And Bauder who recently tried to insert a biography about that woman who was saying she would boycott wiki?

I've heard about the Brandt case before, yes, though i'm probably the wrong person to talk to about this, as i'm fairly certain you are of the opinion that people should be allowed to recuse themselves. I am of the opinion that, since Wikipedia runs off of secondary sources, if you are notable enough due to those, then it is in an encyclopedia's interest to have information about you from those sources, regardless of your opinion. The existence of the article will not effect the existence of the sources themselves.

Now, if an article is being thrown together on very thin sources and people wish to be recused, that's a different matter. But I personally believe that truly notable people have already had it taken out of their hands because of their notoriety. They just have to live with it.

See Mimi Macpherson.

So you will indemnify the target? I am serious here: you, whateveryounameis, will sign a contract that says you will take personal responsibility for the BLP, paying any damages out of your own pocket (or the pocket of your liability insurance company)? You know, put your money where your mouth is.



Yeah, and fuck you too. Almost all BLP's at the project are non-notable: if there is no dead-trees, or equivalent, then notability has not been sustained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisa_Gabbert

Other commentary here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33097 as well as at http://thefrenchexit.blogspot.com/2011/02/oh-ho.html. From the subject herself:



I say again, Silver seren, apologist extraordinaire: fuck you.

How is your article about Carolyn Doran coming along?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Pretty good. Redirect to "Wikimedia Foundation" has been moved; it now redirects to HOGGÄ–R?

Hmm, thanks, i'll look into that. Though i'm sure you already know whatever the situation was behind that and aren't telling me so i'll get into trouble.


I'm only going to respond to the first part of what taiwopanfob, since the rest is just abuse. Anyways, Wikipedia is liable for damages that result from incorrect, defamatory information that is added onto it, i'm sure you all know of the main cases involved with that like the Seigenthaler case. However, Wikipedia is not liable for collecting publically available information from sources. It is the sources themselves, I would suppose, that are liable, but not a collector of such.

(Oh, and Elisa Gabbert seems to be up for deletion.)


@Kohser: Still working on it. I'm involved in a number of discussions right now and also have schoolwork, so it's really draining. Remind me about it during spring break in a week and a half? I'll have more time then.

Edit: I'm going to add Carolyn to the list of articles on my userpage to work on so I don't forget. I'll probably also be adding Mimi, but i'm going to wait to see what NW's response it first.

The LaRouche BLP is about to get interesting. Jayen466 has been going over it and editing it as if it were a normal BLP. SV and WB have been biting their tongues, knowing that there are a lot of eyes on the article following the big blow-out at ANI. I could tell that SV was reaching the boiling point when Jayen deemphasized the Jeremiah Duggan section, which is the holy of holies for SV. She added a "to do" list to the talk page which includes "tidy Duggan section." This means, as always, "impose correct POV," and in this case restore an actual special section for Duggan, since it is just reported matter-of-factly in Jayen's version.

However, Jayen crossed the line when he put in the lead that LaRouche is an economist. This has always been a trigger for edit war for SV and WB, and this time is no exception. The "economist" issue is one where "reliable sources" no longer matter. Angel's Flight attempted to make that argument, which probably put him or her on the hit list.

So, what tactic will be used to drive Jayen away?

I'm going to try something, the results will be interesting. I'll get back to you.

Just so you don't misunderstand, I'm trying to point out the inequity between BLPs of people who have access to the wiki-levers of wiki-power and BLPs of those that don't. This may be a better example than the Carolyn Doran one, because Carolyn Doran doesn't have a website promoting herself, but Mimi Macpherson does. Carolyn Doran didn't ask for her BLP to be deleted - that was done to save the WMF further embarrassment.

Mimi Macpherson gets to opt out of having a BLP, but look at the battle Daniel Brandt faced. Is Don Murphy more notable than Mimi Macpherson? I get five times as many hits in Google for her than for him. Why does she get to opt out and he doesn't?

Not everyone is created deleted equally.

I agree, though there is a certain amount of weight to the point made in the deletion discussion that almost all of her notability comes as a result of her sister and that the news pieces on her are trivial and serve only to tie her into her sister's fame.

Doesn't mean I don't think there isn't enough notability lying around for her on her own, but it is rather thin.

Don't know the answer but if you could see your way clear to not socking at all... either for a while or indefinitely, that might, at this juncture, actually help a lot.

Yes, they probably put "Elle Macpherson's sister" on those tourism awards that she won for her company. Look, I'm not saying she needs to have a BLP on WP, but if she gets to opt out, so should other people.

The LaRouche article has 227 watchers although I don't know if that includes all the blocked accounts that have been involved in the article in the past. It will be interesting to see how much participation the current RfC on the economist issue gets.

Talking about the RfC in Wikipedia Review may actually lessen the likelihood of participation by some editors, because they don't want to be seen as acting on discussion from off-wiki from banned editors. Will Beback has been a broken record on that meme lately. The ID and CC Cabs also often beat that drum.

Google up "section 230". Wikipedia is not liable for anything under current US law. Hasn't this been explained to you already?

Individual editors, with bizarre names like "Silver seren" and "SlimVirgin" are responsible. However, these people seek to hide their meat-space identity, and are probably judgment-proof in any case.

This latter bit probably explains why you aren't offering any indemnities: no money to put your mouth to.



"Watergate is proof the system works."

Silver seren, it's pretty damn clear you have no idea what you are supporting with your continued participation There and your naive apologetics Here. The Gabbert article should never have been allowed to be created in the first place. People who edit BLP's should be known to the foundation, if not the general editing public. The likes of Fred Bauder should not have any place at the project, let alone one of authority.

I always assumed that the only people who read the review were the people who post here, along with a few obsessives like Beback. If what you say is true, maybe the moderators should be more aggressive about weeding out the nonsense.

SlimVirgin has another request for comment about the use of foreign sources at Talk:WP:V. What she's saying seems completely reasonable, but I wonder if it is going to be leveraged into something else.

It does, and since there are probably 220 of them (mostly HK and his colleagues) there could be only seven active watchers.


Emphasis mine - we are after all dealing with the ultimate WP gamer.

I have noted, that most of SVs policy proposals and editing bouts are made in IMMEDIATE terms, so
articles and policies are created ad hoc to back-up some articles or edits she is CURRENTLY interested in.

And her proposal is now being overwhelmingly rejected by editors who say that it puts an unfair burden on foreign language sources as opposed to other sorts of problematic sources. So it looks like other editors are a step or two ahead of her on this.

Well, they tolerated Jayen's edits as long as they could stand it, but now Slim 'n' Will have erupted into a frenzy of euphemistic rage. Slim hits the panic button about the "used of self-published sources in the article." As it turns out, Jayen has added a grand total of one LaRouche-sourced item, where it says that LaRouche endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. Little did he know that that is a very bad thing to put in the article. Why? Because, although they will absolutely not say so, the goal for S 'n' W is to maintain the Dennis King POV that LaRouche is secretly a right-wing racist who hates Democrats. So Slim goes into contortions, arguing that the view is "not notable," that it is a quote which involves "third parties," a remarkable array of WikiLawyer arguments where she struggles not to state her real agenda.

S 'n' W also made a big fuss about a quote from CBS where LaRouche refers to a friend of his who was "beaten up marching across a bridge in support of Martin Luther King back in the fight for voters' rights." That is also a big no-no. S 'n' W both pretend that they don't know LaRouche is talking about Amelia Boynton Robinson, but they sure don't like that reference. "It's a long quote that doesn't add much, one which mostly talks about an unnamed friend," says Will. No, we definitely can't have that in the article. But we mustn't say why that is.

Compare Amelia Boynton Robinson (T-H-L-K-D), which calls her "an American woman who was a figure in the American Civil Rights Movement," with the way she is described here and here ("Civil rights pioneer Amelia Boynton Robinson",) or here ("a leading civil rights activist who played a key role in efforts that led to passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.") Slim 'n' Will felt the need to denigrate her because of her association with LaRouche.

And for his service in blocking Angel's flight (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Dreadstar gets this.

There's a five-pointed suppository for you, Dredstar.



(Okay, stolen from Dirty Harry, but still good).



Occurs to me that Will left out the blindfolded lady with the sword.

Note his sarcastic reaction: "Wow, thanks Will, this really means a lot!" At least, I assume it's sarcastic.

I actually assumed it wasn't.

Perhaps someone should ask him.

I don't know if it's bad form to post to an old thread, but Will Beback reminds me of the Energizer Bunny in his endless campaign against LaRouche and it's worth a few yuks. He is now back at the Reliable Sources board because he wants to include an accusation from a journalism student that the LaRouche organization's website plagiarized "the look, but not the content" of BarackObama.com. TimidGuy responds with a very reasonable comment, and Will comes back with an unreasonable one.

*jumps into the fray*