Foundation news

[tarantino]

There's been a lot of updates to the foundation wiki.

Resolution:Advisory Board appointments 2017-18
Resolved, the Board of Trustees invites the following members of the Advisory Board for 2017-18:

Ting Chen
Ward Cunningham
Florence Devouard
Melissa Hagemann
Mimi Ito
Teemu Leinonen
Wayne Mackintosh
Benjamin Mako Hill
Nhlanhla Mbaso
Trevor Neilson
Craig Newmark
Barry Newstead
Clay Shirky
Kat Walsh
Jessamyn West
Ethan Zuckerman

Resolution:Approval of Endowment funding (Fiscal Year 2016-2017) and matching $5 million gift from Peter Baldwin and Lisbet Rausing

Baldwin is a University of California professor and member of the foundation's endowment board. He's married to the very rich Rausing, and together they founded the Arcadia Fund.

A lot of corporation's matching gifts programs are no longer listed as benefactors of the foundation.

[Bezdomni]

A lot of corporation's matching gifts programs are no longer listed as benefactors of the foundation.

This is really fascinating to see the number of programs jumping ship or decreasing their support. About the only increases I noticed were "Donors to the National Combined Federal Campaigns" (I wonder what this is) and the Bitcoin Community (both of which have moved up to "patron" levels).

Seeing drops from Pfizer, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Genentech, Exxon Mobil, Verizon and seeing Coca-Cola, the Ford Foundation, Omidyar, Soros, GlaxoSmithKlein (among others) completely drop off the donor list is very interesting... it almost looks like a movement. The anonymous donors numbers have dropped by nearly 20% (in number though perhaps not in total amount... the biggest anonymous donors remained more loyal than the $1-$5K donors, though they, too may have decreased their disbursements within the ranges, who knows?).

I also see that Craig Minassian has remained loyal, as one might expect given that his contract with the WMF seems to have continued uninterrupted since 2014. (I have suggested that they stop hiring this guy until the cabals on en.wp are cleaned up -- given the obvious COI in US national politics during the election -- but I doubt that will have much, if any, effect. Still, they did ask for feedback on meta. ^^ )

[AndyTheGrump]

The 'Bitcoin Community' is a 'Patron Donor' ($15,000 – $49,999)? Jeez. What next, the 'Legitimate Businessman's Social Club'?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

The new Advisory Board looks very like the one appointed in 2014.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

There's been a lot of updates to the foundation wiki.
Resolution:Approval of Endowment funding (Fiscal Year 2016-2017) and matching $5 million gift from Peter Baldwin and Lisbet Rausing

There might be an angle here. The wording of the resolution makes it clear that the WMF had $5M which they might or might not have put into the endowment, and effectively the matching donation paid them not to spend it. So, the volunteer community might say, there's $5M you could have spent buying us books, journal subscriptions, scholarships to Wikimania and other things we use to write content for you, but you decided not to spend it at the behest of a rich donor. Why was that?

[Zoloft]

<snip> About the only increases I noticed were "Donors to the National Combined Federal Campaigns" (I wonder what this is) <snip>

These are individual designated contributions by federal employees, summed up as one figure. The CFC contributions are taken out of paychecks automatically.

[Poetlister]

The new Advisory Board looks very like the one appointed in 2014.

Why shouldn't it be? If most of the members are happy to continue and haven't annoyed Jimbo, of course they'll continue.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

For reasons as yet unexplained, the Board allowed its advisory board to lapse at the end of 2015, almost as if they were unable to make good use of it. It so happened that on 25 June I asked what if anything had happened to the Advisory Board. Dariusz Jemelniak replied that "there is no formal constitution of the body yet." That response came ten days after a Board meeting at which the Advisory Board was indeed formally reconstituted -- a meeting at which Dariusz was present. Nataliia Tymkiv corrected Dariusz a day later, stating that it had indeed been agreed to invite the new members.

[Randy from Boise]

For reasons as yet unexplained, the Board allowed its advisory board to lapse at the end of 2015, almost as if they were unable to make good use of it. It so happened that on 25 June I asked what if anything had happened to the Advisory Board. Dariusz Jemelniak replied that "there is no formal constitution of the body yet." That response came ten days after a Board meeting at which the Advisory Board was indeed formally reconstituted -- a meeting at which Dariusz was present. Nataliia Tymkiv corrected Dariusz a day later, stating that it had indeed been agreed to invite the new members.

Probably just a paper organization for fundraising propaganda purposes...

RfB

[Poetlister]

This is just the usual level of WMF efficiency: cock-up rsther than conspiracy.

[tarantino]

The foundation's latest hire is science fiction author, TV critic, product manager Ramsey Isler. He doesn't have his own bio yet, but his film and TV reviews have been used in 149 articles.

[Poetlister]

The foundation's latest hire is science fiction author, TV critic, product manager Ramsey Isler. He doesn't have his own bio yet, but his film and TV reviews have been used in 149 articles.

Now he's hired, surely his article won't be long in coming. Far too many people associated with WMF have articles. (Greg will no doubt remind us of an ex-WMF employees who has no article.)

[Vigilant]

They hired 3 more software engineers, as well.
Two for the doomed Mobile Apps group.

[thekohser]

(Greg will no doubt remind us of an ex-WMF employees who has no article.)

I believe her name was Stierch... hard to say for sure, with no Wikipedia article to keep her notable and in memory. I do recall that her first AfD, when in the good graces of the Community, went about 12-0 in the Keep column; then, after it was discovered she made maybe a few hundred dollars writing WP articles on the side, she was suddenly 14-0 in the Delete column. Funny how "notability" can disappear on you like that.

[Randy from Boise]

(Greg will no doubt remind us of an ex-WMF employees who has no article.)

I believe her name was Stierch... hard to say for sure, with no Wikipedia article to keep her notable and in memory. I do recall that her first AfD, when in the good graces of the Community, went about 12-0 in the Keep column; then, after it was discovered she made maybe a few hundred dollars writing WP articles on the side, she was suddenly 14-0 in the Delete column. Funny how "notability" can disappear on you like that.

I know, hyperbole and all that, but for the sake of accuracy and personal honor: the first vote was 16-9 in favor of keeping, with Orange Mike nominating for deletion. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ah_Stierch[/link]

Then when things went negative for SS's personal bio after the Two Minutes Hate, our friend Hex brought it up for a re-do, and it quickly went 0-12 and was snowed shut in less than 48 hours. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)[/link]

RfB

[thekohser]

I know, hyperbole and all that, but for the sake of accuracy and personal honor: the first vote was 16-9 in favor of keeping, with Orange Mike nominating for deletion. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ah_Stierch[/link]

Then when things went negative for SS's personal bio after the Two Minutes Hate, our friend Hex brought it up for a re-do, and it quickly went 0-12 and was snowed shut in less than 48 hours. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)[/link]

RfB

Thanks for the facts -- you're stomping out fake news more effectively than Wikitribune!

By the way, is Ms. Stierch still actively editing Wikipedia, and if so, what's her current User name? Edit: never mind. My prediction that she would quit Wikipedia altogether (after the way the WMF treated her) was certainly a clunker.

[Randy from Boise]

I know, hyperbole and all that, but for the sake of accuracy and personal honor: the first vote was 16-9 in favor of keeping, with Orange Mike nominating for deletion. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ah_Stierch[/link]

Then when things went negative for SS's personal bio after the Two Minutes Hate, our friend Hex brought it up for a re-do, and it quickly went 0-12 and was snowed shut in less than 48 hours. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)[/link]

RfB

Thanks for the facts -- you're stomping out fake news more effectively than Wikitribune!

By the way, is Ms. Stierch still actively editing Wikipedia, and if so, what's her current User name? Edit: never mind. My prediction that she would quit Wikipedia altogether (after the way the WMF treated her) was certainly a clunker.

She's a true believer in WP as a project, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. She has also seen the sordid underbelly of the project closer and more personally than almost anyone, which I suppose is also a good thing... She would make for an interesting voice at WPO.

RfB

[Vigilant]

I know, hyperbole and all that, but for the sake of accuracy and personal honor: the first vote was 16-9 in favor of keeping, with Orange Mike nominating for deletion. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ah_Stierch[/link]

Then when things went negative for SS's personal bio after the Two Minutes Hate, our friend Hex brought it up for a re-do, and it quickly went 0-12 and was snowed shut in less than 48 hours. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)[/link]

RfB

Thanks for the facts -- you're stomping out fake news more effectively than Wikitribune!

By the way, is Ms. Stierch still actively editing Wikipedia, and if so, what's her current User name? Edit: never mind. My prediction that she would quit Wikipedia altogether (after the way the WMF treated her) was certainly a clunker.

She's a true believer in WP as a project, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. She has also seen the sordid underbelly of the project closer and more personally than almost anyone, which I suppose is also a good thing... She would make for an interesting voice at WPO.

RfB

Strangely enough, I agree.

Invite her here for a chat.
I doubt she'll accept, but it's worth an email or two.

[No Ledge]

Not only is she editing again... she received a scholarship to Wikimania 2017 linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants: ... holarships[/link], as did Gamaliel. So the WMF isn't treating them too badly. Did any of the WPO regulars get a scholarship?

[thekohser]

The WMF is searching for a Chief Marketing and Communications Officer.

You'd figure the "sum of human knowledge" would sell itself, but I guess not.

Additional searches are on for:

* Chief Product Officer

* a Design Director

* a Director of Security

* a Recruiting manager

[Poetlister]

Indeed, Sarah Stierch's downfall is itself notable and deserves an article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 52308.html

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... d-editing/

But I was actually thinking of Carolyn Doran. Was there even an AfD for that article? The page log is fascinating.

[thekohser]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... d-editing/

I engaged in one of the best-ever Comments section discussions about paid editing on that story. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

[No Ledge]

"There is a set of editors who want Wikipedia to reflect a story by Thomas Halleck in International Business Times which revealed that not all of the sockpuppets attributed by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wiki-PR actually belonged to that company. Some belonged to another firm, LegalMorning. There are other editors struggling to keep this information *out* of Wikipedia, because it makes the Wikimedia Foundation look stupid. The argument they are using is that International Business Times is "not a reliable source", even though it is used as a source in over 2,000 other Wikipedia articles."

Interesting... very interesting. I'm familiar with the use of the "not a reliable source" argument being used to exclude contrarian viewpoints. That seems to happen quite often.

Recently an experienced editor in good standing was accused of being the sockpuppet master of a good-sized ring of alleged paid/COI accounts. I believe all of the accounts in the ring were blocked, except the master. Turns out they were found to be innocent. But their name lingered on the title of the investigation for some time.

[No Ledge]

Carolyn Doran was reasonably redirected to the Foundation article as a WP:BLP1E (Subject notable only for one event), in my opinion. The biography about her was only started after she left her job with the Foundation. However, you can still find the article, "Former Chief Operating Officer of Wikimedia Foundation is convicted felon", dated Friday, December 14, 2007, in the Wikinews archives. There are a lot more "events" in her past, but none of them were notable until she resigned from the WMF. By the way, the entire history of the article and talk page are there for anyone to read. There are no deleted revisions. There are some posts to the Wikinews talk page disputing the accuracy of some of the details of that article.

[Randy from Boise]

I know, hyperbole and all that, but for the sake of accuracy and personal honor: the first vote was 16-9 in favor of keeping, with Orange Mike nominating for deletion. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ah_Stierch[/link]

Then when things went negative for SS's personal bio after the Two Minutes Hate, our friend Hex brought it up for a re-do, and it quickly went 0-12 and was snowed shut in less than 48 hours. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)[/link]

RfB

Thanks for the facts -- you're stomping out fake news more effectively than Wikitribune!

By the way, is Ms. Stierch still actively editing Wikipedia, and if so, what's her current User name? Edit: never mind. My prediction that she would quit Wikipedia altogether (after the way the WMF treated her) was certainly a clunker.

She's a true believer in WP as a project, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. She has also seen the sordid underbelly of the project closer and more personally than almost anyone, which I suppose is also a good thing... She would make for an interesting voice at WPO.

RfB

Strangely enough, I agree.

Invite her here for a chat.
I doubt she'll accept, but it's worth an email or two.

I'll leave that to her friends to pass along — she doesn't like me after she misconstrued my proctological examination of her so-called "paid editing" during the 2 Minutes Hate.

Her pal JIm Heaphy (Cullen328 (T-C-L)) and his wife were just staying at my house last night, maybe I'll drop him a line and ask him to forward the invite. Pretty much zero chance of her accepting, of course, but she would be interesting...

BTW, Jim's last name is pronounced "HAY-fee." Now you know. I like him a lot.

RfB

[Vigilant]

I know, hyperbole and all that, but for the sake of accuracy and personal honor: the first vote was 16-9 in favor of keeping, with Orange Mike nominating for deletion. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ah_Stierch[/link]

Then when things went negative for SS's personal bio after the Two Minutes Hate, our friend Hex brought it up for a re-do, and it quickly went 0-12 and was snowed shut in less than 48 hours. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)[/link]

RfB

Thanks for the facts -- you're stomping out fake news more effectively than Wikitribune!

By the way, is Ms. Stierch still actively editing Wikipedia, and if so, what's her current User name? Edit: never mind. My prediction that she would quit Wikipedia altogether (after the way the WMF treated her) was certainly a clunker.

She's a true believer in WP as a project, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. She has also seen the sordid underbelly of the project closer and more personally than almost anyone, which I suppose is also a good thing... She would make for an interesting voice at WPO.

RfB

Strangely enough, I agree.

Invite her here for a chat.
I doubt she'll accept, but it's worth an email or two.

I'll leave that to her friends to pass along — she doesn't like me after she misconstrued my proctological examination of her so-called "paid editing" during the 2 Minutes Hate.

Her pal JIm Heaphy (Cullen328 (T-C-L)) and his wife were just staying at my house last night, maybe I'll drop him a line and ask him to forward the invite. Pretty much zero chance of her accepting, of course, but she would be interesting...

BTW, Jim's last name is pronounced "HAY-fee." Now you know. I like him a lot.

RfB

The company you keep...

[Poetlister]

I'm familiar with the use of the "not a reliable source" argument being used to exclude contrarian viewpoints. That seems to happen quite often.

Indeed it does; I've had it used against me quite a lot. A variant is that if there is any dissenting source, it "proves" that the fact in question is controversial and must be expressed as "It has been claimed that X, but this is denied by...". That's taking WP:NPOV to ridiculous lengths.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

The WMF is searching for a Chief Marketing and Communications Officer.

You'd figure the "sum of human knowledge" would sell itself, but I guess not.

Additional searches are on for:

* Chief Product Officer

* a Design Director

* a Director of Security

* a Recruiting manager

It is astonishing how much difficulty the WMF has in recruiting senior staff. They ran without a CTO for years -- probably a contributory factor to Lila failing to complete her clearout.

[Poetlister]

It is astonishing how much difficulty the WMF has in recruiting senior staff.

If you were the calibre of person who could be a senior officer of the WMF (and I assume that you are), wouldn't you have more sense than to want the job?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I think I could enjoy the first few weeks. I'm told it's quite easy to fire people in the US.

[Poetlister]

I think I could enjoy the first few weeks. I'm told it's quite easy to fire people in the US.

Yes. I understand thst in many states, including California, employees usually serve "at will". Of course, you'd have to demonstrate that you weren't being discriminatory.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

That would be easy in the case of sacking entire departments, of course. Allowing 30 minutes per exit interview, with breaks for refreshments, and a 7.24 working day, 5 days a week, that's ten a day, so the fun would last for five weeks. I think I could take that much time off from my current job.

[Randy from Boise]

I think I could enjoy the first few weeks. I'm told it's quite easy to fire people in the US.

Yes. I understand thst in many states, including California, employees usually serve "at will". Of course, you'd have to demonstrate that you weren't being discriminatory.

Are Incompetents a protected group?

RfB

[thekohser]

There are a lot more "events" in her past, but none of them were notable until she resigned from the WMF.

I don't want to argue the point, but The Washington Post featured a story about her long before Wikipedia even existed. It could be argued that that was only a "local interest" story, however.

As you probably know, there are numerous BLPs on Wikipedia featuring felons who were notable for only one event. They did not receive the "courtesy" protection that Doran did.

As someone said on the Talk page... "[Doran] has been involved in shooting someone, stealing money, bouncing checks, leaving the scene of a DUI hit-and-run where a fatality occurred, being the daughter of a CIA executive, being the widow of a CIA operative, serving as the Chief Operating Officer of one of the world's Top 10 websites, and leaving the country while on probation. This is not a 'one bad event' situation."

[Poetlister]

being the daughter of a CIA executive, being the widow of a CIA operative

Notability is not hereditary. Still, many senior WMF staff get articles just for being senior WMF staff, so she deserves an article on those grounds.

[No Ledge]

That would be easy in the case of sacking entire departments, of course. Allowing 30 minutes per exit interview, with breaks for refreshments, and a 7.24 working day, 5 days a week, that's ten a day, so the fun would last for five weeks. I think I could take that much time off from my current job.

That's not how it works. Employees are generally only individually fired "for cause". Such as theft, or some other significant crime. Not incompetence.

Entire departments, or some significant percentage of staff, are fired as a group in what's commonly called a downsizing, because the firm doesn't need their services any more. This is firing "without cause". This is done quickly, in a short meeting where a group is called into a conference room, handed their departure paperwork, and outplacement services, if offered, are explained. Usually the employees are offered a severance package, given in return for their signature on a document stating that they will not sue the firm for wrongful termination. "Exit interviews" may or may not be done, but I think they're more common when the employee voluntarily quits, to take a better job. Companies have no interest in interviewing incompetents, just their valued employees who jumped, to either try to talk them out of it, or learn what they might do to prevent other unwanted departures.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Sounds like we could get it over in a single day then.

[No Ledge]

There are a lot more "events" in her past, but none of them were notable until she resigned from the WMF.

I don't want to argue the point, but The Washington Post featured a story about her long before Wikipedia even existed. It could be argued that that was only a "local interest" story, however.

As you probably know, there are numerous BLPs on Wikipedia featuring felons who were notable for only one event. They did not receive the "courtesy" protection that Doran did.

As someone said on the Talk page... "[Doran] has been involved in shooting someone, stealing money, bouncing checks, leaving the scene of a DUI hit-and-run where a fatality occurred, being the daughter of a CIA executive, being the widow of a CIA operative, serving as the Chief Operating Officer of one of the world's Top 10 websites, and leaving the country while on probation. This is not a 'one bad event' situation."

Oh yes, Wikipedia has many "one event" bios, but they are titled and framed as articles about the event, not the person. Not just felons, but victims too. For example there's no bio on Seth Rich, but Seth Rich (T-H-L) redirects to Murder of Seth Rich (T-H-L).

Sometimes an event is so notable that there are articles about both the person and the event, e.g. James_Comey (T-H-L) and Dismissal_of_James_Comey (T-H-L)

So Resignation of Carolyn Doran (T-H-L) could possibly be a legitimate article, as a sub-article of Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L), if there was sufficient content on the matter to justify a summary-style (Wikipedia:Summary_style (T-H-L)) content split.

[thekohser]

Oh yes, Wikipedia has many "one event" bios, but they are titled and framed as articles about the event, not the person.

Is that so?

I'm not sure Darleen Druyun (T-H-L) and Michael M. Sears (T-H-L) and Michael Posner (businessman) (T-H-L) and Rene Reinmann (T-H-L) and Young Lee (T-H-L) would agree with you.

Take away the "one event" crimes of these people -- would they have a Wikipedia article? Are they inherently more notable than Carolyn Doran? How much more notable?

[Poetlister]

Oh yes, Wikipedia has many "one event" bios, but they are titled and framed as articles about the event, not the person.

Is that so?

I'm not sure Darleen Druyun (T-H-L) and Michael M. Sears (T-H-L) and Michael Posner (businessman) (T-H-L) and Rene Reinmann (T-H-L) and Young Lee (T-H-L) would agree with you.

Take away the "one event" crimes of these people -- would they have a Wikipedia article? Are they inherently more notable than Carolyn Doran? How much more notable?

Ah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means that the fact that something apparently similar to what we are objecting to exists is not a reason to keep the object of our annoyance.

Anyway, Darleen Druyun was Principal Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. Isn't that enough to make her notable?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Ah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means that the fact that something apparently similar to what we are objecting to exists is not a reason to keep the object of our annoyance.

I take it to mean that Wikipedia has a sufficiently ambiguous or even self-contradictory set of policies that people who are known only for one thing in their lives can get an article apparently about them or apparently about that one thing, depending on what editors think about them. And that it requires the clear and impartial thinking to be found on an objective and critical site such as this to make that contradiction and that hypocrisy explicit and to expose, using well-chosen examples, the self-serving nature of the Wikipedian position.

[Poetlister]

It means that each AfD is to be considered on its own merits, regardless of what may have happened on other AfDs or whether apparently similar articles have had an AfD. Since each AfD may attract different editors, and a different closing admin, the whole process is extremely arbitrary.

[No Ledge]

Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists (T-H-L) is an unofficial guidance essay containing comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (T-H-L)), although it may be consulted for assistance. Essays may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors.

Unfortunately too many editors cite this essay in their rationales. I take the counter-argument that this idea flies in the face of the concept of case law and legal precedents. When there are no policies or guidelines addressing an issue, I look for precedents. If no precedents have been set regarding an issue, then a new precedent may be established. To justify a case going against an established precedent, a reasonable argument should be made as to why this particular case "is different".

The essay itself is OK. It says "comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."

Furthermore, "countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." That's how this essay is abused.

Greg has pointed out some cases that merit further review, to see whether there is any reasonable rationale for keeping them.

[thekohser]

Greg has pointed out some cases that merit further review, to see whether there is any reasonable rationale for keeping them.

Those took me about 7 minutes to locate, searching for the phrase "convicted felon". I suspect that there are more to be found. I wish I could help you further, but I think (technically speaking) I'm not even supposed to be loading Wikipedia pages into my browser, much less engaging with a Wikipedia community member in good standing, to cooperate on a content management program together.



I'll hand you the next culprit in the list, though...

Ward Weaver III (T-H-L)

You'll notice that sections one and two contain over 500 words, but only one reference citation (one that links to a dead page, too, so there's that). Thus, the reader is left to labor on his or her own to decide whether these are just 500 words of made-up salacious claims, or whether each claim is fully documented in one of the other sources linked elsewhere in the article, or in sources not linked at all in the article.

Wikipedia is always improving, and the great thing about Wikipedia is that every fact must be properly documented with a source, so I'm sure things will get better eventually.

[Poetlister]

Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists (T-H-L) is an unofficial guidance essay containing comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (T-H-L)), although it may be consulted for assistance. Essays may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors.

Unfortunately too many editors cite this essay in their rationales. I take the counter-argument that this idea flies in the face of the concept of case law and legal precedents. When there are no policies or guidelines addressing an issue, I look for precedents. If no precedents have been set regarding an issue, then a new precedent may be established. To justify a case going against an established precedent, a reasonable argument should be made as to why this particular case "is different".

The essay itself is OK. It says "comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."

Furthermore, "countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." That's how this essay is abused.

Greg has pointed out some cases that merit further review, to see whether there is any reasonable rationale for keeping them.

As you say, it is a very abused argument. Closing admins really need to point this out. Indeed, I suspect that some closing admins get taken in by it and need to be instructed.

[No Ledge]

This is a can of worms that I'm not keen on opening up too far. There are 2835 transclusions (linkhttps://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount ... =10#bottom[/link]) of Template:Infobox criminal (T-H-L). So we have well over two thousand biographies of people who are notable specifically because of their criminal records. For example, Timothy McVeigh (T-H-L) doesn't redirect to Oklahoma City bombing (T-H-L); Wikipedia has articles on both. At some level the "one event" becomes so notorious that such encyclopedic coverage is warranted. This is obviously going to be a subjective call.

I see, looking at the usage guidelines:
Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies.

This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. It is also appropriately used in Nolle prosequi cases of perpetrators dying during the commission of the act or shortly thereafter, common in a suicide attack or Murder–suicide. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal.

So is the co-founder of Pinkberry primarily known for being the co-founder of Pinkberry, or for being a notorious criminal? Hmm, two days in jail and three years' probation for "felony possession of cocaine and two misdemeanor counts of battery of a spouse,... and carrying a loaded firearm"... assault with a deadly weapon, after he beat a homeless man with a tire iron. I think I can answer that question.

[thekohser]

I think I can answer that question.

Please do, then.

I'll note that the other co-founder of Pinkberry lacks a Wikipedia biography, so it must be the two days in jail that got Wikipedia's feathers up on this one.

I hope you'll allow me to say, "I won't hold my breath" that Wikipedia will actually do anything about this problem while it protects readers from the "sum of human knowledge, except for that multi-count felon we had as a Chief Operating Officer of the 6th-most popular website on the planet". After all, I pointed this out in 2009, and nothing happened then, either.

Just look at Druyun's Talk page. I see two comments there that look like they belong on a bathroom stall... sitting pretty for about 7 years now.

[No Ledge]

Actually the answer isn't as easy as I thought. Neither of the co-founders of the frozen yogurt chain has any independent notability from founding the chain. It's only after he beat a homeless man with a tire iron that Lee became notable. Whether an ordinary Joe beating a homeless man that way would have made the news with the same impact is just a theoretical question, but a moot point for Wikipedia. This doesn't rise to the level required by the "notorious" bar, in my view. But the judge threw the book at him, seven years imprisonment, the maximum sentence. He must have pushed some buttons to get that harsh a sentence. Anyhow, redirected now.

OK, OK... I'll get on the Boeing thing. That's a more tangled mess. Those people are in Template:Boeing (T-H-L), so they're linked all over the place. I would redirect them to United States Air Force tanker contract controversy (T-H-L), but that itself has been redirected. First step is to clear the link-fog to see what article(s) actually mention these people.

Someone should pay me to do this work. If it's been sitting 7 or 8 years, that should be a pretty strong clue that this is work that volunteers don't want to do. This would be more valuable work than scanning old photos at a museum.

[Poetlister]

OK, let's take Jonathan Aitken (T-H-L). As a British politician, he is surely notable enough for an article. However, as the lede says,

Jonathan William Patrick Aitken (born 30 August 1942) is a former Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom (1974–97), and a former Cabinet minister. He was convicted of perjury in 1999 and received an 18-month prison sentence, of which he served seven months. He is currently president of Christian Solidarity Worldwide. Aitken was also a member of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom.

He must now be best remembered for going to prison, but he doesn't have the template. Does he deserve it? Incidentally, the lede should note that he had to leave the Privy Council on conviction, one of very few people in the last 100 years to do so.

[Cedric]

Someone should pay me to do this work. If it's been sitting 7 or 8 years, that should be a pretty strong clue that this is work that volunteers don't want to do. This would be more valuable work than scanning old photos at a museum.

You are very far from being the first person to come to this basic conclusion. It's a good part of the reason I left WP over a decade ago. It's also why