User talk:Pia L/Archive 6



The BLP exception to 3RR
A block you received for 3RR is being used as an example in a discussion at WT:BLP. You may wish to contribute your insights. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am copying my responses from the discussion page at BLP exception to 3RR here, for future reference:


 * Statement 1: "I don't think the system worked very well in my case, but perhaps that was just an isolated incident. I appreciate the efforts to put the policy issues in focus (although I don't feel it's appropriate for me to participate in the survey, as I am one of the examples above). I was blocked for violating 3RR while removing non-factual and damaging material by reverting to a version that had been stable since August 2006. The compromising edits started April 15 2008 . I reverted to the last stable version in order to have the BLP notice board look over the new additions that I consider to be BLP violations. Even the editor who reported the 3RR, User:TheSeven, admitted that one of the newly added statements was indeed false: "Your point 1, above, was valid; I corrected the article" . However, this was only after my removal of the false information had been reverted 3 times. Apart from the more obviously non-factual statements, the BLP article had other items indicating culpability and participation in fraud, including a scientific misconduct tag. In a BLP of a scientist against whom the fraud allegations have been officially dismissed by the authorities, this would not appear appropriate. User:TheSeven also admitted on the 3RR page that, "Gillberg was acquitted of fraud, but some people believe him to be guilty" - what "some people think" would seem a weak argument for inclusion of fraud allegations in a BLP.  I posted an alert on the BLP notice board as soon as the problems started . I don't think I failed to state my concerns either: I explained in detail why I considered the edits to be violating BLP policy on the talk page of the article, ,  and I explained the problems again on the 3rr notice board . In addition, the BLP violation in this article was a repeat occurrence: it had previously been to arbitration (August of 2006) , but since that time, the article had remained stable -  up until 15 April 2008, when anonymous users, using a blog as a source  reinserted the non-factual fraud accusations. I must admit that an added worry in my mind is the possible impact of certain passionate, religiously motivated campaigns, especially since one of the Gillberg adversaries has issued favorable statements regarding one organization's enlightment efforts, after which her cause has become championed extensively by this organization in Sweden. This becomes a concern when anonymous groups collaborate in introducing rather troubling POV-slants in biographical articles about people involved in the fields of neuroscience, genetic research or psychiatry, since, unfortunately, these fields seem particularly vulnerable to that sort of group activity. Pia L 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)"


 * Statement 2: "Commenting on being blocked by Philippe: No, reverting to the last stable version was not 'blind reverts', but used to 'hold the fort' until the non-factual and damaging new additions that an anonymous editor, a single use account and User:TheSeven were reverting to (after having introduced them on April 15),  until these additions could be looked over for BLP violations by BLP notice board. I agree with the blocking administrator that the issue at hand is complicated and hard to grasp because of the language barrier, but I also want to state for the record that I very much resent being made an example of, especially since the block was implemented without even the courtesy of a warning that the BLP policy would not be applicable in my case. If the intent was to demonstrate a point about how BLP policy is ineffective and needs to be changed, there must surely be better ways than to block someone who acts in good faith -  I have always been very careful about following rules and had a clean record up until this 'blind' encounter, but I am now permanently marked as a disruptive editor which is very discouraging to me personally. If the BLP 3RR exemption policy is to be considered negotiable at the 3RR board or if the policy is meant to imply that you should not revert false statements or questionable sources on the spot but instead turn to an administrator to ask for the article to be protected until people at the BLP notice board has a chance to check your violation concerns, it definitely needs to be stated clearly. Pia L 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)"


 * Late added thought: regarding User:Philippe's (the blocking admin's) comment at the WP:BLP talk page: "I do not support a 3RR exemption for BLPs. Rather, the processes we have in place should be sufficient - and if they're not, we ought to work on those processes" - eh, for the record, and contrary to what appears to be the belief of the blocking admin, the 3RR exemption for BLPs is one of the "processes we already have in place" in our BLP and RR policy (as stated in WP:3RR and WP:BLP and as explained in the BLP discussion in which the blocking admin was participating). For the record: I support these policies (especially the WP:BLP policy), and I support the idea that editors as well as admins should not restore edits with "speculations in Wikipedia after the claims have already been investigated and dismissed" - in addition, the ideas that the current BLP policy is one of the more important policies we have and the idea that the current 3RR policy about BLP exceptions should not be changed, have my full support. Pia (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Pia L! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current  article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Eustace John -

Possibly unfree File:Sweyn Coinfront.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sweyn Coinfront.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)