Wikipedia talk:Crying "BLP!"

Examples

Added some recent examples of Crying "BLP!" to the essay.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed them. It moves the article toward WP:ATP, against ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP zealot and Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I object to any cherry picked examples that include users. It is plenty to explain what crying BLP means, please don't replace any examples without consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the ideas presented for improvement of the Wikipedia_talk:BLP_zealot article was

"*Present some case studies." (User:Seraphimblade)

The reply was "Finding clear-cut cases studies of BLP abuse is going to be a challenge, because probably somebody is going to disagree in each such case. I think the main purpose here is to disseminate caution against overzealous enforcement of BLP, and that can be done effectively without these case studies. But if some can be found, that's great." (User:Born2cycle)

The consensus (by majority) in each of the three examples I provided was the BLP claim was not warranted ie the case study examples Seraphimblade and Born2cycle thought were a good idea.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its one thing commenting such a thing in a discussion but another thing choosing and adding some to a public essay. Lets see if other users comment here in support of your addition - personally I am against it. Adding claimed policy violations by active users is not a great idea imo. Has anyone been specifically blocked for this activity? As for this one that you have chosen to add Bruce you appear to have been quite involved in - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard - Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, look for prior consensus:

Find some policies or guidelines that contain such case studies, then follow their lead.

Alternatively, find some Arbcom's that specifically comment on such behavior, and quote them. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATORS Scott Mac and User:Jclemens both ruled that no BLP issues existed with Jclemen stating and I quote "I concur with Scott Mac: there is no BLP issue to justify the edits made in the name of BLP. Making edits and calling them "BLP" when no BLP issue actually applies is disruptive editing, as I've articulated in WP:CRYBLP." The community ruled there was no BLP with two ADMINISTRATORS ruling there no BLP with one going as far as calling the actions being taken regarding the BLP claims "disruptive editing" referring to this very essay which I might he created! How much more consensus do we freaking need?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the page for a few days. Please work to find consensus on this talk page.   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

CRYCRYBLP

I added a section on possible overuse of this essay. I won’t cry if it is removed. If it remains, I’ll add a CRYCRYBLP redirect. O3000 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how I feel about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Short of completely removing this extremely outdated essay, it's an improvement. The very title assumes bad faith, so maybe that's a good next step for a change. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Weird Citation

There's a citation that says "This appears to be incorrect, per WP:BLP: "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" but if that's really the case, the words in the article being cited should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VersaceSpace (talk • contribs) 14:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That's someone else's comment, but it misses the point so I deleted it. It belongs in its own section, or in (as?) a competing essay. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)