Talk:2010 United States Women's Curling Championship

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are: Names of all participants should not be listed unless a specific team is covered in other sources after winning

The VRTS ticket number is 2010022210032133.

Redlinks of the entire team[edit]

Result of discussion: Names of all participants should not be listed unless a specific team is covered in other sources after winning. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Ann Swisshelm and Jessica Schultz are the exception, the vast majority of people listed on this page will never establish sufficient notability to pass WP:ATHLETE and per WP:REDLINK they should not be included here. As I noted in my edit summary, curling teams are known under their skip name (i.e. the Lank rink, Coleman rink, etc) so if we are going to have a page of red links, it is most appropriate to have it be just the skip name.
But the most important point to keep in mind is WP:BLP. We simply must be responsible when it comes to including references of living persons and limit it just the most encyclopedic usages. These Vices, 2nds and leads are real people (and some of which have been the victims of stalking) upon whom our actions here have real consequences. Having their name appear on a google search because of a redlink on a Wikipedia page opens them up to becoming more of a target for vandalism with the temptation of clicking on that link and creating gods know what. While yes, it will likely be deleted quickly, the damage that it does while it lives on in google cache can be irreparable. If these people haven't yet won a national media, which would establish notability and qualify them for an article under WP:ATHLETE, then it is highly irresponsible of use to insist on maintaining red-links of their name on Wikipedia. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 14:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits. All of these curlers are notable. This is a national championship, and therefore all of curlers fall under WP:Athlete. Removing most of the curlers from the table is border-line vandalism. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had to protect the page. Every curler is important to the team. Removing them from the list is vandalism. Please debate your points before removing content from Wikipedia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect- Curling is an amateur sport. WP:ATHLETE clearly says they need to compete at the highest level of their sport which, in curling, would be the Olympics and World Championships. This is a national level game of an amateur sport which many of these women just needed to only signed up for to attend. The vast, vast majority of these women will never reach the highest level of their sport and Wikipedia's intrusion into their private lives is irresponsible.

What is troubling is seeing an admin's complete disregard for WP:BLP and using their admin powers during a dispute they are involved in. These are real people-mother, daughters, sisters and wives who are private citizens that did not ask for Wikipedia's intrusion into their private life. Even if one of these groups win this National Championship and receive an invitation to Worlds, the individual members of the team (such as the Vice, 2nd and lead) still have the right to decline that invitation and maintain their privacy. Even the skip could decline though that is less likely.

I've been contacted by a few of these redlink women who are concerned about this invasion of their privacy with the potential for BLP vandalism by the creation of pages that include personal details. Some of these women have even been stalked, both physically and cyber, so the presence of their names on Wikipedia with its high Google rankings is extremely distressing. I know that at least one of these women has filed an OTRS about this matter. PLEASE, do not be so flippant about the real world consequences that your edits have on the lives of real people. These women are amateur athletes playing a sport for the fun of it. They are not professionals and they are not competing at the highest level of their sport. I highly recommend that you self revert and await the OTRS outcome. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the argument that these athletes are private citizens and deserve to be protected from stalkers (and I've seen no evidence that these stalking incidents are related to wikipedia), it has to be acknowledged that these individuals have willingly entered themselves into a National competition with publicly published results and which takes place in a very public arena. It has also been noted that the United States Curling Association website carries much more extensive information about each of these individuals and much more personal information than a simple redlink on wikipedia. --SargentIV (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)SargentIV[reply]

Just curious, but per REDLINK, isn't it the piping that should not be included here? I don't see how the guideline implies that the names should be removed. As for ATHLETE, does this not normal apply to individual articles, and not a team roster in an article such as this? Beach drifter (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As best as I can tell (I'm sort of serving as a mediator here by friends in my wine club who contacted me with their concerns), it is the invasion of their privacy by publishing their names on Wikipedia that is a large issue. Some of these woman are concerned by the redlinks which open the door for vandalism pages and their personal info being published, others are concerned about the prominence of Wikipedia pages showing up in Google. As I mentioned before, several of the woman listed on this page have been the victims of stalking so they are naturally concerned by what info is available about them on the internet. As amateur athletes who are not competing at the highest level of their sport, they did not expect Wikipedia to intrude on their privacy in such a manner. I know that at least one of them have submitted an OTRS ticket so hopefully that will shed more light on their concerns. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best idea would be to point them towards the proper channels here on Wikipedia rather than trying to use policy/guidelines to remove content. Beach drifter (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thought from a first look was in line with Beach drifters first comment. If they're not notable enough for their own article I'm not sure we need a redlink. Looks like some were/are olympians which puts them in a different level, but the rest probably will never need their own page. On the other hand if there name is on a roster that's on the net, well, listed here or listed in the linked reference the name is still out there. I hope that doesn't come off as flippant, I don't mean it to be. I'm working on the assumption that this competition is notable itself, I admit I'm not too versed on the levels of tournements here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's notability is somewhat on par with a High School Athletic championship or maybe the the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Allliance softball world series, which I sincerely doubt we would ever list the rosters of. US curling is a little different than Canadian curling in that usually all woman curlers need to do is sign up and go, just like signing up for a local softball tournament. They only have to "play down" or compete for a spot if more than 10 teams sign up, which rarely happens. Many of these woman go to the tournament just for the fun of a week's worth of curling and bonding with other woman curlers. Only the top team will receive an invitation to play in the World Curling Championship and even then, members of the team like the Vice, 2nds and Leads have the opportunity to decline the invitation. They can choose whether or not they want to compete on the highest level of curling. These woman are amateur athletes because they enjoy playing the game, not necessarily because they are trying to get to the Olympics (though some obviously are). There is info out on the web about high school cheerleading squads and community softball team rosters. We would never use that as justification to post the names of amateur athletes who are not competing at the highest level of their sport. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument against including their names is solid. I have re-removed them. People should consider WP:BLP, WP:ATHLETE, and Agne27's posts above before restoring. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Never mind, Agne did it before I was able.[reply]

Heh, maybe I should have waited to let you do the edit since apparently someone thinks my endeavor at a compromise solution is a straight revert. I think there is no problem with including the names of curlers who have competed at the highest levels like the Olympics and Worlds to be included. The BLP concerns seem to stem mostly from the women who clearly do not pass WP:ATHLETE and thus have a reasonable expectation that Wikipedia does not intrude so much on their privacy or open them up to more harm and stalking. Even if they win nationals, these women have a choice about whether or not they go further and compete on that higher level which would open them up to more scrutiny and attention. It is irresponsible for us to take away that choice by thrusting these women into such a public place as Wikipedia when they are still just competing at the lower levels. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) If that's the level of competition then it does seem like we're in that murky gray area of the borderline. If there were these rosters reported by third party media sources, It would certainly tilt my opinion to including. With the only source so far the organizations website I'm a lot more lukewarm on the idea.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, from these women's perspective, the organization website has FAR less prominence on google searches than Wikipedia so their names are not as "out there" on the web and they can maintain some level of privacy which their inclusion on Wikipedia would not grant them. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From our end, there are no BLP issues, and in my opinion, no notability issues with the article as it is (or was). Any concerns about privacy need to be dealt with by those affected, and should not have any impact on what content is in this article. Beach drifter (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a national championship is considered inclusion enough for an article. That is my opinion, and has been my reasoning for creating articles on curlers in the past. Also, many of these girls are on the World Curling Tour, which is the top level of curling in the world. And therefore many of them have profiles available on the net. If you insist, we can remove redlinks, but removing their names altogether is just dumb. When we're listing rosters, we don't leave out team members. Plus, I'm surprised any curler has come to you with their concerns, especially since you have zero curling related edits. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these women are not on the WCT. But those that are, do pass WP:ATHLETE and would have independent 3rd party sourcing that could be used to create full articles on them. Since these are women who have competed on the highest level of curling, they are obviously willing to put themselves more "out there" for exposure and publicity. As part of my attempted compromise solution, these women could still be mentioned in the article in a separate area that links to their article. That way we can minimize the damage to the BLP women curlers who are just participating in this event because they could sign up and go, spending a week of curling away from the kids and work. These women will never have an article in Wikipedia and there is no encyclopedic benefit in violating their privacy here. Please reconsider this compromise idea. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have proof behind your allegations. After checking, five of these teams are on the WCT. The other five teams will probably be added in some fashion to the curlingzone site, as they will probably be covering this event. (That's neither here nor there). Anyways, I am sympathetic to your cause, but I can't get behind it without any proof. I've never had an issue come up like this before, and find it quite unusual. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof? Do you seriously want me to out women that have concerns about cyberstalking? I'm sorry I just can't do that. I can ask them if they feel comfortable in emailing you directly (and I know that at least one of them has emailed OTRS directly) but that is the extent of what I can do. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your story is true, then they probably wouldn't want to email me. I don't know who you are though, so I have no reason to believe you one way or the other. If you can somehow prove that there is a legal matter behind this, then I will be more co-operative. No names will be necessary, just proof that there are some female curlers out there worried about their identity being revealed. As the leading curling contributor on Wikipedia, I am surprised they would go to you before me about this though, but then again, I have no idea who you are. You haven't made any edits to curling that I know of... -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:AGF for a Wikipedian in good standing with 30,000+ edits bringing to you valid BLP concerns? I am not a fly by night crack pot just hacking up pages for the fun of it. This is not a game of who edits what. These are real people behind those names and their lives have been impacted by this page. Yeah, the majority of my edits are about wine so does that mean I can't be a decent human being and try to minimize the damaging impact that this page has had on some women curlers? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not belittling your other edits to Wikipedia, I'm just wondering how much authority you have on this subject. Obviously BLP concerns are important, I'm just wondering how you have gotten into the position of knowing all the U.S. curling teams out there, without having any interest in editing curling on Wikipedia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...because I watch the games and follow curling zone? I curl sometimes too, but unfortunately with my knees I have to use the stick so mostly I'm just a fan. Just because I don't edit something on Wikipedia doesn't mean anything. Though if you insist on my curling creds, let me email you something. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am disappointed that this is the first I've seen of you. At first I thought you were just another ignorant person of the subject, but I do understand you know your stuff. However, I still have no idea how this all got started. I wish I knew more, and I wish I had some proof. And even so, this is not a matter for me to discuss, this is a legal matter for both Wikipedia and the persons involved. I'm just trying to retain what I believe to be encyclopedic content. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and I have Wikipedia's best interest in heart too but we need to present encyclopedic material in the most responsible way possible. As I mentioned numerous times, even innocent edits can have far reaching and unexpected consequences. I do feel that a compromise could be found here by creating a separating section for the notable curlers that pass WP:ATHLETE with articles and just including a link to the USCA for the rest of the rosters. As I noted on the your talk page, those who are truly interested in the curling and the names of these non-notable curlers can still find the information from this page but the privacy of those non-notable curlers is shielded a little from appearing so prominently in Google searches. We keep all the benefit of any encyclopedic information and minimize the potential harm. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have attempted to reach a compromise by removing the redlinks. I think this is as far as we're getting. I think the inclusion of some athletes to the exclusion of others is ridiculous, and makes for an awkward article. Plus, I fail to see the harm of that. I know you think harm can be done from this, but I honestly can't fathom how that would arise. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told how harm can arise. Wikipedia is a huge magnet to Google. Everything that is posted here gets magnified by exposure. Having someone's name physically posted here versus being included as an external link to a far less visible website has a huge impact on them. I really can't see how any can justify keeping the name of non-notable curlers on this page when an external links provides all the encyclopedic info that a curious reader will need without the potential BLP harm. I know you say you are curler, if you get a chance, ask some of the women curlers at your club how they would feel if their stalker knew where they would be next week because the Google hit on their name was the #1 link to a Wikipedia page. How would you feel if that was your daughter? We can do this, Earl. We can maintain the encyclopedic integrity of this page, info the curious reader with the necessary information and minimize the potential real life consequences that our edits have on real, live people. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this was happening on a personal level, I wouldn't be worried whether or not her name was on Wikipedia. I would report the incident to the police, and get things taken care of. If my daughter was listed on Wikipedia, I would be a very proud person, because she has obviously done something great that that she has earned that. This is completely a legal issue, and not one that I feel am responsible for. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said this wasn't reported to the police but that still doesn't acquit Wikipedia of its irresponsibility. It also doesn't condone the fact that these women didn't "earn the right" to have their privacy violated and their locations published by Wikipedia. Many of these women are non-notable, private citizens who are not competing at the high level of their sport--so why are we making their names and location ripe pickings for Google when a simple external link will provide all the encyclopedic information needed? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 06:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's fault that these women are being stalked. It is the fault of the stalkers. And, their non-notability is *your* opinion, one I do not share. If you are going to a national championship, you're going to get press! Holy smokes... If it's not Wikipedia, it will be somebody else. And this is a high level, it's the national championship! It has some pretty big names. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It IS Wikipedia's fault if we choose to present this information in an irresponsible manner. It IS Wikipedia's fault if we insist on listing the names of non-notable private citizens when a simple external link can suffice. There is no other website in the world that has the Google visible of Wikipedia. No other website--and certainly no other website regarding US women's curling--can do as much damage. We weld enormous power here and we have the choice to present this material in a responsible way or we can present it in an irresponsible way. We can do the right thing and minimize the impact that Wikipedia has on the real lives of people or we can just pretend they are names on a webpage. Which should we choose? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 06:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is doing nothing illegal by having this information on the page. The crime is the stalking. That is the crime. It is entirely the fault of the stalker. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal? No. Irresponsible, yes. I'm sorry that you you don't see the difference or feel that Wikipedia should seek to present information (especially those relating to living people) in a responsible manner. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 06:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, our opinions are not mutual. I see Wikipedia devoid of any responsibilities outside of intended maliciousness. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) BLP policy trumps notability guideline. The guideline obviously has marginal applicability to a national championship that accepts walk-in registrations. The principles behind BLP would be very well served by using it here. Durova⁴¹² 19:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a biography of a living person, and no information is being used except a person's name. The claim that there were "walk-in" participants is merely hypothetical, and there's been no evidence provided to show that it happened in this case. The organization involved has released these names publicly, and we're using that public information. There's absolutely no BLP concern here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues. The semantic, easy one first: as stated on the first sentence on the page, BLP applies to all pages on wikipedia. Second, if there is a real life concern that including information could lead to harm, as would appear to be the case (I'm willing to trust Durova on this), I think it makes sense to err on the side of removal. While the information does have some encyclopedic value, there's no need to list every team-member, especially since this is all for a future event. Once the event happens, and is covered in secondary sources, it might be worthwhile to name the whole winning team. But I fail to see why we absolutely need to replicate all the information from a primary source. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Bfigura. Well put. Durova⁴¹² 23:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the proof that they are accepting write-ins? I think that is a ridiculous notion! We have some of the top curling teams in the world in this championship, why would there be write-in teams? Half these teams are on the World Curling Tour, and all of the players already have profiles on the USCA website. You wouldn't do this to figure skating. Don't show bias! -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof was posted on AN/I. Please, this is a BLP issue. Don't be so callous with the lives of living subjects. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the issue of walk-ons or not isn't germane to my reasoning. Real BLP issues raised by Durova trump any (weak) encyclopedic need to list every player in a championship that hasn't occurred yet. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of non-BLP-violating revisions[edit]

I have removed all revisions which included the BLP-violating information per OTRS ticket 2010022210032133. This, unfortunately, removed the revisions showing who created this article. The article was created at 21:05, 7 February 2010 by SargentIV, but this very first version had the content which has been removed. Please do not add this information again unless a specific team is covered in other sources after winning (basically, what Bfigura lists a couple paragraphs above), and then limit any additions to only the information covered in those other sources. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I think to provide proper attribution, all the revisions should be deleted and a new revision posted with the edit summary pointing to an attribution history. –xeno^talk 20:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done... I think this should be ok. –xeno^talk 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]