Edit war erupts on Moffat’s Wikipedia page

An “edit war” has erupted on Alistair Moffat’s Wikipedia page after several users repeatedly attempted to delete content referring to BritainsDNA

May 18, 2013 1:54 pm 1 comment

Alistair Moffat Wikipedia

An “edit war” has erupted on Alistair Moffat’s Wikipedia page as a result of several users repeatedly attempting to delete content referring to BritainsDNA, Mr Moffat’s genetics company.

Mr Moffat and BritainsDNA came under fire in April after the University Senate found that Mr Moffat was stifling academic debate by accusing two UCL geneticists of libel. The Saint has previously reported on the dispute and Nature mentioned the issue in an editorial on 9 April.

The contentious Wikipedia editing began on 28 April when an anonymous user removed almost the entire BritainsDNA section of Mr Moffat’s page, leaving only a single sentence stating Moffat’s role as chief executive at the company. The section had mentioned the threats made against the UCL scientists and cited the Nature article. As no reason was given for the deletion, however, the section was reinstated.

The content was repeatedly deleted several times by anonymous users and thereafter by a single-purpose user account named Detarec, for a total of seven unexplained edits. Each time, the edits were undone. After undoing the seventh edit, editor Dp76764 noted: “at this point, edit war removal of content is vandalism.” On 30 April Detaerc attempted another deletion, this time commenting: “removed content due to inaccuracies.” The edit was again reverted by Dp76764, who replied: “thanks for comment, but per [the regulations] material stays until consensus is changed.”

At this point another user account named MRobertsQC attempted to delete the section entirely, stating: “Most of this is inaccurate or fictitious. Too much to correct individually. Best to remove entirely.” Wikipedia does not allow the removal of well-referenced content without discussion, so the section was reinstated by user Maproom. MRobertsQC then tried again on 1 May: “‘Britain’s DNA’ section deleted because it is potentially libellous.” The edit was repealed once more by Maproom, who said: “MRobertsQC, you have been encouraged to discuss this on the article’s talk page. Please do so.”

The war then fell silent until 3 May when Detaerc requested that Mr Moffat’s entire page be deleted, saying: “Request for speedy deletion as does not conform with BLP [Biography of Living Persons] criteria. BritainsDNA section is biased as it is the view of a tiny minority who are given disproportionate space. No regard is given for subject’s privacy and does not give NPOV [neutral point of view]”. The request was denied by user StephenBuxton, an administrator, who explained: “CSD [content speedy deletion] declined – deletion of an article on the basis of one section (which is referenced with at least one reliable source) is not the way to go. Suggest improving it or raising it at [the BLP noticeboard].”

At this point StephenBuxton protected the page, preventing non-administrators from editing it for a week while a discussion took place on the BLP noticeboard. During the discussion, users Maproom and Dp76764 defended their decisions to revert the changes. In one comment Maproom stated: “MRobertsQC’s contributions to Wikipedia almost all praise Moffat … None of these editors has explained the reason for their deletions, or indicated what statements in the section they consider libellous.” Detaerc replied: “The section in question represents an [sic] biased view of a small group of people who clearly have a personal vendetta against the subject … It gives disproportionate space to a particular viewpoint.”

The consensus was reached that the section should remain on the page. User Brianann MacAmhlaidh concluded: “Agree with Dp76764 that the section is valid and could use some tweaking … The fact that the university’s academic senate concluded that its own rector (Moffat) was stifling academic debate is worth noting.” The protection was lifted on 10 May and the edit war has not resumed. The BritainsDNA content is still present at the time of writing, though it has not been expanded to include the suggested additions or any further citations.

Speaking to The Saint, Stephen Buxton, the administrator who protected the page, expressed his hope that the article would continue to be edited sensibly. “What should happen now is people carry on editing the article, hopefully mindful of the policies that encourage good editing, a neutral point of view, and should there be disagreements about what should or shouldn’t be in the article, civil discussions.”

He also made clear his role: “I have no strong opinion about what has to be in the article; I had never heard of Alistair Moffat before I went to assess the article for speedy deletion. Any articles that get nominated for deletion are flagged up for administrators to review and act upon. In this instance it was because someone had objected to the tone of a section of the article (BritainsDNA) and wanted the whole article deleted.”

1 comment

  • concerned student

    So Moffat continues to be a tosser. In other news, the pope is a catholic. You guys voted for him, you have to suffer through his reign. Should have had Pat Nevin in for rector, he never would have disgraced the University like this.

What do you think?

More from The Saint

  • Edinburgh Festival Fringe 2016: St Andrews edition

    Edinburgh Festival Fringe 2016: St Andrews edition

    Photo: Shakespeare Syndrome As your newsfeeds have surely informed you, the 2016 Edinburgh Festival Fringe will soon be unleashing a host of actors, singers, dancers, comedians, and countless other performers into the streets of Scotland’s capital. Having showcased the UK’s finest talent...

    Read more →
  • Taylor Swift versus The Rest of the World: Is all this bad blood really necessary?

    Taylor Swift versus The Rest of the World: Is all this bad blood really necessary?

    Take yourself back to the 14th of February this year – the day Kanye West released his new album, The Life of Pablo, which included the song Famous and the lyrics, “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/ Why? I made that b*tch famous.” An online frenzy ensued over the controversial...

    Read more →
  • Good luck shaking this one off, Tay Tay

    Good luck shaking this one off, Tay Tay

    April 2016: International superstar Taylor Swift gives Vogue a tour of her Los Angeles mansion. “What do you think is the most important life lesson for someone to learn?” inquires the reporter. Swift replies sagely that “karma is real.”  Three months later, as a decade’s worth of...

    Read more →
  • Roll the Dyce: why Allardyce is perfect for England

    Roll the Dyce: why Allardyce is perfect for England

    Sam Allardyce At 3:45 yesterday afternoon, Sam Allardyce was appointed as the new England manager on a two-year deal. His brief is simple: pick up an England team fresh off their round of 16 elimination by Iceland in the recent European Championship and restore public faith in the team that is seen by...

    Read more →
  • Spirited summer trends

    Spirited summer trends

    As the summer heat rises, summer style flourishes. Three distinct warm weather trends absolutely scream holiday. Flora and fauna prints, reminiscent of radiant, tropical islands and lush forests, bring energy to the season. Such prints feature brilliantly coloured dragon fruit and calming hues of melon....

    Read more →