Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Selective deletions and the GFDL

[This section and following sections of non-current discussions are being moved into in Archive 13. This archiving may take some time. After it is done, I will remove this note. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

It has recently come to my attention that some admins think that we can make selective deletions which violate the GFDL if they remove possible BLP problems from the history. I think that this policy needs to make clear that the GFDL cannot be overridden in this fashion. JoshuaZ 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When you write "cannot", do you mean that you think adherence to the GFDL should prevent us from removing BLP problems, or do you mean that removal of BLP problems does not affect the GFDL? (There was an SNL skit about that: "You can't add too much water to a nuclear reactor") --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I will support doing this when it is clarified by an actual lawyer with appropriate specializations that this violates the GFDL unacceptably. Phil Sandifer 19:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Even so lawyers can give differeing opinions and this is the kind of case that might be better resolved in a court room if adhering to GFDL actually harms people. John Seigenthaler Sr. comes to mind, a case that not only harmed him but wikipedia's reputation as a harmless encyclopedia as well. And GFDL's reputation as a fair piece of copyright law should itself come under scrutiny if, far from protecting BLP concenrs it harms them, SqueakBox 19:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. This isn't that complicated. GFDL adherence is the main reason we delete things to stubs, not piecemeal. In any event, no court would ever endorse our BLP policy as it currently stands as overriding anything. The issues that have triggered the problematic deletions are of public figures, and claims about protecting their privacy. In any event, I'll discuss this with Mike Godwin, the Foundation's counsel, and we'll see what he says. Anyone want to place money? JoshuaZ 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer will be along the lines of it depends. It depends on exactly what the admin deletes and how along with various other factors.Geni 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So Geni, want to take a look at the logs and history of say Justin Berry, and then make a bet? JoshuaZ 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless Phil is the sole author of the 12:51, 16 August 2007 version blatent GFDL vio. There are however more complex cases.Geni 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he isn't the sole author or even the main author of that dif. I'm not claiming that there might not be more complicated cases. However, there are cases that are clearly problematic. JoshuaZ 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Justin Berry really a public figure? SqueakBox 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

He is very likely a public figure. Even if he isn't he is almost certainly a limited public figure which is all that is necessary here since he is the difs in question were relevant to his public involvement (not the exact standard, paraphrased slightly+IANAL). Regardless, BLP cannot override GFDL like this, so your concern isn't warranted (point of fact the, many contentious BLPs are about public figures, but that's a separate issue). JoshuaZ 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, apparently this is too small fry an issue for Mike to comment on. I'm currently talking to other foundation people to see is we can get some form of advice from the foundation. If not, I suspect that an ArbCom clarification may be necessary. JoshuaZ 23:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom aren't lawyers either. Phil Sandifer 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than Fred Bauder of course but even he doesnt specialise in GFDL. I simply dont buy Josh's dismissal of BLP so lightly. Though I am neither lawyer nor American I will, as we al should, fight for what I believe is right, SqueakBox 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The logic of talking to ArbCom is that they will presumably talk to people who actually know what they are talking about (in my case, I'm essentially relying on extensive experience with the GFDL and a semester class in internet law, which isn't much). Furthermore, outside the essentially legal concerns there appear to be ethical and moral concerns wrapped up. In particular, the GFDL and the BLP are both at some level connected to moral values. Some people (such as Squeakbox) seem to think that BLP is a core value, others (such as myself) think that the GFDL is a core value, some might be inclined to think that both are. That's an issue which is hard to resolve without going to ArbCom. JoshuaZ 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Having given the matter further thought if Phil broke GFDL it means he left too much in not too much out and should have just said something along the lines of "Justin Berry is a notable public speaker and anti-pedophile activist" or something similar of his own making, SqueakBox 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I did that once in the past for this article, and also for Child pornography. I have mixed feelings about it - I think an excessive amount of good content is lost and that it does not grow back readily. Phil Sandifer 01:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To give the full story, Phil, you did "do it once" at Justin Berry and another admin looked at your actions and undid them, following a similarly intransigent exchange at Talk:Justin Berry. It would be disingenuous to cite that prior action as an example in support of your actions, since it didn't withstand the scrutiny of others. --Ssbohio 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(Note that I am not attempting to violate WP:NLT; I am not a copyright holder, as I have never contributed to that article, so I could not threaten legal action.)

I am generally in favour of BLP, even when administrators do some unprecedented action in enforcing it. The action taken on the particular article in question, however, is inappropriate. Phil, to the unaware editor or non-sysop, you are the sole author of a significant amount of content. That, however, is not true. The action taken on that article is, without a doubt, a serious violation of the copyrights held by the previous authors of that article.

Massive selective deletion of talk pages is one thing: talk pages will probably not be published as often as articles, and editors may not care about maintaining their copyrights. Massive selective deletion of articles is another: It is unethical and unlawful to assert (in terms of being the only listed author of the history) that you are the sole author. Please undelete. --Iamunknown 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't do that. The BLP violations are significant. The alternative is not undeletion, but a complete stubbing of the article. I am not going to take that path without an explicit directive from the arbcom or Foundation, because that path opens up a catastrophically destructive mode of vandalism that we would be totally unable to fix - subtle introduction of badly BLP violating material that manages to stand for a meaningful amount of time and thus requires deletion of the entire article. The introduction of that practice would be bad on a level far worse than the frankly theoretical copyvio point here, where if someone decided to sue and if the implicit permission for use on Wikipedia given when you hti "save page" didn't work as a defense and if a technical solution for deleted pages were not immediately cobbled together (and this is really what we should be waiting for - a visible flag that says "deleted pages were here"), and if it were remotely possible to show anything resembling damages for a case like this, then it is theoretically possible that selective revision deletion could be a problem.

Meanwhile, restubbing articles is demonstrably a problem right now. I restubbed Child pornography several months ago to deal with a massive problem in the article history (A year and a half of bad revisions). The article has not recovered. It is still a mediocre stub.

We cannot enshrine the wholesale destruction of usable content as practice without a much clearer directive than can possibly be reached on this talk page. Phil Sandifer 13:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've spent the last 10 minutes looking through the BLP policy as currently written. Nor for that matter is there generally anything wrong with leaving problematic material in the history where it is hard to find (especially in a case like Justin Berry where the material that you are claiming must be removed can be found by a five minute search and was included in major newspapers). There is nothing in the BLP policy justifying selective deletions and your excuses about violating the GFDL so as to increase content is no different than someone justifying a complete copyright violation of non-Wikipedia material. This is not acceptable. If I don't here back from you in the next 24 hours I'm going to either delete and stubbify the article or undelete the relevant history. JoshuaZ 13:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The problematic material was sourced to two sources, both of questionable reliability - probably sufficient for aspects of something that have gained wider media coverage, but insufficient for sensationalistic negative details about a subject. Undeleting the revisions is, simply put, not OK. Similarly, the problem of stubbing articles with this problem is not the content loss - it is the open invitation to massive destructive vandalism. Phil Sandifer 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first, most people seem to agree that selective deletion of deliberately vandalistic edits are fine under the GFDL. That's not what you've done here. In any event, are you now saying that we'll violate the GFDL to prevent additional vandalism? That doesn't sound wrong to you? JoshuaZ 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I've asked you in other fora, Phil, what is the problem you see with the sources you disparage? Counterpunch is a well-known and well-read publication. It published a feature article by Debbie Nathan (a published author and contributor to Counterpunch, New York Magazine, and others), the facts of which were used to expand the article beyond Berry's own version of events, whether told directly by him or though others such as Kurt Eichenwald.

The second source you've attempted to deprecate, GenerationQ, is likewise a widely read online magazine catering to the LGBT community. Its article about Berry's operation of open proxy websites is intrinsically accurate, and was further supported by two other sources, both of which Berry wrote himself.

As of yet, you haven't stirred to identify what's wrong with any of these sources, beyond your dislike for them. Debbie Nathan did her homework. GenerationQ's editor-in-chief did his homework. I've read the articles. Have you, Phil? These selective deletions are unwarranted. As the deletion guidelines for administrators put it: Because of GFDL requirements, selective deletion should only be done in certain extreme circumstances. Situations where such a selective deletion might be warranted include copyright violations that occur only in certain revisions, or personally identifying information that has been deemed inappropriate by consensus. I'm not seeing where your actions fit the standard. --Ssbohio 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hang on. Can't you just copy and paste the details of the authors of the deleted versions? Surely that would satisfy GFDL even if the revisions themselves have to remain deleted due to the GFDL BLP. It won't be clear who wrote what, but you are still crediting the authors in some sense. Carcharoth 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is perfectly adequate. See Talk:Infinite_monkey_theorem#Additional_history (do_not_archive) for an example. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And I've now done it on Justin Berry, so this should be a dead issue. Phil Sandifer 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that the requisite extreme circumstances for the selective deletion of revisions hasn't been shown to exist. I've offered to discuss this on-wiki or off-wiki, to avoid any perceived BLP issues. Nobody published Berry's address or Social Security Number. He is, by his own design, a public figure; a paid public speaker who's hired an agent and made numerous media appearances. Unless you can justify your actions, they will remain unjustified. --Ssbohio 17:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try runs into issues with section 4.I.Geni 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Which part? Phil Sandifer 18:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Geni, here is 4.I: "Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence." - as Phil says, which part? Carcharoth 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title," Hmm trying to move the section Entitled "History" to a different title not looking so good. In adition the section entitled history with regards to that article is this and it fails to list the authors. It would appear you have 5 options:

1)undelete the history

2)Delete the whole thing and allow for restart while constantly checking that nothing in the new version is derived from past versions.

3)delete back to pre BLP version then as above.

4)Haveing first established that all the authors are from the US get the authors to release their work into the public domain.

4b)If the authors are not from the US read and understand their local moral rights laws then figure out how to do the above.

Wikipedia's following of the GFDL is already pretty weak. Fiddeling further with it without a fairly solid understanding of both it and US copyright law is unlikely to help matters.Geni 21:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kind of related. template:copyvio probably is not GFDL compliant either. People make a temp article from the old article but then without the copyright violation. The original article is then deleted and the temp is moved to main space. Result, almost all the history is lost but article is still there. Garion96 (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The temp article shouldn't be a derivative work of the copyvio in any case. Assuming it isn't no problem since the complete history of the temp article is moved.Geni 21:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not worried about being it a derivative work of the copyvio, more of compliance with the GFDL. The non-copyvio parts of the original article are copied & pasted to the temp article. The temp article usually has only one editor, the other contributors are in the deleted history of the copyvio article. Garion96 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer there is more complex. Idealy in that case the article will be deleted back to the last non copyvio version. People are free to work from that material on the temp page since a history merge will take place when the temp page is moved.Geni 21:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take this to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. But no, a history merge is NOT made. If only since that would leave the copyvio in the history. Garion96 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No it would not. You delete back to the non copyvio version and merge in on top of that.Geni 22:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)