User:William M. Connolley/For me/On BLP abuse

WP:BLP is frequently abused (or perhaps just misunderstood, perhaps) to justify the removal of text that an editor dislikes. This is Bad.

This is a work in progress. You are welcome to comment here or on the talk page. I will refactor as I consider appropriate.

Examples
(I need more. LS is coming next, folks!)

Ian Plimer
The text at issue is this (nb: this entry is *not* an attack on User:Tillman who I think is generally sensible if somewhat mistaken on issues related to GW). The text is a direct quote from the subject, and is entirely typical of his views in this area (nb #2: the reason anyone sympathetic to IP might object to the quote being included is because it demonstrates that IP has no understanding of the science he is trying to talk about). There are perfectly good arguments that can be made against including quotes, for example ''I really don't like quotes on biographies. Unless it can be verified that the quote is A) Not cherry-picked B) highly representative of X's opinion. And finally C) Doesn't steal the picture away from more nuanced discussions. Quotes are embellishment/illustration much like pictures. by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen who certainly cannot be said to be sympathetic to IP's views. However, Per WP:BLP, if there is no consensus for retention of contested material, it should be removed is certainly *not* a valid reason to remove. BLP says Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately '' but this has no relevance in this case since the material is well sourced.

Notability tags
Some have gone so far as to assert that even adding a notability tag is a BLP issue. This is bizarre (though I don't think anyone is doing this as abuse, merely from utter confusion). Here are some examples: Russell Blaylock; Anthony Watts (blogger) (of the latter there is a whole weird thread, ending (I hope) here).