressure resulted in an article being removed. Most individuals who end up in Brandt's situation do not have the time or research ability to do this. A consistent policy that allows for intermediately notable people to opt-out of Wikipedia would be a fairer solution. While it would be difficult to craft, it would allow for more consistency in this current grey area. Wales shouldn't have to intervene every time in such situations nor should admins have to take on the risk of being very WP:BOLD as Yanksox did.

There should be a request for opt-out means which results in a way to confirm the request is authentic and then triggers an AfD. In that AfD people then argue whether or not the individual meets the higher degree of notability required in order to keep the article against the wishes of the article's subject. If a non-notable individual then becomes more public one can initiate another discussion of whether the individual is deserving of a Wikipedia bio. Thus integrating into the standard AfD policy framework a means of opting-out.

This post has been edited by anon1234: Fri 23rd February 2007, 9:30pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
a view from the hive
post Sat 24th February 2007, 12:38am
Post #12


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat 30th Dec 2006, 12:42am
From: Milky Way Galaxy
Member No.: 768

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(anon1234 @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 1:10pm) *

QUOTE(Alkivar @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 8:35pm) *
The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it.

Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process.
While this is a solution to this article, it isn't a globally optimal solution. What this is, is an instance where sustained retaliation and pressure resulted in an article being removed. Most individuals who end up in Brandt's situation do not have the time or research ability to do this. A consistent policy that allows for intermediately notable people to opt-out of Wikipedia would be a fairer solution. While it would be difficult to craft, it would allow for more consistency in this current grey area. Wales shouldn't have to intervene every time in such situations nor should admins have to take on the risk of being very WP:BOLD as Yanksox did.

There should be a request for opt-out means which results in a way to confirm the request is authentic and then triggers an AfD. In that AfD people then argue whether or not the individual meets the higher degree of notability required in order to keep the article against the wishes of the article's subject. If a non-notable individual then becomes more public one can initiate another discussion of whether the individual is deserving of a Wikipedia bio. Thus integrating into the standard AfD policy framework a means of opting-out.


Well, it comes down to who actually would want to lookup info about Daniel. No offense, but I highly highly doubt Daniel's going to make Time or Fortune or any sort of public figure list anytime soon. The article was mostly kept because some people were strongly opposed to the tatics Daniel had used, and they wanted "revenge."

On the bright side, I think give it a couple more days and with the way it's going I can close the DRV as endorsed (it'd be too big of an uproar if I did it now and someone would likely wheel war over it...)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LamontStormstar
post Sat 24th February 2007, 2:14am
Post #13


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,359
Joined: Fri 18th Aug 2006, 7:25am
Member No.: 342

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Brandt's notable for mainly that Seigler(sp?) thing where Brandt found the guy's info.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 24th February 2007, 2:35am
Post #14


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 8:14pm) *
Brandt's notable for mainly that Seigler(sp?) thing where Brandt found the guy's info.

And don't forget he won the 1993 Texas Chili Cookoff in the Vegetarian Division. Hell, if it weren't for him, I'd still be using those awful dark red kidney beans...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
a view from the hive
post Sat 24th February 2007, 2:59am
Post #15


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat 30th Dec 2006, 12:42am
From: Milky Way Galaxy
Member No.: 768

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 6:14pm) *

Brandt's notable for mainly that Seigler(sp?) thing where Brandt found the guy's info.


I guess your definition of "notable" is something other than mine. I don't consider that notable at all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 24th February 2007, 4:09am
Post #16


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



But what about the time in 1997 when he balanced 14 Romanian gymnasts on the tip of his nose? That record lasted almost three years!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
a view from the hive
post Sat 24th February 2007, 4:13am
Post #17


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat 30th Dec 2006, 12:42am
From: Milky Way Galaxy
Member No.: 768

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 8:09pm) *

But what about the time in 1997 when he balanced 14 Romanian gymnasts on the tip of his nose? That record lasted almost three years!


Wikipedia tries to contain only factual information. Perhaps The Wikipedia Review should try the same smile.gif

Try the truth, it looks better smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 24th February 2007, 5:21am
Post #18


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(a view from the hive @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 10:13pm) *
Try the truth, it looks better smile.gif

Do you have reliable sources that can verify that he didn't balance 14 Romanian gymnasts on the tip of his nose?

Besides, if the truth looks better, how do you explain my driver's license photo?

Also, I'm concerned about the fact that Everyking seems to be voting to overturn the deletion. I can only assume our lack of positive Ashlee Simpson coverage has turned him against us.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
a view from the hive
post Sat 24th February 2007, 6:27am
Post #19


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat 30th Dec 2006, 12:42am
From: Milky Way Galaxy
Member No.: 768

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 9:21pm) *

QUOTE(a view from the hive @ Fri 23rd February 2007, 10:13pm) *
Try the truth, it looks better smile.gif

Do you have reliable sources that can verify that he didn't balance 14 Romanian gymnasts on the tip of his nose?

Besides, if the truth looks better, how do you explain my driver's license photo?

Also, I'm concerned about the fact that Everyking seems to be voting to overturn the deletion. I can only assume our lack of positive Ashlee Simpson coverage has turned him against us.


I believe the onus is on you to prove that he did not the contrary. One is innocent until proven guilty (we hope) and I think we can express the same to facts.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the fieryangel
post Sat 24th February 2007, 11:01am
Post #20


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



Regardless of HOW the article was deleted, the fact that it was deleted doesn't really solve the problem. Daniel was slandered by months by Wikipedia and its editors. Just because they're yanking the article doesn't fix any of that.

If I were Daniel, I'd expect a public apology from Jimbo right now. And I'd also expect to receive some sort of settlement for damages.

So, I don't think that this really ends anything. It's just a step in the right direction.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 10 14, 3:08pm