Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

I removed material from List of internet phenomena I believed to be in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Even after multiple warnings and extensive discussion, I was reverted by Jmaynard (talk • contribs), who described my removals as 'vandalism'. I blocked him for edit waring and wilfully violating Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I posted the matter to ANI, whilst discussion was ongoing, and the user still obstinate in his belief that replacing unsourced material was justified, Wizardman (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) unblocked him describing my action us "blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute" [1], and as violation of WP:BLOCK.

[edit] Desired outcome

I was going to file this 'against' Wizardman or Jmaynard - but I'm not. What I want is for us to use this dispute to clarify the issues rather than prosecute anyone. I need to know if I was wrong, and why. As an OTRS admin, who deals with some of the real people affected by our articles, I believe that on legal, ethical and humanitarian grounds we need to enforce WP:BLP ruthlessly. I need to know I've got support for this. The events surrounding these incidents leave me wondering whether the community has the stomach for it, and I'd like comment.

If enforcing BLP is seen as a content dispute, then the policy cannot be enforced. I wish the community to clarify and re-assert the priority of WP:BLP as non-negotiable policy.

For clarity, I am not calling for action against any user. This is more about the issues raised than the personalities or actions involved.

[edit] Description

1. Original removal of material

I removed material from List of Internet phenomena, an article I have never edited and have no content interest in. The material I removed had no reliable sources and in each case named living persons in many cases allegedly involved in what would at least be embarrassing activities. Since there were countless violations (I'm told I removed 49 entries) - I erred on the side of ruthlessness, as BLP demands. I clearly marked what I was doing in edit summaries - and warned of the seriousness of replacing the material without sourcing [2] [3].

I further posted a note to the talk page using the template {{BLP removal}} - fully explaining what I was doing, why, and the seriousness of it. The note pointed users to the policies, but also invited them to replace any item they could source.[4]

I am aware that some of the items were linked to other articles, which may have had sources. But List of Internet phenomena was not a category - it contained independent assertions about many of the living people. The onus was not on me to check 49 articles to see if the sources could back up statements made on this article. The onus was on those wishing the statements to remain to source them.

User:RockMFR replaced a few of the entries, providing proper sourcing. I had no objection to that, and would encourage others to do likewise.

2. Discussion/Dispute

Jmaynard disputed my actions, he argued with me, and complained. I repeatedly explained that he could replace the material if it he provided WP:reliable sources. The argument went on on the talk page and on my userpage - but it was evident he did not accept my right to remove unsourced material under WP:BLP. He was well aware of my warning that violators could be blocked.

If he felt my actions were unjustified, a number of courses of action were available to him. He could have taken the matter to ANI or RFC - or sought the input of others in various ways. There was no urgency to replace the material, and no need to edit war or revert.

However, first DXRAW (talk • contribs) reverted me with the edit summary (rv vandlsim from people section). I rolled him back, BLP is not negotiable and not subject to 3RR, so I do not consider my action to be a content dispute or edit war. Since I had not interacted with him before, I considered he may be unaware of the seriousness of the matter, or the BLP policy, so assuming good faith, I took no more action than to warn him on his talk page. [5]. Again I invited him to replace what he could source. The discussion with Jmaynard was still continuing.

3. The block

Jmaynard then, despite my warnings, and without any wider support, reverted my BLP actions describing my actions as vandalism masquerading as policy enforcement [6]. I rolled him back, and blocked him for 24 hours. I did this for several reasons 1) BLP violations must be removed and their removal is not a content decision. 2) He had effectively discontinued the discussion by his action. 3) I wished to prevent him replacing the material - and further warnings were obviously not going to work. (His description of my edits as 'vandalism' was also a failure to assume good faith and a personal attack, but I would not block for the first, and certainly never for a personal attack on me).

4. The review

As is my practice with blocks on established contributors, I immediately posted the matter immediately to ANI, [7]. Experienced admins such as Newyorkbrad and Lar reviewed it - and declined to reverse my actions. They supported my BLP actions. They further discussed the matter with Jmaynard on his userpage, where he continued to insist that his reversals were justified and my actions in removing the material bad faith. No resolution to that dispute was apparent. He continued to ABF, and protest that my removals were illegitimate and his replacements reasonable. He stated the onus was on me, not him, and he had more concern for the work that would involved in sourcing that material than for the policy of BLP. There was no evidence that if unblocked he would respect policy whatsoever [8] [9] see [10], this despite patient explanation and discussion by a number of admins.

Wizardman then, without suggesting unblock to any other party, unblocked with the summary: blocking admin was in content dispute, which is violation of WP:BLOCK). [11]

[edit] My questions to the community

1. Was I in a content dispute? Can a user who objects to a BLP removal revert the removal without sourcing the statement, by disputing the legitimacy or necessity of the removal.

I'd say that makes a mockery of WP:BLP's instruction - Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.[2] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

2. Was the onus on me to check the sourcing on any article on an entry in the list, against the claims made in the list.

3. Am I right in viewing Jmaynard's replacement of my removals as a clear breach of policy - especially given that fact he had other avenues open to him rather than immediately replacing by edit war?

4. Am I justified in blocking users for BLP policy violations - when they have been adequately warned and are aware of the policy?

5. Was Wizardman correct in describing this as a content dispute and a violation of WP:BLOCK?


If the community judges me wrong in the above, I will in future refrain from BLP enforcement, and probably resign from OTRS, as my judgement is obviously unsound or at variance with the community's wishes.--Docg 11:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

As above.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:BLP
  2. WP:V
  3. WP:BLOCK

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links) As above.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Since this is filed 'against' me - I do not believe it necessary. But I'd welcome someone certifying that there is an important issue here for comment.

  1. So certified. Newyorkbrad 12:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. As the victim of Doc's block, I obviously certify the dispute. -- Jay Maynard 13:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Redundant certification in case one of the above is hit by a bus. Agree that community comment will be helpful. Disagree that consensus trumps WP:BLP though. ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

This, at root, is not an issue of WP:BLP. As someone listed in the original article, and someone who has experienced firsthand the devastation that the Internet can inflict on someone's life, I'm probably even more aware of, and even more sensitive to, the issues raised by WP:BLP than Doc or anyone else in this discussion. This shouldn't be in question, but since the discussion on my talk page says otherwise, I need to say here that I fully support WP:BLP in all of its ramifications.

The problem with Doc's argument is that WP:BLP says:

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.

(Emphasis mine.) Doc indiscriminately nuked an entire section from List of Internet phenomena, threatening to block any user who reverted his changes. I asked him to stop, and when I found he'd nuked more, got more strident, in response to what I saw as unjustified destruction of the article. Doc maintained, as he has ever since, that this is justified by WP:BLP, and threatened to block any user who disagreed and reverted. I disagreed, and reverted, and was blocked. I believe this block was abusive, because it amounted to a block to gain advantage in a content dispute.

When I objected that the content in question was largely not covered by WP:BLP, I got accused of Wikilawyering. I profoundly disagree. The part of WP:BLP I emphasized above is there for a reason. Fundamentally, Wikipedia must protect itself from libel claims by folks it discusses. Controversial material may get Wikipedia sued, and so must be immediately removed. I have no problem with this concept whatsoever. Non-controversial material, however, does not suffer this problem: if it's not controversial, who's going to sue over it?

The next part of this is WP:LIST. That states:

In the case of edits lacking citations, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability:
Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}.

The exception is material that violates WP:BLP:

However, in lists that involve living persons, the following policy related to Biographies of living persons applies:
Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.

However, as I stated above, I do not believe that the material Doc removed mostly, or even largely, violates WP:BLP. Let's take a look at one entry Doc removed this morning:

One look at the Randy Constan article, which contains a link to the website where Constan posted pictures of himself wearing Peter Pan costumes he made, will show that totally factual statement to be quite true. Further, that site is why he became an Internet phenomenon. There is no controversy, and therefore WP:BLP does not apply.

I viewed Doc's mass destruction as being outright vandalism. Since it was not policy enforcement, it was no different from any other editor blanking a whole section of an article. Therefore, I reverted, as is encouraged when dealing with vandals. I also believed that the dispute resolution policy required me to revert before going on to other steps. I was also unsure of just what the next step I would need to take would be beyond that.

The problem I have with the destruction that has been visited on List of Internet phenomena is that it was totally indiscriminate. Doc did not (at least from what I can tell from looking at the history) attempt to limit his removals to those entries that are actually in violation of WP:BLP. He saw that some were, nuked them all, and invited others to sort them out. This is profoundly disrespectful of the hard work of others that went into making the article, for it says "You don't count." That's exactly where it left me: a lordly admin told me that my opinion wasn't important when it comes to policy, and that I needed to repeat the hard work of others, individually, for 49 entries that he wiped away with the stroke of one indiscriminate edit.

Some have said that Doc's edit was in good faith. I cannot agree. A good faith enforcement of policy would have removed only those entries that, by virtue of being controversial, violated the policy. That's not what Doc did.

I disagree with the block because it was not, at root, policy enforcement. It was a way for Doc to gain advantage in a content dispite, which is clearly in violation of WP:BLOCK.

Fundamentally, this whole thing tells me that an admin can wreak any havoc he wants to on an article, then claim it is policy enforcement, whether or not policy has actually been violated. Why should editors put significant work into articles if this happens? This affair has me seriously questioning my desire to participate further in Wikipedia. I lost a lot of sleep last night over just this question.

What I'd like to see happen is:

  1. Some way to restore the article content so it can be sourced without having to dig 53 entries out of the article history. (4 more were removed this morning, more selectively than the section nuking.) As it is, we're going to have to individually look up the linked articles, copy the sources from those articles to the list, then edit them into the article. This process will be labor-intensive, error-prone, and time-consuming.
  2. A statement that policy enforcement should be limited to those items that actually violate policy. Shoot first and ask questions later does not respect the work of editors. Being bold and erring on the side of deletion is one thing; mass destruction is something else.
  3. Some way to remove what I see as an unjustified, punitive block from my record.

Since it's going to be questioned, I'm going to repeat myself: I fully support WP:BLP. I believe it's an important policy, and proper enforcement of it is essential to Wikipedia. If I believed that Doc's actions were proper enforcement of policy, we wouldn't be here. They were not.

[edit] Addendum

It's clear from reading the comments below from many folks (a fair number of which were written before this response) that they believe that WP:BLP should apply to any unsourced statement about a living person, not just controversial ones. If that's the case, then WP:BLP should be changed to say that explicitly. If not, then it should be applied as written. -- Jay Maynard 17:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum 2

Doc closed the AfD on List of Internet phenomena with the comment: "For now, we'll just need to make sure WP:BLP is enforced in spirit and letter on all relevant entries." I keep asking this question, and nobody seems to condescend to actually answering it: How is the new, or casual, editor supposed to uphold the spirit of WP:BLP if he's not intimately involved in its enforcement? If the spirit of WP:BLP calls for something more than the letter does, then it's time to update the letter to match the spirit. -- Jay Maynard 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Jay Maynard 14:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Lee Nysted 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Blatant and unrestricted destruction of another editor's works, without regard to "good faith," or without research into the source material, is tantamount to the creation of a dictatorship run by a "chosen few." Blocking is not to be done as "punishment." Further response below.Lee Nysted 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Mackensen

It is an entirely reasonable position to remove unsourced material concerning nominally private persons under WP:BLP. A review of the edit in question shows dubious notability and complete lack of sourcing for the text in question: [12]. The best thing is a bland assertion - "It was featured in the February 25, 2005 issue of the New York Times" - which is not the same as sourcing. Which version of the Times? Did it appear on print or just on the web? What page? Can the text be examined by other editors to verify the claims that our article made? These questions are very important, and I see Doc glasgow, who's frequently involved with these kinds of issues, as acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

I would disagree with those who characterize this as a "content dispute." What sets this apart from your standard edit war is WP:BLP comes into play, and in such situations the rules are different. Articles which purport to describe the actions of living persons, particularly those who are not undeniably public persons, must be subjected to the highest scrutiny. Characterizing a BLP removal as "vandalism" smacks of bad faith and is unworthy of the people who made that assertion.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Exactly so. In my view Doc acted in good faith, as I commented on Jmaynard's talk page. I agree that consensus by the community that this incident was handled correctly would be helpful, but just as with Durin's FU RFC, I don't agree that consensus trumps foundation policy. Just like WP:FU, WP:BLP is a policy that must be adhered to, and like FU, it's a policy that may not be popular with all contributors, and like FU, it is not helpful to accuse those who have volunteered for the thankless task of enforcing it of bad faith. Could Doc have acted a bit more diplomatically? Perhaps. But I see every evidence of his going quite far to explain this patiently and seek every avenue to resolve this prior to blocking. Since Jmaynard did not admit that calling this bad faith was incorrect, I am concerned that a preventative block may have been lifted early by Wizardman (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), on a false basis, as this was not a content dispute. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yup. Unsourced or poorly sourced material about living individuals should be removed immediately. The correct way forward from there is negotiation, not revert-warring. The reasoning was made plain at every stage, and the underlying rationale for reversion appears to be a philosophical disagreement with one of the very few canonical policies mandated from Foundation level, or perhaps with the interpretation thereof by a very experienced admin, rather than a content dispute. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. This certainly was not a content dispute. Doc acted vigorously in enforcing WP:BLP which is what the policy requires. --DSRH | talk 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Fully endorse Doc's actions. BLP disputes are entirely different from content disputes. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. WP:BLP does indeed imply that such disputes over poorly sourced potentially derogatory material about living people should be treated differently than a simple content dispute. For instance, the removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule and it empowers admins to delete an article if they think it contains such material and no previous acceptable version can be found. Perhaps, the policy should specifically state that WP:BLP disputes are not content disputes for purposes of admin enforcement. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. I agree. This is not a content dispute. Doc did exactly what he should have done. Any editor who adds or restores unsourced negative material about a living person is damaging Wikipedia. I am really disturbed that this ever became an issue. -- Donald Albury 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    Commented on the talk page. -- Jay Maynard 01:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. BLP is a policy that should always be strictly enforced. I don't see any evidence of a content dispute in light of the situation.--MONGO 06:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Mackensen, for me, has hit the nail on the head with this summary. Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Where there is a real WP:BLP issue, as here, its not a content dispute. WjBscribe 09:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Concur absolutely with all points. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Cryptic 21:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Nothing to add to Mackensen's statement. There's no need to amend anything to the effect that enforcing WP:BLP is not a content dispute since BLP already says so: "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves." Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Agree. Doc acted properly. <<-armon->> 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. I don't see as Doc has done anything wrong. BLP is not negotiable. Violate BLP persistently and you get blocked. Doc's actions can hardly be described as edit-warring or trying to gain advantage in an content dispute. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Our long term value and perhaps survival depend on us increasing the quality of our work. Articles on living people are one place where we've recognized a need to push forward quality more than other areas. --Gmaxwell 09:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Agree with Mackensen (talk • contribs) & Angusmclellan (talk • contribs)--Isotope23 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Lots of strong feelings about stuff formerly described in this article abound, but I think that overall Doc was and is doing the right thing. JuJube 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. --Haemo 06:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Jkelly 18:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum

LexisNexis reveals that the article on Numa Numa was "Internet Fame Is Cruel Mistress for a Dancer of the Numa Numa" on column one of Page A1 - the front page - of the New York Times, although of February 26, 2005. This is correctly described as "featured". It seems to be alone in being sourced, so I must assume that it was a slip on Doc's part; I regret seeing this one defended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This article may be sourced, but the notability and encyclopedic value of the subject is quite low, and the article reflects that the publicity over this trivial matter seriously damaged the life of an otherwise wholly non-notable person. This is a good example of the sort of thing that I, per my statement below, do not believe that Wikipedia needs to publicize further. Newyorkbrad 23:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That is an editing decision, which could be taken either way. (One side would be Newyorkbrad's appeal to compassion; the other would be: He was famous for this disaster, and then hit the front page of the New York Times; are we really making his situation any worse by a mention in the middle of a list like this?) It does not fall under or warrant the license of WP:BLP. However that may be, this sole sourced entry should be treated separately from the others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It only falls under WP:BLP, and its immediate deletion requirement, if it's both unsourced and controversial. If not, it's just a content dispute. CBDunkerson gets it exactly right, below. -- Jay Maynard 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The notability of the subject is quite high. People are going to assume that an encyclopedic article listing Internet phenomena will include him, just as it would include the Star Wars Kid. (Even more so than they would assume it includes me.) He's notable enough that, for the rest of his life, a Google (or equivalent) search will turn the Numa Numa thing up. While I fervently believe that Wikipedia should not cause that kind of disruption, we are not doing our readers any service by leaving out items such as this they'll easily turn up on their own. If they're already notable, having them in Wikipedia will not make any difference. -- Jay Maynard 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by Eluchil404

1. Was I in a content dispute? Can a user who objects to a BLP removal revert the removal without sourcing the statement, by disputing the legitimacy or necessity of the removal.

Not in the relevant sense no. Items removed per BLP should only be re-added when they have been sourced. Removing unsourced material is not a content dispute unless it can be shown to be in bad faith (i.e as part of a compaign of POV pushing), which is certainly not the case here.

2. Was the onus on me to check the sourcing on any article on an entry in the list, against the claims made in the list.

It would be nice, but is not a hard and fast requirement. Lists are articles and like all articles have to be sourced themselves for any controversial claims rather than relying on other Wikipedia articles for sourcing or support. After all, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In cases such as this where BLP is implicated, requiring explicit cites is a good idea but may require some editing to the style guidelines to fully implement.

3. Am I right in viewing Jmaynard's replacement of my removals as a clear breach of policy - especially given that fact he had other avenues open to him rather than immediately replacing by edit war?

Re-adding content removed for BLP violatins without sourcing it is essentially vandalism and can fairly be treated as such. However, care should be taken in that such users are often acting in good faith since they either don't understand or are unaware of BLP or don't see the removed material as controversial. This doesn't mean that they aren't wrong only that they should be approached civily and have the issues explained to them rather than blocked on sight.

4. Am I justified in blocking users for BLP policy violations - when they have been adequately warned and are aware of the policy?

Certainly the block tool should be used spairingly. But in cases such as this, where the basis of the policy violations has been made clear and re-adding through sourcing is clearly presented as a viable alternative, it is a valid tool. Note that the WP:BLOCK policy only condones blocking for "repeated" insertions of material in violationg of BLP.

5. Was Wizardman correct in describing this as a content dispute and a violation of WP:BLOCK?

No. This was not a content dispute in the relevant sense. However, the relevant section of WP:BLOCK says Editors who repeatedly insert unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons to articles or talk pages may be blocked for disruption. This suggest that the block of Jmaynard may have been premature. However given the position of the dispute it may have been justified since he was fully aware of the policy and how you were enforcing it. Thus while agressive, it cannot be consided an abuse of admin powers.

--Eluchil404 12:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Eluchil404 12:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Although, I wouldn't call it aggressive. Libel against entities should be dealt with promptly. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. We can and must ask people to understand, but someones unwillingness to understand does not relax our ethical obligations. --Gmaxwell 09:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Steel359

This whole conflict boils down to a misunderstanding of people's motives (namely, Doc glasgow's) by other editors. His edits were characterised as "vandalism", implying that Doc was acting in bad faith, which was clearly not the case. Doc's reason for removing the content was, as stated, WP:BLP. Jay's reason for restoring it was that removing entire sections as unsourced negative material when some of it was (a) sourced, and (b) not actually negative. Parading in and removing huge sections of articles without warning does annoy editors (I know this from experience, albeit not with BLP issues) and it is understandable that Jay responded by reverting the content and leaving capitalised, bolded messages on Doc's talk page [13]. Having said that, in terms of policy, Doc was in the right. WP:BLP states that unsourced negative information must be swiftly removed, and WP:V states that it's up to whoever wants the content included to find sources for it. In the light of this, Jay would have been better off restoring the specific bits which did have sources, rather than blanket reverting.

I would probably not have blocked Jay after one revert if I was Doc. I would probably have reverted again and posted a message to WP:AN. Bringing in neutral parties generally keeps the drama to a minimum and ensures things don't escalate to RfCs (though if the reverting continued and nobody was around on AN a block would have been issued). This is not because a block would have been unjustified because, once again, in terms of policy Doc was right (and the block did apparently get support, though I haven't yet read the discussion there myself). WP:BLP allows admins to block, protect and delete as necessary without the usual restrictions (not blocking during a dispute, not favouring one version over another, etc). Wizardman was IMHO wrong to call this a content dispute (per WP:BLP). However, at the time of the unblocking, I doubt Jay was in any mood to restore anything on the article, so there was no immediate threat to the encyclopedia.

Summary: Doc was justified in removing the content. Jay was justified in getting annoyed. Doc needs to remember that he's not alone in the fight (as it were). Jay needs to remember to assume the good faith of admins, and that if his problem was that Doc was removing the sourced information along with the unsourced, it would have been better to simply restore the sourced information individually, rather than blanket revert, accuse Doc of admin abuse and try and report him at WP:AIV.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Steel 13:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Well said. This situation spiraled into ugliness rather quickly, and could have been more rationally handled on all sides. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. What Tony said. WP:BLP allows us to act quite harshly, but that rarely solves anything. --Conti|✉ 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Eluchil404 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Should never have come here. I applaud Doc for asking, now, whether he was on the right track; if he had done so at WP:AN or WP:ANI, instead of blocking, we would not be having this discussion. One of the admins who support him, above, would probably have straightened the matter out, and perhaps blocked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:JzG

Doc acted in good faith, and according to an entirely reasonable interpretation of WP:BLP. It would have been better to protect the article and discuss, rather than have an edit war ending in a block, but people are funny about that. Bottom line: WP:BLP is policy, removal of material in respect of living individual citing that as rationale is never vandalism, calling it vandalism is plain wrong and edit warring over material removed citing WP:BLP by any editor in good standing, without first at least discussing the basis of the rationale, is simply unacceptable. Allow an unblock as soon as we have an undertaking to talk not war, and move on. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
(I've commented on talk--Docg 16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC))
  1. Endorse. Certainly there is merit in considering other possible ways to resolve this, but enforcement of BLP is not vandalism and that's not negotiable. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Not negotiable. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sounds right to me. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. per Lar. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Agreed. MastCell 21:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Endorse. Perhaps this could have been handled differently, but personally I feel sceptical about that. Doc did the right thing: Wizardman's unblock was out-of-character in that it was probably not a good idea. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. A reasonable view. The way past these disputes is through understanding. If people refuse to understand we can allow them to choose between making an honest attempt to understand or leaving. --Gmaxwell 09:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Partial endorsement. If material is well sourced, then removal while claiming BLP could be vandalism. Other than that, I am in complete agreement with this summary. JoshuaZ 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Jkelly 19:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Newyorkbrad

The article List of Internet phenomena came to my attention for the first time during the Brian Peppers DRV yesterday, when it was proposed as a redirect target for the Peppers article. The article was a list of various people and happenings that had become topics of wide discussion, chain e-mails, and the like, on the Internet—so-called "internet phenomena" or "internet memes." The "People" section contained a paragraph about Brian Peppers, which I didn't think belonged for all the reasons we discussed yesterday (but which, to be fair, was more reasonable than any other Peppers write-up I have seen).

The article also contained a few dozen additional paragraphs, several of which related to private, otherwise non-notable individuals who have become famous, or infamous, sometimes because of something embarrassing they did that was captured on-camera or online and was widely disseminated. Many of these references immediately raised concerns in my mind regarding notability, verifiability, and appropriateness for inclusion in light of privacy and related issues. I edited the article to delete a couple of the paragraphs I found most questionable. They were restored shortly thereafter, with the reasonable observation that most of the entries linked to existing Wikipedia articles on these people and events, and therefore it didn't make sense to challenge the individual paragraphs that were merely summaries of those articles. I mentally filed this as something that would be better addressed after the Peppers DRV was over.

Shortly thereafter, the Peppers DRV was closed with an initial result of redirect to List of Internet phenomena. (The redirect was changed to a straight keep-deleted after the paragraph on Peppers was again deleted from the List article.) In ensuing discussion of this result, I expressed concern that List of Internet phenomena was a "WP:LIVING/privacy/notability horror show" and needed massive attention and cleanup. If that comment was what led Doc to review the article, then I apologize for putting him into this situation.

Doc glasgow is one of the leading OTRS volunteers dealing with biographies of living persons (BLP) issues on this project. For those unfamiliar with OTRS or the function behind it, that means that he is one of the people responsible for dealing with the e-mails the Wikimedia Foundation gets every day along the lines of "there is this false/defamatory/privacy-invading statement in the Wikipedia article about me, and it's damaging my life, and I want it gone." That must sensitize him to the way that Wikipedia affects real people. When he saw this article, he saw a fair number of unreferenced, negative statements about living individuals that were not properly sourced, and he implemented the BLP policy as he understood it. Arguably, this was not a completely typical BLP situation because some (but by no means all) of the paragraphs in this article linked to longer articles that did have some references. Still, his reaction that this material should be removed pending sourcing was a completely understandable one. I might not have responded, indeed I did not respond, exactly the same way, but to criticize him for caring is unfair; and to call his action "vandalism," which is defined an intentional act done for the purpose of damaging the encyclopedia, is extraordinarily unfair.

Let's take a look at the type of information that Doc glasgow decided should be omitted from this article. The very first paragraph dealt with a situation in which an otherwise unknown person sold his laptop computer and, when the computer didn't work properly, the purchaser took revenge by releasing embarrassing personal information and files from the computer onto the Internet. The resulting publicity, it is said in a Wikipedia article on this situation, ruined this person's life. The people involved were identified on Wikipedia by name and city. To say the least, we can remain a complete and worthwhile encyclopedia without further publicizing this matter. I have nominated our article on this individual for deletion as being basically an attack page against a non-notable person. (It was tempting to simply db-attack delete it myself, but this didn't seem to be the week for that.) Another paragraph concerned a young woman, also identified by name and city, who has been mocked for her poor judgment in having been overly detailed about how guests should behave at her 21st birthday party. For the rest of her life, if someone types her name into Google, they will find publicity about this terrible error she made, which may overshadow anything else that she ever does or accomplishes. That's bad enough as it is, but adding these names and events to Wikipedia makes it far worse.

We are now one of the ten most visited websites in the world, and among the first hits on Google or other searches for people we have articles about. All of us need to be very sure we understand the traumatic impact that bad judgments about what to include in articles like the one we are talking about can have on people's lives. The BLP policy, put into place for both legal and moral reasons, demands that information in these articles be properly sourced to ensure that it is accurate and verifiable. I do not approve of instances where these requirements are taken to an extreme, such as the deletion a couple of weeks ago of statements like "Hank Aaron is in the Baseball Hall of Fame" because there was no specific reference given for that fact. Nor are we going to give every publicly known, prominent person veto power over the wording of his or her article, although unrelated events today remind us that even very public people have the right to basic accuracy and the immediate removal of unreferenced speculation and falsehood.

We need to be able to say to ourselves that A, we aren't posting material about living persons that isn't true and for which there aren't reliable sources to say it's true, and B, we're posting such material for legitimate reasons and in spite of the harm it may do to the person behind the paragraph or the article. These were the issues with Brian Peppers, and will be issues for portions of this list/article, and may be issues for many other articles in years to come. We collectively spend an awful lot of time, often to an undue degree far outweighing the return on investment, policing the borderlands of notability for high schools or local bands or webcomics (this week I'm particularly sensitive to webcomics). We can certainly afford to continue doing so with respect to articles discussing negative events in private people's lives as well.

List of Internet phenomena, and many of the articles linking to it, required a very hard look from a BLP and notability point of view. Doc certainly took a more draconian approach than some other administrators and other contributors would have. I won't repeat the whole discussion I had regarding the matter on Jmaynard's talkpage, except to acknowledge Jay's point that he himself is the subject of one of the entries in this article, a fact that I will admit I had not realized and that certainly gives him a certain standing to acknowledge the effects of unexpected Internet publicity. I don't want to lose him as a contributor; I do hope he can be sensitive to the issues we are discussing and understand that Doc didn't just randomly pick an article to delete content from for no reason.

I wish this situation could have been resolved without a block, but I also wish it could have been resolved without anyone's accusing the administrator who was trying to address a very serious issue of "vandalism," and I strongly wish that Wizardman, who unblocked, had used much different language in the unblock summary and rationale. The wording he used suggests that this was a garden-variety content dispute, which it wasn't, and that Doc is a rogue and out-of-control administrator, which he isn't, or that he shouldn't continue to address these issues, which he should. Newyorkbrad 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Hear, hear! Mackensen (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. See, THIS sort of well written, well reasoned, thoughtful commentary on difficult situations is why we all piled on to support NYB's recent adminship. Very well said, thoroughly endorse. ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. I agree with every word of the above, especially Lar's comment. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. ++endorsement, because regular endorsement just wouldn't be enough. Chris cheese whine 19:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Well said. AFAICT, Brad doesn't directly discuss the procedural question (whether Doc was right to issue the block himself or should have reported the whole mess to AN/I for someone else to block), but he's dead on with the stuff he does address. TheronJ 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. I knew this had something to do with "Brian Peppers Day." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. WjBscribe 09:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Georgewilliamherbert 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Cryptic 21:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Endorse <<-armon->> 13:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strongly endorse. Would make a great rationale-for-WP:BLP essay. CWC(talk) 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Tom Harrison Talk 14:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Ruhrfisch 03:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Jkelly 19:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Charles Matthews 13:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Lee Nysted

My opinions only:

I am new here, albeit I am an avid reader and I will attempt to learn more about Wikipedia as a source of "reliable" data and information. I think the key concept here, is having information that is referenced with sources generally accepted as being reliable ( by consensus.)

Blocking without warning is not a good answer to this type of dispute. I have seen too much arrogance on the part of administrators here. Hundreds of blocks and hundreds of deletions of articles that could, in fact, have a place in any encyclopedia. Articles that should be here, in my opinion.

Reverting material that has a reliable source should be the job of the administrator that removed same. That should not be the job of the person that placed the referenced item.

By encouraging the above actions, we are giving positive feedback to a negative behavior. Being cautious does not pre-suppose that we should not also be reasonable.

A deletion of material that has a reliable source is not right.

A revert of material that has no source, is not seemly.

Both parties are in the right; both parties are in the wrong.

Discussion should occur between educated and civilized litigators / editors. This turned into a mudslinging contest, with ego and power being more important than this encyclopedia. Thank you for your time. Lee Nysted 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

  1. Just Heditor review 17:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC) It's easier to have a beginner's mind when you are a beginner. Well said, Mr. Nysted.
    Heh - in my experience the articles Lee Nysted thinks should be here are about him (e.g. Lee Nysted, The Lee Nysted Experience, Nysted Music), and the blocks he queries are of his proven sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lee Nysted :o) Guy (Help!) 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't attack the character or record of User:Lee Nysted. That is an ad hominem argument and verges on violating WP:NPA. The user's past record is not relevant to their comments here. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Ju66l3r

I wholeheartedly agree with Doc's editing actions on the article in question. I do not think that anyone doubts the need to squash BLP concerns quickly. Regardless to whether something is sourced elsewhere in Wikipedia, when it's added to Wikipedia on another article and is potentially harmful, it should be sourced again in its new location (and Wikipedia is not a source, so you can't claim that wiki-linking satisfies that requirement). To that end, I find Doc's work to be in good faith and valuable in consideration of the subject matter.

Where I tend to disagree with other views above is when Doc chose to edit the article and also act as an administrator on actions surrounding his edits. If he ran into a problem that would require a block, given that his work was without fault, it should have been easy to bring the attention of a second administrator to examine the issue and hand out any preventive measures. This would alleviate any WP:BLOCK concerns and doubly reinforce the fact that the BLP removals were good faith and necessary. Instead, by meting out prevention of his own changes, I feel that it gives the appearance of impropriety, even though this was not a content dispute. It would have simply gone towards a better end if Doc had asked on one of the noticeboards for someone to review the situation and respond with any prevention accordingly. Response time is often quick to such things and would have resulted in more than just the 1-on-1 situation that resulted from his block of someone who disagreed with his actions...which in turn led to a minor mop scuffle and this RfC. ju66l3r 18:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. --- RockMFR 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. RoscoHead 20:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. It's always worth having a few more sets of eyes review WP:BLP issues, and an outside admin would have removed any WP:BLOCK concerns. But the end result was the correct one. MastCell 21:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Chriscf

Long story short. Was there a content dispute? Yes, but disputes involving WP:BLP are vastly different from most, and need to be resolved quickly and decisively. Was the onus on Doc to do the sourcing? Absolutely not. I believe both our founder and legal counsel have both said unequivocally it needs to be "SOURCES OR GTFO" when it comes to BLP. Were there other avenues? Yes. Since this hadn't descended into the dozens, JM should have certainly cleared this up on the talk page before putting it back in. Is Doc justified in blocking users in general for BLP violations? Absolutely, and without question. Was this in violation of WP:BLOCK? Maybe - it would appear questionable for the same person to be both enforcing the removal and handing out the punishment. After all, I don't believe another admin would fail to see the need for action. Apart from this, I believe Doc's actions on this matter to be more than justified. I applaud Doc's integrity in bringing this matter to RfC, and urge that he continue his good work with OTRS. Chris cheese whine 19:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Almost as good as when I said it. I keed, I keed. ju66l3r 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Well-put. MastCell 20:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Jkelly 19:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Georgewilliamherbert

BLP should not trump AGF, and there was an AGF failure here. Georgewilliamherbert 02:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You might want to clarify that, George - I'm sure you don't mean that we should assume good faith and allow inclusion of poorly sourced defamatory material which would otherwise be removed under WP:BLP, simply that involing BLP does not exempt an editor from assuming good faith on the part of those editors who dispute the removal. Yes? Guy (Help!) 14:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    Clarified: In this situation, assume good faith does not require that poorly sourced defamatory material which is contrary to BLP must remain in Wikipedia. The reasonable invocation of BLP (which this was) requires a more urgent than normal response to the violating or apparently violating material, and in some moderate and any extreme case may require immediate removal of material and preventive blocking of those who seek to return it. All such BLP incidents, including moderate to severe cases, require that administrators continue to follow AGF and CIVIL while dealing with the offending material and objecting editors. Georgewilliamherbert 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I would endorse this wording. I do not believe Doc has ever assumed good faith on my part. -- Jay Maynard 14:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree, Jay. I know where you're coming from, but you did part of this to yourself. Georgewilliamherbert 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    For example, this was a provocative way to start the discussion after the initial BLP removal. He was clearly reasonable up to the point that he refused to look at 49 items' articles, and even that was by no means an abandonment of AGF. Georgewilliamherbert 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    I won't deny that my comments were inflammatory. OTOH, had Doc AGF in the first place, I would have not felt the need to get his attention as I did. -- Jay Maynard 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

[edit] Outside view by Fubar Obfusco

I have no dog in this fight; I have not, to my recollection, edited the article in question, nor do I particularly care about its contents. I am concerned about a couple of things though:

First, the word "BLP" should not be a magic bullet. Merely saying "BLP" does not exempt an editor from rules against edit warring, 3RR, incivility, or the like. If there is an actual, specific violation of WP:BLP under discussion, that's a different matter; but that doesn't seem to be what we have here.

After all, we don't want to set a precedent where anyone who says "BLP" in an edit summary thereby gets to ignore 3RR, civility, &c. Keep in mind that we're working on a project where astroturfers frequently try to silence unpleasant (but well-cited) facts about persons or organizations by (falsely) citing BLP or other policies -- merely citing a policy is not a free pass to edit-war or otherwise break the rules here.

Second, it is always a problem when an administrator gets into an edit war and then blocks the contributor they're warring with. Always. It doesn't matter whether it's justified in that administrator's mind or not; it's always going to come across as bullying, and thereby embitter and alienate the other contributor.

Whenever a person goes from using argumentation to using force, they run the substantial risk of conceding the moral high ground. By blocking a person they're in a dispute with, the administrator comes across as saying: "I can't prove I'm right, so I'm going to silence you instead." Even if this is not what is intended (which it rarely is!) it comes across as "might makes right" -- hostile, authoritarian, and illiberal.

Once an administrator gets personally involved in a conflict, they should act as any other editor within that conflict: if they have a problem that possibly merits blocking the other contributor, they need to get a second opinion from another administrator. There is hardly a shortage these days. --FOo 05:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

  1. I was wondering if I was a lone voice in the wilderness. -- Jay Maynard 12:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. I sort of endorse this - I think the wording is too strong (I wouldn't describe Doc glasgow's actions as "hostile, authoritarian and illiberal") but I think Doc was wrong to use admin powers in blocking a user with whom he was involved in a dispute. This is inherently a misuse of admin powers, even if Doc was right when it came to the BLP policy. Walton monarchist89 20:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by MastCell

Leaving aside the WP:BLP issues, it's important to clarify something: vandalism is not involved here. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (WP:VAND). Probably the most common misunderstanding on Wikipedia is accusing an opposing editor, in a content dispute, of "vandalism". (Maybe 2nd most common misconception, next to the belief that WP:NPOV mandates equal time for every minoritarian viewpoint). Clearly, in this case, both Jay Maynard and Doc were trying to improve the encyclopedia, although they had very different ideas about how to do so. Blanking part of a page because you believe it violates WP:BLP, and explaining as much on the talk pages, may be right or wrong, but it's not vandalism. Let's save that word for when it's appropriate. I leave the issues of whether a WP:BLP violation occurred, and whether blocking powers were misused, to others to hash out, but I feel pretty strongly about nipping the "vandalism" thing in the bud. MastCell 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Yes. We who really ought to know better use the term "vandalism" far too easily, and the less experienced pick it up and call things vandalism when they are not. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Right; no vandalism on either side, just disagreement. Tom Harrison Talk 14:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong endorsement. Absolutely correct. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Correct, although it certainly feels worse than vandalism if it's your own work being nuked. The act of blanking of BLP-compliant material and saying "BLP" to justify it needs a name of some sort. I hereby suggest we call it bandalism. Kla'quot 17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Cryptic

The burden of proof always lies on the person adding information to an article. If I add a completely new, six-paragraph block of text which is impeccably sourced except for a parenthetical note at the end reading "(plus, he eats kittens)", I should expect to be rolled back and either be blocked outright or at least be given a stern warning, regardless of the quality of the rest of my edit. If, after being warned but not blocked, I revert the text's removal, I should be blocked without further discussion. Trying to argue that it isn't a BLP issue because some of the material was sourced and some of the material was uncontroversial is rules-lawyering at best, trolling at worst, and waste of everyone's time either way. There are many, many grey areas on Wikipedia. This is not one of them. —Cryptic 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. I wouldn't word it quite this strongly, and don't agree with the t[roll]-word in this instance, but agree with the sentiment. MastCell 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes - what this means is that reverting is not an acceptable response to WP:BLP removals, but that debate, and re-addition of that which is rigorously sourced, is fine. In this instance, there was a blanket reversion with an unacceptable edit summary. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely. As in Steel359's above, "Jay would have been better off restoring the specific bits which did have sources, rather than blanket reverting." Removing some sourced material along with unsourced may not be the best way to enforce BLP, but restoring unsourced material is right out. Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Jkelly 19:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by CBDunkerson

WP:BLP is an inherently 'dangerous' policy in that it actively encourages users to ignore normal standards of behavior, judgment, and discussion to enforce a goal of over-riding importance. You think a statement might be defamatory / embarrassing / controversial you nuke it on sight, violate normal prohibitions against edit warring to keep it out, and block the person(s) putting it back or protect the page... even if you've been a regular participant there for months. Even in cases, as I think is clearly the situation here, where the BLP enforcer is acting with the very best of intentions, this can easily lead to any number of problems (which is why we normally discourage deletion of large chunks of text, edit warring, threats, et cetera). And what happens when a disruptive POV pusher casts themself in the role of 'BLP enforcer' is just plain ugly. As such, I think we need to establish much higher standards of explanation and cooperation when enforcing BLP. People, not in this case, have actually argued that they shouldn't have to explain the reasons for their BLP actions, just say 'BLP' and people have to accept it or get blocked... which frankly is ludicrous. With such an obviously disruptive practice detailed explanation is essential and common sense. For instance, the bit about some guy making a Peter Pan outfit... an explanation that this was thought to possibly be meant to embarrass the person would cover it. If proof is presented that something isn't controversial (my favorite still being the BLP removal of a statement that 'Hank Aaron is in the baseball hall of fame') then even if a reference from a reliable third-party source isn't readily available it should be allowed back in with some kind of reference tag or kept on the talk page until a reference is found... in short, it falls under normal 'verifiability' guidelines and should be treated as such.

'BLP enforcers' should always be cognizant of the fact that they are performing a whole cluster of actions which are normally thought of as 'bad form' at best: deleting large sections of articles, edit warring, using sysop powers in disputes they are involved with, implicitly (or explicitly) accusing people of defamation, et cetera. We've established that removal of really controversial stuff is so important as to justify these things... but that doesn't stop them from being bad. As such, especially in cases like this where alot of the material is somewhat less than horrible (e.g. 'made a Peter Pan costume'... not exactly the most libelous accusation out there, possibly not embarrassing or controversial to the person at all), a degree of conciliatory and cooperative communication is in order. We should be unflinching in enforcing BLP on text which falls under its mandate (e.g. 'likes to burn infant children alive') and even text which might fall under its mandate (e.g. 'dated Britney Spears' - some people wouldn't want that known, some would)... but given how disruptive it is we should take special effort to work with the people impacted. Anything which is only potentially a BLP issue should have that 'potential' explained in detail and taken out of BLP consideration if the concerns are shown to be unfounded.

BLP should be a scalpel... not a cudgel. That's not a 'weakening' of the policy - the scalpel gets rid of problematic material just as fast and just as definitively, but without all the surrounding collateral damage and aggravation. Doc did 'the right thing', but, given that 'the right thing' in BLP situations is to perform actions which would normally get you blocked, he should have gone to greater lengths to identify specific issues with each deleted section and work out whether they all really fell under BLP or not. --CBD 23:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Yes! Had Doc taken this approach, I'd have been fine with it. It was only because he didn't that I got my dander up. I still can't get an explanation out of him, and all asking has done is get him to label me a troll. -- Jay Maynard 23:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Well said. --Conti|✉ 00:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes, good point. With any policy like BLP that involves exceptions to normal rules and processes, there have to be clear and stringent limitations to those exceptions. No policy should be an unlimited license to ignore procedure. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yup. I'd add that although we aren't supposed to use the word "vandalism" for good-faith blanking of policy-compliant material, the impact on the reader of the article is the same as with vandalism, and the impact on editor morale is considerably worse. Kla'quot 02:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yes. Additionally, Doc's opening statement above essentially indicates that he took a broad whack at entire category of content, rather than identifying the violations and removing only them. WP:BLP does not say to remove all content when some is wrong, it says to remove the incorrect content. Proper action by doc would have been to identify the specific pieces that needed to be removed, and remove only those. What he did was not an implementation of BLP because he didn't take the time to leave parts that were either 1) sourced or 2) non-controversial. GRBerry 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Well written. Finally, something I can endorse here. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Exactly. WP:BLP refers to contentious material, and not all of the material that Doc glasgow removed was contentious. Dog poop girl, for example, is contentious. Guy Goma doesn't seem at all contentious. Dance Monkeyboy might be somewhere in the middle. A scalpel, rather than a sword, seems to be called for here. (And the odd thing is that the article titles I posted are all blue links. Why are they being debated as part of List of Internet phenomena as being defamatory, when the individual articles haven't been scrutinized and scrubbed?) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User: Quatreryukami

I dont know if my formating is correct, or if I have the right to put in a say, but here it goes. I am not an admin, so it won't matter anyway, but I need to put in my opinion.

Was the block justified? Under current wikipolicy, it is a wholehearted Yes. However, the policy is flawed, in that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not something that caters to the person/people/thing in question, because if we just tiptoe around the facts, then this entire site will be incomplete. What I am trying to say is that WP:BLP's policy is fundamentaly flawed, and just avoiding the controversy is wrong. However, with proper consensus of the community, then, and only then, should the removal be justified. Quatreryukami 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum

I have thought about my statements of 2 days ago and must change part of my stance. My statement of flawed policy is retracted. However, I stand by all other statements.Quatreryukami 16:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary
  1. If I've got a right to jump into an RfArb (and nobody's thrown me out yet), you certainly have a right to jump in here. You bring up an important point: we're here to write an encyclopedia, and some folks are losing sight of that. -- Jay Maynard 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't endorse the user's comment, but I've left him a note on his talkpage confirming that any user is welcome to comment here. Newyorkbrad 15:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. I endorse this comment in its principles, although not necessarily in its application to this RfC. Although the basic tenet of WP:BLP is important (i.e. unsourced libellous information should be deleted quickly), negative information that is sourced and verifiable should be included, even if controversial. All too many editors seem to think that Wikipedia should screen out any "tabloid"-style material, and make judgements about what the public "needs" to know about a notable figure. That's not what an encyclopedia is about. If something is published by multiple mainstream media sources, then it's suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, whether or not the article's subject wants the world to know about it. We should not avoid controversy, nor should we remove content for the sake of not upsetting people. (My endorsement here should not be construed as an attack against Doc glasgow, or as support for Jay Maynard; I simply agree with the principle that BLP should not be over-used.) Walton Vivat Regina! 17:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:SMcCandlish

I agree with Doc on WP:BLP and make such deletions ruthlessly myself (cf. history of Earl Strickland). I think that disputes of this nature could be avoided by having (an)other admin(s) look into re-re-readdition of BLP-violating material instead of instituting the block oneself. Doing it that way would avoid any credible claim of conflict of interest or attempt to gain the upper hand in an editwar. Seems pretty straightforward to me, really. I don't see any bad faith on Doc's part, but I can understand why some other party could reasonably suspect it, if you see what I mean. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

See also related discussions at

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Doc_glasgow_7bc7.html"