- UCSD Kubiak Lab Rules Incident (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This incident has received both official response from the involved department as well as the professor himself. It's also reported by 3-4 local and national newspapers, as well as international attentions in China and UK. I can provide more detailed list upon request.
And I'm very certain the page does not contain any original judgement or comment, which is why it baffles me how it can be placed under wikipedia:atp category. Since it's the result of several hours' polishing by a number of users, I would expect the administrator who kills it to take remotely comparable time in understanding and assessing the notability of this article. Sadly this was not the case.> Helloterran (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS. There's no evidence that this event will have lasting effect or enduring notoriety. Additionally, although I didn't see the last version of the article, previous versions had definitely attacked Kubiak in a way not supportable by the available information. Kevin (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps you can add a current event tag on the page and wait to see whether to merge it into other articles or simply delete it when majority of editors agree that the influence of this incident has indeed faded away. In any sense, this current event has stirred quite some online argument as well as received considerable media coverage. It certainly did not deserve a rash speedy deletion.
- It would be best if you look at the latest version of the page before its removal, and tell me where do you think it's inappropriate. Helloterran (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. I can't see any evidence that a page with this name has been deleted. What page was deleted, by whom and with what justification, please?—S Marshall T/C 07:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I omitted "UCSD" in the article title. Can you try again?Helloterran (talk)
- Thank you, Helloterran. I'm now quite satisfied that this content didn't belong in our encyclopaedia. Endorse. All the best—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a link to any of the exact articles, but a TON (like, over a dozen I think) articles about this incident have been created and deleted, mostly under G10 because of the tone they took towards Kubiak. This issue has also been discussed at AN/I. Kevin (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There're certain styling and wording issues with that article. But in the latest version I believe it's been polished quite diplomatically. On the other hand, the repeated speedy deletion without any hint to improve the article itself demonstrated lack of common sense of some administrators. By that I mean explicit racial discrimination in public space is a severe matter regardless of the context.Helloterran (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am "some administrators." If you're going to insult my 'common sense,' at least call me by name. I deleted this article because Wikipedia is not the news, and because it seemed to me that the only reason to create an article on Wikipedia about this minor incident is a desire to widely publicize it so that more people will think badly of this professor, so that he can be publicly humiliated for the world. I think that Wikipedia tries to avoid doing that to people. A teacher made a joke on his web site. His students didn't think the joke was funny. It was removed from his web sites. A few local and special-interest news sources mentioned it. Now it's over. I am not seeing any reason to create an article on this subject that is not based in a desire to harm its subject, a person of no particular note. Someone else tagged the article for deletion, I noticed its creator edit-warring to remove the tags, and after reviewing the article, I agreed with the tag and deleted it, so the creator would stop edit-warring. If he'd followed instructions for appealing the block instead of edit-warring to remove the tag, it could have stayed up long enough for some discussion to happen, but I feel okay about the choice I made. If this is undeleted, it should be because we've found some sign that this is of lasting historical significance. Personally, I don't think it is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The professor denied that he was actually the person who put up the comment, and seemed to suggest that it was a member of his lab group, which probably means a grad student. As far as I know, his assertion has not been disputed in reliable sources. Kevin (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict after more research; great minds think alike} Ah, I was mistaken. This indicates, which seems plausible, that the joke didn't even come from the teacher, but from his graduate assistants. The article I read omitted that information. That gives us even less reason to humiliate the man on an international scale. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, the very epitome of WP:NOTNEWS. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted I can't see the article (cache is of a blank page) but I'm not at all certain this was/could be a G10 and I hate to see the speedy criteria stretched. That said, it has clearly got massive NOTNEWS problems (and frankly it shouldn't even have been news IMO) and there is no way we'll end up hosting this article. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. I managed to find the cache (add "UCSD" to the URL and it shows), but it was blanked before deletion. There doesn't seem to be any way that this can meet WP:EVENT even if it wasn't a G10, and if it was we shouldn't even consider restoring. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also the related Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#concerted web campaign versus UCSD professor, which lists three more titles this has been deleted under. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now the Guardian, official school newspaper of UCSD has reported this issue. Link Chinese American rights groups are now asking Office for Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination to provide follow up on their investigation and to come up with measures to prevent such incidents from happening in the future. (Gyucdavis (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Anyone (with the appropriate access) who looks in detail at the history of that article will see me trying to improve its neutrality and to make it less about the individual professor (who, by all accounts, had no personal knowledge of the "lab rules" on the site). Most of my attempts were reverted wholesale, either without comment or with comments that demonstrated willful disregard for BLP policy. Let's be very clear here; this was an article that was intended to reflect as badly as possible on a living person, written by people motivated by a desire to do him as much damage as they can, and willing to edit war to keep the article as negative as possible. Sounds like an attack page to me. So take your pick - yt seems like a legitimate G10 to me, and if not, a valid use of IAR on BLP grounds. And even if you don't buy that, it fails WP:NOTNEWS by almost unanimous agreement and so would have no chance at AfD. Thparkth (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit that there are some people who are trying to make the wikipedia entry into a personal attack, however you can't dismiss that there are more of us who are trying to keep the article neutral by adding the statement such as Prof. Kubiak claimed that he wasn't aware of the content of the website, etc. I would suggest to lock the article at a version that is acceptable to everyone and keep it the way it is for a while, and maybe, if this thing dies down in a couple of weeks, we can delete this article. (Gyucdavis (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment At ANI DGG indicated he's going to work on an article for the professor involved in the next day or two. So the right thing is to (very briefly) include this there. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - This is one article in a part of a coordinated attack on a living person. No-brainer. Tarc (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as attack page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, either as attack page or as unequivocal NOTNEWS violation. Come back in six months if there is sustained coverage and impact of this incident and then we'll talk, but there's absolutely no reason now to believe that will be the outcome. postdlf (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. utterly lacking in encyclopedic significance, fails NOTNEWS, vioaltes WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. So a professor is pranked by students who put racist content on a page he doesn't monitor closely. How many times a *week* do you think this happens in the US? Two hundred? Five hundred? I'd say more like two or three thousand times a week. This is a big thing only because some bored reporter heard about it and thought it could fill two minutes' time on the local news. The majority of edits to this article seem to be trying to call the professor a racist - which in this case is completely unsupported by the facts. --NellieBly (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
