"In 1978, Handel faced another scandal, when one of his laboratory assistants died under suspicious circumstances. Handel never faced any charges in connection with the event, but the tragedy showed, at the very least, that the safety precautions taken in his lab were inadequate, and other, more sinister rumors circulated about the event. The death took place late at night, after 11 PM, at a time when labs are normally closed, leading to suspicions that Handel and the assistant may have been lovers, and opening the possibility that Handel had killed her in order to keep the affair quiet." (
Wikipedia) (
WebCite).
That paragraph remained in the Wikipedia article
Mike Handel for more than three and a half hours last night. Some readers will undoubtedly respond, so what? Vandalism happens all the time on Wikipedia, and much of it is not cleaned up promptly. Well, this one is just a little different. For those 3.5 hours, that article was linked from the main page of Wikipedia, one of the ten most-visited sites on the web (
WebCite). During that period, it was almost certainly viewed by a thousand people or more. Second, that lovely paragraph wasn't the only BLP disaster in the article, which also labeled Handel a "murderer" and a "Nazi", and implied that he had been pressured into leaving Israel by Western intelligence agencies. Third, Mike Handel doesn't even exist except in my imagination (and now on Wikipedia).
I created Mike Handel as a test and a demonstration. Wikipedia has a BLP (Biographies of Living People) problem, but many Wikipedians are altogether too happy to ignore it. It would be terrifically unethical to accuse a real living person of murder while he or she was featured on Wikipedia's main page, so I created a hoax to provide more proof (as if more proof is needed) of Wikipedia's BLP problem. This is going to be a long post with a great number of links and details, so if you're not interested in the particulars of the story, you can skip to the section entitled "Successes and Failures" below.
The Story Begins
I created the article on February 19 (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). At that time, it didn't have the paragraph on the murder, but it did have a few problematic bits. Even in the early draft, Handel was depicted as leaving behind chemical weapons-related research in Israel "reportedly under pressure from the British and American governments" and reports that he had been labeled a "murderer" and a "Nazi" by animal rights groups were included. The sources cited were weak at best: two articles from
The Magdalen College Record, the annual newsletter of Magdalen College, Oxford.
Two minutes after the article was created, Wikipedian MuffledThud appeared to categorize it (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). Immediately thereafter, MuffledThud applied the "Unsourced BLP" tag to the article, which was not strictly correct; the article had references, though no footnotes (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). 2 minutes later, he removed some of the more serious BLP issues in the article, which was an entirely appropriate response (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). In other words, for the first five minutes or so, Wikipedia's response was the best that you could hope for under current conditions.
Then, I came back and removed the unsourced BLP tag. It had been incorrectly applied as the article did have sources, so my action was consistent with Wikipedia's policies (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). Three minutes later, MuffledThud applied the "refimprove" tag, which was somewhat more appropriate (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). I let the article sit for a few minutes before returning again to add back in the problematic material that he had removed earlier (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). In return, I received a BLP warning template on my user talk page (
Wikipedia), and he took the material out again. The system, it seemed, was more or less working.
Referencing
Unfortunately for Mr. Thud, while he was busy (and before I actually even received the BLP warning), I began to up the ante. I appended a footnote to the section calling Handel a "Nazi" with a reference to an article in the
Oxford Times, a reliable source, to be sure, but one of which there is no digital archive anywhere (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). What could he do now? It was referenced to a "reliable source" and therefore untouchable, never mind that no such article had ever been published.
MuffledThud, though, is apparently someone who actually does care about BLP issues (give the man a barnstar) and he removed the sourced material, taking it to the talk page to "discuss verification."(
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). On the talk page, he let me know that he wanted an archived version online. As that was impossible, he asked for a scanned version of the article. (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). He did say "please", so I gave him one.(
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). It was a quick forgery, but, still, the average vandal probably isn't willing to forge to a 1970s era newspaper clipping, so I paused to think if I was compromising the experiment. I decided that I wasn't really, the serious BLP problems was still to come (and would not be supported with fake clippings). These were just the warmup BLP issues, and I did have to guard the article against charges that it was a hoax. So far as notability went, the article's survival was guaranteed. Handel, the article claimed, had held a named chair at Oxford, making him inherently notable under Wikipedia's
guidelines for academics.
The fake clipping more or less sealed the deal. There were a few more changes to the article, but they were mostly aesthetic. The die had been cast, and by February 24 we were looking at a fairly final version of the article. "All right, Mr. Demille, I'm ready for my close-up" the article proclaimed with its tidy, though entirely faked references (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite).
DYK Approaches
As my little hoax grew up, I knew it was time to bring it up at DYK. I nominated it, and at first there was a little resistance to its poorly sourced state, but before long it had been approved. On February 28, it went into the DYK queue (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). My little article was all grown up, and scheduled to hit the big time at 0:00 on March (UTC).
Now it was time to move in for the big stuff. Using another account, I appeared on the talk page. Wasn't Mike Handel the guy "who fell in love with one of his research assistants, told her he would leave his wife, and then killed her when he didn't and she threatened to go public with the affair?" I wondered (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). No one answered.
The next day, with about 5 hours until the article's main page debut, I emerged again to kick up the level of BLP violations. First, the old accusations of being pressured out of Israel by the British and American governments came back (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). A few minutes later, it was time to bring in the murder charges. I wrote: "In 1978, Handel faced another scandal, when one of his laboratory assistants died under suspicious circumstances. Handel never faced any charges in connection with the event, but the tragedy showed, at the very least, that the safety precautions taken in his lab were inadequate, and other, more sinister rumors circulated about the event" (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). For good measure, I came back under yet another account and put in a bit of childish vandalism. The vandalism was reverted within a minute, but the charges of murder most foul remained. (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite)
The Big Time
Mike Handel hit the main page at midnight UTC. Administrator Ucucha performed the update (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite), but there's no reason to believe he even read the article. If he did, the entirely unsourced rumors of murder surrounding Oxford biologist Mike Handel didn't faze him.
11 minutes after Mike Handel made the main page, I swung back through to ratchet up the accusations one last time, adding the delicious bit: "The death took place late at night, after 11 PM, at a time when labs are normally closed, leading to suspicions that Handel and the assistant may have been lovers, and opening the possibility that Handel had killed her in order to keep the affair quiet."(
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). The murder allegations had now been in the article for 5 and a half hours without any sourcing at all, so a few minutes later, I came back and tacked on another imagined
Oxford Times story for good measure.(
Wikipedia)(
WebCite).
There was nothing to do now but sit back and wait. A helpful chap named Jackyd101 breezed through a few minutes later to categorize the article, (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite) but found that the allegations of murder and intrigue were of substantially less importance than making sure that people looking for Berkeley alumni could find Dr. Handel.
The article was vandalized at 0:37, and rather surprisingly the vandalism stuck for 7 minutes before being reverted. Again, all the nasty bits of the article were left untouched. (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). Finally, at 2:58, someone came through to do a little light copyediting. Libel, it seems is quite fine, but imperfect style is another matter entirely. (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite).
Dr. Handel Discovers the Article
At 02:55 UTC, Dr. Handel (played by yours truly) discovered that the article about him was accusing him of an atrocious murder, and wrote to the OTRS system (no one remarked on the strangeness of a 79 year-old retiree from the UK being online at 3 AM, but if challenged Dr. Handel was prepared to claim a late night phone call from his son in New York). His email read as follows:
To whom it may concern;
I am Michael Handel, formerly of Magdalen College, Oxford. I just received a phone call from my son alerting me to the fact that I am mentioned on the front page of your website and that a page exists on your website, purportedly displaying a biography of me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Handel). This biography, however, is flawed and inaccurate. Among many other errors, you allege that I had an affair with my laboratory assistant and then killed her. This is plainly false and your statement is libelous. I demand that you remove this page from your website immediately. If you are unwilling or unable to comply with this request, then I will be forced to seek an alternative remedy.
Mike Handel
OTRS received the ticket, and slightly less than an hour later at 03:43, Wikipedia admin NuclearWarfare removed some of the insinuations of murder, but left the gist, that an assistant had died in the lab late at night, in the article.(
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). He then semiprotected the article (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite), and three minutes later, made the right choice and took out all mention of the death. (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). He did, however, make sure that some mention of it was preserved on the talk page, asking for better sourcing; after all, we can't be sure that Dr. Handel was as innocent as he says he was.(
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). At 3:55, Dr. Handel got an email back from OTRS:
I have removed the information for now. A citation was provided for that
information, but I could not access it. Do you know, by any chance, if an article
called "Handel Denies Wrongdoing in Assistant's Death" was published in the Oxford
Times on 20 October 1978? I presume that one was not and that the alleged incident
never happened, from your earlier statement.
I have also locked your page indefinitely from editing by unregistered and new users.
These after-the-fact actions, however, cannot excuse the fact that you encountered
this on our website. I can only offer you our sincere apologies and assure you
that we do all we can to ensure that such malicious edits are repaired quickly.
Many thanks for your kindness in writing about the problem you saw. I shall do my
best to follow up on this. Please tell me if there is anything you would like me
to do.
Yours sincerely,
[Name redacted]
Through all of this OTRS mess, however, the "Nazi" line was allowed to stay as were the bits about chemical weapons and intrigue. At 08:31, after the article had left the main page, MuffledThud, took the bit about Israeli intrigue out again. As of this writing, the article had not changed further. (
Wikipedia)(
WebCite). Dr. Handel, however, stayed in touch with OTRS. At 13:23, he sent off another email:
Mr. [Name Redacted],
Thank you for removing that particular paragraph. I am still generally unhappy, however, that your website contains a page about me. I am a very private person and have been out of the public eye for many years, and I would prefer not to be mentioned at all on your website.
Secondly, your website devotes too much space to one small incident, the attempted bombing of my laboratory 35 years ago. This was just a single moment in a long career, and I do not appreciate being depicted as if this were somehow my main accomplishment.
Once again, I ask that you remove the page. I do not want to have to seek another remedy.
Michael Handel
Dr. Handel, after all, was very unhappy to be in Wikipedia at all. He wanted out, and in his last sentence he injected the incipient threat of legal action. It took OTRS a while to get back this time, but Dr. Handel received a response at 16:39 (a bit over three hours later).
Requests for deletion of an article are generally not processed by email. There are however, several options you can undertake.
1. You can nominate the article for deletion yourself. This will require you to have a Wikipedia account (which you can sign up for by clicking the link "Sign in/create account" at the top right-hand corner of our site), and then following the instructions at .
2. You can ask us to nominate the article for deletion on your behalf. This will make it public that you have made the request — your communication to date is confidential. If you are sure that you wish to have the article deleted, this is the option I recommend.
3. You can specify what sentences or sections of the article you feel are inappropriate by email response to us. We will then investigate them with a view to removal. Please be specific.
Please note that in the case of options 1 and 2, there is no guarantee that the nomination will result in the article being deleted. Please let me know which of these options you would like to pursue.
Yours sincerely,
[Name Redacted]
Dr. Handel responded promptly to this email. Finally, he had the chance to put things right. Of course, there was one small problem with the email he had received. Option 1 was not viable; the article was semiprotected and there is no way he could have placed an AfD tag on it. He liked Option 2 anyway, though. At 17:07, he wrote:
Mr. [Name Redacted],
Please nominate the article for deletion on my behalf. Who will make the final determination?
Mike Handel
As of this writing, nearly 6 hours later, he has received no response, and the article still sits there. Further more, the revisions accusing him of murder remain available in the page history, neither deleted nor oversighted.
Successes and Failures
The entire saga is, undoubtedly, a great failure for Wikipedia. I consulted an attorney friend, who advised me that the nasty murder accusations were clearly actionable, and that if the person who wrote them could be identified (and Michael Handel were a real person), s/he would face substantial civil liability, greatly compounded by the fact that the article appeared on the main page.
I hope that this whole story makes it clear to people that there is a BLP problem. Let's recap:
- A fake BLP made it onto the main page
- A BLP included libelous defamation for more than 9 hours, and was not reverted until an OTRS complaint was filed.
- During 4 of those hours, that BLP was featured on the main page, receiving a large number of page views (a final number will not be available for a few more hours).
- Even after an OTRS complaint was filed, false, negative information remained in the article.
- Even after an OTRS complaint, the article still remained prominently in the main page's DYK section.
I'm not going to use this incident to make an impassioned plea for flagged revisions, semiprotection of all BLPs, or anything else like that. Others probably will, but I think the facts speak for themselves. There is a BLP problem.
Despite these tremendous failings, there were a few successes in the affair. Most of the users involved seem to have done their best to clean up a bad BLP while staying within the bounds of Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" policy. The fact is, though, that even with good users out there, Wikipedia's institutions, norms, and policies are shaped in a way that makes it very hard to respond to defamation of the kind perpetrated against Mike Handel. Wikipedia doesn't need better editors. It needs better rules.
Then there's the matter of the OTRS response time. An hour is an understandable delay in responding to complaints, but at the same time it is highly regrettable. During that whole hour, the article was still receiving a great amount of traffic as it was featured on the main page. The figures aren't in yet, but it was almost certainly getting several views a minute. Another hour may have meant a few hundred more people reading the vile vandalism.
Finally, let me climb up on the one bully pulpit I will speak from. Wikipedia's "specific" notability criteria are what made all of this possible. Without
WP:ACADEMIC, it would have taken a lot of maneuvering to sell the article as passing the general notability guideline, and it may well have been deleted.
The Epilogue
As I said, I think the incident speaks for itself. Whether Wikipedia changes is up to you. You are free to interpret all of this any way you like. You can simply say that one clever and devious blogger managed to, in a one-off incident, slip a BLP nightmare on to the main page, but I'm not really that clever. Everything I did could be repeated by an average person with an internet connection. There wasn't even much wiki-politicking involved and the sockpuppets I used were painfully obvious; all they did was edit the Handel article.
As of this writing, the Handel article stands. I imagine it will soon be deleted. I've saved most of the important stages in its development via WebCite, and linked them all above, but if someone wants to actually cache the whole history and knows how, I'd welcome it. If you do that, send me a link so that I can post it here.
The ball is now in your court.