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.
[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.
