 |
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page. |
Contents
- 1 January 2, 2010
- 2 January 9, 2010
- 3 January 10, 2010
- 4 January 12, 2010
- 5 January 18, 2010
- 6 February 2, 2010
- 7 February 3, 2010
- 8 February 12, 2010
- 9 February 17 2010
- 10 February 26, 2010
- 11 March 6, 2010
- 12 February 28, 2010
- 13 April 25, 2010
- 14 April 24, 2010
- 15 May 14, 2010
- 16 May 22, 2010
- 17 May 23, 2010
- 18 May 25, 2010
- 19 May 29, 2010
- 20 June 1, 2010
- 21 June 5, 2010
- 22 July 2, 2010
- 23 July 6, 2010
- 24 July 9, 2010
- 25 July 16, 2010
- 26 July 30, 2010
- 27 August 3, 2010
- 28 August 12, 2010
- 29 August 30, 2010
- 30 August 31, 2010
- 31 Sept 16, 2010
- 32 September 19, 2010
- 33 September 20, 2010
- 34 November 29, 2010
- 35 December 2, 2010
- 36 December 29, 2010
- 37 December 30, 2010
This request for deletion has been closed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Deleted and replaced with placeholder indicating failed article was there.
Subject of interview has complained via email, indicating her disappointment with the lack of professionalism involved in the entire interview process. Subject of interview also stated she was "shocked" by the "poor quality" of the interview, and requested changes be made to fix this - and yet instead the interview was published with mistakes not fixed. Possible issue involving significant concerns with Saqib/Saki, see also Saqib/Saki update (at WN:AAA) and Sock-building of banned user Saqib (at WN:CU). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't feel that she is uncomfortable while giving interview however now if subject wants her interview got deleted just because she thinks that her English was poor, should we listen to her? Why she was trying to improve her comments (And put me in trouble) some days ago if she was not expecting her interview or don't want to see her interview on WN? What I think is that interviews are same as sources and references and they should not be deleted.--Saki (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what happened, as indicated in an email by the subject, when the original interview was lost by you and she declined to be interviewed again. Where did this interview come from if the original was lost? Thanks. Tris 16:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing was happenned unusual before, during and after the interview. Yes, I deleted the audio file by mistake but there was a copy of that audio already in the recycle-bin folder. So before I found this copy, I e-mail'd subject if she can manage to give interview once again by e-mail but she told me that she can't (perhaps she was busy) so she asked me that I'll have to write transcript myself based on our conversations and then she can review it before publishing on WN. But when I found copy of audio file, I make transcript based on audio and sent her transcript for review (perhaps she was busy so she repond too late when article was already got published) and put it on WN for review process. That's all! --Saki (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was she expecting to be able to fully review it, or get a CC colleague to review it for her to ensure the English was understood correctly? If so, did this happen? Sorry for the questions, just want to see where we are. Regards. Tris 18:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see the reviewed version of comments here [1] that she sent to me after re-writing (fixing grammers and sentences) but I have no idea whether she did it herself or her colleague. But it was recieved me soo late when the article was already got published thats why edits were reverted and article got locked.--Saki (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Saki, Under what license did you publish http://freeculturemovement.org/Untitled.wma ? (It is easy for another Wikinewsie to make an Ogg Vorbis version that could be uploaded Wikimedia Commons if the original recording was under a suitable free license.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Saki interview with cc-japan.ogg. (I'm using the "user clearly intended the audio to be used on wikinews, so its ok if we temporary upload it for discussion purposes argument") Bawolff ☺☻ 22:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Case Study #2 for Wikinews' Code of Ethics
I've had past disagreements over the issue of a Code of Ethics on Wikinews. Yes, this is a draft policy. Yes, in the linked-to case, I was arguing against it being revised; however, there is is a matter of wikt:context. Here, it is a clear breach that any more professional journalistic enterprise would not entertain.
I'll start by referring people to the relevant pages, here, and In The Other Place™.
- Wikinews:Code of Ethics
- Wikinews talk:Code of Ethics
- Wikipedia:Journalism ethics and standards
These, themselves, offer multiple other links which should weigh on people's choice when voting below. The issue was brought to my attention less than an hour ago, and this facet of a current problem deftly highlighted in the voting below.
For further reference, the "draft" CoE is linked to from the following pages, or mentions of ethical issues spring up on;
DO NOT attempt to involve Moulton (talk · contribs) in this. He's a jackass; he was permabanned from Wikiversity; and, tried the same antics here. What I believe should happen, and would request another administrator who has been around for a while consider doing, is:
- Apply the principles laid out in the draft policy to use the speedy deletion template on the interview with Chiaki from Loftworks.
While I do see where Erik (Eloquence (talk · contribs)) was coming from in wanting 'genericised'/'hypothetical' case-studies, people always learn more from experience. This, really, has to be just one of those cases. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a suggestion that, before the interview, Saki offered the interviewee final approval of the final text?
- Why not re-publish the article with the changes requested by the interviewee?
- Do you propose that we grant interviewees a veto on (use of their on the record statements in) articles?
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. A claim by Saqib to have "lost" the audio, and the subject declining to be re-interviewed.
- No. That is revisionism. This should never have been published, the methods were unacceptable, and the vague hint there is a story destroyed.
- Again, with feeling, no. But, for different reasons. I await input from other accredited reporters who have seen the correspondence with the subject and can draw their own conclusions. Otherwise, the right, royal screwup that this represents will make us the news. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 18:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears (1) the case for deletion is based on a charge that the interview was procured or conducted in an unethical or illegitimate manner (so causing or risking harm and misrepresentation), and (2) it appears that substantive evidence for that charge is in correspondence to accredited reporters from the subject (via scoop). If I understand this correctly, I must decline to vote in this deletion request, and leave it to accredited reporters to have the substantive discussion.
Do I understand correctly?
I would request: (1) that the discussion be on the wiki, even if you have to encode your reasons in generalities, and that (2) others who, like me, can not see correspondence (which, quite rightly, is privileged and confidential) strike their votes or decline to vote.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with InfantGorilla, since a great deal of this seems to have been done via scoop, I do not have sufficient knowledge of what has gone on here to be able to make a reasonably informed vote. Therefore, I
Abstain. C628 (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response: I got my ass in a sling over publication of emails around the Matthew Edwards debacle. Not happening this time. Additionally, not giving this known troublemaker an option to casually jump back in after a couple of years and royally fuck up the entire community again. The correct process for a permanently banned, disruptive user, is to seek unban and mentoring. I would argure the project cannot afford such a waste of resources. A clear indication of intent to work up to a level where widely trusted to undertake this sort of work is proven in the first instance. Not the mischaracterisation of "permanently banned" and a new user created, then renamed, to match an unblocked sock on enWP, as "involved with Wikinews". Oh, and if you're voting, the section for that is below here. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It is relevant in that, there is a general push towards what this DR has turned into; namely, extremely over-cautious response to what are serious problems. I *could* have published numerous emails between myself and people at Creative Commons, I could - as a complete waste of personal time - dug up idiotic online PMs from the cretin formerly known as Saqib (talk · contribs) from my chat logs. I did not. There has been a desperate rush to assume good intentions on the part of a fucking asshole who threatened to destroy this project, and was proven to have an army of socks at the ready. Whilst threaded in-line as a response to you, my comment was intended for a far wider audience; don't take it personally. Some of our younger contributors need sharply shaken out of their assumption that, "people are generally good"; that was the basis for Marx's principle known as w:Communism, and we've all seen enough, and read enough history, to know it does not work. The never-publicised fine-print is that Marx himself admitted in later life that the noble ideal was doomed to failure as a consequence of human nature.
- Anyway, thanks to Amgine (talk · contribs) for spotting the weakness in this Gordellian knot; I can continue to have faith that, on the whole, contributors want to see Wikinews continue, and prosper. For those who've been a bit more serious about getting involved, the good news is the Wikinewsie.org domain is now renewed for another two years. I've also registered a phone number for credential verification, and need to work on that. I do not expect even five minutes of WMF staff/developer time to resolve it, even if we were to manage it. This will require some clever hackery, and a secure server running Asterisk somewhere press-friendly, to make +1 (XXX)-4EN-WNCV usable. Now, can someone establish if we have any good contributors in ranges used by Saqib, offer them IPBlockExempt, and put a reasonable block length on said ranges to shake out the dog-only-knows how many socks he's likely got. Yes, even if that puts us on the news for blocking Pakistan. I spent about five hours of a precious day off today dealing with government departments over personal financial issues, but got a callback from an office that has no incoming phone lines within 45 minutes of my final call. The end-result is another FoIA for a long running investigation, and a paid-for personal FoIA on payday to get call logs and recordings (where available). Those who have a private email address for me can ask for more specific details on that, and possibly get involved. I've already requested another administrator put the {{delete}} template on this article; that's based on the trust extended to them by the community, and a final, third, admin then actioning the request. It is, frankly, as reasonable as I'm prepared to be on this (I'm fresh out of ammo for the AK-47). --Brian McNeil / talk 01:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right... The way I see it, Deletion and {{Correction}} are not incompatable. Very good reasons have been raised why I should now be striking my vote; but for the reasons I made it I will not, as yet. I propose that, instead of leaving an empty hole where once there was an article, we replace the article with something under the same title explaining what happened, where the article went and that it has been retracted fully. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly see where you're coming from. I have no problem with a deletion followed by creating a new page at the same address containing a "withdrawn for serious proceduiral and journalistic ethics" boilerplate. And, let's make sure this is the last time we ever need to deal with something like that. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarity, BRS, are we to understand your position as the following?
- Your vote is keep with a correction notice (leaving the full text of the article visible below the correction notice), but
- if we decide to delete against your wishes, then you propose that we create a correction notice in the article's place
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused as to what Brian McNeil's vote is. Found it: he struck his reluctant keep vote and voted Speedy delete.- I don't think we have a central place for discussing corrections and retractions. This page (deletion requests) might as well be it.
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At-present, I count the vote as 6 for deletion, and 5 to keep. Of the latter, one is from Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) who indicates elsewhere in this discussion that he is tending more towards deletion and recreation as a notice that "There used to be an article here, but it was unfair to the interviewee, of particlularly low quality, ... etc.". Would someone with a little less at stake here please confirm what I'm seeking and action a deletion and recreation as a stub notice? -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 06:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear unexplained warnings of harm, so I blanked the article today, pending the outcome of this Deletion Request.
- This is due to close tomorrow. If it were to be closed today, it would likely close as No consensus, kept. I think the issue here is too important, and such a close would be totally unsatisfactory. Please hear this as a shout from the sidelines to urge more effort from both sides to reach a real consensus.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Votes
Please vote using 
Keep, 
Remove, 
Neutral, or Comment followed by signature
- Delete, significant concerns regarding above. And per complaints made by subject of interview regarding poor quality. -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Cirt. --Diego Grez return fire 17:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per longstanding practice and consensus (which still hasn't found its way into any polciy pages). {{correction}} is the way to go. We can man up and admit mistakes to our readers; we should not defraud them thus. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {{correction}} is for correction's to an article. Perhaps I'm not fully following this debate, but is there an actual correction we wish to make? I get the impression this is more about an unease over how the interview was conducted. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per BRS. —Mikemoral♪♫ 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep because this was published (/me eyes daggers at RockerBallAustralia).Under no circumstances would I support this user engaging in original reporting again. Those who have commented above have seen correspondence from the interview subject, including details of failure to keep appointments with Creative Commons people in Japan. Xe has, I assume willfully, ignored my criticism that the puported audio is unplayable on a Linux install with non-free codec packs installed. I've plugged in an external drive full of lossless WMA stuff before and that played just fine. Frankly, I'm sick of the "yes, but..." that keeps getting trotted out every single time Saqib/Saki is challenged on this. I believe quite enough of the community's time has been wasted on this. And, Xe has demonstrated should not be engaged in any sort of Original Reporting, especially interviews. Perhaps wikt:transcript or w:transcript might be good starting points in learning what an interview is. Then again, I am utterly unconvinced in relation to Xyr inability to even produce an MP3 audio file.-- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give me a little time, I will try to convert that audio file into Ogg format. --Saki (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, it plays fine in VLC on a Mac. I know it's not free, but I don't think the specific format he made it available in is a big deal. Tris 21:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Okay, as for the audio formats or whatever, deal with it. It's Saki's responsibility to provide audio, which he did, if in a little...unorthodox...way. It's not his responsibility to make sure everyone on earth can listen to it. As far as I can see, the audio is there (I for one can listen to it within my browser), so Saki's done what he needs to. If your system can't handle it, that's your problem, not his. C628 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhuh. If Saki really wanted to damage the project, there would have been much easier ways to do it than to take all the time necessary to set up an interview, record it, and post it on wiki. I feel the problems resulting from all this were more due to cluelessness, not malice. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by the "actor" being a clueless fucking idiot. Right? A little beating with a cluestick with spikes through it should go a long way then? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous convention - if we make a mistake and publish something we shouldn't have, it's better to issue a {{correction}} notice or similar rather than "sweep things under the rug", so to speak. We should be more careful with how we treat OR and verifiability, though. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank with correction notice but leave original text in history, after some consideration. I feel there should be some acknowledgment from us that the interview was held unprofessionally, etc, in the form of {{correction}}. At the same time, I dislike "sweeping things under the rug", and would advocate keeping the text publicly available in history, as long as it is made explicitly clear it is not up to our standards (this is as per previous convention, like this article). I am still not sufficiently convinced that it needs to be completely obliterated. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In our ethics draft we state our duty to our sources to minimise harm and not misrepresent - both of which we appear to be failing in this article. There are several other failures by Wikinews of its ethics in this article, but the stricture to protect your sources trumps all the other arguments for deletion. I strongly regret this article was ever published, but it is a clear duty to remove this article at this point. - Amgine | t 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tempodivalse. The intention of this article was evidently not a direct infringement on the credibility of Wikinews. As mentioned above, if Saki wanted to damage the project, there are more effective ways of doing so. With some reworking, the article can be made more appropriate for the project. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per comment from Amgine above. This violates our collective responsibility, as journalists, to a source. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The fact that the interviewee was "uncomfortable" is not a good reason to delete this article. In fact, I think a good interview is one that takes the subject out of their comfort zone. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you for-real? Seriously? Have you even attempted to read the dross that Saqib thought might be suitable for publication and slapped a {{review}} template on? It certainly was not an "uncomfortable experience" because he was asking probing, difficult, or challenging questions. The apparent attempt was to produce a feelgood/PR-esque interview for the furtherance of Xyr on-wiki career. Your reasoning behind your keep vote is utterly wikt:specious. I will lay out what my 'detective work' and life experience suggests off-wiki. I assume you know where to find me. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have forgotten that I was the first reviewer to copyedit the transcript, once Saki informed us that Ms. Hayashi gave us permission to correct her grammar. I know exactly what the interview says, and while I'm still not happy with the grammar, I believe that it's a perfectly legitimate interview. As for her complaint, "uncomfortable" can mean many different things. Perhaps I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about, but I'll start listening to the entire audio file if that will make you happier. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, no. I have not forgotten that. But, had you listened to the audio at that point? Had you seen a transcript? Had you, to put it in more simple terms, done due diligence? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I never listened to the audio at that time, as it had not been made available. Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with the interview at all. The OR notes are in order, and we have an audio recording and an image that proves that the image that took place. Furthermore, discussion on WN:AAA and WN:CU concluded that any wrongdoing Saki did two years ago was petty vandalism that may now be ignored. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll assume it is a severe lack of life experience on your part caused you to post the above comment, and decline to bluntly express what I believe it says about you. Just a word of advice, if you go out into the wider world with this assume-people-are-generally-good attitude you'll be ripped off and screwed over until you have, in a quite expensive manner, learned to be a better judge of character. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 21:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank then post correction notice -- clarifying my vote. We'll post the correction notice to let people know what happened, and blanking allows curious readers to actually read the text of the interview. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete The interview was done under questionable circumstances (the user was indef-blocked when he did the interview, that really does not speak well to Saki's credability). I think if the interviewee wants the thing deleted we should oblige. With that said, just because someone wants their interview deleted, does not mean it should be, but in this case I think it should. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unfortunately, per Cirt, Amgine, Brianmc. I would not object to a correction or keeping it had this article not been published in its admittedly sorry state so long ago, but right now, I'm not sure if a correction is even workable. —fetch·comms 23:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreate with just a retraction notice (using {{Correction}}; I suggest label=Retraction), per suggestion by BRS.
- (I wasn't sure whether to use a keep icon or a delete icon on this, so I went with the one BRS had used.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.
