Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive167

Unsubstantiated claim about Jenny Tonge, Baroness Tonge
At this diff] in Jenny Tonge, Baroness Tonge an editor again has added a criticism of Tonge that only applies to another individual. In short, both Tonge and Oona King went to Gaza. King wrote an article comparing Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. Both sources only mention that Tonge compared the situation in Gaza to apartheid. Yet the editor insists on introducing a source that criticizes them both for "comparing the conditions of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to the Warsaw Ghetto under Nazi rule." (Hmmm, did the Nazis use the word "apartheid"?) Anyway, it seems to be just a POV edit based on an inaccurate attack -- or at least one not accurately described by both sources, but what's the difference? The editor doesn't get the point. Perhaps others could help Explain it to him? CarolMooreDC 02:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Update at this diff I added a few words to make it clearer that only King mentioned Warsaw Ghetto. I added a "dubious" tag also and included this edit summary:  clarify facts; include {dubious|date=December 2012} because source making unsubstantiated claims about Tonge should not be in Wikipedia; going to noticeboards for third opinions). Is there a better tag? Verification couldn't be found so didn't use that. CarolMooreDC 15:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Duh, just went to high beam and found substantiation so shall rewrite per source. I just wanted it properly sourced. CarolMooreDC 15:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert Baer article: link to Hoodwinked goes to a movie reference, incorrectly
The article about Robert Baer, author of "See No Evil", has a link to the author of the book "Hoodwinked" - when I clicked on it, it took me to the cartoon movie of "Hoodwinked", instead of the author's page. Just thought I'd mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.220.7 (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * by User:J04n, see this edit. The link is red because an article about the book does not exist...yet.--ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Zhi Gang Sha
Dear Editor,

I tried to bring the content posted under Zhi Gang Sha at a level of adequacy. My corrections were promptly removed by Quasihuman, claiming that my post is not neutral. My post under crissy02453 I think is available to you in History. I am a beginning editor on wikipedia, but I would like everybody to be treated with respect and that includes myself and Dr. Sha. I believe that the current post is inaccurate and does have a very poor perspective on dr. Sha's work. There maybe other points of view, that are indeed not neutral, and those can be kept under 'controversies', but I would like to see the main posting to be a true biographical sketch of Dr. Zhi Gang Sha, who is a #1 NewYorkTimes Bestseller Author and a humanitarian figure who received the Martin Luther King Jr. award.

Thank you for your time and allowing me to post on wikipedia,

Christina Rugina, affiliated with Imperial College, London, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0B:400F:FFFF:0:0:5679:134C (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your edits were not neutral in tone. There is nothing disrespectful about the way you have been treated or about the way the article is written. As part of the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle, please use the article's talk page to discuss further proposed changes to the article, and be prepared to support them with reliable, third-party, sources.--ukexpat (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Forbidden (band)
The current drummer's name is spelled Sasha Horn, not Sascha Horn.

Footnote Forbidden_(band) does not support the the statement "According to his audition videos and other material, there was a great deal of backlash regarding Forbidden's choice." [of Sasha Horn as drummer]

Mr. Horn has not left the band for family reasons or otherwise. He remains a member.

(I know Sasha Horn cusually, and thus was unsure of whether I should edit the page. I've opted to report it here instead.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachieX (talk • contribs)


 * in this edit. I also corrected the spelling in Template:Forbidden (band).--ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Amy Courter
There have been untrue and potentially libelous statements entered on this page, and I open this noticeboard section due to the persistent nature of the apparent personal attacks on Major General Amy Courter, first female general officer of the Civil Air Patrol, the United States Air Force Auxiliary.

A particularly persistent violation was from the user at 74.233.240.216 - see diff on history of the edits on Amy Courter wiki. One particular false statement was entered and re-entered four times from this vandal, after being reverted between each of their posts by various good users.

A user identifying as Foxalmonaro also posted one set of untrue and potentially libelous statements.

User Birdh posted mulitple claims that are untrue and potentially libelous.

Most recently, another user identifying as Stefania337 also posted untrue statements numerous times about the employment history. Amy Courter has no reason to deny answers to her employment history, and has letters of reference which I have seen to support her statements. It does not seem sensible that she should have to publicly post her personal letters of reference to stop this nonsense. The attacks by Stefania337, in particular, could be harmful and subject to civil prosecution for damages.

It appeears that the posts were done to harm her personally and to harm General Courter's business representation and interests.

All of this is a sad use of a great system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capsfuture (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The page has now been semiprotected which will prevent edits by IPs and users who are not autoconfirmed.--ukexpat (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected the article and added it to my watch list; I request others also add the article to their watchlists. Killer Chihuahua 16:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I have also chatted a bit with the user on IRC, and also left a note at his/her talkpage explaining how to request changes to the article. Bjelleklang -  talk 18:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Raul Julia-Levy
Raul Julia-Levy's page has been vandalized by a user named "Cosmodav." Please remove any and all malicious additions he or she has made and prevent this person from making further acts of vandalism. Thank you kindly. 37celsius (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just chopped out the tear-jerking stuff about the grave site and the "in memoriam" section as totally inappropriate in a BLP. Others may wish to take a look and see if more needs to be pruned.--ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed a bit more from the lead -- unsourced, and not the sort of thing that should be there without a source.Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Mitchell
Please can someone semi-protect the Andrew Mitchell article? There are all sorts of allegations being put about -- it's important that Wikipedia be very careful to keep its reporting to just careful reporting of what is being said by third party reliable sources, without any attempt at drawing its own conclusions or endorsing any particular point of view, to avoid BLP problems. -- Chronulator (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have missed something but I can't quite see shere the allegations are. The four IP edits that have been made in the last two days include two spelling corrections, one essentially accurate (if in need of wikification) account of the CCTV footage and a link to the Channel 4 News account of the CCTV.  JASpencer (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Jame Blake Miller
I'd appreciate it if some other editors better versed in BLP policy than I am would have a look at James Blake Miller.

The article seems like massive overkill to me, considering that the only reason anybody's ever heard of him is due to a single, widely published photo. While the famous photo probably creates sufficient notability for an article, one has to wonder at what point WP:ONEEVENT kicks in. There's definitely a whole lot more than just the pertinent details surrounding the photograph.

I offer that the article needs to be slimmed down, a lot, to comply with our policies. Thoughts?  Belch fire - TALK 10:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Main problem is that it was almost entirely a copyvio - editors should at least reword LATimes articles - some was too bad to save IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for jumping in. I still think we need to trim it.  The article says he's estranged from his family and running with a motorcycle gang, even though that information is 5+ years old.  All we really need is (most of) the lead and the two paragraphs about the photo.   Belch fire - TALK  13:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Josh Payne‎
Making you aware of the situation - we have a young professional sportsman who has been fired following a criminal conviction. Editors and IPs who claim to be relatives are removing the sourced info as they believe it is "damaging." Further eyes appreciated. GiantSnowman 10:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Marjo-Riikka Makela
Does not meet notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The disenchantment (talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're in the wrong place, this is generally for dealing with serious issues affecting living persons, such as libel, defamation, etc.  If you wish to see that article deleted, you may wish to review the material at WP:AFD.  As regards notability, before nominating an article, I'd suggest rereading WP:GNG and performing a search for sources.  Best,  --j⚛e deckertalk 16:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Transportation Security Administration
There's a section in this article that I've been concerned with for quite a while. It's the Incidents section and is a list of incidents involving TSA agents. It's mostly been edited by who originally was putting any negative incident that involved a current or former TSA agent regardless of whether it happened on or off the job. I believe the IP is using this as a "naughty" list to hammer the TSA. Earlier this year we had a mini edit war over a single positive incident. That information is in the article but not in the incident list, keeping it purely negative.

Entries in the list mention people by name and allegations of the action. The vast majority of these people are, I feel, non-notable. Personally, I'd like to pull the entire list and note where appropriate that TSA agents have been caught committing various crimes with refs. Incidents that get significant attention may end up being pointed out but what we've got now is just ugly. I'm anything but a fan of the TSA but this is just a hit piece to me. Thanks. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * At least pull the non-notable BLP names (both TSA agents *and* victims) The rest is still overly much, but I can imagine the refs being used to create a summary of that information to say something a little more encyclopedic. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

martin berkofsky
Recently it was noticed that two strange banners were added to the top of this article. The banners claimed faults with the article but did not explain what the supposed faults were or how to fix them. Could the person "ROSTOVDON"(?) who inserted these banners please explain in detail what was or is on his/her mind so that the "faults" can be corrected? Sincerely,

Martin Berkofsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.109.27 (talk • contribs)


 * Take a look at the following pages: WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Original research and (for the third template that I just added), WP:Referencing for beginners and WP:Cite.--ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks-but you do not specifically explain what seems to bother you. Can you list lines, words, sentences, etc., which seem out of order? Can you make some substantive suggestions for specific improvements, or are you just complaining so that you can be a complainer? BE SPECIFIC AND BE HELPFUL! Martin Berkofsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.109.27 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all you need to assume good faith, this is a collaborative project and without good faith between editors, we might as well pack it all in and metaphorically go home. Second, as you are the subject of the article, you have a conflict of interest and are strongly encouraged NOT to edit the article, but to use its talk page to request changes, providing reliable sources to support your request. Third, the article does not cite any sources - it has a list of external links that may or may not specifically support what is stated in the article -- see referencing for beginners for more assistance. Fourth, and this is linked to item 3, without citations it is nigh on impossible to determine whether the content has been covered by secondary sources or is original research. Does that help?--ukexpat (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Crandall
Today, two editors have edited the article to assert that Crandall died today. Neither cited any reliable source, and I haven't been able to find anything myself to support the claim. Does anyone know whether it's correct? Deltahedron (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * At least one source confirming his death has been added to the article.--ukexpat (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's sad. The Reed Magazine reference there now is most likely correct.  --j⚛e deckertalk 03:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, sadly it seems to be correct. At the time of originally posting there were no sources.  Deltahedron (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape case
Please can we get some extra eyes - and thoughts - on. This is apparently a hot topic in India right now, but we have an article where we're giving the full names, locations, and occupations of people who are only related to the suspects (and indeed full names of most of the suspects themselves, though that's arguably more justifiable). All of these are living people right now; I wouldn't want that to end up changing purely because of information unwisely parroted by Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have pruned it a little and reworded the lead to more natural English. I have also requested temporary semi-protection.--ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Park Geun-hye
Some more eyes would be useful at Park Geun-hye. Most of this stayed in the article for more than an hour. I would semiprotect the page, but I know nothing about South Korean politicians, so I don't want to be responsible for locking things up. (There may be additional vandalism that has slipped through.) Zagal e jo^^^ 18:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Haruka Ayase
An editor is adding this person's presumed "real name" to the article without a source. The "real name" in question is just gossip and there is certainly no reliable source. I reverted twice and brought up on the talk page, but the editor insisted on adding it again, also using the user-generated content on IMDb as a "reference". JoshuSasori (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that having the "real name" is objectionable beyond the lack of a better source? I'm not suggesting that it should stay if it's not objectionable -- we should have a good source for it.  I'm just wondering how much of a problem it is.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The person has chosen not to reveal her "real name". If she has chosen not to reveal the name, I don't see what business Wikipedia has repeating gossip about what it might be. I don't know why she doesn't want the real name to be known, but since she doesn't, why are we putting it in the article? I'm quite uncomfortable about being asked to speculate about why she might not publish her name. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Japanese Wikipedia has a notice not to add her real name because it is not public, and previous versions of the article that violated this policy have been deleted. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The name appears to be authentic. We still shouldn't add it unless some reliable source linked to the subject can be found. The only results I found were blogs with some rather stalkerish suggestions of checking the alleged name in the Hiroshima phone book, so it seems unlikely. elvenscout742 (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please can you stop this "name appears to be authentic"? It's possible to find directions to Momoe Yamaguchi's house on the internet, but that doesn't mean wikipedia should publish it. JoshuSasori (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is that IMDB is not a reliable source, so unless a reliable source is found we should not even think about adding the name to the article.--ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ukexpat: I agree completely. That's why I made this edit and pointed the offending user to the specific policy point that bans use of IMDb as a source. (And JoshuSasori: I will word my opposition to the inclusion of this information however I like, thank you very much. It should be obvious to anyone who understands Wikipedia policy that what matters here is not whether the information is accurate but whether reliable sources exist.) elvenscout742 (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Gustl Mollath
There is a section appeared called "Turn in new reporting" which seems to be a mixture of dubiously sourced material and editor comments. The discussion on the talk page isn't any more enlightening either. The subject is apparently quite a high profile person in Germany currently. NtheP (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of other serious issues with the article and the TP too: Inexperienced editors vs. POV-pushing editor, Edit-war, uncivil language on TP (even in a para-header!), rather poor language skills, misuse of edit summary for PAs, ...) - In essence, a foolish and obstructive quarrel between some single-minded german contributors spreading here. --46.115.53.63 (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionable removal of well researched and verifiable information...
Wikipedia states that contributors must only add verifiable and factual information, rather than personal views and opinions.

Recently Dianna (and other administrators) removed, even before enough time had passed to properly ready/study the contribution; contributions I made to the Danny Green webpage. It appears they did not check or understand the material they removed, and then justified these bulk deletes by wrongly and falsely accusing me that they were poorly sourced.

I have on many occasions requested Dianna to explain and justify this claim, and to also explain why, if the material I provided was inaccurate, she didn't explain which parts were and simply remove those.

Dianna, in conflict with Wikipedia' ethos has ignored these requests and my request to edit the webpage; whilst locking it.

The contribution I made removed the bulk of propaganda that existed on the page and they provided many, many citations and references; verifying that the provided material was accurate, checkable and factual.

The material clarified many aspects of Danny Green's achievements. Prior to the changes the webpage was clearly being used to promote and advertise Danny Green. In addition to that, it was largely unreferenced. These characteristics conflict with Wikipedia's policies.

Regardless of this and the fact that the information we provided was clearly researched, extremely well referenced (from very reliable industry sources) and the fact the existing page at the time was not. ...

Dianna simply deleted all our contribution without reading/checking it.

Reverted the page back to the original which was inaccurate, largely unreferenced and essentially promotional material for Danny Green.

When we tried to return our contribution (which complied with Wikipedia policies) and get Dianna to explain why she was showing preference for bias material and bulk-deleting all our contribution; we received no clear indication from her.

Dianna then claimed our work was poorly sourced.



Since our work was well researched, we then asked her to explain where the poor sources were. We received no response. Meanwhile we followed Wikipedia policy and requested to edit the page.

That request was ignored repetitively as well.

We appreciate that our contribution may not embellish Danny Green's webpage. However, many facts (and many other Wikipedia pages that contain facts and the truth, and are verifiable) sometimes don't embellish the subject either. That is the nature of the truth, and that is also why the web-page in question - prior to our well researched contribution - was grossly inaccurate.

It should be noted that on many occasions Dianna simply deleted all our work and reverted the webpage back to the propaganda it previously was; whilst accusing us to justify her actions, all as she failed to explain where our contribution was poorly sourced and inaccurate.

We believe Dianna has a conflict of interest with this matter because she has erred in judgment and been caught bulk deleting material because someone - most likely those whom originally provided the un-referenced material in the start - probably asked her to respond. We say this with confidence as the material we contributed (and Dianna deleted) was verifiable, contained many references and completely clarified many aspects of Danny Green's career that have been exaggerated and used as promotional material. We say this with confidence also as it is virtually impossible for Dianna to have known about the subject and then justified deleting the entirety of our contribution; even if she did have the time to read and check it all before it was deleted.

We believe this kind of "Administrator" conduct - where accurate, well referenced/researched contributions are entirely deleted so less accurate versions can be given preference; particularly those involving accusations on the administrator's part (to justify the conduct) that the contribution is poorly sourced, that are not explained; have no place in Wikipedia.

Finally, if the Danny Green webpage can't accommodate truthful, verifiable and well researched information, just because it reveals precisely how bias and incorrect the previously existing information was; then we would like to know why. As there are many, many Wikipedia pages that describe death, horror and circumstances and events that have much more impact than the truth we have provided.

We suggest that Dianna's actions would have been better spent on the material that was unverified and inaccurate; rather than deleting the information that was clearly researched, extremely well referenced (from very reliable industry sources) and accurate.

Can someone please explain Dianna's accusations and why the elements of our contribution that are said to be inaccurate and poorly sourced have not been highlighted to us (as we have requested) so we can;

1) See that Dianna has not simply deleted without checking. 2) See that Dianna has not simply falsely accused us of poorly sourced material. 3) Change the inaccuracies whilst that which is accurate remains. 4) Ensure Wikipedia readers can learn about Danny Green's real record and actions accurately and in a manner that is verifiable. 5) Understand Dianna's actions better and why she removed material based on her unsubstantiated guesses about its accuracy and whether we have a connection to Danny Green (we don't but we know enough people in the boxing industry to easily source correct and accurate information).

We are prepared to substantiate any of the information we have provided, so the real question is why can't is be published and why had Dianna falsely accused us as justification for her actions - which appear in conflict with Wikipedia's policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.100.243 (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The material added was deleted because it was unsourced, or poorly sourced at best. I'd suggest that it could also be described as POV-pushing, editorialising, full of original research, and otherwise in direct contravention of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard - I'm sure that this will help ensure that such material is prevented from being added again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that boxingscene.com meets Wikipedia's requirements for what we consider to be a reliable source. Try to use mainstream sources such as Sports Illustrated or ESPN.  BTW, don't write such long posts.  Nobody wants to read a long, wall of text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the IP reads WP:TLDR - huge screeds of text (here and on the talk page) do not enhance the points you are trying to make. Please be succinct.--ukexpat (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Boxing scene is actually one of the better sources of boxing information? Sports illustrated and Fox source their boxing info from Boxing scene. In any regard, there were many, many other references from other well respected and reliable sources? You have overlooked many of the sources I have provided. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.97.79 (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious you have no idea of where accurate boxing information can be sourced from. Please check my references and information again and tell me, in detail, which ones you believe are not well sourced.

As it is now you are simply being defensive - I am asking you to explain which parts of my contribution are not accurate and why? If you cant do that then I am beginning to see why you guys are not getting paid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.97.79 (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles must be written according to Wikipedia policy - your contributions weren't. They were reverted accordingly. And just out of interest, are you being paid to contribute to Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Diannaa's page protection was in response to my . I acknowledge that the Danny Green article is in need of attention, and I have committed to working hard to improve it. I've gone through the article and removed the worst of the transgressions – so that what's left is (largely) non-controversial and event-based. As mentioned on the article's talk page, that is only the first stage, and I have committed to working to improve the article until every piece of text is supported by reliable sources. You can see the level I would like to achieve by the standard to which I have lifted the Green versus Briggs/Controversy section. I understand that the current article falls below what is required in a BLP, however I would ask for a little leeway so that I can lift the rest of the article to that standard (which might take a fair chunk of the rest of the year).
 * In response to the extraordinary amounts of (repetitive) text being deposited by an IP, all I can say is that I hope that IP can contribute constructively (and within WP's policies) after the article has been improved. Until now, all I have witnessed is poorly-written text that is riddled with original research and unencyclopaedic language. I have offered to help the IP, however no request for that help has been received (so far).
 * GFHandel &#9836; 06:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Jay Westerveld
This article needs the help of some experienced BLP editors. Please see (the bickering on) Talk:Jay Westerveld and the rules of engagement I've laid out--more importantly, please edit the article so it's no longer an embarrassment and fodder for edit-warring. I've set protection for Pending changes given its history. Your help is greatly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made substantial edits to the article. I've also left a note at talk about my concerns on a stand-alone biography. I've begun an RfC regarding a merger proposal to Greenwashing. The discussion is at the Greenwashing talk page. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Jake Adelstein
"False claims about crime in Japan" and other libelous materials including repeated references to a National Geographic lawsuit, which was settled out of court, keep being repeated without substantiation while reference articles to work done by the author with documentation keep being deleted. A personal grudge against the author appears to be the cause of the repeated corrections. As far as the National Geographic Channel, numerous issues with their practices have been cited elsewhere http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hutterites-want-apology-natgeo-television-show-201854965.html and NGC is owned by NewsCorp which has engaged in wire tapping of phone and other illegal activities. Perhaps that should be reference as well. http://societymatters.org contains a litany of documentation on questionable practices at NGC, which the reader should certainly have as reference in making any decisions. Whether those other complaints against NGC are warranted or not, the reader can decide for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.126.48 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the usual BLP shit where the subject plus friends and enemies have it out with each other in the fluffy article. I've gone through and trimmed the article some; perhaps this warrants longterm semi-protection if this nonsense by these IP editors continues. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some BLP violations in this - and use of "wikiyakuza" for GoTo's BLP was improper. Looks like a bit of puffery for this author, who seems to have minimal credentials, alas. Collect (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Mi Pueblo Food Center
This article was brought to my attention via OTRS. There appears to be some rather contentious material regarding a specific individual with many statements lacking citations and possible POV and UNDUE concerns. I'm hoping someone could take a look at the article with an eye towards ensuring any BLP-violating material is cleaned-up? --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An internet search showed that there does exist a probably noteworthy controversy. I've improved the sourcing and trimmed back the content. The photo gallery was also an issue, but I'm not sure what the best thing is there. I've restricted it to one photo for now. I also removed some content which was favourable towards the store, because it was sourced in the same way as the negative content. Formerip (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ay-yi-yi. I'll keep this one on my watchlist because there's a store near me and I like it. I'll try to keep the article fair and neutral. The Oakland Tribune article is negative but it should be represented with two sentences. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I'm not looking for a whitewash by any means, but it certainly needed a good BLP/POV scrub. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 02:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

List of British Iranians
A minor one this, but can someone take a look at List of British Iranians. First User:Tabarish, and then an IP have been adding a local poltician to the list: a Sharan Tabari who was a Labour member of Westminster council for a few years. This is unsourced, but from what I can find on Google, Tabari seems not to have attracted any real attention - consequently, per WP:POLITICIAN guidelines, the individual wouldn't merit an article, and therefore shouldn't be included on the list. I'll notify the IP and User:Tabarish (evidently the individual concerned) of this thread, but I'd like some input from others too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom Stienstra
Hey can you look over this article and vet it? I want to make sure it isn't violating WP:UNDUE and can not be considered libelous or defamatory. I'm pretty confident it's not but I've been contacted via email from this person publisher and they naturally don't like bad publicity. Either way I just want to make sure our bases are covered. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ali Ahmad Kurd
Please help at Ali Ahmad Kurd article. User:Sitush is repeatedly inserting unsourced defamatory material about Gen. Musharraf, a former head of state and and is also making improperly sourced claims of the context of Ali Ahmed Kurd's arrest. I had deleted the material and requested him not to reinsert without proper sources and proper discussion. But the material has been reinserted without proper sources and discussion and I am being attacked as if I am destroying articles by removing unsourced and improperly sourced defamatory material from BLP. Please help.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the part that was actually unsourced. But you deleted material that was sourced, and I would advise you to stop doing that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not give those reasons for removal, you removed sourced content, and you removed easily verifiable content. I am concerned about the lack of a cited source for the alleged second arrest but there are plenty of potential sources & it can be fixed in the next 24 hours or so. You are being heavy-handed elsewhere also and your hasty report here concerns me. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The "sourced" part which I had removed is not properly sourced. The given source does not say anything about Bugti or incitement by Kurd. It also does not say anything about his release or date of arrest. I do not think it is proper to say anything about arrest without a properly sourced description of context of arrest.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sitush, the source you provided does not say anything at all about Musharraf ordering the arrest of Kurd. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor did the article. - Sitush (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is easily fixed stuff. Oranges is spending more time ripping up and arguing than it would take to fix, & is doing so on several articles. My bet is the YouTube clips they deleted at Kurd supported some of the statements but I'm deaf and so am using other srcs. Coming here w/out proper discussion is a ridiculous state of affairs. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nor did the article"?? Here's (part of) what you added/restored: "Musharraf again ordered the arrest of Kurd".  It's not in the source.  It's probably true -- but if you want it in the article, then it's on you to provide a source for it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying to fix this appalling destruction using a smartphone. I reinstated the deletions to fix but it takes a few minutes. Is everyone happy now? I can't believe the lack of good faith here, not to mention the lack of initiative. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Sitush should not have added the line about the order to arrest with that source being cited. If there is a reliable source, I am sure they will provide it or they will refrain from adding that content back. As a BLP issue, I see no reason to wait for 24 hrs if that means leaving the information and I don't think in this instance OrangesRyellow was being heavy handed. But lets all assume good faith and move forward from here with reliable sources for any such contentious claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I had brought this here because Sitush seems to have some kind of terrible urgency about reinserting the defamatory content even if it meant reinserting without proper sourcing and because it is difficult to interact with him. He keeps on saying insulting things again and again and everywhere even when he himself is reinserting info without proper sourcing and when I was only deleting unsourced or improperly sourced content from BLP. I do not see the reason for the fanatical urgency to reinsert. I appreciate the help in interacting with him.

The newly inserted source [CJ's lawyer booked Paktribune, looks like a non RS and some kind of personal website to me. It does not seem to have an author or editor. I do not think it is admissible for BLPs and I think that the source and the material which it supports should be deleted until a proper source can be found.[[User:OrangesRyellow|OrangesRyellow]] (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to discuss any conduct issues really. This is not the proper venue. I understand it can be frustrating. The source is best discussed through the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Lets try to be patient with each other. I know it isn't always easy, but we should at least try to find common ground.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theorists
This category is highly populated with living persons - many of whom are not the "theorists" but have been noted by someone as believing in a "conspiracy theory." As this is a subjective matter for most of those listed (those who actually initiate a conspiracy theory, noted as such by reliable sources beyong simply being controversial opinion may belong in this category), many of those listed ase listed simply as a "crackpot badge" in Wikipedia's voice. And being grouped with Adolf Hitler does seem to be a "crackpot badge". I consider the label "conspiracy theorist" to be a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP, requiring specific relaible sourcing as "fact", and ask if others agree. Collect (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In principle, sure. But I note that you removed the category from Glenn Beck despite a plethora of sources for it, so I'm wondering what this is really about.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He is not per se a person who has created any conspiracy theories, nor are there any strong RS sources ascribing theorising - thus the removal.  I would note, further, that Christian leaders who appear to believe in the Book of Revelation are called "conspiracy theorists", along with folks like L. Ron Hubbard, and a slew of others - many of whom conveniently are not reliably sourced as such.  Such such a term be applied without strong sourcing? In the case of Beck, we have "critics contend" which is not really strong sourcing, is it?  Media Matters for America is not a good source for factual claims of this nature. Really.  Collect (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to have read the lede but not the rest of the article. Really.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, you don't have to create conspiracy theories to be a conspiracy theorist, you simply have to promote them. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But my chief point is that labelling a person with the term is "contentious" per WP:BLP, thus requiring specific strong sourcing. Columns in Salon, HuffPo, etc. are not strong enough to all a person any pejorative name in Wikipedia's voice - so this term also should not be assigned in Wikipedia's voice either ("categories" are in "Wikipedia's voice" IMHO. Collect (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have restored this. Opinions might differ about "strong" sources, but the opinion that they are weak is a minority one here.  In this instance it is not a matter of only leftists -- the article makes it clear that people from across the political spectrum identify him as a conspiracy theorist.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The category is "conspiracy theorists," not "creators of conspiracy theories." The latter would be empty, as most conspiracy theories are ultimately elaborations of the anti-Semitic Blood libel, the Witch hunts in Early Modern Europe, and maybe John Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy (if that's not a secular version of "the godless are gonna overturn our Church and State" belief of the witch hunts). One thing that might help is distinguishing between the types of conspiracy theories the folks in that category believe in, but I doubt most sources would explicitly do that enough for us to avoid OR (and many would still be in a general "yeah, that probably believe that too" category). As for sourcing and BLP, Huffpost is considered as at least as reliable as Fox News. That he has been documented advocating beliefs that only conspiracy theorists advocate, and that this documentation is in secondary sources that meet WP:RS is enough. Just because Huffpost isn't right-wing doesn't matter. "Conspiracy theorist" is contentious and should not be used without a source, but reliable sources are provided, so there's no problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with Ian Thomson here. Yes, such a claim must have good reliable sources, absolutely: but if they're provided, then it's good to go. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is clearly a conspiracy to pretend that Glenn Beck is not a conspiracy theorist. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no conspiracy. You are conspiracy theorist, shame on you :)-- В и к и  T  21:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein
Someone added a controversy section to the article, apparently because it "needed" one. I reverted, but it was re-added. The editor, without logging in, left me nasty comments on my talk page, but no matter. It would be good if more editors could look at the material. It is possible that some of the material should be included in the article, although preferably not in a controversy section.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved that to the talk page and suggested that it be broken up and the information added to appropriate sections per guidelines. This is a BLP and to include a controversy sections seems POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not finding a specific prohibition regarding controversy sections in BLP articles. That it "seems POV" is a bit vague... could someone point out where this is forbidden? I'd also note that the material, while unflattering to Feinstein, appears at first glance to be reasonably sourced. Jus  da  fax   00:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Matthew VanDyke
I have noticed that this article keeps being edited by editors who must not be aware of the controversy surrounding Joel Simon's blog accusations. Due to the controversy, these accusations should not appear in the article nor should the blog be cited as a source. This matter has been previously discussed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive165#Matthew_VanDyke. Including accusations made in someone's blog in a BLP not only puts the credibility of this Wikipedia article into question, but the whole Wikipedia project as well. When you add in these additional factors: that the accusations are highly suspect given the possible personal motives of the blog author in attacking the subject, that the accusations have been disputed by the subject in a lengthy and detailed fashion in which more than enough evidence was presented to cast doubt on the validity of the accusations, and the fact that the accusations made in the blog have been reported in the press as being possibly untrue, then it is clear that no mention of the blog or the accusations belongs in this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HST799 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There doesn't appear to be a consenus from that very short discussion and off wiki complaints ( as mentioned in that other discussion) on Facebook do not seem relevant here. As Uncle G mentions, there is an additional RS for this information. Use of the "blog" being cited seems to meet RS. This is not a personal blog, but part of a journalist site that has editorial oversite and a reputation for fact checking and reliably published (this is not a self published blog). Committee to Protect Journalists - Joel Simon is the current executive director and a journalist. The "blog" is not a personal blog and should be no issues using this as a primary source.


 * Per our BLP policy: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." This seems to fall directly into to that category. I see no reason this material cannot return, however I would add the RS provided by Uncle G at the very least.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also a little concerned with what looks like campaigning from David Gerard and possible stealth canvassing by posting on the facebook complaint by the subject in a manner that seems less than neutral.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will add (as I forgot to mention above) that the content as originally written was properly attributed as opinion from the "News blog" (as this does constitute such) but could use some balance as clearly the subject denies the information and there is sure to be a RS with equal prominence.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Dankof


My attempts to edit the article entitled, "Mark Dankof," have been removed. The material removed includes Dankof's response to the AIM and ADL characterizations of either himself or Press TV/Iran, and is found at "Mark Dankof to Howard Phillips," and "Mark Dankof Responds to the ADL Hit Piece on Press TV Iran."

My attempt to add my "Mark Dankof's America at Wordpress" site to External Links has also been removed for reasons not understood.

I sincerely hope this is an honest mistake, and unrelated to issues presented by the following:

Zionist Online Activists Promote Pro-Israel Wikipedia Image Arutz Sheva - Israel National News (Israel)

"Wikipedia has become the new battleground for Israel's PR image. The Yisrael Sheli (My Israel) movement and the Yesha Council, which represents Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, have joined together for a new public relations initiative. Together they will soon offer a special course for volunteers who wish to write and edit English entries on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. Ayelet Shaked, who is heading the project, was interviewed on Monday [Aug. 2010] on Arutz 7 Radio, and said that she was surprised at the large number of individuals who have gotten in touch with her so far and are interested in joining the course."

There is one more issue that needs clarification: Who posted the original article, "Mark Dankof" at Wikipedia? What is the name/names of the person/persons involved? Since the Assistant Director of the Civil Rights Division of the Anti Defamation League of B'nai Brith in New York has been publicly shown to have been anonymously posting materials related to me and other American activists on a site known as JHate, I believe the question about who and what is behind the "Mark Dankof" article on Wikipedia to be a fair one.

Thanks,

Kramf (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Mark DankofKramf (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The BLP issues
The stuff about Zionist editing conspiracies should be dealt with elsewhere. The BLP issues on Mark Dankof are serious enough though. The sources are crap, and the entire article is a hit job. I've started to cull it. One question is whether PressTV is a reliable source. Dankof's efforts (described just above) to add blogspot sources don't help. I suspect this one will get sorted out only through semi-protection -- but even that might not do it as there is at least one autoconfirmed editor contributing to the mess there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra Peterson AKA Elvira
The one problem I know of for sure is it claims her to be an American Born Actress, this is false. She is of Canadian Birth and that should be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.64.108 (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No it should not be altered. She was born in Kansas. . Please dont edit with stuff you "know". Verify the information.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Death of Sean Kennedy


A the Help Desk, an IP (claiming to be the person who pled guilty to crime) has complained about the article, on the basis that the article incorrectly states the killing was a hate crime (the person also made a legal threat, which will have to be dealt with seperately). BLP is triggered here, as the victim's killer is still alive, and labeling them a hate-crime killer incorrectly should be avoided.

There's no doubt that many public figures have viewed this killing as a hate-crime, and have used it as the basis of creating new laws and legislation. However, given the plea bargain deal in the case, I don't think it can actually be labeled as a hate-crime. I believe the sources speculate that it is a hate crime, but that is as far they go. So if the sources cannot say that it was a hate-crime, I think the article should be revised to avoid BLP violations. Singularity42 (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But the article does not state that the killing was a hate crime, nor does it label the killer a "hate-crime killer". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is in a hate crime category. The article quotes the warrant for the person's arrest that states it was a hate crime.  It talks about the victim's parents being invited to the White House ceremony for the signing of the Hate Crime Prevention Act.  Perhaps the hate crime category should be removed as a start... Singularity42 (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is there a quote in the article saying that it was a hate crime? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote from the warrant is: "...result of the defendant (Moller) not liking the sexual identity of the victim" Singularity42 (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah -- so it doesn't say it was a hate crime?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (E/C)I fact tagged that part. The article looks like it could use some attention to be sure it complies with NPOV and proper reliable sourcing ect, but doesn't look too "bad". Since the killer, or what ever one is called who is convicted or pleads guilt to man slaughter is called, is named in the article, the usuall blp concerns should be applied. --Malerooster (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but, what? You have a random IP editor with no proof of identity whatsoever, who makes clear legal threats ("We have a pretty heavy law suit going on now for slander and i was asked to contact the publishers or the publishers site and ask for it to be removed before further action is taken"), my first reaction is suspicion.  This IP should be blocked per WP:NLT and instructed to make user of the OTRS system for further communication, THEN we will see if this is at all genuine. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tarc, I actually don't care who the IP is, but do of course care about NLT and would have no problem with doing what have you with him or her. Now that the article has been "brought" to this board, it should be looked at and dealt with as we would any blp concern it seems. --Malerooster (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As a "non-interested party", I took a look at the article, and if there is any merit to the claimant's assertions (e.g.: the video), then the article certainly lacks balance. There certainly is an implication of "hate-crime" associated with the perpetrator. ~Just my 2¢, ~E : 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Tarc: The IP's post was definitely suspicious (hence why I said the IP "claimed" to be the other party).  However, just because we may have issues with the IP does not mean that there were a few valid BLP concerns with the article, which is why I brought it up here.  Once I get a chance, I will add some references to this news article which shows that at the sentencing, the killer disputed that he had prior knowledge of the victim's sexual orientation, but that eyewitnesses contradicted that assertion. Singularity42 (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As the OP on this thread, I think the major issues have been dealt with. The hate crime category has been removed, some of the more controversial parts have been referenced, and I think there's now a nice balance between the public's perception of the incident and BLP guidelines.. Unless there are any additional issues (either because other editors think more needs to be done, or editors think the changes go too far), I would have no issue with this thread closing. Singularity42 (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is one line that is a direct quote in the article, but is actually paraphrased from the source [4], re: voicemail. - I'm not sure what (if anything) to do with this. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed more unsourced material. There are still a number of dead links. Also, is the actually "incident" written in the best way? Also, should the seanlastwish site be used as a source? The article still looks like it could use attention, better witting and sourcing. --Malerooster (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Jeb Bush
The entry for Jeb Bush is clearly false and needs to be corrected. Unfortunately, I do not have facts to do is myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.38.255 (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not enough information to comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman
I've just discovered this content and I'm rather concerned about it, but it's late here and I don't have time to go through it now.— S Marshall T/C 00:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not enough information to comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't feel there's any problem with the sections on anti-Zionism, views on the holocaust, or the child abuse allegations connected to his divorce that are sourced to a forum posting in what appears to be Hebrew? How remarkable.— S Marshall  T/C 11:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting combative and accusatory tone. Since you simply wished for more eyes on the content and left no specific issue, there was nothing to comment on...and at this point, seems that you simply wish to have a fight. I'll let others accommodate you in that area if they wish.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh well, if there's nothing to comment on then of course the article must be fine. Thanks for setting my mind at rest on that score.— S Marshall  T/C 12:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, you just want to carry on and pretend that your lack of following the above guide to provide diffs and give specifics is a reason to make assumptions.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The google docs primary documents cannot be used so I deleted them and warned User:MosesYisroel against that kind of reference. Binksternet (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Several other statements relied on extremely unreliable sources, which in any case did not support the edits. So I have deleted these too. It looks as though the article is attracting many hostile, poorly-sourced, contentious edits. RolandR (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thalía
I believe this article should be semi-protected because people keep undoing my improvement to the article, Thalía. I have removed unsourced material, corrected grammar, and made article statements that more accurately represent the provided references. Someone with the following IP address keeps reverting to improper versions of the article: 37.32.165.144 An administrator should give this editor a warning to stop undoing my good faith edits. Zz2zz (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue. Not a BLP issue. Content disputes should use Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Request for administrative intervention should be made through Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and protection requests, through Requests for page protection.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the first place to discuss this is the article's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of them have been using the article's talk page, as well as their account talk pages, as can be seen. That hasn't stopped  from carrying on in parallel.  I've protected the article to stop the edit war.  Uncle G (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Uncle G.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Alex Čejkaalex
Alyssa Harvey is not my manager or represent me in any way. Please delete or i will take further action- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleHarv (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC) --Amadscientist (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hank Harrison
I think this material is relevant to this BLP. The source I added was to a book by Poppy Z. Brite which I think is a clearly reliable source (she wrote what is more or less an official biography). It says "She was encouraged to stretch her imagination, and occasionally was helped along with a bit too much zeal. When she was four years old, she has said, her father gave her LSD. (She has no memory of this, but later, during the Harrisons' divorce, Linda and one of Hank's girlfriends would testify that it was so in child-custody court.)" This material is also in Courtney Love's article. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC) :Withdrawing COI allegation due to his post on my talk page denying a close relationship and saying that he assumed as he took the picture he could upload it. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * - we have a COI editor removing negative material from this article. I say COI because the editor,, has said that they uploaded an image you took of Hank Harrison and that it was copyright to Hank Harrison. The material is about allegations that Harrison gave his daughter Courtney Love LSD when she was 4, an allegation he denies. At one point he added a link to Harrison's website with a copy of a polygraph test given anonymously to Harrison which he said proved that the allegations were false and also proved Harrison wasn't anti-Semitic or racist. I removed that as it wasn't a reliable source (and polygraph tests prove nothing).
 * The denial of COI is spurious. His signature is zendogg@gmail.com which is also the contact email given for Hank Harisson at http://www.hankharrison.com/indexx.html. It is clearly Harisson himself (or his representative) trying to supress negative information. It seems to me that if he is notable it is because of his relationship/conflict with Courtney Love, not because of his authorship. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't link the sig, but he now tells me "There is no reason to delete the polygraph results as long as Mr. Harrison is under attack by Courtney's minions. He told me he does not need a wikipedia page and wants the entire page removed.". 06:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)


 * This appears to be Hank Harrison himself, see . And User:Stone Savant. This email address is information he is freely putting out on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is being discussed at the talkpage whether or not including Courtney Love's and Linda Carroll's accusations against Harrison is a BLP violation. Input welcome.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Suzy Favor-Hamilton
Could someone take a look at the Suzy Favor-Hamilton article? My first impression is that there are balance and neutrality issues there, particularly in the lead, which currently reads a bit like an attack piece. Nsk92 (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to add we have a complaint about the version of the lead that included her being a prostitute, and the complaint seems to be from an academic unrelated to her who mentions her article as an example of misogyny and sexism in our articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made a couple of minor changes to the article, but am unsure whether or not the material about her escort work should be kept. It's well-sourced and she's fairly high-profile, but I'm not sure whether its likely to be useful information for many readers. Other opinions would be welcome. Formerip (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

From a post I made on the subject's article Talk page:

"...Indeed, I think all of those editing this article should review and thoughtfully consider WP:BLP (Wikipedia:biographies of living persons) and refer to it for guidance on how to proceed with this matter. Of special concern, in my view, given some of the comments on this [Talk] page, is the following quote from ¶ 3 of WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment..." I must confess that at this point, I am in favor of deleting the section on her sex-work experience. If, at some later time, an editor can supply a convincing justification for restoring this section, well, so be it. Until then, I do not see that it has value sufficient to outweigh the presumption that I think we are supposed to have against inclusion. NorthCoastReader (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'm very cautious about recentism. In this case, I think it does belong in the article. It does not belong in the lead, as some have tried to put it, but it certainly belongs in the article. There is no doubt about it happening since she has very publicly admitted it. Sourcing isn't an issue either. I can see this as having long-term notability as something significant in her lifetime. A short mention of a couple of sentences isn't going to be an UNDUE issue. Nor is this a case of "making titillating claimns" etc. The subject has clearly admitted it happened. She admits it happened for several months and with her husband's knowledge. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a whole heap of unreferenced info which read like a CV. GiantSnowman 13:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

DUE/UNDUE issue
Favor advertised her price ($600 an hour) on the website for the escort agency, publicly viewable. That number has been reported repeatedly by sources ranging from the LA and NYTimes, CBS News to the Vancouver Sun. Favor doesn't dispute it at all, has admitted the woman in the ad on the website it her etc. The information is well sourced, not contested and shouldn't be controversial. However, a couple of editors have unilaterally declared that the single sentence inclusion of the info is UNDUE. The closest thing to a reason has been that it's titillating or tabloidy. (So I guess the LA Times, NY Times, CBS et al are all just a bunch of tabloids). I'd like to here some other opinions on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)
 * When someone tweets about it, I'm not sure we can say that we're violating someone's privacy here with a brief sentence or two. Given that the subject doesn't appear to be complaining about it, I'd suggest that we don't have good reason here for editors' qualms to trump the subject's apparent comfort.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't misrepresent the facts, Niteshift36: you are unilaterally trying to insert that information against a consensus of at least 4 other editors, and you seem to be the only editor who thinks it should be in the article. It's a clear case of WP:IDHT   Belch fire - TALK  12:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is you who are misrepresenting my friend. I inserted the well-sourced material. Others removed it without a real reason being given. Then, after repeated requests for discussion, the reason being given is "undue weight" and tabloid material........which is what I stated here. Already, we see another experienced, uninvolved editor who thinks inclusion is warranted, so clearly discussing this on a braoder scale isn't a bad idea, instead of relying on a false "consensus" because a couple of you guys made a decision (a decision that some have yet to show a policy based reason for, or even explain at all). So no, it's not IDHT, it's having an actual discussion, something you clearly aren't comfortable with. I invited discussion more than once. What has been your idea of discussion? "It's undue weight, unquestionably. Doesn't belong." Yeah, that's your whole reasoning. Because you said so. Decree issued, now everyone obey. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quite comfortable discussing this. See?  I'm discussing it right now.  Your claim of "false consensus" is, well, false.  And tendentious.  Your edit has been reverted no less than 4 times by 3 different editors and nobody owes you an explanation.  But you got one anyway.  You just refuse to accept it.  And if you check the last edit to this discussion, below (Nomo's clarification), you will see that you are still all alone.   Belch fire - TALK  13:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're comfortable? Funny, your discussion has been quite lacking up to this point. I guess now that you have a wider audience, you have to put on a better show. Yes, reasoning IS needed when well sourced, non-controversial material is removed. I've practically had to beg for a reason and most of it has been "I said so". Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what's changed is that now I have time to waste on this nonsense. And you're wrong, nobody owes you any explanation, especially when you're lone edit warrior trying to force in his edits over consensus. Furthermore, there's no requirement for verbosity - why should I say more than "It's undue weight", when that's the whole reason? It's not my job to talk you down off the ledge. We have a clear consensus through editing, and now you've been given your explanation (which seems to be unanimous). Time for everybody to move on. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 14:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you do have a burden to explain why something is or isn't undue weight, especially when it is challenged. That's what a disucssion entails (you still seem a little fuzzy on the concept). Regardless, all you've done here is tell me that you don't have to explain and then discuss me........thus far, you really haven't addressed the actual issue. That is "what makes this undue weight?" in case you forgot. Funny how someone who professes to recognize the error in Argumentum ad populum relies so heavily on strictly counting numbers and not actually addressing the issue with meaningful discussion. In any case, I'll let you have the WP:LASTWORD because you obviously feel a need for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your animated comment seems to be directed at me, and so I suggest that you clarify. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Clarification -- I now understand that the issue is whether to include the price she charged. (I had thought that it was about whether to omit mention of the escort bit altogether.)  I do not think it is necessary to include the price.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can explain why a single sentence is undue weight? None of them have been able to. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Nightshift36. I'm back. My reason for excluding the price is something to do with taste, and the question, Would an encyclopedia include it? In my opinion, it's tasteless and unencyclopedic. It's fine for a newspaper, but a biography in an encyclopedia just wouldn't go into that degree of prurience. I can't explain it any better than that, I'm afraid. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See, that's fine. We disagree and I'm ok with that. We have different opinions. What I disagree with is arbitrary removal, sans discussion and all the accompanying venom and sarcasm that took the place of discussion. I'd agree with you if we were trying to publish a more in-depth price list (some sources indicated she charged extra for certain acts), expand it to include her overnight and weekend rates (again, something other sources have published) or if we were in some way belaboring the point. None of those are things I'm talking about. I'm simply talking about a very brief mention, possibly included in an existing sentence. I don't see it as sensationalizing it. As to the question about whether or not an encyclopedia would include it, then answer is yes. Look at Divine Brown. Not only do we talk about how much she charged Hugh Grant, we talk about how she got into prostitution because of a $133 electric bill, that she made $1000 in 5 hours and how she told Grant it was $100 but accepted the $60 he offered her. Yes, I realize that is a different BLP, but it does go to your question about whether or not an encyclopedia would put that info in. Other examples would be Heidi Fleiss and Sunset Thomas. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't this encyclopedia I had in mind in my above comment. It's my opinion that adding the price to this article is inappropriate and not encyclopedic. We differ on that. It is unlikely either will convince the other on what is ultimately a subjective judgment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this is an encyclopedia and it is the one we are working on, my presumption was that it's the one we were talking about. Wikipedia is unlike the other ones, so I'm not sure that's a good comparison. Brittanica wouldn't have an article on Shorty's Lunch or All Star Cashville Prince either, but we do. As I clearly illustrated, price information is not only included in other articles, but even more in-depth in some. True, we probably won't convince each other, but being able to disagree civilly is much better than the alternative. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Christine Paolilla and Kip Kinkel - Rename to reflect crimes?


After looking at the article, Christine Paolilla was only known for committing the murder, and there was one other perpetrator who had killed himself. Shouldn't the article be renamed after the murder?

Also, should the article on Kip Kinkel be renamed to reflect the crime he was committed for? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These questions are best asked on the talkpage of the articles, however I see no reason to move the article for Christine Paolilla, while the article for Kip Kinkel does appear to be more about the incident than the figure. This is a consensus issue, not a BLP issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine if the discussions go on the talk pages themselves. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Bill Nye
An IP user appears to be desirous to insert material about this BLP stating that the subject conducts no research. The tone of the edit is negative in the opinion of at least two editors, but more importantly the source of this statement is the subject's own CV, which mentions nothing about research conducted by Mr. Nye. Inserting this tidbit is WP:OR. I would appreciate some eyes on this article for the short term. Thanks. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Back to the original reason this BLPN section was started: It appears that the original issue is no longer an issue and so this is resolved. The article now does not make a direct claim that Nye is a "scientist" and instead says Nye "is an American science educator, comedian, television host, actor, and writer, who began his career as a mechanical engineer at Boeing." I think "science educator" is a better descriptor than "scientist" and is supported by the sources. I agree with Uncle G that the prose could be improved, but this can be handled with normal discussion at the article Talk page. If we can agree there's no WP:BLP issue at this point, can't we mark this as resolved? Cheers... 13:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nye is an entertainer - why anyone would think he was a research scientist is mind-boggling. Collect (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I left the IP a 3RR warning.  This appears to be genuine newbieness, be careful not to bite.    02:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem could be solved by removing the part of the description that says he is a scientist which usually implies doing scientific research. The inclusion of scientist is based on a single not-very-reliable source that calls him that. When I read the intro of that article the description of him as a scientist also makes me want to add a disclaimer - the guy only has a BA degree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he has a B.Sc., from Cornell, in Mechanical Engineering, as stated in the article and as supported by a Cornell source and other sources cited therein; and as confirmed by the fact that does B.Sc.s.  (Cornell has apparently switched between B.Sc. and B.M.Eng. more than once in its history, but I can find no evidence that it has ever offered a B.A. for mechanical engineering, not even when the name was the Sibley College of Mechanical Engineering and the Mechanic Arts.)  Ironically, that's a fairly ridiculous choice of source given the other sources already in the article.  That citation is falsified, moreover.  The headline given in the citation is Nye called "scientist", but the original Reuters article, apparently unchanged in the Toronto Sun, had the headline Bill Nye the Science Guy says creationism not good for kids.  Uncle G (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, but in any case a degree with a B. does not a scientist make. And yes I agree the citation is dubious.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most universities give a "B.S." for engineering degrees - it does not make engineers into "scientists", alas. Mechanical engineers learn enough physics and mathematics to make sure that their creations work, but do not investigate the "why" of the physics behind them. Collect (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only Maunus who has introduced the red herring about baccalaureates. The problem with the article itself is that people have take Nye's self-description as a scientist (It's in his autobiographical blurb on his WWW site, in interviews going back to the 1990s, and &mdash; as an argument that "engineers are applied scientists" &mdash; in a 1999 biography, ISBN 9781563086748.) and shoehorned it into a one-sentence laundry list of things in the first sentence of the article.  It's the usual cram-everything-into-the-first-sentence bad writing; and it's silly, because the introduction is only two sentences long to begin with.  It's not as though the article has run out of not-paper. It's a fairly poor article overall, too.  For example: The claim that Nye was named the "Science Guy" is sourced to a WWW article with no named authorship that says "legend has it".  In fact Ross Shafer gives a much more prosaic, and less "legendary", explanation of the name in his book The Customer Shouts Back. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Watchlisted.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Watchlisted.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Given what's in the aforementioned autobiography and the biographies, I predict that this will be back. Uncle G (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The ip is back restoring the unsourced information  little green rosetta ⇭⇭⇭ 23:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I told you so. People who read the autobiography and the biographies are going to keep reintroducing the appellation "scientist" in good faith, and that's in turn going to encourage people like 72.223.110.8 to keep trying to rubbish it.  Uncle G (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Following on from that, I'm a bit concerned about the certainty with which that definition of scientist was decided. As an occasional but well qualified high school science teacher, I ask, am I not a scientist? If not, please don't tell my students. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell, given that all that we have to go on is some things attached to a pseudonym in a discussion forum on the WWW and your claim to have once used OS/2. &#9786; Bill Nye, in contrast, has biographies and other articles published about him, saying things like "real-life comedian/scientist Bill Nye", "Bill Nye views engineers as applied scientists." , "A scientist-turned-comic and producer of educational media" , and "Nye is actually a scientist with a degree from Cornell." , as I pointed out above.  It takes more than one word in a laundry list in an introduction to convey all of this.  But given all of these, this issue will resurface, again and again, until the root cause is addressed.  What's needed is more than those two sentences in the introduction.
 * Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Schapelle Corby
An editor has posted to WP:AN with a link to a formal report at making complaints about our article on Schapelle Corby. They are asking for an investigation of this. The editor who request this (who says it was written by a third party, says:"I apologise for what may appear to be a random approach, but I am seeking to draw this to your attention in a less public way, to minimize its potential for reputational damage. Seeking to address this matter through the page itself would be entirely counter-productive. The following is the first part of a formal report which identifies and evidences serious long term abuse of a Wikipedia article: http://issuu.com/wikiabuse/docs/wikipedia I was unable to find a method to send that report by email, but I am aware of that copy, which a third party uploaded earlier today, for limited circulation. The Wikipedia article in question is not only high profile, but the impact of the false information it presents may have caused severe damage to the subject, damage which persists, and which may prove to be increasingly serious. Further, the abuse of the article has been long term, and systemic. The report recommends immediate remedial action, and a formal investigation, possibly involving a third party agency. Could an appropriate person confirm that this will be investigated? I do not wish to engage in a debate on this matter, as I feel that the report contents are self evident, and I am not its author. I thank you for your attention, and hope that you will receive this report in the spirit in which it is intended. I thank you for your efforts in seeking to ensure that Wikipedia continues to present an accurate and honest representation of the the topics it covers. I am perfectly content for this prose to be deleted, on the basis that the issues in question will be taken on and researched privately by Wikipedia. Thank you and regards, James Hedley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.J.Hedley (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)"

Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is from the "Expendable Project." It alleges a vast conspiracy between the governments of Indonesia and Australia, across the main Australian media outlets, numerous Australian and Indonesian government departments, and large corporations including the owners of Sydney Airport, etc, etc. They would have you believe that these groups are all conspiring to keep Corby (who they maintain is innocent) behind bars in Indonesia to protect the highest corporate and political interests. I've read a few of the numerous "reports" from the Expendable Project's team of "academics". Not very impressive.
 * It is an anonymous advocacy website arguing Corby's innocence.
 * The first page of the latest report (linked above) says that records showed that Corby and her friends bags were 65kg, which they say is actually 5kg over their allowance (which is perfectly feasible so far). But it then goes on to say that because there is no evidence of a payment for excess luggage, then it is "glaringly obvious" proof that Corby's bag had 5kg of drugs added to it while in transit. Which is of course a bs conclusion - airlines let passengers take on excess luggage without charge at their discretion. Normally I have excess luggage - on one occasion have I been asked to pay. Just last week, i dropped someone off who got away with 20kg of excess baggage unpaid. --Merbabu (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a copy of the report, in case it needs to be sent somewhere. Do we know who wrote it?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that you and others interested in this may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes. We have established mechanisms to resolve disputes. The are outlined at Dispute resolution. The ideal approach would be to follow that, although I understand that you are not the author and may not be willing to take next steps. I will take a look at it, but I guarantee that it is not fully self-contained, so a response, without any interaction with other parties, is likely to be imperfect.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Copied to WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading further, I'm quite unimpressed. Please pass along to whomever wrote it that they should post any evidence to the talk page of the article, and if that doesn't get the response they expect (which it won't, because much of it is poorly sourced, or relies on unacceptable sources) they can follow the dispute resolution, Urge them to not simply copy and paste it but to omit the smears against Wikipedia editors which are not supported by evidence, as that won't help. Urge them to read reliable sources, so they will understand why anonymous websites aren't considered acceptable references, and urge them to read WP:PRIMARY so they will understand the (less obvious) policy that primary sources, which may seem like the best sources, are actually not, and should be sparingly used, probably not in an article such as this. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am aware of the author, and that the focus of the second part of the investigation is on the editor patterns, logs, and the identities of those responsible.


 * I believe that he, and the handful who have read it, hope that this can be addressed internally. As the issues are extremely serious, and the abuses self evident and verifiable, it is hoped that ignorance of process should not prevent them from being addressed. It is certainly accepted that knowledge of due Wikipedia protocol for this sort of situation is almost non-existent.


 * I do thank you for your help and assistance, which is appreciated. Dr.J.Hedley (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ignorance of process will not prevent it from being addressed, however, my hope is that we can provide information abut the appropriate process, so we can follow the process. While our processes are far from perfect, they have been refined over years of experience, and work reasonably well (oddly, we probably do a better job of handling editorial disputes than we do when handling editor disputes, luckily, this is more editorial than editor.)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to note that there is a bit of discussion here on the article's talk page that does reference this report.  There was an edit, since reverted for lacking a reliable source, that referenced the report and it's conclusions.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That isn't correct Revensfire. The 'Abuse of Wikipedia' report was only uploaded five minutes before I posted here, just a few hours ago. They are referring to the Expendable Project, which is in fact a reliable source. It is the host of the biggest cache of government FOI data, as obtained directly by the Corby family themselves. The very fact that this source is being undermined on that talk page is a further manifestation of the problem, and another indication why there is no way forward through that route.


 * I agree with the author, that it is essential that an investigation is timely, thorough, and wholly independent from those involved in the documented abuses. Dr.J.Hedley (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * From a fairly brief review, I don't think I would consider the EP a reliable source under Wikipedia requirements. It's definitely an advocacy site though.  I don't see anything wrong using the information to help find good sources or for talk page discussions (please! Remember WP:BLP applies on the talk page too!) but using EP itself as a source or directly referencing anything on the site is, I think, problematic.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 00:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Having now read more of the comments above, about unreliable sources, I now realize I have wasted my time. The reference information cited is in fact government documentation, obtained through FOI requests, and posted directly online as part of a database, because the Australian media has not reported it. Yet it is genuine, and it is undisputed.


 * According to the "reliable sources" argument being pushed here, this can never be cited. Central ministerial correspondence, including from the Prime Minister, can never be referenced. For Wikipedia, it does not exist. Yet the article remains littered with outright smears, appalling fabrications, and direct lies, from top to bottom.


 * For the record, I read the report very carefully before I brought it to your attention. There are no smears against editors at all. It shows that the contents of that article have been wilfully created, and the thrust of the page protected. I suspect this will become even more apparent when the second part of the report is published.


 * I will inform the author that my efforts to have these serious issues addressed internally have failed, and to proceed as he intended. Perhaps I was naive in considering that this information would be received in the spirit it was submitted, and that the pressing need to address such a serious matter would trump what appears to be a very closed and political world.


 * Please feel free to delete my posts and delete my account. I apologize for any inconvenience. Dr.J.Hedley (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you please clarify what you mean by "I will inform the author that my efforts to have these serious issues addressed internally have failed, and to proceed as he intended"? Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One additional note: First, we would never accept FOI documents from a third party source that was not itself certainly reliable, as we do not know that the alleged reports are authentic. Second, and more importantly, government reports fall under WP:PRIMARY, and thus can only be used to state exactly what they say. While I am only somewhat familiar with the subject, my understanding is that a variety of advocacy sites including the Expendable Project, have woven together these many government reports into a narrative that asserts a vast conspiracy against Corby. While there may well have been a vast conspiracy against her (again, I don't know enough to say), we certainly would never state such a thing without a reliable source verifying it, and we would have to be careful to attribute it and to pay attention to WP:WEIGHT (and possibly even WP:FRINGE). Again, no offense to that project, but especially in the case of living people, we must work with only top quality, secondary, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One of my to-do items is to write an essay on "Things that make sense, even if they don't sound sensible" One of the items on that list relates to Primary documents. Many naive editors will assume that tertiary sources are the weakest, secondary sources better, and primary sources the gold standard. After all, why use something filtered through the lens of someone else, when you can get it straight from the horse's mouth. I can understand this thought process, but it is flawed. Dr.J.Hedley seems to have made the same mistake, recoiling on horror that primary sources are being ignored. However, they aren't being ignored because Wikipedia editors are engaged in a conspiracy against Schappelle Corby, they are being ignored because the community has considered the question many times over many years and determined that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, secondary sources are better. Journalists prefer primary sources, and that makes sense. So find a reputable journalist, feed them the primary sources, and if they choose to write about it, we can cite them. If they choose not to, feel free to assume they are part of the conspiracy, even if it simply means they find the sources uncompelling.

I am concerned that in saying that there has been "serious long term abuse of a Wikipedia article", our new doctor friend is taking a broad negative swipe at all the editors who have contributed to making the Schappelle Corby article what it is today. I can assure the good doctor that most if not all of those editors have acted in good faith. His posts, while couched in absurdly polite language, are effectively attacks on all those editors. I don't think that's acceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The report's recommendations include deleting the page and reconstructing it, suspending editors involved pending a "thorough investigation", and it implies (at least by my interpretation of that final page) that editor's identities be revealed (which is all very ironic given the Expendable Project's insistence on their anonymity). --Merbabu (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that ran a campaign against various Wikipedia editors involved in this article on her 'Women for Schappelle' blog a while ago, which from memory included some pretty nasty language. Hopefully this doesn't end up the same way. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kim Bax is closely associated with the Expendable Project. --Merbabu (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Talk about closing ranks. That page is an absolute disgrace, and that is plain to see.


 * Doc H, and his mate's Wikipedia abuse report, have nothing to do with Kim Bax or even the Expendable Project, which just holds data from the Howard gov. But they will not see that. All they want is an excuse to pretend everything is okay, or at least that is what some of them want. It is much easier than facing the seriousness of the abuses on that page.


 * You can see plainly how he tried to get someone to look at this properly and quietly, without this sort of train wreck. Even those involved in the abusive editing are now trolling over here to weigh in and protect the smearing status quo.


 * If you read this Doc, take my advice. Forget it. Apart from the reaction you have seen, there is a basic flaw which is part of this. You can wave signed letters from Prime Ministers and others all you want, but it doesn't matter one jot. It doesn't matter that they are not, and cannot be, disputed.


 * Wikipedia only reflects what the mainstream media produces. Oz media smears, with zero/zip/zod to back them up, are presented here as facts. It is that last bit which is so destructive. It is presented as some sort of authority, when it is really just an extension of the mainstream media, which in Oz is smear on this case, and others, btw.


 * You have some killer points in your mate's report, which they can't refute. But I would add something about their refusal to accept black and white documentation direct from government, and I would change the end to show that they won't even listen when they are nailed on some irrefutable smears. You are better off mitigating the crap on that page by publishing your mate's report more widely.


 * Soz to be negative, but that page will stay the disgrace it is. Deleting my post simply re-enforces my arguement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 226.136.108.66 (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am not going to get involved in what appears to be a futile exercise.

The abuse report is absolutely correct. Yet at best, internal minutiae is being pitched at a higher priority than any semblance of factual representation in this hugely damaging article. Indeed, even the removal of openly slanderous and partially defamatory commentary is dismissed. The mere suggestion of addressing long term editorial abuse appears to be scoffed at, as somehow insulting, which is equally disappointing.

An issue of this gravity should surely be considered at the highest possible level within the Wikipedia hierarchy, but I am sure this will not occur. It is a great pity that there isn't a private route to advise of such serious abuses, as it was perhaps inevitable that others would feel a degree of peer affinity with those responsible. It was only my intention to notify an appropriate party of this situation, in the hope that the issues would be addressed objectively and quietly, and without confrontation.

I will pass on your comments to the author, anonymous, but I certainly won't return. I should also add, with regret, that I will not view Wikipedia material in the same way again, following this rather unpleasant experience. But more regrettable, of course, is any damage caused to the welfare of Schapelle Corby and her family, through continued distribution of patently false information.

As I understand it, if I log-out and never log-in again, this renders my account effectively closed. If that is not the case, could someone please assist by deleting? Thank you. Dr.J.Hedley (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a futile enterprise, and no, nothing will be done on the basis of that "report". You should give up, as you announced you were doing on your user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Gerry Gable
Would the webpage Searchlight & the State be considered sufficiently reliable for making accusations of criminal activity against Gerry Gable? The webpage contains an anonymously authored article taken from KSL: Bulletin of the Kate Sharpley Library No. 28, October 2001. The Bulletin itself appears to be an intermittently printed pamphlet - the issue in question can be seen in its entirety here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Gable's conviction for illegally entering David Irving's home? If it helps: that point is also substantiated by the following reference: Evening Standard, December 14, 1993, Pg. 8: "In 1964, however, [Gable] was fined £34 by Highbury Magistrates, after impersonating a GPO engineer to gain access to the home of the revisionist historian David Irving."  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Sharpley library reference is sufficient for such charges in a BLP. I've reverted it for the nonce, both because I don't think the source is sufficiently reliable and also because a statement by a counsel is definitely not appropriate - lawyers say all sorts of things and we would have to have a very good reason to include such a statement in a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine to remove the bit about lawyers' statements -- but since I provided a reference that would normally not cause concerns re WP:RS I see no reason for the other elements to be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Jennifer Graylock
I just created this article. I believe she is notable enough although I just started looking for sources. Does anyone wish to help out? --Canoe1967 (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think she is (just about) notable as well, based on a quick Google search - but the article in its current state is completely unacceptable. You need to find reliable third-party sources - and quickly, before it gets deleted. GiantSnowman 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The issues with this page have not been resolved and I completely agree with GiantSnowman's assessment. Andrew (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Boise Kimber


Help appreciated, as my continued involvement here could be construed as edit warring. At play are two entirely divergent versions of the biography, one sourced and largely negative, the other rather promotional. Perhaps a balance can be struck, but the most recent edits suggest that balance is not the goal. 99.156.67.118 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I always suggest laying out your grievances on the article talk page before taking other actions. It helps both admins and non-admin noticeboard volunteers (like me) follow the progression of issues.  With that said, it seems like this is a clear case of someone trying to whitewash a BLP, which is unacceptable.  I believe that a compromise version could be created without using non-free content.  I'll keep this on my watchlist and ask Zimapr if (s)he would please respond. Andrew (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I like to use the article talk page, too, but quickly ascertained that would be useless in this case. Zimapr has also been mentioned at the edit warring noticeboard, and has ignored warnings, preferring to whitewash the article rather than engage in dialogue. Notwithstanding their desire to own the article, I don't see why the piece can't be rewritten with respect to some of their concerns. Trouble is, they also persist in adding copyright violations, which complicates integrating new content into the article. Next step is to request page protection, with a possible short term block to allow for reversion and revision. 99.156.67.118 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the other editor was interfering with progress on the article, and the admins will issue more blocks should they become necessary. At this point, you should be free to bring the article back to a consensus state. Andrew (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

BLPs with no linked sources
Please see Mohd. Masood Ahmed and Ali Mandalawi. Neither of these BLPs has a linked source, merely external links (despite what the heading says) which does not validate any of the claims made in the article. My attempts at BLPPRODing both of these articles have been reverted with the claim that they are sourced, even though, as I said, the external links do not validate the claims made in the articles. Am I correct in putting the BLPPROD template on these articles? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, although I can understand the mistake. BLPPROD is a very narrow tool, and even external links, such as the interviews with Ali Mandalawi in the external links, verify basic existence and perhaps profession of the article subject.  (Far from sufficient for a decent article, but enough to pass BLPPROD.)  Some attempts have been made to make BLPPROD a stronger tool, but so far no such proposals have reached a consensus of editors.
 * I do note that the section Ali_Mandalawi looks like a copyright violation (close paraphrasing) from and at least some of that should be removed/rewritten on that basis.
 * As far as deletion, if you believe Mandalawi (as an example) to be non-notable or insufficiently verified, the next step is WP:AFD. Let me know if I can explain further. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So a BLP which only has external links which do not support any of the claims made in the article is perfectly acceptable? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you should remove any information in the article that is not supported by the sources. You just can't delete the entire article with the prod template based on false statements. The solution is to fix the article, not delete it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So I should blank the whole article? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because much of the content is supported by the sources listed. Why do you keep claiming that the sources don't validate any of the claims in the articles when they obviously do? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)
I am sure this is a BLP violation, but should like another opinion. The edit names a BLP. To support the text is a leaked document from wikileaks which I feel sure is a nono for stuff about BLP's, the second (FP) does not name the BLP at all. Am I correct in this being a BLP issue? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like one to me - not named in the FP and using a single primary unofficially leaked private document to support such a clam is undue indeed - Per WP:PRIMARY I will remove it - I thought it was decided we wouldn't use wikileaks stolen republished claimed real memos anyways, they are clealy primary and not reliable for said reasons  You  really  can  14:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Youreallycan, The quote is actually from the Foreign Policy article, and the link to the original quote is linked in that article. This is why I put both up. Hence not a case of a primary source being the source of the citation. The other link I make to the primary source is just corroborative, and adds the detail that the citation originates from the Ambassador--the FP article only cites the US State Department. Here is the quote from FP: "A U.S. State Department cable from February 2010 published by WikiLeaks bolsters the critics' concerns, noting that "there is little doubt that hard-line elements within the ruling party [AL] believe that the time is right to crush Jamaat and other Islamic parties." The relevant discussion on this has taken place on my user page here: . I thought the views of Monty and Moonriddengirl allowed me to reinstate the citation--I still think it does. As a compromise, I will remove the citation of the Ambassador, and reinstate the citation using only FP's quote. Aminul802 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you will not, as that is a BLP violation. The FP sourced does not mention the ambassador does it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's true that this quote appears in the Foreign Policy article (though it is not attributed to Moriarty there). I am not sure why it is perceived that there was only a primary source for it.  However, if it is to be restored, it should probably omit Moriarty's name.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's what I proposed. Sorry about the citation of the Ambassador in the beginning. Didn't realise WikiLeaks had BLP restrictions. Thanks for the clarification. Best, Aminul802 (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Jo Pender
This article seems to be extremely biased in favor of Pender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.130.37 (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that this BLP could use improvements, but is there anything specific that you think ought to be changed? The Talk page doesn't have any detail either, and the history doesn't appear to have anybody who's owning the page or edit warring.  Feel free to be bold and make changes that you think are appropriate. Andrew (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Alex Morgan
This is regarding the wiki biography of AM that appears to be edited particularly by someone that lists only positive attributes regarding this player and it fails to offer a more multi-dimensional or more inclusive biography of her. First and foremost, the FIFA 2011 world cup lists that she helped the team to gain the second place position, but it fails to acknowledge that Japan won the world cup 2011 it did not even bother to mention the score in that case. Secondly, the article is biased in that there are so many other soccer players on the national team that have more experience than her and have scored more yet have received less attention, particularly several of the other less well-known players that helped to score the win against japan in the Olympics. In addition, i also believe that this article is rather biased because it does not mention that her fame or recent fame can very much be attributed to her sexualization in the media and in magazines of her in bikinis.

For an article to simply render her fame based entirely on her athletic attributes is misleading because there are many other female soccer players that have achieved more and barely receive any attention in the media. An example of a a similar athlete is Lolo Jones, who achieved quite a few medals in her career but many have compared her to other players with the same stats and caliber and agree that she would not have received the fame and attention hat she did had it not been for her looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.207.252 (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi - bit of a long rambling post - but I will have a look - can you direct me to specific content that is in violation of WP:BLP - regards - You  really  can  22:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael Peter Ritter
A friend was wondering if this person is notable enough for a wikipedia article. On parole for a US$270 million ponzi/pyramid thing. Google search has details.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe create a draft at WP:AFC or in userspace? GiantSnowman 13:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am too busy trying to keep my other BLP creations alive. I couldn't be bothered creating one on this asshole.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ulrich Kortz
The article is of very low encyclopedic value and was created as a mean of promoting his own reasearch and research group. The so called "highlights" are written in a very biased way, overemphasizing on the importance of the polyoxometallates in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.116.117 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about the subject to determine if it is notable. I just added an expert attention requested tag to the BLP and I hope that someone else on the BLPN is a chemist. Andrew (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article does not meet the notability criteria of wikipedia. This person is a professor at a private university with a student body of 1450 students. Besides, he has not made any significant breakthrough in his area of research, his work was once characterized by his peer reviewers as "straightforward" and lacking novelty (it was mentioned in a personal correspondence). Furthermore, as you can see by the recent vandalism on his biography, he is not very warmly accepted in the polyoxometallate commmunity and his biography can stir unnecessary negative excitement and work as batllegrounds for scientific egos. Therefore, I think a deletion will be the best solution of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.116.117 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Massimino
I just reverted this user on another page for copyvio, and when I went to his talk page found multiple warnings for copyvio. I'm considering an indefinite block until he shows an understanding of this problem and am looking at his contributions. He specialises in BLPs on crime family members, and I'd appreciate it if someone would check the sources here as they don't seem to confirm the statements where they are cited. In addition, "Massimino was indicted by a New Jersey State Grand Jury with several other defendants with various crimes including racketeering, loansharking, promoting gambling, and conspiracy" is not sourced from reference 1 but from the 3rd reference (and is copyvio from that). I'm not sure what's going on here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dominick Olivetto - all the sources here appear rubbish. And what's this? Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ron Previte - I was wondering about the unsourced stuff about the air force and his physique - it's copyvio from . What we seem to have is a bunch of articles possibly all about notable and unpleasant people, but both badly sourced and copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I did some investigation of the Joseph Massimino and finding minimal sourcing, per WP:CRIME I redirected it to Philadelphia crime family. It does appear that there are a whole lotta articles that are written in the "true crime" style rather than encyclopedia form and approach. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * for Dominick Olivetto i found no reliable sources supporting the claims and so removed them and then since the non controversial claims are that he is a citizen of Philly, PROD for non notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I also did some more work on the Previte article. He has both the 60 Minutes piece and a book about him so notability in this instance is not an issue, just copyright and tone of the article, and I think both are OK now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Princella Smith
Needs copy edit mostly. Possible UNDUE and RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

British Waterways, Canal & River Trust
Hi. I am concerned about recent edits from 109.68.196.1 to British Waterways and Canal & River Trust. They allege wrongdoing and name an individual. Expert help please? At present I have just reverted them but of course they're still there in the edit histories. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted the IP at the rev-del IRC. They should deal with it soon as there were quite a few logged in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. I have since added the IRC link to the top of this page. Just hit the little green connect button and follow instructions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, brilliant, thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

David Simpson (British politician)
I am not reporting a BLP violation but seeking views on a radical edit to an article on the basis of a supposed violation.

David Simpson is a Member of Parliament and a prominent Democratic Unionist Party politician in Northern Ireland. His long-serving election agent, speechwriter and chief aide, David McConaghie, is a minister in the Free Presbyterian Church and was the press officer of one of Northern Ireland's leading evangelical Christian creationist pressure groups, the Caleb Foundation - he was thus a public figure in his own right.

Simpson's bio article had the following paragraph added, all factually accurate, neutrally worded and double-sourced from reliable media:


 * ====Constituency office incident====


 * On 25 September 2012 Simpson contacted police following the discovery of a hidden camera in the toilet of his constituency office in Portadown. Simpson's election agent and constituency assistant, David McConaghie, who had played a key role in Simpson's 2005 election victory, was arrested, and was released pending further inquiries. When the matter became public in November 2012, Simpson stated "The police are currently investigating issues pertaining to an individual brought to their attention by myself. I no longer employ this individual and he does not hold any office in the party."

One editor objected to the inclusion of this paragraph on the grounds that it was "not news", having earlier argued that it somehow implied guilt on the part of Simpson. I argued for its retention on the grounds that it most certainly was news and, in the final version quoted above, focused on Simpson without in any way defaming him. It does not defame McConaghie either, even in the peculiarly strict legal regimes applying in the four UK and Irish legal jurisdictions, in that it simply states the uncontested facts that he was arrested, released and is no longer employed by Simpson. These facts have been widely reported in the mass media - two sources were given in the article but many others can be added.

A third opinion was sought, whereupon User:TransporterMan intervened and immediately not only cut the entire passage from the Simpson article, but edited relevant details out of the talk page exchanges between me and the other editor. He alleged that the material "violate[d] WP:BLPCRIME and cannot be included in Wikipedia until the criminal charges are resolved". He also indicated - contrary to normal protocol - that he was unwilling to discuss this directly and wanted any objection to his summary edit to be taken here. I request views on whether (a) the whole passage should stand, on the basis that McConaghie falls within the WP:WELLKNOWN category; or (b) the material does in fact violate WP:BLPCRIME so that the passage should be reworded without naming McConaghie until the matter is resolved in the courts. Brocach (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the passage in question as the sole purpose in including it seemed to be to introduce negativity into a politician's BLP through a bit of guilt by association. I can't think of any other politicians article in which a significant section of the article is devoted to alleged wrongdoing by a third party, who hasn't even been convicted, making the material questionable on WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP grounds. Additionally all the news stories on this event occurred the day after it happened, there doesn't seem to be any lasting impact to suggest it is an exception to WP:NOTNEWS. Brocach claims that McConaghie is a well known figure, yet if all the news stories about this one event are stripped away, there's hardly anything on him in reliable sources and certainly not enough to sustain an article on someone who would fail WP:GNG. Brocach is clearly quite determined to include this material regardless, ignoring WP:BRD and even violating the WP:1RR which applies to such articles under the Troubles arbitration case with 2 reverts to the Simpson article on 6 December. Brocach now appears to be attempting to circumvent this discussion, having created an article on David_McConaghie which may later be used to simply readd the BLP violations in some form. Valenciano (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how the original edit to the Simpson article suggests guilt by association, especially since it starts with the statement that it was Simpson who called in the law. However I also fail to see what it adds to the article in question.  As for the article on the alleged perp, I agree that he seems not truly notable. Btw, anybody familiar with the Flann O'Brien play Faustus Kelly?TheLongTone (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm just concerned by Brocach's near single minded focus on adding the McConaghie material. That campaign has so far seen him ignore WP:BRD, breach WP:1RR, ignore a third opinion and potentially circumvent a discussion by setting up a separate article. Then, when that article looks like it may be headed for deletion, he badgers editors who argued for delete to change their mind (here and here) in possible violation of WP:CANVASS. Yesterday he expressed concern for observing "baby Jesus' birthday", a fairly irrelevant and bizarre way to admonish an atheist who lives in a majority Islamic country where the Christian minority celebrate Christmas on 7 January. Since he raised that argument/concern, I really have to ask why he spent a good ten hours of a key holiday/family day in Ireland where he lives single mindedly adding stuff about McConaghie? Not content with all that, he has now set up yet another article of questionable notability, the Caleb_Foundation, to write about McConaghie and where the main/only sources used are the one event news stories about McConaghie. Maybe that article is because he has a new found interest in the Caleb Foundation, but given the background to all this, it seems more likely that it will be just another forum for him to link to one off news stories about McConaghies alleged participation in a crime. Valenciano (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A one sentence mention should be sufficient and there is no reason to mention the accused who probably does not meet BLP for having his own article. TFD (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Brief mention inserted, without naming the individual (who has only been arrested and released, rather than 'accused'. Brocach (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The material has now been readded there but I really don't see consensus above to ignore the third opinion by readding the material (albeit without mentioning the accused) and giving it such WP:UNDUE weight in the article. As an editor above notes, it is hard to see what the material adds to the article. Valenciano (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Tomin Thachankary
This article was brought to my attention via OTRS; upon review of the complaints it became apparent that there were several valid BLP concerns - namely that some of the sources were dead links and there were criminal allegations made with no convictions secured (which falls under WP:BLPCRIME). I stubbed the article in order to remove the problematic material, but was reverted by the article creator. The material was again removed citing BLP concerns and I left a note on the creator's talk page, only to again have the information restored with the dead links etc. To be honest, when you remove the allegations I'm not sure whether the BLP subject even meets notability requirements. I had requested that Pectore raise the issue here to gain consensus for restoring the material but will be away most of the day so I decided to make a note here myself requesting review of the article. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the archived article, no charges let alone a conviction. I would say delete or userfy. If he is ever charged we can bring up an undelete discussion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've protected. Edit waring BLP removals is unacceptable. Feel free to unprotect if there's agreement on what do to next.--Scott Mac 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can admin slap a prod tag on it? Fully protected and not notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm ,probably not. I'd need to unprotect it to allow that, because people are free to remove prod tags to indicate they want it kept. I suspect, in this case, that's quite likely.--Scott Mac 01:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we seek consensus on deletion while it is still protected through AfD?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no rule against it, although it's generally discouraged due to the Streisand effect and also the fact that the original BLP matters are likely to be brought up again during AFD. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC).

Plan A: Rev-del the archive, unprotect as it stands, possibly rev-del the talk page as well. Both violate blp. After un-protection then AfD and be very careful about using poorly sourced statements. Plan B: Have an AfD discussion here or the talk page. Without good sources there is nothing notable. If things change then notablity requiremnts may be met. Plan C: A bold admin should just delete or userfy it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am the article creator. I attempted to discuss the content of said article on the talk page, only to have Ponyo revert my edits without justification from any policy (my apologies if you believe merely linking to a Wikipolicy ad nauseam is enough to claim someone else is violating it). I have no control over what random political chatter-bot anon editors write on the page. However I went straight to talk after making a bold content addition. As demonstrated on the talk page, I have made a good faith effort to discuss content issues, assuming incorrectly that I was dealing with an editor attempting to better the page. Those thoughts expired after my edits adding new and cited information were summarily reverted under dubious justification. Thachankary has been charged wrt "his unauthorised foreign visit and a Vigilance case relating to amassing of disproportionate wealth." and furthermore, he is not only notable for the charges against him, but also for the fact that this became a scandal that cost him a job, and heightened the rift between the two major political parties in Kerala. This scandal is quite notable in Indian news (as a simple Google search, or a look at the page before it was blanked would indicate).Pectoretalk 06:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pectore, the reason that the same policy was pointed out to you several times is because you were edit-warring to restore the inappropriate content that I had removed based as on a valid OTRS complaint. I was clear on both your talk page and on the article talk page as to what specific issues led to the removal of the contentious content. Two of the references were dead/404 links and, per WP:BLPCRIME we do not create articles on a BLP subject who is only alleged to have committed a crime. This does not mean that there can never be any negative material included in the Thachankary article, only that in order to meet BLP policy the sources must be iron-clad and the allegations should not be included unless a conviction is secured. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I see the problem. Your sources may be accepted in India as reliable, but not to other en:wp editors. If a respected english source such as The a London Daily(?) or New York Times reported it, then it would be accepted here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Hindu and the Hindustan Times are no less English than The New York Times, not that Englishness matters anyway. And in over half a century living in and around London I have never heard of The London Daily. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Phil Bridger is correct; it was not the origin of the newspapers that resulted in the removal of the first sentence. The links used to support the first sentence did not support the content - one redirected to the current issue of the website edition and the was a 404. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So is the issue that the contentious or 'notable' material comes bad sources and the good sources haven't reported it? I think I made my above statement a little more clear as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No Canoe, that is not the issue. As demonstrated on the talk page (and it is quite telling that Ponyo has not responded there, choosing instead to forum shop), the article text under my version was sourced to well-known and reliable sources, and furthermore was faithful (and in fact more conservative) than the text. Next, WP:BLPCRIME does not prevent an article being created on someone who is both accused and charged with crimes, and the center of a political scandal. Instead it states "refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information", which unsurprisingly is exactly what my conservative and well-sourced wording is doing. The point here is that Ponyo revert-warred on the page, and vandalized content based on a crude misunderstanding of WP:BLPCRIME, and is now wasting productive time by wikilawyering and refusing to discuss the actual content of the sources. Lastly, I do not see the point of discussing things on both the noticeboard and the talk page. This is an annoying diversion from my desire to build the page so that it is a well-sourced center of information on this obviously notable individual.Pectoretalk 03:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You consider bringing an OTRS issue regarding a biography of a living person to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard for review forum shopping? As the creator of the article you are quite clearly not neutral regarding the subject - having uninvolved editors review and discuss the content with an eye to ensuring that our BLP policy is met is necessary to determine consensus. Calling me a vandal (which is a personal attack by the way) will get the community no closer to a balanced and fair article regarding Tomin Thachankary. As an OTRS volunteer I have no obligation to rewrite the content of the article; I have reviewed a ticket in relation to content and found it violated Wikipedia policy. I removed the violations and brought the article to the attention of this noticeboard when you restored the content. Now the community will decide what information, if any, should be included in the article and what sources should be used to support the material. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman


Moshe Friedman page on wikipedia - need help on the page. Friedman is regarded as a major extremist with no support and has personal problems, legal issues and has been excommunicated. Need help with the page. 65.88.89.32 (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what you think is currently wrong with the article. You've blanked large sections of it, and it's not obvious that there were good reasons for doing that.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that there have been some sock puppet involvement and other editors have been blocked; but it does appear there might be some dispute resolution requirements here, as well as some BLP policy violations which might arise again; but a quick review it looks good at the current rev. Also note that this IP editor has been WP:FORUMSHOPING. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought you were a sock or wp:weasel, sorry for not wp:agf --Canoe1967 (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Philip Coppens
Whoever wrote this only got his date of death right and the fact he died from a rare cancer, all the rest is about someone totally different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.3.200 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is more than one Philip Coppens. I have moved the original article to Philip Coppens (chemist). The original page can become a disambiguation page as soon as somebody writes a properly sourced article about the author who died today. Mathsci (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP posted about "Phillip Coppens". Since we didn't have an article with that spelling, I changed it above to Philip.  Not sure how a disambiguation page would play given the difference in spellings, but it's a detail we should make sure is right if someone does start an article on Phillip.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Somebody changed this article by combining the BLP of the chemist (born in the 30s) with the biography of the author (born 1971) who died of a rare form of cancer today. His name is also spelt "Philip Coppens" and here is his home page. His death is reported here. After a short check, I could not find any independent sources with which to write a biography of the author. However, obituaries could appear in the near future, possibly in the Dutch press. Mathsci (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I found Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philip Coppens (author) most of which was copyvio from his official webpage and which I deleted. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year, Doug! Somebody else has meanwhlle created a rudimentary stub bio Philip Coppens (author), without any of the copyvio problems. I have changed Philip Coppens to a dab. I am not sure of the author's notability outside alternative history circles. (Was he born in Belgium? Did he spend time in North Berwick? ) Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Montgomery High School
- besides the fact it has multiple problems and ignores WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines it's got quite a bit of contentious material about living people and could use a perusal. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the alumni list; if there are other specific issues they could be listed here or on the article talk page. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was also thinking of the bit about charges against a school principal that take up more space than the decision that they weren't and the bit about criticism of the County Schools superintendent, and also the bit about the student newspaper. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden


I think this article needs urgent attention. The person is definitely notable, but the current content appears to have been written almost entirely from a negative angle and it probably libelous. I am not personally able to assist with this review due to lack of knowledge of the person, the subject or time to get up to speed on it. PeterEastern (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the recent IP addition made in a single edit - and left him a link ot this discussion - his addition gets a lot of returns give it the appearance of cut and copy paste from the web - diff of the IPS single edit -  You  really  can  14:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Silly me. Apologies for possibly over-reacting - I didn't even check that it wasn't a recent single incidence of vandalism before posting here. Anyway, the article is now well sorted now, thanks. I have also added a couple of references for good measure. PeterEastern (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't an over reaction - apart from the mere mention of libel/ legal that can cause pricked ears here in regard avoidance of WP:NLT - thanks for the report. I have issues regarding the subjects WP:Notability but as he clearly is a real person and any violating content has been removed I will leave that to other users specialist in wiki notability -  regards -  You  really  can  18:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nasser Zahedi
This person has no merits that would call for an article about him on WIKIPEDIA! That seems nevertheles to be a good reason for Wikipedia to allow this creature to celebrate his "profusely significant existance" in this selfcongratulatry fashion. WONDERFUL refernce for Wikipedia indeed, if every entirely banal Dick Tom and Harry can set himself a memorial here, what will come of this platform??? — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.142.48.157 (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This IP address had made three edits - the first to vandalize the Biography diff that cluebot removed - and one post the same rant on here on the BLP talkpage, I removed that rant - no comment on the alleged limited notability of the subject but we have WP:AFD process to nominate articles for deletion and if anyone would like my help with that please let me know - You  really  can  16:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The IP has also been vandalizing the German article. 87.142.48.157, there are 4,133,462 other articles in English Wikipedia that you may prefer. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape case
Although the article is legitimate and important, it could raise some BLP issues e.g. in relation to naming of suspects, particularly since it is likely to attract a lot of attention in the next few days. PatGallacher (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pending changes protection has been activated and there are many people watching it, including me. Is there anything in particular that concerns you? Andrew (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

See: Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case for a discussion about inclusion of a political gaffe by the PM after his speech. Some wish to include it in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Roslyn Kind
Just resolve this section if it has been beaten to death before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And the problem is? That Roslyn Kind doesn't have her own article? Seems like a challenge... but not really a BLP problem as such. There are lots of people who don't have their own article yet. --GRuban (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really a problem. I just found it curious that a re-direct goes to her sister. The talk page of the re-direct mentions that she isn't even in the article to place an anchor. It seems that the talk page is an impromptu article on her though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * She is mentioned in the article now. I added an anchor but it doesn't seem to work correctly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

David Dickens
References to post CSS acreer incorrect, mostly untrue and lack balance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.99.141 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed this content, since it was unsourced. Formerip (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghulam Azam
This is another article which is a bit of a mess, This section was sourced tp this primary source which is hosted on a ICS forums.I removed it per WP:PRIMARY & BLP. Again is this the correct course of action? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

lara baldesarra
she is Scottish Canadian, not Italian Canadian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.76 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In this interview cited in the article she says "I`m Italian...". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the Scottish or Canadian parts sourced? Perhaps put she says she is of Italian ancestory? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
At the article Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting should the name of the father of the alleged perpetrator be mentioned? There is discussion of this on that article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find the thread. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry—it doesn't really have a thread of its own. This is it. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The thread's name is Nancy Lanza's maiden name. Like much of the rest of the content of the thread, Bus stop's concern is way off topic. If he is truly concerned about the matter of naming the father of the alleged perpetrator, he should start a thread on THAT topic on the article's Talk page, and stop wasting everyone's time here. This thread should be closed immediately. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This was discussed several times through several threads, as well as a Redirect for discussion that concluded that a redirect was even against BLP policy. Sorry, but Hilo48 is correct. This does appear to be a waste of time by refusing to accept community consensus on the matter.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the present thread, Nancy Lanza's maiden name, the inclusion or exclusion of the father's name was discussed in this archived thread. And the inclusion or exclusion of the mother's maiden name was discussed briefly in this archived thread. (The discussion there seemed to concern whether or not the maiden name belonged in the lead.) I'm not sure that consensus was entirely clear, so perhaps these questions are worth revisiting. Also, perhaps I am missing other places that these questions were discussed, so I hope someone else can link to other such discussions. The discussion on the present Talk page is the first time I am weighing in at any discussions on the father's name and maiden name issue. It was only in the midst of discussing the maiden name issue on the present (non-archived) Talk page, that I became aware that the father's name was also omitted from this article. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to mix up discussions on two independent issues. If you want to discuss the father's name, start a new section. Myself? I don't think it's all that important, so I won't be starting one. And from now on I'll be tempted to delete irrelevant stuff from the Maiden name thread. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the reader should have to look elsewhere for the name of the father. Consensus is not entirely clear that the father's name should be omitted; arguments for the inclusion of the father's name are found here. Policy, namely WP:BLPNAME, is open to interpretation on the question of the inclusion/exclusion of the father's name. In the most general sense Wikipedia's default position should be in favor of the inclusion of information. This is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to be compiling reliably sourced information. I am fully aware that just because something is reliably sourced does not mean that it warrants inclusion, but I think the expectation should be that an argument can be presented supporting exclusion. It is not inconceivable that a reader could want to know the name of the father. Is there a reason the reader should not find the name of the father in our article? Bus stop (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to demonstrate why it is important and how it fits within BLP policy, not ask others why it is not.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bus stop - Your case seems to be that if the thing you want included is reliably sourced, then you can stick it in unless someone else demonstrates why it's undue. I disagree with that philosophy. If you want it there, YOU must demonstrate why it should be there. "It is not inconceivable that a reader could want to know the name of the father" is not a strong reason. There may be a good argument to be made, but you haven't made it in a coherent fashion. What I really don't understand is your scattergun approach, sticking bits and pieces of your case all over the place in threads on other topics. Why don't you just create a new section on the article's Talk page, solely and explicitly about including the father's name. Then it can be discussed properly. And it will stop wasting peoples' time here. But before you do, make sure you have a solid, coherent argument to present. Much better than that one above. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the two comments above mine. WP:BLP policy raises the stakes for including material beyond the justification that you have provided.  I recommend that you look at similar articles, especially ones that are highly rated, and look at how they address issues like this one.  And, yes, you should create a dedicated thread on the Talk page for further discussion. Andrew (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I started a section a few days ago on the "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article Talk page called "Father's name". Anyone wishing to provide input on the question of the inclusion/exclusion of the father's name in that article might want to weigh in there. Bus stop (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Rawlings
Someone should carefully follow the contributions of Mark Mysoe to the biography of Jerry Rawlings and other articles. He uses Wikipedia to promote ethnic conflict between his Akan tribe and the other tribes of Ghana. This goes to the point that former Ghanaian president Jerry Rawlings is repeatedly called a Togolese, his (now governing) party NDC a "Togolese" party, etcetera. In other articles than biographies he replaces the name "Ghana" by "Akanland" and calls most other inhabitants of Ghana "illegal immigrants". DrMennoWolters (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year BLPers, after Dr Menno pulled the alarm bell, I cleaned up the infoboxes and removed the libellous, defamatory cats and then rushed over to ANI to find that JohnCD had indeff blocked this user who was wreaking havoc on anything Ghana related (see bottom of next section).
 * I have just attempted to clean the lede and personal life sections of MM's systemic bias, remove all the untruths and slanted terminology, whilst properly reffing the info. Off to deal with real life concerns, would anyone care to continue reviewing this article and pruning it back to a more reasonable, balanced bio? Cheers.  Captain Screebo Parley! 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Kamal Warsi


Needs attention. Yworo (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've redirected it. Formerip (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And the target article is itself of poor quality, but that's not an issue for this noticeboard.--ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Brahmarshi Subhash Patri
He is being critisized for his behavior. But the criticism is only from one news channel and that too exactly on 1st jan 2013 the day after the spiritual event(a 10 day event) where the tv 9 news channel recorded details. The man has been working on spiritual movement for more than 15 years. The news doesn't has any proof but gossip, please check the link provided for reference. Unless the stuff is proved and documented in more than one source this needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palurugururaja (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you have blanked the section - this seems entirely appropriate, given the complete lack of neutrality in the material, lack of proper sourcing etc. I'll keep an eye on the article, and if this material is restored, remove it again as a violation of WP:BLP policy. It may be helpful for other contributors to watchlist it too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to wiki. apologies for any mistakes of mine. Please see "http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/State-Human-Rights-Commission-urged-to-take-action-against-godman/articleshow/17864868.cms", "http://www.teluguone.com/news/content/%E0%B0%AA%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%AE%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%A1%E0%B1%8D-%E0%B0%AC%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%AC%E0%B0%BE-%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%B8%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%80%E0%B0%B2%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%81--43-20176.html" imho, This isn't gossip. -Ecenafri


 * THe Times of India article seems merely to say that 'a lawyer' has made a complaint to the police. It gives little indication of the substance of the complaint, beyond what looks like gossip regarding Subhash Patri's behaviour with female devotees. Per Wikipedia policy, we'd need better sourcing and evidence of lasting significance before including anything relating to this in the article. Having said that though, the article is in serious need of attention, lacking any third-party sourcing whatsoever for its multiple assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/probe-ordered-against-spiritual-society/103461/. I guess, since the incident is new, it will be a while, before things are proven, espl since investigation is quite slow in India.

on a side note, i feel the article itself is poorly written, for being a biography of wiki standards. for instance, "Patriji became enlightened in 1979 ... after some serious experiments with meditation. Since then, Patriji began striving hard to awaken and enlighten each and every individual. " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVZIGAJMtx4 check the above video. looks like pyramid is being used as a scientologist's E-meter to me. i feel the man's a fraud (but my opinion shouldn't reflect on wiki- i don't think wiki is for opinions..). Cheers, Ecenafri

Jodi Arias trial
This article does not seem to meet any of the speedy criteria, but I am very uncomfortable with it.  DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too. I think you'd have some chance at deletion at AfD via WP:BLPCRIME, but I wouldn't want to put any real money on an outcome. Additionally, it's more typical to frame those articles as "murder of X" rather than "trial of Y" unless Y is really famous. I'm sure you're about eight steps ahead of me on all this, DGG, anything you're thinking might be the next right step (above and beyond extra eyes on it?)  --j⚛e deckertalk 03:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't title the article "Murder of Travis Alexander" because it's Jodi Arias who is getting most of the attention. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Halo, The article should probably be rewritten not to focus on her inconsistent statements, or say they are inconsistent, but just report them. The analogy with the Casey Alexander case seems far-fetched. The quote I see in print is "“This [again] is something that grabs the attention and certainly grabs the imagination of the viewing public" -- which is a pretty weak basis for the analogy.  As usual, the article will be easier to handle once the trial concludes. (I agree, btw, that our practice of wording it murder of... is altogether the wrong emphasis unless that is how the even is commonly known).  DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * DGG, the article is a stub at this point. So it is summarizing the details. Arias having changed her story three times is a substantial part of the details. It's one of the things sources list early on. Maybe the phrasing shouldn't say "Arias changed her alibi three times," since this is obvious from the rest of the information, and especially since "alibi," if defining it only as "[one] was in some other place at the time the alleged offense was committed" (which is the only way it's legally defined), doesn't fit for her third story, but I don't think that it's a WP:BLP issue to mention that she changed her story three times. Even Death of Caylee Anthony mentions that "Casey told various stories." Regarding the Casey Anthony comparison, the videos in the sources in the article say more. Sources, print and video sources, are calling the Arias case "the second Casey Anthony case" or "the Casey Anthony case of 2013" because of what they see as the similarities between Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias and because of the media attention the Arias case is receiving. See this for an example. I wouldn't say that this case is yet as famous as the Casey Anthony case, though. It's obviously not. Maybe you would be willing to help me build this article? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * At AfD. GiantSnowman 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * - You  really  can  14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Zhou Jun
This article has been hijacked. It now contains information regarding two different people - an Olympian and an unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109j (talk • contribs) 06:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * - -  You  really  can  09:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nana Akufo-Addo
This biography is about a leading politician of Ghana. A contribution by Mark Mysoe makes him the leader of a fictitious country "Akanland". This is part of a strategy of Mark Mysoe to contribute nonsense about this fantasy-born country to many articles. As this may cause ethnic conflict in Ghana, Wikipedia should prevent him from doing so. DrMennoWolters (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Akanland is fictional?--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)



There does seem to be some issues there - poor sourcing - cites used that do not mention Arkland at all, worthy of investigating imo -  Is Arkanland an historic area or a modern reality or what? You really  can  13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Akanland is a name for the southern region of Ghana. The Akan tribe makes up a majority of the population of that area.  There seems to be a movement of unknown size within that area for either autonomy or independence.  I'm looked through a large subset of User:MarkMysoe's recent contributions; he seems to be on a mission to bring about Akanland's autonomy or independence through the massive editing of Wikipedia articles.  A couple of example edits :
 * -- breaking at least one URL, and making the University of Education, Winneba into a vanguard of Akanland advancement.
 * (two edits) -- removing any reference to Ghana from the article about the city of Bibiani (including the removal of references).
 * -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have notified the User:MarkMysoe about this thread on his userpage - You  really  can  15:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- I had assumed that DrMennoWolters had, but as the old saying about "assume" goes... -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It soon becasme clear this this users contributions are the only thing at issue in regards to the multiple reports about Arkn - has is the creator (in sept 2012) and only contributor to the WikiProject_Akan - You  really  can  16:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a serious problem. It would appear that this report is the tip of the iceberg, and that there is an underlying campaign by Mark to re-write history by slowly converting mentions of Ghana into Akanland.
 * This is not the first time I've had trouble with this user. I must admit that I rolled my eyes when I read above about the use of poor sources which do not actually mention the subject - this is a hallmark of Mark's editing. The only other place I've interacted with him was at Kevin-Prince Boateng, which Mark has consistently tried to turn into a fanboy magazine article. There, he has often used simple bio pages which mention Boateng's name as carte blanche to write his own personal pundit-esque commentary about Boateng's playing style. A good example would be the commentary on his playing style in the "International career" section of the article in this edit. When I investigated, most of the claims made in that section turned out not to be in the sources he used. The same is true of this edit, where he adds superficially sourced trivia about Boateng's goal celebrations, which turn out not to be mentioned in the source. Or then there's this edit, which introduces a section on nicknames which is sourced, but when investigated the source doesn't contain any of the claimed nicknames. The list goes on and I could provide more examples.
 * This is serious abuse of process. It's difficult to peer into Mark's troubled past because he selectively archives his talk page, blanking criticism entirely in the name of cleaning up the page, whilst keeping a nominal "archive" page to make his talk page history appear continuous. This week, for example, he's removed several requests to stop this Akan nonsense from other editors within hours of them being placed (contrast this with the solitary barn star he's ever received, which has been kept on his talk page like a medal since June). Mark's had trouble with others over these sorts of issues before and, to be completely honest, I really don't think he's doing the project any good. Most of his editing contains serious problems requiring cleanup, if not complete removal. This particular report simply highlights the latest crusade of Mark's, on which he's happy to mislead others and rankly flaunt the rules in order to add his own original research to articles. The worst part is that all of this has been pointed out to him several times before, by a multitude of other editors at various venues, and yet he refuses to get the point. His editing attitude is particularly damaging because he's prolific and does an awful lot of editing in areas which are often poorly watched, and can end up causing a lot of issues before anyone even notices (this is particularly evident in this most recent example). I think the time has come to cut our losses, play damage control and indefinitely block Mark to stop this kind of disruption. If no one can bring themselves to do this, then I think an RfC/U is unavoidable. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This substitution of Akanland for Ghana has been going on for some time - I raised it on MM's talk page in September 2012, and I thought I had taken it to ANI but can't find it in the ANI archives. There is also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Africa. Pam D  16:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just found the record of my previous attempt to raise this editor's disruptive editing at ANI (1 October 2012): Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive770. Just in case it's useful in any further discussion. I don't know why my previous archive search didn't find it. Pam  D  22:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this needs to go to ANI so cleanup efforts can proceed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. I am out of the house at the moment editing on my phone and so I can't really formulate a proper report at ANI, but I will do it when I'm back. Alternatively, someone else can do it and I'll add my thoughts when I can. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * About to be done, wholeheartedly scandalized by the f*%ked-up mess this user is making, what's more it's not just trivial fanboy stuff but stuff to set off ethnic rioting - at Jerry Rawlings I have just removed the cats: Togolese mercenaries, Scottish mercenaries, Genocide perpetrators, 20th and 21st century criminals and Military dictatorships. Also fixed some stuff in the info box claiming his religion was Voodoo amongst other things.
 * The text is really fucked up though, he has systematically added Togolese, mercenary and Akan (instead of Ghana) wherever x/he can. Post the link to ANI as soon as I'm through, please check the user's contribs to help with the clean-up and weigh-in over at ANI if you have any experience of this "freedom fighter".  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maunus beat me to it while I was partially reverting the Jerry Rawlings bio. For the diuscussion at ANI, click here!  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Akanland is a historic country of the Akan people, the Akan people ethnic nationalis agreed to a state treaty with the British, for the Akan people historic country Akanland (see here) to be part of colony and it was named Gold Coast. In 1957, a state union was agreed by the Akan people and Akanland government agreed with and lead by Akan politician Kwame Nkrumah to join their historic country Akanland (now divided as Ashanti, Brong-Ahafo, Central Region, Eastern Region and Western Region) as a state union with the Mossi people historic country known as the Kingdom of Mossi then named to Northern Territories (now named and divided to Northern Region, Upper West Region and Upper East Region) within Ghana (see here) and the Ewe people historic country Togoland then named British Togoland and French Togoland (now known as Togo and Volta Region) within Ghana (see here, here, here and here). These three countries governments (Akanland, Kingdom of Mossi, and Togoland) agreed to a state union in 1957 to create Ghana, and they decided to it after the ancient empire called Ghana Empire. The "Ghana" state union is a example of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, Montenegro decided to break their state union with Serbia in 2006 with a independence referendum and the country Serbia and Montenegro is now the countries Serbia and Montenegro.


 * A further look into the history of the lands and territories that created Ghana by a state union in 1957, before deleting Akan people and their land (Akanland) historic information and really informative information + a hard work of a small Wikiproject Akan, that a person has tried their best to do over four months. What good is Wikipedia if someone has taken a lot of their time and hardwork on a ethnic group and their historic Akan land and historic country (Akanland), Akan culture and Akan WikiProject, that nobody had even bothered to try and do. I have lost my passion for Wikipedia about now. I may just retire myself from Wikipedia since, a large, hardworked and wrightful information about the Akan people lands and Akan territory (Akanland), their Akan economy from their lands and territory (Akanland), their Akan culture and Akan society, Akan biodiversity has all been removed, and even their Akan WikiProject. What good is Wikipedia if somebody wants to find information about the Akan people and their land and historic country (Akanland), where the Akan people lived and currently live (Akanland), the history of the Akan lands (Akanland), their unique and independent Akan educational structure, the Akan people governance and Akan political structure, the Akan people and Akan lands (Akanland) sports history (Akan football history), the Akan people health status and independent Akan people health care, and the Akan people society and culture and social life, has all been removed. A large scope of Akan people history, Akan geography and Akan biodiversity of their land (Akanland), Akan demographics, Akan people health status, Akan peole life expectancy and Akan people health care structure, the Akan people independent educational structure, the Akan people and their land (Akanland) independent economical history, the Akan people land (Akanland) and their historic country (Akanland) infrastructure and transportation systems, the Akan peoples gold, Akan cocoa, Akan natural minerals, and Akan fossil fuels all from their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), the Akan people governance and Akan people political structure of the Akan people and their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), and the Akan people identity and historical anthem music, to just be removed and suppressed from being freely viewed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be for freedom of information and where everybody can go to for as much helpful information of topics and subjects. It now looks like in the year 2013 (21st century) this is no longer the case.


 * In the Nana Akufo-Addo subject, Nana Akufo-Addo is an Akan and a ethnic national of Akanland and is from Eastern Akanland, for example it is exampled by Olusegun Obasanjo who is a Yoruba and ethnic national of Yorubaland where it can be mentioned that Olusegun Obasanjo is from Yorubaland in the article header. MarkMysoe (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This last post from Markymsoe repeats the word Akan over 50 times - You  really  can  21:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have indef-blocked MarkMysoe on the evidence presented here and at WP:ANI. Wikipedia is not the place to re-draw the map of Africa. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Lol, I think anyone writing such appallingly incomprehensible dross as that above deserves to be banned - for that reason alone!1812ahill (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Gérard Depardieu
Help, need backup, although the page has been PP'ed, some like-minded souls are trying to turn Depardieu into a "French-born Russian" and change the IPA of his name to Russian pronunciation and so on. Ridiculous but repetitive, needs more eyes (nobody doing this has access to a decent source to corroborate this, mind). Appreciated.  Captain Screebo Parley! 18:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to those who already got over there (Ukexpat, FormerIP, maunus), getting a lot of traffic and I don't think all the hoo-ha will die down too soon so probably worth watchlisting fellow BLPers.  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've stepped the protection up to full so that discussion and sourcing can take its due course over the next couple of days.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a good move (I proposed a change I was working on to better reflect the sources on the TP), okay so maybe this weekend he'll be riding in a troika (probably safer than his moped), drinking vodka by the gallon and generally freezing his nuts off somewhere in Russia, but this was getting a bit too much, so-and-so said so it must be true, fine, fine, but we're in BLP territory here and you know, as I do, that this shit gets a lot more media attention than before, btw good catch on the Akanian revolutionary, that got sorted, it was well overdue apparently.  Captain Screebo Parley! 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So, instead of actually reading the sources, you come here to ask for people just to "fight off the like-minded souls"...

Here, read this:

"In a letter to Russia’s Channel One television station, Mr. Depardieu confirmed that he applied for Russian citizenship and said he was “happy” the request was granted. (Source: The New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/world/europe/putin-makes-gerard-depardieu-a-citizen-of-russia.html?hp&_r=1&)"

You should work to make the article better and as close to the truth as possible, not just to enforce your opinion over the others.

-R.Arden (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are so full of it, great, a source dated the 4th of January 2013, hey that's tomorrow where I live, but your shitty sources were from the 20/12/2012 and *did not* corroborate the points you were making. You are a huckster a sham and a fraud, and as to your BE BOLD bullshit that you posted elsewhere, well let's just say that edit warring,10-12 reverts in 4 hours reverting vandalism that isn't and generally not assuming good faith are all very Bold.  Captain Screebo Parley! 21:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you don't fully grasp the concept of Time Zones. Perhaps READING the wikipedia article about it would help you.
 * And by calling me "full of shit", a huckster a sham and a fraud, you´ve just got yourself extra text to your note on ANI.
 * Also, aren't you the one huckstering in this noticeboard? ;) -R.Arden (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are so intent on insisting that I read the sources correctly that you incorrectly read you're so full of it as you're so full of shit, although you did correctly read huckster, sham and fraud, unfortunately you didn't grasp the meaning of the first word, "huckster", as a person who takes things of little value and dilutes them down so as to make them appear more voluminous (what could I be referring to?) Your sarcasm about time zones and dictionaries is not lost on me as "Everyone's got to learn sometimes", so I thank you deeply for your profound knowledge and your philanthropy.  Captain Screebo Parley! 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is basic high school grammar. Particle "it" here reffers to Shit/Shitty. Also, a huckster goes door to door trying to sell something. You coming here to ask for help is equivalent in the sense that you are tryin to sell something too (your side of the story). About the time zones, i was not being sarcastic. Perhaps you really should start reading things and not just writing. -R.Arden (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you both drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass at least for enough time to cool out. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to do that, by declaring i was no longer editing said page (just the talk page). Result was this thread to gush down his opinion on others and a large pack of badgery behaviour against me. -R.Arden (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "your [R.Arden] shitty sources were from the 20/12/2012 and *did not* corroborate the points you were making": I'm afraid this is true. Please make further inquiry about R.Arden's doubtful methodology. Having read the full story from all the talk pages mentioned, I think this is purely bad faith. If not worse, because all his pleas do not show any self-understanding of his errors. 146.185.28.178 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)