Vijay Bahadur Singh, How Wikipedia fails to protect articles from libellous additions Options

[RMHED]

Vijay Bahadur Singh a one sentence BLP article. An experiment ensues.

On April 2 I added this piece of libel, on April 4 I added yet more libel. 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 libel, this was reverted as vandalism. After removing the content a couple more times, (once with the edit summary "remove lies") Wawawaer is of course blocked for edit warring. 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.

[Jack Merridew]

This was all rather amusing; not as amusing as Horsey's shite as Regent of the Seatopians, though; epic-fail, Cas.

[A Horse With No Name]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[thekohser]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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?

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[EricBarbour]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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.