User talk:Freedomc

August 2012
The case you are attempting to write about is not public and the defendants' names are not officially released. Regardless of whether they have been tweeted, you are not to publish them on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Someguy1221 I want to block you! :-) Read the citations. The names have already been published in multiple articles. The names have now been officially released by the court, see page 2, paragraph 10:



Is Someguy1221 somehow connected to Trinity High School? I notice you have edited the page previously. I am in no way connected to Trinity High School or to .


 * Note to reviewing administrator: is picking this request up, so please wait for her comment or action before unblocking. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Where do I start? How about the section header, which I won't reproduce here but is extremely inflammatory and implies that someone was charged with an extremely serious sex crime other than the one mentioned in news reports.  No such charges were laid against anyone, nor is there any indication that such charges have ever been contemplated; it is pure original research on the part of Freedomc to use it. Then there is the inclusion of an allegation that was not made in open court. Reference sources include blogs written before the judgments were handed down and thus are speculations. Finally there is the fact that this is even on the page of the school, which has nothing at all to do with the criminal case; adding it there is a classic coatrack. None of the individuals involved in this criminal case, neither the victim, the perpetrators, nor any of the attorneys, are notable individuals; the case itself does not meet the threshold of notability. This information does not belong on Wikipedia. It is the only topic that Freedomc has edited on the project (in fairness, he only began editing today, so this is typical for a new user). He seems to be preternaturally aware of how to format references, but blithely unaware of our biography of living persons policy.  The edits he made were suppressed as they were clearly potentially libelous, in accord with our Oversight policy. He has accused Someguy1221 of a conflict of interest because "he has edited their page on previous occasions"; all of the prior edits were routine vandalism reverts over the course of several years. If Freedomc is willing to stay entirely away from this topic area as a condition of unblocking, he may have something to add to the project; however, given the severity of the BLP violations that were so severe as to merit suppression, I am not convinced that he will be able or willing to edit within our policies, and I do not know that we have editors who would be willing to review his editing to ensure that he does not repeat this behaviour on other articles or in other topic areas. Please note that after I have posted this, I will do a separate revision deletion of the unblock request itself to remove the names of non-public, non-notable individuals, to ensure that there is no SEO benefit from posting them here.   Risker (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Risker, the names had been published by a reliable source before Freedomc made his last series of edits on this page (now oversighted).  I'm not saying that there hasn't been a problem here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I recognize that the names were published; that's not the issue here at all. The reason I've redacted them from this page is so that Wikipedia cannot be used as an SEO vector to further publicize the case and Freedomc's opinions about it. It's pretty clear from the edits that another Oversighter independently oversighted from this page that Freedomc is here with an agenda that includes putting forward his or her own opinions and adding unproven allegations to an unrelated article. Risker (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Toddst1 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access removed
I've removed access to your talk page because you have simply reposted the problematic material. If you have any problems, please email arbcom-l@undefinedwikimedia.org. The Cavalry (Message me) 10:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)