Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/log

Please just leave a short message here as to what you did, what happened, what you think could be done better, and sign it, so we have a date. Thanks! :-)

From User:Lar

 * : reverted addition of an unsourced and irrelevant (unless someone sources why) ethnic category by an anon. This was the last edit, so the change has stuck. There had been one back and forth between user:John and an anon before that. Did not break 1RR. "3RR BLP Exemption" == "success" since change stuck and no one got blocked. What could have been done better? Nothing. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dozens more like that related to ethnic categories in my recent contribs, all successes. :) How many did you want? ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, you can add as many as you like. Can you show where you requested or claimed the exemption here? I don't actually see you going over 1 revert so far. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't. That's my point. Didn't need to. The mere fact of the rules existence was part of ensuring the success of this case. Hence, we apparently differ about what the sample set needs to be. I say every single revert in support of BLP is part of the sample set. If you wish to argue against the existence of traffic lights you don't get to just count accidents, or tickets, you need to count traffic that gets through just fine too. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you show me a traffic light, I will believe in traffic lights. :-) Can you show in this case how or where the rules existence helped. Any indication, diff, anything at all? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok Kim, first: the traffic light exists already, you're not debating that, you're debating whether it is a good light. second: Can you show in this case how or where the rules existence HURT? Any indication, diff, anything at all? ... third: As for how it helped... I say just knowing it was there helped me carry out this task, without the need to invoke the exception. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I know what I'm debating. ;-) I'm not sure how it helped you, since you haven't shown that empirically yet. But maybe some further examples will help. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you don't know what you're debating! :)... It's my analogy after all, I know which pieces go where. The exception exists, just as the traffic light exists. Not debatable. As for how it helped, I just told you! :) I happily and securely basked in the warm mental glow of knowing it was there, as I carried out an action that fits within the population of actions you need to measure in order to have a valid sampling methodology. That warm glow was a positive effect. If the exception hadn't been there, I might have chosen to let that particular BLP violating edit slide. I've given you a positive you can't refute, my friend, and it applies to every one of my actions. But even if you decide not to accept it as a positive, the action itself was nevertheless a successful action in the valid population that you need to measure, and therefore reduces the overall percentage of unsuccessful actions correspondingly.  ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, I can't see warm mental glows ;-) Hello, I'm obviously blind unbelieving empiricist here! :-P But let's archive this discussion and just look at more examples? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Agree on the sample set's population? Because if not, we still need to sort that out, and more examples are just gonna be more of the same, I say they're in, and you say ... (what? in? out?). ++Lar: t/c 00:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any data is good data. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So you agree this one is a valid member of the relevant sample set/population, and that it supports the case I'm making, and that your population definition is too narrow? If not on any of those three points, we don't have the necessary common ground yet, so no more data for you! If we do have that common ground, I have quite a few more in my recent contribs history. And so do lots of other admins working on the coal face way harder than I do. By the way, how many recent BLP related actions do you have? Let's see some examples. ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Baker Hostetler
This article on a law firm had a rocky COI-related start, and almost got deleted as spam, so I put some work into improving it and have been watching it since. I recently had to resolve a BLP issue on the article:
 * 2008-05-08T09:06:33 A user added a paragraph that claimed "unethical practices" and named several people.
 * 2008-05-08T14:45:58 I reverted with the summary "rm unsourced highly critical claim; please reinsert when you have references".
 * 2008-05-08T23:23:21 Same user reinserts with ref tag containing "insider information".
 * 2008-05-08T23:49:36 I remove again with summary "remove unsourced material alleging misbehaviour by living people" and follow up with a BLP warning to the user.
 * 2008-05-09T01:17:06 An anon user inserted the same paragraph.
 * 2008-05-09T01:19:00 Original user modifies the paragraph to remove any mention of specific people.
 * 2008-05-09T03:37:53 I added a fact tag to the paragraph, planning to review and possibly remove in a week.
 * 2008-05-12T14:38:17 An anon user removed the paragraph with the summary "I deleted inaccurate information.". The IP in question is apparently registered to the subject company.

So, I did two reverts in 24 hours, escalating to user talk on the second. The user apparently learnt a little and sought a compromise. I am a little uncomfortable that the negative criticism was apparently removed by someone with a conflict of interest, but had the second IP had not removed the paragraph, I would likely have removed it myself a few days later. This case presented no need to revert four times in 24 hours. If it had, I would have considered other measures like semi-protection, ANI or BLPN first. I would probably not have blocked the user myself, as it is not clear-cut vandalism, and I am arguably involved. Bovlb (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gah! I spoke too soon.  A slow edit war proceeds, with COI-involvement from the subject company.  Bovlb (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)