|
Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.
However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.
|
|
Vijay Bahadur Singh, How Wikipedia fails to protect articles from libellous additions |
|
|
RMHED |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
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 have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
|
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 8:37pm) 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) 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! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:
|
|
|
|
RMHED |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
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 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) 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! (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 |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
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 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/WawawaerC. 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)
|
|
|
|
taiwopanfob |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined:
Member No.: 214
|
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. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) There are two blocks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...waer&type=blockThe first was to protect the libel, the second was to protect C. Fred.
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 5:37pm) 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 |
|
"His blandness goes to 11!"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
|
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=...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 |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined:
Member No.: 214
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 7th April 2011, 2:48am) QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 6th April 2011, 5:37pm) 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 |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
|
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=...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 |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
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) 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 |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
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=...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)
|
|
|
|
Gruntled |
|
Quite an unusual member
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 16,954
|
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! This post has been edited by Gruntled:
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |