Talk:Dawn Wells/Archive 1

Reckless driving
The reckless driving conviction is hardly notable. She was not found guilty of possessing pot, her lawyer said it was left there by friends. Clearly marginal trivia in terms of WP:BLP. It's only notable because the national press has picked up on it and the story is all over the wire for 12 hours. Had this happened in 1998 pre-Wikipedia, it would have never been included in this article by later editors. 71.191.137.121 (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Left there by a "friend". Yes, well... In any case it didn't happen in 1998, it is in the national news media, and it is notable. Live with it. Proxy User (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Proxy User, your tone seems kind of hostile. I'm not sure why. The IP user above seems to be expressing what he or she sees as a legitimate BLP concern. Although this event may have been deemed "newsworthy" in the present, only time will tell how "notable" these events will be in the broader context of Wells' career. At present there appears to be a WP:WEIGHT concern that needs to be addressed. In order to present a balanced picture, a disproportionate amount of text in the biography of this LIVING ACTRESS is devoted to marijuana. Seems cause for WP:BLP concerns to me. Cleo123 (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yor addition to the Wells article is excessively POV. I don't mind including material that indicates Wells lawyers disagree with the rulering, but the article is not a Forums For Rebuttal. If you rewite it, I will not object to it. But otherwise, I will rewrite it.


 * Also, as to your comments in the discussion, hostility has nothing to do with it. This is not an article about Wells' career, it's a biography of an individual and therefor includes information about more than Wells career. Proxy User (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * POV? I have presented Well's side of the story, in the interest of balance and fairness to a living person. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the article's purpose. This is NOT the biography of a private individual - Wikipedia is not intended to include such biographies. Wells' biography is included on this forum because she is NOTABLE as an actress. The article's primary focus should pertain to her notability, not minor incidents in her private life - such as traffic stops. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It is an encyclopedia. Cleo123 (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, saying that she was sentanced to jail time, when she wasn't seems to violate WP:LIBEL. Cleo123 (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * She ***WAS*** sentenced to jail time. It was suspended. POINT OF FACT. Please move on.


 * Honestly, do you understand how silly it sounds for you to claim this idea of FIRST three hitchhikers might have left the drugs and THEN maybe it was some guy she loaned the car to? Do you really want the article to explore these "facts"? All I've done is include *FACTS* from police reports. But hey, if you want to go into this absurd story, maybe we should. Proxy User (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, it's not up to you to decide if her story is right or wrong. Seriously, you sound like judge and jury - she's guilty in your eyes, and your going to write the Wikipedia article to that effect. Wonderful. 71.191.137.121 (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Dude", it **IS** up to any editor such as me to call out OBVIOUS POV and NON FACTUAL CONTENT. The information I have added comes from police reports and the Associated Press. The information that Cleo123 added is emotional NPOV rebuttal from Wells' lawyer (and quoted from a questionable source). Sorry, but you are simply wrong, "dude". This is not the proper forum for Wells and her friends to rebut known established facts as documented in available legal documents. If Cleo123 wished to include the comments from Wells lawyer, it needs to be rewritten in a non-POV slanted way. If you don't like it, you can ask for mediation. "Dude".


 * Some other notes:


 * Wells was *in fact* sentenced to 5 days in jail - suspended, but none the less sentenced.
 * DUI charges where *in fact* reduced to reckless driving through a plea agreement.
 * Wells did *in fact* suggest that some mysterious hitchhikers (who oddly could not be located in rural Idaho) before changing her story that someone she loaned her car to had left the pot.
 * Wells was *in fact* fined $410.50. Relatively small, yes. But fined none the less.


 * The facts are not in dispute, and are supported by official police and court documents. Wells can claim in entertainment news interviews anything she wished, but ultimatly what is fact is in the police and court reports. Proxy User (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, provide links to the official police reports and court documents which you are citing. Are you saying that her attorney is "lying" when he issues an official statement saying there was no plea agreement? You seem very insistent that "DUI charges were REDUCED". Her lawyer, who is, in FACT, an officer of the court has stated the the charges were DROPPED. There is quite a difference. Please, share links to the court documents and police reports that you've examined in your determination of FACTS. And for the record, I have no affiliation with Dawn Wells. Such baseless allegations are inappropriate and IMO, less than civil. Cleo123 (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say her lawyer was "lying". The official documents don't say there was no plea agreement. The DUI charges where dropped in a plea agreement to reckless driving. If you have no connection to Dawn Wells, where do you get your "information"? The facts are contained in court documents linked in the article and legitimate news sources.

If you go back over what I've said here, you will NOTE that I don't object to including Wells' lawyer's opinion. What I said was your wording of it was overly POV and it should be rewritten. If you had done that, there would be no dispute. (And I never would have found that interesting Bob Denver connection, but now it's there!) Proxy User (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

pot connection to bob denver
Bob said she mailed him pot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Denver --Capsela (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Added the reference. Proxy User (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag on Marijuana
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved.

It is my opinion that this paragraph is POV rebuttal, and while there is some information that might be included in a NPOV biography, it needs to be rewritten in a less POV style. Proxy User (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if this Marijuana incidents are noteworthy it hardly merits the amount of space (and details) that are current in the article. It reads like someone has an unhealthy fixation with this one aspect of her life.War (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why I wrote the very simple and straight forward second paragraph. It's all that is needed. Proxy User (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Paragraph needed?
Is it me? Or does this article seem to jump from "Early Life and Career" to "Post Gilligan's Island Career"? LOL! Seems to me as if we may have missed the "meat of the matter" in this article. A "Gilligan's Island Section" might be nice, as that is what she's notable for. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Cleo123 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. There isn't much about her other television / movie / stage work, nor really much about her theater group in Idaho. I also think a paragraph on her clothing business should be developed. Proxy User (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. I'd do it, but I no longer have a copy, for instance of Inside Gilligan's Island. Someone? Piano non troppo (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana Incident
It is relevant, referenced, and appropriate. Proxy User (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Creating an entire section called "Marijuana" is unnecessary, inappropriate and places undue weight on minor incidents in her life. It's not going to be allowed. The version of the arrest incident you keep reverting to is also unacceptable, as it omits key sourced facts and statements about the arrest, charges, plea and sentence. FCYTravis (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with FCYTravis. Kelly  hi! 03:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First, it is not a minor incident. Second, it is not a singular incident. Third, it was covered extensively in the international news media. Forth, there was almost NO discussion here prior to removal or your unilateral and unjust abuse of power of locking the article.


 * Fifth, I've filed a Request For Mediation.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Dawn_Wells


 * Proxy User (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly is a "minor incident." Mediation request rejected, no sense wasting my time with that. Go file an RfC first. FCYTravis (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your actions here show strong bias. Why do you fear Mediation? Such dishonesty from an Admin. Proxy User (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would caution you against implying that an Administator is "dishonest" - as that could be construed as a personal attack. FCYTravis should be applauded for the incredible patience and restraint he has exercised in this matter. I suspect that many admins might have blocked you for edit warring on the article. Instead, he has tried to teach you something here, and I would suggest you listen to him.
 * The fact that something receives news coverage of a tabloid nature in the short term does not make it significant in the long term, larger picture of a person's career. In creating your own "Marijuana Section", you have thrown the article out of balance, creating a WP:WEIGHT issue. Dawn Wells is notable for her work as an actress (that's why her bio exists on Wikipedia). Traffic stops for petty offenses do not warrant the amount of space and attention you seem to be pushing for. Whether you realize it or not, your version seems to paint this woman as a pothead and a criminal. You've stated very clearly that you object to her side of the story being presented. Presenting only one side of the story is WP:POV pushing. Please, re-read WP:BLP, as well as WP:HARM. Whether you realize it or not, I believe you are being terribly unfair to Ms. Wells. Cleo123 (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. I am very strongly biased against filling people's biographies with tabloid gossip, rumors, speculation and scandal. I am proud to have such a bias. FCYTravis (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you FEAR from Mediation? I've removed you. I still want a look by an UNBIASED Admin. Proxy User (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Proxy User, as I explained to you before on my talk page, mediation is inappropriate at this juncture. An RFC might be more appropriate. However, I would encourage you to heed FCYTravis' advice and drop this matter. Your version violates WP:BLP, WP:HARM and WP:WEIGHT. At least two members of the Biography Project have offered you guidance in this matter. When multiple users disagree with you, and nobody steps up to support your POV - one needs to entertain the possibility that perhaps they've misinterpretted policy.
 * FCYTravis has nothing to "fear" from mediation, or you. He's been an absolute "Gent" - and I wouldn't attempt to push his buttons if I were you. I will reject your request for mediation. Cleo123 (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit Bullies
Something wierd is going on. I removed a redundant section (It was an EXACT COPY of the wording from another section. This is a very valid and encouraged practice in all article. Then I MOVED a paragraph from one section to another that to me made more logical sense. This resulted in Proxy User suggesting that I am involved in an EDIT WAR on my talk page. I think everyone should know (just look at the page history) that this is happening so that they can consider carefully Proxy User's, point of view on this article.

For the record I don't have much knowledge of Dawn Well's. I only try to made edits so that the structure, logic, and principles of Wikipedia are preserved. Please look at my edits of this articles page to see if you think I'm being reasonable. War (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert (2/24/09)
I reverted the page to eliminate the "Statement of Facts from Dawn" that was added two days ago. If any of this material is true, it needs to be sourced, and integrated into the article in an encyclopedic manner, not just appended to the article in the form of a very un-NPOV personal statement. Nothing personal -- I happen to be a big fan of Ms. Wells -- but this is an online encyclopedia, not a website for publishing press releases. If whoever posted that "statement" (whether Ms. Wells herself, or some publicist) can cite sources, and make any needed updates or corrections in the proper manner, it would be most welcome. StanislavJ (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The anon IP who wrote this material made no other contribution to Wiki. At a guess, whoever wrote it is unaware of this discussion page, or generally of the Wiki guidelines. So we've lost the opportunity to get confirmation. Given that there's a reasonable chance Wells or someone representing her did write the material, I'm including it here for reference.

UPDATE: Statement of Facts from Dawn

The media statements concerning the Driggs Idaho charge against Dawn Wells are extremely inaccurate and erroneous. A third party had possession of Dawn's car during the entire day, and placed a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle without her knowledge .Dawn attended her surprise birthday party that evening, with a number of individuals each of whom verified Dawn had only two drinks in a three to four hour period. Dawn left the party to drive home and was stopped by an inexperienced officer only because she weaved while reaching for her heater controls in an unfamiliar new car.

There was no plea bargain with regard to the marijuana. The state dismissed the marijuana charge as a result of a third party appearing before the court independently and accepted full and exclusive responsibility for the existence of the marijuana.

The DUI charge was reduced to reckless driving because of insufficient proof of excessive alcohol consumption. The officer acknowledged in his written report that there was no odor of alcohol, no slurred speech or any indication of impaired memory. Unfortunately the inexperienced officer failed to properly administer any appropriate field tests which would have established Dawns sobriety. This officer was subsequently placed and remains on suspension from all law enforcement duties.

Dawn Wells accepted responsibility for her driving neglect by pleading guilty to reckless driving because she felt she was in fact guilty of not devoting appropriate attention to her driving while searching for the heater controls.

Contrary to news coverage, Dawn was not required to serve any jail term for her driving offense. She received the typical Idaho sentence for her driving offense given to all who commit the offense, i.e. a fine and informal probation. The sentencing Judge often requires jail time, but found that unnecessary under Dawn's circumstances. Informal probation simply requires she pay the fine and commit no other offenses.

Due to Dawn's cooperation, integrity and complete lack of criminal record, this charge will not appear on her driving record. The court granted her the courtesy of a "withheld judgment".

This is a very humiliating and embarrassing event for Ms. Wells. She wishes to apologize to her friends and supporters for any embarrassment or disappointment this occurrence may have caused.

Piano non troppo (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

More about marijuana incident
This seems to be out of balance with the rest of the article per WP:UNDUE and it is the most discussed topic on this talk page, although I note that there are several editors who have commented against it and one who has argued in favour of keeping it. It's sourced etc, and I appreciate that, but I think it's still a minor incident that is given a major bias. Bob Denver later recanted his comment, and no reason is given why he recanted it. If it was false, it has no bearing on Dawn Wells, so it does not belong here. Her driving incident is discussed in detail and somebody else took responsibility. Then we have a comment that Associated Press had reported something that "was later found to be false." I don't understand why we mention it. At the end of the long section it boils down to the conclusion that Wells was not charged in relation to the marijuana, but with reckless driving, and no offense was recorded, although no source is provided for this. Rossrs (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just another point - WP:BLP is a concern here. Quoting and supporting 'facts' is one thing, but the overall result is crucial - the undue weight given presents a bias that we should look at carefully in terms of BLP.  My opinion is that BLP should at the very least require that this section be pared down to the most basic, supported fact and that it not be spotlighted by being placed in its own section, but given the relative unimportance of the event, I would prefer it be removed completely. Rossrs (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with your assessment, Rossrs. There is no reason for a short term allegation by Denvers to appear in the article and I have removed that. It's also quite unclear that the rest of it should be here at all either. What was added today is unreferenced and I removed it and edited the paragraph only to reflect what sources provided in the paragraph indicate. Frankly, this comes down to a traffic violation and is not notable in the career of this individual. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree there is undue emphasis. With media stars, Wiki tends to degrade into gossip, presumably because it's easier for editors read free references from online Associated Press articles, than to read a hardcopy of Inside Gilligan's Island.
 * But particularly with this article, my overall take was "That's all she did?" Why describe it at all, except perhaps to refute popular rumors. The allegation by Denvers seemed to imply that he mistakenly implicated Wells, then lied to keep her out of it. That might be make for an interesting sentence or two in a full-length biography -- of Denvers -- but the innuendo that he and Wells were still friends, that they were both marijuana users doesn't enhance Wikipedia's encyclopedic content. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proxy User, there is clear agreement above that the Denver claim isn't relevant here and was removed, that was not a "large section", it was two sentences. You've not bothered to post a comment here, but instead flatly reverted what I edited and called it vandalism, which is bad faith and unfounded. Regardless, I edited the section, removing a small amount of unsourced content added and added sourcing for the statement from Wells' attorney. This is a WP:BLP issue, which is a serious consideration and your reversion was both a bad faith claim and in no way adhered to WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me why the Denver comment was removed. And the newer incedent which is a matter of public record can certainly not be argued away as not being properly sourced. Proxy User (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Proxy User. Your edits and their summaries suggest bad faith and bullying tactics. You do not have the right to call my edit, or any edit, vandalism just because you disagree with it. You should not be directing people to WP:OWN, when this talk page is full of you forcing your view onto anyone who disagrees. You should not be suggesting users be aware of WP:3RR as this is not a contest to see which version is standing after the 3rd revert. Several people have given opinions as to why this information should not be presented in its current format. I am removing it as a violation of WP:BLP and for that reason the discussion needs to be "should the material be added?", not "should the material be removed?" Please accept this as a good faith action, because although I do not have any great interest in Dawn Wells' reputation, I care greatly about Wikipedia's reputation, and this kind of tabloidish approach makes us all look bad. I'm not saying it's a done deal, but it's only fair that someone independent and unbiased looks at it, and with that aim I have posted a comment at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Rossrs (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is *laughable* to describe my discussion here as "bullying tactics" while ignoring a certain Admin/Editor who should remove himself as a matter of conflict of interest, and has certainly been throwing his weight around on a very intimidating way. My discussion here, as well, is not "bad faith" whatever nonsense that might actually mean. I have an opinion, and I'm arguing it, rather than threatening other editors with admin action, as a certain other editor is. Proxy User (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're replying in February 2010 to a comment I made in August 2009, so your comment should reflect what was happening in August not what's happening now.  I did not say anything about your "discussion here".  I said specifically "your edits and edit summaries".    If you're going to take such a tone with me, be careful that you've got it right.   You haven't.      You have an opinion, good for you.  You've been expressing it since March 2008.   Other people have opinions.   Perhaps your opinion is being treated with the same degree of respect that you have shown to everyone who disagrees with you.    Enough is enough.  My comment was made 6 months ago, and you had a chance to comment then.  You didn't. Rossrs (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Marijuana arrest
Okay, so when I looked at this article there was no mention of her arrest at all. I agree that it shouldn't be given undue weight, but it's ridiculous that it not even be in the article. It was newsworthy, and is well-sourced. I restored an older paragraph about it–go ahead and edit it if you can improve it, but don't just delete it.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You restored a section that clearly violates WP:BLP. Wells was not convicted of a marijuana charge, she was convicted of a traffic violation. Any content implying otherwise is a clear violation and clearly exposes Wikipedia to a libel charge. This has been addressed at WP:BLP/N more than once here, here and finally here, where the facts of the case regarding what amounts to a traffic conviction is being given improper weight with this content. Her "arrest" was ultimately a traffic stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not convinced. It was covered widely and is public information. If you think it's libelous, then change it so it isn't. It can't be libelous to say that she was arrested, that there was marijuana in the car, and that she pled guilty to reckless driving, because even her lawyer concedes those facts on her official website. As I said before, it shouldn't be given undue weight, but that's not the same as saying it shouldn't be mentioned at all. And despite your implication, we do cover traffic stops.


 * I'm restoring the paragraph, which strikes me as even-handed and well-sourced. If you disagree with that, or think it gives undue weight or is libelous, then by all means edit it, but it should not be removed completely.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  04:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And once again, I have taken this to WP:BLP/N and am fully prepared to open a full request for comments about this or take it to ArbCom if necessary. Opinion was rendered on this on WP:BLP/N and returning this content to the article is a blatant thumb the nose at those opinions. This has long been a settled issue here and you are giving no rationale that is acceptable in order to post what amounts to detrimental content based on something that is no longer a valid issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you're not willing to work towards a consensus on this. "My way or the highway" is not a terribly productive attitude. I don't think those BLP opinions settled the issue, as most of them were about a previous revision that gave undue weight to the charge. There is a grand total of one person who agreed with you completely, and that hardly makes it a settled matter. I'm happy to have this on BLP/N, but please stop with the revert wars in the meantime. How about if you devote your energies instead to creating a compromise paragraph that addresses your concerns? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  06:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no compromise when you add content that brands someone a drug user and implies they were convicted of the same. You may not think that WP:BLP is a concern, but in that you are terribly wrong. I'd remind you that "revert wars" don't happen in a vaccuum, your insistence on returning libellous content is a huge issue. As I said, I'm prepared to take all the way through ArbCom if necessary. Stop adding libellous content to this article and in fact, contains facts that the link you posted at WP:BLP/N disputes facts in this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The compromise would be to edit the added material so that it is no longer libelous, not remove it completely. You seem quite uninterested  in addressing my points. Oh well, let's see what happens at WP:BLP/N. (P.S., Can you try to avoid further canvassing?)&mdash; Chowbok   ☠  07:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing improper about notifying someone who previously commented on this issue that it once again has come up, despite how you would like to spin it. Please stop stalking my edits in the mean time and stop casting negative aspersions on a notification that complies with WP:CANVAS. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As per BLP, I've removed the material again. I agree with the discussion(s) above, it seems quite undue to include the information. Dayewalker (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, we'll leave it off until the matter is settled there. I'd feel better if you would specifically address my points, however.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  07:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's no parallel between Wells' traffic stop and Mel Gibson's, in terms of notability or long-term impact. Dayewalker (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it a problem of relevance more than anything.  When you boil the whole section down, she's shown to have committed a traffic violation and everything else is negated.  I question the relevance of including any mention of it.   We've got a fairly minor actress, known mainly for one acting role that she played more than 40+ years ago, involved in an incident the circumstances of which are not crystal clear, but that had little impact on her life or career, was reported briefly and legitimately,  though not necessarily widely,  at the time it happened, and for which she received a slap on the wrist.  There's no comparison to the high profile of Mel Gibson and the reporting of his scrapes with the law, good judgement and common sense, which are a series of events rather than Wells' one possible deviation from what otherwise seems to have been a blameless life.  Mel and Dawn are not on an even playing field.   Wells' incident seems like a non-event to me, and I think if we look at the intent of WP:BLP rather than following it to the very letter, we should be considering whether the information being reported is relevant enough to justify the possible damage it could do to the person.  There's too much innuendo and suggestion in the information as presented, and not enough fact, and because the relevance is so shaky, I don't think we should reintroduce it to the article.   The whole incident comes under WP:UNDUE as far as I'm concerned, and that's also the main thrust of this discussion.   Editing it down to make it fit more squarely with WP:BLP would reduce it to the point of the main traffic violation, which is not the sort of thing we would usually report.   Rossrs (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:BLPN: I don't think this merits any mention at all. It is a minor, slightly embarassing incident which could only possibly merit inclusion if it was shown to have some sort of long-term significance for the subject. Rd232 talk 12:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The "marijuana incident" was removed by an editor that has taken WP:OWN of this article, and ignores the fact that it was a notable incident reported on the national media. Good for Wells that she has a powerful Wikipedia editor willing to enforce bias in her Wiki article. But it's still censoring out an event that falls well inside the notability standard. =//= Proxy User (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to be a little more creative with your accusations, Proxy User. You ended up having this taken to WP:BLP/N on three different occasions and it was overruled, even with one time suggesting that you be blocked. Please refrain from making bad faith accusations and casting aspersions on persons because they clearly do not agree with you. The comments here and at WP:BLP/N aren't with you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're being offensivly heavyhanded, Wildhartlivie. I understand you have a lot of power here, this doesn't mean you should abuse it. Seriously, your tone is quite nasty. Proxy User (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, on two of those occasions, as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, the focus simply on whether it should get its own section, not whether it should be excluded or not. I wonder how seriously to take WP:BLP/N discussions anyhow, when you're doing things like going around calling in favors in an attempt to rig the discussion.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) This discussion seems to have taken a personal turn. I also reverted the addition of the section, and I don't believe I've ever edited this article before. Let's please focus on the issue at hand, as WHL isn't the only editor who opposes the addition of the material. Dayewalker (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply there aren't good faith reasons to oppose the addition. Just pointing out some questionable behavior.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, but if you think there's questionable behavior going on, please report it at the appropriate noticeboard. Bringing it up in the middle of a conversation on an article talk page doesn't accomplish anything. Dayewalker (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Chowbok, you have taken a very personal bend here. I notified two editors, both of whom have commented on this before and whom I happen to know have not changed thier opinion on this. Then you followed around my edits to post personal messages on not one, not two, but three different talk pages, to the point that myself and one of those persons have told you to stop posting on their talk pages. Try to grasp that nothing inappropriate was done here and try for a change arguing your points on their merits, not making personal attacks or casting aspersions. That will not win you favor in this discussion, nor will it persuade anyone to agree with you. Proxy User, you started your first post here today with an attack upon editors who have removed this as an example of ownership, censorship and claiming that Wells has personal emissaries who enforce bias. Stating rhat your own conduct was commented upon to recommend a block and that you ultimately were blocked for violating WP:BLP on this article is neither heavyhanded nor nasty. It's the truth and that conduct is absolutely germane to any accusations you care to levy here against anyone. Almost two years have passed and the tune remains the same. You have been blocked for a bias in editing on this article and repeatedly denied a request to be unblocked by various adminstrators, all of whom you also accused of bias. In weighing your comments, it's germane that other editors who might post here should know that. If that is heavyhanded or nasty, then so be it. It doesn't erase the history. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made no personal attacks, on you or anyone else. I simply pointed out actions you took in violation of Wikipedia policy. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, on what you contend was violations, not of policy but of guidelines. And once more, please try to base your arguments on the merits of your position, not in trying to wage war against other editors. As I said, you are not winning point here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the content of this article were based on the merits of the content (in consideration of Wikipedia guidelines), the notable pot indecent would be included in some form or another, rather than having been censored by one particular editor with a POV. Discussion about including this content are usually responded to with "Wikilawyering" and threats to have the offending party brought up on charges in some Admin forum or another - quite frankly, very undignified behaivior. Proxy User (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In case you missed it, Proxy User, the content was removed by more than one editor, the last one of which you reverted, calling it vandalism. This content has been challenged under WP:BLP, and as such is correctly and rightly removed. There is no notable pot "indecent" here, there was a minor traffic conviction and your insistence on characterizing it as a marijuana incident is both biased, pointy and inappropriate. Revert this again and you will be taken to WP:AN/I for your actions. It is both wrong and improper to revert an administrator on grounds of vandalism when his actions were based on just cause. The opinions are agaisnt you on this as they have been for several months. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it with you and you exceptionally offensive and overbearing tone? Good grief! Are you incapable of dealing with people in a civil way? Your attitude and tone are not conducive to rational discussion of the subject at hand. I see you are also using your "status" as an Administrator to intimidate. Proxy User (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That goes to show what you see. I am not an administrator, nor have I represented myself to be one, nor am I trying to intimidate. However, I am bothering to challenge your false assumptions and improper actions. That you bothered to revert an administrator has not gone unnoticed, was reverted and you reverted it again. Reverting content removed as a WP:BLP is improper and a bad decision, especially considering you've been blocked for inappropriateness regarding this topic on this article before. The administrator you accused of vandalism has reverted you again. Please do not continue to edit war against a valid content removal. So far, there has been no rational discussion here, only a drive to include deceiving content in violation of a basic Wikipedia tenet. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) If I may interrupt the personal comments here, Proxy User, what's different about this time you're trying to insert this material than the previous times? The points made above seem sound, as it was a minor traffic violation. Consensus has been gained here, and the most recent BLP discussion (were there others) also seems to agree. What's changed? Dayewalker (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for crying out loud! Consensus was already established that this content does not belong in the article. If two people disagree with that consensus, I suggest one or both of them take the necessary steps to either gain a new consensus or just accept the fact that the community disagrees with the inclusion of this particular bit of information. In other words, stop edit warring and bickering like children and move on.  Pinkadelica ♣  21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Was "consensus" really established? Or did one editor intimidate alternate views until those people gave up? And, is "consensus" relevant if the content meets certain standards of notability? There is some content that there may never be a "consensus" about that is none the less relevant enough for inclusion. I am not convinced there ever was "consensus". I know that several supporters of inclusion (rather than exclusion) simply became tired of subtle threats and "Wikilawyering". "Consensus" is not the final word. Relevancy of content is. Proxy User (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a non-involved party should evaluate the issue in a formal process, though I suspect there are some here who would fight that. Proxy User (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On this talk page, the most consistent supporter of inclusion has been you.  User:Chowbok's recent comments support your view, but everyone else has spoken of either reducing or removing the content.   There are not "several supporters of inclusion."    As for the "one editor [who] intimidate[d]", I see about half a dozen who have commented in favour of reduction or exclusion, so it has not been one editor trying to force a minority viewpoint.  The same thing has happened when it's been taken to WP:BLP/N.     You ask "is "consensus" relevant if the content meets certain standards of notability?", and I think the answer to that question is yes, however a major part of the discussion relates to whether it meets the standard of notability.   That's the point on which several editors have said, no it's doesn't.  I don't mind if a non-involved party evaluates this issue again.  It's been taken to WP:BLP/N at least three times before, so if you decide to seek other viewpoints, just let us know where you take the question to. Rossrs (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proxy User, your personal attacks and slurs are growing extremely tiresome. First you accused me of throwing around my administrator status, all the while not even realizing I'm not an administrator, then you proceeded to twice revert an administrator who rightly removed this content under the auspices of WP:BLP. You've been blocked from Wikipedia because of BLP violations you committed on this page. It is time for you to stop dragging in your own personal baggage to this discussion. Four trips to WP:BLP/N have brought the same results, everyone commenting here with the exception of your bad faith accusations and posts by Chowbok have been against including this content. What do you have against Dawn Wells that you think it is pertinent to inflate what amounts to a traffic conviction into a "marijuana indecent"? How does that enhance this encyclopedia or how does that further the notability of a 2nd rate television actress? What is it going to take to make you dial back your personal attacks? Another block? A WP:RfC/U that recommends your topic ban from this article? Stop attacking other editors and grow up, as Pinkadelica said. It's time to stop trying to snow this talk page with bad faith accusations and accept that the opinion tide is against you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is quite difficult to disengage from a disagreement about inclusion/exclusion that looks like it has devolved into a person attack/personal defense situation. I would have great respect for the parties who can ignore the perceived personal attacks upon them and direct their discussion to the reasons why the arrest, driving conviction, and marijuana involvement, to the extent that any occurred or not, should be included in the article. I would normally leave my name with a posting. I have never posted anything related to Dawn Wells, nor am I a sock puppet for anyone now who now is, or was ever, engaged in this discussion. I am posting this here with my IP as the signature.


 * You all should know why I am posting in this barely anonymous manner. Ask yourself this: would you advise me to weigh in with support of the opposing viewpoint? You would likely tell me that I should not, based upon your assessment that the parties (I do not view anyone to be alone on their side) opposing you are engaged in improper, and perhaps personal, attacks/actions against you, to which I could then be subjected. --75.4.215.55 (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC):
 * This is all a bit overdramatic, especially since there hasn't been a post on this page in over a week. Whatever facet of the discussion you see, please log in and make your case. Anonymous postings like this don't help determine consensus on the article, which is what this page is for. Dayewalker (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have struck through my words.--75.4.215.55 (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just find it absolutely mind boggling that a clearly notable event is being censored at the request of the bio subject. It's clearly a "personal" issue with the Enforcement Editor, who has taken WP:OWN of the article. It's inappropriate. To me, It’s not about Dawn Wells, it’s about notable information about a public figure being censored from the article. Saying so is not a “personal attack”, it’s an observation of fact. This business of "changing the subject" by attacking me is just silly and totally off topic / subject. The issue is the censorship of notable material on the article subject. As well, the idea that the was some consensus in the past (and I dispute that - bullying a POV until alternate opinions get tired of the argument is not consensus) is irrelevant. There is not consensus *NOW*. Proxy User (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain with diffs what you mean when you say this information is "being censored at the request of the bio subject." My own opinion of this situation has nothing to do with anyone else's opinions or requests. Dayewalker (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Proxy User, please provide clear and irrefutable proof that this article is "being censored at the request of the bio subject". To make such a charge is quite serious and that is clearly a case of "changing the subject" by attacking. Your conduct regarding this article really makes me think that you should be topic banned regarding this article. No one bullied anything and there is clearly consensus *NOW*. To take a count, there are 5 editors, myself, Pinkadelica, Rossrs, Dayewalker, and RD232 commenting on this page and Off2riorob on WP:BLP/N who think this does not belong. I'm fairly certain no one who expressed an opinion about this has been "bullied" into saying it doesn't belong. On the other side is you, Chowbok and a random IP who said he didn't have the courage of his own convictions to identify himself for the content. Continuing to snow this talk page with your own objections has failed to dissuade anyone from disagreeing with you and your comments about bullying and claims that this is being other-directed are less than convincing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into some sort of of-topic argument with you. The fact is, the subject we are talking about is notable and should be included, The fact is there was no real consensus to delete it, and even if there was, it is not legitimate when the content in question is in fact notable and relevant to the article. There is simply no real reason *not* to include it other than it is mildly embarrassing to the subject of the article, which is not a legitimate reason. Kindly refrain from unfounded accusations of "attacking", it is false, divisive, a distraction and most importantly, ungentlemanly. Proxy User (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And dude, you've been corrected before. Take a minute to discover my gender. There is no attacking going on here except from you who has speciously claimed that Dawn Wells has had this removed from this article. Please provide proof. That's a serious charge that you're making. And again, COUNT the opinions. You're fabricating an outcome of this discussion that is clear on this page. Just because something was reported in the news at one time, does not make it appropriate content for inclusion in a BLP, as the discussion has decided, despite your contentions to the opposite. Consensus is clear here. Running around shouting "The sky is falling" does not make it so, Chicken Little. Please stop being contentious before someone decides to take this to WP:AN/I to suggest a topic ban. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again with the threats. Why is that always your default?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  15:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how he/she enforces his/her will with this article. This is why claims of "consensus" are hog wash. The reality is that other editors with other views on the subject just don't feel like being the target of this type of intimidation, so they find some other subject to edit that doesn’t involve this kind of nonsense. Proxy User (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And your default response is to make snarky, spiteful remarks, Chowbok. Is that something you only do with me, or do you practice that with every editor with whom you disagree? Or is disagreeing with me something you do as a matter of practice? The simple fact is that anyone who continues to occupy the time of other editors in continuing to discuss the same tired false comments and fabricated rationales are subject to sanctions, one of which can be topic/article bans. And the simple fact is that it is fast becoming obvious, given Proxy User's past behavior regarding this article, that it may be a necessary step. Take a poll of everyone who responded here to form the consensus that was determined if they were intimidated or bullied into the opinion they expressed. You'll be told no and to stop making false statements and accusations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to bully people into agreeing with you, you already have your little fan club/cabal of the same 5 or 6 people that come in to defend you anytime you get into one of your many, many editing disputes. I'm certain from your behavior that you've bullied and intimidated many people into not arguing with you, and we just don't see them because they've given up and moved on.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, that's your standard fall back - accusing people of cabalism and collusion and it's growing very old. There were 6 opinions expressed here against this content. Two of them you have previously accused of cabalism, but the other three are persons with whom I have never worked - that being Dayewalker and RD232 commenting on this page and Off2riorob on WP:BLP/N who think this does not belong, including an administrator and two persons who came to this from WP:BLP/N. That's hardly proof of cabalism at work, so effectively, prove it or stop saying it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "People"? "Standard fallback"? I defy you to look through my 6+ years of edits and find a single time I have made those accusations against any editor on here aside from you. You're pretty self-righteous for somebody who's been blocked for sockpuppetry and had at least two socks banned. If the shoe fits... That said, I don't mean to suggest that only socks and meatpuppets agree with you. There are people here agreeing with you in good faith, and it's a shame that they have to be sullied due to your muddying the waters and making it unclear who's a legit editor and who isn't.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting really tired of your vitriolic crap spewing all over talk pages. I took you to WP:WQA once for your behavior toward me and just because you thought that not responding was the way to go, it's on record and so is this. One thing we don't need is vitriolic crap being vomited everywhere. Many things have gone noticed around here . I served my block, and that restored my good standing and even the checkuser who placed it said "I agree, you served your time, and we privately got to a resolution that met the stuff we outlined. It may not have been the one I personally would like to have seen but it was acceptable, and raising that block over and over isn't helpful." In other words, throwing it up every time you wish to speak is buying you no progress here, many editors here get blocked for many reasons and it doesn't mean they lose the right to come back and voice opinions. Even administrators get blocked foa a lot of reasons and don't lose their tools. I'll say it once here for the record, regardless of the block, I am not LaVidaLoca and the resolution of which Lar spoke was to submit evidentiary proof of that distinction, which at that time my friend declined to do, but which now is being worked on for submission to prove it. So dude, if you think there are other socks floating around, or I'm acting surreptiously, go right ahead and march your ass over to WP:SPI and file a sockpuppet complaint and prove it or eat it and shut up. Be sure and include my username, Pinkadelica, Rossrs, Dayewalker, Off2riorob, Rd232 in your complaint, since they constitute the editors who spoke against this content. If you can't do that, then by all means shut the hell up and stop picking at me. I'm sick and tired of your spew and it's beginning to stink up this page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anybody can complain at WP:WQA; what's more relevant is that they basically told you to quit whining and go away. I never said you didn't have the right to voice your opinion; the point is your bullying manner and the suspicious way certain accounts never ever disagree with you. I've given up on progress here; I think between your bullying tone and your aggressive gaming of the system, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that you will always get what you want. I'm happy just waiting for you to self-destruct and finally getting banned, and then the rest of us can discuss these issues in a much more mannerly fashion.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anybody can complain anywhere, that's the beauty of this site. For anything else you care to spew, take it to WP:AN/I. I don't game the system, you ask for policy and guidelines, you got it. That isn't gaming anything. Let me make a suggestion though, while you're waiting for me to "self-destruct and finally get banned", hold your breath. It will keep the air clean and the monitor free of vitriole. I'd suggest others read your comments on this page and others to see who discusses issues in a mannerly fashion, cuz it ain't you, babe. Or is that your modus operandi? Push and pick until someone gets so annoyed at you that they "self-destruct". You got instructions for how to do that somewhere? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of us have enough respect for the administrators' time to not go crying to WP:AN/I anytime somebody hurts our feelings. I don't claim to be "mannerly" with my last few posts here, but I agree that people should read this thread from the beginning, as it clearly shows you set the tone for this discussion.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, let's not let ourselves get distracted from your accusations above that the article is censored because of the whim of the subject. Kindly source that with DIFFs, or strike it, as it seems to be the crux of your argument and appears to be completely fabricated. Dayewalker (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you think that Dawn Wells herself lies somewhere at the heart of this discussion.  Have a look at the editing history of the editors involved here and you'll see a consistent approach to WP:BLP across a range of articles.   If you are going to make such a statement you need to back it up with evidence.   Rossrs (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why that actual real issue is not being discussed: Why factual, notable, relevant, and well sourced information is being deleted from the article? "Consensus" (which was never actually reached anyway) is irrelevant. It is not proper to reach "consensus" to delete factual, notable, relevant, and well sourced information. And, intimidating other editors until they simply leave is not really "consensus". With several editors here, it’s always the threats of some sort of disciplinary action or some other Wikilawyering nonsense. Never actual discussion of the subject at hand… Proxy User (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual real issue has been discussed. Because something is reported in the news at one time does not make it automatically fair game for inclusion, especially when it is being presented in a manner that violates WP:BLP. The actual consensus determined here is that this content is not significant enough to include, especially when it is being presented as something it was not. Please address what you have against Dawn Wells that you are so determined to smear her in this article and please stop making false claims that no consensus was reached. Just because consensus did not agree with you does not mean it wasn't reached. And once again, please provide diffs to prove your false claim that Wells was involved in any way in this decision. That's the real issue here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, editors with other views were intimidated until they left. This is what is going on with the “discussion” right now. That's not "consensus".  And no, including factual, notable, relevant events in a subjects life does not violate WP:BLP. Why not discuss the merits or lack thereof of the actual subject here, rather than making veiled threats, snarky responses, and nonsensical Wikilawyering? Proxy User (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Proxy User, see my response to Chowbok above. Prove it or drop it. The way this content has been presented violatesWP:BLP and editors from that board agree. Again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that Dawn Wells has anything to do with this or retract your statement. Stop dancing around responding to a direct request to prove your accusations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As this above discussion has grown full of attacks and unfounded accusations, I've suggested to Proxy User on his talk page that he start a new section here with his proposed addition. That way, the subject can be clear and hopefully remain civil. If there are any preexisting DIFFs that show current consensus from BLP discussions (or similar discussions), or that show any validity to PU's accusations of censorship due to requests from the subject, please make them available. Dayewalker (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dayewalker is on the right track but I'll go one (well, a few) better. If Chowbok and ProxyUser are not satisfied with the current consensus, both are free to open an RfC to seek a new consensus. If neither want to do that, there's no need to fill up this talk page with more of the same. I honestly don't know what's so hard about that concept as I suggested it before, but whatever. As for the bad faith accusations of *gasp* cabalism and claims that the subject herself is trying to censor the article (WTF?), I highly suggest that Chowbok and ProxyUser toodle on over to AN/I (or any other appropriate venue of their choosing) and write a lengthy report with the relevant diffs to support their assertions. If neither are prepared to do that, enough with that crap already. Crying about censorship, etc. is basically the Wikipedia version of a tantrum. Don't get your way? Cry censorship!!! Consensus doesn't go your way? It's a meanie cabal working against The truth!!! Arguments like that only serve to make other editors shut down and not want to bother with you. In other words, your tactics aren't working guys. Either follow the correct dispute resolution steps or give up the ghost.  Pinkadelica ♣  20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm... Which "current consensus" are you talking about? Because while there is primarily one editor claiming such a consensus, I've been following this since the original story was added, and I can't recall any such "consensus". So please, which one? The one between a heavy-handed editor and a few people he rounded up specifically to support his position? Which one, please? Proxy User (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is really starting to take nest firmly in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Complaining about the current consensus won't help change it. As stated above, if you think editors are keeping the current consensus version of the article out for censorship reasons, file a report at WP:ANI or somewhere else where action can be taken. Dayewalker (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop being so obtuse, Proxy User. If you have proof that I rounded up Dayewalker, Off2riorob, Rd232, then as Dayewalker suggested, trot over to WP:AN/I and file a complaint. Otherwise, we'll close this out as consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia Boat Show
This article should state the year of her appearance at the Philadelphia Boat Show. An undated article appeared in the Philadelphia Citypaper saying that she would appear at the Philadelphia Boat Show on Saturday, February 8. If that is correct, it would be 1997 or 2003. However, that article appeared in 2000, as can be seen by and. So, either "Saturday, February 8" is wrong, or the comment that she will appear was added later for a 2003 appearance. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pot Incident
Since there is currently, today, now, no "consensous" on this issue, let's talk about it. I see no reason at all why references to this notable, relevant, and well sourced event should not be included. Please be spacific in your objections, oblique references to WP:BIO are meaningless. Proxy User (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There most certainly is a consensus here abou the "pot indecent" and characterizing that way certainly shows your POV about it. See comments from myself, Pinkadelica, Rossrs, Dayewalker, Off2riorob, Rd232, all of whom used valid rationale for their opinions. Just because you continue to say there is no consensus does not detract from the fact that there is one made. This is not a filibuster, talking it to death doesn't change it. I recall you claiming that an administrator was misusing his power to force this through as well. You were wrong then too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WAS a "consensous", maybe. Is there a possibility that you can discuss the merrits of inclusion / exclusion without resorting to unproductive name calling and becomming agressivly abusive of other editors? Would that be possible? Proxy User (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be missing here is that everyone has already discussed the inclusion of this and a consensus, with which you don't agree, has been reached. This has already happened here and all the denial in the world does not make that evaporate. There was no name calling or "becomming agressivly abusive of other editors" in my last post. There is a consensus, I named the editors who agreed and I said this is not a filibuster. Your conclusion that "there is no consensus" is wrong, as was your claim that an administrator was misuing his power. This section is pointless. The discussion was already posted. Just because the consensus wasn't what you wanted does not mean that it goes away. If you disagree so strongly, perhaps you should open a WP:RfC on this, as Pinkadelica recommended. Be sure and notify everyone who posted here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be missing here is that "consensus" is not a permanent state. Also, your definition of "everyone" and "consensus" are self-serving. Proxy User (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus can certainly change. However, until it does, as per BLP the discussion needs to continue until a new consensus is reached. PU, I've reverted your most recent addition of the disputed material to the page. As per BLP and previous discussions, it doesn't belong. Please continue the talk page discussion, and try and get consensus to swing your way instead of just replacing the oft-deleted material on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the paragraph about the pot incident. I do not think it belongs because of Undo weight issues. She wasn't charged or found guilty of possession of pot so why is it important to add this trivia to the article? No, I don't think there is a good reason to add this within the policies of WP:Weight and WP:BLP. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  21:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus might change, but that doesn't tend to happen in 2 weeks and it doesn't happen just because the persons who rendered their opinions have been disparaged as bullied, meat pupppets, denizens acting on behalf of Dawn Wells or talked to death. If opinions change, it won't be because of the arguments presented in the last two weeks and it will happen on this page. That hasn't happened. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There never was "consensus", Wildhartlivie. Chasing away other editors that disagree with your exclusionary view through aggressive behavior and then canvassing your friends is not "consensus". And in any case, there can be no legitimate "consensus" to exclude relevant, notable, and well sourced information on the subject of this bio. Not only that, as you very well know, I am not the only one who believes that inclusion of this content is proper. It is clear that even if there was at one time "consensus", there is no longer "consensus". It's simply a fact, so you might as well give up the "consensus" nonsense and start actually discussing the merits of the content. Proxy User (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If controversial content such as this is resisted by multiple good faith editors then that is a good reason to keep it out of the article, simply having a citation and a desire to add that content is not the way wikipedia works, this s especially true of BLP articles, there is a strong consensus against you here and listening to it and accepting it is a good collaborative editorial position, I suggest the closing of this RFC and an end to this circular tedious discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No matter how many times you shout it, Proxy User, seven different editors have posted to this page that believe this content does not belong vs. three, you, Chowbok and the IP that think it does. The consensus that was formed has not gone away. No one has withdrawn their opinion. You can continue to claim there is no consensus, but that's just like the little boy who shouted wolf. People start ignoring your unfounded cries and discard your comments. So far, on this page in the last few days, you have engaged in increasingly assaultive behavior, you've accused editors of "misusing their administrator tools" although you failed to realize there were no administrators responding here, of working on the behalf of and speaking for Dawn Wells, of meatpuppetry, of chasing off editors (who that is, I do not know), canvassing editors (both of whom who were notified who had previously responded on this in the past and who repeated their views once again), bullying and not to mention some very direct personal attacks has not changed that. Just because you and two others think it should be included has no effect on the seven who do not. I think it is time to call in administrators to call a conclusion to this increasingly acrimonious discussion from you and call it a day. Denial of an outcome doesn't change that outcome. You've edit warred to return this, acted against consensus to return it and thrown enough crap around to paint the walls. It doesn't change my opinion or that of the other six who posted here and enough is simply enough. I'm tired of your conduct here and I'm not the only one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wells was charged with three crimes. Her guilty plea to an uncharged lesser crime of reckless driving came as part of an agreement with prosecutors who agreed to drop the three crimes she was formally charged with - the more serious driving under the influence, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) as reflected in the reference citation in the language I am proposing concerning this edit issue.--75.4.215.55 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Section Re: Marijuana
I propose that the following section be added as a subsection of "Personal Life", or because that section is small, just adding it to "Personal Life" with no subheading. Your comments invited.

{begin subsection}

Reckless Driving: Alleged Marijuana Involvement
In March 2008, Wells pled guilty to reckless driving as part of a plea agreement dropping charges relating to alleged possession of marijuana. All charges stemmed from her arrest in 2007 after a Teton County, Idaho sheriff's deputy allegedly observed her swerving and failing a field sobriety test.

{end subsection}

The reason that this brief mention warrants inclusion in her biography (subject to consensus) is the same reason it received any attention in the first place. It runs against type. In particular, it runs against type that is the very reason for her inclusion in Wikipedia, i.e., her role as Mary Ann on Gilligan's Island. The title of the referenced Associated Press article says it well: “‘Gilligan's Island' good girl caught with pot." If readers want more detail than the two sentences of the proposal entry, reference citation links are provided so they can read details of the alleged swerving, marijuana odor, what other people said/were going to say about her behavior at a party earlier, how many joints were found where, and in what condition, etc.--75.4.215.55 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I support this much slimmed down subsection. Proxy User (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The primary problem here is that this also includes content that states that someone else testified that the marijuana was not hers and since the final plea was a traffic charge, and all other charges were dropped, so this still places undue weight on a traffic conviction. Her inclusion in Wikipedia is based on notability achieved as a star of a television program, not because there is any perception of her as a "good girl". We don't determine notability based on public perceptions of someone's image. With all respect, this entire issue places the encyclopedia at risk for libel by painting her as a marijuana smoking bad girl. As it stands, there are 7 opinions that this isn't proper content and 3 that want it in. In any case, a subheading over-empahsizes this if it were included. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a lot of lawyering going on here. It's all good and well, and quite irrelevant. You're not her lawyer and this isn't a court of law. The fact is, an incident took place after which there were charges. In the end, the resulting charges were not the same as the starting charges. So what? It's all part of the story, which is quite notable indeed. You are trying to imagine that there never was any Marijuana Involvement, and it was all a minor driving incident. Clearly that isn't so.  Proxy User (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WTH is your problem? In love with bolding? In love with assaulting other editors? I do not represent the interests of Dawn Wells on this article, despite your contentions to the contrary, I am not claiming in any way to be her lawyer nor have I claimed this was a court of law. To make such statements is delusional at best. Please dial back your ever-increasing tone of hostility and behave like an adult here. Your attitude has become quite tiresome. I am saying clearly that there was no conviction for marijuana and your continued insistence on referring to the "Marijuana Incedent" or the "Pot incedent" does not make it a marijuana conviction. It may be notable to you, but as far as the seven contradictory opinions here, it is not notable for inclusion. She was convicted of a traffic violation. You're trying to make it much more criminal than that and the sources do not support your assertions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's your inflammatory tone that has turned what should have been a civil content dispute into an endless, dreary, personal fight. I don't deny that I've contributed to the poor tone here, and clearly Proxy User could be more civil as well, but it's your dispute style here and elsewhere that sparked the fire in the first place. I think it's hypocritical at best for you to be criticizing anyone else for an "ever-increasing tone of hostility".&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  04:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any point or merit in taking an entire post to try and blame one editor for the mess this talk page has become. There's an awful lot of badness to go around. Can we get back to the subject, please? As this wound up a minor traffic violation, I still don't see any reason for this to be included on the page, espcially not in terms of being labeled "pot incident." Dayewalker (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the editor who proposed this version has made one of the most thoughtful and well considered comments on here. I think the point about it being "against type" for Wells, is very perceptive, and I think that explains why a lot of people - including me - find it interesting.  However, I do not think that interesting and relevant are the same thing.    I think the way it's written in this proposal is the best version we've yet seen, and yet I still do not feel comfortable with it.  It complies with BLP (I believe) but in the spirit of BLP we still should use good judgement in what we include and what we don't.  If the information was useful to the reader in giving them a better understanding of Wells and the reason for Wells' notability, I would say include it, no matter how bad it makes her look.   But... I just don't see it as relevant.  It doesn't enhance the reader's knowledge of Wells to any degree.  From a BLP point of view, it presents negative information for no real purpose.   That's my concern, and it's what has bothered me from the beginning.  Rossrs (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Final consensus call
Because the consensus determined over the last two weeks has been disputed by those who oppose it on this talk page, a final repetition of opinion is called for here. Please indicate below if you are Opposed to including the arrest content in this article or if you Support the inclusion of her arrest in this article. For those who wonder about the content, please see these details as it was returned to the article. Please contain your comments to a brief note outlining your rationale without posting elaborate discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * FINAL CALL???? It's a little QUICK to call for a vote, given that there has not yet been a discussion of the question for more than a day. This is to a valid way to legitimately determine a consensus, and seriously undermines your position, Wildhartlivie. Also, you're not canvassing all your friends to illegitimately stack the vote, are you? Because that would be dishonest. Proxy User (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't change the heading. This issue has been discussed for years, actually, as can be seen from the talk page and the BLP discussions. While I'm generally against this kind of roll call, it seems to be an easy way to illustrate the obvious. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it has been discussed *in the past*. But this is a new discussion, and a vote at this time is not legitimate. This is nothing more than a railroad. Proxy User (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked you days ago what's changed from the past discussions, and what was different this time around. You ignored the comment, as you ignore other relevant questions on your opinions on this article. There's no reason to continue an obvious discussion over two years and multiple pages. You've said the exact same thing for two years. What's changed? Why is this sourced content more relevant now than two years ago? Dayewalker (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, in fact, it's been discussed for the last two weeks non-stop and the past two years before that. That you've chosen to waste our time making ad hominem attacks upon mostly me doesn't take that away. There were seven commenters showed up here in the last two weeks to speak against including this and you've also chosen to stand there and scream that there is no consensus has taken up our time the last few days. eCasting aspersions upon me hasn't dissuaded those opinions, nor has it changed opinions from a year ago. It's time to put this to bed and in fact, I was advised to take this action by administration. Don't respond to the request, I don't give a crap. This is the last attempt to close this before I take it to ArbCom and quite frankly, based on your behavior here, one of the requests for ArbCom will be your banning from this article. I'm sick of the abuse you are heaping on me. If you truly believe I've violated policy, take it to WP:AN/I or shut up about it. The only reason this wasn't settled days ago was your stubborn refusal to accept good faith opinions offered here by other editors. And stop refactoring the section title just because you don't like it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE inclusion of content

 * on the basis of undue weight on what amounts to a traffic conviction and resultant WP:BLP considerations arising therefrom. Wildhartlivie (talk)
 * Granted that consensus is not a vote of course, I'll gladly repeat what I've said above in hopes of ending this. I oppose the inclusion of this content as undue weight, based on the results of the case. Dayewalker (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose expanded section per WP:UNDUE. At most, a terse and cited mention would suffice. No need to have an otherwise minor and non-notable incident become a major portion of the article, as it does not have anything to do with her already established notability. Whatever the initial charges might have been, it became a traffic citation, and that, even against type, is not a big deal. Less is more.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose re-adding/re-wording content per WP:UNDUE. I don't see how continuously discussing this is going to change anything. All I see are more circular arguments for its inclusions and the usual round of bad faith accusations.  Pinkadelica ♣  10:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I also think is undo weight. With reading this, she was guilty of a traffic violation, nothing more.  Also, this happened so long ago that I don't think that it's anything worth discussing.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I thought this was already decided. Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It got some media attention for a few days, but is hardly something so significant that it needs to be part of the lead. WP:UNDUE applies here. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Obvious BLP violation.Jarhed (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - places undue weight on a minor incident Rossrs (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

SUPPORT inclusion of content

 * Support. I support the inclusion of the shortened paragraph suggested above by the IP user. Proxy User (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Yet another WP standard blatantly violated by Wildhartlivie, this time WP:VOTE (also WP:CANVASS, but that's old news). This "vote" is nothing more than an attempt to shut down discussion. From now on, when anyone brings this up again, she'll just point to this and say, "well, we voted and you lost, so stop talking about it". I refuse to recognize this farce per WP:NOT, and recommend that all other conscientous editors, no matter how you feel about the content issue, do so as well.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  07:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in thinking that this has never been subject to an WP:RFC? Because that is the usual thing when noticeboard posts and talk page discussions don't suffice. That's what should have been done instead of this "final call" !voting. I would suggest that consensus and policy is clear enough without an RFC, but that is the next step in dispute resolution if dispute there remains. Rd232 talk 11:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was suggested by myself, Pinkadelica and I think, Dayewalker. What's happened however, is that the preponderance of editors who responded her in the last two weeks have agreed on exclusion, but what we've been dealing with is one editor who keeps shouting there is no consensus or claiming it doesn't count for whatever reason. It was suggested to take another poll in order to elucidate that the consensus was to exclude the content after a few days of increasingly severe accusations, as I noted below, including that excluding the content was being done at the behest of Dawn Wells. We tried to press that issue and got no response, so this seemed the next step - to show clearly that consensus was reached. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging by the responses, that isn't going to work. An RFC is the more procedurally correct thing to do (which matters in this sort of situation), and would clarify both the balance of opinion of existing editors, and get new input. Rd232 talk 11:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was also wary of this tactic, but WHL said she was encouraged by an admin to post this section, so I weighed in. This exact same issue has been brought up at BLP four times, so outside comments have been requested multiple times before. Proxy user has been encouraged above to file an RFC, and said he was going to do so. However, nothing has come of it. With all due respect to him, Proxy User doesn't seem interested in the slightest in getting the opinions of others, or in actually providing evidence of his own claims. Dayewalker (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment
At some point WP:DEADHORSE applies; being reduced to voting to get a vocal minority to accept consensus suggests that this point has been reached. This content issue was shown to be WP:UNDUE long ago. Rd232 talk 11:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, then: if the minority cannot be persuaded that consensus is indeed against them - or if they remain convinced that the local consensus is unrepresentative of what the wider community thinks - then an WP:RFC is the answer. Rd232 talk 11:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just seen Chowbok saying in the section below "I think it has been demonstrated that the consensus is to leave it out. ", so an RFC is not really warranted; WP:DEADHORSE applies. Plus in that section there's also another new editor agreeing. Rd232 talk 13:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment
"Consensus" is irrelevant. It simply *is not needed* to include factual, relevant, notable, and well sourced material. Such material can not be legitimately excluded. To do so is clear POV, which is not acceptable at Wikipedia. Indeed, I will insist on a POV tag in this case. Proxy User (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not sure what else I can tell you, Proxy User. It seems as if you're are completely refusing to get any facet of this discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have no right to insist on a POV tag when there is a clear, policy-based consensus to exclude content. You have the right to use dispute resolution (eg WP:RFC) to seek to overturn that consensus. Please pursue that option, or drop the matter. Continuing further discussion without an RFC is a waste of time at this point. Rd232 talk 23:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know in what universe you think that unproven criminal allegations are factual and relevant, but it is certainly not this one. Let's remove the comment from the article and be done.--Jarhed (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people might consider the insisting on the POV tag to be WP:POINTy in light of the overwhelming consensus against inclusion. It's not even close. The consensus is very clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though consensus on this one is clear and overwhelming, I'd still like to let this go for another few days before summing it up. As you can tell from this page, one user has denied the consensus exists in the past. I think it's best to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the consensus does exist to not include this material. Then if it's readded in pure defiance, the next step would be an ANI report or a page ban. Dayewalker (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A "consensus" can not be legitimately used to censor relevant, accurate, notable, and well sourced biographical material from a biography. Please reach whatever "consensus" makes you happy, but keep in mind that such an agreement among yourselves can not be used to censor an article. Proxy User (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really think you understand what censorship is, PU. You made claims of censorship back here to start the most recent version of this mess by claiming Dawn Wells herself was "censoring" the article, a claim that appears to be a complete and total fabrication that you've refused to discuss ever again. I was willing to go along with you in the beginning and listen to your case for the material in good faith, but this has gotten ridiculous. Only one other editor agreed with you, but unlike you, Chowbok has listened to the other editors and come to the conclusion below that consensus is against inclusion.


 * Consensus is overwhelmingly against you. Please don't reinstate the material, or place a POV tag on the article, or anything else to protest the consensus. Please understand it's not censorship, it's just a decision that certain material doesn't belong on a BLP. That's all. Dayewalker (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Continued Discussion of Marijuana Issue
Though Wildhartlivie would like to quickly force a vote on this issue, in fact there has been very little actual discussion by interested parties. Without allowing for more discussion (since obviously not all interested parties visit this page twice and three times a day), a vote at this time would *not* be legitimate. Proxy User (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PU, If you look at the top of this very page, you'll see a discussion you were involved in on this issue in March of 2008. In addition, there are four previous threads at WP:BLP that all discussed and agreed on excluding the issue. This has obviously been discussed before, PU. I've asked you above what's changed this time, and you ignored me, so there are no new facets of the topic to discuss. This issue is wasting everyone's time. Make your case, let's see what the current consensus is, and be done with it. Dayewalker (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Daywalker, as I have said before, "consensus" is not a permanent thing. Additionally, Wildhartlivie has not shown that inclusion violates anything but his opinion, certainly not any official policy. And, there is not need to vote on inclusion of legitimate, relevant, notable, and well sourced information about a biography subject, because such material can not legitimately be excluded. This material has *not* been shown to violate anything, not be non-notable, irrelevant, or poorly sourced. No "consensus" is needed to included it, because it can not be legitimately excluded. At the very least, this "vote" must not be quickly concluded on a weekend in the late hours of the night. That just SMACKS of railroad job. Proxy User (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PU, what you just wrote is a complete case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I really don't know what else to say, other than I completely disagree with you, and the evidence bears that out. If you won't actually discuss things in good faith, it's time to wrap this up. Dayewalker (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the first BLP you link to actually resulted in the text being retained (albeit reduced in  importance, as it should have been), and the  second one was inconclusive. That said,  I think it has been  demonstrated that the consensus is  to leave it out. This undoubtedly could have been settled much more amicably were it not for Wildhartlivie continually fanning the flames.&mdash; Chowbok   ☠  07:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Chowbok, I actually looked into that. I entered into this discussion in good faith, with no connections to anyone here. If you'll look at the top of the page and work your way down, you'll see this issue was a fistfight long before WildHart came to the page due to the comments and attitude of Proxy User. It's been a two-year argument with him against the world. Dayewalker (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never felt you were acting in bad faith here, and I apologize if I've given that impression.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  07:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of the tension is also evident in the edit summaries (article, not talk) particularly around August 2009. It's difficult to keep a friendly tone with an editor who dismisses your contributions/opinions as "vandalism" without actually addressing anything you have said.   There's been an awful lot of "I didn't hear that" happening, and after almost 2 years, it's tiresome.    Rossrs (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "::Chowbok, try for one time to post something here that isn't an ad hominem attack upon me. I have responded to what you two have said here, the only fanning of the flames that has gone on is accusing editors of "misusing administrator tools to support keeping it out", although no one talking here is an administrator, we've been accused of working for Dawn Wells to keep it out of the article  and Proxy User refused to prove it or remove the accusation, of WP:OWN although multiple editors have removed the content, of meatpuppetry, of chasing off editors (who that is, I do not know), canvassing editors (two were notified of the discussion, both of whom who had previously responded on this in the past and who repeated their views once again), bullying and scaring off those whose opinions differ (no clue who that is, but I would suggest that examining this page would show the contrary) and not to mention some very direct personal attacks and general nastiness toward myself, Dayewalker and the other editors has not changed. We have had seven against the content, two of whom spoke from the WP:BLP/N and three to use it. Interesting that although you've maintained that the opinions were canvassed, there is no demonstrable contact shown for the vast majority speaking against this and the only contact about it was to two editors who previously spoke against it. Then we have Proxy User stubbing up discussion by denying that that there was consensus amongst the majority to keep it out, and does this by shouting (in bold) that there is no consensus and consensus can change, all within a few days of the rendering of those opinions, and although no one changed their opinion or has withdrawn. That too much of our time has been wasted in ad hominem attacks upon other editors doesn't take that away. It's time to put this to bed and in fact, I was advised to take this action by administration. It's also time for you to stop making attacks upon me. You don't like me, I don't care. I don't care for your actions either. Don't respond to the request, I don't give a crap. This is the last attempt to close this before I take it to ArbCom. I'm sick of the abuse you are heaping on me and no one should be subjected to that sort of treatment here, let's not forget the policy no personal attacks that has been violated here post after post. If you truly believe I've violated policy, take it to WP:AN/I or shut up about it. The only reason this wasn't settled days ago was the "no consensus" filibuster we've been exposed to. Frankly, it's worn out any good faith on the part of others who responded here. This dispute was going on between Proxy User and other editors long before I came along, but for some reason, based on something that has nothing to do with here, you've chosen to turn it around on me. My opinion hasn't changed on this, neither has the opinion of many others who have responded. No one is persuaded by vast ad hominem attacks upon editors. How funny that I get accused of scaring off people by my bullying when if one goes through this page, I'm the one being attacked and bullied. Well, bully for you all. Cue the applause sign. You've proven one thing - if someone disagrees with you, you have no compunction not to attack them. Congratulations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The controversial statement in this article is a BLP violation because it violates undue and repeats salacious allegations which were not proven in court. I don't see how anyone can make a case that the unproven allegations belong in this article. Also, the TMZ document is unacceptable as a source. It is a primary source and is in an unreliable location so there is no way to determine if it is reliable. I am not a lawyer but that source is probably a copyright violation as well. Everyone fighing for inclusion needs to take another look at the BLP policy.--Jarhed (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, "proven in court" is not the only standard. The version I added, at any rate, stuck to facts that were acknowledged by Wells's lawyer at her own website. "UNDUE" is a reasonable argument, although one I disagree with, but I don't think it's fair to say that the facts are in dispute.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, please take another look at the BLP policy and explain to me how you can justify including unproven criminial allegations in a BLP. I'm not saying that this is a rule of some sort, but it is a clear takeaway from the policy.Jarhed (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If everybody involved agrees on the relevant facts, how exactly are they "unproven"?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  02:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are *not* "unproven criminial allegations". The proposed short paragraph contains material that is supported by official (and publicly available) police and court documents. That's what makes the objections to inclusion so mystifying: the notable, relevant, and well sourced facts that were communicated in newspapers and other information media all over the world are simply not in dispute. Proxy User (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

<==You two are flat wrong. Allegations are brought in court for ajudication. If an allegation is not proven in court, you somehow seem to think it is fair for it to follow that person around for the rest of his life, merely because some idiot slapped it in a news story once upon a time. Once again, if you feel this is fair and the way that WP should work, I would like for you to please explain WHY you think so. This I have got to hear.Jarhed (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By that same logic, the articles on Fatty Arbuckle, O.J. Simpson, and Robert Blake shouldn't mention their murder cases, since after all the allegations weren't "proven in court". I realize this isn't in the same category as those, but it shows that the argument that conviction is the standard of inclusion is just wrong. I thought it was verifiability. This was highly covered in the media and, once again, the main points are not disputed by anyone, not even Wells herself.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Arbuckle is dead, the Simpson and Blake cases involved serious crimes and had substantial reliable source coverage. Please do not put words in my mouth: I claimed no standard of inclusion.  I said that all editors need to read and understand the BLP policy.  Wells is not a reliable source, neither is her lawyer's blog, and neither are the court documents.  What we have is a reliable source that describes the outcome of the case.  If anything about this incident is mentioned at all, it needs to stick closely to the facts and omit all unproven allegations.  Once again, if you think that it it is fair to put unproven allegations in this article, or you think that it helps this article or WP in any way to do so, I would like for you to explain why.  My understanding is very different.--Jarhed (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, by Chowbok's same logic, Arbuckle, Simpson and Blake were all tried in court for murder, Wells was charged with and pleaded guilty in court to reckless driving. He proves the point in a backward sort of way. The murder trials all had notable effects on the careers and notability of those persons. A reckless driving conviction does not. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Chowbok points out that verifiability is the standard.  What we have is a reliable source reporting on a court proceeding.  The court has already verified the facts of the case and threw out all that it thought was unverifiable.  It sounds to me like we have agreement on what about this incident should be included in this article: all verified facts as reported by the reliable source.Jarhed (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ECx4) I understand the parallels you're trying to draw, but by your own admission, those cases aren't in the same category. Each of them was heavily covered and very notable in the lives of the subject, both short term and long term. This was a minor traffic incident with no long term notability or career impact. Dayewalker (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about those edit conflicts, Daywalker. And as has been stated here by editors multiple times, the reckless driving conviction should not be included because of undue weight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that not including this incident is the best reading of BLP. Chowbok seems committed to his editorial stance, and so I am also fine with a compromise edit that sticks to the facts as reported by the reliable source.Jarhed (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Prime example...
Of how pathetic Wikipedia has become. Someone is trying VERY HARD to make sure certain information does not get included in this article. Reading the discussion page as an outside observer is almost comical. It is very obvious what is going on.76.246.235.134 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, Mr. Anon, Wildhartlivie is a bully with a POV. Such is life. Proxy User (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, a minor traffic violation is being removed it to make a biography un-exploitative. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

An act of censorship... Not surprising.