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.

[A Horse With No Name]

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.

Well, C. Fred is strictly C-minus when it comes to brainpower. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

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


This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[RMHED]

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.

Well, C. Fred is strictly C-minus when it comes to brainpower. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

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

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.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[Milton Roe]

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.

Well, C. Fred is strictly C-minus when it comes to brainpower. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Now, now, read the link and don't believe everything some WR person tells you, even if it is RMHED. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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

[gomi]

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.

[taiwopanfob]

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

There are two blocks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...waer&type=block

The first was to protect the libel, the second was to protect C. Fred.

[A Horse With No Name]

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

[taiwopanfob]

Jasper Deng, the principle libel-protector in this case, has gone completely berzerk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=422796373

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

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.

[EricBarbour]

On April 2 I added this piece of libel, on April 4 I added yet more libel.

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.

(Hmm.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Lar]

Jasper Deng, the principle libel-protector in this case, has gone completely berzerk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=422796373

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

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.

[taiwopanfob]

On April 2 I added this piece of libel, on April 4 I added yet more libel.

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?

[A Horse With No Name]

Jasper Deng, the principle libel-protector in this case, has gone completely berzerk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=422796373

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

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

[EricBarbour]

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)

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.

[Milton Roe]

Jasper Deng, the principle libel-protector in this case, has gone completely berzerk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=422796373

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

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

[Lar]

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.

[gomi]

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.

[EricBarbour]

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)

And I called that correctly. Jasper is, in fact, a little tool.

[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.

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[Gruntled]

Jasper Deng, the principle libel-protector in this case

Careful; thekohser will now rap your knuckles for saying "principle" instead of "principal".

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!

This post has been edited by Gruntled:

[thekohser]

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.