Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Biographies of Living Persons _ Vijay Bahadur Singh
Posted by: RMHED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Bahadur_Singh a one sentence BLP article. An experiment ensues.
On April 2 I added this piece of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422020246&oldid=322763366, on April 4 I added yet more http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422402786&oldid=422020246. For both pieces of libel a reference was added, a quick check would have shown that the references were bogus, this didn't happen, even though "(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)" appeared as an edit summary after the first addition of libel.
Part two: Removal of the libel.
I created the account User:Wawawaer and removed the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422773167&oldid=422402786, this was reverted as vandalism. After removing the content a couple http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&action=history, (once with the edit summary "remove lies") Wawawaer is of course blocked for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wawawaer. At no time does the blocking admin seem to have done a basic check to see if the information was indeed lies, he just restored the libel to the article.
So in summary, an anon ip adds two bits of badly sourced libel to a BLP
A new editor tries to remove the libel
The new editor is blocked for edit warring and the libel is restored to the BLP.
This is the essence of Wikipedia's systemic failure when it comes to showing due dilligence as regards BLPs. Poorly sourced controversial additions go unchallenged, removal of these additions results in a block.
Wikipedia actively protects libellous content.
Posted by: A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 8:37pm) 
I created the account User:Wawawaer and removed the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422773167&oldid=422402786, this was reverted as vandalism. After removing the content a couple http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&action=history, (once with the edit summary "remove lies") Wawawaer is of course blocked for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wawawaer. At no time does the blocking admin seem to have done a basic check to see if the information was indeed lies, he just restored the libel to the article.
Well, C. Fred is strictly C-minus when it comes to brainpower.
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 8:37pm)
The new editor is blocked for edit warring and the libel is restored to the BLP.
But only for 31 hours. Once the block is lifted, you are free to run amok!
Posted by: RMHED
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 7th April 2011, 2:02am)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 8:37pm)
I created the account User:Wawawaer and removed the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422773167&oldid=422402786, this was reverted as vandalism. After removing the content a couple http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&action=history, (once with the edit summary "remove lies") Wawawaer is of course blocked for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wawawaer. At no time does the blocking admin seem to have done a basic check to see if the information was indeed lies, he just restored the libel to the article.
Well, C. Fred is strictly C-minus when it comes to brainpower.
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 8:37pm)
The new editor is blocked for edit warring and the libel is restored to the BLP.
But only for 31 hours. Once the block is lifted, you are free to run amok!
This is clear evidence that Wikipedia doesn't show any due dilligence with regards to BLPs.
I've now added libellous content to over 50 obscure BLPs, all remains unreverted and showing up in Google searches.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 6th April 2011, 6:02pm)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 8:37pm)
I created the account User:Wawawaer and removed the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422773167&oldid=422402786, this was reverted as vandalism. After removing the content a couple http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&action=history, (once with the edit summary "remove lies") Wawawaer is of course blocked for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wawawaer. At no time does the blocking admin seem to have done a basic check to see if the information was indeed lies, he just restored the libel to the article.
Well, C. Fred is strictly C-minus when it comes to brainpower.
Now, now, read the link and don't believe everything some WR person tells you, even if it is RMHED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wawawaer
C. Fred's block summary reads: (Disruptive editing: Intentional gaming of the system to put false material into articles). In other words, he called THIS one perfectly right, and the block was NOT for edit warring. Unless he reads WR and went back and changed his reason, of course.
Posted by: gomi
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 6th April 2011, 7:10pm)
Unless he reads WR and went back and changed his reason, of course.
Got it right in one! Look at the timestamps -- the revdels and the block are clearly a result of this thread.
Posted by: taiwopanfob
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 7th April 2011, 2:10am)
C. Fred's block summary reads: (Disruptive editing: Intentional gaming of the system to put false material into articles). In other words, he called THIS one perfectly right, and the block was NOT for edit warring. Unless he reads WR and went back and changed his reason, of course.
There are two blocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AWawawaer&type=block
The first was to protect the libel, the second was to protect C. Fred.
Posted by: A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 6th April 2011, 10:27pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 6th April 2011, 7:10pm)
Unless he reads WR and went back and changed his reason, of course.
Got it right in one! Look at the timestamps -- the revdels and the block are clearly a result of this thread.
Is there a C. Fred in the house? Come on, you can make yourself known...we're all friends here.
Posted by: taiwopanfob
Jasper Deng, the principle libel-protector in this case, has gone completely berzerk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&action=historysubmit&diff=422796639&oldid=422796373
Like many accidents, this is a failure of multiple parts, chain-reaction style, not just one key part. Mind you, Jasper Deng is clearly the weak link in this chain, but C. Fred or any admin should not be trusting other editors carry out due diligence work re: BLP.
Posted by: EricBarbour
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 5:37pm)
On April 2 I added this piece of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422020246&oldid=322763366, on April 4 I added yet more http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422402786&oldid=422020246.
I see that the first libel is still in the database, while the second one has mysteriously disappeared.
C. Fred, you are a little shit. You are being mocked. Congratulations.
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/geocfred3rd/)
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Wed 6th April 2011, 10:46pm)
Jasper Deng, the principle libel-protector in this case, has gone completely berzerk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&action=historysubmit&diff=422796639&oldid=422796373
Like many accidents, this is a failure of multiple parts, chain-reaction style, not just one key part. Mind you, Jasper Deng is clearly the weak link in this chain, but C. Fred or any admin should not be trusting other editors carry out due diligence work re: BLP.
I would like to make a full confession... I am not RMHED. Further, I am not nearly witty enough, handsome enough, sarcastic enough, or British enough to even come close to imitating him.
This incident is showing that there certainly are some admin-wannabees who probably ought never to be admins. Among other things.
Posted by: taiwopanfob
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 7th April 2011, 2:48am)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 5:37pm)
On April 2 I added this piece of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422020246&oldid=322763366, on April 4 I added yet more http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422402786&oldid=422020246.
I see that the first libel is still in the database, while the second one has mysteriously disappeared.
Seven edits were "removed from the public archives", including the one given in the first delta. Is it's continued visibility a bug, or just another C. Fred fuckup?
Posted by: A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Wed 6th April 2011, 10:46pm)
Jasper Deng, the principle libel-protector in this case, has gone completely berzerk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&action=historysubmit&diff=422796639&oldid=422796373
Like many accidents, this is a failure of multiple parts, chain-reaction style, not just one key part. Mind you, Jasper Deng is clearly the weak link in this chain, but C. Fred or any admin should not be trusting other editors carry out due diligence work re: BLP.
Come on, it is no secret that Lar and RMHED are one and the same person.
Posted by: EricBarbour
QUOTE
Some other CU ought to double check all of the above since I'm involved. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It is already sockpuppetry to use an anonymous IP to mislead, you know.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
From your user page box collection: "This user acts like he/she is an administrator on the English Wikipedia but really isn't." I think I know policy well enough to know what is and isn't permissible, or even what is or isn't appropriate. (there's a difference) You misled yourself jumping to erroneous conclusions. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Then please explain [3] where you said you were deliberately logged out to see how I would respond. At WP:SOCK, it is sockpuppetry to edit while logged out in order to mislead and sockpuppetry's definition include "good" and "bad hand" accounts, which this case also falls into.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It is already sockpuppetry to use an anonymous IP to mislead, you know.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
From your user page box collection: "This user acts like he/she is an administrator on the English Wikipedia but really isn't." I think I know policy well enough to know what is and isn't permissible, or even what is or isn't appropriate. (there's a difference) You misled yourself jumping to erroneous conclusions. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Then please explain [3] where you said you were deliberately logged out to see how I would respond. At WP:SOCK, it is sockpuppetry to edit while logged out in order to mislead and sockpuppetry's definition include "good" and "bad hand" accounts, which this case also falls into.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
That's your Wikipedia, Lar.
If you really cared about the quality of its admin corps, you'd RFC Jasper for being a smug little tool.
If you don't, he'll probably just talk his way into adminship, and then really go crazy.
Look at his talkpage--he's already going around causing grief. Yet another Ryulong in the making.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 6th April 2011, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Wed 6th April 2011, 10:46pm)
Jasper Deng, the principle libel-protector in this case, has gone completely berzerk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&action=historysubmit&diff=422796639&oldid=422796373
Like many accidents, this is a failure of multiple parts, chain-reaction style, not just one key part. Mind you, Jasper Deng is clearly the weak link in this chain, but C. Fred or any admin should not be trusting other editors carry out due diligence work re: BLP.
I would like to make a full confession... I am not RMHED. Further, I am not nearly witty enough, handsome enough, sarcastic enough, or British enough to even come close to imitating him.
This incident is showing that there certainly are some admin-wannabees who probably ought never to be admins. Among other things.
And maybe some admins who shouldn't be admins, since they have no integrity, like C. Fred. Who would one see about that?
Jasper, now Jasper is kind of cute in a wolverinish way. Reminds me of Python's Black Knight after all four limbs are off. Don't go any closer or he'll try to bite you.
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 6th April 2011, 11:12pm)
And maybe some admins who shouldn't be admins, since they have no integrity, like C. Fred. Who would one see about that?
Wait... why do you say that about C. Fred. Goes off half cocked, maybe. But no integrity? That's a bit of a stretch.
As to who to see about it... damifino.
Posted by: gomi
QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 6th April 2011, 8:24pm)
Wait... why do you say that about C. Fred. Goes off half cocked, maybe. But no integrity? That's a bit of a stretch.
Not at all. Admins ban people all the time on less proof or information, demonstrating the widespread and notable lack of integrity rife on Wikipedia. The only reason you didn't get banned as a sock of RMHED is that you're a wiki-wheel and ran the checkuser yourself. If you were a peon, C.Fred would have banned you and that would be the end of it.
Posted by: EricBarbour
QUOTE
Let's settle down and conclude the following:
* C.Fred and I need not to act too hastily.
* [Wikipedia Review]] should not deliberately test Wikipedia's ability to revert subtle BLP additions (such a test resulted in this)
* Lar had better ways of teaching me and C.Fred this lesson (nothing like "it'll just make you look foolish" and IP )
* The flaming at Wikipedia Review (in the link I provided earlier) must result in warnings and/or blocks for any Wikipedians directly involved in that.
No more arguing.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
* Just a reminder, Wikipedia has no authority over what Wikipedia Review does or doesn't do. Also, the ArbCom has ruled in the past that comments made on Wikipedia Review or other off-wiki forums are generally unsanctionable. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
* C.Fred and I need not to act too hastily.
* [Wikipedia Review]] should not deliberately test Wikipedia's ability to revert subtle BLP additions (such a test resulted in this)
* Lar had better ways of teaching me and C.Fred this lesson (nothing like "it'll just make you look foolish" and IP )
* The flaming at Wikipedia Review (in the link I provided earlier) must result in warnings and/or blocks for any Wikipedians directly involved in that.
No more arguing.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
* Just a reminder, Wikipedia has no authority over what Wikipedia Review does or doesn't do. Also, the ArbCom has ruled in the past that comments made on Wikipedia Review or other off-wiki forums are generally unsanctionable. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
And I called that correctly. Jasper is, in fact, a little tool.
Posted by: Silver seren
Wait, isn't Jasper Deng...
*checks*
Yep, he's the one that gave me the warning from the Wikiquette report three minutes after it was filed.
Posted by: Gruntled
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Wed 6th April 2011, 10:46pm)
Jasper Deng, the principle libel-protector in this case
Careful; thekohser will now rap your knuckles for saying "principle" instead of "principal".
QUOTE(Lar @ Thu 7th April 2011, 4:03am)
I am not RMHED. Further, I am not nearly witty enough, handsome enough, sarcastic enough, or British enough to even come close to imitating him.
Careful; thekohser will now rap your knuckles for saying nice things about someone who has the temerity to post while being completely anonymous - and who has the awesome temerity to live in Britain and use British spelling!
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 8:37pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Bahadur_Singh a one sentence BLP article. An experiment ensues.
Experiment should have considered using WebCitation to preserve the experimental edits, which are now oversighted.
Posted by: A Horse With No Name
As usual, the Wikipedia Panto winds up with various foreheads being knocked together in melodious clunks. Never mind that the basic problem first raised by RHMED - the ease of deliberate vandalism of a BLP - got lost in the fracas. This would not be tolerated in the real world of encyclopedia publishing, where professional editors and writers go to great lengths to ensure accurate contents.
But, then again, who can be bothered "building" an encyclopedia when there's fun to be had in shooing away untouchables from the Jimboville sandbox? Is it any wonder that the wider world viewed the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia's launch with an indifferent yawn?
Posted by: Sxeptomaniac
No shocker in any of this. WP has encouraged edit counts as a basic equivalent to experience points, by making the main criteria for becoming an admin a high edit count over a relatively short period of time. It's no wonder they have so many who don't pay attention to what they are doing.
Posted by: melloden
Jasper Deng ... the epitome of fucking dumbass wikiretards.
Posted by: thekohser
Jasper's http://www.chess.com/members/view/Windows-7_ shows that he's very suitable for Wikipedia.
Posted by: Sxeptomaniac
QUOTE(melloden @ Thu 7th April 2011, 8:26am)
Jasper Deng ... the epitome of fucking dumbass wikiretards.
He does seem quite focused on making a name for himself with the Wikiquette quick-response and vandal-fighting. WP would be better off without those types, but they tend to run the show.
Posted by: Alison
QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Thu 7th April 2011, 11:36am)
QUOTE(melloden @ Thu 7th April 2011, 8:26am)
Jasper Deng ... the epitome of fucking dumbass wikiretards.
He does seem quite focused on making a name for himself with the Wikiquette quick-response and vandal-fighting. WP would be better off without those types, but they tend to run the show.
http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2011/04/wikiday.html
Speaking of. Can we have Moulton back on here now, please?
Posted by: melloden
QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Thu 7th April 2011, 6:36pm)
QUOTE(melloden @ Thu 7th April 2011, 8:26am)
Jasper Deng ... the epitome of fucking dumbass wikiretards.
He does seem quite focused on making a name for himself with the Wikiquette quick-response and vandal-fighting. WP would be better off without those types, but they tend to run the show.
Not Deng, as far as I can tell. He just seems to be a plain idiot. The only name he's making for himself is, "block me! block me! I'm a douchebag who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works because I act like a twelve-year-old imbecile!".
Posted by: Jack Merridew
This was all rather amusing; not as amusing as Horsey's shite as Regent of the Seatopians, though; epic-fail, Cas.
Posted by: A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(Jack Merridew @ Fri 8th April 2011, 3:42am)
This was all rather amusing; not as amusing as Horsey's shite as Regent of the Seatopians, though; epic-fail, Cas.
Yeah, that was a good 10-month gallop as Regent. Obviously ol' Doc Liber ain't getting any at home - otherwise he wouldn't be spending his free time checkuser-fishing on Wiki for naughty editors.
Posted by: jayvdb
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 7th April 2011, 10:49am)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 8:37pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Bahadur_Singh a one sentence BLP article. An experiment ensues.
Experiment should have considered using WebCitation to preserve the experimental edits, which are now oversighted.
The edits are still visible by admins.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Vijay+Bahadur+Singh
Posted by: Jack Merridew
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 8th April 2011, 11:46am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 7th April 2011, 10:49am)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 8:37pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Bahadur_Singh a one sentence BLP article. An experiment ensues.
Experiment should have considered using WebCitation to preserve the experimental edits, which are now oversighted.
The edits are still visible by admins.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Vijay+Bahadur+Singh
wonders why I can still get this:
In October 2010 Singh was investigated for alleged corruption charges relating to pay offs from various companies in exchange for government contracts.<ref>{{cite news|last=Mallabar|first=Raj|accessdate=2 April 2011|newspaper=[[The Times of India]]|date=23 October 2010}}</ref> The result of the subsequent parliamentary investigation resulted in Singh paying a 2.5 million [[Rupee]] fine.<ref>{{cite news|last=Lankar|first=Shammi|accessdate=4 April 2011|newspaper=[[The Indian Express]]|date=March 29, 2011}}</ref>
... Oh, right, Jimbeau is one of mine, as is teh whole AC ;0)
and fyi, the cites that remain are busted, so it's all unsourced. This:
http://www.india.gov.in/govt/loksabhampbiodata.php?mpcode=4288
could be there, but is not, as is not the info therein.
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 8th April 2011, 11:03am)
QUOTE(Jack Merridew @ Fri 8th April 2011, 3:42am)
This was all rather amusing; not as amusing as Horsey's shite as Regent of the Seatopians, though; epic-fail, Cas.
Yeah, that was a good 10-month gallop as Regent. Obviously ol' Doc Liber ain't getting any at home - otherwise he wouldn't be spending his free time checkuser-fishing on Wiki for naughty editors.
well *you're* never getting in aboveboard; that's what Cas is off on.
Posted by: A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(Jack Merridew @ Fri 8th April 2011, 9:05am)
well *you're* never getting in aboveboard; that's what Cas is off on.
Oh, hell, chasing "sockpuppets" is the only exercise that some of the guys ever get. Don't think of us as "banned" editors - think of us as personal trainers!
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 8th April 2011, 7:03am)
QUOTE(Jack Merridew @ Fri 8th April 2011, 3:42am)
This was all rather amusing; not as amusing as Horsey's shite as Regent of the Seatopians, though; epic-fail, Cas.
Yeah, that was a good 10-month gallop as Regent. Obviously ol' Doc Liber ain't getting any at home - otherwise he wouldn't be spending his free time checkuser-fishing on Wiki for naughty editors.
I took a look at a few of the more than 1,000 edits that User:Regent of the Seatopians executed, and I couldn't find a single disruptive one. They all helped improve the Wikipedia project. Yet, the account is banned. This is further proof that Wikipedia's dysfunctional admin community doesn't care two shits about Wikipedia, they care about their power to gatekeep editors.
Not that I support good people like Horsey wasting their time on Wikipedia without some ulterior reward. I hope some of those edits were on behalf of friends, employers, and clients, Horsey?
Posted by: A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 8th April 2011, 10:40am)
This is further proof that Wikipedia's dysfunctional admin community doesn't care two shits about Wikipedia, they care about their power to gatekeep editors.
Well, you know the saying: any jackass can kick down a door, but only a carpenter can build one.
Posted by: Warui desu
QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 7th April 2011, 1:37am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Bahadur_Singh a one sentence BLP article. An experiment ensues.
On April 2 I added this piece of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422020246&oldid=322763366, on April 4 I added yet more http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Bahadur_Singh&diff=422402786&oldid=422020246. For both pieces of libel a reference was added, a quick check would have shown that the references were bogus, this didn't happen, even though "(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)" appeared as an edit summary after the first addition of libel.
Did you receive permission from the person in question before conducting your experiment? If not, how can you justify it, and what is your actual problem with libellous BLPs on wikipedia, if you have no problem with libel?
Unethical experiment is unethical?
Posted by: EricBarbour
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 8th April 2011, 7:40am)
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 8th April 2011, 7:03am)
Yeah, that was a good 10-month gallop as Regent. Obviously ol' Doc Liber ain't getting any at home - otherwise he wouldn't be spending his free time checkuser-fishing on Wiki for naughty editors.
I took a look at a few of the more than 1,000 edits that User:Regent of the Seatopians executed, and I couldn't find a single disruptive one. They all helped improve the Wikipedia project. Yet, the account is banned. This is further proof that Wikipedia's dysfunctional admin community doesn't care two shits about Wikipedia, they care about their power to gatekeep editors.I am presuming that Horse, too, conducted a "breaching experiment".
And intends to document it shortly.
And as for Cas Liber: that statement could easily be accurate.
The semen backs up into the brain, etc. The Wikipedia Disease.