Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Geniice takes on BLP work
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Articles > Biographies of Living Persons
thekohser
A certain someone e-mailed this to me as a "leak". I'm republishing it here, because I consider the content to be reputable, and information wants to be free. I'm not exactly sure which IRC channel this comes from, so don't ask me.

If you want to read the whole Erika Sifrit article from Wikipedia, just Google her name, and check Google's cache. It's still there, in all its infamy.

QUOTE
[17:39] <S_McD> Wow, anyone want a BLP for target practice with G10?
[17:39] <S_McD> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erika_Sifrit
[17:42] <Aqwis> a former / former / honor student
[17:42] <Jake_Wartenberg> oh my god
[17:42] <Jake_Wartenberg> look at the deletion log
[17:43] <Jake_Wartenberg> what the FUCK
[17:43] <Rjd0060> what a joke
[17:43] <Rjd0060> geniice ^
[17:43] <juliancolton> huh/
[17:43] <cary> geniice "saved" it.
[17:43] <geniice> no
[17:43] <juliancolton> wow
[17:43] <juliancolton> fail
[17:43] <geniice> I killed the copyvios
[17:44] <Rjd0060> Leave the libel, though.
[17:44] <geniice> not libel
[17:44] <geniice> I did dump it back into this channel but no one seemed to care
[17:44] <Rjd0060> We've established your opinion on the content. I think you're in the minority though.
[17:44] <Rjd0060> tongue
[17:44] <Jake_Wartenberg> XD
[17:44] <geniice> Rjd0060 it's not libel because it's true
[17:45] <geniice> Rjd0060 you may wish to argue for A7
[17:45] <cary> {{citation needed}}
[17:45] <Rjd0060> g10 works
[17:45] <geniice> http://ssristories.com/show.php?item=334
[17:45] <Rjd0060> I delete-conflicted though.
[17:45] * Jake_Wartenberg winz
[17:46] <NuclearWarfare> You have to be kidding
[17:46] <NuclearWarfare> How on earth was that restorable
[17:46] <geniice> was what?
[17:46] <juliancolton> geniice: how about you not touch BLPs smile
[17:46] <geniice> juliancolton it was a copyvio
[17:47] <geniice> I deleted the copyvio revisions
[17:47] <juliancolton> why did you feel the need to restore libel?
[17:47] <geniice> 1)not libel
[17:47] <Jake_Wartenberg> You restored a BLP violation.
[17:47] <Rjd0060> "It's not libel if it's true"
[17:47] <juliancolton> lawl
[17:47] <geniice> 2) were not copyvios
[17:47] <Jake_Wartenberg> It doesn't matter if it was libel.
[17:47] <cary> She was convicted of murder, however non-notable.
[17:47] <geniice> juliancolton you complaint appears to be that I didn't touch the BLP
[17:47] <Jake_Wartenberg> It was about as much of a BLP policy violation as you can got.
[17:47] <juliancolton> geniice: my complaint is that you created a BLP violation
[17:47] <geniice> juliancolton nope
[17:48] <Jake_Wartenberg> *restored
[17:48] <juliancolton> yes
[17:48] <geniice> juliancolton it was created by someone else
[17:48] <Rjd0060> 6 of 1, IMO.
[17:48] <geniice> juliancolton I just cleaned the copyvio off it
[17:48] <juliancolton> geniice: ...but you restored it into the mainspace
[17:48] <cary> I think geniice was removing a copyvio, without worrying about the BLP part.
[17:48] <NuclearWarfare> Restoring a BLP violation is the same as adding it into the article
[17:48] <geniice> juliancolton it was there already
[17:48] <juliancolton> oh, ok
[17:48] <juliancolton> that makes it better
[17:48] <NuclearWarfare> Maybe not legally
[17:48] <cary> I agree that the article is shit. and doesn't belong.
[17:49] <geniice> juliancolton it was recreated after the 2008 deletion
[17:49] <NuclearWarfare> But do if you had ethics...
[17:49] <geniice> but not by me. I never undeleted the 2008 stuff
[17:49] <Jake_Wartenberg> not "worrying about the BLP part" while using admin tools is bad
[17:49] <juliancolton> geniice: I don't think you really get the issue...
[17:49] <juliancolton> you restored a BLP violation into the mainspace
[17:49] <juliancolton> doesn't matter who did what before you
[17:49] <geniice> juliancolton you were the one who told me not to touch BLPs
[17:49] <geniice> However I still go after copyvios
[17:49] <juliancolton> it's fine if it was a mistake, which I'll assume it was
[17:50] <geniice> the thing was that in traceing the copyvio I found enough evidence to confirm it was true
[17:50] <juliancolton> but, caution is needed when dealing with unreferenced (and indeed all) BLPs
[17:50] <juliancolton> so why didn't you add the source?
[17:51] <geniice> If I had done that you would have had a harder time deleting it no?
[17:51] <Rjd0060> Doubt it
[17:52] <Rjd0060> juliancolton isn't much of a wonk
[17:52] <geniice> look I found it like this:
[17:52] <geniice> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit...0126164025
[17:52] <cary> I know geniice is fun for a free-for-all, but let's be realistic
[17:52] <geniice> I blasted it back to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit...0130154510
[17:53] <geniice> people in this channel who claim to care about BLPs knew about this
[17:53] <cary> he was just removing a copyright infringement. And he pointed out the other part to the channel.
[17:53] <NuclearWarfare> But why didn't you deal with it yourself
[17:53] <cary> Because he's not really good at BLPs
[17:53] <Rjd0060> ok, lets settle down. smile if it was posted in here, that's good
[17:54] <NuclearWarfare> ...It takes 1 click to G10 something
[17:54] <geniice> and now it's deleted
[17:54] <NuclearWarfare> I really can't understand why you wouldn't at least tag it
[17:55] <JamieS93> It was a very blatant case.
[17:55] <geniice> because no one else in the channel did
[17:56] <geniice> JamieS93 wikipedia reports that someone convicted of murder was convicted of murder? I can think of more blatent cases
[17:56] <JamieS93> I didn't say it was the "most blatant", so never mind.
[17:57] <geniice> Rember that line fron WP:BLP "We must get the article right."
[17:57] <juliancolton> but information in BLPs MUST be verifiable
[17:57] <juliancolton> not just "right"
[17:58] <geniice> juliancolton sourced I think it was verifiable
[17:58] <juliancolton> ?
[17:58] <JamieS93> The present version was not sourced.
[17:58] <geniice> juliancolton the objection is that the article is not sourced not that it isn't verifiable
[17:58] <juliancolton> ...?
[17:58] <JamieS93> The unverified negative part that you restored was completely unsourced. Passerby have no clue whether or not it's true.
[17:58] <juliancolton> it was neither sourced nor verifiable
[17:59] <cary> can we go around in circles one more time?
[17:59] <Rjd0060> Chillax.
[17:59] <Rjd0060> Do people still say that?
[17:59] <Mike_H> No

=== Version restored by Geniice, errors included in diff ===

{{Citations missing|date=January 2010}}{{Unbalanced|date=January 2010}}'''[Subject Name]''' (nee [Name], born on [DoB]), is a former

former honor student at [College], of murdering a [US State] couple she and her young husband met during a night of bar-hopping in [City].

Jurors deliberated four hours before finding the [City, State] woman guilty of first-degree murder for the death of [Victim 1], 32, and second-degree murder for the death of his girlfriend, [Victim 2], 51. Parts of the dismembered bodies of the Fairfax, Va., couple were found in a [US State] landfill nine days after their [Date], slayings.

[Subject Name] is an honors graduate of [College].

[Subject's Husband] claimed at his trial that he was asleep outside the condominium complex when the two were killed. His lawyer called [Subject Name] “Crazy [Subject's First Name]” and portrayed her as a pill-popping, snake-loving, sexually promiscuous loose cannon.
RDH(Ghost In The Machine)
Well that's awful Gen-nice of her/him!

Sorry...me go shut up now.

A Horse With No Name
Don't these kids ever do homework? ermm.gif
CharlotteWebb
QUOTE

* 22:43, 26 January 2010 Jake Wartenberg (talk | contribs) deleted "Erika Sifrit" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)
* 21:00, 25 January 2010 Geni (talk | contribs) restored "Erika Sifrit" ‎ (3 revisions restored: restoring non copyvio revisions)
* 20:59, 25 January 2010 Geni (talk | contribs) deleted "Erika Sifrit" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://ssristories.com/show.php?item=334 )
* 21:52, 27 January 2008 Versageek (talk | contribs) deleted "Erika Sifrit" ‎ (CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance)

Looks like Geni's only interest in this article was to remove copyright infringement, but apparently there is still no way to selectively delete revisions, only to delete them all and selectively restore the opposite set. This makes Geni's actions appear more sinister than they would if there were a cleaner way to expunge copyvios (short of granting him the oversight tool).

Things can become more confusing in cases where a third set of revisions has been deleted previously for some unrelated reason(s).

One of several relatively easy improvements in the short term would be for "delete" actions in the log to specify exactly how many revisions were deleted, for the sake of comparative arithmetic. However I'd hesitate to annoy the devs about trivialities like this, as it would only give them another excuse not to do whatever the bloody hell they're supposed to be doing in regard to FlaggedRevs.
NuclearWarfare
QUOTE
A certain someone e-mailed this to me as a "leak". I'm republishing it here, because I consider the content to be reputable, and information wants to be free. I'm not exactly sure which IRC channel this comes from, so don't ask me.


This log comes from #wikipedia-en-admins from earlier today. From what I can tell from my own logs, it is accurate.
RDH(Ghost In The Machine)
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Wed 27th January 2010, 3:27am) *

QUOTE
A certain someone e-mailed this to me as a "leak". I'm republishing it here, because I consider the content to be reputable, and information wants to be free. I'm not exactly sure which IRC channel this comes from, so don't ask me.


This log comes from #wikipedia-en-admins from earlier today. From what I can tell from my own logs, it is accurate.


Thanks for the confirmation.
Though the fact that everyone there is an admin doesn't make it too hard to figure out the channel.
Nor is it very difficult to guess who the mysterious leaker is... wink.gif
Juliancolton
Oh, well – at least I didn't say anything embarrassing or make any typos.
Trick cyclist
There's still an bit about Erika Sifrit elsewhere on Wikipedia. The article about a series called Snapped (T-H-L-K-D) says
QUOTE
"Erika Sifrit" - Young businesswoman, along with her husband, was caught with items belonging to a vacationing Virginia couple in Ocean City, Maryland that mysteriously disappeared in May 2002.

Doesn't mention murder there but the whole "series features non-fiction stories of individuals, often women, who have committed murder or attempted murder".

Should someone remove that reference too? Indeed delete the whole article as presumably all or most entries are mini BLPs? Some entries have links to fuller WP bios.
MZMcBride
Biographies of living people are gross. Some people don't seem to get that. unhappy.gif
Doc glasgow
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 28th January 2010, 4:51pm) *

Biographies of living people are gross. Some people don't seem to get that. unhappy.gif


I'm so tempted to create

[[List of Wikipedians who oppose BLP reform]]

and then of course, the daughter articles

[[List of Wikipedians who oppose BLP reform by sexuality]]

[[List of Wikipedians who oppose BLP reform by locality]]

[[List of Wikipedians who oppose BLP reform by telephone number]]

[[List of Wikipedians who oppose BLP reform by number of ex-lovers]]

(I suspect the last one of these might, however, exclude too many of them)
Trick cyclist
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Thu 28th January 2010, 5:17pm) *

[[List of Wikipedians who oppose BLP reform by telephone number]]

[[List of Wikipedians who oppose BLP reform by number of ex-lovers]]

(I suspect the last one of these might, however, exclude too many of them)

On the last of these I see no problem. Zero is a number like any other number, no? So we have maybe most of them in category "no ex-lovers", then some in "one ex-lover", some in "two ex-lovers", Jimbo (if he falls in this camp as many doubt) in "200 ex-lovers" and so on.

The problem with the previous type of category is that if any such category has say three entries we are saying they live in the same house and hinting that they are sockpuppets. This must violate WP:NPA.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.