Deleting BLPs on request

[disembodied cat head]

i've spoken to 2 people who claim they were able to have their bios deleted from Wikipedia in the past - one around 2006, the other around 2010. both could be classed as "fringe" political figures, especially in light of Wikipedia's ever-expanding definition of what constitutes Fringe, and had bios portraying them in a very negative light using dubious references. neither seems to remember how they ultimately had themselves removed, so it's possible that sympathetic editors/admins helped them vanish, but i'm wondering, has the Foundation ever stepped in to delete a potentially libelous bio? i know the official line now is strongly anti-deletion - i recall seeing something on the WMF site boasting that of the 300something takedown requests they'd received in 2018, they had granted zero - but was this always the case? is there a point at which things changed in favor of inclusion?

[spartaz]

OTRS?

[disembodied cat head]

possibly. when would OTRS have stopped considering/granting such requests? another person i have spoken with has been putting forth superhuman efforts to get himself deleted over the past year, including requests to OTRS, & has gotten nowhere, despite similar problems (perhaps slightly more notable than the two who were deleted, but very few mentions in "reliable sources" so the article is mostly sourced to a personal webpage that could be considered an attack site)

[Midsize Jake]

...was this always the case? is there a point at which things changed in favor of inclusion?

No, things were always in favor of revenge-grabbing, anonymous shaming campaigns, borderline libel, and sheer "because we can" thrill-shitting on people, or if you prefer, "inclusion."

There have been a few attempts to propose an opt-out policy over the years, but none of them got more than 40-50 percent support. The fact that most of those attempts were either suggested or actually spearheaded by us probably didn't help, but the fact is, you'll never get people who control an anonymous free revenge platform to give it up based on moral/ethical arguments alone; the very fact that they control such an entity means they have little-to-no interest in morality or ethics.

My own approach has been to point out that with an opt-out policy, they'd be able to lower their notability standards to the point where they could add tens of thousands of new BLP articles while only sacrificing a few hundred (since most people actually want to have articles about themselves on Wikipedia, and even those who don't aren't always willing to risk the Streisand Effect). But as has become obvious over the years, Wikipedians are not interested in having a bigger encyclopedic website if the increased size means limiting the site's masturbatory value.

There have been a handful of success stories though. The one we're most closely associated with is that of Daniel Brandt, who actually did manage to get his attack BLP deleted after 14 separate AfDs conducted over a roughly two-year period. In order to make that happen, he essentially identified as many Wikipedians as he possibly could, and published their identities (and in most cases, photos) on one handy web page for all the world to see - all while nobody was ever able to find a photo of Brandt himself, which apparently is still the case today. He took a particular interest in anyone who edited the article about him, and while the Faithful often accused him of "blackmail" because of this, it did seem to help intimidate those who hadn't already been identified into not making the article significantly worse. More importantly, it helped a lot that he wasn't interested in personal notoriety on any level whatsoever, which made it difficult for them to find any non-dubious media sources about him.

He's in even better shape these days because another, different "Daniel Brandt" (a German electronic musician) now has an article, so Googling the name practially takes you straight to that guy. Meanwhile, there's still an article on Conservapedia about him, but that article is (for now, at least) solely concerned with the Wikipedia "controversy," which (if I'm not mistaken) he doesn't consider to be especially privacy-invasive since none of it actually happened in the real world.

[Guido den Broeder]

The trick to get yours deleted is to make it seem that you insist on keeping it.

[Poetlister]

Another interesting one that was deleted was the current Duke of Manchester. The grounds for deleting it was that he might not be entitled to the title, something that I'm sure he'd deny firmly.

[Newyorkbrad]

A universal right to opt out has been rejected, as Wikipedia will not agree to delete articles on clearly notable people. (I can readily imagine a request to delete the BLP of [[Donald Trump]], for example, if that were allowed.) However, the BLP policy now incorporates a rule that when a BLP is nominated for deletion and there is no consensus on keeping or deleting, the subject's known preference for deletion can tip the balance in favor of deleting, as opposed to the usual rule that "no consensus" defaults to "keep." I'm not sure how often this has actually been invoked and applied, though.

[WBG]

A universal right to opt out has been rejected, as Wikipedia will not agree to delete articles on clearly notable people. (I can readily imagine a request to delete the BLP of [[Donald Trump]], for example, if that were allowed.) However, the BLP policy now incorporates a rule that when a BLP is nominated for deletion and there is no consensus on keeping or deleting, the subject's known preference for deletion can tip the balance in favor of deleting, as opposed to the usual rule that "no consensus" defaults to "keep." I'm not sure how often this has actually been invoked and applied, though.

I know of at-least one case that came through OTRS. Low profile bio + (mostly) borderline negative stuff. At the end, it was roughly a No Consensus (despite the nomination statement asserting of the intentions of the subject) but the closing admin chose to go per the subject's wishes.

[rhindle]

A universal right to opt out has been rejected, as Wikipedia will not agree to delete articles on clearly notable people. (I can readily imagine a request to delete the BLP of [[Donald Trump]], for example, if that were allowed.)

A living person not considered a public figure should have the right to opt out at least.

[Poetlister]

A universal right to opt out has been rejected, as Wikipedia will not agree to delete articles on clearly notable people. (I can readily imagine a request to delete the BLP of [[Donald Trump]], for example, if that were allowed.)

A living person not considered a public figure should have the right to opt out at least.

If someone is clearly notable (however that may be defined), it might be hard to prove that he or she is not considered a public figure.

[Beeblebrox]

A really weird things happened to me yesterday. I was looking at a ticket on just this subject in the oversight OTRS queue, a marginally notable article subject wanting the article on them removed entirely, and it disappeared right before my eyes (the ticket, not the article). All of the sudden I did not have the correct permissions to view it at all. I can't say who it was, both because I'm not allowed and also because I can't recall the name and the ticket was vaporized by someone over my head, which means either arbcom or more likely the office.

They had gotten some bad advice, someone told them anyone who crated an article can have just remove it (seemingly a slight misunderstanding of speedy deletion) and they apparently knew who wrote the article about them, ad that person was dead, so they wanted to know how they could have it deleted. I suppose I'll never know what happened there, but I've never seen an OTRS ticket disappear before my very eyes in nine years of doing OS work.

[Midsize Jake]

A universal right to opt out has been rejected, as Wikipedia will not agree to delete articles on clearly notable people. (I can readily imagine a request to delete the BLP of [[Donald Trump]], for example, if that were allowed.)

I don't believe I've ever claimed it would be easy to formulate a standard above which the subject wouldn't be allowed to opt out, but as far as I can recall, I haven't insisted that the policy should apply universally either. (Have I? I know some people have, of course, but IMO they're a fairly small minority.)

Some of the standards that have been suggested include the "household name" standard; the "dead tree" standard (i.e. anyone who is the subject of a printed biography specific to him/her is too well-known); the "self-promotion" standard (i.e., anyone who publicly promotes himself or herself in any way is automatically denied); the "two things" standard (i.e., you can opt out if you're only known for one thing, but not two or more things); and probably a few others I can't think of off the top of my head. But in all cases, they idea is to make the standard high enough that the notability standards could then be dropped (if desired), but low enough that people who really are being treated badly and/or unfairly have some sort of recourse.

Either way, you're not realistically worried about Donald J. Trump here. He's obviously not going to opt out anyway; he's a total narcissist. The kind of person you should be worried about is Donald L. Trump (T-H-L).

However, the BLP policy now incorporates a rule that when a BLP is nominated for deletion and there is no consensus on keeping or deleting, the subject's known preference for deletion can tip the balance in favor of deleting, as opposed to the usual rule that "no consensus" defaults to "keep." I'm not sure how often this has actually been invoked and applied, though.

I assume that's not something the WP folks keep statistics on (though maybe they should), but my guess is that it's a very low number - again, not because lots of people want out of Wikipedia, but because so many people want in.

[Randy from Boise]

The trick to get yours deleted is to make it seem that you insist on keeping it.

+1

Stuff it full of delusions of grandeur and make it clear you edited it yourself. Drop a couple green links to commercial websites in the body of the piece. That'd do it.

RfB

[iii]

However, the BLP policy now incorporates a rule that when a BLP is nominated for deletion and there is no consensus on keeping or deleting, the subject's known preference for deletion can tip the balance in favor of deleting, as opposed to the usual rule that "no consensus" defaults to "keep." I'm not sure how often this has actually been invoked and applied, though.

I assume that's not something the WP folks keep statistics on (though maybe they should), but my guess is that it's a very low number....

I'll help they who may be interested in this to get started.

[Midsize Jake]

I'll help they who may be interested in this to get started.

So that's barely over a hundred names during the entire time that shortcut has been active, which is what, seven years? And at least six of those are Wikipedians, like Angela Beesley and Steven Pruitt, who know better than anybody what they'd be in for. (And another one is Greg Kohs!)

One of the things that always pissed me off about this whole issue over the years has been the insanely ridiculous strawman arguments from people like Erik Møller about how an opt-out policy will somehow result in "tens of thousands" of BLP articles being deleted. I think Møller once claimed "half a million." It's the biggest pile of steaming bullshit imaginable - not surprising from someone like Møller, but still, it's absurd. I doubt there would be more than a thousand after four years. Not leastwise because the possibility of an opt-out by the subject would act as a far better deterrent against posting and maintaining attack articles on them than the current BLP policy ever could, making the whole problem practically go away on its own.

Yeah, they might lose the ability to shame a few quacks. Too bad. Let the professionals do that part of it - they're better at it anyway.

[Poetlister]

I think Møller once claimed "half a million."

There are currently about 905,000 articles in Category:Living people (T-H-L) and presumably there were fewer when he made that claim. Obviously, it is inconceivable that most BLP subjects would want out.

[hack]

Another interesting one that was deleted was the current Duke of Manchester. The grounds for deleting it was that he might not be entitled to the title, something that I'm sure he'd deny firmly.

Relevant thread about this subject started either by the current duke or someone with close knowledge of his life.

[Poetlister]

Yes,the claim was made that because he was not on some list he couldn't use the title. This is quite false, and there are reliable sources that say that he has the title, including Who's Who (T-H-L) and Whitaker's Almanack (T-H-L). Further, even if he didn't have that title he would still be Viscount Mandeville and anyway he probably passes WP:GNG. But he really doesn't want a BLP so I'm sure he's glad it's deleted.

[Randy from Boise]

However, the BLP policy now incorporates a rule that when a BLP is nominated for deletion and there is no consensus on keeping or deleting, the subject's known preference for deletion can tip the balance in favor of deleting, as opposed to the usual rule that "no consensus" defaults to "keep." I'm not sure how often this has actually been invoked and applied, though.

I assume that's not something the WP folks keep statistics on (though maybe they should), but my guess is that it's a very low number....

I'll help they who may be interested in this to get started.

The number of bios that end up No Consensus is pretty small to start with. I'd say from what I've seen, close votes with an objection from the subject tend to get ruled Delete. I can't recall ever seeing one ruled No-Consensus-default-to-Delete.

RfB

[Poetlister]

The number of bios that end up No Consensus is pretty small to start with. I'd say from what I've seen, close votes with an objection from the subject tend to get ruled Delete. I can't recall ever seeing one ruled No-Consensus-default-to-Delete.

RfB

I quite agree with Randy here. Maybe it's just that admins think that saying No-Consensus-default-to-Delete is stupid.