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.