-
Seth Finkelstein (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore|
cache|
AfD)
Close did not follow the consensus of the
Afd Discussion. On weight of numbers, 22 deletes to 19 keeps is a long way from any sort of consensus to delete. On weight of arguments, those who favored keep pointed out more than sufficient mainstream media coverage and significant acts to pass
WP:BIO and
WP:N. Those who favored deletion disagreed on notability, largely on "IDon'tLikeit" and "I never heard of him" (both of which are irrelevant) and on arguments over whether his actions and media mentions were "important enough" for an article, with little policy basis. And they urged that Seth Finkelstein does not want an article, as he himself urged at some length. His main argument was that the article was a "troll magnet", but the history showed that in fact it has been in a vandalized state for a grand total of less than 20 minutes over the last 7 months, a pretty good ratio. Even the current version of BLP says only that the closer can consider the subject's desires in a close case, but this wasn't anywhere near being close to a consensus to delete, and BLP does NOT say that the subject's desire is in and of itself a reason to delete, nor should it, IMO. The closer has been asked by multiple editors to overturn his own close, has discussed it, and clearly declines to do so. Closers have a degree of flexibility, but they are not supposed to find a consensus to delete where none exists. Overturn and close as "No Consensus, defaulting to keep".
DES
(talk) 05:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- As the closer, I'd like to refute the statement that "multiple editors" asked me to overturn my close. DESiegel is the only one who asked me to revert my closure, and I declined. See the
relevant thread on my talk page.
Sean William
@ 05:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- While the words "Please revert your close" weren't used, I think that the comments of
User:JamesMLane, and particularly "If someone else DRV's it, I'll vote or non-vote or whatever to overturn." are a fairly clear indication that he wanted the close changed. He surely questioned the close. But let this stand on my nomination here, and whatever discussion follows.
DES
(talk) 05:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I expressed my disagreement, but I also told Sean William that I wouldn't start a DRV because I was too lazy. Therefore, I'll be a wuss and say that you're both right.
JamesMLane
t
c 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The closer quite properly decided what weight he would put on the subject's wishes. As it turns out, that weight was decisive. There's no problem with this close. The thread cited gives no reasons to rethink the close. --
Tony Sidaway 05:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. As an award-winning leader in his field
[5]and
Guardian columnist
[6], Mr. Finkelstein is highly notable. Unlike a high school athlete thrust into the spotlight against her will, Mr. Finkelstein's notability is based on a lifetime of achievement, deliberate public stands on issues directly affecting society and active advocacy in the press. This is a position that Mr. Finkelstein has himself supported for others
[7],
[8]. This means that, under the current wording of
WP:BLP, there were no grounds to delete his article in the face of the non-consensus shown during the discussion. It took a long time for wikipedia to establish notability guidelines. The goal was to eliminate subjectivity from the analysis. Vocal opposition to having an article - particularly in the absence of any proof of harm - can not erase the fact that the subject of this article easily qualifies for inclusion based on
WP:BIO and thus can not be considered "semi-notable" (which, at present, is an undefined concept). --
JJay 11:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I believe that a living person's wishes should weigh heavily in such a decision, pro or con. I'm not a strict inclusionist or deletionist. In the cases you reference above, both people indicated they wanted the biography. So there's no contradiction. Regarding harm, it's one thing to give every dog one bite, another to go down the road that the bitten bears the burden of proving against the unwilling "owner" that another bite will happen, that it will break the skin, that there will be infection, and rabies is rare anyway, etc. etc. One bite should be more than sufficient to establish the reasonableness of not wanting that dog around. --
Seth Finkelstein 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Your beliefs are not the current policy standard at wikipedia for highly notable individuals such as yourself. Furthermore, regarding potential harm, the exact same argument could be made about the potential dangers to others from your Guardian colums - where you consistently name names - or your anti-censorware civil-libertarian activism. Work, I might note, where you do not seem to take into consideration the "wishes" of the targets of your investigations.
JJay 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I am not a "highly notable individual", in the sense that very few people have ever heard of me, and more importantly, are likely to have _substantially_ heard of me before looking in something like Wikipedia. Again, that's a rough estimate of "do no harm". My _Guardian_ columns are subject to the strict British laws on libel and defamation, are reviewed both by an editor and if there is anything at all problematic, a staff lawyer (this came up, for example, when I wrote about the
AACS encryption key controversy). Further, I have let people opt-out, beyond the legal standard. My activism was done under constant threat of a lawsuit, and I was driven to abandon decryption research in part because of the risk of being sued. Organizationally, Wikipedia displays almost the exact opposite behavior, amplifying libels of the most malicious attackers, and placing all burden on the target to do after-the-fact reaction. The difference should be very clear. You seem determined to pronounce a contradiction no matter what the evidence. --
Seth Finkelstein 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion per Tony. Valid AfD, reasonable close.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. No consensus, and the subject's wishes are only relevant when the subject is on the fringe of notability. Finklestien is clearly notable, therefore his wishes are irrelevant and the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus".
Js farrar 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. The closer seemed to use the subject's wishes as the final determination. Since the debate on Finkelstein's notoriety ended with no consensus (which even the closer admits), using his wishes for deletion weren't appropriate.
Jhall1468 16:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not sure I follow you here. No consensus plus the subject's wishes sways the decision.
Sean William
@ 17:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Subject's wishes only apply when subject is not clearly notable, as I've already said; hence subject's wishes should not have been taken into account here.
Js farrar 19:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion Arguments have already been explained in the AFD. We do not need another AFD. AFD was valid. :) -
Mr.Gurü (
talk/
contribs) 18:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion per subject not wanting the article being the decisive factor that justified the deletion, therefore in process, well done closing admin Sean,
SqueakBox 18:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn This is a notable career as shown by notable awards and press coverage in major national sources. Every statement in the article is sourced. No sensitive information is disclosed (at least as seen in the final version, which I will email on request. The subject's view at the AfD was " even though the article is non defamatory now, who knows what it will be tomorrow, or the next day? " Every subject of every biography is WP can say as much, and we will continue on the trend, starting from where we let people with bios they find unsatisfactory to remove their articles, to anyone at all at whim. As far as I can tell, the motivation is the subject's desire to hide his conflict "with Michael Sims, which splintered the opposition to "censorware. " ".
DGG 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Sigh. Note - here's another example of why I don't want a wikipedia biography. It's just a disaster waiting to happen. You can say many things about my "conflict with Michael Sims", but hidden is not one of them. My desire is much more that I don't want him to have yet another attack-platform against me. Having such an attractive nuisance for trolls, and then having to justify dealing with them, seems to me proof enough of harm. --
Seth Finkelstein 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion: despite what nom says, this was obviously a close case, and arguments about whether subject is "important enough" are very relevant to a bio where subject wants the article deleted. Meeting
WP:BIO is a minimum for articles, and articles that are near that minimum are very definitely on "the fringe of notability". (Anything below that minimum is beyond the fringe, else the guideline would be redundant.) I think closer did a fine job of teading a difficult debate. Not sure I would argue if it were closed as no-consensus either, but the choice was clearly within the bounds of closer discretion.
Xtifr
tälk 20:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. In response to Xtifr's comment above, a distinction needs to be drawn between two questions.
- (1) Is Finkelstein notable? I consider him notable, but reasonable Wikipedians could disagree with me.
- (2) Did the AfD show a consensus that he is not notable? I think it did not show such a consensus, and, frankly, I don't see any reasonable basis for disagreeing with my conclusion on that score.
- The recent change in
WP:BLP upon which the closer relied doesn't spell out how the bio subject's wishes are to be considered in the context of an overall process that is clearly supposed to be consensus-based. I suggest that an appropriate reading would be as follows:
- Where there is clearly a consensus on notability, the consensus must be honored, regardless of the subject's wishes. Where there is clearly no consensus on notability, the usual rule that "no consensus defaults to 'keep'" must be honored, regardless of the subject's wishes. Where, however, it is not clear whether there is consensus -- where reasonable people could differ as to whether the comments show a consensus -- then the closing admin may choose to give some weight to the subject's wishes.
- I don't fault Sean William's good faith in the slightest, as he was trying to apply a new policy that wasn't well thought out, isn't clearly worded, and doesn't have a useful history of application that he could consult. Nevertheless, given the importance of consensus in Wikipedia decision-making, I don't think this recent expression of concern for living bio subjects can be read as working a substantial change in what has long been our rule: "AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to 'keep'." (
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure) The change in treatment of living subjects was apparently never even mentioned on
Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion. Repeals by implication are disfavored. :) The way to harmonize these different considerations is to say that the subject's wishes are considered only where there is reasonable disagreement about whether consensus has been reached.
JamesMLane
t
c 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn,
EFF Pioneer Award and a NYTimes profile plus self published work. If this isn't overturned, would someone please write the unwriten policy that all the admins seem to be using here down somewhere. It would save DRV a lot of time and grief. --
Rayc 01:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Already done:
WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards.
Sean William
@ 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- But it reads "When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. " and the argument is that he was notable, not semi notable. A NYT profile is enough to make any privacy aspect absurd, & is enough for notability. if everything were based upon web sources, then it could reasonably have been called semi-notable.
DGG 03:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Our notability standards are the bare minimum for inclusion (and you really don't have to be very notable at all to meet them). An article that doesn't meet the most basic notability requirements would be deleted in any case. So it seems pretty obvious to me that "semi-notable" in this context would have to refer to someone who is notable enough for inclusion, but not much more than that. I agree that it could be expressed more clearly, but the intent should still be fairly obvious. Someone who is known, but not well-known would be semi-notable. And if the best we can scrape up for this guy is one obscure award and one newspaper article, I'd say that's semi-notable.
Xtifr
tälk 05:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- With all due respect, a definition that consists of someone who is notable enough for inclusion, but not much more than that or someone who is known, but not well-known is hopelessly vague. --
JJay 15:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Vague, yes. Hopelessly? I don't think so. It is, like so much else in Wikipedia, a judgment call. For "well-known", WP:BLP says: "there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources". Absent that multitude, I think it's hard to justify calling someone well-known. And it also says, "there is no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin." With a close debate, no apparent "multitude" of reliable sources, and "keepers" only arguing that he met WP:BIO, I see no procedural problems here at all.
Xtifr
tälk 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion. This review request misrepresents the reasoning for supporting closure. I nominated the article based upon the subject's wishes and a recent change in
WP:BLP. These claims about notability, verifiability, etc. are red herrings: I certainly wouldn't have nominated this page for deletion if I believed they were overriding issues. Wikipedia has a longstanding custom of courtesy deletions for biography articles that do satisfy those standards but whose subjects don't want their lives to be researched or dissected on this site. The crux of the matter is how far we extend that courtesy: I've proposed doing it for living persons who wouldn't be covered in any traditional paper and ink encyclopedia. That's a consistent and durable limit - and the failure of this review nomination to acknowledge or address that issue is characteristic of the keep side in this discussion.
Durova
Charge! 18:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Durova, I'm not sure of the process by which living people were given any kind of power to censor Wikipedia's coverage of them. What I am sure of is that your personal belief on this score -- that we should reduce one of our significant advantages over traditional paper encyclopedias by sometimes limiting our coverage to theirs -- was not adopted as policy or guideline or anything else. Given that, as you acknowledge, it's only your personal proposal, you have no basis for an insinuation about the "keep" voters just because none of us addressed it here. Above, I suggested what I considered an "appropriate reading" of the new BLP language, and no one on your side has addressed it, nor are they required to. BTW, in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination), users Itub, Seraphimblade and I stated our criticisms of your proposal.
JamesMLane
t
c 23:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- First I'd like to clarify that I am a longstanding and vocal opponent of censorship. Then, you're right, the place where I'd like to set the bar for courtesy deletions is not endorsed in policy.
WP:BLP recently changed to allow the wishes of an article subject to figure in deletion closures, but current policy does not have a good definition for how far we carry that idea. That's why I'm proposing this standard as a moderate expansion of existing practice: it's measurable and makes a pretty good dividing line. I hope the community accepts it.
Durova
Charge! 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- This is a tough call. This case demonstrates how poorly thought out that paragraph at WP:BLP is. Here, about 80% to 90% of the delete opiners were using the subject's desire for deletion of the article as the primary, if not the only, reason for deleting the article. That paragraph applies only to the closing admin's actions, and as written says that if they find 1) ambiguous notability and 2) the subject wanting deletion, then 3) they can do whatever they want, knowing that there is no wider consensus to direct them. As to the subject wanting deletion, there is no reasonable doubt about that. So, we should look at the arguments in the AFD (and the prior AFD) about notability. And the first failure in the AFD is that so many of the delete opiners didn't clearly address notability, or used standards ("I've never heard of him.") that are clearly rejected by the community. That failure almost required this review. Fortunately, here we have the first AFD that was primarily about notability (although the subject's wishes clearly influenced the majority of the delete opinions in that AFD) to look at. The second AFD was almost entirely about the subject's wishes rather than notability. (As a policy prescription, I think we need to communicate that opiners referencing the subject's wishes as a reason for delete must first evaluate notability on the usual standards and explain their evaluation on those standards.) I believe the clear consensus, from both AFDs, of those who opined on the notability of the subject was a decision that the subject is notable. If the subject is notable, then the deletion was not in accordance with
WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards, because that only applies to subjects of ambiguous notability. Despite that being my opinion, it is not unreasonable to say that the folks who were willing to opine based on the subjects wishes had decided that the subject was of marginal notability. (Too many didn't say so, however.) In which case, the community's decision as to notability is ambiguous. So I think we need to endorse the deletion, but also to direct those opining based on the subject's wishes to make their evaluation of notability (and the reason for that evaluation) unambiguous.
GRBerry 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I agree with you to the extent of saying that your suggestion is the logical consequence of one interpretation of the recent change. Instead of "notable" or "non-notable", there are now three gradations: "notable" (enough to have an article whether s/he likes it or not), "borderline notable" or "semi-notable" (article depends on subject's wishes), and "non-notable" (no article whether s/he likes it or not). The closing admin, to assess consensus, would need to know which of these three categories each person thinks is applicable. Of course, as a practical matter, there's no way that the majority of AfD participants are going to parse their responses that finely. Absent such information, a great deal will depend on which admin happens to pick up the AfD to close it -- another bad effect of the recent change.
JamesMLane
t
c 02:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn - The AFD is a farce. The change in BLP suggests that we should let the AFD arguments play out in full and then if appropriate consider the wishes of the subject. However, many of the delete arguments do not even look at whether the subject is notable or not, and instead just comment "Delete - Subject doesn't want it". These are not arguments that should be made in an AFD, the AFD should concentrate on whether or not the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. (given his
EFF Pioneer Award and media mentions, I think he is). Only after the initial AFD has ended in no consensus should the subjects views be applied, and yet even given the invalid "Delete - Subject doesn't want it" type arguments, it still ended up with no consensus, I feel the deletion should be overturned. Editors in AFD discussions should not be concerned with the whims of the subject, but on whether the subject is notable/encyclopedic. -
hahnch
e
n 20:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn - I think the subject is clearly notable. --
Jmbranum 04:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn - If mr. Finkelstein would have wanted to keep out of the limelight, he should not have started a highly visible project, or written articles in widely read newspapers.
Tinus 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Wikipedia didn't exist back then for most of it. "Grandfather" me. In the future, maybe I'll have to consider as a disincentive to do anything more, that it might result in being in Wikipedia. That seems an unintended consquence, maybe you should reconsider. As a rule of thumb, I believe a living person should only have a biography over their objections if they are so notable that it's not significant compared to other media coverage of their life - e.g.
Bill Gates won't be affected by his Wikipedia entry. --
Seth Finkelstein 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- overturn per Jjay, DGG and the nom among other reasons. While there is some limited amount of leeway that the new clause in BLP gives to closing admins this is well over the level that is at all appropriate. I'm sorry for Finkelstein, for whom I have the highest respect but he isn't a borderline notable person that this sort of policy was designed for but is highly notable. The notion that the BLP clause could apply in his case is simply not credible especially when the person has taken steps to put himself in the public eye. That, together with the lack of consensus (especially when the nature of many of the delete votes is taken into account) this should be overturned.
JoshuaZ 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn subject is sufficiently notable. Should not have been removed via BLP.
Eusebeus 16:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn The
AfD nomination says it all; this is a request to expand BLP yet further which failed to find consensus. Should not have been deleted. (I cannot judge whether any actual BLP offenses were contained in the article, since I cannot see it; but I don't see any argument to that effect, In any case, they should be removed, possibly with oversight, not deleted.)
Septentrionalis
PMAnderson 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The BLP argument is based upon the subject's desire for article deletion rather than on the specific content of the article. So that proposed solution isn't really feasible, but a complex merge similar to
Daniel Brandt would satisfy me. Would that be acceptable to you also?
Durova
Charge! 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Even many of the people who endorsed the Brandt close agreed that the merge was suboptimal. If there isn't a consensus to remove information we shouldn't go out of our way to split it up in a difficult fashion. Obscurity is not a good solution to these situations.
JoshuaZ 20:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- If the Signpost article is correct, the deletion review on that article turned up 2/3 support for the merge closure, which was significantly greater support than the deletion nomination received.
Durova
Charge! 01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Many of which agreed that it was suboptimal or endorsed simply becuase they were sick of the matter. I suggest you read the DRV.
JoshuaZ 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Please comment on the merits of the matter without making insinuations. As the editor who initiated both deletion nominations, I'm surprised and dismayed that you imply I haven't followed the discussion adequately. My own approach is to avoid pile-on situations unless I can bring something significant to the table that hasn't been discussed before. You may disagree with my reasoning, but please do so respectfully.
Durova
Charge! 17:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I'm sorry if you took my comment as not civil, but it is quite clear from the DRV that the merge in that circumstance was considered suboptimal by many. Indeed, it is hard to read that DRV and get the impression that anything more than a slim majority (if that at all) thought that was optimal. Most who endorsed were simply happy that it might make it go away or were sick of the matter.
JoshuaZ 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- It's been extraordinarily difficult to achieve any consensus at that topic, yet the closure review gained more backing than my nomination. AMIB received several barnstars for it. While a significant minority disagreed vehemently, my point here is how that solution garnered more overall support than anything else. I'm proposing a flexible solution here because I'd be equally satisfied with a deletion endorsement or a similar complex merge.
Durova
Charge! 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Deletion to satisfy BLP concerns. There's no point in creating articles about semi-notable people who don't want their privacy invaded. We should give the benefit of the doubt to the article subject. This person is of no real public interest.
Jehochman
Talk 23:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- This seems pretty close to endorse deletion becuase the person's notability isn't in an area you care about. Apparently both the New York Times and the [[
EFF think that Finkelstein is very much of public interest. Indeed, to argue otherwise is almost an insult to the man's achievements.
JoshuaZ 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I know exactly who he is and have corresponded with him on at least one online forum. In reading the article, there was very little biography. Most of the facts were related to his organization. Perhaps that organization should be the subject of the article, and Seth will be mentioned. What many fail to understand is that a Wikipedia page about a person will rank first in Google for that person's name. When somebody gets a Wikipedia article because of their activism, this can have a profound effect on his employability. We don't want minor half-page articles, not very well researched or written, to impact somebody's life.
Jehochman
Talk 04:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Exactly right. There's plenty of mentions of me in other Wikipedia pages. I haven't objected. I just don't want a "weapon of asymmetrical warfare" aimed at me personally -- 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, first point taken. As to the second point, I don't see any issues here with the article being "not very well researched or written".
JoshuaZ 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. The deletion was against current policy; the subject is clearly
notable, so his request to have the article deleted is not supposed to be considered. Personally I'm sympathetic to changing the policy to give such requests more weight, but given the current policy, this deletion was not valid. --
Avenue 02:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Deletion With respect to DES' differing opinion, the original AfD looks like a valid closure to me. The closer evaluated the opinions presented, and explained his decision fairly well. Plus, I'd say I agree with the evaluation of notability to BLP concerns. --
InkSplotch 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn, "subject doesn't want it" is not a policy-based argument for deletion, and given the number of deletion arguments based on that alone or simple statements along the lines of "I don't think he's notable" there was no consensus for deletion and the debate should have been closed as such.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
- As I said before, "consideration" doesn't make it grounds for deletion in itself.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 21:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. This deletion, along with the fiasco of the recent Daniel Brandt AfD/DRV, shows why the change in BLP policy was a bad idea. Even at that, the policy (which says that a closer can take into consideration a subject's wishes, it doesn't require it) is being stretched here to cover a notable person. Fringe or borderline notablity is Brian Peppers (and I wouldn't go to the mat if it was invoked for Angela Beesley), not Seth Finkelstein. --
Groggy Dice
T |
C 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn I fail to see how someone with "about" 220,000 google hits on his name, discussed in reliable sources too numerous to list here (some random examples:
[9]
[10]
[11]) and winner of an
EFF Pioneer award could be considered "borderline notable". He's a leader in his field.
JulesH 15:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I've been on the Internet for around 25 years (really - I had one of the early accounts from being at MIT). My saying about that Google count is that it only proves I've wasted entirely too much time in my life. --
Seth Finkelstein 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I note that
WP:BIGNUMBER is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, while agreeing with JulesH that Seth is a leader in his field, and continuing to hold the opinion I stated above.
GRBerry 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- BIGNUMBER seems to be much more reasonable to invoke when we are dealing not just whether the person is notable but how notable the person is. The normal problem with BIGNUMBER arguments is that they don't address the presence or absence of sources. However, since everyone agrees that we have more than enough sources to have an article BIGNUMBER is valid evidence against claims that Finkelstein is marginally notable.
JoshuaZ 15:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The flaw is that the BIGNUMBER represents chatter, not notability. You also have to normalize for the unusually high number of years I've spent in contexts where that chatter is recorded. Look at it this way - I do not put on any resume that a Google-search for my name brings up a lot of hits. --
Seth Finkelstein 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, in this case a large part of the hits are not indicative of notability. I was making the more general point that BIGNUMBERs are in general more relevant when discussing possible claims of borderline notability of people who meet
WP:N.
JoshuaZ 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Deletion Per
Durova's explanation --
Seth Finkelstein 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. This has been a wrenching decision as I have the greatest respect for Mr. Finkelstein, but clearly his notability -- even if a type of domain notability -- is more than sufficient for our purposes. In the absence of actionable libel, I am loath to endorse
veto power over articles by article subjects, as I feel this is a slippery slope that erodes principles of free speech. I don't feel that the mere risk of libel is sufficient to say that an article should not exist. Obviously policy now supports an interpretation that could in this case be more restrictive. I would hope that the "do no harm" provisions apply in common sense and that merely having an article about a subject is not itself harm. Obviously again policy could support more restrictive interpretations. I am willing to make those considerations important in cases of
WP:BLP1E for a variety of reasons. But in this case, I don't think the notability is marginal, it's simply narrow. --
Dhartung |
Talk 09:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I really should write a FAQ on this (I hope I don't have to!). It's not about free speech, as that usually isn't taken to include libel and defamation. If someone could guarantee me that Wikipedia's policies of sensitivity and encyclopedic standards WOULD be followed, then I wouldn't have any objection. But that anyone who wishes me ill - and several people do - gets to use Wikipedia to try to reputation-wash their attacks is, in my view, an unreasonable "cost-shifting". --
Seth Finkelstein 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That's an argument to delete pretty much all BLPs not to delete your BLP. In any event, I, and I think many other users here are more than happy to guarantee to keep track of your article to the best of their ability. I strongly doubt there will be any serious issues. And again, this would be more doable as a request if you were less of a notable, public figure.
JoshuaZ 13:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I believe that a living person's wishes should be respected if at all possible (i.e. not a major public figure). Remember, as a price of my activism (it never goes unpunished), there are people who generally have sought to do as much reputational damage to me as they can manage to inflict. I'm hardly notable at the level I'd need to be for that to be insignificant. --
Seth Finkelstein 13:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- On that we have some disagreement. You are a well-known, notable individual(see the comments above about many secondary sources about you and awards you've won) and given how much attention this matter has gotten we can guarantee that the Wikipedia article will remain very clean.
JoshuaZ 14:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Again, I'm not well-know or notable in any major public sense. In my view, there needs to be a balancing, where the incremental utility of the page has to be weighed against its potential to be used as a tool of harassment. This is always going to be a judgment call. But there should be more than "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life.". Note you are not giving a guarantee - nothing will happen to you if you are wrong :-( --
Seth Finkelstein 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I note that I did say "in the absence of actionable libel", and as for Wikipedia's policies, they should be followed at all times and any violations may be reverted by any editor in keeping with
WP:BLP. Jimbo Wales has said that Wikipedia will not back off from its open posting/editing principles, and with that there will always come certain risks of abuse or inaccuracy, but it is always the responsibility of all editors on the site to ensure that our boundaries are respected. --
Dhartung |
Talk 16:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Folks, my view is that in terms of reasonableness, Wikipedia has already gotten it's "one bite" in terms of the article being used to smear me, and then policy being more honored in the breach than the observance. As was
said by The Great And Powerful Wales himself "A Wikipedian in good standing, with thousands of edits, reads this obvious personal attack, and instead of *removing* it, chooses instead to put a fact template around it. Ouch.". That's enough. That's a reasonable basis on which to answer the speculation objection. It's been addressed. Asked and answered. I think I know who did that vandalism too, and if I'm right, it wasn't a random kiddie, but I'd have a difficult time proving it in court. I didn't come to my position lightly. Nobody who does anything from accusing me of censorship, to counselling stoic forbearance in the face of adversity, to saying it won't happen again, has any risk if what they say is wrong. And that makes all the difference in weighing the arguments. --
Seth Finkelstein 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- First, the incident occured well before the current BLP policy was enforced nearly as much and second the article is much better watched now. So your worries don't have much validity.
JoshuaZ 00:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I call that a "second bite" argument. I wish there would be some acknowledgment that I've made some sort of threshold showing of evidence. I've gone through this many a time in various contexts - even if I produced a signed affidavit from an potential employer that they were going to hire me but changed their mind after reading some false charge, there's people who would sneeringly dismiss it as that meant they wouldn't be good employers anyway. There has to be a decision-point between what-if versus no, never in a thousand years, no matter what, no evidence will be accepted. I think one bite is more than enough, especially combined with the ongoing complaints which prove the problem hasn't been fixed (e.g. Fuzzy Zoeller's libel case). I'm fully aware that to admit the problem is to say Wikipedia's systems are flawed. But overall, I think Wikipedia should be able to live with that admission, rather than to deny it, and therefore inflict much unhappiness on people who want to opt-out --
Seth Finkelstein 02:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Obviously yes the system is imperfect and yes obviously it will remain so indefinitely and yes I fully understand and agree that certain people should have the ability to as you put it "opt-out"(although I think that makes a heck a lot more sense for privacy concerns than vandalism concerns since privacy concerns go to the heart of having an article at all) but that must be balanced against how notable the person is. For example, I doubt we'd let a US Senator or an MP in Great Britain have there article deleted. While you aren't as notable as many people in those positions you are still much too notable to not have an article, and again you seem to be ignoring the point that your article will be much more closely watched than others.
JoshuaZ 02:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I am honestly baffled by a phrase like "you are still much too notable to not have an article". I am nowhere near the status of a US Senator or an MP in Great Britain. I cannot imagine anyone evaluating an encyclopedia saying "I looked for coverage of *Seth Finkelstein*, and he wasn't there - that's a shocking omission.". In the sum of human knowledge, I'm not even a rounding error. I'm not ignoring the point about the article being more closely watched - as I've said, repeatedly, there's no downside for someone to assert that. They have no risk to take into account. Nothing will happen to them if they are wrong. From my perspective, the people who seek to harass me have already won a great victory by being able to use Wikipedia for anonymous reputation-laundered attacks, and then put me in a bind of having to worry and guard about future vandalism, or go through very wearing procedures. It can only get worse. --
Seth Finkelstein 02:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The foregoing discussion between JoshuaZ and Seth Finkelstein is interesting but it's really out of place in a DRV. Those arguments were addressed in the AfD, which was the place for Wikipedians to assess the merits of each side's position. The issue for the closing admin was whether there was consensus to delete the article. The nearly even split of opinion makes it clear that there was no consensus. Therefore, under our policies, the deletion must be overturned.
JamesMLane
t
c 03:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I believe the point is that
WP:BLP policy changes make the decision more nuanced than the above --
Seth Finkelstein 03:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion The deletion was perfectly legitimate, it had a majority favor and it was in keeping with stated policies.--
Oakhouse 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strongly endorse deletion per Durova, and urge the closing administrator to a) ignore the "he's notable arguments", DRV is not AfD II; and b) endorse this deletion as no consensus has formed to overturn it.
Daniel 13:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- comment While in general DRV is about process we currently have what amount to what are essentially two process issues: 1) whether people calling for deletion in an AfD solely because the subject of an article wants their article deleted is acceptable (the BLP addition merely says that admins can weigh this matter, not that it is an acceptable reason to call for deletion by itself) and 2) whether the weight given by the closer in this case exceeded the weight that can be reasonably given per the new clause in BLP (I think everyone agrees that there is a limit to that clause. The obvious extreme example would be something like George W. Bush or Tony Blair). This second issue is very much interelated to the notability concerns. So notability is wrapped up in process here. Thus, we have two serious process issues.
JoshuaZ 14:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
|