Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive21

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Haifa bint Faisal – Inactive. – 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Haifa bint Faisal


This article is somewhat sourced but I think it needs the attention of someone more experienced with BLP issues than I am.-- Birgitte SB  20:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Danah Boyd – Taken to Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. – 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Danah Boyd
→  See also : Administrators' noticeboard/Archive92

Several previous discussions have taken place regarding the titling of this article and capitalization of the subject's name. In a nutshell:


 * The subject of the article has noted that her name is legally lower-cased (self-reporting of information per BLP guidelines), and her university and published academic papers use the lower-case "danah boyd".
 * Mainstream news coverage of the subject has given her name as "Danah Boyd".

There are, roughly speaking, two camps here: one which believes that per BLP, the article should use "danah boyd" as much as possible, and one which believes, per WP:NAME, that the article must follow the presentation used in mainstream news coverage. Both regular editors and admins of Wikipedia have come down on both sides at different times, and the article has occasionally been tugged back and forth between the two capitalizations. So... could we get some discussion and hopefully a final resolution of whether this is a BLP-related matter of fact, or a MOS-related matter of style? Ubernostrum 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see opinions here. -- Renesis (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jock m sommese – Deleted – 02:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jock m sommese


As User:Radiant! brought to my attention, the Jock m sommese article reads like an attack piece. The article has a source, but the article seems more certain and negative than its source. This really is the sort of thing Wikipedia could get sued for. (It accuses the man of crimes for which he has not been convicted.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been deleted by Alison, as non-notable. --DarkFalls 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Mike Nifong – Inactive. – 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Mike Nifong


This looks like a Coatrack for 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, rather than a biography. Possibly redirect to that article, protected if necessary, would be preferable to holding what amounts to a fork on content. --Tony Sidaway 07:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's new WP:NOT:News reports might be applicable: Even when news events themselves merit an encyclopedia article of their own, additional biographies of person(s) involved may not be necessary, for instance, where they largely duplicate relevant information. The Early life section of the article seems OK (more information is needed, however) but the rest of the article gives way too many details on his involvement in the Duke lacrosse case, Ethics charges, and Disbarment. The article does not stay focused on the main topics without going into unnecessary detail per Summary style:Levels of desired details. It appears to be well sourced contentious material, but it largely duplicates relevant information posted elsewhere. I think WP:NOT:News reports, NPOV, and Summary style:Levels of desired details would justify reducing the article so that it stays focused on a main topic without going into unnecessary and without duplicating relevant information. For example, the Duke lacrosse case, Ethics charges, and Disbarment can be refocused into a single Disbarment section that highlights (rather than details) the events that played a role in his disbarment since the disbarment is one of the main events that makes up Mike Nifong's life. A good starting point would be to summarize the written order of the North Carolina State Bar on this. Basically, Nifong was disbarred because he "engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice" by making "Improper Pretrial Public Statements and Misrepresentations", by "withholding or failing to Provide Potentially Exculpatory DNA Evidence", and by "Misrepresentations and False Statements to Court and Opposing Counsel" and "to State Bar's Grievance Committee". Maybe give a little detail on each of the three reasons for the disbarment and call it a day. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 19:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Movement to impeach George W. Bush – Inactive. – 17:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Movement to impeach George W. Bush
Perhaps I am misusing the term POV fork, though it does seem to be information that would normally be in Bush's bio, but has been split off. My main issue, which I am not sure mediation is even looking at, is that there are a large amount of unreliable self-published sources cited in the article. While this article is supposedly about the "movement", it is really about George W. Bush, who is a living person. These sources need to be removed. (These sources aren't allowed in ANY articles except possibly articles about the blogs themselves, per WP:V.) I tried to get some BLP oversight by adding the cats and/or template, only to have them removed. This tells me that the regular editors of that article do not wish to have a high blp visibility on this article. (I would say that they have been pretty successful at it, because I did not even know that this article existed until last week.) Many of these sources are obscured at initial review, because they show up in the footnotes as just a footnote number, whithout even the url visible, or they are inline linked into the article. I was going to do my citation rehabilitation thing on the article, but there is a monstrous list, and I know that many of them should be deleted. It's a bit of work to format and verify each source, so I would like to clean some of the unacceptable sources out before I get into the meat of it. But if editors are going to be obstructing me, I am hesitant to even start. Being under protection makes it sort of a moot point at the moment anyway. - Crockspot 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * - This is a POV fork that appears to be designed to skirt the sourcing requirements and oversight of WP:BLP. This opinion is supported by the fact that I have attempted to add the "living people" category twice, and the BLPC template once, and been reverted all three times. (Two of these times by Goethean, who has been taking a slightly different stance in another article he is in a dispute with me over). I explained on my last two edits why I was adding these templates/cats, so that they can be picked up on the BLPP monotiring tool. All reverts of my attempts use the justification that the article is not a biography. This article contains a lot of unreliable sources of a blog nature that are not allowed in ANY article, per WP:V, especially not when referencing info about a living person. I don't want to take this on myself, but oversight is needed. The article is currently protected due to edit warring, should come off prot tomorrow. // Crockspot 12:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As for any BLPN issues, Mediation Cabal is addressing the dispute and the page currently is protected. Unless you have some particular issue that BLPN addresses (see the top of this page), I think your request is resolved as far as this page is concerned. In reply to your post, the page survived AfD three times. Are you sure the page constitutes consensus-dodging? Also, if you look at POV fork, it suggests to focus on the application of NPOV policy rather than referring to the page as a "POV fork". NPOV policy states that the article must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). I agree that an article representing fairly and without bias all significant views of everybody who wants to impeach George W. Bush would seem to have problems. The conflicting views on this topic would seem to be reasons to impeach and reasons not to impeach and it would be reasonable to deal with them in the same article. As there is a lot of interest in this article, I think your best bet is to start with the article name. You may want to review NPOV Article naming and How to make a choice among controversial names and propose a change on the article talk page based on Wikipedia process. Also, you might want to review Coatrack to see if it applies. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article has been to the admin boards more than once. To provide an overview in one location, here are the links:
 * 3RR, March 10, 2006, Result: article semi-protected
 * ANI, March 11, 2006 Result:Revised suspected sock statement
 * ANI, March 21, 2006 split from ANI, March 11, 2006 Result: Commentary
 * AN, March 28, 2006, Result: Commentary
 * ANI, May 18, 2006, result: Commentary
 * 3RR, June 3, 2007, Result: User Already indefblocked
 * 3RR, June 13, 2007, Result: Article already semi protected
 * 3RR, June 21 2007, Result: article protected
 * --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to check out All about Geroge, which seems to fit what you are saying. A first edit might be to refocus Rationales for impeachment to be about the movement itself and to reduce impeachment to one or two sentences since it repeats material that can be found on Wikipedia through a dynamic link. The bulleted items may be addressed by integrating some items into the article in a more organized fashion per Avoid trivia sections in articles or by creating a list article. However, since mediation is going on, it usually is better to discuss revising the article with the mediator before hacking away at the article. IN any event, the main issue really seems to be whether the topic can ever meet NPOV. The article probably should read something like, The movement stared on xxx when President Bush did xxx. The movement grew because xxx and groups such as xxx joined in. Xxxx events helped shaped the movement more or less into a single effort. Today, the movement is xxx. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the issue I am mainly concerned about is the dubious sourcing being used. - Crockspot 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (I added emphasis to key phrases which pertain to BLP policy.)  — Athaenara ✉ 01:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC) semiprotection was set to expire within 48 hours, which it did. The article is a coatrack, and a huge one: over 115+ kB (longer than BLP/N on a bad day) with a talk page nearly twice that. — Athaenara ✉ 07:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Terry Semel – Resolved. – 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Terry Semel


CarlosRodriguez repeatedly adds a bunch of POV text to Terry Semel. Example: "In June 2007, after shareholders expressed their disgust at Semel's exorbitant pay and mediocre performance, the disgraced Semel was forced out of his position at Yahoo." And: "In 2005, Semel was given the UCLA Medal, an award UCLA gives to donors of large amounts of money." Pfalstad 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave the article a once over and posted my revision that removed problem BLP material as a good reversion point. Since this Yahoo! CEO resigned on Monday, June 18th, 2007 in the face of criticism, the contentious BLP posters probably will be around the article for a few days. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Toupee – Resolved. – 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Toupee


Toupee - Dispute over inclusion of a poorly sourced list of people (living and dead) to wear toupees. I feel this both violates BLP and WP:NOT as a list of useless and potentially harmful trivia. // VanTucky 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The list has been trimmed down to only those toupee wearers who have passed away already. So there is now no living persons problem. Steve Dufour 17:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Lil Jon – Inactive. – 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Lil Jon


This article seems to be watched by a scant number of registered editors, and is frequently being vandalised, both with defamatory edits, bad information, and just plain vandslism. I can't keep track of the information. Anyone who could watchlist this page would be nice. The Evil Spartan 15:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jordan Maxwell – Resolved. – 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jordan Maxwell

 * - BLP concerns raised by friend of Maxwell, . Mainly concerns court judgments. See also User talk:Xcommunic8. // --h2g2bob (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Court judgement sourced; Xcommunic8 needs to provide proof of his aquittal (and add it to the article), but the court judgement should remain. He just doesn't seem to get this...(or just can't provide proof of aquittal). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Ali Abdullah Saleh – Resolved. – 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

biography president Saleh of Yemen


Somebody's been inserting insults and/or politically motivated arguments in this biography. I have no personal opinion on the matter, but it's clearly not balanced, objective information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.201.131.134 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That was vandalism. It was reverted by two other users.  — Athaenara ✉ 09:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Josh Olson – Resolved. – 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Josh Olson


An unregistered user added a paragraph] to Josh Olson, describing a rumored conflict between Olson and another screenwriting team. The rumor was allegedly described at Craig Mazin's ArtfulWriter.com. I vaguely recall seeing something about this at ArtfulWriter, but I couldn't find any real description of the incident. Plus, I didn't think it was encyclopedic, so I deleted it.

Another anonymous user then added the rumor back into the entry, along with a link that allegedly demonstrated that Olson had confirmed the rumor. I looked at the link, which seemed to be a discussion thread consisting of (a) people using names like Josh Olsen (note the "e") to parody Olson's style, and Olson himself making fun of the rumor. There was no confirmation. So, I deleted the rumor again.

Olson has certainly proved himself to be an intense and argumentative guy in various online discussions, but I don't see any reason to include this rumor in his entry. It doesn't seem especially notable, and it certainly hasn't been reliably sourced. --Jacobw 11:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi – Resolved. – 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi


There are numerous concerns for this article.

I'd like to request the following changes be made to the article: ... operates several illegal, web-based, employment scams... How is this verifiable? Is there an arrest record citing these specific websites as the cause of an arrest? Also: ''Other websites that he owns and operates include: World Poker League, EZ Auctions,Tube Review, Our Classifieds, Good Grades Now, Consumer Business Bureau, United States Human Resources Association, eBand Search, Ask America, VeriResume, Admin Solutions Group, Package Door Now and others. Many of his sites are suspected employment scams.'' Again, how is this nothing but supposition on part of the original author? It's already been discussed that many of the problems with the original article were that there were no references cited while making exaggerated claims regarding criminal activity. This is another huge leap of logic which either doesn't have references, or if they do, have references which are linked to third-party questionable sites. Given that other allegations have been removed due to the same circumstances, I see no reason why these websites need to be arbitrarily linked to this person when there's nothing concrete to back those claims up. I also thought that the supposed names of employees were being removed due to the same issue of not having a reliable source - I see some have been removed, but not all. Occham 14:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I learned a lot working on the page about Ayman's former associate, the indicted fraud suspect Lou Pearlman. You may count me in helping you out. I am really looking forward to see what the article will be like by the end of this year. Regards, --SooperJoo 01:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Valerie Day – Inactive. – 17:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Valerie Day


Hi, could you please check the contributions of TheBLPGuy? I think he's taking the BLP guidelines a little too far, but I could be wrong. It seems a shame to gut an entire article like Valerie Day that doesn't seem to be contentious, derogatory or libelous. Thanks. Latr, Katr 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stubbing that article without a discussion or explanation is disruptive not constructive. Perhaps it does violate BLP -- but as an outside observer I don't see how, so if I wanted to fix the problem I have no guidance on the matter -- beyond the obvious need for sources, which by itself isn't enough of a reason. -- llywrch 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Martti Ahtisaari – Resolved. – 17:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Martti Ahtisaari


A couple of users have been adding a dubiously sourced and probably libellous accusation against the article's subject (e.g. ). I've not been able to find any corresponding reports in the English-language media and I strongly suspect that it's been concocted to discredit the subject for his role in current international negotiations. The accusation has been dealt with for now but it may well reappear; we'll need to keep an eye on the article for a few days. -- ChrisO 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick Google news search turned up these: . Presumably this will be picked up by major English-language news sources in the next day or so. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The entry itself explains the situation in general. The individual is the focus of a lot of conflict between political entities.  The entry contains a lot of rumors and accusations. They are sourced rumors, but rumors nonetheless. -Jmh123 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's more than a hint of politics in this situation. Note the source of the rumours. Ahtisaari proposed a formula that would lead to the independence of Kosovo. The Serbs in both Serbia and Bosnia are desperate to avoid losing it, and Russia has hinted at vetoing a possible UN resolution authorising Kosovo's independence. The most likely explanation for this is that someone on the Serbian side is attempting to discredit Ahtisaari in order to provide Russia with a pretext for using its veto. -- ChrisO 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed this again, I believe that the article's coverage of the Serbian allegations breached WP:NPOV and also the guidance at WP:BLP. I've therefore eliminated that section of the article and summarised its contents in two lines in the previous section. I'd be grateful if other editors could review this and provide some independent feedback. See this diff. -- ChrisO 11:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully support your edits and expressed agreement on "talk". -Jmh123 14:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another new (presumably Serbian) user is repeatedly restoring the deleted content. I've left a note on his talk page and semi-protected the article for a couple of days to head off an edit war. -- ChrisO 08:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Cleveland crime family – Inactive. – 17:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Cleveland crime family

 * . I received an E-mail suggesting that certain living persons are named in this article without proper sources, and claiming actual real-live harrassment because of this.  I don't know if the recent removals by  resolved the problem.  I haven't looked closely at the sources, but there does seem to be a problem here.  Please don't come back to me about this; I'm just forwarding an E-mail from an editor who probably wishes to remain anonymous in this context.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I received the same e-mail. Unfortunately the author is totally vague about what the problem is, which doesn't help... -- ChrisO 08:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Niko Dimitrakos and Petr Sýkora – Resolved. – 17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Niko Dimitrakos and Petr Sýkora


,, and (almost certainly all the same person) have been repeatedly adding unsourced "controversies" sections to these articles. The source provided for Petr Sykora's "controversy" (forgiving for a moment that it's a copy of a fox news broadcast on youtube) says absolutely nothing to support it. I have tried warning this user, at first in edit summaries (he is knowledgeable enough to use them, so I presume he reads them as well), and then on his talk pages. Despite what I consider my clear explanation of WP:BLP, this user has reverted these two articles five and four times respectively and accuses other editors of vandalism for removing the sections. I'm posting here because I feel that assuming good faith has run its course. Someguy1221 02:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | CENSORSHIP – Inactive. – 17:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

CENSORSHIP


This is to report a gross case of censorship concerning the article on Dan Voiculescu, of the Conservative Party, Romania. The history of the debate is readable in the Talk section of the article, but the outcome of the debate was that one of the contenders - JUDEX73 - has been banned from editing the article, without any logical explanation. Such practices risk to transform Wikipedia into a libelous communication medium and expose it to lawful consequences. They also may induce the suspicion that Wikipedia is involved in the inner political struggle from a certain country - in this case, Romania - and is taking sides in this struggle.I want to ask everybody interested in the welfare and credibility of Wikipedia to follow the debate and express an opinion on the subject.

JUDEX73 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDEX73 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident – Inactive. – 17:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident
→  See also : Articles for deletion/2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (2nd nomination) (result: no consensus)


 * - This is a biography fork of George W. Bush. The editors at this article seem hell-bent on preventing me or Athaenara from applying the Living people category, (to the point of edit warring), so that this article may be monitored by this group. I personally cannot think of any real good reason for not wanting the category applied to this article except for bad faith reasons (avoidance of oversight). I have been given reasons, but they do not seem like very good reasons. It's not like the category takes up a lot of real estate in the category section. // Crockspot 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, it is my firm belief that this category was created for the purpose of monitoring articles which are primarily about living people, to help with enforcement of WP:BLP. If the BLP patrol group feels an article should have the category, then the article should have it, regardless of what other editors feel is "proper" categorization. - Crockspot 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe there should be a second category Category:Issues about living people. From a monitoring standpoint, there's an obvious reason for the category ... but we are here to write an encyclopedia and putting a category in there that is false from an encyclopedia standpoint isn't a great idea. --BigDT 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The scope of WP:BLP isn't limited to articles tagged Category:living people. Not having the category on the article doesn't prevent you from monitoring it or from it being brought up on this noticeboard, and, frankly, there are so many articles in Category:Living people, that I doubt any editor is consciously monitoring all of them in this category. (For example, I just clicked on Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living_people - 21 articles have been changed during the last minute.) I don't know that Category:Issues about living people is such a great idea, though; it would encompass what -- all articles about events that are less than 100 years old? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * More or less, yes. Articles about Virginia Tech or quantum physics that may mention a living person should not be listed, but anything primarily about a living person, like Political positions of Ron Paul, should be. --BigDT 19:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense to put the tag on the category:george bush so that ALL articles about him are in the living person cat. Same for Obama and Ron Paul. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tested that the other day, it doesn't work, and is probably the same reason that the Living people category says not to add subcategories to it. If you put a subcategory into the Living people cat, related changes only reports changes to the category itself, not the articles within the category. - Crockspot 04:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, the long-term solution is to request the developers extend the recent changes function to include subcategories, at least for this one category. This in no way affects the current debate, and cannot constitute an immediate solution, but it's something to think about for the future. --Stemonitis 05:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Living people category
→  See also : Living People Patrol and its talk page

As the notice at the top of Category talk:Living people says, "Please note: This is not a typical category! Read the archived discussion and reasons for its existence before complaining about the "point" of having this new, administrative-style category." — Athaenara ✉ 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Announcement of the category in January 2006


 * Related discussions
 * Cfd log (2006 January 19) Living people
 * from 8 December 2006 through 27 May 2007 a copy was on Category talk:Living people.
 * Note: the Cfd log was modified after the discussion was closed


 * Cfd log (2006 January 23) Living people to *
 * Cfd log (2006 December 14) Possibly living people


 * Related feature
 * Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people — Athaenara ✉ 00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued
I am getting blowback from an admin, User:Stemonitis, who has created a new category that no one knows about, and only has one article in it (well, no articles now), yet he insists that it is the new category that we are supposed to use. - Crockspot 18:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I announced it on the talk page of, er..., this page, as a suggestion that you may like to consider. I applied it to the one article I knew about that fitted its remit, and encouraged others to add more. When Crockspot reverted to the old, contentious category with an edit summary suggesting that the new category was for talk pages, I assumed he/she had misunderstood the situation and reverted him/her. How this constitutes blowback, I cannot imagine (I would never use the word), and I suspect my intentions are being misrepresented here.
 * But anyway, a lot of people find it jarring to have articles whose topics are not living people in Category:Living people. All those articles which should be monitored closely because of WP:BLP concerns, but which do not have living people as their subjects can be placed in Category:Biography of living persons (which may be renamed at will — it's only the first thing I thought of); this category can then be monitored just like Category:Living people is currently. I expect this to lead to an increase in the number of articles in the two categories combined, and thus to improved monitoring, and all without introducing the logical inconsistency of classifying a pretzel incident as a person, which so many people expressly dislike. --Stemonitis 18:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify better on the category page for "Living people" that: This category is used by the BLPP for monitoring articles that pertain to living people; This category may contain articles that are not biographies proper, but still pertain to living people, and are added at the discretion of BLP patrollers, or other editors concerned about BLP oversight of an article; If an editor feels that the category is improperly applied, they should ask here (BLPN) before removing the category tag from an article. Discuss. - Crockspot 19:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, when I initially reverted, I didn't realize that this was a newly created category, as it is similarly named to the one that IS used on talk pages. Second, you are ignoring the fact that the Living people category was created exactly for the same reason that you have created this new cat. Read the links that Atheanara linked above, it says "all articles pertaining to living people", not "all biography article of living people". Why should I have to have multiple related changes browsers open to do BLP patrolling, when the one cat/one browser solution will suffice, just because you don't like how the category is being used? The category is not for your use, it is for the BLPP group's use. You mentioned the "political positions" articles not being in the cat. They SHOULD be, and I have been trying to add some of them to it, but I keep getting reverted. The past few days I have been spending all the time I WOULD have been spending on BLP patrol arguing about the application of the freakin' category. That is a waste of my time. And you suggested that I start using your new category, do you also expect me to populate it with about a quarter of a million articles? Gee, thanks for the help. - Crockspot 18:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A policy listing anything other than living human beings in Category:Living people is asking for a nightmare of trouble. Quatloo 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. Category:Living people should include living persons, and nothing else.  Despite its essentially administrative purpose, it is an article-space category that should be as minimally confusing to readers as possible.  Putting articles that are about events into this category is not reasonable.  If you need a category-based related changes tool for articles that aren't about individual living persons, use a new category, appropriately named.  That's really a very slight hindrance compared to forcing Wikipedia to include silly statements such as indicidents being living persons. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As someone else explained, BLP policy is not restricted to only articles in Category: Living People. So feel free to add the BLP template. Unfortunately, the real problem seems to be this article's very existence. In today's world, any incident like this will garner some media coverage, but I think it's highly dubious to create an entire article on it. I believe this is an invalid use of content forking, and I would question the rationale of its creators. --C S (Talk) 11:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Mike Magee (journalist) – Inactive. – 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Mike Magee (journalist)

 * - article was deleted via AfD for lack of reliable sources. It was recreated with much unsourced and poorly sourced material. It has now been made into a stub, but should be watched for additions of unsourced or poorly sourced material. GlassFET 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | 3ABN – Resolved. – 17:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

3ABN


This article has had unsourced material (or material from a website meant to change one's opinion) related to one Danny Shelton twice, in a 'criticism' section. I removed it once, and referred to this policy in the talk page. If up to me, it would be removed again, but in the interest of preventing an edit war, I seek further input on the matter on the Talk:3ABN page. Skybunny 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone restored the information without discussion, let alone a consensus to reinsert. I've temporarily removed it again pending discussion on the talk page. Avb 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The same person has once again restored the information, adding a source that unfortunately does not contain the disputed information. On the talk page the same editor demands discussion before deletion, disregarding the fact that I and another editor have explained the problem on the talk page. Currently the disputed unsourced contentious material is in the article. I have left a request for reliable sources and consensus.

Admin intervention might be helpful here. Avb 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The person who restored the information has posted a source which looks reliable to me. I have rewritten the disputed content based on that source. Avb 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I originally rewrote the information and called for discussion on the talk page before a revert took place, however the editors continue to revert without first discussing. And now they are accusing me of the exact offense they are committing. It it perfectly fine within the wikipedia community to insert controversies. The controversies were inserted by numerous editors, and to avoid and edit war and to make it more on par with other articles, I rewrote the entire thing and did not state any specifics but pointed out that there are controversies. Rather than the two above editors just reverting and rewriting to fit their agenda, I again call for a discussion before reverting. Show how it is in violation of BLP first. I truly feel that the rewrite from Avb was quite POV and loaded. How the paragraphs stand, it is quite NPOV and simply yet briefly states the controversy. Again, I invite any editor from this board to post comment, but I for the third time ask Avb and Skybunny to first discuss before reverting. --User: (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Avb claims that the information is poorly sourced. I am not trying to use save3abn dot org, however, within that religious community, the website has made ruffles and is quite known. To mention that save3abn dot org is alleging, again, is withing the scope of wikipedia. Where in the controversies section is BLP in violation? --User: (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maniwar has restored his own edit once again without sources. Doing so, Maniwar removed the two references I had added. The article once again gives a skewed impression of what the source Maniwar gave on the talk page says. See also comments on the talk page by Skybunny and me. Maniwar seems to miss what has been brought forward by us. Especially the fact that WP:BLP prescribes to remove this type of content. It was entirely unsourced when it was removed, and Maniwar has consistently re-added the same content, refused to add sources, and refused to obtain or demonstrate consensus. Maniwar is the only editor defending the disputed text. On the talk page Maniwar claims that many editors wanted the text in, but I do not see anything on the talk page or in the article's history that supports this, except for one or two editors disputing earlier extremely biased versions. It has been explained to Maniwar that instead of reinserting, they need to obtain a consensus on the talk page. Also, in my rewrite I stayed very close to the sources -- not save3abn dot org, but a reliable source commenting on it. I'm sure it is better than Maniwar's opinion on what it is saying and what is important. But my rewrite was an attempt to get the discussion going and is not important.

The important thing is that Maniwar's text has to be removed as long as it remains unsourced. Perhaps an admin can take a look? Maniwar seems unwilling to acknowledge or unable to understand the arguments on the talk page and here. Avb 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That material lacks context as well as lacking relevancy to the subject. Unless is properly sourced and it is relevant to the article, it does not belong there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I think I accidentally reverted you. It was unintentional as I was adding a source and hit save twice. Now, as for comment of Avb above, this issue is a large one within the Seventh-day Adventist community. As I explained on the talk page, it has gained international notice within that community. It has made it up the world leadership of the church, the President and the Chairman of the Board of 3ABN is addressing it, and independant investigation is being called by the World Church. What I am trying to say, is that perhaps in the scope of global things it may seem small, but it is quite a large issue within the community. It must be mentioned and it has the attention of the world church. To leave it out supports those who do not want dirty laundry aired. I apologize for the accidental revert, at least I think I did, but because you are not within the community, you don't understand the vast importance of the issue. What are your thoughts? --User: (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maniwar restored the disputed content once again, this time adding sources that are in part not allowed, such as Linda Shelton's web site, in part do not support the text. SYN problems e.g. regarding GC and divorce. Conjectural interpretation of sources. I'm sure these things are important and I have no reason to doubt that the disputed text describes what people in this community are talking about. It should be in this article as far as sources allow, but the current content deviates from the sources and builds a picture not apparent from them. The only reliable source handles the issues much more discreetly than the current article. The disputed text is still, as before, in part poorly sourced and for the rest unsourced. I'm not going to edit the article myself again; for one thing I practice 1RR.


 * I recommend removal once again pending discussion/consensus and/or rewrite of the section. Maybe Maniwar will want to edit it out? This is, as mentioned in my original edit summary, a temporary solution. Avb 10:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm marking this as resolved again; the issue from the original report above has been dealt with, and the additional issues I identified are being discussed on the talk page in a much improved atmosphere. Avb 08:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling – Article deleted. – 23:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling
→  See also : previous Afd and current Afd

A dispute exists over whether well documented and sourced content is actually WP:OR. The dispute seems to be because Rowling is admittedly "left-wing" and the material tends to support her declared values. Rather than tagging the material as in dispute, this has already been sent to deletion review.

Rather than deletion, comments from unbiased editors is desired. Libertycookies 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Article is in AfD Articles for deletion/Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling. Previous article created by this user was deleted. See Articles for deletion/Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify, it is true that an article created by me was deleted. This article bore no resemblence to the article that Jossi is now trying to delete.


 * It is shameful of Jossi to try to compare the two articles in an attempt to bias an objective review of the well-sourced and NPOV article Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling. Although Jossi is clearly aware of this forum to discuss biographies, his preference is to bully people with his admin account and avoid discussion by redirecting articles and attempting to delete without proper review. Libertycookies 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry? The article is on AfD, because it is a POV fork created by you after some of the material you added to J. K. Rowling was challenged by several editors, including me. The POV fork is now in AfD, and you have added two RfCs related to this. Now take a break and let the process unfold. Let other editors come and comment on the AfD, without replying to each delete comment and without casting aspersions on other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the article is on AfD because Jossi alleges that it is a POV fork. There has been no determination if his allegations are correct.  However, a link to the article on the supposed main article has been deleted in an effort to limit discussion on the supposed POV fork.
 * The reality is that most of this content has already been approved and is merely put into a more readable format summarizing all of J. K. Rowling's activism and charity work. Libertycookies 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ... which proves the point that it is a POV fork. If the content is already incorporated throughout the J. K. Rowling article, taking the content out of context of her biography and framing it as Influence and activism is POV forking. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty quick to assume good faith in most situations, but to me it appears that Libertycookies is being intentionally disingenuous. I have been following this issue pretty much since the AfD was created and Jossi has never once even hinted that his reasons for the proposed AfD are anything other than what he has claimed.
 * Moreover, I have gone over his past contributions and nothing in it suggests a bias or an agenda. Libertycookies claims are unfounded. On the other hand, that individual's account seems to have been created entirely for the purpose of creating and pushing articles citing the political opinions of J.K. Rowling. Trusilver 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be sure, I only claim to be an expert on J. K. Rowling, and found it disheartening that there was no mention of her activism and life's work in fighting social inequities in wikipedia. The article makes no claims, only repeats published facts. Trusilver's claim that their are unfounded claims are themselves unfounded.Libertycookies 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Barney Frank – Inactive. – 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Barney Frank


The article on Congressman Barney Frank was recently edited by User:TDC to reword the discussion of Frank's gay relationship with Steven Gobie. TDC's version raises BLP concerns. For example, it states, "After learning that Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of his apartment, Frank fired Gobie ...." The official finding of the House Ethics Committee was that Frank had no knowledge of any illegal activities. I've put this to a Request for Comment here, but TDC is unwilling to allow the longstanding version to remain in place while the RfC goes forward. I've already reverted it three times today, so I post it here to see if others agree with me that there are BLP concerns (aside from TDC's POV-warring in quoting a tabloidish personal ad, etc.). The last good version is this one. JamesMLane t c 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, we have absolutely no indication of what the report did or did not say in its entirety, redacted snippets have been posted on a decidedly partisan webstie, however, this source most definitely does not meet the WP:RS criteria. What we do have are several citations from major newspapers supporting the text. Secondly, the RFC was posted, after my edits. Placing this on the BLP page is a stretch to say the least. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Debbie Schlussel – Inactive. – 17:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Debbie Schlussel

 * - The "death threats" section contains self-published sources that make claims about third parties. (Schlussel's blog, and jihadwatch.com). These sources violate WP:V. I have removed this section several times, but it keeps getting reverted. I added the BLPC template just now, don't wish to carry on a pointless edit war with the editor who is reverting. I have suggested that the section be pared down to where it is supported by the existing reliable primary and secondary sources (court citations, and WND.com), but have not noticed any attempt to comply. - Crockspot 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Barbie Cummings – Article deleted. – 17:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Barbie Cummings
Short, unreferenced negative/controversial biography. Possibly NN as well. Originally tagged for speedy deletion as db-attack, but speedy was declined. Videmus Omnia 15:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blanked it. A quick Google search indicates that most of the article may be accurate, so if anyone actually thinks that there needs to be an article, they can go find sources.  But this article, without sources, is absolutely not acceptable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Article was deleted on 2 July 2007; resolved. Avb 12:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Gay-for-pay – Resolved. – 00:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Gay-for-pay
Is it a BLP problem to have this image illustrating the Gay-for-pay article? – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's allowed. Matt Sanchez is already mentioned in that article, and in his own article, so he had no right to privacy in the first place.  There's nothing defamatory in the picture itself. Shalom Hello 01:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is virtually unsourced. Without sources, how can the reader distinguish fact from rumor from interpretation? -Jmh123 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the list and the image, as the former has no sources and the latter's existence is based on the former. Calling someone "gay for pay" seems to me to be inherently an informal, slang term with negative connotations. FCYTravis 03:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | David Birney – Resolved. – 17:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

David Birney
It looks very much to me like David Birney or one of his PR people simply posted his entire resume on his Wiki page. I don't have experience on how to handle a situation like this, so I wanted to pass it along for a second assessment and/or action. Otto1970 17:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've stubbed the article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Michael Mullen (murderer) – Article deleted. – 00:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Michael Mullen (murderer)
Could someone please check for a one-to-one match between the WP article and the reference article? Shalom Hello 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed material that was not sourced to the reference provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | State terrorism by the United States – Resolved. – 17:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

State terrorism by the United States (General Jovito Palparan)
- Accusations of murder and gross human rights abuses in a selective and slanted presentation against General Jovito Palparan, based on inadequete and contradictory sources. Tom Harrison Talk 20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jimmy Gulzar – Resolved; redirected. – 00:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jimmy Gulzar

 * - just a heads up - this one was previously a redirect to Mel B, it's now been expanded, but i'm afraid i don't have any experience of the Living People guidelines, so thought i'd let you chaps know...... // Petesmiles 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Shaun Wilson – Inactive. – 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Shaun Wilson
This is a résumé. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.50.157 (talk • contribs)


 * Seems to be an autobiography by WP:SPA user . I have tagged the article accordingly, and placed a message on his talk page in this regard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Johnny Lee Clary – Resolved. – 00:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Johnny Lee Clary
I will not repeat the WP:BLP violation here but please look at the history for the article. The article already had a bunch of non-notable opinion (soap-boxing) but I only found that article after someone inserted speculation in the Chris Benoit article and I removed it. I then looked into Clary and found that the same sort of material was there so I removed it. The poster asked about it on my talk page and I clarified. The material appeared again and I removed it again. I am going on vacation and I will not be watching the page so I am looking for some more eyes over there and also if someone is interested in cleaning out the non-RS that is still there. Maybe the article should be stubbed and rewritten or taken back to just the well-sourced material. Thanks. --Justanother 12:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Talk:Richard Gere – Resolved. – 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Talk:Richard Gere


User:WacoJacko is persistently reverting discussions on the talk page Talk:Richard Gere based on the notion that we are protecting Gere from the real truth about gerbils and censoring Wikipedia by archiving. I have warned him and quoted BLP on the topic, but the truth is, it was time to archive that talk page anyway. For him, it's a matter of WP:POINT, I think: see User_talk:WacoJacko. -Jmh123 09:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * May be OK--he didn't see the archive. Some precious gerbil moments are missing from the archive but I'll find them and make sure they are archived tomorrow.  -Jmh123 10:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be resolved now. Some of the material was deliberately deleted from a previous archive, and some deleted from the talk page before I archived.  All lost gerbil discussions are now preserved for posterity.  If the folks here feel that preserving these discussions is a violation of BLP, then I'll defer to you, but I think there's some value in having a record to point to and say, "enough already." -Jmh123 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Retaining this type of discussion on a live WP page instead of courtesy blanking it is often problematic in that it keeps or makes the discussion searchable by search engines like Google as well as Wikipedia's built-in search engine. Then again, since this specific discussion was clearly stressing why the gerbil nonsense is nonsense, I have no problem with this restore. Avb 22:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the archives are not picked up by Google. Please correct me if I am wrong, because my opinion on retaining the archives would be different if this is the case.  Thanks.  -Jmh123 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, so was I, but I recently zoomed in on what amounted to an attempt to out an editor's real-life identity, and found several links to Wikipedia archives. But that's anecdotal of course -- perhaps someone with more expert knowledge in this area can chime in and enlighten us? Thanks, Avb 23:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS As an illustration, see this Google search: Avb 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | David Pogue – Inactive. – 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

David Pogue

 * - a vandal has been repeatedly inserting the same incorrect and unsourced material into the article. Some of this unsourced material is extrapolated from sourced material (i.e. "has no educational background in computer science") simply because that source does not mention it. Most egregious are the various points of view of Mr. Pogue's character and motivations. Mr. Pogue has listed several problems in his article in the discussion page, providing source material for his claims. An admin's attention and advice is kindly requested.


 * The page David Pogue has been protected due to BLP concerns. User:++ungood who started out editing the page under several IPs, has insisted on including certain allegations of journalistic fraud by Pogue with sourcing from a blog post and a followup by the same blogger, who happens to be a rival tech journalist.  I believe I am correct here, but if not, I would appreciate a comment nonetheless.  The discussion has gotten pretty long but is pretty readable.


 * I am asking for your help as we have reached an impasse. While I could just leave things as they are, I am getting rather tired of the whole thing, and I think the situation does need to get resolved sooner rather than later, rather than leaving the page locked, as apparently David Pogue himself has left a lengthy comment on the talk page after engaging in some reversions with the earlier IPs used by ++ungood.  --C S (Talk) 10:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

++ungood is now basically just attacking me and questioning my motivations. So I feel no need to further the dicussion, as I think it is pointless. Perhaps a new voice would help. --C S (Talk) 10:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Glen Stoll – Article deleted. – 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Glen Stoll

 * - some defamatory material has been placed on the talk page for this article by a new user, in good faith I believe, with a question as to whether it can be included in the article. No sourcing is mentioned. The material is only on the talk page and not in the article, and the new user is just asking, so I'm not sure of how to proceed. I gave my suggestion to the new user on the talk page for the article, and on his/her talk page. My question is: Should the defamatory material be immediately deleted from the talk page? Yours, Famspear 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Removing it from the history by an admin as well, if possible, would be ideal. You could run a search and see if you can find any reliable sourcing, but this is seriously defamatory stuff.  -Jmh123 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Jmh123: Thanks. OK, I have deleted the material from the talk page. I noticed that the rule or guideline refers to material on ANY Wikipedia page, so I was pretty concerned. It's just that I have never removed another editor's material from a talk page before, so I wanted someone to hold my hand a little. I'm not an administrator, though. Someone with appropriate powers should consider removing from the history, if appropriate. Yours, Famspear 21:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (I'm not an admin either.) The whole entry is a coat rack for his legal problems and it isn't clear that he's particularly notable.  Everything there is sourced--I'm just not sure what the point is in having a bio about him, other than to publicize that he's a jerk who got in trouble. You could put a speedy delete tag on it, unless you feel that he is notable.   -Jmh123 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will go ahead and nominate it for speedy deletion. Steve Dufour 23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Fred Thompson – Content dispute. – 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Fred Thompson


Cited material is being removed/changed by Eseymour. Is quoting a word a copyright violation? If not, someone needs to review his editors changes and edit summary. This user thinks he owns this article.

I am posting his from a recommendation at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantocal (talk • contribs)


 * This is a content dispute. If you cannot resolve this by engaging involved editors, please pursue dispute resolution ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) – Resolved. – 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jonathan Wells


Some editers continually change content in the article to what is unsupported by the references and actually in complete contrast to the references. What is more is that they continually cite POV and undue weight as their reasons when it is their POV and undue weight that is an issue. The specific instances here is that Wells opposes evolution and rejects evolution when the references refer to Darwinism or Darwinian evolution and Wells' own words says he rejects the theory of evolution. The article also contains other poorly sourced content or sources open to interpretation. It seems pretty clear that a group of editors are trying to subvert policy to keep their POV in the article to discredit this scientist but two or three editors in particular seem very persistent to discredit him. One have even suggested him to not be a scientist and another has just made a threat referring to 3RR which is unwarranted as I have only made two reverts in this instance. What should I do, should I just keep on reverting the changes or should further action be taken against these users who continue to disregard policy. -196.207.32.38 13:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no BLP issue here. 196.* simply wants to push his POV by using the loaded term "Darwinian" evolution. As even the anon acknowledges above "Wells' own words says he rejects the theory of evolution". The anon's claim that he has only reverted twice is also a bit hard to understand given that previous reversions over the same issues were done by 196.38.218.24, 196.38.218.25 (which also made legal threats) all of which trace back to the same geographic area as the IP in question. They are clearly the same person, and he has been repeatedly reverting to his POV version. JoshuaZ 14:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Josh is right - there is no BLP issue here. Obviously the anon should try making his case on the talk page, rather than revert-warring.  There is an NPOV issue (the anon is trying to insert creationist code words into the article), but I can't see how there is a BLP issue.  Guettarda 15:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are contradicting yourselves. JoshuaZ has just supported that Wells rejects the theory of evolution but continues to maintain unsupported by the references that he rejects evolution. This is a clear attempt to discredit. There is also no record that 196.38.218.25 made legal threats which is just another attempt to discredit and is not helping your case. Threats with 3RR warning which is on record after 2 consecutive reverts were made is also unwarranted when it is a matter of following policy. If you have any case that the cited references support your POV please make it. -196.207.32.38 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a BLP violation, only a content dispute. There is no possibility of any harm to Jonathan Wells due to these wording changes that you dispute.  JoshuaZ's 3RR caution is just that, a caution.  He even said "please" as in "please also watch 3RR".  Hardly a threat.  Taking umbrage here isn't going to win your case for you.  Far from it. --C S (Talk) 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine this is the legal threat in question: "Even the references in the article refer to Darwinian evolution and clearly describes the theory of evolution. Stop reverting to slanderous [sic] and liable [sic] content." eaolson 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But is that really a "legal threat"? I think a legal threat requires some hint of action.  I remember the big dispute between Kelly Martin and Durin a year or two ago - KM made the point that there is a qualitative difference between calling something libel and calling it actionable libel.  It isn't a legal threat to tell someone that what they are doing constitutes a copyvio, even though you are telling someone that they have broken the law.  Guettarda 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a content dispute, nothing more. 196.207.32.38 has been a chronic disruptive editor pov pusher and crank who's now resorting to misusing process to game the system. I don't think he's worthy of an RFC since there's so little chance of redemption, but I do think it's time for apply WP:DE. Anyone else agree? Odd nature 19:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried to work on this article before, and (I hope) did a little good. Wells is not a scientist.  He is known as the author of a couple of books criticizing the teaching of evolution in schools.  The article is about 3 or 4 times too long for his real importance.  It goes into details about his college research papers and even into the cover picture of one of his books.  However, there is nothing in it that I would consider libel.  (p.s. I am in favor of legalizing marijuana.)  Steve Dufour 00:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Scott Crow – Resolved. – 17:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Defamation / Libel by written or printed words.
Please Remove Posting that declares that I am a Anarchist Organizer. Scott Crow

This is defamation and misrepresenting damagingly. Thi information is incorrect.

the sentence has been edited, now saying just that you are a community organizer.DGG (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie – Merged – 02:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie
Apparent POV fork from the main article. In my opinion, excessive emphasis. DGG (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merged POV fork. The material needs to be summarized to comply with WP:NPOV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Deep Ng – Resolved. – 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Deep Ng
The profile page keeps being vandalised and reverting back to deflamatory text regarding the singer. Is it possible to stop anyone else editing till this problem is resolved?--Chaosbladeuk 22:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)chaosbladeuk


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Lyndon LaRouche – Content dispute. – 00:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Lyndon LaRouche
Despite repeated requests and warnings, two editors (User:MaplePorter and User:NathanDW) continue to create fictitious cites to create the false impression that an entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica is really planted there by an anti-LaRouche author (in this case, me in my non-Wiki persona). These actions have repeatedly misrepresented the content and the authorship of the cited material. See: diff; diff; diff; diff. Cberlet 02:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Now another editor, User: Don't lose that number is totally misrepresenting an actual quote from Robert L. Bartley, writing in The Wall Street Journal. Bartley terms the LaRouchite "Children of Satan" title "overt anti-Semitism," yet according to User: Don't lose that number, "Most of this stuff is clearly 'coded' -- it's definately not the real thing." Then User: Don't lose that number moves the material under a subheading "Allegations of coded antisemitic discourse." Especially on a BLP page, attempts to minimize, dismiss, or hide published allegations of antisemitism or any form of bigotry raise serious issues for a serious encyclopedia. See: diff.--Cberlet 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Before adding the Encyclopedia Judaica cite to the article, Cberlet boasted on the talk page that he co-authored it:


 * The claim by Bartley is duly reported in my edit. However, we are not obliged to consider it authoritative, or to take it at face value. Bartley's article is mainly a defense of the Straussians, and an attack on Seymour Hersh and the New York Times. He then refers to the title of LaRouche's book on neoconservatism, "Children of Satan," as anti-Semitic. It is not -- it's about neoconservatism. To put it in the simplest terms, how believable is it to assume that a book with a big picture of Dick Cheney on the cover is actually about Jews?


 * Despite Bartley's disingenuous use of the word "overt," it is clear that he is making the same argument that Berlet's quotes make: criticism of neo-conservatives is actually coded anti-Semitism. It could be argued that these arguments are themselves anti-Semitic, as they trivialize real anti-Semitism.


 * It is ironic that Cberlet is invoking BLP here-- it is he that is slandering LaRouche as an anti-Semite, and attempting to "minimize, dismiss or hide" LaRouche's unambiguous statement of opposition to anti-Semitism by placing it at the end of the section. The BLP policy is intended to prevent defamation, not protect it. --Don&#39;t lose that number 13:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP/N cannot assist editors with content disputes. If you cannot find common ground, please pursue WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Lindsay Ashford – Resolved. – 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Lindsay Ashford

 * . This article has, as its second sentence, "Ashford publicly announced that he was a pedophile at the age of 34.[citation needed]". It then manages to go downhill from there, which is quite an impressive feat. It seems to have gone through afd and got kept based on "notability", which is all well and good, but as an article it's a heaping pile of junk. I don't have the time or the inclination to look into it at the moment, but this really doesn't look good... Shimgray | talk | 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The subject is quite unpleasant, but we should apply policy consistently. I have removed all unsourced material from the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jonathan King – Resolved. – 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jonathan King
- hello. Would love a few extra pairs of eyes on this one - to avoid the possibility of a slow burning edit war, and also to analyse the article from the point of view of the living people angle. I won't poisen the well, but the problems lie in the balance between JK's colorful career (and some rather enthusiastic claims), and his convictions for sexual offenses - thanks. Purples 00:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked the article and all claims are well sourced. I moved the prison sentence and his denial to a separate section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Zelma Mullins Pattillo – Deleted after AfD – 02:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Zelma Mullins Pattillo


Possibly autobiography or family-written and edited. Note that it is a poorly-written-poorlysourced orphan. Cross-posted on WP:COIN. Bearian 01:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Fixed typo, oops. -- Bearian 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a prod tag to the article and notified Pattillo on his/her user page, also mentioned that Creating an article about yourself might pertain. -Jmh123 05:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The prod tag is gone. It looks likes much of the article may be copyvio of Biography of Zelma Mullins Pattillo. 's talk page has some prior warnings in it. If someone has the time, listing at AfD might help fix the situation. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All tags were removed by an anon editor. Unregistered User:Patillo has wised up and isn't doing the editing anymore.  Since the same individual probably wrote the bio you linked, I don't know if that's copyvio or not.  An effort has been made to improve the entry, at least on superficial levels.  Her husband's bio Wesley_M. "Pat" Pattillo is similar and being edited by the same anon or anons.  I was told, "you will out of fairness need to remove countless male ministers already chronicled in Wikipedia but whose credentials -- academic and professional -- are far less significant."  Given that there are probably even more non-notable porn stars in Wikipedia whose entries are less well-written or resourced, I don't feel like pushing it. -Jmh123 01:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Article deleted after AfD. - Crockspot 02:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Alan Johnston – Inactive. – 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Alan Johnston


This user repeatedly blanks valid, sourced, uncontroversial biographical information from Alan Johnston on the grounds that it is "unnecessary info for someone who wants obscurity" and thus "is not acceptable". I'm sorry, but this is an award-winning notable journalist. The information is fully sourced and available all over the web, so how is it unnecessary? He's using WP:BLP to justify this removal. However, this is censorship of valid information in my view. There has been no discussion whatsoever. After I approached him on his talk page after the first removal (linked above "blanks") to discuss it here or on the talk page he refused and made the second change (liked above "repeatedly"). – Chacor 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is a discussion related to these actions here. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Michael Travesser – Article deleted. – 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Michael Travesser

 * - This page has absolutely no sources whatsoever. It is clearly written in an attempt to promote Michael Travesser. -- 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Promotion of someone is not really a BLP issue, but I listed the article at Articles for deletion/Michael Travesser (2nd nomination) which should resolve any BLP issues. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jonathan Antin – Resolved. – 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jonathan Antin

 * - The biography page of Jonathan Antin should be looked at, especially the discussion page needs a cleanup as it contains little discussion and a lot of irrelevant anti-Antin sentiment. I'd do it myself, but I'm still a rookie here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.29.91 (talk • contribs)
 * I've cleared out the talk page. The article itself looks fairly neutral at the moment. --Cherry blossom tree 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Grover Norquist – Inactive. – 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Grover Norquist
After I cleaned up this biography to make it more of an encyclopedia article and less of a political attack page, my edits were summarily reverted with a terse explanation. Some of the material restored consisted of WP:BLP violations of the most serious sort: unreferenced, inadequately referenced, or original research controversial information. Since material of this nature can be removed without regard to the 3RR, or general prohibitions against edit warring, I have repeated the removal of the most seriously problematic material, and issued an appropriate warning to the editor restoring it. The remainder of the content restored is also problematic insofar as its sheer volume in proportion to the remainder of the biography violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by placing undue weight on the negative aspects of Grover Norquist, insofar as it is written to disparage the subject of the article rather than from a neutral point of view, and insofar as some of the material repeats blatant, gratuitous personal attacks. However, since I believe that it is inadvisable for me to repeat the removal of this latter material at this time, I am requesting additional input relating to this issue. John254 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your task on this page. However, the issues at stake are not crystal clear to anyone who makes a quick visit to the page, and there is no discussion of these items yet at Talk:Grover Norquist. It might help for you to summarize a couple of these points on the Talk page at more length than you can do here. That might lead toward a Talk page consensus, which is useful to have if you want to ask for blocks later on for editing against consensus. EdJohnston 03:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to describe some of the remaining WP:BLP problems with this article on the talk page. John254 12:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm disappointed in John254. I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted. But I'm primarily disappointed in his complete lack of respect for a fellow editor -- shouting repeated threats of blocking in the history summary ("Do NOT restore without adequate references, or you may be BLOCKED for disruption"), making veiled legal threats with a templated block warning on my talk page, raising this to the level of the Noticeboard, trying to speedy delete a workshopping page in my userspace. It's very difficult to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, let alone trust the good intent of your fellow editors, especially ones willing to exercise their admin authority in articles they are themselves editing and engage in multiple forms of wikilawyering, when they comport themselves in such a manner. Although I personally believe that Wikipedia is improved by including more content rather than less (for example, Tucker Carlson's criticism of Norquist and Norquist's criticism of Bob Taft are illuminating of the nature of all three men and the politics of power), I wouldn't consider the ongoing editing process of the Norquist article to be particularly controversial or worthy of Noticeboard attention. I hope John254 will be willing to consider that I might not be in the defamatory libel personal attack business but am interested in building an accurate resource for scholars, one that is responsible to accuracy but doesn't self-censor. In particular, whereas I recognize that I may lean in one direction in my editing approach, I hope John254 may be willing to admit the possibility of fallibility -- that, for example, mentioning that Grover Norquist founded a controversial lobbying firm is not "defamatory"; and I'm willing to admit that Wikipedia doesn't have to mention that his nickname is Grosser Nosetwist or that Tucker Carlson hates his guts.--User At Work 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * User At Work's claim that "I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted." is factually incorrect. User At Work did revert all of my edits in their entirety (see ), then proceeded to make a content edit, and repeated the removal of one of the sections comprised of poorly sourced controversial material concerning a living person , but added the offending matter to the talk page .  Note, however, that Biographies_of_living_persons expressly states that the prohibition on unreferenced and inadequately referenced negative information concerning living people applies to talk pages:"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages."Under the circumstances, my edit summaries in removing the offending material for a second time were quite appropriate.  Editors who repeatedly insert controversial material concerning living people sourced to political attack websites , political blogs , and original syntheses of sources to draw general disparaging conclusions  may indeed be blocked for disruption per Blocking_policy, which states that  "A block for disruption may be necessary in response to... persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy..." User At Work's assertion that I was "making veiled legal threats with a templated block warning on... [his] talk page"  is likewise without merit.  template:blp2 is a widely used, legitimate warning template that informs editors that if they continue to insert unreferenced or inadequately referenced negative information concerning living people into Wikipedia, they may be blocked.  In fact, I have actually removed legal threats from blp-related warning templates on two occasions.


 * Biographies of living persons is a fundamental policy. I believe my efforts to enforce this policy were reasonable and judicious under the circumstances. John254 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will simply respond to say that my comment "I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted." is factually correct. John254 is demonstrating an excellent ability to link to edit histories and to policy pages but he seems to be lacking a willingness to work positively with me. Civility, Consensus and Ownership of articles are also official policy. I don't argue that he can find policy justification for repeatedly threatening me with being blocked. I just question why he chose to do so.--User At Work 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. John254 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. User At Work 06:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you guys don't mind an outside opinion here on this little dispute. From my investigation, it seems that the whole thing started when Cunctator (as User At Work), reverted John254's removal of material which cited BLP violations, with the edit summary "revert whitewash". This was simply a gross mistake. Ones does not simply restore a swath of BLP violating content with that kind of edit summary. Now, User At Work followed up those edits by removing some significant portions, citing poor sourcing as a concern. But this only reaffirms that chunks of the removed material were indeed BLP violating. If some of this material is not in fact BLP violating, Cunctator should have just restored those bit, or even better, discussed with John254 on the talkpage why he removed these other (possibly) more appropriate bits.

For example, it seems evident to me that the (now removed) "personality" section is rather weak and defamatory. Now given Cunctator's style of editing, he may have been intending to remove that at a later point. But as I said before, that's not a very good style, as it only causes confusion to other editors.

I do think John254 has overreacted here, but I can see partially at least why. I don't know why Cunctator chooses to use a sockpuppet account, but I don't think using two accounts like this is wise, since it can inadvertently lead to these kinds of situations. I think John254's edit summaries were worded rather strongly, and I think using warning templates on user talk pages of established users can often be seen as rather aggressive. A more personal message, I think, would have been much better. --C S (Talk) 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's forget about the sockpuppetry for a minute
Getting back to the article content, the restored edit was entirely negative. The fact that another politician referred to Norquist as "Grosser Nosetwist", or that he is listed in the book 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America may be properly cited, but there is literally nothing positive in this article, not even praise from his fellow conservatives, which I assume must exist somewhere. Thatcher131 15:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Point one: Negative content isn't banned by the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
 * Point two: John254 redeleted that content without any dispute.
 * Point three: Again, noone is complaining that the deleted content should be restored.
 * So why is this even being discussed? --User At Work 14:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jindřich Feld – Resolved. – 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jindřich Feld
I am in correspondence with User:Denis63 who claims to have been a friend of the composer, who, he (?) claims additionally (I can and should I think invite him? here)- died two days ago... (see both and  which is not reflected anywhere I can find (including JStor sources) so far..., but  then much isn't reflected on the web. (And I have to try again with some other sources I think I have access to- I may have, as a staffperson, access to newspapers etc. not checked by Yahoo. But he is or was a major Czech composer.) Have suggested as a compromise that instead of removing entirely his contributions, I leave them in with (but on reflection since this requires removal from the Living people category and protections therein, that may be a bit much.) Suggestions? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * - edits by alleged friend of subject- can evidence be provided in allowed fashion? // Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)  or


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Al Gore III and Noelle Bush – AfD closed as no consensus. – 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Al Gore III and Noelle Bush
I have nominated both Al Gore III and Noelle Bush to be redirected to their more prominent relatives due to issues related to BLP policy. If anyone here would like to weigh in, pro or con, please do so: Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_and_Noelle_Bush. Kaldari 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Stone Phillips – Just BJAODN. – 07:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Stone Phillips
Someone posted the following addition, without reference: [unsourced material removed -- Jonel (Speak to me)]

I highly doubt that this addition is valid, and I removed it. Obviously I could be wrong.... Twohlford 01:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what WP:BJAODN is for. --The Cunctator 06:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Brian Souter – Resolved. – 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Brian Souter

 * - Article is being used to defame a well-known public figure. Zero balance or attempt at NPOV. // Mais oui! 05:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find a single defamatory element in this well-sourced article. --The Cunctator 06:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * are we looking at the same version: accuses the company the runs of various monopolistic schemes, includes a clearly scurrilous quote, contains accusations that he is homophobic, & even discusses the arrest of morals charge of another executive in the company. The material is in each case documented by the BBC or the Guardian, so is presumably correct, but the article certainly does contain strong negative elements, and almost exclusively so. I'd suggest at least removing one or two sentences & seeing if thereis any positive material to add. DGG (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article was a POV mess. Removed material that was inconsistent with a BLP, and placed an explanation in talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Greg Felton – Article deleted. – 17:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Greg Felton
This article was first raised on Editor_assistance/Requests by who says that the article is about him and it has been vandalised with untruths and liabelous comments. Mr Felton has a controversial approach to Zionism and the State of Israel. Can somebody please take a look, when I saw the article and googled him my immediate thought was just to Afd it, but theres probably more to this article than meets the eye. Mike33 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the material being adding is clearly inappropriate content. The base of the actual article at present is NPOV, with the expression of POV being confined to the titles of one article & one posting he has writtenDGG (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Nessan Quinlivan – Resolved. – 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Nessan Quinlivan
Completely unsourced article about an IRA member and two-times escapee from British prisons (The Maze, 1983, Brixton, 1991). There does seem to be quite a bit of material on this fellow around, particularly following the 1991 escape, but I'm unlikely to be able to work on this to bring it up to standard over the next few days. Any volunteers? I'll dump some likely sources on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * not for the first time in my life I'll be a Volunteer.--Vintagekits 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Clarence Vaughn – Resolved. – 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Clarence Vaughn
- A borderline case in which we have a content dispute whether to include information about his criminal past, sourced from a government website, even though there are no secondary sources reporting on the situation. More feedback would be quite welcome. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The type of material that should not be added to BLPs. Placed a warning note in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Andy Samberg – Resolved. – 17:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Andy Samberg
I have some concerns about the detailed (ie birth dates) info about other family members that has been inserted here a few times. I've reverted 3 times today, and I think another opinion may be in order. Kevin 00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed non-encyclopedic content about family members, and semi-protected the page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * Thanks Kevin 03:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Sylvia Browne – Resolved. – 02:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Sylvia Browne

 * - I have deleted a section based on a self-published source (an attack site) that does not meet the criteria established in BLP, and that also violates WP:V. The section in question is Sylvia_Browne.

After the deletion an editor has restored the material on the basis that I have edited the article before and therefore my action could not accepted as a BLP intervention. I would appreciate if other BLP watchers can comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been a while, and there has been a fair bit of editing in the past few days, but it appears now that the attack site might be a fair critism, and is not given undo weight in the article, which is full of critism of Ms. Browne. --Rocksanddirt 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Lindley DeVecchio – Stubbed; inactive. – 02:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Lindley DeVecchio

 * - warned of 3RR violation
 * - warned of 3RR violation

There seems to be some blatant plagarism of newspaper articles here, as well as some unsourced opinions which are extremely critical of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.124.139 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not call it plagarism when there are both articles and docs on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.20.72 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes there are many articles regarding the alleged curruption of this agent devecchio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.20.72 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've nearly blanked the article. Please feel free to add material back in with proper sourcing, which means specific in-text citations rather than pointing to the laundry list of stuff on the talk page.  The article also needs to maintain a neutral point of view. -- Jonel | Speak 15:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Al Gore III – Inactive, edit warring seems to have died down. – 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Al Gore III

 * - following an unflattering national news story about this young man, the article was preemptively locked and has now disappeared altogether, deleted I believe with no valid cause by User:JzG. This person is notable as the son of a former Vice President of the United States and current politically active figure.  I believe this deletion is pure and blantant POV whitewashing.  Its elimination, particularly at a time when many people are likely to be searching for it, is IMO terribly damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia as a neutral source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusher robot (talk • contribs)
 * Discussion of this issue is ongoing at Administrators' noticeboard. JzG has also expressed his reasoning at User talk:JzG -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope it will be deleted. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a place to learn something, not to share gossip about celebrities. Steve Dufour 00:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The situation is not improving. After an edit/wheel war, the disputed content was restored and protected. I have explained the problem with that on the talk page but my opinion (redirect, discuss, restore if consensus to restore) does not carry much weight there it seems. Avb 12:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: Both discussions mentioned by Jonel have been archived, the AN thread here, and JzG's here.
 * Comment: The current protected version is not as bad as other recent versions, but will, I expect, deteriorate when protection is removed. CWC 13:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See also Articles for deletion/Al Gore III and Noelle Bush and . Avb 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The combination of the articles about these two people makes no sense. There is no evidence they have even met. They are not Bonnie and Clyde. So as the closer of the recent AFD said, please in the future nominate them separately if at all. AFDs are not for indiscriminate collections of articles. Edison 15:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Mean Red Spiders – Resolved. – 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Mean Red Spiders


Can some take a look at this info that I've reverted on Mean Red Spiders. Its uncited, I've been unable to verify it, and it seems to me to be damaging to the subject. Thanks. Ceoil 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You did well, Ceoil. The source used (mySpace) was not a reliable source for that claim. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm on revert 3 against a single purpose account and an ip, and have just been reverted. My guess is that this is a gruge; admin help would be welcome. Ceoil 00:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no 3RR limit on removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material from BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's 3RR to undo the removal actions of another editor on a single page within a 24-hour period, which seems to have done. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 20:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the raw history entries suggest that 74.123.67.42 is close to violating 3RR, four edits in 25 hours that might be reverts of the same info. But is it worth it to block an IP? How about semi-protection? There is also a named editor, User:Dashumphreys, who could be David Humphreys.
 * FIRST REVERT 17:55, 8 July 2007 74.123.67.42 (Talk) (5,904 bytes) (Undid revision 143357139 by Ceoil (talk))
 * FOURTH REVERT18:23, 9 July 2007 74.123.67.42 (Talk) (6,070 bytes) (Undid revision 143572358 by Jreferee (talk))
 * EdJohnston 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Further revision Undid revision 143572358 by Jreferee (talk)

More: This is a single purpose ip that seems to be static. The info it's adding appears to be malicious. I've checked all sources provide, and then some, and none hint at what it's trying to re-insert. There has been no effort at article talk and no engagement with notes left on its own talk. And no developement of the unvariable info it is continually restoring. Is it possible to determine if the ip is static or dynamic, and implement whichever block is appropriate. Thanks for staying with this. Ceoil 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It goes on. Just to say that two single purpose accounts (ie socks) are adding unsourced (actually a dishonest source was added) are making unveriable and damaging claims against the lead singer of this band. The accounts are also attempting to make adjustments to the band's current line-up in the infobox which contradict the official website. My guess is it's not David Humphreys, but someone trying to discredit him. Ceoil 20:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are blocks for and User:Dashumphreys the next step?  Both editors have been warned. Neither seems to have any intention of stopping. EdJohnston 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, block them. This will go on forever otherwise. As the offender is an infrequent user, a short block will mean nothing and most likely be unnoticed. I'd recomment c. 1 month. The ip address is static, and both accounts are single purpose. Clearly, block. Ceoil 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * UPDATE. There have been no offending edits from either of the two accounts since 16 July. I suggest that this might be closed as a BLP item, if the editors who participated here are willing to keep the article on their watch lists. EdJohnston 03:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Duke Kimbrough McCall – Inactive. – 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Duke Kimbrough McCall
The same editor as the one noted directly above in the Zelma Mullins Pattillo BLPN matter,, has created a similarly written article at -- Bearian 01:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Dawn Butler – Resolved. – 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Dawn Butler


Dawn Butler's entry is repeatedly having a statement that she does not live in her constituency and claims a parliamentary allowance for a second home there. Both these statements are false, and I think that the second could be construed as defamatory.

Sarah Teather's entry contains a related staement that she is the only Brent MP not to claim a second home allowance. As there are three Brent MPs, and two do not claim such an allowance, this is false. Brentcentral 10:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When you say second home allowance do you mean Additional Costs Allowance? theyworkforyou.com suggests that Teather doesn't claim this and the other two do. I'm not sure it's relevant beyond simple point scoring, though. I agree that the stuff that's been removed from the Dawn Butler article shouldn;t be there and have watchlisted that article. --Cherry blossom tree 11:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the theyworkforyou.com info refers to a previous year. The use of the present tense is therefore incorrect. Brentcentral 10:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Burt Reynolds – Resolved. – 02:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Burt Reynolds


User:Rogue Gremlin is repeatedly adding unsourced claims as to what Burt Reynolds has said about his birthplace in interviews on television shows. He is now arguing here that if he cannot include those claims, then all citations from Reynold's autobiography should be removed. He also states here that a published book that is not accessible on-line should not be used as a source. I am losing my patience with him and need other eyes to watch this. -- Donald Albury 20:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He cites the Carol Burnett Show as a source. Isn't that a fictional sitcom? How can it even be considered a source? Quatloo 09:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, The Carol Burnett Show was a variety show. While variety show hosts usually chat with their guests on-air before the show itself starts, it's unlikely they had such in-depth biographical information. And contrary to Rogue's edit summaries, you can't just "find the episode and watch it", its doubtful these shows are even available in the archives of the Museum of Radio and Television, the premiere American library of such record. They cannot be cited. --  Zanimum 14:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Gremlin is now repeatedly deleting cited sources from the Burt Reynolds article. I shouldn't revert him anymore today. Could someone please take another look at this? -- Donald Albury 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good grief, that is one poorly written entry. Sorry, I can't take this on, but I wanted to reinforce your statements.  This is an entry that needs some major work, and Rogue Gremlin is not being helpful or cooperative.  -Jmh123 01:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Perez Hilton – Resolved. – 04:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Perez Hilton


Would like to get some opinions on whether or not it is legitimate to reference Perez Hilton's blog, PerezHilton.com, as a source for gossip he publishes about celebrities. I say BLP and WP:V are very clear about using blogs as sources about third parties. One user, who tends to guard the article's content very carefully, claims that as Wikipedia isn't saying the gossip isn't true, it's perfectly OK to include it; the citations are only sourcing statements that Hilton said these things. Of particular concern: what I call a "hit list" of people Hilton is apparently calling on to come out of the closet, to which people are continually adding names, sourced only to his blog, or not sourced at all. I count eleven citations to his blog in the entry. There are other sources cited that aren't particularly reliable either. In my opinion, with the exception of the section on his legal problems, the entry is just a satellite of his gossip blog. You can see a fuller discussion of this issue on the article's talk page here.  -Jmh123 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is not simply a biography of a living person. It is to a large extent about the blog itself. The blog is both extremely popular and notable, if we measure notability by the massive amount of attention given to it by the mainstream press.  On no other issue than "outing" celebrities has Mario Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton) received more attention and controversy. It is essential therefore that the most notable content of PerezHilton.com be reported in its Wikipedia entry, along with a citation of the blog as a primary source.  The claim that "Lavandeira calls on x, y and z celebrities to come out of the closet, although many of them maintain they are heterosexual" is not directly about the living persons x y or z. Rather, it a claim about the speculations of a gossip blogger, which no matter how dubious, remain undeniably notable and verifiable.--Agnaramasi 20:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agnaramasi is the user I've been discussing this issue with on Perez Hilton "talk", and since he's expressed his opinion here, I'll delete my synopsis.  -Jmh123 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * i concur with agnaramasi's assessment. the subject matter of the article is paris hilton, his blog, and his sometimes wild accusations and parodies. when ph makes a claim or charge against someone, for better or worse, it becomes notable. there no better way to substantiate a claim than to go to the source, which is to reference the blog. --emerson7 | Talk 22:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was hoping to hear from some folks who weren't regular editors of the Perez Hilton entry. Oh well.  In the meantime, I have done some revision of that part of the article, adding more critique of his approach from noted members of the gay community, and changing the order, so that at least the article contains more analysis of Hilton's obsession with outing. I'm continuing to explore sources. -Jmh123 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your addition is very good and much appreciated.--Agnaramasi 00:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hunh, this raises some sticky issues. Yes, the Perez Hilton article should contain info about his activities and controversies which are mostly related to his blog.  Using his blog as a source that he made certain statements, accusations, etc., is perfectly fine.  Nonetheless we need to be careful that we aren't adding material to this article in a way that circumvents the BLP policy on other people's biographies.  For example, with the outing controversy, it would be perfectly appropriate to discuss it, adding links to his blog.  It becomes much trickier when one starts mentioning names that he outed.  It's one thing to link to the blog post where he does the outing, and another to put it directly into the Perez Hilton article.  I would use the guideline: if the outing has garnered enough press that it can be considered common knowledge and is in the outed person's bio, then it is ok to mention the name.  However, creating some kind of complete list of every single person he has outed and is outing may not be appropriate, especially if the list is quite long; I don't keep up with this stuff so I have no idea how long it would be.  I would think just a handful of names would be enough info to make whatever point in the summary of the outing business.


 * In any case, I think there is a valid concern here. If something is not suitable for a subject's bio, we ought to give very careful consideration before inserting a related statement in some other article, whether or not that is itself a bio.  --C S (Talk) 16:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "If the outing has garnered enough press that it can be considered common knowledge and is in the outed person's bio, then it is ok to mention the name." Yes! Exactly right! Thanks, C S! CWC 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From the list, I found 3 of 10 who had some mention of sexual orientation in their Wikipedia bio. Quoting PH directly (with link), I have kept these names in but deleted the others, and included the disclaimers (maintain they are heterosexual or it's nobody's business), as none has come out. Don't know if I'm going to have an argument with the other editors on this or not. Hope not.  I have to say that the Anderson Cooper article has some iffy sourcing on this topic.  -Jmh123 00:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Michael Lucas (porn star) – Inactive. – 14:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Michael Lucas (porn star)


It appears that Lucas uses an anon IP (216.57.17.234) and, until "outed," (see the Talk page) the username User:Lucasent (Lucas Entertaiment), to edit his own Wikipedia page. He usually stays within the boundaries, but has apparently recently recruited some of his fans to make sure external links to his blog, myspace, and Lucas Entertainment are included, as well as a passage about an "unauthorized" biography. (216.57.17.234 claimed in an edit comment that Lucas "can't stand the book," but he and several new anons keep adding the external links and reference to the book back in whenever they are removed.) Another editor has made a good case on the Talk page, I think, for not including these links and mention of the biography. Reversions have been going back and forth on this for days. Each contested edit could go either way, as to whether it should legitimately be included or not, but I'm bringing this up now because Lucas may be recruiting others to make sure the entry is written the way he wants it to be written. It's an unusual BLP issue in that the individual is apparently requesting potentially harmful material about himself be included (as well as promotional links)--is it a case of "please don't throw me into the briar patch"? It is my personal opinion based on a long controversy over an entry on one of his new "stars" (now deleted via 2nd AfD and no longer working for Lucas) that Lucas has been around Wikipedia a long time, knows how to work the system, and knows the benefits of Wikipedia for self-promotion and promotion of his company. See Lucas Entertainment (now merged). Any perspective, advice, recommendations, comment? Thanks. -Jmh123 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can offer my observations. When I first came across this article, I immediately noticed some conspicuous omissions vis-à-vis what I'd read about this actor Andrei Treivas (Michael Lucas): e.g., Lucas's work as a male prostitute in Europe and in NYC, Lucas's work under Jean-Daniel Cadinot, the fact that Lucas founded his production company with money he earned from working as a prostitute, and the fact that Lucas located his company in NYC (instead of the more traditional Los Angeles) because of the lack of competition in NYC.  Over time these facts were added and some balance was achieved.  Along came 216.57.17.234 (hereinafter referred to as "216") who proceeded to, at times, systematically, and at times, haphazardly, delete any mention of these facts or anything else s/he didn't like, most times without any edit summary and almost never with any dialogue on the talk page.  The only time 216 wrote on the talk page was in response to a challenge to an awards box; s/he wrote that the challenging editor should go to Johnny Hazzard's page or Chi Chi Larue's page and edit their awards boxes, in effect saying, "this is my page, leave it alone and go edit somebody else's page." I cannot be sure that 216 and Lucas are one and the same, but it's a well-known fact that Lucas is a shameless self-promoter.  216 has added and re-added material that promoted the products of Lucas's production company, sometimes using the same phrasing as that used in the company's website.  In a 4 April edit on a related page, that of Lucas's "La Dolce Vita" film, 216 added the entire plot section lifted directly from the production company website.  And in one peculiar addition on 24 April, 216 added "lungfish" to the list of animals living with Lucas in NYC.  Go try and find anything on the internet about lungfish and Lucas -- you won't.  Based on her/his history, I don't think it will be sufficient to place the page under partial protection or to even block 216 from editing.  216's confederates will simply come along and edit as they please, as seen in the activity of Theshape4 while the page was under partial.  I don't know the exact jargon to express this, but I would suggest two things:  have the activities of 216, Lucasent, and Theshape4 investigated for the issues you've raised; and, have the page placed under the form of protection whereby additions can only be made by an authority from Wikipedia.  Thank you for your good work.  71.127.230.77 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thes comments themselves are against BLP policies and should be removed immediately. If it weren't for people not signing in, Iwould tag your user page right now. Basejumper 22:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Amir Taheri – Semi-protected until 5 September. – 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Amir Taheri
→  See also : Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive13

- anons keep reverting to a version containing unsourced and dubious attacks. We had similar problems in May. (Also, I'd appreciate a critique of my messages at Talk:Amir Taheri and user talk:Nyisnotbad.) Thanks, CWC 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources used for the criticism are usually considered to have a political POV, but that's where political criticism is published. However, it's unfair to present it in totally general terms, and criticism of his work should go with specific references where the work is discussed. It is appropriate to indicate the source more clearly in the article, with a link to the WP page describing it so people can judge. The comment on the lack of sources for his ed. was out of line without a much better source. The current version [ seems fair. [[User:DGG|DGG]] 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A comparison of recent edits with the previous March/April discussion in BLP/N Archive 13 shows that the same users (with minor variations in the 75.* IP range) are still trying to turn this biography into an attack piece. They also typically remove publishers and ISBNs from the bibliography. — Athaenara ✉ 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Last anti-Taheri edit summary was "RV, well there are about 12 people who are dedicated to blocking your attempted whitewash of the Taheri entry. Either compromise or have fun reverting forever". I've requested semi-protection. CWC 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection granted. Expires in two weeks. Good-oh, CWC 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Users and  have both reverted to the no-ISBNs, more-POV version. Both seem to be WP:SPAs. I've given both a blp2-n warning. CWC 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * has reverted again, so I've issued a uw-biog4 ("The next time ... you will be blocked") warning. I expect Unclezeb to do a revert soon. CWC 09:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Block Requested. has reverted twice (!) after my warning. This may well be a WP:SPA. Could an admin please administer an appropriate block? Thanks, CWC 11:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Full protection expired after two weeks, the vandal is back. Ankimai 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Les Visible – Inactive. – 14:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Les Visible

 * - Status of this article is completely unclear. Contains a lot of unsourced claims (including arrests, etc. of the subject), which I haven't been able to verify. Article was created by an SPA; can't even exclude COI or autobiography. Person is probably notable (WP:MUSIC, CDs released), but the current article seems highly inappropriate. // B. Wolterding 14:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to post this on the Conflict of interest noticeboard as well. -Jmh123 15:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I don't have enough concrete evidence for a COI at this time, let's discuss it here first. --B. Wolterding 19:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion seems to have stalled on this entry. What would you suggest - stubify? delete? leave as is? --B. Wolterding 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }