Talk:Lilka

BLP issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reiro recently removed Lilka's real name but his claim is inconsitent with BLP policies. Lilka is not private individual because Lilka made many self-promotional activities.

In 2019, She became an K-league ambassador. In February 2019, She became a cover model of Maxim Korea.In September 2019, she designed many merchandise to promote her.

Per WP:LOWPROFILE, Lilka is a public figure and high-profile individual.

On the other hands, Lilka's real name was mentioned in independent three reliable sources.In January 2022, Lilka was criticized because she applied for trademark which are possibly named after Lille. Because she stayed a year at Lille Catholic University as an exchange student, It can be viewed as trademarks on a geographical location. WP:BLPPRIMARY said that where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source. Because Lilka intends to make other merchandise under her controversial trademarks, her real name should be public information to track the decision about her trademarks. Removing her real name results a significant loss of context.

Furthermore, Lilka intentionally mentioned her name in her internet broadcasting. In October 2021, Lilka showed her real name to viewers to prove non-existence of her boyfriend.

References

For these reasons, her real name should not be deleted. Horang2022 (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

On the other hands, Lilka intentionally published her birthday, birthplace, former occupation, former workplace and universities where she studied. Horang2022 (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Horang2022, she noticed that her broadcasts with personal information are deleted later, for her safety. She also told in Namuwiki that "suffering infringement of personal information." and "do not want to write them, including my real name."

In WP:BLPNAME, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.". But, sources you displaying do not show her information, except 5,6, and 7; they are generally not considered as reliable sources in South Korea, due to churnalism and small media.

I already met some IPs in Korean Wikipedia, that claimed this way, with distortion of right to be forgotten (Who does adapt that to person suffering stalkers?). And I cannot state in detail, there are several inappropriate claim, not only violate WP:BLP, but also general moral. Reiro (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Because information from independent three sources are backed by trademark records and the trademark records are discussed in one source, it became reliable secondary sources by WP:BLPPRIMARY. The third source is from a partner news site of Daum and give public or academic interests about intellectual property to publish her real name. Utagate is operated by Daily Game Cooperation which also operate Dailyesports, a partner news site of Daum and Naver. Media ssul, which is a former name of influencer dot com received Quality Certification from South Korean government. Actually, influencer dot com mentioned her real name at August 12, 2018 because she told her real name in joint brodcasting with Gamst at August 12, 2018. They are unrelated with churnalism.

Not only United states but also South Korean laws distinguishes high-profile individuals and low-profile individual. She is not private individual under US laws or South Korean laws because she made many self-promotional activities. In English Wikipedia. this distinction is mentioned in WP:LOWPROFILE and WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

Because the stalker was already specified, it is unrelated to her safety. the stalker already know her real name and there is no claim about the existence of another stalker. She did not removed or concealed her birthday, birthplace, former occupation, former workplace and universities where she studied.

Unlike pornographic actor(ess) or LGBT performers, her real identity and internet identity are not separated because she voluntarily published many her personal information to attract peoples and do not disguise during activity. Contrarily, she occasionally tells her real name in her broadcasting. Pornographic actor(ess) or LGBT performers can be discriminated in real life, but Lilka is not.

Because she voluntarily and openly published other personal information and occasionally told her name in internet broadcasting, she got responsibility on her information. Lilka's self-promotional activities increase this responsibility too.

Because some IPs in Korean Wikipedia did not talk about distinction of high-profile individuals and low-profile individual and the discussions at Korean Wikipedia was performed before the publication of third source at Jan 9, 2022, these are not applicable for English Wikipedia. Horang2022 (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I am from South Korea, but I have never been heard Shinmoongo News and UTAgate Naver, Daum. And Influencer Dot Net also wrote a streamer's broadcast, not their original contents. They have less reliability and less boundary than WhatCulture. I was so worried that he abuses Korean sources are unfamiliar to English Wikipedian, deceiving them as if those sources are reliable.

According to WP:BLPNAME, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." No Korean major press, including chojoongdong, has included her name in news story, although she was broadly known as the victim of unfair contract and suffered by stalkers. So, whether she was reported nationally is the straw man fallacy.

Well, in Ko-wiki article, some IPs emerged a year ago, with that way.

• You: Lilka intentionally published her birthday, birthplace, former occupation, former workplace and universities where she studied.
  IPs :And how funny is it to erase the real name that can be confirmed from the secondary source and the primary source when Lilka has revealed his face, voice, job, birthday, and academic background?[4]
• You: Because Lilka intends to make other merchandise under her controversial trademarks, her real name should be public information to track the decision about her trademarks.
  IPs: In addition to the registration of intellectual property rights, the official registered media called influencer Dot com and Daily e-sports reporters from corporations such as Daily e-Sports have their real names directly on articles written by other officially registered media, and there are more than one independent article.[5]
• You:Not only United states but also South Korean laws distinguishes high-profile individuals and low-profile individual. She is not private individual under US laws or South Korean laws because she made many self-promotional activities.
  IPs:Is it an infringement of personal information that South Korea, which has a resident registration system unlike the United States, does not need to hide its real name to prevent identity theft?[6]

You have too many "coincidence" with IPs, just editing once or twice in Korean Wikipedia. Reiro (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition, one of those IPs states Lee Gye-deok(이계덕)[7], the writer of "Shinmoongo News" (신문고뉴스) and " LGBT performer".[8] Is it also coincidence? Reiro (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your claims are mostly based on argumentum ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy. Your opinions contradict each other because you mentioned Lee Gye-deok as the writer of "Shinmoongo News" and you said that you have never been heard Shinmoongo News. Because you actively participated in deletion reviews of Lee Gye-deok article in Korean Wikipedia for 8 years(ko:토론:이계덕/보존2, your claims contradict each other. Lee Gye-deok is unrelated with this case because he is not performer and did not use pseudonym or disguise like drag queens. Getting back to the point, influencers are recognized as public figures by major mass media of South Korea. Because Influencer Dot Com wrote a streamer's broadcast, their news at August 12, 2018 reflected her joint brodcasting with Gamst at August 12, 2018. Because Lilka is a non-private person and occasionally tells her name in occupation and three independent sources mention her real name, WP:BLPNAME is not applicable. Because you are Korean speaker, I recommend to read Journalism and Public Figures(언론과 공인) of Jae-Jin Lee(이재진) which was published from Hanyang University Press(한양대학교 출판부). Jae-Jin Lee is a Professor of Depeartment of Media Communication in Hanyang University who graduated Seoul National University. Per his article '이재진 (2013). 공인의 사생활 보도의 실제와 한계: 발레리 트리에르바일레와 빌 클린턴 사례를 중심으로. <언론중재>, 33(4), 6-13.'^Link(Reality and Limitations of Reporting on Private Life of Public Figures: Focusing on the Cases of Valerie Trierweiler and Bill Clinton) Jae-Jin Lee said that "공인이 누구인가에 대해서 연방대법원은 명확하게 정의를 내리지는 않았으나 이후 판례를 통해서 볼 때 공인은 공직자를포함하여 공적인 결정에 영향력을 행사할 수 있는 사회 인사들과 공중의 시선을 끌고자 노력하거나 미디어에 등장하여 널리 알려진 유명인을 포함하는 것으로 이해된다."(Federal Supreme Court did not clearly defined who are public figures, but public figures include people who can effect their public decision including public officials or any other celebrities who are known for trying to get public attention or appearing in the media by latter case law) and "연방대법원은 공인의 경우는 프라이버시 보호에 대해 일반인만큼 기대할 수 없다고 피력한 바 있다." Lilka is included in "공중의 시선을 끌고자 노력하거나 미디어에 등장하여 널리 알려진 유명인"(Celebrities who are known for trying to get public attention or appearing in the media) and public figure. This distinction is included in WP:LOWPROFILE. On the other hands, application of trademarks on a geographical location by others is a serious problem. So it give public or academic interests about intellectual property to publish her real name to track the decision about her trademarks. Horang2022 (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia, not WP:FORUM for the original report on who is public figure. You avoid to said that she is also famous as a victim of stalkers, and no major Korean press reveals her personal information, even Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation covering her problems on broadcast[9]. Even she is really public figure, it is not justified your poor-sourced personal information. see WP:BLPNAME.

Shinmoongo news has just 818 subscriber on Naver, and UTAGATE is even not searched on major portal site, such as Naver or Daum. In addition, Influencer dot com is only write down other streamer's broadcast,[10] including the news story you displayed (according to you, it "wrote a streamer's broadcast"); this media is usually considered a questionable source -"a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.-" I show you that the news reporting that are not include her personal info[11]. It is Topstarnews (톱스타뉴스) too. You claimed that her trademark issue is broadly reported, it was just found by some chunalism internet news; Insight(인사이트), Topstarnews (톱스타뉴스), and Wikitree(위키트리);according to Ko-wiki, it is the "wiki-based news website" .[12] They uses also Clickbait title. Reiro (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You mislead Naver's system. The number of Naver blog's neighbor(이웃) is unrelated with its reliability. Neighbor of Naver blog means not only subscribe their contents, but also open their personal blog articles to the other. Reliability of Shinmoongo news is verified by it's partnership with Daum like other usual news sites. Its reliability is verified by Committee for Evaluation of News Partnership.(뉴스제휴평가위원회). So it can't be a questionable source. Because Media ssul received certification from South Korean government, Influencer dot com does not have a poor reputation for checking the facts. Because UTAGATE is operated by Daily Game Cooperation which also operate Dailyesports, a partner news site of Daum and Naver, and the author of Decomber 8, 2020 article is also a journalist of Dailyesports, this is a reliable source. Their is no scholar who support freedom of expression or freedom of the press can be restricted by the existence of stalker. Also Wikipedia does not delete contents by the existence of stalker. Incident in October 2021 suggested that many subscribers of Lilka already know her real name. Horang2022 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Shinmoongo news is registered by Committee for Evaluation of News Partnership is not verified it's reliability; there are also registered many local news(e.g. Kangwon Ilbo) and Yonhap News, recently delisted for churning out commercial articles and re-listed due to its legal action. And the DailyeSports news story which you linked is just related on an gamer, not qualifying UTAGATE's authenticity;The former is easily found on portal site, the latter is not. Do not give red herring to me; it would be read to deceive other english users, which are not familiar with Korean language. And also, Shinmoongo is still not verified its broader power. It seems too narrow and small press to treat on BLP.

Nobody provides poor-sourced contents on living people, especially victims of the crime. It is not the problem of freedom of press. I said three times; see WP:BLPNAME.--Reiro (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your claim about churnalism is unrelated with reliability on her real name. WP:NEWSORG says that some sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. They are based on what Lilka told in her broadcasting or other reliable materials. Because self-published sources as sources on themselves are allowed, there is no doubt. Therefore, Wikipedian policies or guidelines which mention churnalism exist only for academic topics.(WP:NEWSORG)

If there is only one secondary source for her real name, your claim could be partially reasonable for someone, however there are three independent reliable sources. Because Lilka is a public figure and three independent reliable sources mentioned her names, BLPs should simply document what these sources say. Unlike pornographic actor(ess) or LGBT performers, her persona in Youtube is indistinguishable to her real life persona because she voluntarily published too many her personal information to attract peoples and occasionally told her name in her broadcasting. Incident in October 2021 suggested that the subscrivers of Lilka already know her real name and her name is not intentionally concealed in her broadcasting. In Internet, there are many netizen's posts that they heard Lilka's real name in her broadcasting. Therefore, her requests on some sites shouldn't be seen as wholly good intentions. Horang2022 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Do not bring archive link on internet forums writing her deleted broadcast;it is the data 'intentionally' closed (WP:BLP). I already told you that she has removed her broadcast including personal information. And churnalism journal is considered questionable sources. Why are you repeat former claim with internet forum, not allowed as RS? You told again and again the 3 churnalism sources has relibility, with no clue. Furthermore, you linked archive link already deleted, to show her information. Do you have the will respecting BLP policy?--Reiro (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• As a third-party with zero interest in the subject of this article but a strong interest in disruption, I have to say that this dispute has become tedious if not tendentious. The English language skills of both Horang2022 and Reiro are so poor as to render this discussion unfollowable. The article and the discussion are probably both better-placed at the Korean wiki as it appears very doubtful she is of interest to English-language resources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Eggishorn I am sorry to my poor English skill.

I am one of the administrators in Ko-Wiki, and Lilka's Korean article is already locked; because, at least since 2020, some IPs continually tried to write her personal information, intentionally deleted due to stalking on her in real world. And Horang2022 has edited and claimed in same way with that IPs, including poor churnalism sources that were rejected by Ko-Wiki administrators. Lilka appearently noticed that she does not want to reveal her information.--Reiro (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Reiro:, for the explanation. In that case the answer to this dispute is simple: Horang2022, please read WP:BLP again. You MUST follow this policy. Following the BLP policy is not optional. You already, in fact, agreed to follow it as a condition of using this web site. Those Terms of Use are also available in Korean. The sources you cite for trying to include another name are not " high-quality secondary sources" and the edits should not be restored until such sources are available. I see no support in any of the sources for the attempted edits. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Reiro misuses his authority of adminship from Korean Wikipedia. No administrators except Reiro supported Reiro's opinions that Korean Wikipedia should reject these two sources. The only administarater except Reiro, Twotwo2019 (Lycaon) declined the restoration request but mentioned that this information can be restored by discussion. In ko:위키백과:문서 관리 요청/2021년 12월#기록보호자 정책에 위반되게 숨겨진 릴카 버전 복원 요청, He said that "또한 위키백과:생존 인물의 전기 지침에 따라서 실명 언급 여부는 논의가 필요한 사항이지, 확실하게 100% Yes라고 말할 수 있는 사항이 아니므로 미완료 처리합니다. 대신 토론으로 합의가 될 경우 요청하시면 총의에 따라 처리할 수 있습니다." and "우선 삭제 후 과연 위키백과:생존 인물의 전기 지침에 합당한 것인지 토론을 하는 것이 재단의 정책에 맞는 일입니다. 토론 없이 추가 요청은 받지 않겠습니다. 이곳은 어디까지나 100% 확실한 경우에만 처리하는 공간입니다." He did not supported any opinions, but he said that discussion in Korean Wikipedia should be performed without restoring information in article namespace per WP:BLP. Twotwo2019 (Lycaon) said that we need discussion about inclusion or exclusion of her real name. Because there is another source (Shinmoongo news) and Korean Wikipedia and English Wikipedia's regulations are different, any discussion in Korean Wikipedia can not effect English Wikipedia. For example, Korean Wikipedian policies do not have WP:ONUS in Wikipedia:Verifiability and do not have policies or customs about transgender's deadname. In WP:BLP, "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." was differently translated to "생존 인물의 전기는 저명성을 갖춘 신뢰도 높은 출처만을 사용하여야 합니다. " (Biographies of living persons should use notable reliable sources). However Korean Wikipedian custom allows sources from non-notable newspapers. BLP Policy in Korean Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are somewhat different. In WP:BLPNAME, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, " was diffrently translated to "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as by certain court decisions or seizing(점유), " 점유 is another meaning of occupation. Korean BLP policy does not have any explicit comments about WP:LOWPROFILE. On the other hands, Reiro was involved in this debate from before the admin election. Horang2022 (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

For Eggishorn, please read WP:BLP again. It says that Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source. Therefore source from Shinmoongo News became high quality source. Another source has affiliation with notable high-quality media and the other source received Quality Certification from South Korean government. They can be regarded as high-quality sources. On the other hands, application of WP:BLPNAME to someone sometimes told their name in occupation is unjust. It is not the intended use of this guideline. Because Lilka sometimes told her name in occupation, Lilka's real name is an important information for her subscriber. On the other hands, because Lilka is a public figure, We can not apply WP:BLPNAME directly. We should apply different standards for public figures. Horang2022 (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Ko-wiki has simpler BLP policy does not justify malicious leakage of personal information, particularly on someone suffered by stalkers. BLP policy has been applied to all Wikimedia projects. I cannot allow to include that info; how can I assume that those IPs, referring that "Wikimedia has not supporting right to be forgotten" on the victim of stalkers, edit it with good faith? Do not distort other's intention, including Twotwo2019 and statement of Wikimedia related on "right to be forgotten"; likewise, this is not matter of freedom of press or freedom of expression. You even do not followed advice of Twotwo2019 in this talk page.; "Archive links are not considered as reliable sources"

I remind you that Shinmoongo News, UTAGATE, Topstar News, and Influencer dot net were just reporting her broadcast, without editorial views and fact checking; also, there are too small press to be verified. That's why Korean administrators rejected them to adapt, including internet forum and small news story's archive links you brought to. You just have repeated sentences already claimed, from Korean Wikipedia to this page. In Wikipedia, all of editors know that we should not "apply different standards for public figures" on BLP. Reiro (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia do not delete articles or infomation by existence of stalker. Because her broadcasts are allowed sources, any newspaper sources just reporting her broadcast should be permitted. They have editorial views and fact checking. Actually, Shinmoongo News source give us novel original contents which were not published by others. Because Influencer dot com have fact checking, they received Quality Certification from South Korean government. On the other hands, she is planning to sell many merchandise to promote her. Her real name is an important information for future contractors or customers. Toiletries, clothes, bags and animal supplies are included in her trademark applications. These information about trademark applications can be founded in Shinmoongo News source. Therefore we should not delete her name to protect future contractors or customers. It will help future consumer dispute resolution processes. Horang2022 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia applies different standards for public figures on BLP. See WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. They are explicit examples for that Wikipedia applies different standards for public figures on BLP. Horang2022 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Horang2022:, your above statement contains many errors about English Wikipedia policy and about what English Wikipedia accepts as Reliable sources. Whatever standards you are used to elsewhere do not match the way these policies are applied here. To start with, the policies you make vague gestures do not provide "exceptions" to the BLP policy. If you had actually read and absorbed the policies you attempt to invoke, you would have seen the following: BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia has no interest in providing information for consumer disputes or any other off-Wiki disputes. The biggest issue at this point, however, is that you do not have consensus to add the information you want to add. WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental process at Wikipedia and you can and will be blocked from editing (again) if you persist in attempting to add information that you do not have consensus for and which violates policy. I hope that helps. Please do not attempt to re-add this information again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, I did not claimed exceptions of the BLP policy. WP:BLPNAME is applied to private individual. For pornographic actor(ess) or LGBT performers, their occupational identities and off-line identities are separated, Therefore we can regard their offline identities as private individuals. Because Lilka intentionally published her birthday, birthplace, former occupation, former workplace and universities where she studied, her off-line identity and occupational identity are not separated. On the other hands, she sometimes reveals her real name in her broadcasting. Therefore we should not apply WP:BLPNAME directly. I will not restore her name in Lilka without consensus. Horang2022 (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, You look like to do word game on BLP. Nobody in Wikipedia supports your claim. Do not distort the principles of BLP policy. Reiro (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.