It would be interesting to discuss SlimVirgin's most recent article of interest, Death of Ian Tomlinson (T-H-L-K-D). Slim created the article and has made over 500 edits to it (the vast preponderance). It is interesting because, on the one hand, it falls into a category where many of us might agree with the underlying point of view in it (anti-police, pro-protester), but on the other hand, it is far from clear whether it is an appropriate article, at an appropriate level of detail, for an "encyclopedia".

For those who can't be bothered to click on the link above, the article chronicles the death (from an apparent heart attack) of an innocent bystander during the London G-20 talks at the hands of the London police. It has grown from a short squib pulled out of the article on the larger G-20 protests, and now exceeds 50 paragraphs, a detailed infobox containing a timeline, 66 newspaper citations, and all the other hallmarks of SlimVirgin's obsessive attention.

My personal opinion is that articles should usually not be written about events less than a year old. There is no way, regardless of intention, that these current-events articles can possess the editorial distance for an truly unbiased article. But then, that's not what Wikipedia is about, is it?

I have to say that, since this isn't about a living person, it goesn't bother me any more than somebody writing that amount about their favorite Star Trek episode. Since WP is not paper, such articles harm nothing. Perhaps somebody will use it for something, in the future. Like the toilet paper folding article, let it be enshrined in the archives of the knowledge of humanity.

Besides, if SlimVirgin is spending her time doing this, she's not doing harm elsewhere. So there's that.

Well, it is about a living person, though that person's name has not yet been made public - the police officer.

EDIT: living people, apparently, some of whose images are shown in the article (and others whose images are linked to) along with the allegations against them.

Not that I have (or will) read enough about this to form an opinion of who is right/wrong.

Ah. Well, not good, then.

Maybe this is more a topic for a different thread, but why is it not good? Is it because it's basically anonymous?

I mean, it can't be necessarily bad simply because you're letting anyone edit, can it? Is it bad for an online newspaper to have a comments section where anyone can add comments?

I don't know. I don't think Wikipedia does well with these sorts of things, but I can't take the leap to say that it's inherently wrong to provide a forum for people to collaborate on a document talking about current events.

The problem is that everything you do "in public" (outside your home and maybe some restrooms) is due to be a "current event" in the coming world. If you're comfortable with that loss of privacy, that's up to you. I don't like it.

It may end up being the eventual fate of every human being due to the computer and videochip, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to try to monkeywrench it as long as I can.

This is not simply a personal quirk-- I don't think most people would like to have the personal exposure of your average pop star, without any of the perqs. But since they can't imagine that state, they don't care. And thus we come to Wikipedia, on the forefront of the ongoing struggle to bring each and every human on the planet all the downsides of being famous, without any of the benefits. Not good.

An entirely separate set of concerns distinct from those of BLP, relating to the sensitivities of families and survivors, are present in articles about recently deceased persons. This does not present the liabilities associated with the defamation of BLPs so it is unlikely that Wikipedia is capable of exercising any voluntary restraint in this area.

This article's only value is as journalism and the relevance of all the articles numerous details will have passed by the time the article is ripe for encyclopedic coverage.

In this case we're talking about the actions of police officers at a public rally, though. They're not just acting "in public", they're acting as public officials.

Do you realize that she worked on that article continuously,
from around 18:00 on April 9 to around midday April 11? She
took only two substantial breaks, from 3:00 to 6:00 and from
10:00 to 20:00 on the 10th.

If those times are UTC and she's in Alberta, she sleeps 3-11 AM.
If those are my or her local time, she's a vampire. Or a machine.

16 hours a day.
She must be buying meth from a local cooker or something.
At least she took the 16th and 17th off.

If you were not logged in you would see UTC times. If you were logged in you would UTC times plus or minus whatever you have set in Special:Preferences which may or may not be your local time. Under no circumstances would you see her local time.

As usual when these things are reported, several long gaps have been ignored, this time one of 11 hours and two of around 12 hours.

Does this board's obsession with me know no limits? Every single thing I do -- good, bad, or indifferent -- is picked over. Which one of you has a contributions history that could withstand this kind of scrutiny?

I thought that was exactly the point of the wiki, and the essence of this cock-eyed notion of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit"? The BS position that gets taken is that scrutiny of every edit is what makes articles better. I, for one, think there is too little scrutiny of edits, especially by those with known POV problems, not too much.
Well, Somey, for one. But as has been said before, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, Linda/Sarah/Slim/Hell.

True enough, but you see the point. Next time it may not be police officers, but just regular Joes. The UK is videocamerafied worse than the US. When you all find yourselves on Youtube scratching your crotches, don't come crying to me. I warned ya.

Hopefully by the time it happens I'll have become the kind of person who isn't embarrassed by finding himself on Youtube scratching his crotch, but as I'm not there yet, I'm going to shut up now.

So long as it's not scrutiny of *your* edits, or of anyone else this board regards as on-message.

Seems to me that you scrutinized "my" edits (or those you think were mine) pretty thoroughly, back when that was relevant (which is to say, three years ago). Turnabout, as they say, is fair play.

No.

And it's weird.

People: SV is simply not this interesting. Even if she got you banned. No one is this interesting. Not even vengeance is this interesting.

Yes, yes. Now that is interesting! If we could only find more information and get it up to FA status. So many wonderful pictures could be added. Possibly also some graphic illustrations of various techniques. I regret criticizing Shankbone now. He could prove so useful for this. Why, one day we'll have a whole category named "Toilegami". ...

This is one of SV's specialty genres: the WP:COATRACK article. Her first foray into this field of endeavor was Jeremiah Duggan (T-H-L-K-D). The basic format is that you take a non-notable individual who died, and where allegations have been made in the press that someone you don't like is somehow to blame. You then exploit Wikipedia for the purposes of using it as a megaphone for these dubious press accounts.


In cases like the one under discussion, there is a violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX.


I'm sure that there are many editors whose POV and editing habits are as singular as your own. So, you might want to ask yourself, what is it about your conduct at Wikipedia, particularly as an admin, that has made you so [ahem] notable?

If you all have a problem with the article, then this thread should be in the Articles forum. If you have a problem with the way that SV is editing that particular article, then outline your concerns here.

I looked at the article and don't see any reason for concern. I think the event is noteworthy and is an example of how the wiki model works well to cover a recent incident as information becomes more available and the ramifications of the event evolve. I don't see any problem with SV's editing or discussions on the talk page. She steamrolled someone who didn't agree with her image sizing, but that's not really a big deal. For what it's worth, I agree with the editor who says that images shouldn't be manually sized on the page. I didn't use to agree with that, but I do now. It appears, however, that there might be an issue with the main image.

By the way, I've started and edited a similar type of article myself.

I started a "Death of..." article. Not quite the same though, maybe.

PS the Tomlinson article is currently on the main page, on Did You Know?.

On the main page? That'll keep whoever has edited that article heavily busy for most of today trying to keep other editors from changing anything.

I dunno. We've got some pretty impressively wronged old characters here in the Château d'If. There's one guy who's rivetted into an iron mask, for example. There's that Dreyfus guy. And for a while even my name was Mudd. I, Mudd.

Hath not a banned Reviewer eyes? Hath not a Reviewer hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Wikipedian is?

If you prick us do we not bleed? If you bleed us are we not pricks? If you tickle our sense of humor do we not laugh? Unlike the people at Wikipedia?

If you had fallen foul of her and Jayjg, say, 3 years ago, your attitude might be different.
Almost every one of the longtime Wikipedia editors on WR has had a dispute with her.

It's not that she's interesting, it's that she's so irrational and vindictive. No doubt Joan
Crawford was also not a very interesting conversationalist, in person.....SV needs a
tell-all biography. THAT would guarantee her infamy.


You ought to rent Gankutsuou. 1000% psychedelic.
You'll never look at old man Dumas the same way again.