Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Courtesy blanking

At WP:CBLANK wikipedia policy is summarized as, "Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare." What makes this discussion one of the rare cases which require it? (sdsds - talk) 01:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to figure out myself. I don't see the justification, and I don't think that we should be blanking so lightly. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Because it reveals that Wikipedia misinforms its readers.Proabivouac 06:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Courtesy blanking is appropriate where an AfD discussion contains negative comments concerning a living person. It is not as crucial to do this as it used to be, given that XfD pages are no longer included in search engines, but there is no real downside to it either given that the full text of the discussion remains available by clicking on the article history. If the page ever becomes particularly significant for a particularly important, e.g. during a future AfD after time for more sourcing of the article has passed, it can be restored temporarily. Finally, Proabivouac's speculation as to the purpose of the blanking is without substance. Newyorkbrad 13:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for that, Newyorkbrad - I've been in a bad mood lately. I'm sure you wouldn't have blanked anything for that reason. I suppose I'm disappointed that not a bigger deal has been made of this non-trivial point. It seems to me more significant, at least, than the question of notability. Proabivouac 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just silly. There was nothing negative that I can see, only the debate as to notability. The fact that the article has been kept, inspite of the concerns raised regarding reliability of sources and clear doubts as to whether the article is actually misleading - is embarassing to Wikipedia certainly, especially given the level of actual and potential further misleading information. The argument above is painfully weak. What specific negative comments require this page to be blanked? •CHILLDOUBT• 14:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It would make a difference if a living person referred to in the discussion requested the blanking, but I would not support routine blanking as a pre-emptive action. Tim Vickers 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Its interesting that the only arguments here seems to be, it wasn't that bad and this needs to be a kept as a badge that Wikipedia is inaccurate. First, more than one editor felt it was that bad and since the text remains in the history, blanking had little effect on Wikipedia operation and second, this argument has absolutely no bearing on the AfD - go use the article talk page to work out problems with the article. Shell babelfish 04:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Strawman. Simple fact, this AfD does not need to be blanked, and should not be blanked. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out what negative comments you're talking about, and here's what I've come up with: Suppose my reputation is based on accomplishments in the field of aerospace. Someone's thinking of contracting/considering writing an article about/just wants to find out about me, and follows the link on talk to the AfD, where it talks about various things that I didn't do, and generally the tone of deleters is that there's no evidence that I've accomplished much (arguments the claims of the keepers obliged them to make) and someone is inflating my resume. I think I would be upset and embarrassed, at least, by the existence of such a discussion, and conceivably also harmed, if I'm still in business.
It's just a shame that we're in the position of discussing Mr. Dunin's notability at all (it strikes me that anyone could use WP to harm a rival's reputation by creating an article with inflated claims and then shooting them down) and, more generally, a shame that we currently have no technical way of discussing things in a wikilike manner without also publishing them. It's a constant dilemma, which "courtesy blanking" doesn't really solve. I realize that's not an answer; I'm just trying to understand.Proabivouac 06:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
NYBrad may have confidential communications giving reasons that he is unable to share. If this was blanked in response to a request then that is perfectly OK. Since the history is accessible and blanking changes nothing, I see no harm in trusting him on this. Tim Vickers 03:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I, too, trust Newyorkbrad.Proabivouac 04:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
He doesn't have confidential communications. No more BLP paranoia, no more cutting out a community discussion. Good faith and all, but we have a responsibility to keep Wikipedia off the slippery slope of BLP paranoia. Blankings are for rare cases, and this isn't even close. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something else, apparently unrelated to the blanking of the project page

Hey guys, if the article is wrong, go fix it? What on earth does arguing over putting a heated discussion behind us do? Shell babelfish 04:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Shell Kinney, The fact that we've been publishing misinformation warrants not just fixing, but an investigation of how we got it wrong to begin with, so we can avoid doing so in the future.
We have here a classic case of a whistleblower, Matt57, who was intimidated and threatened and repeatedly blocked to prevent from fixing the problem, and demonized for having pointed them out, while those whom we should expect to act responsibly took the attitude that its acceptable poorly sourced or unsourced information to remain until reliable sources are found (i.e. indefinitely, since when there are no other sources, the question remains open.)
Where a responsible publisher treats the veracity of its content as the paramount consideration, we acted on the basis of internal social networks and alliances. A well-liked reporter was accused of shoddy work by a not-so-well lliked reporter, who took it upon himself to vet the first reporter's stories. Because the two had poor relations in the past, this was labelled "harassment" and the second reporter, who wasn't much liked anyway, was fired.
Those who took the decision to fire him and suppress investigation of his claims, and blindly vouched for these articles in every AfD due not to any principled approach to content, but to personal loyalty towards the first reporter, share direct reponsibility for the publication of misinformation. To "go fix it" would also mean (at least) to ensure that they are not in a position to make that kind of mistake again.Proabivouac 04:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, your attitude here is becoming tiresome. You have decided to inflate what the article said beyond all recognition so that you can then claim the reader was horrifically misinformed. Show me one revision of the article that claimed that Stanley Dunin discovered geosynchronous orbit... The article claimed that he calculated the most fuel efficient manner of doing so (that has not been disproved), that he was part of the team that launched the world's first geosynchronous communications satellite (that has not been disproved). There has been general agreement that the article could use stronger sourcing. But it is rather disingenuous for you to suggest the article made bold claims that it did not and does not.

If you're so incensed about the amount of unsourced information on Wikipedia, Category:Articles lacking sources has a vast backlog and help is always appreciated... There are many articles which I'm sure would benefit from your closer scrutiny. But I find your singleminded attention to this one article to the virtual exclusion of all else unhelpful, especially given your engagement in a prior dispute with the article creator. Please find something else to do and stop stirring for the sake of stirring. WjBscribe 05:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"especially given your engagement in a prior dispute with the article creator."
The only serious dispute I've had with the article creator isn't a "prior dispute," but exactly the one we're discussing now: one in which you and Shell were already involved, urging action against Matt57 on the basis of a false accusation, before I'd even examined this dispute.[1] Proabivouac 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary you were also in dispute with Elonka over depictions of Muhammad (which is also I believe where Matt57 formed his irrational grudge). These discussions spring to mind as examples - Talk:Kaaba and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg. Incidently, you might want to rephrase your comment to Shell Kinney - accusing another editor of "blithe indifference towards veracity" looks highly incivil and disruptive to me and therefore in violation of your probation. Obviously it would be inappropriate for me to act, but I will refer the matter to WP:AE for an impartial opinion if you do not withdraw it. WjBscribe 05:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt that you've the capability to get me blocked: it's exactly the substitution of threats and blocks for discussion to which I object. How fitting and illustrative that my discussion has been met with a threat, and perhaps now a block.
I held no grudges whatsoever over the image dispute, and indeed supported Elonka's RfA thereafter.[2] Disagreement over content are normal and no cause for resentment. Merzbow was probably the most active editor arguing against including depictions, but I count him among my best friends here. SlimVirgin, too, argued against them, I've no issue with her. What bugs me is again the substitution of threats and blocks for discussion about content and policy, which has not only led to hard feelings and serious irrevocable violations of my privacy, but also corrupted mainspace.Proabivouac 05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to withdraw the comment to Shell Kinney, or should I post to WP:AE? WjBscribe 05:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the phrase to which you objected in recognition of your greater power and willingness to use it. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me delete or withdraw. That arrangement will save us both much trouble.Proabivouac 06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so to try to answer the original point here: What does this AfD discussion have to do, at all, with fixing the page or a meta-discussion of false information worming its way into Wikipedia? Shell babelfish 04:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you honestly saying that this AfD is unrelated to the article at hand, and that the discussion has no relevance on the article's future or improvement of said article? o.O -- Ned Scott 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The main relevance, as I see it, is that nothing in the article which isn't squarely based upon reliable sources - most of it, actually - can be trusted. Which is quite relevant when reasons to keep unsourced/poorly sourced material have included 1) that there's no particular reason to think it inaccurate, and 2) that sources will probably be found later/give it more time.Proabivouac 06:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we're somehow discussing removing this AfD from Wikipedia? If you're not aware, the "permanent link" function in the toolbox allows you to link to any revision, making it easy to cite the AfD discussion any where else you feel it is pertinent. This is available regardless of whether or not courtesy blanking is used. As Proabivouac has pointed out, the AfD discussion does have the potential for harming a living person, which is why courtesy blanking exists. Can either of you give any reason that the courtesy blanking should not be used - please try to take in to account that this is just tossing the discussion into its history (and the template even points this out to editors), this is not hiding, deleting or making this material unavailable. And again, if you disagree with the policy, this isn't the place to have that discussion. Shell babelfish 02:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Are we talking about blanking? This section was labeled "..unrelated to the blanking.." -- Ned Scott 02:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That was an unfortunate heading that someone else chose to use, couldn't tell you why. And yes, since that is the ongoing discussion here. Shell babelfish 04:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Very well, but you still haven't made a rationale argument that would require discussion blanking. There is no reason to blank in a painfully mild debate that dares to say something as "horrible" as "this guy shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia". Stanley Durnin might have his feelings hurt.. if he were 5 years old. Slippery slope, no reason to blank, a perfectly valid AfD, no BLP violations. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem, Ned Scott, so far as I can discern (since no one has said any more) is that the discussion appears to emphasize his lack of notable professional accompishments. For example, an article stating, "Ned Scott cannot be shown by reliable sources to have ever achieved anything in particular, and is not a notable person" would be a big problem. At the same time, it's not the deleters which have made false claims about Mr. Dunin, or that forced us to vet them: "Regardless, his paper is still the first published describing the mechanism. It would be helpful if you offered some proof that the claims are false…"[3] Obviously, we shouldn't be keeping material to spite one another's arguments, but there is something rich about asking for such proof and then complaining when they're produced.
The underlying problem is that we are currently technically incapable of dealing with these discussions in a responsible manner, unless all editors act responsibly to begin with. Most commonly, this means avoiding malicious attacks which then, according to our misgguided traditions, must be openly discussed rather than unceremoniously deleted. In this case, it means making no carelessly inflated claims, begging to be rebutted, since it's acknowledged that to do so is an inadvertent BLP violation. The underlying problem is that our "internal" discussions are, by default, part of the published encyclopedia. And, as with Mr. Murphy, Mr. Danan, etc., the only reliable way we have to prevent BLP violations is to delete the article and foreclose further discussion.Proabivouac 07:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy blanking (again)

At WP:CBLANK wikipedia policy is summarized as, "Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare." (Emphasis on rare added this time around.) It was previously asked what makes this discussion one of the rare cases which require it. Is the response essentially, "Regardless of what our policy says we do, our actual practice is to do this frequently, not rarely"? (sdsds - talk) 05:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because that's not the case at all. Pull up a random selection of 50 or so AfDs closed in the last year and it's almost certain that every single one will not have been courtesy blanked. The page does represent common practice. --Deskana (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)