Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BLP vios on Obama Talkpage

WP:BLP violations on Talk:Barack Obama
The article Barack Obama has been subject to numerous controversies and edit-wars. Many of those have made it to ANI and other administrative pages. None of that is directly the subject of this report; however, some background might be relevant. A number of editors have argued that material on William Ayers should be included in the article about Obama, on the grounds that the personal acquaintance of these two (living) persons shows something negative about the judgment or inclinations of Obama. Consensus has leaned against such inclusion, but that's a regular content issue.

In making the argument for inclusion, some editors have made increasingly controversial claims about Ayers. I believe many of these claims are outright libel, in fact. It is quite true that these comments are made on a talk page, not in a main article; furthermore, they are made on the talk page of a peripherally connected article, not on the main Ayers article. Nonetheless, I am concerned that even in this position, these comments could expose the Wikimedia Foundation to legal action, and are inappropriate for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia.

The editors including this material are mostly User:Noroton, User:WorkerBee74 and User:Curious bystander. In the past, some additional editors blocked or topic-banned for sock-puppetry and incivility have added similar (but less extreme) comments. Partial diffs of recent comments of issue include:

Curious bystander WorkerBee74 Noroton
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228709281&oldid=228708898
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228708330&oldid=228708016
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228643101&oldid=228642901
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228646069
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228645443
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228643101
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228640717
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228517283&oldid=228508422
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228517283
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228516520
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228495019
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228724849&oldid=228724270
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=228724849

There are a number more, but this gives the tenor. I believe that legally, we should not only delete such comments from the article talk page, but also an administrator should purge the history of them.

Am I being overly paranoid here, or is this a real Foundation concern? LotLE × talk 00:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP covers talk pages too. If there are severe violations I would recommend removing the offending words/sentences etc and replacing them with "" or somthing similar. Exxolon (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find (as I said on the talk page) that such discussion is permissible on talk pages, and that even if it is not okay the issue is not BLP nor is there much we can do about it - purging edit histories on pages this busy is next to impossible. Redacting talk page history and archives is rather extreme and will only lead to further dispute.  As for the foundation I see no plausible risk.  We're only rehashing well-known accusations against famous people that are made and reported thousands of times elsewhere.  Whether Bill Ayers is a terrorist or guilty but uncharged of a felony, for example, is a legitimate matter for public discussion if not a helpful or pertinent thing to discuss on Wikipedia's Barack Obama talk page.  Ayers is not about to sue the Foundation over whether he is or is not a terrorist.  I don't think there's a BLP issue but if there is I think we should talk about it first on the talk page or at worst BLP/N before appealing to a general purpose board like AN/I.  I really doubt there is any administrative remedy that uninvolved administrators can apply that is likely or practical.  Every AN/I report arising from the Obama articles has generated lots of friction and dispute.  Let's not turn this into yet another editor-on-editor fight among people from the Obama pages.  Just a suggestion....  And a plea for anyone responding, please don't use this as an occasion for bashing other editors.  Thanks,  Wikidemo (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what the policy says - quote "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages (emphasis mine), user pages, and project space. WP:BLP violations should be aggressively removed from talk pages as well as articles. Exxolon (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's statement is obviously not policy in a literal sense. Wikidemo (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Read Jimbo's quote in conjunction with BLP please.--chaser - t 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of Jimbo's quote. It's a rhetorical exhortation, not a literal policy pronouncement.  There's no practical way it could be.  Wikidemo (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

idk about blanking BLP violations or replacing them with ", but as far as purging them from the history...
 * Delete "Talk:Barack Obama"


 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 * Jump to: navigation, search


 * This page has a large edit history, over 5,000 revisions.


 * Deletion of such pages has been restricted to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia.

So, that is not an option. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That cant be right. It may be beyond the capabiltiies of ordinary admins, but I thinkt hat maybe a development person might be alhave access to do it. Is there a section where I can submti a requrest for deletion? Smith Jones (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, email via instructions at WP:OVERSIGHT. I agree with others commenting here that in this case it's not necessary.--chaser - t 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Im not saying that deleting the whole talkapge is the only option, but I am interested in kleanring if there is recourse in case of such extensive WP:BLP vioaltions. Smith Jones (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To Wikidemo: BLP is not only policy, it overrides all other policy. The legal issue really is central, above all content or conduct issues. In terms of purging history, I agree that the entire talk page should not be removed; admins have the capability of removing specific diffs. If there is agreement this should be done, I am happy to complete the list of libelous diffs (obviously, subject to judgment of relevant admins). LotLE × talk 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. Not technically possible for admins in this case.--chaser - t 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've given and  BLP warnings. If they continue to make such statements on talk pages of BLP's they can be blocked. I couldn't find anything on WorkerBee74, but please do post further details and I'll warn him as well.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, of course this would have come up on AN/I and the participants would not have been notified. No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition. Noroton (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This warning is quite provocative, and probably destructive to the notion of promoting discussion rather than edit warring on the talk pages. The ArbCom case cited is controversial, of unclear precedent, and will bring Wikipedia into serious disarray if used expansively as a hammer against editors voicing their opinions on talk pages.  I suggest it be retracted.  Wikidemo (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would someone please explain how the same statements could have been made for years by reliable sources -- certainly anything about "unrepentant" and "terrorist" -- and the threat of libel is only visited on Wikipedia at this point? It isn't as if I didn't provide links to what I was saying. Sourcing my statements to years-old statements from mainstream sources is proof against libel as well as BLP violations. Noroton (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I've bowdlerized my various cases in point to refer to generic persons rather than draw analogies to Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, Noam Chomsky, John Yoo, and Ollie North. Not that my comments or anyone else's are by any remote stretch of the imagination going to get Wikipedia sued, but those who disagree with me are under rather severe censorship demands and I hate to be feel out.  Wikidemo (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain that I have seen complaints about LotLE × talk  (who started this ANI complaint). So this person's complaint may (or may not) be biased. There is widespread reports that WP has a left of center bias, never a right wing bias. So we should be aware of others' view of WP and make sure that we have no bias.

Someone mentioned that if we edit badly we expose WP to legal risks. I favor editing well. However, there is no risk. Barack Obama is NOT going to sue WP! Presumptive (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Re avoiding appearance of any left-leaning bias): Hear hear! (And technically, off wiki, I'm Lefty.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow     04:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had differences with LotLE in the past, he resolved them, and he's a good editor. Anyone without a personal bias doesn't have a personal heartbeat. He tries to promote WP:NPOV as all good editors do, and there are differences of opinion about NPOV among good editors. His opinion here is wrong, but I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, or that of anyone else involved. Noroton (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For clarification, I have not suggested nor do I propose any sanctions against the editors in question. I believe it is essential that the comments themselves be removed from WP.  As long as the editors refrain from making libelous comments about living persons, there is no reason they should not continue to engage in editing and discussion.  The specific diffs in question are of a type prohibited on legal advice from the Wikimedia Foundation (see WP:BLP), and should be deleted and purged from histories. FWIW, the legal risk presumably is not of suit by Obama, but of suit by Ayers... I do not believe that event is likely, but I do believe we should enforce restrictions on libel universally and uniformly.  LotLE × talk  03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed LotLE, what part of Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material applies here? Or alternately, what part of my comments were unsourced or poorly sourced? Or are you objecting to my statements on some other BLP grounds? Noroton (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Wikidemo's eminently sensible arguments above. Kelly  hi! 03:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Recommend' that Lulu finds the things he finds objectionable and that an uninvolved administrator then decide if each comment represents a libel concern and, if found, then the editor be required to source to a 3rd party the "offending" adjectives, whic should be extremely easy to do.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have provided the set of diffs that I believe subject the Foundation to legal action at the top of this report. LotLE × talk  17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * LotLE, please refrain from WP:BLP hysteria. WP:BLP absolutely does not override all policy. In fact, WP:BLP must yeild when it conflicts with WP:NPOV or any other core foundation policy. WP:BLP is not a tool for surpressing legitimate, verifiable criticism nor is it a trump card for ending discussion. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, WP:BLP must yeild [sic] when it conflicts with WP:NPOV or any other core foundation policy. That statement doesn't make the slightest bit of sense: being NPOV allows inclusion of "[u]nsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons"? Not by any rational measure. That doesn't even pass the giggle test. --Calton | Talk 22:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an extremely ridiculous thread. Calling Ayers a former, and unrepentant terrorist when he has been quoted as saying that exact same thing is not a BLP violation. At the same time, asserting that there is an issue with Obama knowing Ayers is ridiculous. However, to stop the bickering, I don't see why the "controversy" shouldn't be mentioned in the article, since it has received some coverage in the press. II  | (t - c) 00:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing
The sourcing for these allegations is what WorkerBee74 accurately describes as the "gold standard of sourcing," including the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune. For the legal conclusions I've reached, I cited, quoted and linked the appropriate section of the United States Code and the relevant United States Supreme Court case. The foundation for everything I've said is cast in reinforced concrete. LotLE is engaged in a garden variety content dispute, and he thinks he has found a new weapon to wield in that war. I welcome any evidence he might choose to bring, in his effort to prove that I have slandered Mr. Ayers. Until this matter is decided, I will not make any more statements on-Wiki about Mr. Ayers' activities in the 1970s. However, when this matter is decided in my favor, I look forward to appropriate administrative action against LotLE for filing this groundless report. In light of the Kossack4Truith precedent, a topic ban for LotLE until after the election would be lenient. I will further add that this does not resolve the content dispute, and that mediation would be a marvelous idea if LotLE and others sharing his position would agree to it. But they've rejected it out of hand. Curious bystander (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) The sources do not resemble "unsourced or poorly sourced." Ayers discusses all of the facts in his book. He's proud of it. He constantly brags about it on his blog, on the lecture circuit, to anyone who will listen. He did it and he got away with it because the FBI botched the case. It's a shame that LotLE has resorted to these tactics and I join CB in demanding a topic ban for him until after the election, if it is not proven that a BLP violation has occurred. K4T got a three-day block for giving LotLE a warning about his CIV violations, and then K4T got a topic ban for filing ANI and AN3 complaints about LotLE's continued editwarring and incivility. So as CB has stated, precedent has been set for editors who file reports that do not produce admin action and appear to be retaliatory. The community has tolerated LotLE's misconduct long enough. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He bragged about it in his book? That's news to me. Even better. It's a confession. Curious bystander (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * May we please assume good faith? LotLE has voiced a concern from the beginning that certain material has BLP concerns, such as accusing Ayers of uncharged felonies or of being a terrorist, and has never wavered from that concern.  There are sincere opinions among administrators on both sides, some believing administrative action is called for.  Therefore, reporting the incident is hardly a rogue thing to do.  Please allow the discussion to play out, and do not distract it with accusations of bad faith and lobbying for blocking editors merely for bringing their concerns here.
 * Back to the issue, I think the proper interpretation is that there is no BLP concern in the spirit if not the letter of WP:WELLKNOWN (WELLKNOWN concerns whether to add reportage of other people's allegations to the article; here people are repeating such accusations and making their own by WP:SYNTH of sources on the talk page). Ayers has been accused, publicly, many times, of committing murder, being a felon, being a communist, being a terrorist, etc.   The sources are "gold standard" in the sense that there are respected publications such as the New York Times that prominently report that such accusations have been made.  Ayers is a well-known public figure (and Barack Obama all the more so), and with hundreds of thousands of sources talking about his colorful past, reliable and otherwise, many far more prominent than the Wikipedia, he is hardly going to be injured further by a statement on our talk page.  Keeping in mind that BLP is an exclusionary standard -- failing BLP disqualifies material, whereas passing BLP does not demand its inclusion; it must also satisfy other policies and guidelines, as well as consensus -- this does not mean we should add the material to the article.  It just means there is no harm and no policy violation for talking about it.  Indeed, if we cannot even talk about controversial material we cannot reasonably edit the encyclopedia - if BLP truly applied to this material outside main space we could not be having this discussion either.  We should not be arguing the law here but it does seem clear that under US law there is nothing anywhere near libel, and that if there were even a remote hint then: (1) the Foundation is shielded; and (2) as a practical matter Ayers is not going to sue Wikipedia for its users calling him a terrorist.  This is one of those issues where if most people see no legal problem we're not in a position to decide otherwise.  So if anyone has a big concern let them file an OTRS ticket or refer the matter to the Foundation and its lawyers.  BLP is contoured to be far more deferential to the reputations of living people than the law mandates.  If BLP allows something to be said it's almost inevitable it will be legal.
 * If we can take this to its conclusion instead of infighting among editors, I think we can reach a firm conclusion that the BLP issue is moot, which should settle the issue once and for all, and prevent a recurrence of this report. However, as mentioned I do agree that the discussion got out of hand on the talk page as a matter of WP:NOT and WP:CONSENSUS, and other things not readily susceptible to administrative action and therefore best left to editors on the talk page to resolve among themselves.  Thanks,  Wikidemo (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of BLP/libel concern
Thanks for chiming in above, Wikidemo. My concern on this report has been, and is, solely that the discussion on Talk:Barack Obama crossed a line between discussing well known reports/opinions, and stating those opinions as facts. I do recognize that a somewhat different standard applies to talk pages than articles, but not that much different (i.e. lots of things may simply not be relevant to an article that are worth mentioning on talk, but the libel standard is the same in either place). A month ago, we were seeing claims along the lines of "Ayers has been called a terrorist, murderer, etc. by reliable sources." That seems supportable, albeit contentious. In the last week, that claim has shifted to "Ayers is a terrorist, murderer, etc." which is, frankly, libel (he has never been convicted of any felony, and we cannot draw conclusions about what "might have" happened had various things unfolded differently). The only real argument I see for leaving the material is that a lawsuit is extremely unlikely, not that there is no actionable libel. I entirely agree on the likelihood matter, but I think we should follow consistent principle in the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. It doesn't look like that's going to happen though... hopefully once the current Talk:Obama threads get archived these types of libelous claims will at least go away from active pages (as much as I'd still rather see those archives cleaned).

To clarify further, I think the worst of the libelous claims are the edits that purport guilt based on specific statutes. These give the appearance of constituting legal advice or legal conclusions. I could probably trim the diffs slightly, some of those given are tweaks of other diffs in the same list without necessarily contributing additional liability. LotLE × talk 00:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I guess I just don't see it as anything urgent that would necessitate a strong remedy.  The thread is going to get archived quickly from that page and the editors cautioned to tone things down in the future.  I've voluntarily removed my somewhat over the top examples about Henry Kissinger et. al., and maybe we can just ask the editors involved to either redact their comments or simply promise to stay calm and leave heated political debate to another forum.  If you have a sledgehamer but a screwdriver will do the trick, best to use the screwdriver.  Definitely where administrative intervention is concerned, the lightest touch is the best!  Cheers,  Wikidemo (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ps - ec) Regarding the statutory arguments, I don't see debate as to whether acts constitute a violation of the law as being any different than debate as to what those acts were or what to call them. It's all the same free speech territory, and it may or may not be pertinent to improving the article, depending on the circumstances.  Wikidemo (talk)
 * It is at best original research so it is very hard to see how it can be useful. And frankly, Wikipedia is not a free speech zone. That said, all of the discussion I've seen seems like it is reasonably within the bounds of discussion that can occur for a contentious article and I don't see any of the claims being so egregiously unsourced at to violate BLP to the extent that we require a long ANI thread. Obviously, people should avoid original research about this sort of topic. So if everyone would only comment about sourced issues that would be helpful. People can go write there own blogs. That doesn't change the fact that we need to give people some bit of leeway about what they can talk about on contentious issues. Chilling effects can be very real and can seriously interfere with getting NPOV articles written. I guess this highly contradictory comment comes down to a request for restraint by all parties. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that WP is also published in Britain :-). Libel laws there are... ummm, a bit draconian (IMHO).  Truth, for example, is not an overriding defense in that jurisdiction.  I'm a Hugo Black guy myself too, but I went through the BLP-wars a few years back.  With some minor pride I can say that the legal threat against me (as potential co-defendant with Jimbo Wales and others) was part of what firmed up the policy.  LotLE × talk  00:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not having been to law school yet, I usually hesitate from legal speculation. However, given the foundation rejected moving to the UK b/c of British libel law, I think it would be difficult to sue or collect from there.--chaser - t 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd be surprised how creative some jurisdictional claims have been :-). Not excluding some interesting twists for plaintiffs or prosecutors to come up with US jurisdiction (including prosecutors currently serving in the US DoJ).  LotLE × talk  00:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a bit more clarifying my take on Wikidemo's points. It seems different to me to claim "Ayers is a murderer in my book" and to claim "Ayers is a murderer under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a)".  The former is still in the realm of protected opinion, fairly clearly.  The latter... well, I'm not the Foundation's lawyer (but neither is anyone else in this discussion).  LotLE × talk  00:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they're exactly the same. People have the same 1st amendment right to discuss legal interpretation as they do to discuss moral interpretations and facts.  In fact, it's more likely to be opinion.  For that very reason it's usually impertinent to Wikipedia talk pages  (but not always - sometimes legal interpretation becomes a sub-issue in a discussion).  Wikidemo (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Any objections (other than from K4T) to archiving from here on down? Or making a spot decision on whether K4T's topic ban from Obama-related pages includes a ban on advocating the matter here on AN/I? Or perhaps we close the whole discussion as "no action"?  - This could degenerate quickly if we don't get some handle on it.  Wikidemo (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Demands for LotLE topic ban
Wikidemo, if you and LotLE and Scjessey had assumed good faith on a few occasions, I would not be topic banned right now. I SUPPORT, in the strongest possible terms, a topic ban until after the election for LotLE if there is no finding that the edits in question violated WP:BLP. Also, the past misconduct of LotLE in the form of edit warring and incivility is not such a distant memory. I will be back with citations of rock-solid reliable sources for all of the diffs he/she's posted above, and I look forward to a topic ban for LotLE from any admin reading this. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't. If this user is topic banned, why is he returning to the topic to lobby against other editors?  Wikidemo (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the notion that the topic ban extends to this page is completely, absolutely ludicrous. I'll be back with those rock-solid reliable sources. After that, we'll talk about a topic ban for LotLE. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we get a quick administrative clarification on that? Please hold off in the meanwhile.  Whatever happens please don't WP:BATTLE by banging the drum on the meta threads against editors you've had conflicts with in talk space.  That's simple disruption.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What rank hypocrisy, you've been a regular Gene Krupa. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Kossack4Truth, as it is, a ridiculously pointy arbitration request has already been rejected on the matter, and you really need to refrain from continuing to use Wikipedia as a battleground. If you refuse to do so, then I think much stronger measures will be warranted to prevent you from doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ncmvocalist, your bias in this matter is well-established and ArbCom only said that community solutions will be sufficient. So I'm seeking a community solution. Please refrain from archiving the thread. Thanks. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite to the contrary; the only thing that is established is your persistently disruptive and unseemly conduct, and it's frankly exhausting my patience - I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way either. ArbCom rejected the claims as a mere content dispute, and that some users are just unhappy which is entirely predictable. I've shown no intention of closing this thread, and you need to move on. Again, if you continue to use Wikipedia as a battleground, then I think much stronger measures will be warranted to prevent you from doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * discussion archived b/c initiated by topic-banned user

===Diffs by Curious Bystander===

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228708330&oldid=228708016

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228709281&oldid=228708898

Curious Bystander has cited the US Code and a Supreme Court case to support his conclusion:

"18 U.S.C. § 1111(a): 'Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder ... committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any ... sabotage ... is murder in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree.' Section 1111(b) continues: 'Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life[.]' As a matter of law, a defendant may be vicariously responsible for the actions of his co-conspirators. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946)."

Here's the text of the Supreme Court case itself :

"We have here a continuous conspiracy. There is here no evidence of the affirmative action on the part of Daniel which is necessary to establish his withdrawal from it. Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 369, 32 S.Ct. 793, 803, Ann.Cas.1914A, 614. As stated in that case, 'having joined in an unlawful scheme, having constituted agents for its performance, scheme and agency to be continuous until full fruition be secured, until he does some act to disavow or defeat the purpose he is in no situation to claim the delay of the law. As the offense has not been terminated or accomplished, he is still offending. And we think, consciously offending,-offending as certainly, as we have said, as at the first moment of his confederation, and consciously through every moment of its existence.' Id., 225 U.S. at page 369, 32 S.Ct. at page 803. And so long as the partnership in crime continues, the partners act for each other in carrying it forward. It is settled that 'an overt act of one partner may be the act of all without [328 U.S. 640, 647]  any new agreement specifically directed to that act.' United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 608, 31 S.Ct. 124, 126. Motive or intent may be proved by the acts or declarations of some of the conspirators in furtherance of the common objective. Wiborg v. United States, 163 U.S. 632, 657, 658 S., 16 S.Ct. 1127, 1137, 1197. A scheme to use the mails to defraud, which is joined in by more than one person, is a conspiracy. Cochran v. United States, 8 Cir., 41 F.2d 193, 199, 200. Yet all members are responsible, though only one did the mailing. Cochran v. United States, supra; Mackett v. United States, 7 Cir., 90 F.2d 462, 464; Baker v. United States, 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 533, 540; Blue v. United States, 6 Cir., 138 F.2d 351, 359. The governing principle is the same when the substantive offense is committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the unlawful project. Johnson v. United States, 9 Cir., 62 F.2d 32, 34. The criminal intent to do the act is established by the formation of the conspiracy. Each conspirator instigated the commission of the crime. The unlawful agreement contemplated precisely what was done. It was formed for the purpose. The act done was in execution of the enterprise. The rule which holds responsible one who counsels, procures, or commands another to commit a crime is founded on the same principle. That principle is recognized in the law of conspiracy when the overt act of one partner in crime is attributable to all. An overt act is an essential ingredient of the crime of conspiracy under 37 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 88, 18 U.S.C.A. 88. If that can be supplied by the act of one conspirator, we fail to see why the same or other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are likewise not attributable to the others for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense."

It appears that according to the Supreme Court, if a conspiracy commits a felony in New York, a member of the conspiracy who is in Michigan at the time can be held criminally responsible for that felony, unless he/she has previously taken affirmative action to disavow membership in the conspiracy. There was no such affirmative action taken and Ayers still endorses the conspiracy. Now let's talk about the federal murder statute and the meaning of "felony murder". This case illustrates how it works. When a felony is committed, and a death occurs as a result of that crime, the persons committing the felony are guilty of murder. Regarding the word "terrorist," Curious Bystander has stated sufficient facts to support his opinion and it is, after all, an opinion. Also see exploration of the term "terrorist" below. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

===First diff by Noroton===

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228517283&oldid=228508422

My guess is that LotLE is objecting (and he's welcome to clarify his objection) to this passage in the diff: "(c) there is no comparison between a terrorist whose actions led to many injuries and nearly led to many deaths, and wound up leading to a few deaths and the other people you mention; ..." Curious Bystander cited enough facts to justify the use of the word "terrorist," so let's explore what he said:

Ayers set off bombs. Here he is in the New York Times, saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." This is an impeccably reliable source to support not only the fact that Ayers set off bombs, but also the fact that Ayers is unrepentant about it. Here's something else from the same interview: "So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? 'I don't want to discount the possibility,' he said."

The Weather Underground, led by Ayers and his friends, incited a riot in Chicago that left 63 people injured. Here is the account in Chicago magazine, another reliable source. Sixty-three is more than five dozen so "dozens" is a fair characterization. Ayers did all of this, he has stated many times, to force the US government to end the Vietnam War. In this Merriam-Webster definition, the word "terror" is defined as "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands." And in this definition, "terrorism" is defined as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * discussion archived b/c initiated by topic-banned user

Evidence from Noroton
This is just a start.

Some statements above are conflating what I said, indicating I called Ayers a "murderer". That's inaccurate. I said he bore some responsibility for the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, and therefore his actions (as a leader of the group) resulted in the deaths of people who died in that explosion. And if they had successfully used that bomb as planned, he, as an overall leader of Weatherman, would have been responsible for the deaths that resulted from bombing an officer's dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey. I provided a link to survivor Cathy Wilkerson's review of Ayers memoir in Z magazine that identified Ayers role in leading Terry Robbins (leader of the cell in the townhouse) closer and closer toward violence. Let's start going through the proof, much of which I already provided on the Talk:Barack Obama page. If anyone wants it, I can show through reliable sources that Ayers was one of the top leaders of the group, and also that Diana Oughton, who died in the bomb blast, was Ayers' girlfriend. Proof of that is in their Wikipedia articles. Shortly after her death, a book about her was published. Written by Thomas Powers, published by Houghton Mifflin Company, the book's title is Diana: The Making of a Terrorist. He and Lucinda Franks, both working for UPI, won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 1971 for their project of the same name. If the girlfriend was a terrorist, why not the boyfriend who was higher up in the organization?

That the Weatherman (organization) was called a "terrorist" group. This has not been universal, but reliable souces starting in the 1970s, have identified the group as a terrorist organization, either describing it as a group that set off bombs -- which is an acceptable definition of "terrorist group" or explicitly using the word "terrorist" to describe the group. From the New York Times archives: -- Noroton (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Article: "13 Weathermen Indicted in Plots: U.S. Grand Jury in Detroit Charges Bombing Plans", July 24, 1970: Initial quote is from the indictment: "It was part of the conspiracy that the defendants and the unindicted co-conspirators, together with others not known to the grand jury, would organize a central committee to direct underground bombing operations of the defendants and co-conspirators; [...] that clandestine and underground 'focals' consisting of three or four persons, would be established; that the 'focals' would be commanded by the 'central committee' in the bombing of police and other civic, business, and educational buildings throughout the country." The indictment charged that members of the so-called focals would [...] obtain firearms and explosives, and use them to bomb police and other buildings and to kill and injure those inside. Oughton, already dead, was named as a co-conspirator in the indictment; Ayers was indicted, as was his future wife, Bernardine Dohrn
 * Article: UPI wire story in The New York Times: January 3, 1974: The indictment from 1970 was dismissed: Judge Hoffman acted on a Government request that noted that a recent Supreme Court decision barring electronic surveillance without a court order would have hampered prosecution of that case. So those charges were dropped because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling about the inadmissability of that kind of evidence.
 * Article: UPI wire story, "Weathermen Got Name From Song: Groups Latest Designation Is Weather Underground", January 30, 1975, last paragraph: "On Jan. 19, 1971, Bernardine Dohrn, a leading Weatherperson who has never been caught, issued a statement from hiding suggesting that the group was considering tactics other than bombing and terrorism."
 * Article: "Guilty Plea Entered in 'Village' Bombing: Cathlyn Wilkerson Could Be Given Probation or Up to 7 Years", July 19, 1980: First sentence: Cathlyn P. Wilkerson, expressing a wish to begin a new life after 10 years in the terrorist Weather Underground, pleaded guilty in Manhattan Criminal Court yesterday ... Elsewhere in the article: Miss Wilkerson's cell was apparently using the town house at 18 West 11th Street to construct bombs -- a later Weatherman statement said "antipersonnel bombs"
 * Article: "Many States Are Adopting Stiff Laws to Curb Terror Bombings", August 16, 1970. The article uses a picture of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. Caption: A passer-by photographed the explosion of what was described as a bomb "factory" at 18 West 11th Street last March. [...]
 * If you're going to make these claims, even on talk pages, you need to source them. You could easily have done this in your posts on the Obama talk. All we need to know to move forward is that you're willing to back up talk page claims with sources.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But Ryan, I did. I cited the WP articles themselves, which have much of this sourcing (although not the specific sourcing above), and I cited survivor Cathy Wilkerson's outraged review of Ayers memoir, which I now provide quotes from just below. That was in the thread. Your template and LotLE's complaint shocked me because I knew I'd provided sources (many of my edit summaries in that thread are statements to the effect that "this is the record"). Before you templated my talk page, you should have read the thread and followed the sources that I did actually give there. Up until recently, you have been cryptic (and so has LotLE) as to just what it was in my long statements that needed to be sourced further. Was it that Ayers was a leader in the group, that he advocated violence, that the group can be called a "terrorist" organization (at least in talk space), that he was unrepentant, that he bears some responsibility for the three deaths? When it comes to mainspace edits and even images I upload (check my creation log, going back to the beginning), I'm fanatical about including extensive sourcing information. I added some of the sources to mainspace articles that proved my points, so I thought linking to the articles themselves, which other people in the discussion were familiar with, was enough.Noroton (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That Bill Ayers bears some responsibility for the bomb that killed three in Greenwich Village: Beyond the fact that he was a higher-up in an organization that was top-down hierarchical, and that Diane Oughton, part of that cell (or "focal", as they called them) was his girlfriend at the time, and that Tim Robbins had been a fast friend of his, there's the statement of Cathy Wilkerson, one of the two survivors of the Greenwich Village blast and girlfriend of Robbins. She wrote this in her review of Ayers' memoir in Z Magazine:
 * As a past member of the Weather Underground Organization I found Bill Ayers's book Fugitive Days to be quite upsetting. [...] While those of us in Weatherpeople never killed anyone but ourselves, we made the choice [...] to use lethal weaponry, which could have killed others, had we been unlucky. Many of us -- certainly everyone in leadership -- argued very convincingly for far more drastic steps than symbolic attacks at one point or another. [...] he asserted his leadership quite forcefully [specifically, Wilkerson is referring to Ayers getting sex from women in the organization, but it also seems to apply in general], and when access to leadership was in part defined by "coolness" -- coolness being defined by a small clique, with increasingly tight control over information [...] Ayers was one of the architects of much of the insanity he blames on others. [...] he developed a language of confrontational militancy that became more and more extreme over the year [June 1968 to August 1969]. [...] I believe that he never took this language seriously himself, but rather saw it as a way to act tough -- thinking, as he writes, that it was the way to recruit "working class youth". But he never takes responsibility for the fact that many people, most of us, did not realize that he only meant it as talk. [...] The process by which Weather leaders changed from the language of the famous Manson speech glorifying violence in January 1970 to the moderation described in Ayers' book in early March was invisible to almost all weather members. [...]

Wilkerson, Tim Robbins girlfriend up to the time of the bombing in which Robbins died, said Robbins was 17 when he met Ayers, and he idolized Ayers, who competed with him in many ways. Ayers' rhetoric more and more glorified violence in the year or so leading up to the explosion. ''But while Ayers, according to what he writes, knew that his language, which increasingly glorified violence, was just show, Robbins was one of those who really believed all of it. [...] For Ayers to claim that all of the craziness of late 1969 and early 1970 just sort of happened, that his "CW" character (who was not me despite the uncanny similarity of initials) and Robbins were primarily responsible for the disastrous bombing at the Greenwich Village townhouse, takes himself completely out of the process.''

I had cited this source in the thread in which I made the statements LotLE referred to in his complaint:


 * a terrorist whose actions led to many injuries and nearly led to many deaths, and wound up leading to a few deaths 
 * committing abominable acts up to and including acts that resulted in death.
 * the terrorist past that makes Ayers controversial [...] this person did things in his life so terrible that to voluntarily associate with him is to excuse those horrible actions -- promoting a riot, helping to bomb buildings, being involved (not in an entirely clear way, but clearly with a degree of responsibility) with the planned bombing of an officer's dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey, an operation that resulted in the deaths of three people who turned out to be in the Weatherman group itself.
 * The proofs for "unrepentant" and "terrorist" exist, they're in the sources, and it doesn't require original research to quote them.

Here's an additional comment that LotLE cited:
 * not all actions that result in deaths of innocents reach the immoral depths of terrorists deliberately targeting the innocent

I was commenting on just how bad terrorism is, in reaction to comments by another editor (which can be found in the thread, I won't link to them here) that seemed to me to not take the immorality of terrorism seriously enough. I was specifically thinking of the plan to bomb a Fort Dix officer's dance. I personally find it impossible to believe (for the reasons I've given above) that Ayers didn't have full knowledge of that, but even if he didn't, he would have borne some responsibility for it, as per the Wilkerson statement above (Ayers advocated violence and was a leader in that group). Evidence (from a footnote at the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion article, which was mentioned in the thread):
 * New York Times, "Quieter Lives for 60's Militants, but Intensity of Beliefs Hasn't Faded" August 24, 2003: Professor Klehr also took a dim view of the often stated account that after the town house explosion, the Weathermen resolved to take no lives, and that in the string of bombings that followed, no one was seriously injured. He points out that members have said the explosives at the town house were intended for an officers' dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey and for Butler Library at Columbia University.
 * New York Times, "Guilty Plea Entered in 'Village' Bombing", July 19, 1980: Miss Wilkerson's cell was apparently using the town house at 18 West 11th Street to construct bombs -- a later Weatherman statement said "antipersonnel bombs" You use "antipersonnel bombs" against persons, of course.

-- Noroton (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually read the Ayers' article before giving you the warning, and not once does the article refer to them directly as terrorists. We have once where Ayers is saying that he did not want to be seen as a terrorist, and we have once where one person makes a quote that he was a failed terrorist. That doesn't make it justified to start labelling him a terrorist on another articles talk page. If you want to make claims like that, back it up with sources in the place you're making the claim. True, there are articles that refer to him as a terrorist? Does that make him one? No. A neutral way of putting it would be that "some have refered to Ayers as a terorist" ref ref ref But again, you still need to have the sources visible in there area where you are making the claim.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you're getting into territory that starts to censor free discussion about controversial, WP:WELLKNOWN public figures. Every time you hear some nasty comment about George Bush on a Wikipedia talk page are you going to slap a BLP template on that editor's talk page? That Ayers was a terrorist is part of the public discourse in the U.S. since he loudly and with much publicity became one. Wikipedia discourages the use of the term "terrorist" in mainspace articles (I don't recall where; I think it's a style guideline on words to avoid; it's a guideline not followed in all of our articles). I believe sourcing for articles that show Ayers to have been a terrorist by the common definition of that word, either stating it or stating the behavior, is in the Wikipedia articles cited, but more importantly, cites were also in the thread. Would you like a dozen or so citations to prominent editorials, editorial page columnists and others, including John McCain who have called him an "unrepentant terrorist"?
 * Ayers himself is not a trustworthy source on whether or not Ayers was a terrorist because he has made so many contradictory statements. The statements in which he admits to blowing up things with bombs agree with third-party sources. Those reliable sources either directly call him (or the organization he helped lead, which I think we can agree amounts to the same thing) a "terrorist" or describe him/it that way (see Kossack4Truth's dictionary definitions, above). That should be enough for me to state this in a talk page discussion without having to go through the free speech-chilling process we have here. You would have shortened this process considerably by being more specific.
 * you still need to have the sources visible in there area where you are making the claim. Ryan, what you don't seem to have done is to look at the damn thread itself, with the comments in context. I don't think it's fair to take diffs out of context. If I didn't provide a source at one point, I provided it at another. I also provided a source on your talk page from last February showing that calling Ayers a terrorist was a regular part of public debate about him, so there was absolutely nothing special in my calling him an unrepentant former terrorist. I don't think there is any real sense in which I violated the spirit of WP:BLP in that thread, because at all times since I made the initial statements I've been willing to provide diffs to back up specific objections if an objection came up. My purpose was not to hurt him (and I certainly couldn't have harmed him by repeating what has been said commonly and very prominently elsehwere for decades) but to explain the importance of referring to him in the article. I said on the Obama talk page, before I knew of LotLE's complaint here and before you templated my talk page, that I would provide additional sourcing as needed, but I've received no requests specific enough to act on. I assume I should only have to provide one diff at one spot on the thread and not repeat it each and every time I make the statement in another comment.
 * You say A neutral way of putting it would be that "some have refered to Ayers as a terorist" ref ref ref In certain cases, where we are referring to WP:WELLKNOWN public figures, and negative information about them that is well-known and that all the participants in a discussion know is sourceable, it seems to me that in a vigorous, free discussion, we can hold off on the sourcing until one editor says "hey, I don't believe that's true, and I believe it's a BLP violation, would you please provide sourcing for this particular point: ______" Instead, look at the timeline (almost no diffs, go look at the context):


 * 00:06, 30 July a separate thread about BLP concerns was started by LotLE elsewhere on the Obama talk page
 * 00:22 30 July, LotLE brings this matter to AN/I
 * 02:29, 30 July, LotLE for the first time states somewhat specifically what his concerns are
 * 02:39, 30 July, I respond at Talk:Barack Obama that I can provide sources from mainstream, reliable news articles for the claims that concern him
 * 02:41, 30 July, You template my talk page, claiming I made negative unsourced claims on the talk page and Consider this a firm and final warning
 * 02:46, 30 July, you announce that you've templated my talk page and If they continue to make such statements on talk pages of BLP's they can be blocked
 * 02:49, 30 July, I make my first request of you that you specify what it is that you're templating me for, which is the first step toward resolving the problem. I got no reply to this until 19:19, 30 July, and I still considered it somewhat vague, but I found sources and started posting them here.
 * 02:52, 30 July I learned about this AN/I thread shortly before this time when I made my first post, and I'm faced with a block of six diffs to long comments of mine in which I can't be sure what is now at issue
 * 19:19, 30 July, you finally responded, saying It was this post where you specifically labelled ayers a terrorist. You didn't back that up with a single source to back that up. "Ayers fits the definition of terrorist to a "T" and was called a terrorist before the Obama campaign and even before 2001. Ayers flouted not just laws but democratic rule in the U.S. -- he wanted to terrorize people into submission." is simply unaccepable. and I still considered it somewhat vague, but started going over sources and then put them here
 * 20:04, 30 July, I responded by saying there was sourcing in the thread which you were obviously ignoring. Since you've given no indication that you've gone to the thread, let me repost exactly what I said there, with the links I provided at the time (which should be sufficient to resolve all of your concerns about sourcing):
 * Seems to me you'd have a better perspective on Ayers by reading this review of his memoir by Cathy Wilkerson, one of the survivors of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, especially the parts about Ayers' influence and the last two paragraphs. It isn't a coincidence that many of the news stories about Ayers in the past eight years have used the word "unrepentant". But this discussion is straying from the topic. My only point was to show that outrage at Ayers is not some feigned move by political commentators and others, and you don't have to agree with that outrage to understand that it's genuine and widespread. Characterizing Ayers' actions as resulting in death is not an opinion but reflecting the facts, and I don't see any evidence that you, Mfenger, have looked into the matter enough to give an informed judgment on that. If this is not behind a subscription wall, this is an interesting 2004 article in the New York Times that would also help you understand how the sources we're supposed to follow have been reporting on Ayers. Noroton (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is how someone apologizes, guys: She said several times that she felt a deep sense of regret and shame for having participated in the robbery. And she said she had long hoped to have a chance to apologize directly to the victims' families. -- Kathy Boudin in The New York Times as she sat in prison hoping to get parole. August 20, 2001. Here's Bill Ayers: "I don't regret setting bombs," Bill Ayers said. "I feel we didn't do enough." The writer of that article thought the matter was so important that these were the first two sentences in the article (and you usually don't begin a news article with a quote unless you've got a damn good reason to do so). The editors thought the issue was so important that they gave the article this headline: "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen" and although Ayers later whined that they didn't get his quote exactly right and he didn't exactly say that, here's Bill Ayers' letter to the Times. That's not how you show repentance. That's how you get called "unrepentant" time after time after time in subsequent news articles in both the Times and elsewhere. THAT is the record, based on WP:NPOV sourcing, and it reflects the predominant view of Ayers and repentance, folks. Noroton (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been avoiding saying this because I hoped this would have occurred to both you and LotLE, but now I think I need to say it so we can conclude this: When I've clearly provided sourcing and clearly stated that I will provide more sourcing on request or will readily remove my comments myself, that is not the time for an editor to post a complaint to AN/I and not the time for an administrator to slap a threatening, vague BLP template on my talk page. It is instead time to give me specifics and work with me. The actions both of you took were imprudent. I won't assume any ill motives to them. But now is the time for you to look forward, propose a resolution (for instance: would you like me to add diffs citations to specific spots or just at the top or bottom of that thread, and on which specific points?) and let us get beyond this. I'd like your cooperation with that, please. -- Noroton (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just replaced one of the paragraphs I cut and pasted from the Talk:Obama page (I'd grabbed the wrong one). Noroton (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC) (((made another minor correction, noted in the text, and fixed timeline -- Noroton (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)))

Relevancy
Noroton, what you really havent shown & are not likely to show no matter how much legal opinion on Ayers you cite, is that re-discussing this here, in a meta discussion at AN/I about a talk page of an article about some other person, is the least constructive. Our purpose is to be an encyclopedia, not pass judgments. If we want to decide how to describe the principals in the Weatherpeople, we can do so there. If we are describing the interaction of one of them with an different person years later, we use neutral language if we can. You are using this page to conduct a case against Ayers, and the web is open to you for the purpose. I suggest you stop, and let us blank this section. DGG (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bull. Sorry I'm boring you, DGG (certainly I'm boring you so much that you didn't actually read enough to see that quotes from an indictment were only in one bulleted item.) Feel free to scroll past. I am using this page not to make a content point but to defend myself. I guess your comment is a good sign that I'm defending myself adequately. I made certain talk page statements and I've been told I had to provide evidence in the form of sourcing for them. I'm not the one who came here and said Noroton had violated WP:BLP. I'm not the admin who templated Noroton's talk page with a threatening generic warning and then came back to this page to state that any admin could block Noroton on-sight if Noroton violated BLP in any way again (given some of the trigger-happy admins we have, that's quite a threat). I'm not the complaining editor who didn't answer until just recently a request for specifics from Noroton. I'm not the templating admin who also didn't provide specific objections until just hours ago, although Noroton asked him for them. So I've been going around getting every citation in every direction possible and putting every one of them on this page. You want to keep my defense off of AN/I? Then tell Ryan Postlethwaite and LotLE that they had the option of (a) actually looking at the sources I did cite at Talk:Barack Obama, including the references to sourced WP articles, and then (b) ask for sourcing in a specific area instead of templating a regular with a vague, threatening statement. After all, I said on the Obama talk page that I'd be happy to provide sourcing if it was requested. How dare you imply I shouldn't defend myself when the situation I'm in prevents me from even daring to edit a BLP until this is finished. And if I'm going to be accused on this page for everyone to see, I'm going to defend myself and my name on this page for everyone to see. And I'm not going to apologize for it. You also make points on this page that refer to editing decisions for the Obama page. I invite you to go there and make the comment. I object to anyone touching my comments here until that damn template is removed from my page, but feel free to put them in one of those "hide" bars after a decision is made here as to whether or not my comments still lack sourcing. Noroton (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there or is there not adequate sourcing for Noroton's statements?
Would other editors please provide feedback on whether or not I've sufficiently sourced my statements? If you think I have, and if there are no more objections to my statements on the Talk:Barack Obama page, then I can stop adding sources. Or I can go out and find more if there's some point that editors feel needs more sourcing. If we're done here, I'd like that big, honking BLP template removed from my talk page, and I'd like it made clear that I am in no way, any longer under any kind of BLP notice whatever. And then I can get back to editing content, which is what I'd prefer to be doing. Noroton (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The documentary evidence shows that B.A. joined with a revolutionary cadre in 1969; the next year their nail bomb exploded, killing three comrades, including B.A.'s girlfriend D.O. A decade later the courts decide to throw prosecutorial evidence against the group out for various crimes due to its being tainted by rogue wiretaps, all happening within the political environment of Carter's granting amnesty to evaders of the Viet Nam draft.


 * On a Wikipedia talk page in 2008 contributors debated whetherabsent the evidence's having been thrown outB.A. could have been prosecuted for murder since deaths occured during the group's illegal guerrilla actions against the United States. Contributor LotLE believes that this discussion is libel.


 * Surfing over to the Wikipedia article on the subject of libel, we read the contention that any suit for libel by B.A., who's a public figure, would have to prove all of the following.
 * The information was published. Check.
 * B.A. was directly or indirectly indentified in it. Check.
 * This info was defamatory to his reputation. Check, sort of. Although the UPI's allegation in 1970 that B.A. uttered revolutionary "Death to rich people!" rhetoric and various press reports alleging B.A.'s involvement in bombings are what made B.A. a public figure in the first place.
 * What was discussed isn't true....... Actually the evidence under discussion is the evidence under discussion, collected in good faith, with no falsehoods being alleged as far as I can determine. As for speculations of would-have-been criminal liability, how could such a thing be considered false? The fact is, B.A. bombed buildings, got his name in the paper through reports alleging this, then wrote a memoir about it. The suggestion (that Wikipedia should clamp down on public debate about possible criminal liabilities for this, absent the Fed's evidence not having been tainted) should really be snowballed off this notice board (and Noroton allowed to go back to his normal superb editing!)
 * Were #4 to have been a "check," the Wikipedia Foundation or wiki-contributors were negligent through not avoiding this libel. This an/i shows our good faith determination that there'd be no merit to libelous claims here. No foul. Let's play ball. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     09:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * nothing to see here folks; let's move on.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is my feedback: some reliable sources have described Ayers and the Weathermen as terrorists. I think you're hearing people question the relevance of extensively debating this characterization on the Obama talk page, but I don't think there is a WP:BLP violation here, and I think most input has agreed that there is no significant WP:BLP issue here. As a general reminder (not directed at Noroton), it's best to continue to stick to reliable secondary sources and avoid doing things like constructing your own legal case against Ayers on the Obama talk page. I would suggest the following: Noroton, remove the BLP template from your talk page. I don't see a BLP issue and I would oppose any block on Noroton that followed from this discussion. Let's close this as a BLP issue, and have everyone go back to working on improving the article with an emphasis on reliable sources and consensus-building. MastCell Talk 15:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll do that. I get the impression that there's a consensus here. Unless there is any objection to MastCell's statement just above, I hope this matter can be marked "Resolved" as soon as its apparent the discussion is over. As a good faith move, I'm still willing to add sources to specific posts at that Talk:Barack Obama thread, although I think it's sufficiently sourced. Noroton (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with terminating it here--that was in fact the point of my comment above. DGG (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this seems to be resolved. LotLE, like K4T, has made a report at WP:ANI that did not result in any administrative sanctions. Since he made the report against people he's involved with in a content dispute, it appears retaliatory. Since over 60 percent of his edits in the past 11 weeks are to pages related to Barack Obama, for the past 11 weeks he's been a disruptive, tendentious single-purpose account. I have roughly 2000 diffs to sift through, but you may expect my ANI report requesting his topic ban on Saturday. Curious bystander (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not treat AN/I as a battleground in that way. We don't topic ban editors out of nowhere for filing unsuccessful AN/I reports.  LotLE's AN/I report was legitimate and generated support among some administrators, even though it was not ultimately endorsed.  K4T by contrast was topic banned after an escalating series of blocks for reasons discussed at the time of his topic ban.  You are editing from a new account with an curious edit history.  For a brand new account to plunge headfirst into a major content dispute only to begin lobbying for blocking or banning editors is unfortunate.  If you have anything constructive to contribute to the article please do so.  If there is a current editing problem that needs administrative attention to avoid disruption to the project please go right ahead.  But if you want to escalate the incivilities on the page by digging through months of editing history to accuse editors of filing AN/I reports in bad faith and advocating for their topic bans, it will throw things into worse disarray than now.  Wikidemo (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Close report, please
Per MastCell and DGG above, I agree that purging the Talk:Obama edit history of the comments is not going to reach consensus. It got some support from admins, but the majority opinion indeed seems to be that the issue does not reach a severity to warrant this action. Sure, I maintain my opinion on the severity of the libel issue, but obviously I defer to consensus. Of course, if the editors contributing them were to voluntarily remove their contentious edits, I believe that would be a positive sign and step.

As I have written in all my comments here, I still do not (and never have) advocated sanction against the editors contributing the comments that raised my concern. I do not disagree with the warnings that were made, but am pleased that no actual block or ban resulted. Let us just close this report, but please try to keep unnecessarily contentious material off article talk pages going forward. Obviously, I am not entirely thrilled about the various bluster and threats made against me in this discussion for raising the BLP concern, but that is also certainly not the topic of this ANI report. LotLE × talk 19:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)