User:Geo Swan/opinions/Haroon Rashid Aswat and BLP

See User:Geo Swan/Stale drafts#Scaffolding

Haroon Rashid Aswat is a British muslim of Indian heritage, who has been linked with the London transit bombings of July 2005.

A former US Prosecutor, John Loftus, is reported to have alleged, during an interview, on Fox News, on July 29th, 2005, that Aswat was an MI6 source, and that MI6 had helped hide him from justice and counter-terrorism officials.

Short version of BLP dispute

On July 30 2007, ie two years later, User:Tom harrison made two excisions to the Haroon Rashid Aswat article. The edit summaries they left were brief, and uninformative. However, I could see that the article needed better sources. I decided to (1) revert the poorly explained excision; (2) provide better references. In retrospect I would do this slightly differently if I were in a similar situation.

When I replaced the article with a version that I thought used better sources, User:Tom harrison put the article in page protect, without any prior explanation. He then proceeded to make about half a dozen smaller excisions -- excisions whose wisdom I felt, I continue to feel, was open to debate.

After User:Tom harrison finished his edits he responded on Talk:Haroon Rashid Aswat to my query about the page protection, stating that he saw two choices open to him: (1) protect the page; (2) block me from editing.

IMO being elevated to administrator does not free a wikipedian from engaging in civil, meaningful dialogue, and explaining themselves to other wikipedians. IMO, threatening to block other wikipedians, without first making a meaningful attempt to clearly explain your concern is an over-reach of an administrator's authority. Geo Swan 14:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

rm poorly sourced, per WP:BLP using an external editor	Tom harrison as of 14:31, 2007 July 29 Excised almost the entire article. Sole justification was that offered in the edit summary. IMO justification was irresponsibly brief.
revert -- see talk	Geo Swan as of 11:58, 2007 July 30 I planned to improve this article in two steps: (1) restore to the state before the poorly explained excision; (2) find better sources. I am at fault for not proceeding directly to the talk page to put the explanation I promised. Finding better sources took longer than I thought. My apologies.
rm per WP:BLP - unsourced, and unreliably sourced.	Tom harrison as of 12:15, 2007 July 30 Repeated the earlier excision.
Removal per policy on biographies	Tom harrison as of 12:17, 2007 July 30 I have removed some unsourced, and some unreliably sourced material under our policy on biographies of living people. Please do not restore it without including citations to reliable sources.
rm - could not find in source cited	Tom harrison as of 12:21, 2007 July 30 Further excision, leaving article in an unsatisfactory NN stub state.
→Removal per policy on biographies	Geo Swan as of 12:51, 2007 July 30 Is it possible for you to exercise a lighter touch in your editing? Sources existed for the assertions you excised. The current policy might authorize you to excise material, without looking for sources. But, perhaps you might consider that 23 minutes is a less than sufficient time to allow other wikipedians to look for better references next go around?
not supported by source cited
→Removal per policy on biographies	Geo Swan as of 13:18, 2007 July 30 You do remember you put this article in protected mode? You do realize this means regular editors can't address your concerns you raise?
→Removal per policy on biographies - material has to be removed until the citation is provided	Tom harrison as of 13:19, 2007 July 30 I do. I figured it was the lighter solution than blocking you. I'm afraid the material has to be removed until the citation is provided. Some pretty egregious things were said here either without citation, or with citation to unreliable sources. If that happens again, it may be necessary to temporarily suspend editing privileges to prevent it. I hope I can unprotect the page now and expect that our policy on biographies will be followed. Note: Tom harrison still hadn't spelled out the nature of his objections to the sources. In other words, he stated he will block me, if I make edits he finds unsatisfactory, but he wasn't prepared to explain what his standards were.