User:SecretName101: Attack BLPs are still a very real thing

[Smiley]

Keep ... It’s in essence getting back at him for putting himself on for promotional purposes and now he can’t get himself off it to hide his hideous behavior to little kids. Rrmmll22 (T-C-L)

Nice to see someone actually come out and say it.
Hard to argue against this comment. Sometimes two wrongs do make a right.

[AndyTheGrump]

And another case: David Oliver (magician) (T-H-L)

Ming quotes the AFD in full:

User:Domag alleges to be the subject of this article and has actively edited this page since 2008. On the article talk page he requested this article be deleted, which is likely due to WP:BLPCRIME issue which he has been unsuccessful in removing from the page. As a result of himself self-identifying, his edits have resulted in a COI/N.

@JalenFolf: attempted a CSD G6, which was objected to by @Mikehawk10: who suggested this goes to AfD.

The BLPCRIME material was removed because he is a non-public figure and has not yet been convicted of any crime, consistent with policy.

However, this situation has brought this article to attention, and it seems like it might fail WP:GNG, especially with the allegations removed. The median number of page views is only 1 per day when you exclude both when this allegation was posted and the current round of edits this month.

I am bringing this to AfD in good faith on behalf of the user and have a neutral position regarding the outcome of this discussion. I have no personal knowledge of this user, nor any prior history with this article. And felt it would be more efficient for the community to have an experienced user present more of the facts than if the subject himself brought a likely malformed and biased AfD forward. TiggerJay (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

So.... since this was posted it has apparently come out that he was in fact convicted. The point at which you are convicted of sexually abusing children is the same as the point at which nobody gives a shit what your opinion is on anything. He seemed fine having an article about himself until it came out that he was molesting kids.

His conviction has been confirmed. But so far only by conducting a search through court records (on a court website that states "The case information from this web site is not the official record of the Trial Court...."), which appears to fall foul of WP:BLPPRIMARY (T-H-L) policy. Everyone was expecting that since 'WP:RS' sources reported the charges, they would also report the guilty plea and conviction. That hasn't happened so far, after two weeks. Which may leave the article in the interesting situation that it cannot confirm the conviction without violating policy.

No doubt someone will suggest ignoring WP:BLPPRIMARY, on the basis that they can't leave it like that (and because the b*******d deserves it). Not, in my opinion, a good precedent to set, given the slapdash approach to BLP sources currently endemic on Wikipedia.

[Smiley]

No doubt someone will suggest ignoring WP:BLPPRIMARY, on the basis that they can't leave it like that (and because the b*******d deserves it). Not, in my opinion, a good precedent to set, given the slapdash approach to BLP sources currently endemic on Wikipedia.

Yeah, but WP:BECAUSETHEBASTARDDESERVESIT (T-H-L) is like the unofficial sixth pillar.

[Poetlister]

His conviction has been confirmed. But so far only by conducting a search through court records (on a court website that states "The case information from this web site is not the official record of the Trial Court...."), which appears to fall foul of WP:BLPPRIMARY (T-H-L) policy. Everyone was expecting that since 'WP:RS' sources reported the charges, they would also report the guilty plea and conviction. That hasn't happened so far, after two weeks. Which may leave the article in the interesting situation that it cannot confirm the conviction without violating policy.

No doubt someone will suggest ignoring WP:BLPPRIMARY, on the basis that they can't leave it like that (and because the b*******d deserves it). Not, in my opinion, a good precedent to set, given the slapdash approach to BLP sources currently endemic on Wikipedia.

What is this website if it is not an official record? Is it a reliable source, whether primary or secondary? Maybe someone can twist it to say that it is somehow an authoritative summary of court records, making it a reliable secondary source.

[Giraffe Stapler]

So.... since this was posted it has apparently come out that he was in fact convicted. The point at which you are convicted of sexually abusing children is the same as the point at which nobody gives a shit what your opinion is on anything. He seemed fine having an article about himself until it came out that he was molesting kids.

I started to write a long post about former ArbCom member Joe Roe abusing WP:BLPCRIME to include the accusations in the biography, but I stopped myself because he's a convicted sex offender now and I figured it was a waste of effort.

I absolutely agree with AndyTheGrump - this is bad precedent. Wait until secondary sources publish the conviction. Remove the accusations until then. Wikipedia should not be doing exactly the opposite of what the policy says. Readers do not know that he pleaded guilty, so they only see accusations and charges. This guy is barely notable and should be allowed to have his article deleted, despite his crimes.

[Vigilant]

So.... since this was posted it has apparently come out that he was in fact convicted. The point at which you are convicted of sexually abusing children is the same as the point at which nobody gives a shit what your opinion is on anything. He seemed fine having an article about himself until it came out that he was molesting kids.

I started to write a long post about former ArbCom member Joe Roe abusing WP:BLPCRIME to include the accusations in the biography, but I stopped myself because he's a convicted sex offender now and I figured it was a waste of effort.

This little shitbag?
Drop me a link, please?

[AndyTheGrump]

Anyone following the convoluted instructions on Talk:David Oliver (magician) (T-H-L) to search for the court record should note the prominent disclaimer on a website home page, which includes this statement:

The case information from this web site is not the official record of the Trial Court.

link

The page goes on to explain in detail why such records are not to be relied on. I expect someone someone will still argue that the website is reliable for everything except its own statement concerning the reliability of its content. I've seen similar arguments before.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I started to write a long post about former ArbCom member Joe Roe abusing WP:BLPCRIME to include the accusations in the biography, but I stopped myself because he's a convicted sex offender now and I figured it was a waste of effort.

This little shitbag?
Drop me a link, please?

It's on the article talk page.

Our policy is to avoid using primary sources as sources in articles. It doesn't mean that we should ignore documented facts when it comes to applying policy. In this case material was removed citing WP:BLPCRIME ("For individuals who are not public figures [...] editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured") but Oliver is a public figure and has been convicted, so there is no reason to exclude reliably-sourced coverage of child sex abuse allegations. – Joe (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

After AndyTheGrump questioned the claim that Oliver was a "public figure" and that negated the argument:

It actually doesn't. The policy at WP:BLPCRIME is that we can include crimes if the person is a public figure or if they have been convicted. So regardless of whether you agree with the first part, the second (plus the coverage in reliable secondary sources of course) means there is no grounds to exclude them. Notability is being discussed at the AfD. – Joe (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Joe Roe restored the allegations that had been part of a slow edit war since the charges were announced in January 2019. The edit summary said "Per talk, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply". There was no consensus on the talk page.

[Vigilant]

I started to write a long post about former ArbCom member Joe Roe abusing WP:BLPCRIME to include the accusations in the biography, but I stopped myself because he's a convicted sex offender now and I figured it was a waste of effort.

lol.

I read that wrong, as in, 'Joe Roe is a convicted sex offender now'.

Never mind. Carry on.

[Jim]

Secretname101 is now creating a monstrosity of an article in draft space.

Draft:List_of_Chicago_aldermen (T-H-L)

lol
wow

That's quite... astonishing...

Permalink

It's like an impotently raging, unhinged, utterly unheard, "Ok, you bastards, no living people huh? I'll show you, you just see if I don't..."

That made me laugh loud enough to wake my dogs.

"I'm doing ALL of the dead ones in one article, you fuckers!"

Et voila -

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SecretName101 (permalink)

Statement by SecretName101

I have, over the course of my topic ban, made thousands of edits focusing on dead-subjects and other non-BLP articles, creating several of rather high-quality (such as Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson). I have greatly enhanced a number of articles on deceased subjects. I believe that my edits should demonstrate that I am an editor who continues to make edits of value, and that I am not a threat to the project. I will practice better judgement, and will be cautious about any new articles that lean negative, and will first submit any such articles for review as drafts before publication.

I had no intent of malfeasance in the article that triggered this ban. If anyone had asked me if I regretted it or was sorry, I would have immediately apologized. But instead of asking me to apologize, others jumped to put me on the defense by wrongly accusing me of having had a malicious intent behind my creation of that article, and being politically motivated.

I had believed, in creating the article, that the subject was a notable-enough figure for an article. When I see an individual who has notability, but no article, I often have the impulse to remedy this. This same impulse has resulted in some of my best articles.

I wrote the (stub/start-type) article on what information was readily available on the subject. Much of that happened to skew negative, which is why the article ended up skewing negative. However, I made a poor decision in publishing the article directly, rather than submitting it for review. I should have recognized that a negative-skewing article on a marginally notable individual at least needed a second set of eyes before publication.

I see errant choices in writing the article (such as attempting to emulate the lead style that I had seen often used for politicians with criminal records), that led to an overemphasis of the negative.

I apologize for any face that I may have cost the project. SecretName101 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay instantly, helpfully "tidies up" the "appeal"...

---

Edited to add:

Statement by El C

SecretName101, I'm sorry, though it ticks some of the boxes, I find your appeal too vague, with a WP:NOTTHEM sandwiched in the middle. To recap: Bill Stevenson, Jill Biden's former husband, experienced legal troubles of a criminal nature between the years of 1982-1986, resulting in a couple of convictions and suspended sentences. Four years, then, yet ~70 percent of SecretName101's article (AfD) was dedicated to these events, and whose lead sentence read: "William W. Stevenson III is an American businessman and convicted fraudster" (admins-only).

It just feels like this appeal sidetracks/avoids this obvious crux — not merely "negative" but overwhelmingly so. Also, SecretName101, you mention "politicians with criminal records" as having served as a sort of template for you, but the article didn't mention that Bill Stevenson was at any point a politician — politician as in having been entrusted with the authority of government at some point, holding office, etc. Vocally supporting Trump and opposing Biden obviously wouldn't make him one.

Personally, I think a better template would be Martha Stewart whose lead sentence descriptor doesn't call her a 'convicted felon,' nor is her conviction and incarceration mentioned in the rest of the first paragraph. The second paragraph is, however, devoted to it and its subsequent impact. Which makes sense to me. Finally, the problem for me is also that SecretName101, at times, responded to the dispute in a troubling and disconcerting way, like, reading discrimination against neurodivergent persons where there was none (diff). So, for me, this appeal ultimately falls short. El_C 01:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

[Jim]

Appeal declined with no support:

AE procedures make clear a successful appeal must show a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" in favour of lifting the sanction. In this case there's a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators in favour of keeping it in place.

On that basis, thanks to the OP for bringing this here but consensus is that the appeal is declined. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

Wow.

Disappointing of you

I want to express to you, not out of anger, but disappointment, that it hurts you so quickly reached a “no” decision.

I am far less disappointed that you want to retain that topic ban than I am at why and how you are reaching and justifying said judgement.

I had already, long before, acknowledged to you the I now recognized the article was “overwhelmingly negative” in those exact words, yet you penalize me for not repeating myself on it? I said I would submit ANY negative-leaning article on marginal figures for review first, that EXCEEDS your concern. Yet you flag that as unsatisfactory.

You judged me solely on outlying mistakes, and utterly ignored longstanding and continued positive contribution to the project.

You had urged me to make edits to show I am valuable to the project. I make over 1,000 edits on a variety of subjects, and you do not even acknowledge them.

These topic bans are to prevent threats of disprution to the project. Not to punish. You have not based your arguments on what threat of disruption I would actively pose.

And we had been over that I didn’t, at the time, see politicians having a different format than other BLP on crimes. Yet you played ignorant to our previous discussion on that.

You also have reignited a micro aggression towards me, and are seeking to penalize me for having not sat silent when that initial micro aggression occurred. Characterizing people who fail to recognize the exact same patterns as others as incompetent IS a clear micro aggression towards neurodiverse individuals. SecretName101 (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Playing the victim card hard.

Way to nail that restriction on forever.

[Hemiauchenia]

How the fuck can you complain about microaggressions when you wrote an attack page on a private individual? Boggles the fucking mind.

[Jim]

SN101 is currently making lots of edits to Thomas Menino (T-H-L) who died in 2014. So that's fine, isn't it?

Well, that rather depends how one reads the sanction:

an indefinite topic ban from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed

I'd be tempted to say that the "page" in question very much "concerns living people" since it names several - but, ok, let's be generous and say we specifically need discrete "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons" (which I don't think we actually do from the wording of the ban - the page concerning living persons should be enough - but let's go there for the exercise in inevitable wikilawyering that would surely ensue...) and we'll allow 2014 as not "recent"...

That leaves us with:
This edit, regarding Robert Kraft (T-H-L)
This edit, regarding Elizabeth Warren (T-H-L)

and probably more - I didn't look too deeply, I confess, those just jumped out at me.

The topic ban was placed on 26 October 2021.

Since then SN101 has made about 100 edits to that article - here's a "before/after" diff for the last 100 edits (all by SN101): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1057711511

This is why "broadly construed" topic bans like this are so hard to monitor, and, therefore, often don't get properly monitored or enforced.

To me there's no doubt he's making edits concerning living people, but there's probably a way to wikilawyer his way out of most of them, because either the name was already there, he's only shuffling stuff around, etc, etc...

The sheer effort involved in policing topic-banned people who test the boundaries and walk right up to the line is so big that mostly nobody ever does it - they just look at the article subject and say, oh, dead person, that's ok then - if they look at all...

[Vigilant]

Inching closer...

Thomas_Menino (T-H-L)

[Jim]

Inching closer...

Thomas_Menino (T-H-L)

Yeah, as I said above there's really no doubt in my mind that SN's edits to that article cross the line.

But see the current John Pack Lambert slapstick for an example of what will happen if enforcement is suggested.

It sounds all proper, strict and for the greater good when one of these "broadly construed" topic bans is enacted to prevent what has been determined to be unacceptable editing - and all concerned wander off with a warm feeling that they have "dealt with" a problem...

...until one realises that, in practice, what will really be "broadly construed" in ensuing wikilawyerfests about enforcement, is either the applicability of any desperate, tenuous "looopholes" that can be groped for, or ludicrous suggestions that the perpetrator did not realise the edits were breaches and cannot be reasonably expected to carefully observe their own ban - the latter, as the ultimate irony, if true, just making them actually incompetent to edit at all - (this inconvenient, though obvious, logic will, of course, be disregarded, largely because of the terrifying implication that editors actually need to take responsibility for their own edits).

[Jim]

Topic ban review/revisiting/appeal (permalink...)

[Vigilant]

Good lord.

He needs to find another hobby.

He is never going to abide by the restrictions and he will never understand why he should.

[Jim]

They'll probably unban him, like JPL etc, but I'm having a little fun there in the meantime, because I can.
If he had one less brain cell he'd need regular watering and repotting...

[Vigilant]

Early into the topic ban, I was figuring it out. And later into it, my memory of how it works subsided or got foggy.

Translation: No matter how simple the logic of the restriction, they will never be able to abide by it.

The answer is to expand the edit restriction to a more expansive one. No editing articles about people, living or dead, broadly construed.

If they can't color within the lines, move the lines further out to help them.'
I think they need a different book.

[Jim]

Translation: No matter how simple the logic of the restriction, they will never be able to abide by it.

I think they're still off trying to figure out my difficult question about why they're too lazy to format their own posts, what they think they did to get banned and how they'll be any different in future.



Don't hold your breath.

[Vigilant]

Allow me to suggest a compromise.

SecretName101 may be unblocked as long as he is able to find another editor who will stand surety for SecretName101's bond.

If SecretName101 screws up another BLP, the the person standing surety will have their account indef blocked.

Let it be one of those accounts voting to end the topic ban. They can draw straws.

[Jim]

They can draw straws.

To be honest, with cutting, in-depth analysis like:

Support removal of topic ban. If ever there is a clear cut case, I would think this would be a fine exemplar. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

it surprises me somewhat that they remember to draw breath...

[Vigilant]

Enlightenment1792 is a sock.

Look at their early edits ~Nov 2021.

Needs a block.

[Jim]

EnlightenmentNow1792 is a sock.

Yeah, I looked at their edits after I posted that. Their talk page is an interesting read too.

[Jim]

EnlightenmentNow1792 is a sock.

Well, somebody has now taken them to ANI: Repeated topic ban violations by EnlightenmentNow1792
(permalink...)

I would have blocked EN1792 for the topic ban violations, but it's been a long time since I've done an AE block, and I was concerned I'd screw up the paperwork.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)