Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:52, 12 February 2008 editJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 edits replies← Previous edit Revision as of 03:38, 12 February 2008 edit undoFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 editsm tweakNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 47: Line 47:
:::::''"The sole issue in question is BLP1E which is a general guideline which doesn't normally trigger the reasons we care about BLP penumnbra issues"'' — eh, ] was what started the BDJ case in the first place, with the ''QZ'' article. ] (]) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) :::::''"The sole issue in question is BLP1E which is a general guideline which doesn't normally trigger the reasons we care about BLP penumnbra issues"'' — eh, ] was what started the BDJ case in the first place, with the ''QZ'' article. ] (]) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Er, yes and no. BDJ was started over a variety of articles as I understand it, and as point of fact is in many ways stricter than current practice. Furthermore, the fundamental issue there was distinct; that was essentially an application of BLP1E in a more or less clearcut case which is distinct in the extreme where many have argued that BLP1E isn't relevant given the level of continuing coverage. ] (]) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC) :::::: Er, yes and no. BDJ was started over a variety of articles as I understand it, and as point of fact is in many ways stricter than current practice. Furthermore, the fundamental issue there was distinct; that was essentially an application of BLP1E in a more or less clearcut case which is distinct in the extreme where many have argued that BLP1E isn't relevant given the level of continuing coverage. ] (]) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Comment on the above:

'''Dispute issues'''<br />The issues here seem to be summed up (roughly) as follows:

:* This is a teenager who precipitated an incident, and became discussed in the media for it.
:* The incident was widely reported, and following it the subject gained some presence (whether minor or significant is disputed) in the media.
:* There are good arguments for both keep and delete (there are probably others) --
:::* ''Keep'' - multiple reliable sources, person notable beyond the incident, incident notable even if person isn't, ability to write an article on the events and impact of it, consensus can change (wider notability visible now), NPOV/N (we report neutrally provided the article meets normal community criteria).
:::* ''Delete'' - minor incident by a kid, no special historical significance, not a place to record every insane incident, BLP1E, BLP (we don't darken a borderline subject's entire life for a dumb incident in their teens).
:::* ''Either/both'' - both claim legitimacy from proces (AFD/DRV) and both have been warred over (delete/undelete) for whatever reason, by admins.

'''WP:BLP deletion'''<br />BLP essentially exists to protect living people from 1/ bad biographies and negative, non-neutral, writings, and 2/ disclosure of unencyclopedic privacy-related information, on Misplaced Pages.

The "up front deletion" aspects of ] exist for specific essential reasons, to protect a subject from actively being defamed (etc) whilst we debate at leisure. It exists for negative unsourced material, "attack articles", and in the case of borderline subjects where they have requested deletion, we allow for that too. In the present case no request has been received from the subject related to removal, nor is the article negative in the sense that BLP deletion criteria anticipate. It is not enough to say "its a bio" to draw on ] for deletion. The "delete it first, then discuss" approach does not exist in a vacuum and never has; it was established originally for the specific purpose of ''protecting people from negative unsourced material, use of the wiki for personal attack and defamation, and (later agreed) hurtful publicity to publicity-avoidant subjects who may be borderline at best anyway and have requested removal'', by deeming that such material was removed whilst the case was discussed, and may stay deleted if there is doubt.

The other aspects of BLP are not really a basis ''per se'' for pre-emptory deletion. That we often merge a bio of someone known for one incident (]) into the article on the incident, or remove it if historically transient, is as much due to normal long-standing notability criteria for articles as anything else. That approach is long standing. Historically it is not grounds for pre-emptory deletion, as in, we don't have a general norm that we pre-emptorily delete articles up front on the speculation that we ''might'' perhaps agree the subject is not notable enough to have an individual bio article if we discussed it. That's normal AFD/DRV scope; it doesn't make it a negative "piece". The possibility an AFD/DRVB might conclude we merge/redirect does not make it fall under up-front deletion rules by any reading of BLP or norms, traditional or present, that I am aware of. Those are well-intentionsed but misunderstandings of the intent of the pre-emptory deletion provisions of BLP, which is ''specifically'' to remove material which might be negative, dubious, unsourced, questionable, biased material, whilst we debate its fairness and suitability.


I hope disputes like these will become sorted out more by some form of careful discussion and consensus seeking, rather than by warring. In most deletion wheel wars, the content issue is resolved in the end by discussion anyhow, and the wheeling (delete/undelete repetitions) didn't help anyone, and ended up harming the community more (including those wound up, and those sometimes desysopped). Hopefully instead, a carefully considered decision process might take place, followed by a final delete or undelete, subject always to discussion and change of consensus (either way) if new evidence emerges in future.

]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 03:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:38, 12 February 2008

A timeline of events has grown to be come absurd in regards to an article on Corey Delaney. The management of the process in regards to this article has failed from a number of perspectives. Timeline:

In effect, this series of events is a long, ongoing edit war lasting now nearly a month, with admins over riding each other periodically. We already had an AfD which closed as delete, then a DRV that was overwhelming for delete. Then, with it placed for DRV again, we get no consensus, but an administrator (User:Trialsanderrors) decides no consensus means it should be relisted for AfD. This effectively flips the no consensus result from delete to keep, taking it from DRV where no consensus means no consensus to override deletion to AfD where no consensus to delete means the article stays. I find this highly problematic.

The process has failed here. Administrators can't seem to sort themselves out over this. Note that I'm not stating a stance here with regards to whether the subject of the article is notable or not, just that the process here has badly broken down. It should have remained as deleted, but this mockery of the process will result in it being kept. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Might be one for RFAR. Lawrence § t/e 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. The point at which the process broke was AWiseman's recreation of the Corey Worthington article after the deletion and salting of Corey Delaney, a clear end-run round policy, as I have noted in the AfD, and one for which the administrator was heavily criticised. Why on earth was it not deleted at this point? Black Kite 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Tangentally, but interestingly (at least to me) - this article demonstrates the dangers of "immediate news" based inclusion of articles. Initially, Corey was a news story. Then the story grew, and his claim to notability grew (as he was considered to present a TV program, major media outlets interviewed him, etc). So, as the story grew and his claim to notability grew, consensus changed - sort of. Maybe. Kind of. The result is the cluster'd timeline delineated above. - Philippe | Talk 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should attempt some sort of centralised discussion in an attempt to sort this out amongst the Community, as oppose to forwarding it to the Arbitration Committee. It may be worthwhile directing the matter to Misplaced Pages:Requests for Comment, and getting the input of all involved, as well as uninvolved Wikipedians. However, I do believe that Arbitration would be premature at the present moment—I simply think we need the discussion which aims to gauge consensus requires refocussing and decluttered. AGK (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's my take on it. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be going more or less as it should be. Notability was not initially clear, now it is more so. I'm not sure why there is any serious additional issue here that needs to be addressed. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I mean process-wise it seems to be more or less going as it should be. A few burps in process shouldn't make us feel a need to run to ArbCom. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't call the above timeline "burps". It's an insult to the process that was used in this case. If we did all cases like this, we'd happily DRV everything until people were blue in the face. There's a reason the article was deleted the first time. There's a reason it went to DRV, and a reason why it failed DRV. Continuing on, the administrator who decided to shut down the DRV effectively decided there was consensus to undelete the article when it was blatantly obvious there wasn't. Now, we're in a situation where gosh golly gee if we don't reach consensus it'll be KEPT when one AFD and two DRVs said do NOT keep. That's absurd. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we differ in two respects; one I don't see any serious issues with actions above. Awiseman started a new article with new material (see the relevant discussion on the DRV). Nothing else was even remotely out of practice. And yes, the DRV was close, but luckily these things are completely votes. Indeed, the response of reAfDing given that the final DRV was leaning towards overturning seems like a reasonable response (and incidentally, for most purposes, a a majority for keep is keep). It seems the the closer agreed that the new article was not obviously CSDable so I'm not sure what further issues there are. And your complaint that a lack of consensus on this AfD will result in keep, well why not, the standard rule is when in doubt don't delete so... JoshuaZ (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I hardly call a near even split of consensus on the second DRV as "leaning towards overturning". There was no consensus to undelete. Period. None. The standard rule doesn't apply here. This article was already AfD'd, lost, was DRV'd, lost, was DRV'd a second time, and improperly recreated when no consensus existed to overturn the AFD. How many times do we have to AFD and DRV this thing before a conclusion is reached? If you think the close of the currently running AFD is going to solve this, I'd say there's a huge chance you're wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's predictable already. Whichever way this AfD is closed, it'll go to DRV, where all the same editors will have to waste more of their time with the same answers (since DRV seems to function as AFD2 these days). Then, after the DRV (if it's deleted), no doubt someone else will recreate it in userspace, add a couple of citations to it mentioning something really newsworthy that Corey's done, and re-create it claiming that it's not CSD:G4 material, and then it'll be AFD'd, and .... etc. This process lawyering should've stopped after the deletion and salting and I'm surprised that anyone can claim otherwise; if this was the norm, we'd never delete anything that had a group of editors to support it (voice from the back: "consensus trumps process!"). Um, yeah. Black Kite 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Then someone should have the courage to shut down this farcical process and delete the thing already. It can be revisited in a few months if he becomes famous for something other than getting in a gang fight, such as actually doing the job of hosting parties and becoming notable for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLPUNDEL. How there was a consensus to restore as a result of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 4 is, with all due respect to trialsanderrors (who I have great admiration for), beyond me. Sorry, but this should be redeleted and immediately, preferably by trialsanderrors. Or else I fear the shit will hit the fan again. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has deleted the article per BLPUNDEL. I've salted it and closed the AfD. And I strongly suggest against an admin restoring this again out of process, I will block them. Maxim(talk) 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
BLPUNDEL still requires some set of logic behind the closing administrator. I've asked MZMcBride to expand on her lgoic. Meanwhile Maxim I don't think block threats are very helpful to a matter which otherwise is being discussed civilly. And in general, blocking other admins... creates drama but doesn't do much else. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's uncivil to make a very clear block threat here. If you restore the article again, that will cause much more drama than the block, which I believe would be very deserving in that situation as a preventative measure., to prevent more BLP abuse. Maxim(talk) 01:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has intended to state that they were going to restore it so you can kindly calm down. Furthermore, calling this article "BLP abuse" is not helpful; no content was poorly sourced. The sole issue in question is BLP1E which is a general guideline which doesn't normally trigger the reasons we care about BLP penumnbra issues. At the risk of self-promotion, you may wish to read my thoughts on BLPs. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm giving fair warning not to attempt it. I think the objective is to do no harm here, and we're potential doing that, not only to subject but to ourselves with this drama... ;-) Maxim(talk) 01:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how legitimate, reasoned if spirited discussion constitutes doing harm to ourselves. And given the level of press coverage that Delaney/Worthington has received and continues to receive and given how much continual self-promotion he engages in I have trouble seeing how we are doing any potential harm to him. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"The sole issue in question is BLP1E which is a general guideline which doesn't normally trigger the reasons we care about BLP penumnbra issues" — eh, WP:BLP1E was what started the BDJ case in the first place, with the QZ article. Daniel (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Er, yes and no. BDJ was started over a variety of articles as I understand it, and as point of fact is in many ways stricter than current practice. Furthermore, the fundamental issue there was distinct; that was essentially an application of BLP1E in a more or less clearcut case which is distinct in the extreme where many have argued that BLP1E isn't relevant given the level of continuing coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Comment on the above:

Dispute issues
The issues here seem to be summed up (roughly) as follows:

  • This is a teenager who precipitated an incident, and became discussed in the media for it.
  • The incident was widely reported, and following it the subject gained some presence (whether minor or significant is disputed) in the media.
  • There are good arguments for both keep and delete (there are probably others) --
  • Keep - multiple reliable sources, person notable beyond the incident, incident notable even if person isn't, ability to write an article on the events and impact of it, consensus can change (wider notability visible now), NPOV/N (we report neutrally provided the article meets normal community criteria).
  • Delete - minor incident by a kid, no special historical significance, not a place to record every insane incident, BLP1E, BLP (we don't darken a borderline subject's entire life for a dumb incident in their teens).
  • Either/both - both claim legitimacy from proces (AFD/DRV) and both have been warred over (delete/undelete) for whatever reason, by admins.

WP:BLP deletion
BLP essentially exists to protect living people from 1/ bad biographies and negative, non-neutral, writings, and 2/ disclosure of unencyclopedic privacy-related information, on Misplaced Pages.

The "up front deletion" aspects of WP:BLP exist for specific essential reasons, to protect a subject from actively being defamed (etc) whilst we debate at leisure. It exists for negative unsourced material, "attack articles", and in the case of borderline subjects where they have requested deletion, we allow for that too. In the present case no request has been received from the subject related to removal, nor is the article negative in the sense that BLP deletion criteria anticipate. It is not enough to say "its a bio" to draw on WP:BLP for deletion. The "delete it first, then discuss" approach does not exist in a vacuum and never has; it was established originally for the specific purpose of protecting people from negative unsourced material, use of the wiki for personal attack and defamation, and (later agreed) hurtful publicity to publicity-avoidant subjects who may be borderline at best anyway and have requested removal, by deeming that such material was removed whilst the case was discussed, and may stay deleted if there is doubt.

The other aspects of BLP are not really a basis per se for pre-emptory deletion. That we often merge a bio of someone known for one incident (WP:BLP1E) into the article on the incident, or remove it if historically transient, is as much due to normal long-standing notability criteria for articles as anything else. That approach is long standing. Historically it is not grounds for pre-emptory deletion, as in, we don't have a general norm that we pre-emptorily delete articles up front on the speculation that we might perhaps agree the subject is not notable enough to have an individual bio article if we discussed it. That's normal AFD/DRV scope; it doesn't make it a negative "piece". The possibility an AFD/DRVB might conclude we merge/redirect does not make it fall under up-front deletion rules by any reading of BLP or norms, traditional or present, that I am aware of. Those are well-intentionsed but misunderstandings of the intent of the pre-emptory deletion provisions of BLP, which is specifically to remove material which might be negative, dubious, unsourced, questionable, biased material, whilst we debate its fairness and suitability.


I hope disputes like these will become sorted out more by some form of careful discussion and consensus seeking, rather than by warring. In most deletion wheel wars, the content issue is resolved in the end by discussion anyhow, and the wheeling (delete/undelete repetitions) didn't help anyone, and ended up harming the community more (including those wound up, and those sometimes desysopped). Hopefully instead, a carefully considered decision process might take place, followed by a final delete or undelete, subject always to discussion and change of consensus (either way) if new evidence emerges in future.

FT2  03:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)