The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep - no chance of any other closure at this point. Particularly given BenBurch has voluntarily toned the content down. Neıl ☄ 08:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with unsourced negative or contentious content in contravention of the biography of living persons policy. Additionally, this appears to be a slight misuse of the user page. I'm not sure how it furthers the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit / Keep While the content may not be appropriate, leniency is in order. It very far from being mere vituperance. It was an update I personally was thankful to have read.Yeago (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in this way we have become a free blog? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. His topic is very contained to Wikipedia. A blog's topic is arbitrary.Yeago (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a wikipedia/wikimedia related blog here. Its content may not however, be appropriate on my user page. Just as an example. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K. Still disagree. Its pretty clear his contributions to his User page aren't going to be an on-going archived thing.Yeago (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. It's not unsourced: the legal filings and the case's outcome are a matter of public record. The only possibly iffy content, Violet Blue's supposed (I say 'supposed' only because I haven't looked into the matter myself, not because I doubt Ben) real name, is gone now. The 'slight' misuse of the userspace can and should be overlooked in the case of a valued contributor who's left the project under such unfortunate circumstances, and I think that the fact that you can't control our content by just calling in the lawyers is a point (not a WP:POINT) worth making. -- Vary | Talk 01:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Information is taken from court documents in the public record. Anyone with some time could find the exact same information with a little searching. It's good info, leave it alone. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I could see courtesy blanking it to keep the robot spiders away (those that don't honor our nofollows) but I'm not sure I see how recording the result of a lawsuit on a user page warrants outright deletion. We give user pages wide latitude... BenBurch is not some random SPA but rather has a quite significant contribution history. Keep ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor has left, I don't see any reason to leave contentious information up as a monument, how does it futher the project? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the writing is slanted. Noted. That makes it "monument"-al I guess, and that's not good... I'd be fine with a signpost article using neutral language (because this outcome may have downstream effects) and this page blanked except for a pointer to that article, I guess. I just don't see outright deletion as warranted. NVS, no offense but you do seem to tend to see deletion as a solution to things sometimes... maybe think about whether there's any merit to those arguing why it might be good to keep around. I applaud your instincts in wanting to do the right thing, though. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lar, and I think that I could go with you compromise. I do tend to support deletions when the subjects in article space are being hurt, and when meta space has this type of content. I can however, be happy with a blanking and pointing. What do the other contributers think? vr, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In the AN thread concerning this topic, Ben provides links to the court documents to support his statements. There is no violation of WP:BLP or any other policy here. Cla68 (talk)

Not even the since removed "supposed" and name information in the history? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If these are your nitpicks, they are *far* short of a MfD.Yeago (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. On three grounds. Firstly this is not a biography; it is not even an encyclopedia article, so it is arguable whether BLP applies. NPOV certainly doesn't. Nor does the policy on citing only secondary sources. Secondly this is an important piece of Wikipedia history. Deleting it would remove a primary source which exists no-where else in the world. Thirdly user pages are intended to document Wikipedia-related aspects of an editor's life. This is very much a Wikipedia related episode in BenBurch's life. Therefore this material is completely relevant User page material. Lastly, it furthers the Wikipedia project by providing moral support for any future Wikipedian facing a frivolous lawsuit by showing that it is possible to successfully defend themselves. -- 02:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP is applicable everywhere. We have brought this battle (statement of victory) on wiki, where it does not belong. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This battle started on wiki and an attempt was made to move it to the court system: an attempt which the courts, thankfully, have rebuffed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It perhaps started on wiki, ended up in the courts, it should not have made its way back on wiki, however. WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND NonvocalScream (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• At this time, do note that I have no stated public opinion on the particulars of the law case or the editor. I am only debating the content at this time. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Blank or Maybe Rewrite. I have a lot of sympathy for Ben. However, this essay is not simply a retelling of facts. At places it also uses emotionally charged and accusatory language, for example: "I find her abuse of the court system disgusting", "she cheated California taxpayers to file her frivolous suit", "Her claimed fear of violence was, at best, delusional and, at worst, a lie to avoid paying a filing fee", etc. Maybe Ben is entirely correct. Maybe Violet is a total putz. The problem though is that he is ascribing motives to her actions that we can never truly know and which offers her no opportunity of defense. The spirit of BLP is that we want everything we say about living people to rigourously defensible. Right now the basic pattern of facts is that she asked for a very broad restraining order while making a certain set of assertions and lost. We don't have a finding of fact that she lied or that she was "delusional", and I don't believe Wikipedia should be used as a forum to promote such conclusions, even in user space. Ben obviously has an opinion about her motives, and if he wishes there are many other places on the web where he can publish that. However, as currently constructed, I believe Ben's discussion of the "aftermath" too often strays into expressing his personal opinions about her motives to be an acceptable piece of writing on Wikipedia. I think my first choice is that it be deleted. My second choice is that it be blanked to keep the web spiders off it. I am not opposed the construction of a more tempered and purely factual discussion of this matter, for example in the Signpost. Dragons flight (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no support for a deletion, I can support a rewrite or blanking. Lar's solution is my second choice, deletion is my first. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. This obviously ought to go in the signpost, perhaps someone (better at writing succinctly than I!!!! :) ) wants to take a crack at that? Because the work won't go to waste regardless of what the outcome of this nom is. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This page discusses an editor's experience in editing Wikipedia -- as many user pages do -- and also the intersection between Wikipedia and the real world, which is a vital topic of growing interest. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite as first choice. Signpost+blank/delete as second choice. Wikipedia editors being sued for factual contributions is notable. The plaintiff failing in the case is also notable. However, the editorializing (aka personal attacks) in BenBurch's statement shouldn't stand, per Dragons Flight's comments above. As of the last postings of BenBurch, the ruling and minutes are not available yet - and the wheels of justice don't turn at wiki-pace. We will have to wait for the official record, meanwhile some record should stand as this is an important issue for all Wikipedians - but the editorial bits should go right now. If BenBurch or an agreed editor can modify the page, I say it should stand. If BB insists it should stay as is, then I would opt for blanking or deletion. Also, Lar is correct that it should go to the Signpost but of course we need the official record before that happens. Franamax (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A very relevant experience being told in userspace. Believe it or not, sometimes the truth is negative and doesn't violate our policies. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Not a biography per se; it's more of a personal account of the user's experiences on Wikipedia. As such, BLP would not apply.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No. BLP applies everywhere... even User and User talk pages. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• BLP does apply everywhere... for biographies. This page is not a biography; it is an account of an incident on Wikipedia, albeit a controversial one. Thusly, BLP does not apply.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an account of an incident, but it contains material ascribing motivations, actions and states of mind to a living individual. Thus BLP does indeed apply, and I do believe BLP applies everywhere. Take away those confounding factors to make a neutral account, everything is fine. Using words like "delusional" and at this point in time, even "perjury"? Reliable, verifiable, third-party sources and all the usual crap, if you please. Franamax (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing motivations is not enough to make it a biography. A biography describes the background of a person. One that detail's a person's life, childhood, friends, family, occupation, regrets, aspirations, accomplishments. In short, a biography is a "person's life story". This page does nothing of the sort. It's an opinion piece regarding a specific incident. And on a Wikipedia-related issue as well. I'm surprised that BLP is the nom's rationale to delete this page, WP:SOAP (which also applies to user pages) would have been the much more compelling argument..--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 07:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. What is a written biography composed of? Sentences, right? BLP doesn't have to be a whole body of work. If I could determine your RL identity, could I place here in view of Google's engine and all others the statement "TBC is a small-minded jerk who ran over a cat with their truck and they have a withered left hand"? Replace TBC with your RL name and think about it again. All references to real-life identities are BLP issues. That's why I'd advise anyone to use a pseudonym to edit on Wikipedia. Have you noticed how many editors end up saying "please remove my name from everywhere it appears"? And in this case, we have a person not even registered at en:wiki (to my knowledge), a real living person, who is being commented on. Not comments on neutral facts mind you, comments on motivation and state of mind. Rough etymology: "bio-graph" = "life-trace" - and "delusional" is a piece of tracing out a life. Damn straight this is a BLP issue.

I'll stick with my suggestion to rewrite first. I'm leaning now toward going with flat-out delete, clear it out and wait for Signpost. I'd rather see it rewritten, there's only 4-5 things that need to be cleaned up. Franamax (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was that really neccessary? I, for one, jerk not with a small mind. My trucks do not run over cats. And my withered left hand has always been there like that. I find your comment offensive and demand it to be deleted immediately, especially since TBC is related to my actual name (the trees...). --T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 08:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it wouldn't be appropriate then to say that your bark is worse than your bite? :) Franamax (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG we're using letters to write pages! And it has been alleged that the pages have been written by living people and may concern the life's work of some living people! Let's delete everything to be completely sure! BLP policy demands that the Wikipedia must be shut down NOW! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not letting a user describe something related to Wikipedia, and themselves on their userpage? Madness... Per lar. Prodego ^talk 07:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I think he has a right to be able to defend himself from the stuff that has been thrown his way. The people who undertook this action originally in my opinion have foregone many of their rights here by trying to activate them elsewhere, and harassing this good faith Wikipedian. I realise my view is controversial, but someone needs to say it. As a second choice, Signpost+blank/delete as someone else suggested. Orderinchaos 08:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've been bold and edited BenBurch's statement to remove the editorializing.[1] This will quite obviously be controversial, I thought I'd give it a shot. Reverts are welcome! Franamax (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously such action should be confined to where it's needed but I think you've been fair, looking at the diff - it still says basically what he intended to say, so I have no objection. Orderinchaos 08:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Reverted, of course. ;) You should wait until there's more consensus, but being bold is always welcomed. Anyhow, the language used on the page (regardless of how harsh it may be) is directed primarily to her filing the lawsuit, not to Violet Blue (other than the "how it reveals her character" part, which is sort of SOAP-y, but really not that bad).--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 08:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there aren't many ways to get consensus. This page is not a good place to pick over the small points and the talk page of the user page is pretty bad too. So there it is, I made the edit, it's there now for people to look at - if consensus forms that it's good, e-x-cellent, world domination is one step closer. Otherwise I can add names to my enemies list :) I think I nailed it pretty well though. Franamax (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep directly benefits the encyclopædia by giving an account of one editors experiences in being subjected to harassment for his contributions. This enables other editors to better consider the risks associated with being an editor, and to prepare themselves for such an eventuality. DuncanHill (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per other comments. I can't see why BLP would apply in this case, and without identifying information here, I don't see what WMF's legal liability would be anyway. If they go Barbara Bauer on us, maybe then. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy Keep/Do NOT edit or blank. User:BenBurch is given the benefit of the doubt. His experiences are quite relevant and he has a right to post his experience on being harassed by a litigious character. His assertions are backed up by more than enough reliable sources to pass muster. His experience should give courage and heart to fellow editors who find themselves confronted by subjects who are trying to influence the content of their biography. It is an important record that must be preserved for posterity. WP:BLP needs to be beaten thoroughly and thrown in the dungeon on this one. --Dragon695 (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is because I see nothing on this page (as of right now) that rises to the level of being a policy violation on a user page. The name has been already been redacted, so what's left? This page is all WP:SPADE and someone with the initials VB needs to read WP:DICK. We should leave it alone. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I looked at the history, and it started out redacted. He wrote it that way. --Betta Splendens (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is I see nothing wrong here. People are allowed to have opinions when somebody attacks them and they survive it, aren't they? --Betta Splendens (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Our treatment of biographies of living persons is undoubtedly a sensitive and important topic. And utterly irrelevant here. If people keep crying wolf over BLP like this, all they do is weaken this policy in the eyes of the community. the wub "?!" 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  (Note that I have nothing against crying wwwwolf, who actually skewers the deletion argument quite wonderfully above. the wub "?!" 22:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• strong and WP:SNOW keep- he has a right to write this here in order to respond to the allegations and clear his name. Sticky Parkin 23:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yikes, Strong delete (note - see changed opinion below). I'm aware I'm against all consensus here, but having just seen this userpage for the first time, it seems to me it has serious BLP issues which demand blanking at least, if not deletion. While much of this page is verifiable and true, other parts are not - particularly concerning is the author's accusation that Ms. Blue has lied under oath, which is the exact kind of allegation WP:BLP is supposed to keep off Wikipedia. Maybe it's because I'm from Britain, which has a much stronger libel law than the United States, but I don't see why we have an obligation to keep on public display unsourced allegations that a living person has committed a crime. The fact that this is in userspace doesn't make it any less serious.

As for the user's 'right' to post this: our other policies, I'm afraid, come before his free speech. I have no problem with him hosting this essay on his personal blog, but we should not let him keep it in our userspace. Terraxos (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think Ben's story is important for other editors of BLPs. Anything unsourcable that violates BLP can easily be removed but I see no reason to delete wholesale the whole page. Sarah 04:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Fix - Page clearly contains BLP violations. The underlying dispute over whether she changed her name is equally obviously original research. It would be valid for BenBurch to post that he is leaving, that there was a lawsuit against him, that the lawsuit was dismissed, and other non-infringing factual claims. It is NOT valid for him to post original research, his opinions as to the motives and/or character of others, or personal information such as purported real names/home addresses/et cetera. This page needs to be cleaned up immediately or nuked until it glows. --CBD 10:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Its been said many times above that phrases like 'delusional' make the content ineligible. However, its clear that Burch isn't referring to the clinical definition of 'delusional'. But isn't it true that Wikipedia is allowed to contain perspectives of primary sources so long as they are presented merely as perspective? Can the nuances of his statement (like 'delusional') really be taken so literally? Thoughts?Yeago (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can. It would require adequate sourcing regardless of the namespace. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please define 'it'? I think you mean 'allegations that violet blue is delusional'. But I'm not sure this literal interpretation is appropriate. Its clearly pejorative.Yeago (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And pejorative descriptions of live people should not be used in any namespace. At least without sourcing. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's NOT sourced about it? --Betta Splendens (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced = "delusional", "lied to the court under oath", "cheated California taxpayers", "most severe and unconstitutional restriction". Those go beyond the public facts. Franamax (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We shall have to agree to disagree then, because the sources cited, as I read them, support those conclusions. --Betta Splendens (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See that's the thing, you agree that an interpretation is supported by the sources. But the sources don't actually say that - it may be your opinion that the plaintiff was delusional, lied and cheated, but the account should report the verifiable facts and let you draw the conclusion for yourself. I might draw the same conclusion myself. When the text of the actual decision is available, if the judge or case-master says it then fine. I'm not objecting to this account of the case itself, it's the editorializing that concerns me. You can see just a little above a link to an edit I made that left all the facts presented but without the accusations. Read it and tell me why that was not as good or a better version. (And I'm fine if you disagree with me, that happens to me often :) Franamax (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Its a perspective, it isn't a clinical description. Its also a primary source.Yeago (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it only a problem when it's in the mainsapce and we purporedly persent it as truth? This is clearly one person's opinion...or is it worded in such a way that it could be proven and thus libelous? Heh. I need to go read up the libel handbook again. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even it it is something that could be proven, Ms Blue is a public figure, and the standard is New York Times v. Sullivan. That is the only reason the press can operate! --Betta Splendens (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - a relevant account of an issue that's highly relevant to Wikipedia, and which shouldn't be censored through the expansionist use of BLP favored by some. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and maybe edit) This is just the sort of thing we need around to remind us of why actions external to Wikipedia may require on-wiki action, requiring us to develop policies such as WP:NLT. Deleting the page simply extends the chilling effect beyond the dreams of the litigants. Kylu (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What actions are we chilling by deleting this? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and that story of the attempted restraining order should go in her article. The userpage is really long and I read most of it but couldn't find whether he had to fly across the country to defend himself or not and if he did that sucks. With regards to BLP, we have factual incidents of what Osama Bin Laden did so why not her? William Ortiz (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - He appears to have neutralized the language substantially on his own. --Betta Splendens (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• With the changes that have been made, I'm prepared to accept that this falls within the bounds of the WP:BLP policy, and therefore I'll change my opinion to Reluctant Keep. I still have concerns that this seems a bit like an Attack page, but as it is now substantially sourced, it is no longer blatantly violating our policies in a way that requires deletion. Terraxos (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the thread has become moot in light of it.Yeago (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe this is a strong issue when wiki matters are taken offwiki. His story should be kept for other editors who may find themselves in the same spot. Whether it should be deleted because of policy reasons, WP:UP#NOT is not violated in anyway. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 19:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep people should be able to explain their Wikipedia experience on their user page, especially if it's something that could happen to basically anyone. I think this is a valuable and informative read to me personally as an editor. We don't have to agree with all his conclusions. --Rividian (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It is factual, it links to publicly available documents which are clearly neutral POV, and it is valuable to other Wiki editors in that it demonstrates how things can spill over into and disrupt one's personal life, even if the lawsuit is eventually dismissed. --Jazz2006 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.