| Revision as of 16:05, 16 January 2008 editLawrence Cohen (talk | contribs)13,393 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney: fuck transparency per BLP← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:06, 16 January 2008 edit undoOrderinchaos (talk | contribs)Administrators70,076 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney: agree with proposalNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ::The legal issues arose after the AFD, or for that matter even the DRV, began due to changes in the circumstances of the subject of the article. ] 16:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | ::The legal issues arose after the AFD, or for that matter even the DRV, began due to changes in the circumstances of the subject of the article. ] 16:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oversight''' The offending edits. --] (]) 15:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | *'''Oversight''' The offending edits. --] (]) 15:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Comment''' Agree with this proposal, regardless of whether outcome is Keep or Delete. ] 16:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Abstain''' There is no precedence for this and the impending decision should not be left up to an XfD process. I read the AN/I thread, and if there is really no support there (which essentially was an MfD, so this is essentially the 2nd nomination), how can a more general forum argue any differently? It appears policy would approve of the current action: blanking and protecting. There are too many non-policy reasons involved in the nomination, which would indicate more of a bureaucratic involvement, IMO. --''']]''' 15:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | *'''Abstain''' There is no precedence for this and the impending decision should not be left up to an XfD process. I read the AN/I thread, and if there is really no support there (which essentially was an MfD, so this is essentially the 2nd nomination), how can a more general forum argue any differently? It appears policy would approve of the current action: blanking and protecting. There are too many non-policy reasons involved in the nomination, which would indicate more of a bureaucratic involvement, IMO. --''']]''' 15:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:06, 16 January 2008
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney
Per BLP and BLP1E, this is about a minor. The AFD contains attacks on a minor by Wikipedians and anonymous editors. Major news media in turn linked to the AFD, including quotes of Wikipedians "swearing" about and directed at this minor. A total embarressment for us under BLP. At a dead minimum, I am asking under allowed process that the AFD be deleted and recreated and left indefinitely protected, if not outright deleted. This is a valid MFD. Please do not attempt to close it out of process.
As my request on ANI has gone unheeded, with people citing non-policy stories such as Damnatio memoriae, which is nonsense, as Misplaced Pages deletes internal history constantly with Oversight, and deletion and selection restoration of articles and pages for privacy reasons. Why is this Australian minor and child to be denied the same? Misplaced Pages's rule is to do no harm to living persons. Per BLP we must do this. After the MFD is done, I ask that the MFD also be blanked or deleted for obvious reasons depending on BLP vios here. Individuals unwilling to protect children under BLP have forced me to take this step, as I do not have administration myself to delete the AFD. If I did, I would have already under BLP. Lawrence Cohen 14:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me like a really bad idea to delete pages which news sites have linked to. It's not like nobody will know about him if the AfD is deleted... -Amarkov moo! 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Getting rid of BLP violations in a page history involving a minor is more important than what some trash tabloids may or may not think. BLP trumps everything else. Lawrence Cohen 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no substantial BLP issues in the discussion's history. If an editor calls someone a dickhead, that's a personal attack, but it is not a BLP violation. J T Price (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep Deletion of this AfD violates transparency and is particularly unreasonable given that we have many major news sources that already talk about him and some have even linked to this deletion discussion . If someone feels so compelled then they could blank the page. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fuck transparency, he's a minor, and Misplaced Pages has no need to keep attacks on a minor publically viewable, per BLP. We're not here to jerk off over rules, we're here to make an encyclopedia while hurting no one. Lawrence Cohen 16:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete I agree with the rationale for deletion but see some merits in Amarkov's argument as well. It should at least be renamed given the situation regarding the charges which have emerged and some questions about sub judice and whether it applies to Misplaced Pages in this kind of case involving a minor. Deletion however is the best option in my view. Orderinchaos 15:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment As I've already explained at the ongoing DRV there's no issue with sub judice. Let's be explicit a) the Wikimedia servers that run Misplaced Pages are in Florida not Australia b) manu areas that do have sub judice rules have exceptions for cases that are highly public and in fact in practice even when such rules do not formally exist they often aren't enforced in highly public cases unless there is something particular egregious going on c) The Australian news sources don't seem to see any sub judice issue. Now, can we stop with the armchair legal arguments? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the Australian sources don't, why are Age, SMH and ABC talking about him in the indefinite third person ever since? Orderinchaos 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per JoshuaZ. If you are so concerned about legal issues with this article why didn't you follow process per the Badlydrawnjeff case and ask for a speedy deletion followed by DRV without undeletion? EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The legal issues arose after the AFD, or for that matter even the DRV, began due to changes in the circumstances of the subject of the article. Orderinchaos 16:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oversight The offending edits. --Hu12 (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with this proposal, regardless of whether outcome is Keep or Delete. Orderinchaos 16:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Abstain There is no precedence for this and the impending decision should not be left up to an XfD process. I read the AN/I thread, and if there is really no support there (which essentially was an MfD, so this is essentially the 2nd nomination), how can a more general forum argue any differently? It appears policy would approve of the current action: blanking and protecting. There are too many non-policy reasons involved in the nomination, which would indicate more of a bureaucratic involvement, IMO. --12 Noon 15:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)