Talk:Susie Boniface

Personal life/abuse claims - lock under provisions of WP:BLP
I got a phone call from the article subject raising serious WP:BLP concerns about the claim of abuse, and that the sources don't support the claims at all - that this is not at all supported well enough to say in wiki voice. I've deleted the claim, and locked the article for now as a precaution under WP:BLP. I'm waiting on an email from the subject, and I'll be putting stuff about this on WP:BLPN shortly - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now up at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There appear to be coordinated off-wiki attacks on the subject, making these claims about her (which I won't link, as obvious BLP violations). As such, I'd strongly suggest leaving indefinite protection on this article under WP:BLP as a precaution, and running all proposed changes through the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Disccusion was archived and can be found here. --Breawycker (talk to me!) 01:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , this was 3 months ago, and the page remains fully protected, because one editor added some questionable content. Sorry, but this seems like textbook involvement + using admin tools. Please lower the protection. Or seek review of this continued protection by an uninvolved admin. Keeping this indefinitely sysop protected due to 1 editor is contrary to several guidelines. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * this seems like textbook involvement + using admin tools That's quite an allegation, and not one you've substantiated in any way. And it's not how WP:BLP protection works.
 * Someone proposed removal of the protection, but had notably not proposed any edits they wanted to make at any point, so the proposal failed - see for the discussion as it went. If you wanted to raise the issue on WP:RFPP (or elsewhere) again, that discussion may be relevant for issues any proposal would have to answer. In particular: are there in fact edits you're proposing? - David Gerard (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would recommend downgrading protection after a couple of useful edit requests have occurred. The comments above about involvement are totally incorrect since the situation was reported at WP:BLPN and the protection upheld at WP:RFPP (links are above). Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. can you confirm if this protection is a DS action, so people know what the appropriate venue for appeal is? If not DS, Wugapodes suggested AN is the correct venue, is this also your view? This protection is, in my view, ridiculous. Of all the non-redirect indef protected pages we have, of which there are only 3 articles (1 is technically temp for dispute). Of the remaining 2, they're both protected for BLP violations. Those two are this, and Kiwi Farms. Kiwi Farms isn't even a biography, but multiple admins were involved, and multiple users were committing BLP violations, and ECP was tried first, thus clearly a good protection. This article, however, literally the only actual BLP indef protected across this entire wiki, is a case where one individual entered in problematic content (not, relatively speaking to other BLP violations, the most egregious kind), they show no indication they will do it again, ECP was not tried, there are no other violators, nor any indication that there will be, and the enforcing admin was one contacted by the living person to have material removed. You have a range of other tools, including pblocks, ECP protection and DS. You chose to use none, for some reason. You cannot honestly say this is not an abnormal protection. This is a start class article, and it's well known that requiring edit requests does not facilitate article improvements, so that premise is not helpful imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer your question re content, although not really relevant to the unprotection, sure, there's plenty of stuff I can find that can be discussed. There's reviews on her book not really discussed here, none of which are discussed here. Her newspaper contributions can be expanded on, and actually sourced reliably, incl guest writing. Judging an awards ceremony, etc. Article is woefully undeveloped. I'm not going to dispute if your protection was appropriate at that time. I do think temp protection would've been better, or simply a single revert and a BLPN discussion + questioning (as in the BLPN discussion the person didn't indicate they were going to restore those violations). But I trust you know protection policy and made the right call at the time. The point is that it shouldn't be protected now, and I trust that you can see that and will unprotect this yourself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indignation has its place but an edit request would be more productive. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am surprised you're in support of this protection, as (from what I've seen) you tend to support low barriers to editing. Anyway, I'd greatly appreciate if the protecting admin could promptly address my concerns and, in light of them, explain their rationale for continued protection, per WP:ADMINACCT, as they didn't do this last time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The above is an answer, it's just not one you like. Perhaps don't start from completely baseless claims of malfeasance? Also, if your aim really is for edits to happen, then that's two of us pointing out that well-formed edit requests would be a more productive initial approach. Failing that, there are multiple applicable boards for broader discussion, if you are this sure that opening the article is the right move - David Gerard (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not an answer. I asked you, per WP:ADMINACCT to expand on your admin actions you’ve already taken, not for advice on what further steps I may take. You haven't addressed the reason for the protection, particularly in light of my raised concern in that this is the only such protected BLP on this entire wiki. You've instead stated I should make an edit request instead. That's not a response per ADMINACCT, neither is that advice mentioned or suggested anywhere on WP:PROTECT or RFPP, nor would it be a valid excuse to keep protection unnecessarily high. The onus isn't really on me here. I don't mind taking it to a noticeboard, but I think it's far more productive to work something out here than chuck it onto such a noticeboard for a period of drama. Since the BLPN is archived and RFPP was procedurally closed and advised AN, that would be the venue I presume, but I do still think you're somewhat able to reason with the situation and attempt a period of ECP protection. Please give it day or two and think about it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To reiterate: I see no reason to assume the personal targeting has stopped; and per the WP:RFPP discussion, the next step is to propose specific edits if you want the article edited. This should be a reasonably clear answer. Should WP:RFPP or WP:BLPN or some other suitable board concur otherwise, that'd be fine with me, but I'm not comfortable with removing it unilaterally. I agree with the principle of minimal protection - being as open as possible has given Wikipedia everything that's got us this far - but this case is an example of why WP:BLP has that exception to the principle of minimal protection - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. It's still one I disagree with, but it's an answer. Can I ask why you think personal targeting hasn't stopped (insofar as it extends to Wikipedia), or why you think EC would be ineffective? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion at WP:AN and lowered the protection to extended confirmed, just in case there is any risk that this problem will recur. I have set a conservative expiry of 6 months on this protection. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Request edit
The above is the first of many edit requests I will be making to improve the sourcing on this page. As a good faith editor, I should not have to go through all this trouble to edit a page. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For convenience I have put your edits on Draft:Susie Boniface. Does anyone have any issues with these changes by Coffeeandcrumbs? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you. If you feel like it, I would appreciate a HISTMERGE. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If the histmerge has not yet been done, I will try. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 09:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

✅ Please check to make sure I did not bollocks the job. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 09:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , protection log: "11:01, 16 September 2020 Deepfriedokra talk contribs protected Susie Boniface [Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (expires 10:01, 16 March 2021) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (expires 11:01, 18 September 2020)" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Negative BLP and possible off-WIki campaign to defame subject
Per this discussion ar AN, article was fully protected and then protection lowered to ECP. Please be cautious in adding possibly defamatory content and certainly do not conflate and/or misrepresent sources using WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. If content is challenged and removed, it wold be best to achieve consensus here or at another appropriate venue before putting it back in. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 09:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)