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 The edit was repealed once more by Maproom, who said: “MRobertsQC, you have been encouraged to discuss this on the article’s talk page.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

  • Thompson and Jewitt triumph in Duke’s Spring Gold Medal

    Thompson and Jewitt triumph in Duke’s Spring Gold Medal

    Sunday 15th May saw the annual Duke’s Golf Club Spring Gold Medal competitions for men and women take place at the Duke’s Golf Course in St Andrews, with Greg Thompson and Jude Jewitt running out the winners. The Duke’s is the only non-links course in St Andrews and provides a challenging...

    Read more →
  • St Andrews ranked top university in Scotland

    St Andrews ranked top university in Scotland

    St Andrews has maintained its third place ranking in the Guardian University League Table 2017 announced today. The University has also retained its status as the top-ranked university in Scotland, according to the league table. St Andrews also claimed the top ranking in the UK for several subjects,...

    Read more →
  • Sports Ball was a drunken disorderly mess

    Sports Ball was a drunken disorderly mess

    Photo: Lightbox Creative Thursday night saw the annual sports ball hosted at the Fairmont. The event is one of the last black tie events in St Andrews, with set tickets and tables assigned to each sports club within the Athletic Union. The evening includes dinner and a ceilidh, making it one of the...

    Read more →
  • The Vic wishes us a sweet Summer Sixteen

    The Vic wishes us a sweet Summer Sixteen

    As we crested the culmination of the second semester exam diet, many of us took last Thursday as the chance to say our drunken farewells to the streets that we have stumbled upon, to the acquaintances we vaguely know from the library, and to the late night takeaway places that will soon grow quiet in...

    Read more →
  • Edinburgh Fringe Festival – ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore

    Edinburgh Fringe Festival – ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore

    The theatre season in St Andrews may have come to an end but the rehearsals still continue in tucked away rooms of the Union and the Barron Theatre. A variety of shows will be travelling to the Edinburgh Fringe this summer made up of production teams and casts of our very own students. One such is Wanton...

    Read more →