Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Comment on outside view by User:JzG

Thanks for your remarks. I'm interested in the suggestion that I ought to have protected the article rather than blocked the user. My first response was on reading the suggestion was 'oh damn, that should have occurred to me - it might have appeared less aggressive'. However, on reflection, I think I disagree with you. Protection would have stopped the BLP violating revert, but it would also have prevented good editors from working on the article. At least one editor was replacing some of my removals with appropriate sourcing, and I saw no reason to impede this. Generally, where we've only got one or tho users stepping out of line, I'm in favour of blocking rather than protecting as it 1) has less collateral damage 2) tends to have more impact in making the offender take note. Ideally, I'd love to be able to be able to protect an article against editing by a specified user - that would minimise the collateral damage. But, my gut reaction as it stands is to use a block rather than a lock wherever possible.--Docg 16:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Tends to have more impact" can (and in this case, may well) mean "running off editors who disagree with you". Is that what you really want? -- Jay Maynard 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think what he wants is for you to realize that some people who, unlike you, don't appreciate their internet notoriety, and that we should Err on the side of caution with respect to such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
See my addendum to my response. If WP:BLP is to apply to any unsourced statement about a living person, it needs to say so. The indiscriminate destruction has me wondering why I should put significant work into this site when an admin cancome along, wipe it out with one simple edit, and then claim that it's enforcement of a policy that clearly does not apply. My roommate asked me last night "If that can happen, why should anyone work on articles?" I didn't, and don't, have a good answer for him. -- Jay Maynard 17:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If people are going to violate policy and add unsourced material on private individuals, we don't want them editing wikipedia anyway!--Docg 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming my view of your goal: running off editors who disagree with your over-broad interpretation of WP:BLP. -- Jay Maynard 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Better that than the reverse. Incidentally, today's Miami Herald is carrying a story about Fuzzy Zoeller suing someone who vandalized his article. Mackensen (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are you putting in significant work without citing your sources? Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the only one working on the article. Further, the sources were present at the article the list entry was linked to. -- Jay Maynard 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You stand behind every single one of the statements you reinserted? Hint - It's a Trap! Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I won't know until I can evaluate them individually. That's something Doc should have done, instead of getting out his machete. -- Jay Maynard 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not how WP:BLP works. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Where does WP:BLP say that any unsourced material about a living person in a section should be dealt with by removing the entire section? -- Jay Maynard 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Right next to the part where WP:ENC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How is nuking a whole section for the failings of a few entries in line with WP:ENC? -- Jay Maynard 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR UNSOURCED MATERIAL. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MESSAGE BOARD OR BLOG SERVICE" Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)

  1. List of Internet phenomena is not random information. It's a collection of, well, Internet phenomena. There's nothing random about that.
  2. The only place where it says that unsourced material should be removed immediately is in WP:BLP, and many if not most of the entries Doc nuked did not violate that policy.
  3. What does the third point have to do with anything under discussion?

-- Jay Maynard 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you re-inserted material whose authenticity you were not prepared to vouch for? Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Preparatory to going to the linked articles and copying the sources to the list, should that be the decision. (Personally, I agree tha tthat's downright silly, and would bloat an already huge article by a non-trivial amount.) -- Jay Maynard 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And your reinsertions of the content that did not have a linked article? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What I had planned to do was go back and look at each entry to see if it really violated WP:BLP by including controversial statements, and deleting those that did. At that point, the remainder could be sourced from the linked articles, if that was really necessary, according to WP:LIST. Doc's block changed all that. -- Jay Maynard 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You are incredibly luck an ignorant admin got to your block before it was affirmed and extended by the community at large. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Had that happened, I would have concluded that I was no longer welcome. -- Jay Maynard 18:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.....--Docg 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Just one minor point from up there ^^^ - I think WP:BLP does say that unsourced material can and should be removed from biographies. Everything should be attributable, what is not attributed is fair game for removal. That applies to all content. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP only calls for immediate removal of unsourced and contentious material. Other material falls under the standard of WP:ATT, which says that removing the material is likely to be objectionable, and alternatives should be pursued first. -- Jay Maynard 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, WP:A#Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources says, "Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately." WP:A#How to cite and request a source, which is where alternatives to immediate removal of unsourced material are discussed, starts off with, "In principle, any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material". Providing an opportunity to source material that is presumed to be easily sourceable before deleting it is recommended to avoid disruption. The question of whether material should be immediately deleted or marked as unsourced is a judgment call for the editor. The question of how long to wait after requesting citations before deleting unsourced material is also a judgment call for the editor. -- Donald Albury 12:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
However, the point is that, as you quoted, removing unsourced material immediately can easily be disruptive - and, I would argue, was, in the case of the wholesale destruction of List of Internet phenomena. That article will never again be encyclopedic in coverage, even though nearly all of the entries were linked to their own articles that were sourced. WP:BLP demands the immediate removal of material that is unsourced and controversial. It does not demand the removal of material that is not both, yet people around here are acting as though it does. No other policy demands the immediate removal of such material, either.
In the case of the article that spawned this RfC, that resulted in the destruction of an article on which a lot of editors - not lordly admins, just peon editors - spent a lot of time and effort. Doc came along and nuked major sections of it. At one point, I had started rebuilding it, copying sources from the linked articles to the list itself. I'd solicited input as to whether my efforts were satisfactory, and had gotten some feedback. While I was working on that (it took me 90 minutes to rebuild 7 entries to an acceptable standard, according to the feedback I'd gotten), another editor came along and nuked the remainder of the article. He later did rebuild a small number of entries, but not to the standard that had been demanded of me.
Is there anyone here who, in the light of all this, does not understand why I have no interest remaining in doing any sort of substantive work on the encyclopedia itself? It would be totally wasted! -- Jay Maynard 15:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on outside view by Newyorkbrad

"I don't want to lose him as a contributor"

The only way I'm sticking around is if I have some reason to believe that admins can't destroy articles and then back it up by claiming they're enforcing a policy that doesn't apply. In the absence of that, I have no reason to believe that any work I put into the site will go for other than absolute naught, and I have better uses for my time than to waste it updating articles here only to see the work totally vanish.

"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'm quite sensitive to the issues surrounding WP:BLP. What bothers me is that nobody else appears to be sensitive to the issue I'm raising.

"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,""

I'm sorry; I don't know what other term might apply. As I discuss in my response, I do not believe Doc's edit was done in good faith. His heart was certainly in the right place, but his power demands that he exercise more care and diligence than the average garden-variety editor.

  • My roommate just asked: "Let me try an analogy. I build a house, and someone comes along that the foundation isn't what it should be. Instead of telling me that, so I can shore up the foundation, he dynamites the room. How is this not vandalism?" What should I tell him? -- Jay Maynard 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    That his analogy is wrong. Chris cheese whine 21:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    Wrong how? I tried just telling him it was wrong, and got a laugh. -- Jay Maynard 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a better analogy - imagine you were writing an encyclopedia. Imagine people came along and wrote things in this encyclopedia about people who were alive that was wrong. Imagine, further, if there was no way to tell this "wrong" information from the "right" information except by checking "sources." Imagine, even further, if this "wrong" information caused people real and serious harm, like, let's say, a professional golfer losing, let's imagine, sponsorships, or, let's imagine, someone being so embarassed they killed themselves.
Imagine we created a rule on this "encyclopedia" that if you put anything that wasn't absolutly certainly true, it got removed.
Imagine you put things that didn't have "soruces" and they got removed.
Wait, stop imagining - that's what happened. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There's only one problem with this: The rule doesn't say what you say it says. It says that if you put anything negative or controversial that wsan't absolutely certainly true, it gets removed. -- Jay Maynard 21:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
OK - Either you stand behind all of the information you included as neither negative, controvercial nor unsourced, or you were willingly in violation of WP:BLP and should be indefed untill such time as you promise to get it and not insert unsourced information about living people. Which is it? I'm done playing beat around the bush - people reading this are going to get rid of you real soon if you don't wise up. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Unsourced, by itself, is not sufficient for immediate removal per WP:BLP. Unsourced and controversial is. I'll happily agree not to include unsourced and controversial statements. Indeed, that's all I'm asking: that we uphold WP:BLP as written. So far, nobody - not one - has agreed that WP:BLP only calls for immediate removal of unsourced and controversial material, despite the plain words of the policy. Why not? That is what I can't understand. -- Jay Maynard 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"The wording he used suggests that this was a garden-variety content dispute, which he wasn't,"

If it was indeed a violation of WP:BLP, then no, it wouldn't have been a garden-variety content dispute.

"and that Doc is a rogue and out-of-control administrator, which he is not,"

I'll stipulate that Doc's not a rogue, out-of-control admin. It's his specific actions in this case that I have severe disagreements with.

"or that he shouldn't continue to address these issues, which he should."

I do agree he should continue to do so, as should every Wikipedian - but they should follow policy as written, or else get the policy changed. -- Jay Maynard 18:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, wikilawyering about policies aside, the vast majority of the material you were adding back had as its primary appeal voyeurism or schadenfreude. Surely your talents and effort would be better spent on other articles here? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
At whatever level, Internet phenomena exist because of schadenfreude and voyeurism. You can take my word on this one. Whether the subject of the voyeurism makes lemonade from those lemons, as I did, or does not, as, for example, Ghyslain Raza (the Star Wars Kid) did not, doesn't change the fact that they are indeed notorious. We can stick our collective heads in the sand and ignore them wholesale, or we can acknowledge reality and remain relevant in a world where people get much of their news and entertainment from the web.
It should be obvious that I have a major interest in the phemonenon of Internet fame. As it happens, however, the destruction wreaked on the article while I was starting to work on fixing the WP:BLP problems by Hipocrite has completely turned me off of improving the article. Another editor reverted that destruction; I was afraid to because I was sure I'd get blocked again. Hipocrite has since taken a more cooperative approach to the work. Maybe the article will get fixed, and maybe it won't; I'm too scarred from this war to care any longer. (It may interest one or two of you to learn that I just un-watchlisted the article.)
I usually resent others trying to tell me how I should spend my time. As it happens, though, whatver time and effort I choose to contribute to Wikipedia (which will almost certainly be drastically reduced from what it was before) will not be spent on that article, at all. -- Jay Maynard 00:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and about accusations of wikilawyering: I reject that, because I think the disconnect between what the policy actually says and how the policy is enforced, as evidenced by Doc's nuking, is important to those who would contribute to the encyclopedia. It's important because formal statements of policy, such as WP:BLP, serve to let new editors know what to expect. An editor who runs afoul of the informal interpretation of WP:BLP while sticking to the written one will, quite rightly, feel like he's been betrayed by Wikipedia management. That cannot help the encyclopedia. -- Jay Maynard 01:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Donald Albury's endorsement of Mackensen's view

The mass deletion which I reverted was not unsourced negative material. Nobody here, not Doc, not Mackensen, not anyone else, has said that I did that. The arguments have all been on restoring unsourced material, regardless of its negativity or lack thereof. When I raised that objection, I was accused of wikilawyering; I reject that accusation, as I believe the distinction is vital. -- Jay Maynard 01:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, if I haven't said you actually did that, I'll say it now. Several of the entries you replaced named living people and included unsourced unflattering and embarrassing comment. You can wikilwyer about distinctions, but it really matters not a whit, since you violated both the spirit and wording of the policy.--Docg 01:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine. That wasn't what you blocked me for, and this is the first time in the 30-plus hours that this has been dragging on that you said it. Even so, lacking the ability to go back and look, I'll perforce accept the charge, and promise not to do it again.
Further, how's a new editor, or a casual one, supposed to know what is the spirit of policy if it's not written down? Dammit, WHY IS IT SO ALL-FIRED IMPORTANT TO ACCUSE ME OF WIKILAWYERING INSTEAD OF PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT'S IMPORTANT??! I don't want to shout, but I can't get a straight answer!-- Jay Maynard 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've no idea what you are on about. I blocked you for 'BLP violations', per the policy - it said so in my blocking summary. If you'd promised not to do it again, I'd have unblocked you at the time. But you were too busy denying you'd done anything wrong.--Docg 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Because, per the policy, I didn't do anything wrong. I only say so now because I cannot refute the charge with the information available to me, and because I'm sick to death of arguing this issue. "What I'm on about" is simply that what I was accused of, and what I was dragged through all this for, was not what WP:BLP said it prohibited. Had you told me then that you thought I violated the policy as written instead of what you said, that I violated the policy as you think the spirit exists, we'd have been through with this then, one way or another. Instead, you stonewalled and accused me of wikilawyering.
I still haven't gotten a straight answer out of you. Why is the spirit as you say it exists important, and how is the new or casual editor supposed to know what it is?
You won't bother answering this, either, I'm sure. Based on this, and your "Hmmm...." above, I've come to the conclusion that you are trying to drive me off of Wikipedia. Congratulations. You've succeeded. I'm out of here. -- Jay Maynard 01:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've still not got a clue what you are on about. You were warned that violating BLP would get you blocked, you violated it, I blocked you. The rest just confuses me.--Docg 01:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What happened to AGF here? Georgewilliamherbert 02:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still so angry about this that I can't get to sleep, so I'll try one last time.
Up until your comment a couple of levels above, all you ever complained aobut was sourcing, sourcing, sourcing. Not once did you say a word about being negative and unsourced; it was just that it was unsourced. Nearly all of the entries in question were unsourced. Only a handful were negative and unsourced. You blew them all away, regardless of whether they were negative and unsourced - and, thus, violated WP:BLP - or merely unsourced - and, thus, did not.
Blowing them all away, and then saying "you can put them back if you supply sources" seemed to me to be extending WP:BLP beyond what it plainly said, and in the process making much more work for those of us who wanted to have the article cover as much ground, and therefore be as useful, as possible. You seemed to be ignoring all of the work that others had put into the article, just so you could avoid having to do even the tiniest bit of work yourself.
Go back and look at your comments, and the comments of others on my talk page. Not one other person besides myself talked about anything but sourcing. Look at the comments in this RfC. With only a tiny number of exceptions, every one of them talks about sourcing, and ignore the negative part of "negative and unsourced". Look at the entry I cited in my response, for Randy Constan. You deleted it because you said it violated WP:BLP, but what about it does? There's not a negative, or even non-NPOV, word there. You deleted it because it was unsourced in the list article.
In light of all that, what am I supposed to conclude? The only logical conclusion I could reach within the bounds of WP:AGF is that you were applying a policy that somehow was Wikipedia policy, even though it was not what was stated in WP:BLP - the policy you were citing. Is it, then, any wonder that I spent the day trying to get someone - anyone - to say why the "negative" part of "negative and unsourced" in WP:BLP was being ignored? Everyone was ignoring it!
Brad wishes we could bridge this divide. Bridging a divide requires movement from both parties. You want me to acknowledge WP:BLP. I've never denied it! You want me to acknowledge a violation of it. I can do nothing else at this point, since the list of entries in question has been deleted. What more do you want from me?
What I would like to see is a promise from you to wield that knife more surgically and only take out those items that actually violate WP:BLP, by being both negative and unsourced. I don't think that's too much to ask. Do you? If so, why?
I don't know how to be any plainer than this. If I'm still confusing you, please tell me how, and why, and (if I can find a reason to believe that you're actually trying to see my side of the story, something about which I have considerable doubt at the moment) I'll try to clear it up. If you just say "I still don't know what you're on about", though, without any further explanation, then there's nothing more I can do for you. -- Jay Maynard 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict, maybe too late, but I've already typed it so I'll post it)
Some of what Doc deleted constituted negative or controversial unsourced material within the meaning of the BLP policy (and, irrespective of the written policy, what most of us would agree should absolutely not appear without sourcing). Some didn't.
Whether the whole block of material should have been nuked wholesale or treated on a line-by-line, item-by-item basis is a matter on which reasonable people can differ. Hopefully articles of the nature we are discussing here are relatively few and hence this question, while permitting a divergence of views, is of limited long-term importance. It is not as if contributors are going to find huge sections of articles concerning multiple different people and events deleted on these grounds.
The precise definition of what constitutes negative or controversial material is one on which reasonable minds can differ. A couple of weeks ago, we had an editor who started with the "A" articles (hence, Hank Aaron, as I mentioned in my main comment) and took out every word that wasn't sourced, including positive, flattering, and patently indisputably true content about well-known public figures. Some people applauded, others did not; I thought he took things way too far. There is ample room for discussion of how lines get drawn on these issues, and there are forums in the project for those discussions, but it is incorrect to suggest that contributors should worry that all their work is going to be randomly and routinely deleted. Newyorkbrad 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
When what I see is wnaton, broad destruction, not bothering to consider whether the items in question actually do violate policy by being both negative and unsourced, what else am I to logically conclude? -- Jay Maynard 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Something else interesting I just noted. I went back and skimmed through the Peppers DRV again to quickly check something. Jmaynard commented a couple of place in there. He probably agreed with 90% of what Doc and I and others had to say in that debate. It's a shame we haven't been able to bridge this issue. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We haven't been able to bridge this issue because there's been no attempt that I can distinguish to actually try to understand my side fo the story. I've repeatedly said that I agree with WP:BLP's importance, and that it should be enforced. What more can I do? -- Jay Maynard 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Unsouced material (positive or negative) is subject to removal at any time per WP:V. I think, and I would say that many of the people here agree, that one editor removing material as a BLP violations makes a prima facia case that it is controversial even if you don't feel that it is. Your side seems to be that we should no delete unsourced information about living unless it is defamatory. Most of us simply don't agree. The purden of proof is always on those seeking to include information. If it isn't sourced it can be removed and if it concerns a living person insisting on re-inserting it can be a blockable offense. BLP can, and has been in some cases, treated over broadly but articles which are un or poorly sourced simply are subject to gutting until they can be sourced. Verifyability is a core policy; comprehensiveness is not. Eluchil404 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I quote from WP:V:
Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving 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}}. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.
WP:V does not demand removal of unsourced material. WP:BLP does, but only if it's negative and unsourced. I got (and am still getting) beaten about the head and shoulders with WP:BLP, not WP:V. The block was based on WP:BLP. That's why I'm arguing about it. Yes, verifiability is a core policy. The mass destruction of others' work in response to it is, at the very least, disrespectful, and arguably disruptive. It would be treated as vandalism if it were not for the WP:BLP club that was used, wrongly in this case, to justify it and to hit people who disagreed over the head. -- Jay Maynard 12:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
So are you claiming that the material you restored was sourced, or that it wasn't negative? —Cryptic 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a trap! Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of specific claims about any specific entries that would be at issue, I can only say that it is possible that some entries were both negative and unsourced. Doc hasn't deigned to tell me which entries he found to be in violation of WP:BLP, much less why (aside from his repeated complaints about sourcing; he apparently feels his judgment is not subject to question) so I cannot do more than admit the possibility that some were. Doc deleted all of the enrties that were unsourced, which is far beyond what was required by WP:BLP. I do claim that there was a substantial number of entries that were not negative; indeed, most of them were along the same lines of the Randy Constan entry I quoted in my response, which is clearly not in violation of WP:BLP.
Since Doc was complaining exclusively about sourcing, I believed that selecting the entries that were non-negative, and only reverting those, would not help: I believed Doc would have claimed they were all violative of WP:BLP, and we'd be exactly where we are now anyway. -- Jay Maynard 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. All the items I removed were unsourced or clearly inadequately sourced, all (unless I caught a few by accident) named living people. Some of the references included clearly negative/embarrassing comment on individuals - but in any case being included on a list of internet memes would be held by most people to be something they'd 'rather not'. You (so I'm told) may be an honourable exception - but this is the type of thing most people complain about. Thus mentioning any individual on that list is clearly a WP:BLP not just a WP:V issue, and must be sourced. You indiscriminately replaced all the items - the downright negative and the potentially embarrassing, a very clear violation of WP:BLP.--Docg 19:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Being included on a list of Internet memes is something that the people on that list have no control over, and has little effect on their lives. If they're verifiably Internet memes - something a quick look at the linked article will tell - whether they're listed on Wikipedia or not will not materially affect their level of misery. Your attempt to stretch WP:BLP into something it does not say is going to bite other new or casual editors until the policy is amended to say what you're getting out your block hammer to enforce. If I cared greatly, I'd go back and look at the list you nuked and challenge each entry, but I'm not going to waste my time: you're clearly not interested in dialogue. Brad, let the record show that I tried bridging the chasm, and was thoroughly rejected. -- Jay Maynard 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since my name is in the heading for this section, I guess I should say something. I think Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Attribution are quite clear; if information in Wikipedia is not supported by citations to reliable published sources, it can be removed. Wikipedia:Biography of living persons is also quite clear; Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. There is no obligation for an editor to leave unsourced material in Wikipedia under any circumstance. It is a courtesy (but but not an obligation) to give the contributors of unsourced material (or other interested editors) an opportunity to provide sources by requesting them, but extending that courtesy never applies to information about living persons. Every editor is obligated to immediately remove unsourced or poorly sourced information about a living person that may in any way be questioned or that may in any way be interpreted as being negative. Anyone who adds or re-adds such material to Wikipedia is hurting the project, whether intentionally or not. -- Donald Albury 03:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Daniel Brandt wheel war

I note with absolutely no pleasure that Doc has been dragged into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. While I have no opinion to offer in general in regard to that, I do note that his overly broad interpretation of WP:BLP does enter into that, and I hope that the ArbCom addresses that and clarifies it while they're dealing with the mess - one way or the other. If they support the expansion, fine, as long as that gets written into WP:BLP. -- Jay Maynard 04:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that any expansion is being called for here. The material was controversial and unsourced. Your belief that it wasn't controversial doesn't simply make it so. If two people in good faith disagree about whether something is controversial it probably is. Eluchil404 07:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Brandt is an unrelated matter. Sourcing was not an issue and my involvement with this article had nothing to do with the WP:BLP policy.--Docg 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You raised the issue in your comment on one of the RfArb talk pages. That's why I mentioned it here, and on the Workshop page. -- Jay Maynard 13:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Never once during all of this, until the very last moment yesterday, did anyone claim that the material was controversial. Creating controversy and then using that controversy to justify immediate, wholesale deletion of material is not an act of good faith. -- Jay Maynard 13:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This is tendentious and ridiculous, had the material you re-inserted been neutral and unobjectionable, I obviously wouldn't have blocked you for violating WP:BLP. Stop it.--Docg 13:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you look? Did you restrict your deletion to that material that was neutral and unobjectionable? What is not neutral and unobjectionable about the Randy Constan entry I posted, in its entirety, on the main page in my response? Until late yesterday, you said not one word about anything but sourcing. Can you at least see that's why I've been raising the issue of expansion of WP:BLP all this time? Are you reading what I'm writing, or what you think I'm writing? Or are you really trying to get rid of me? -- Jay Maynard 13:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm ignoring you from this point on. There is nothing further to say. I am now mistaking your edits for pure trolling. I will no longer be responding to you, so you may now have the last word.--Docg 13:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for remaining civil in your dealings with me. </sarcasm> Either you think you don't owe anyone explanations, you think that explaining your actions might harm your work, or you realize you can't explain yourself and are simply stonewalling. I'm not trolling. I'm asking questions to both improve my understanding of Wikipedia, and improve the encyclopedia by helping other editors understand what to expect when they participate here. If you'd answered my questions when I first asked them, we wouldn't be here now. Instead, your attitude has been one of "I'm right, you're wrong, it's obvious, I'm not going to explain myself".
Hopefully, the RfArb will result in a clarification of WP:BLP. It's obvious I'm not going to get one any other way. If necessary, and the ArbCom does not clarify the policy in the David Brandt case, I will file one over this case. -- Jay Maynard 14:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Doc_glasgow_9132.html"