This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 9 May 2014 (Signing comment by 130.88.181.49 - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:03, 9 May 2014 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by 130.88.181.49 - "")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This user may only be available sporadically due to real life. If you have an urgent issue it may be better to contact another administrator. |
71.239.82.39
This is the logged out, IP account of Leprof 7272. What you found was not simple vandalism by a random IP editor but a fierce content dispute that spilled over to a discussion on AN/I. Leprof said he didn't want to fight any longer and would no longer be editing that article so I don't see the point of a block for vandalism. Liz 20:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The editor was blocked for WP:3RR, not vandalism. Although repeatedly adding unsourced info to a BLP is also grounds for blocking. --NeilN 20:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't realize there was a problem with reverting. And this particular dispute over a BLP is a mess. Old material, that he didn't add, was being challenged for being unsourced. I think the majority of articles on Misplaced Pages are not fully sourced although, I agree, this is a goal. But if you randomly check any BLP and I'm sure you will find statements that are not cited. This was a question of whether to preemptively delete old material that was unsourced or leave it and let editors find references to support these sections. In theory, any statement that is challenged can be removed but, in practice, there is a lot of biographical, unsourced information existing on Misplaced Pages which is left alone because it is not controversial.
- What was unfortunate about this was that LeProf 7272 was trying to improve this article and somehow, it attracted the attention of other editors and then this entire thing exploded. He didn't react in a constructive way but I can imagine the frustration of making dozens of edits to an article over the course of a day and then have an editor unfamiliar with the subject come in and blank sections to what was a work-in-process. But at this point, it seems like the problem isn't the article but working peacefully with other editors which is an acquired skill. Liz 20:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Liz: Sure, there's a lot of content on Misplaced Pages that is unsourced and left alone. However once material is challenged, a source needs to be found, especially in BLPs. This version is pretty disgraceful for a BLP. A couple other points, LeProf 7272 made it clear he was expecting the original editors of the unsourced text to come in and add references. You and I know that's very, very, unlikely. Preventing the removal of uncited text and expecting others to find references is not constructive. Finally, LeProf 7272 has said he didn't write the original material. That's true, but he kept reverting back to it. If you keep on doing that, even after others have pointed out problems, then you are taking responsibility for that material and bearing the consequences of adding it back in. --NeilN 20:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- LeProf seems to be a fairly new user. Did anyone explain to them or warn them about WP:3RR rule and the consequences of breaking it? Ravensfire (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like they weren't. They kept on threatening to go to admins they knew so I assumed they were somewhat experienced. However they did revert three times after I gave them a final warning for adding unsourced content. --NeilN 21:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- LeProf seems to be a fairly new user. Did anyone explain to them or warn them about WP:3RR rule and the consequences of breaking it? Ravensfire (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Liz: Sure, there's a lot of content on Misplaced Pages that is unsourced and left alone. However once material is challenged, a source needs to be found, especially in BLPs. This version is pretty disgraceful for a BLP. A couple other points, LeProf 7272 made it clear he was expecting the original editors of the unsourced text to come in and add references. You and I know that's very, very, unlikely. Preventing the removal of uncited text and expecting others to find references is not constructive. Finally, LeProf 7272 has said he didn't write the original material. That's true, but he kept reverting back to it. If you keep on doing that, even after others have pointed out problems, then you are taking responsibility for that material and bearing the consequences of adding it back in. --NeilN 20:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Pseudoscientists
Thanks for protecting the article. I appreciate your advice to leave the category alone. The ethical dilemma I faced, of course, was that WP:BLP was telling me I was supposed to remove the category immediately. That seemed to be my duty as a Wikipedian... StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I know, and it's a difficult question, but with the CfD going on at this moment it would seem to be the prudent thing to do. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
WHERE AM I WHAT AM I DOING HERE SORRY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.181.49 (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)