2603:7000:2143:8500:301C:58FD:5F05:5FC6

Why

User:Spencer Why am I blocked? There is no good reason. Your edit filter is faulty. It prohibited me from inserting refs - presumably because they were about a person who the RS press reported was arrested for child molestation. That - and this on top of it - are not appropriate. Please lift the block. --2603:7000:2143:8500:301C:58FD:5F05:5FC6 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I only see the edit here, which violates our WP:BLP policies because there was no reference for it. Please add a reference, or the assertion will be removed. Also consider creating an account to prevent issues with edit filters blocking references. Spencer^T•C 18:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I see that the majority of the entries here lack refs. Which is from what I can see most often the case on wp lists. Are you blocking each editor who adds to that list as well? Or only IPs? Whatever approach is taken, I would urge that it be even-handed. Otherwise, imo you will inappropriately chill your newest editors, who are good faith, who the project needs. And an uneven approach would be like only giving tickets to one jaywalker, and ignoring all the other jaywalkers walking alongside him. Which does not feel right at all. Finally, I can understand someone reverting an entry on that basis, perhaps - and initiating discussion. But a block? That seems heavy handed, no? As well as inconsistent. Thanks for listening. 2603:7000:2143:8500:301C:58FD:5F05:5FC6 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, please review WP:BLP. Something like "Hubie Brown (born 1933), basketball coach, NBA coach and commentator" although unreferenced is not defamatory, whereas stating someone is charged with sexual assault is potentially defamatory and requires greater care. I mis-read the filters and number of attempts in this situation (hence it appeared that there were "persistent BLP violations"), and I apologize for that mistake and this is why I have unblocked you. Note that BLP violations meet a lower threshold for blocking than other edits, due to legal implications. Have removed Kovacs from the list until it is added with a reference. Spencer^T•C 18:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• I added refs, as requested. I know some editors remove entries from lists of names, defamatory or not, on the basis of their reading of wp rules. But as you can see here List of Duke University people, and throughout the project, it appears that the majority of entries lack refs. Other editors simply mar the article by peppering each entry with citation needed notifications. Or putting a template on the section or the entire article, also marring it. This seems not to be working - because as I see it, the vast majority of entries don't have refs, so people are just making the project look ugly ... or, if they delete an entry here and there only for that reason, being quite inconsistent in application of rule. Which can't be good. And is all very annoying. I take your point about the defamatory (if not true) nature of the entry. In this case, which is not always the case of course, there were many supporting refs in the article itself. But while some think that's fine (it only requires one more click to see all the supporting refs on the project), others stick (for reasons I'm not sure are the best) to the narrow view that rules are rules. If you are concerned about negative implication entries without refs, you might consider lists that are negative and nearly entirely uncited such as this List of rampage killers ... there's lots and lots of it on wp. By your approach, you should delete all the entries that lack refs, even if it is most or all of the list. This entire area could use some rethinking too make articles better/neater. If I were to delete all entries on that list above, for example, people would be upset, but editors will cherry pick one entry here or there, or mar the article. Thanks for listening.

One last point. You mention BLP policies more than once. But of course they don't apply. So why is that your basis? Both for a deletion, and a block? 2603:7000:2143:8500:301C:58FD:5F05:5FC6 (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

How wouldn't they apply? Per WP:BLP, they apply to "any Wikipedia page" and include the "recently deceased". Spencer^T•C 20:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, well that' a very poorly draft policy then. First, the name of the policy. Second, the first reference in the first paragraph to what it applies to. Though that changes later in the lede. But then - there is a specific section entitled "Applicability of the policy." Now that would seem to be the place you would find the answer to the question as to the applicability of the policy. And it states "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." So there's a policy with a measure of variance on the question of the scope of the policy. Really, quite poor. If I were construing it as a judge, I would say the lede is simply a summary of the body, which is what is key, so one must go to the section in question to determine the correct scope of the policy. 2603:7000:2143:8500:301C:58FD:5F05:5FC6 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

---