I'm looking for an independent review of my actions and those of
Fram
, in relation to
Murder of Susana Morales
(later moved to
Draft:Murder of Susana Morales
and subsequently deleted). The article was created yesterday, and subsequently tagged as
WP:G10
(attack page) by Fram. I looked at the article, and in my opinion it did not meet the strict requirements of G10, namely that it was not "intended purely to harass or intimidate a person", nor unsourced. Fram re-tagged it
[1]
, which was reverted again by
Bbb23
. Fram left a query on my talk page asking why I asked declined the speedy, and I gave my reasons. At this point I had become busy with work, so did not have time to investigate further. Fram refused to accept my answers, and kept badgering me, finally calling my actions "shit"
[2]
, when I pointed out that he could have removed the offending material from the article rather than retagging it.
This morning, in response to a query on his own talk page, he accused me of
gaslighting
[3]
. I have asked him to redact that comment, which I consider to be a personal attack, but so far he has refused to do so.
See also discussions at
User talk:Deepfriedokra#BLP draft
,
User talk:Bbb23#Now what?
and
User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Murder of Susana Morales
.
I would like an uninvolved admin or admins to consider the following two points:
- Whether my initial decision to decline the speedy can be considered reasonable?
- Fram's subsequent behaviour and comments about my actions.
Thanks.
?
Voice of Clam
(
talk)
15:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- I'll repeat what I said on my talk page.
- The article was ~700 words, ~550 words are about the suspect. ~365 words are under the heading
Perpetrator
with a criminal infobox listing the suspect as having committed the crimes. It wasn't
a few instances where [you] forgot to specify that it was alleged
, it was almost every single case. Again, read
WP:BLP
, which states
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced?whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable?must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
We don't move it to draft space to clean it up, we remove it immediately. These violations are egregious, which is why I warned you. When 80% of an article is egregious BLP violations and BLPCRIME violations targeting a living person who is not a public figure, that is an attack article.
ScottishFinnishRadish
(
talk
) 16:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- Just to clarify, that was written in response to the article creator, and the warning was to the author, not VoC.
ScottishFinnishRadish
(
talk
) 16:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- in
User talk:Voice of Clam#Murder of Susana Morales
, they gave as their defense on why they reinstated the BLP violations: "I was too busy at the time. You were quite capable of removing the violations yourself." I
had
removed the violations, Voice of Clam reinstated them, so I consider this statement gaslighting, and I don't see how this description of their behaviour is a personal attack. Some scrutiny of the reinstatements of the severe BLP violations by Voice of Clam and Bbb23, and the block threats by Bbb23 and Deepfriedokra while completely disregarding our BLP policy (and its exemption for edit warring), seems warranted now that we are here anyway.
Fram
(
talk
) 16:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- Any article describing an unconvicted living individual as a murderer is as unequivocal a violation of WP:BLP policy as could possibly be imagined. Arguing the toss over exactly how this gross violation of policy should have been removed from sight (as WP:BLP policy absolutely demands) seems to me to be little more than pointless Wikilawyering. How about people getting back to doing something more useful, like finding better ways to stop such dross from getting into Wikipedia in the first place?
AndyTheGrump
(
talk
) 16:12, 5 June 2024? (UTC)
Reply
- Agree with SFR and ATG. Blatant BLP violations such as this should be deleted on sight, that's more important than the minutiae of which speedy deletion category should be applied. Reinserting the text, which accuses someone of a crime in Wikivoice despite there being no conviction, back into the page is definitely not the answer. ???
Amakuru
(
talk
) 16:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- Lots of little superscripted numbers in brackets don't mean that an article is sourced, and
certainly
not "well sourced" as you claimed in your edit summary. Three quarters of that article stated various accusations against a living person - mostly unrelated to the crime that was the article's purported subject - as fact, when the supposed sources did nothing of the sort. ?
Cryptic
16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- I saw the after-the-fact discussion on SFR's talk page yesterday, and thought:
- While I disagree with VoC, and think the article should have been deleted, I can see how they might have thought it didn't meet the letter of G10. So not entirely unreasonable.
However
, if they were going to deal with it and not delete it, they should have removed 2/3 of the article, revdel'd that, and moved it to draft space. If they didn't have time for that, they probably should have left it for another admin.
- We have a hard time dealing with high benefit/high cost editors like Fram. I'm not sure just looking at a benefit/cost ratio is enough, ling term. But in a case like this, where Fram is right on the important underlying BLP issue, it's going to be hard to do anything about their being a dick so often. The most important thing here is that the article was a BLP nightmare; I can't imagine anyone sanctioning Fram in this particular case. If it helps any, Fram's use of the word "gaslighting" was incorrect. But so many people misuse that word...
- Floquenbeam
(
talk
) 16:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- How would you describe someone stating "you could have done X" when they know damn well you have done X and they are the one that has undone it? It sure feels like the kind of psychological manipulation and distortion described by "gaslighting", though a one-off and not a pattern.
Fram
(
talk
) 16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- (Part of the problem is that out of my whole comment,
this
is what you choose to dispute.) Gaslightling means purposefully trying to get someone to doubt their own sanity. VoC obviously meant "you could have deleted the BLP problems
without blanking the whole rest of the article
". Only a fool would think they were actually trying to trick you into thinking maybe you hadn't blanked the whole thing with your
{{
db
}}
. You're not a fool. Therefore, you don't actually think you were being gaslit. You just thought the accusation sounded cool. When you claim this feels like "psychological manipulation" you are intentionally lying. You should stop that. It's beneath you.
Floquenbeam
(
talk
) 18:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- Or, with a sprinkle of AGF, possibly Fram either misunderstood the definition of gaslighting or interpreted the conversation differently than you did. My telepathic senses are on the fritz today, so I guess I can't tell what Fram was thinking about at the time. Must be allergies. From every encounter I've had with Fram, he tries to do the right thing but can be rude while doing it. Intentionally lying about what he was thinking is not something I've seen; usually it's the opposite and we get more of the raw, unfiltered Fram than is necessary.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me
19:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- I hate getting dragged into these things, but I don't have the self-control to let someone be wrong on the internet, especially when I think I'm being misread. If you re-read what I said, I'm not saying he lied when he used the term gaslighting. As you and I have now both said, that's a commonly misused term. But in his reply to me, Fram doubled down and specifically claimed he felt he was being "psychologically manipulated." Come on; that's bullshit. I will do my best to let this go now. -
Floquenbeam
(
talk
) 19:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- The article text and sourcing are pretty severe BLP violations. The wording of G10 is very specific, and inflexible enough that it probably doesn't apply to this case. I still would have opted for summary deletion, but changed the rationale to cite
WP:BLPDEL
instead of G10. BLPDEL unquestionably applies to that article, since every version of the history is a severe BLP violation and repairing it would be impossible without rewriting the article from scratch. I also would have taken a look at the author to see if there was any disciplinary action that needed to be taken (it looks like he hasn't been notified about
WP:NEWBLPBAN
so I'll go take care of that). As usual, Fram can be prickly but he's not wrong.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me
16:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- Looks like SFR took care of the DS notification already.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me
16:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- G10 should just be expanded to cover BLPDEL situations since it's effectively the same thing.
ScottishFinnishRadish
(
talk
) 16:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- It's already there. It's the text of the criterion on
WP:CSD
that's controlling, not the short one-line summary that appears there or in the
dropdown menu
. It starts
Main page:
Wikipedia:Attack page
¶ Examples of "
attack pages
" may include: ...
and leaves the non-example specifics to be defined in
WP:Attack page
, which states in its first line
or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced
. Incorporating these situations is almost the entire reason we have a separate G10 rather than leaving it as a variant of G3 and relying on
WP:Vandalism#Page creation, illegitimate
's
articles written to disparage the subject
. ?
Cryptic
16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- Textbook
WP:BLPCRIME
violation, deletion was the right outcome. ?
Kusma
(
talk
) 16:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- I think VOC and BBB got too focused on speedy deletion procedure and paid too little attention to how their actions restored a bunch of BLP vio to mainspace. I'd love to see them acknowledge those moves as errors.
Firefangledfeathers
(
talk
/
contribs
) 17:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- (
edit conflict
)
The first part of what you say is right as far as I'm concerned. Usually, when I decline a speedy tag because it has already been declined I just remove the tag, but because of the nature of G10 (blanking the article "as a courtesy"), if I'd just removed the tag, the article would have been blank. The only "error" I'll acknowledge is I didn't do the work to figure out that the article was a BLP violation because you'd have to go through it to reach that conclusion. If I had it to do all over again, I would have done nothing because the whole thing is too messy for me.--
Bbb23
(
talk
) 17:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- Statement by Deepfriedokra
Had the CSD not been declined twice, I'd've deleted the thing. I saw it had been declined twice and my brain locked up. I could not act. Deleting it would have been the least bad choice, and I should have deleted it.
- To
@
Fram
:
I offer my sincere apologies for the perceived threat. That was not my intent. I apologize for my ill-chosen words and their effect.
- To
@
Voice of Clam
:
If I cannot bring myself to honor a CSD tag, I leave it alone. I leave it to be reviewed by an admin less squeamish than I or with clearer perception than I have at that moment. It is regrettable that such content was restored.
-- Deepfriedokra
(
talk
) 17:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- Thanks, apologies accepted.
Fram
(
talk
) 07:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- Question for
Bbb23
. Hi Bbb23. Did you suggest that Fram be blocked for edit-warring, rather than removing egregious BLP violations.
??Serial Number 54129
17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- No, that was a weird discussion on my Talk page. I responded to Dfo (the OP at my Talk page) who noted that Fram had tagged the page yet again, and my comment was "Block Fram?". It was then Dfo who talked about edit-warring. If I had blocked Fram, which, btw, I did not do and would not have done, it would not have been for edit-warring. I've answered your question, even though it was pretty loaded.--
Bbb23
(
talk
) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- My dear fellow?! In an emergency, I must marry civility to bluntness if at the expense of neutrality. But thank you for giving me what I'm accepting as a straight answer ?:)
??Serial Number 54129
19:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- Well that wasn't Wikipedia's finest moment. VOC's edit restoring poorly-substantiated accusations (1) shouldn't have happened and (2) doesn't amount to an understandable mistake. Never edit BLPs in a hurry. And, once again, we see that when a sysop's behaviour falls below Fram's standards for sysops, Fram goes properly berserk.?
S?Marshall
T
/
C
08:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- You seem to have a very low threshold for berserkness then. I didn't start any of the talk page discussions (edited:except for the very first one at VoC's talk page) or AN discussion about this, I didn't start talking about blocking (others wanted me blocked for, well, no idea what for, apparently
not
for edit warring), I didn't ask for sanctions. I said about one statement that it was gaslighting, which the editor and one admin disagreed with. That admin said I was lying, which I disagree with. Please keep your claims about Fram going berserk for when I actually go berserk.
Fram
(
talk
) 08:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC) (edited as my claim was incorrect.
Fram
(
talk
) 16:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC) )
Reply
- I saw this request after it had been declined by VoC and Bbb and decided that I didn't have the time that day to deal with the aftermath of any action I might take (which I think subsequent actions have proven right). For me there is no question that there were serious BLP violations in this article which needed to be remedied. Where I admit to some surprise is the consensus here that G10 was the right way handling it. G10 clearly allows for deletion for BLP violations, but my reading is that it encourages more consideration of alternatives including revdel and a non-speedy deletion method (
although in most cases a deletion discussion should be initiated instead.
While there was no BLP compliant version to revert to (which is what would have made revdel the easy answer), I'd have likely removed the perpetrator section, removed the alleged perpetrator's name and revdelled, given that the topic seems notable, had reasonable sourcing and was correctly titled about the victim rather than the alleged perpetrator. I think SFR's decision to do G10 instead of this was reasonable, but I also don't think VoC was wrong to say "not G10 eligible" if there had been firmer/clearer acknowledgement of the BLP violations that were present and would need to be fixed.
Barkeep49
(
talk
) 15:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- The issue is that it wasn't just one section, from my reading it seemed like there were severe BLP violations spread throughout the entire text, especially with things presented as fact in wikivoice that sources only raised as possibilities. It would be impossible to remedy the BLP violations with anything short of rewriting from scratch. At that point, the simplest solution is to just
delete the entire thing
and allow a new BLP-compliant article to be written.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me
17:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- It was the
entire
page (which is
why
there was no BLP compliant version to revert to
), and while it's generally the case that not everyone is 100% right or 100% wrong, I think this discussion is about as close to those odds as we'll see. The bottom line is: VoC came here and asked two questions. The answer to the first is a prominent "No, it tended towards the not reasonable, very sorry", and as to the second, there is clearly no agreement that there was anything disruptive in Fram's actions and comments at all. I think it's fair to say that had there been, the odds on his
not
being blocked by now are exceedingly slender.
??Serial Number 54129
15:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
As a postscript to this discussion, the article creator,
Christophervincent01
, has now been Arbcom-blocked. There had been
an attempt
two hours before to raise concerns here about the editor's user page; removed three times as aspersions (although evidence was cited, the user page), and the reporting account,
Gomez Buck
, is now blocked as NOTHERE. The account is likely a throwaway;
this response
could be taken as an admission. And the points had been raised off-wiki. However, Arbcom believes there is sufficient concern about Christophervincent01 to swiftly block him incommunicado. By blocking a whistleblower who sounded a valid alert (Arbcom may of course have had other grounds for blocking Christophervincent01 than those raised by Gomez Buck), we discourage others who may have valid concerns; IMO including those that aren't throwaway accounts.
Yngvadottir
(
talk
) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- And that account was blocked by Bbb23, who apparently wasn´t satisfied with restoring BLP violations which warranted a G10 deletion and threatening to block me for still undisclosed reasons when I reverted them, but decided to continue making the wrong decisions in this case by blocking the whistleblower instead of the now Arbcom blocked account. Perhaps they checkusered them as well?
Fram
(
talk
) 09:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
- (Bbb23 is not a check user.)
-- Deepfriedokra
(
talk
) 11:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
Keeping BLP violations out of mainspace is more important than the intricacies of CSD policy, just like the troll pretending to openly support ISIS is more of a threat than someone who violates socking policy by creating a new account to report said troll.
Please take on board these lessons about priorities. People are more important than procedures.
(And Jeske, it's not an "aspersion" if it has evidence, you are misusing that word.) Also, if you screwed up the handling of one part of a debacle, maybe don't touch the other parts of the debacle, just step away and leave it for somebody else. Maybe just step back, watch and learn for a while, instead of trying to be the first on the scene with a mop.
Levivich
(
talk
) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
Perhaps Arbcom might take a broader view of events and parties' involvement than is possible in the kettle of an admin noticeboard. I'm sure everyone would benefit from a level-headed, careful, select appreciation of evidence from a disinterested perspective of distance and disinterest.
??Serial Number 54129
18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Reply
The discussion above is closed.
Please do not modify it.
No further edits should be made to this discussion.