Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive45

Ian Blair
, head of the Metropolitan Police, currently about as popular as a fart in a space suit but the article might just as well be titled "list of things the Daily Mail uses to attack Ian Blair". I removed the crap and left a strongly worded note on Talk about the need for WP:NPOV, but a pound says that it will be back in all its venom unless we watch the article. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. FCYTravis (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Far too much, definitely. Not to say that some of it isn't notable, especially the Menezes bit, but putting in a random remark about the Second World War? Bit much. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You should watch your edit titles. Removing half the article with an edit title of "Disgusting" rather than any mention of BLP, NPOV etc. was an invitation for a reversion as vandalism.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Something needed to be done, I agree, but at the moment the article does not mention Jean Charles de Menezes, and that is completely unacceptable. I left a note on Guy's talk page about this, and I hope he will take the initiative and start to re-add material. If he does not, then he is breaching WP:NPOV. Guy, would you wade into Jean Charles de Menezes and Ken Livingstone and other articles, and cut huge swathes out of those ones (and no, please don't go and do that - raise your concerns on the talk page first). Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Things were not helped by the previous criticism of this article on the talk page featuring posts such as when press and political criticism came from more directions than the mainstream right of British politics. Hopefully we'll get something much stronger out of Carcharoth's rewrite.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tamara Davies
An almost totally unsourced article (only IMDB) about a minor, though IMHO likely notable US actress. Add to this the likelyhood that the article was originally created by a known false-information vandal, and you have a bad situation. User:David from Downunder has, for months now, been apparently working to fix things there, and has given up and is repeatedly hatchet-stubbing the article. Given the BLP situation and lack of good sourcing, I don't really blame him, but the hatchet-stubbing has been going of for a while now with no progress toward a true good article. I'm not a great researcher of good sourcing, but I think that David really needs some assistance here in building a brand new, properly sourced, article from the ground up.

Update. While I was typing this, the article was A7 speedy deleted. I do think she is likely notable, and will drop a note on the deleting admin's talk page, but whether deleted or not, IMHO anything placed there really should be from scratch. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A subtle correction: I didn't resort to hatchet stubbing because I gave up... what happened was that I did originally tried to improve the article by removing fabricated material that had been put into that article by insidious vandals who had been inserting believable but totally fabricated material into many Wikipedia articles. Then I discovered that all the material for the Davies article was contributed by these same people, so I decided that the only proper course of action was to remove all the material they had added to any article, which included stubbing that article.


 * For verification, I even contacted one of the people whose article had false but believable information inserted into it by these vandals. It was after that verification that I removed all the content that those users had put into any article (BLP or not.)


 * I do not have the time or interest in building up the Davies article - I only keep it on my watch list to ensure that those fabrications stay off Wikipedia. (Well, some or much of it may be true... I take the pragmatic view that there is much good unsourced content on Wikipedia and I very rarely remove any of it. I made an exception in this case because the record of the contributing editors.)


 * You should also be aware that some of the information on IMDB was not there when I started correcting this article. It was taken from Wikipedia (or put there by the same vandals) and now appears to provide weight to the things I've been deleting. --David from Downunder (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nazi orgies" tabloid allegation regarding Max Mosley
Before I run over 3RR regarding a person I know little about, can I please have at least one sane person look at Max Mosley's page? I believe that tabloids -- Bild, News of the World -- are not reliable sources, and the section that anons and occasional editors keep adding fails our BLP policy. Am I out of my mind? Is anything in this section acceptable? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely completely non-encyclopedic. FCYTravis (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Treat as vandalism, revert revert revert, if you get 3RR blocked e-mail me for an immediate unblock.--Docg 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page has been fully protected for a day, fyi. -- Naerii  20:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in which time its now all over the Times, the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph. Sheesh. Over-reaction, anyone? Relata refero (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was quite the correct reaction. As long as our only sources are tabloids, then it is inappropriate to add them. Now that we have better sources, it's fine. The fact things change, doesn't mean we made a mistake, we should always report things after they are published in reliable sources, not before... Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rick Reilly
In May of 2007, I noticed a certain editor had a fixation to add info in a biased manner to Rick Reilly's article (My first revert here). My recollection is that he was blocked for 3rr and for using multiple IP's and socks to edit war (An archived ANI thread I found is here). After dealing with the socks for a while and trying unsuccessfully to keep out the material which was, as far as I could find, only linked to one source (unlike the U of Colorado sex scandal, which Reilly criticized; it was subject to much media scrutiny) --I tried to keep the material and the source, but present it in a factual way (change diff). This change did not satisfy the editor as it did not properly impugn Mr. Reilly's character and successfully paint him as a hypocrite as did his earlier version. I have no idea why it is so important to this editor (appears to be the same user) for this info to be included, but s/he has occasionally popped up to re-insert the info (latest diff).
 * Could a couple of editors help watch the article?
 * Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the info should be included in whole or in part?
 * I'm thinking just throw out the info all together. My recollection from doing research on it last year is that no further news articles could be found.  Also in the only reference for this info, it stated, "Prosecutors decided not to file charges because there were conflicting statements from the teenagers involved and not enough physical evidence to determine who was telling the truth."  I'm not even sure if they were talking about charges against Reilly or not, as Reilly was not at his home when the alleged incident took place.


 * Thanks in advance for any assistance. This appears to be a longterm campaign, and I need backup.  R. Baley (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just came here to report this, but found one already filed. It does not look like any legitimate "controversy" anyway; I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't be included at all. The source given does not mention any "controversy" rising from this episode. Budding Journalist 06:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow; just had a look at the history for the page; this issue has been ongoing since 2005! Budding Journalist 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page; I explain my reasons on the talk page. Basically, I think this is more vandalism than content dispute, so semi-protection is appropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The latest edit to insert the inappropriate material is here and was inserted about 20 minutes ago. My thanks to BJ for his help so far, but I still think there needs to be some more input to resolve this one way or the other. . .more eyes please,  R. Baley (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit has been reverted again by BJ (diff), but I would still ask that a few people comment, either here or on the talk page. I would like to have a discussion to point to down the road, because this will keep coming up, I think. Thanks,  R. Baley (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * aaand back again. Please help,  R. Baley (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with both the removal of the content, and the addition of semi-protection: R. Baley's assessment of the situation is good, and as he said, only one source for the material could be found, and so if no other sources can be found to both further verify this information and allow it to be more NPOV, I believe and agree that removing it is best. In fact, I think the entire "Controversies" section in the article should go as well, as none of it is sourced at all. Acalamari 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lake City School District
- User editwars to add pejorative unsourced information about a school basketball coach and principal, continuing after being warned on 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC). Please note also this comment posted at AN/3RR about the ongoing real-life consequences. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a warning message explaining our policies on his talk page; while I think he's acting in good faith, unfortunately he's making unsourced allegations. If he persists, we'll just have to block, unfortunately. FCYTravis (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've explained things to the user on my talk page, and the user seems to have stopped reverting. There were sources, but not proper ones&mdash;e.g. a student newspaper, I think. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Student newspapers are reliable sources. Unfortunately, he was linking not to a newspaper, but to his assertion that he was a reporter for the high school student newspaper, and that his reporting was censored by the administration (unfortunately possible at the high school level.) As a student journalist myself, I sympathise, but obviously we can't allow unpublished assertions. FCYTravis (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The user again posted similar negative information, this time with the only "source" given being a broken link. I'm not convinced that student newspapers are a reliable source for this type of thing: I'd have to see your arguments or a reference to a guideline or something. For this type of allegation, very high quality sources are needed IMO. I don't think student newspapers qualify. Even small local newspapers may not qualify. Besides verifiability, the information probably isn't sufficiently notable or relevant, either. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Deseret News isn't a student newspaper in any event - it is the second largest newspaper in Utah, a competitor to the Salt Lake Tribune. The source for that issue is certainly impeccable - but whether that minor incident is really encyclopedic in the broader context of a school district's encyclopedia article, is questionable at best. FCYTravis (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine; I was referring to an earlier source, "Highland Times" or something, which I presumed was a student newspaper. I still haven't seen a proper citation to Desert News:  all I saw was a broken link, no title of article or date of publication or anything.  Anyway, that would be one source.  There would have to be "multiple, highly reliable sources"; it would have to be shown that the information is sufficiently relevant to the article;  and per BLP the information would have to be presented as "allegations" (even if stated as fact in the newspaper), since published stories don't always turn out to be true.  What is the reason for including the information, anyway?  Is it useful to the reader, or is it being included for the sole purpose of defaming someone's reputation?  Certainly negative information is sometimes encyclopedic, but I'm not sure that's the case here. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting in unsourced material to BLP articles
Let's play a game, we can call it "let's revert in unsourced statements". Let me begin, I get ten points for every unsourced statement that someone has reverted into a single article about a living figure.

Self-promotion was something of an obsession with James's father.

Once he faded from the public eye, James was employed in a series of low paid jobs but by his own admission usually didn't last very long before being fired or quitting.

Initially he thought himself to be gay and tried the gay lifestyle but didn't fit in.

''Allen discovered that many of the qualifications had been purchased on the internet and that Harries' own mother had overseen Harries' counselling on the psychological aspects of gender reassignment. A number of other aspects of the family's life did not bear scrutiny.''

''Since Harries' childhood the family, who live in Cardiff, Wales, have been persecuted by neighbours who take exception to Harries' "transvestitism" and the perceived snobbery of the family. Cabbages are often thrown at the windows of their house. ''

All in the article on living figure Lauren Harries.

Shall we play another game? it's called Tabloids are now considered a reliable source and even if a whole section is based upon tabloids and the blog of a tabloid, then we should take no notice of policy because, hey it's best to have some poorly sourced material than nothing at all, you can see it being played in this edit.

I guess bruce is pissed that the Seal material (see section above) was removed, however that's not an excuse to reinsert unsourced or poorly sourced material about living figures. --87.114.13.4 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets play another game instead. Lets see how much we can delete from wikipedia as a banned user by bending the BLP rules for contentious material to stuff that should just have a fact tag. Score extra points if we happen to take out sourced material in the process. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I invite people to check the edits I made, they speak for themselves. --87.114.13.4 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, when you were blocked, you lost the right to make any edits at all, even good ones. I have blocked this IP for you; if you want to be unblocked, request it using your original account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually not the case, please see the difference between blocking and banning. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And if we weren't having to devote resources to your game of "Let's see how much trouble I can cause even after I've been blocked" (banned? You mentioned earlier you had been banned, if it's the same person as earlier), we'd have more resources to look at the articles instead of cleaning up the messy trail of edits-after-block. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple trolling, revert his wikipedia space contributions, block, ignore but do make sure to go and check out his claims about BLP after you've reverted his self-satisfied game playing. Don't revert genuine BLP edits in the mainspace though, please. -- Naerii  23:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is the blocked/banned user? I keep seeing all the reversions here. Can someone provide a link to the ban? Was it ArbCom? We usually revert the contributions of banned users, but not blocked users. The constant reverting here is causing more drama, please stop. Kelly  hi! 00:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It'll take me a while to dig through ANI archives, but here is the sockpuppet report Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. Check the talk page for a list of more IPs he's used. I edited my original comment to clarify; I don't see anything wrong with people reverting his Wikipedia space contributions. -- Naerii  00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the case, but the reverting is disruptive. Please either get a checkuser and block the IPs, or just block them if it's obviously him evading his block. But does it really hurt anything to let him have his say here if the comments don't violate any policy? There's no need for anyone to even answer if his points are baseless, and definitely no need to "win" by erasing everything he writes. If this is a real problem then follow the community procedure for a ban, please. Kelly  hi! 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't checkuser the IPs as he keeps logging off and changing them. For more evidence of his disruption 12 (someone notes in that one that a rangeblock is unworkable) and then today he admitted he's doing it to wind Abd up. --  Naerii  00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please follow the community procedure for banning, this sounds like maybe a viable candidate for that. But until you do, please stop the constant reverting here, it disrupts things for those of us attempting to follow this noticeboard. Thank you! Kelly  hi! 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A ban is already in place. No administrator is willing to unblock. But I'll stop reverting. -- Naerii  00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like the ban policy has changed since I last looked at it. I will make a post at AN now. -- Naerii  00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks...yes, I do not see User:Fredrick day at Wikipedia:List of banned users. Kelly  hi! 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BU is manually updated and perpetually out-of-date; not being listed there is certainly not proof that an editor isn't banned. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP. It's entirely inappropriate that he was blocked for removing BLP violations. As well, FisherQueen's block of the IP was inappropriate, as he was not banned, merely blocked. We do not simply remove all good contributions from an account because it is blocked. That's the difference between a block and a ban. It is unacceptable that an admin would let their zeal get in the way of BLP, which is non-negotiable. BLP violating edits MUST be removed, no matter by whom. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He's not blocked for "removing BLP violations." He's blocked for vandalism, gross incivility, and extensive sock puppetry for block evasion. He's now using remote IPs from all over the world. What is missed here is that any legitimate user may bring his contributions back in. So ... if you think one of this insanely pushy blocked editor's edits is good, just bring it back in, taking responsibility for it. He's trolling here for exactly what Swatjester did, trying to get Wikipedians to fight with each other. Please, take a look at Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day and, for recent activity, Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. Just as has been the case with other blocked editors, all identified edits from this user are being routinely reverted, by several editors and several administrators, and this has *nothing* to do with content. If he finds some good edits to do, anyone who cares to take responsibility may restore his work, and that is a lot easier than wheel-warring over an IP block, which was a legitimate block, I'm sure. He refers to it from another IP, he is totally cock-sure that he can ignore his block and get away with it. He is, in fact, banned. Don't think so? Well, just undo the block for User:Fredrick day and take responsibility for it. If I were you, though, I'd duck. Incoming! (This guy is an expert at making complaints about other editors that can sound good, getting people fired up. Don't fall for it, and I don't wonder that sometimes some of us do fall for it. He's done quite a bit of damage in the past.)--Abd (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, then just follow the procedure for a community ban. Or, if he is already banned, just provide a link to where this was decided. Simple. Kelly  hi! 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried, at first, removing this editor's material, to review the material to see if it was useful. However, not being familiar with so many of the article subjects, I found it impossibly tedious. So I started simply reverting. Sometimes I make mention of the revert in Talk, inviting editors to review his contribution, where it seems there might be some reason (such as BLP). But someone who would like to take responsibility for reviewing this editor's contributions could certainly do so by following block logs and other sources (such as my edits). In undoing his edits, now, I don't even review them. Quite simply, it is too much work. And it is better that those who specialize in the various areas take a look. It's a few seconds to bring one of his edits back in. But what takes time is reviewing each edit to see that it is worthwhile. This editor has openly claimed that he can work better and more freely as a blocked IP editor than legitimately, and he is trying to prove that, to exhaust the community. (And he is continuing vandalism and lying about what is going on, you can see it above.) If we fight with each other over this, he might turn out to be right. If we function as a community, operating by consensus, he will be wrong. --Abd (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who's fighting? If you want community consensus for a ban, then make a post requesting a community ban at WP:AN. Why argue about it here at this noticeboard where no result will be achieve?. Geez. Kelly  hi! 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice who started this report. It was the blocked user, doing what he's done before, trying to stir up trouble. I'm not requesting anything here, except calm. The result I'm happy with here is the very "no result" Kelly has suggested. I don't care if the user is blocked or banned, so why should I go to WP:AN? My understanding is that blocked users can be reverted on sight, and that the one doing the revert need not consider content. If content must be considered, it can become impractical to revert a blocked user. But anyone may take that content (or removal of improper content) and fix it. It's not about content, it is about the right of a blocked user to make edits without review. Which is no right at all, whether they are good edits or not.--Abd (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BAN - "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons". One Night In Hackney  303  18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Adb, you are mixing up blocked/banned users. The contribs of banned users are removed (if made after they were banned), but the contribs of blocked users are not automatically removed. Kelly  hi! 18:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So who thinks this edit should be reverted? How about this, or maybe this unsourced claim about a man having a small erection, what about an unsourced claim that this living person gave two other people AIDS. --87.112.67.242 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please someone make him stop - he re-adding serious libel about people into articles. --87.112.67.242 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Abd: this is a warning: If you continue to remove the IP's comments on this page, or reinsert blatantly libellous material, I will block you for disruption. Regardless of the IP's motivations, you do not have the right to do that. He is not a banned user, and you do not have the right to remove his contributions. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that interpreting WP:BAN this way makes it impractical to deal with the IP contributions of a blocked user who is very active. It's very easy to see what I'm doing, follow my contributions, and these edits and the relevant articles stand out. To confirm that one of these reverts is, in fact, bringing back in copyvio or BLP problem material takes a *lot* more time than, once his IP is identified, revert all the contributions. If, then, *anyone* thinks any of these edits are proper, it's trivial to bring them back in.

So, is this user blocked or banned? He has essentially not asked to be reinstated. His offenses were about as bad as they come, and he is essentially defying the block, not only with good edits, but with taunts and incivility and defiance. I will, myself, review what he removed and see if I can *quickly* find a basis for undoing my reverts, but I quite simply don't have time for more than that. If what I'm doing is improper, then I'll certainly respond to the community. He is, however, trying to make a point. He set this all up, by searching out and finding some copyvio and BLP violations to edit, knowing that I'd revert them, and believing that the wrath of the community would come down on me. I don't think so. I think I'm serving the community, and if the community wants me to stop, you will hear a sreeching sound. My brakes. --Abd (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if the editor was banned which is unclear please read WP:BAN - "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons" - posted by me above at 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC). You've ignored that, and addded gross violations of BLP back to articles. If you think that's serving the community, you're as wrong as you can get. One Night In Hackney  303  23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The editor does not appear to have been community banned. What you (Abd) are doing is absolutely improper. It is not for you to inflict judgment based on his "offenses being as bad as they come" etc. You'd do well to just stay away from him and these articles and let someone with a clearer judgment and a MUCH better understanding of policy deal with it. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not working on this any more without broader input, so don't worry. However, I made a lot of reverts. I'm not undoing them. Anyone can. Just be aware that you are restoring edits made by a block-evading user, who continues to post here and many come running to check out what he says.... --Abd (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if this wasn't an explicit policy, it's simple common sense. While it justified in most circumstances to revert edits by a user evading a block or a ban, egregious BLP violations or copyvios should NEVER be left in an article for a minute longer than when it's clear that it's what they are--no matter who detects them. Blueboy96 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it is not as simple as this. First of all, I agree. Copyvio and BLP violations should never be left in an article for a minute longer than when it is cleat that what they are. Nor does it matter who detects them. However, there is the problem of blocked users. A blocked user comes in on IP, and the IP is identified as belonging to this user. In the case involved here, it hasn't been doubtful. So edits by this user are (1) removable and (2) suspect. This user is making *lots* of edits, coming in on a different IP sometimes every few minutes. Is it necessary to review all the edits? Let me put it this way. This problem is going to get worse. This user has figured out how to essentially evade blocks. It's not rocket science. If all the edits must be reviewed before removing them, it will be impossible, it's too much work. He is deliberately creating a crisis here, his sudden interest in BLP is not some accident. It is, in fact, his M.O., to stir up conflict. I'm not taking the risk any more of reverting back in possible copyvio and BLP, at this point. As I said above, I serve the consensus, and that I might do something bold does not negate that. I was warned to stop and I stopped. However, there is a better way, and I've described it on my Talk page in a response to Newyorkbrad. And it's late.... --Abd (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of "blocked users do not have their edits reverted on sight" do you not understand? As for your edit summary of you not deliberately reinserting edits, I find that suspect: you in fact DID know exactly what you were doing, even remarking at one point that "A legitimate user can remove these then" For the love of god, just leave this IP alone and stay far far away from BLP articles before you do irrevocable damage! &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm learning. If there was damage done, it was quite transient, since everything I was doing was extremely visible, and there was some admin participation. No, I did not know that I was inserting something improper; quite simply, I was reverting a blocked editor's edits, as I'd been told I could do. If that was wrong, as has been asserted, I'll find out, this time not by actually making edits. What I said about legitimate users was true. Any legitimate user could have fixed what I did, where it was wrong, in seconds. As to leaving the IP alone, if you can guarantee that this IP editor will leave me alone, I'd be quite happy. Could you?

Swatjester, above, noted that he unblocked the active IP of a known blocked editor. Now, I'm not going to complain about this beyond here. But that wasn't proper, either. The editor was not blocked because of the relevant activity here, and he wasn't identified by his edits to BLP articles, as Swatjester seems to have imagined (being led by the nose by the blocked editor). He was blocked originally for blatant vandalism (edits quite as bad as what he was now screaming about here) and sock puppetry. He was identified because of edits to user Talk pages, taunting and trolling, and, in this case, he knew that his contributions would be examined and other edits reverted. He simply set it up to make things more difficult. He believed that he could get me involved in serious dispute with other editors. I don't have a dispute with other editors. I think Swatjester's unblock of that IP was improper, but I also think Swatjester is doing what he thinks best for the project. Was I wrong to revert all those edits? Perhaps, as I said. I'm learning. But until the BLP incident, nobody was complaining, and others were helping. If the reverts were in general wrong, as Swatjester has further implied, well, that will be of great interest, too, since legitimate verifiable edits are being reverted for another blocked user, apparently without concern for the legitimacy of the content, and the stated justification was exactly, "blocked editors may be reverted on sight." Now, I'll proceed to see if I can find out which is correct, and what exceptions exist. --Abd (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, new incident: See. This is a banned user now, apparently, he acknowledged the ban on AN/I. He's edit warring. Swatjester, care to look at this? The article states, before and after all this fuss, that Jessica Dee contracted AIDS. So the issue would be the mention of the other porn stars. As far as I can tell, the source for the news about her infection is the same source as for the mention of the others. Is the source reliable? From what I could tell by a brief search, it is. But certainly I could be wrong. As to "allegedly," that was language there from before. He's trolling, folks. I've left his edit in, it certainly is not harmful if readers don't know about the others. He is forcing the issue: may a *banned* user not only continue to "fix" the encyclopedia, but edit war to do it? Your move. --Abd (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we have an end to the ridiculous amount of disruption being caused by Abd? Abd's actions yesterday have been roundly condemned as violating several policies. Revert his bad edits, leave his good ones, but this is spreading like a cancer across multiple noticeboards and talk pages for no good reason. WP:DENY and WP:RBI, although take care when reverting. There's just totally needless drama being stirred up, and it should stop now.  One Night In Hackney  303  14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kamrun
Unsourced claims of being a porn star. An imdb search appears to confirm this, but we need reliable sources, something I'm not willing to look for right now. Corvus cornix talk  20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was in the process of stubbing it when User:Seicer speedied it as an A7 (an assessment that I'm not sure I agree with, but I'm sure not going to waste any effort trying to get an unreferenced BLP restored). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I speedied it because the only assertion of notability was that he was a "black hunk who's been making gay porn [...]" and elaborated briefly on his sexual preference -- e.g. bareback. It then featured a list of his movies. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this was once nominated for CSD earlier today, but the original author removed the tag. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Real person, notable, unverifiable/libelous claims. ;-) Bearian (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And re-created, and promptly tagged. I'll let someone else handle this, since I'm stepping out. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * J.C. Carter :P seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Frank Scoblete
I could use some help at the talkpage, where one editor, evidently an industry associate, continues to complain, saying that Scoblete "sells scams" and that the article is not neutral. Another editor has also raised questions of whether or not an offline source, The Washington Post is a reliable source for a positive comment, "widely published authority". More opinions would be appreciated. --Elonka 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy hell, the WaPo, the paper that just won SIX Pulitzers not considered a reliable source? Wow. FCYTravis (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Scoblete isn't quite a scammer, but he's certainly a less reliable source. His craps system is... well, crap. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Avigdor Liberman

 * - brief explanation can be found here - related diff is the following  and can be found at the bottom of the explanation also.
 * p.s. editors have collaborated on tag-team reverts though Nickhh has claimed his "Pedro, your turn next if he does it again ;}" suggestion ' (Pedro Gonnet responded by reverting) was meant as a joke.//  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is protected, you've made an editprotected request, its been mentioned at WP:AE and WP:AN; how many more eyes do you want on it? Relata refero (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * AE was a 3RR report by Pedro Gonnet, I'm not aware of an AN report but I'll give it a look.
 * On topic, we can't have articles locked with BLP violations.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any noticeboard you haven't taken this to yet? Jaakobou, we really do have a policy about consensus here, and it's just as much policy as the other ones. You can't go around removing whole sections of sourced material with a frankly incomprehensible rationale, even if you do think it's based on WP:BLP. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved admins may give a look at the section and decide on their own if there's a BLP violation. Consensus, btw, involves the general active members of discussion, not the 3-man clique who joined the discussion with a preconception on how the page should look.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that even domestic sources sometimes seem to be hard pressed to tell what exactly was said —and what was meant— by Liberman in this or that controversial comment (as a govt. minister these quotes resonate internationally much more than when he was an mK). El_C 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary-Kate Olsen
Re. (Converted to La template --Coppertwig (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

The ref given in the first paragraph of this article is to a 4 year old story about an eating disorder. The paragraph is not about that at all.

The photo of Olsen is quite unflattering, IMO. Should we use such a photo of someone of whom there are thousands of good photos? I know we can't just pick a good photo and use it. My point is that if this is the best photo we have, we should not use any photo.

IMO article is off-policy in both regards. Opinion please. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion: the photo looks OK to me. She's smiling.  It's an ordinary photo, not a studio posed photo, that's all.  (Maybe I'm missing something.) If it can be replaced with a better one, fine, but I wouldn't just remove it.
 * Re eating disorder: I think the article is being used to verify the statement that they're twins.  It does that.  So I think that's OK too, although it would be better to replace it with a different source because it could draw undue attention to the eating disorder. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the photo is particularly unflattering; it's just a candid shot from a rather odd angle. Is there a better picture of her that is not copyrighted? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We should use the best free picture available unless it is truly awful (in which case we should use no photo at all). That photo is certainly not awful - it's just a regular shot of her looking normal and everyday.  If she or her publicists wish a better photo, then they can certainly donate one as many celebrities have done.


 * I don't think we should be removing a source simply because it mentions her eating disorders (which are, besides, widely publicised). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't need to be removing it, but I replaced it -- Naerii  18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Sutton


This article, about a US Attorney, has been the subject of edit warring in the past. A new editor,, is repeatedly adding material sourced from WorldNetDaily and something called libertypost.net - the first is manifestly an unreliable source and the second seems very flaky. I've removed these sources and given Maha Pizza a warning about violating BLP, but the overall tone of the article makes me uneasy; it reads very much like an innuendo-laden hit piece. Could other editors please have a look at the article and see what they think of it? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked the editor for repeatedly restoring the BLP-violating material despite the warning. Sigh. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Koso
Matthew Koso, a young living person, was convicted of something but was it Statutory rape? He is in Category:Statutory rapists. – Mattisse (Talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Genovese crime family
. This article makes a lot of serious allegations on some fairly thin sourcing. It would be very appreciated if a few BLP savvy editors would look it over and help steer the article in the right direction. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rob Grill
We have a dispute in a short bio for 70s musician Rob Grill, who in 2007 was arrested for illegally obtaining prescription painkillers, eventually going into drug treatment possibly to avoid jail time. This is sourced to two Orlando Sentinel articles that are only partially available online.
 * incomplete
 * Full text of Orlando Sentinel article, on website of Grill's former manager.
 * Excerpt from article not available online. Not used in the article.
 * Full text.

The plea agreement is not used in the article since sourcing is was sub-optimal, and to keep this part of the bio short. Leaving it out also helps minimize humiliation of the subject, tho this reference does demonstrate the non-trivial nature of the charge, and that the drug problem is being treated (one way or another) as a serious issue.

Concerns are raised about undue weight, and humiliation of the subject. A pair of anon editors (apparently the same editor as both are SPAs from Naples, FL using similar edit summaries) edit warred to keep this information out (grounds: "defamatory", "inappropriate"). A third editor now argues that WP:BLP recommends it be left out for reasons of "doubt", which is established by the edit war; this editor removes this information accordingly. WP:3O passes this dispute on to this noticeboard.

Some arguments for and against including this information can be found on Talk:Rob Grill. An anon editor was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation, but it can be guessed that this editor will resume deleting this information from the article if it is there when their block expires. It would be helpful to establish whether this information is worth including, less it be automatically removed, with windy procedural discussions repeating at each iteration.

I am concerned that the current rationale on Talk:Rob Grill for omitting this information on "doubt" means that anyone can have a BLP sanitized by aggressively deleting unwanted information, edit warring as needed to keep it out, thus establishing a precedent of "doubt" requiring unwanted information to be declared "better left out". / edg ☺ ☭ 13:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback request
Re the issue represented by this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Grill&diff=next&oldid=198764025

I removed the information from the article as I thought it was not sufficiently important to include.

There was discussion between editor edg and myself, which got into procedural issues as well as the substance of the matter (discussion is at Talk:Rob Grill).

A third opinion was requested; the opinion given was to raise the issue on this page.

It was raised here in the above section on 17 March 2008 but to date there has been no feedback. Please can we have some feedback from people experienced in BLP issues. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this article should be simply deleted as not sufficiently important, a fan/promo page squatting on Wikipedia's servers but not worth maintaining. Would anyone recommend WP:AFD for this article? / edg ☺ ☭ 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject's notability is probably too great for AfD to be a productive forum for dealing with this dispute. — Athaenara  ✉  08:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think edg is really out of line here. A cursory review of the sources provided indicates that this matter directly relates to a medical condition. Medical records fall under Wikipedia's presumption in favor of privacy. This individual appears to have left public life long ago. Details regarding his injury and medical records should be treated with the utmost discretion and sensitivity.
 * I'm even more concerned that when edg doesn't get the answer he wants, his next suggestion is to have the article deleted "as not sufficiently important, a fan/promo page squatting on Wikipedia's servers but not worth maintaining." Seems to me that this user may have a COI of some sort regarding the article's subject. I think his or her contributions warrant monitoring. Cleo123 (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. This is very helpful. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * An agreement has been reached between the parties on the article's talk page. Cleo123 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Papoose (rapper)
Repeatedly reverted edits are based on either the editor's interpretation of songs or postings to internet forums that interpret the songs. In either event, the interpretations make claims about a shooting and an alleged assault. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Debo7 was previously blocked for continually readding BLP violation. Returned to continue readding the same material. New final warning on 4 April. New instance of same BLP vio 9 April. Refuses to discuss issue. Comments please. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ulli Lommel and IMDB as a "reliable source

 * - User:Jacques clouseau added a biography to the article for Ulli Lommel which was completely unsourced and a little bit biased as well. I removed it and left a message on the user's talk page (this user, so far, has only edited Lommel's article) explaining the rules of citing sources and POV. He reinstated his edit, citing 90% of the article with edits from IMDB. I reverted it again, saying that IMDB isn't used as a reliable source as users can submit information themselves and its not easily verifiable. So this is what Jacques wrote on the talk page.
 * "Well, what is Wikipedia then? Everybody can submit info to Wikipedia, IMDB updates only info from reliable updaters. Is it just that user CyberGhostface hates Lommel and doesn't want that Wikipedia, A DICTIONARY, would have anything about him?"

I pointed out that Wikipedia ISN'T considered a reliable source, and Wikipedia will NEVER cite itself in an article, and that IMDB has posted false information tons of times. (I remember one time they listed Saw IV as starring Jessica Alba and featuring Jigsaw's baby). He hasn't responded yet, but if someone can just back me on this if I'm correct before it escalates any further, that'd be great. // CyberGhostface (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Users can submit information to iMDB, but it is reviewed by iMDB editors before it's put on the website. Dlabtot (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * imdb is reliable ONLY for film authorship/screenwriting credits supplied by the Writer's Guild. See Reliable_source_examples. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * imdb is reliable ONLY for film authorship/screenwriting credits supplied by the Writer's Guild. See Reliable_source_examples. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Cox
Got a number of users trying to repeatedly add information claiming that Bobby Cox frequently beat his wife and is well-known for doing this. Unfortunately, only one instance of domestic violence is reliably sourced. Everything else is based on manipulation of what sources say or blogs. I'd like to request intervention because I can really only deal with this for so long before I get fed up. The discussion (term used loosely) is here: Talk:Bobby_Cox Dlong (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Second go-around on this one since February. Attempts to only include information supported by cited reliable sources are reverted back to version with obvious BLP issues in my opinion and the opinion of several other editors such as Dlong above. Various attempts to discuss on talk pages for consensus have proved useless and resulted in incivility such as this towards myself. // Roswell native (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Cambios accuses all the editors against him of having biases and trying to "hide the truth" but the simple fact is we're just cutting out misleading and irrelevant info. He cites random, unknown newspapers no one has heard of as "evidence" that is had cast a shadow over Cox's legacy and that it was brought to light again during the John Rocker fiasco. He even used an anonymous comment on a blog entry as a source. This is a ridiculous situation if you ask me and I'll be glad when it's resolved.► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since when are the New York Times, the Atlanta Journal, and the Village Voice "random, unknown newspapers." I think it is easy to tell who has done their research on this issue and who hasn't. The facts are there - HEAVILY cited. If you want to refute the facts, then please find citations that back up what you are claiming. But 11 citations from newspapers big and small, and sports media sites big and small, really don't lie. Cambios (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on Bobby Cox's spousal abuse is supported by multiple New York Times articles, multiple Atlanta Journal Constitution Articles, an article from the Village Voice, the Official Code of Georgia (OCGA), the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Northern Iowan, South Coast Today, and a variety of other sports media web sites and news outlets. The section in question is nothing but facts, explaining not only the incident itself but its long term impact on the sport. As recently as July 4, 2007, Atlanta Journal Constitution editorial writer, Mark Bradley, wrote about the issue.

I have spent an enormous amount of time working on this section to get all the details right and to fully explain the incident and its long term effects. I have meticulously worked to remove all opinionated sounding language so the article is as encyclopedic in nature as possible.

I believe there is some WP:SOAP going on because certain people are fans of the Atlanta Braves and do not want anything negative to be written about them. In particular, at least one of the people habitually reverting out the factual information is from Roswell, Georgia - a suburb of Atlanta. WP:BLP specifically states:  "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." 

This incident is not going away, no matter how much Bobby Cox or his supporters want it to. It is a part of the permanent record, and there are an enormous amount of first, second, and third party sources that reference it. The entire Bobby Cox article has a total of 21 citations, and 11 of them are from the Spousal Abuse category. That more than meets any burden of citation needed for the section. There are 14 sentences in that section, and 11 citations. Lets get real - the section as written is truthful, accurate, and incredibly well researched. Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is time to let the facts stand. Cambios (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's undue weight to go on about it for three paragraphs in an entire section entitled "Spousal abuse." FCYTravis (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cambios, you are completely off-base with this whole bias idea. While I am a Braves fan, I couldn't care less what's said about Cox as long as it's true and relevant. But the thing is, most of the content you've provided, while sourced, is STILL MISLEADING AND IRRLEVANT, and you fail to see this. Just because some newspaper in Bumblefuck U.S.A. says it casts a shadow on his legacy doesn't mean it does. To make a claim like that, you have to show a pattern and significant mainstream media attention, which you have not and CANNOT because it's simply not true. The fact is, basically no one cares about this incident, so other than reporting what happened there's no need to dwell on it. You're missing the whole point of the problem with your post. It's no that it's not factual - it's all technically true. But it's also misleading because it conveys it all being more widespread attention than it actually is. You will not win this argument, I guarantee you that, so you should just give up now.► Chris Nelson Holla! 05:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Cambios and Leshrak continue to refuse to follow Wikipedia policies (I've always found this odd; this IS Wikipedia, so isn't following their policies the obvious thing to do?), I have requested full protection of the article. This is unfortunate, but I don't see any other option. Dlong (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It really is not a matter of my not following the policy. You removed previous edits because they were "improperly sourced". This latest edit has an array of reliable sources including the New York Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Baseballsavvy (A popular baseball website), and the Colorado Springs Gazette. It is my feeling that you and Kingjeff are continuing to remove this section under the guise of a Wikipedia rule while trying to push your own personal agenda and "clean up" Bobby Cox's history and legacy. The man beat his wife, got arrested, and people have been talking about it ever since. I really cannot understand why these facts are continually being debated on this forum. Having this page locked is not unreasonable at all, however this content definitely needs to be included. Please take a look over WP:SOAP and WP:BLP. Thanks again. Leshrak (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User Persists in Posting Court-Ruled Libelous Material
User:Cult free world has posted the full text of a newspaper article two courts in India found prima facie libelous and defamatory here. Specifically, "The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory." (http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ILR/ilr-2004/Jan-Feb2004.pdf, page 4, #5)

Cult Free World has been warned previously against making libelous and defamatory claims in any Wikipedia space (see #8 here, see this, see full explanation here--please note that some of the links leading to libel have been cleaned up, so the libel no longer appears, see here ).

Some editors have adopted "revert and ignore" strategy, which Cult Free World complained about and received no response. Here a vandalism report was dismissed without action. Here a complaint about myself turns into a discussion of Cult Free World's actions. Other archived ANI reports were filed by him and were also ignored with no action taken.

I have reverted the user twice this morning, posted two warnings on this talk page, and he keeps re-posting the libelous material and OR.

Posting a newspaper article in any Wikipedia space (user, talk, project, main) that the user knows two courts found libelous and defamatory is a serious violation of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Renee (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. An MFD was filed on the user's version of the article, but by the time the MFD was closed other editors had adopted the revert and ignore strategy mentioned above and the article was in a neutral state.  Upon the MFD closing he immediately reverted to his libel version of the article


 * hmm....I wonder how he plans to make the world cult free. Borock (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Those interested may wish to have a look at talk page of the concerned user-space, and closing note at MfD deletion discussion nominated by Renee only, there have been close to three incidents where s/he has been warned for WP:COI, I do not find any living person in the court order, neither do i see any Biography section in the page, i am attempting to work on. here is the section, Renee has trouble with. In anycase, once i am done with writing the article about the subject, I will be filing for RfC, till now, Renee and her associates are giving me really hard time, while i am attempting to start an article on wikipedia, Reason for this agony appears to me as WP:COI, this has been noted not only by the closing admin at MfD, but at two other places as well. ,.
 * Just to make the context more clear, the final judgment was that the report published in indian daily is not defamatory, but i don't think we are suppose to interpret court order's without any secondary source, hence there i have tried to make no comments from my side, keeping in view WP:NOR, while i am writing the article in my own user-space for moving it into main-space in future. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the links provided by Renee.. goosh.. s/he has given link only to what s/he has written. I wonder why she did not gave the links for MfD closure, or her previous nomination of speedy deletion of my user-space, all of them were rejected, citing COI of Renee !!!  --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cult Free is mis-quoting the MFD closer again. If you read it under the Discussion header it refers to the COI arguments I made against cult free (i.e., regarding his COI due to the blogs) and then later rightly noted that these claims were really user comments against Cult Free and not content comments.  Hmmmm....projection? POV username? COI?
 * In any case, this notice is to prevent libelous statements appearing on Wikipedia, something that many editors (not just myself) have repeatedly written to Cult Free about, pleaded with him, warned him, and he just ignores everyone. The exact newspaper article user Cult Free World is posting is sourced to this court case, where the judge ruled, The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory. Prima facie offence is made out against the accused applicants disclosing the ingredients of the offence under section 500 IPC. (p. 4#5). Making a claim and sourcing it to a newspaper article declared libelous cannot stay in any Wiki space.
 * Now, if he can find a verifiable and reliable secondary source then we're golden and this will all go away. But, he has failed to provide a single secondary source and insists that he can quote selectively from court cases (i.e., testimony, opposing sides, etc.) and he thinks that's a secondary source. I pasted in this very nice explanation from Vassyana to show him how he needed a secondary source and he just ignores it.  Help educating the user about verifiable and reliable secondary sources would be valuable. Renee (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let people read and understand themselves, try to understand, people ARE intelligent on wikipedia. :), those who wish to see what is stated in MfD will follow the link, just give the link, thats all. BTW which blog according to you I own ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to add, incase you have missed again, this noticeboard is to discuss articles (not user-space sections), second, discuss the content not editors here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cult free world (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it might benefit all concerned to read Prima facie as an indication of why the linked HC submission isn't really that damning. -- Relata refero (disp.) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In terms of Wikipedia, any sort of libel or defamation, hint of libel or defamation, court-ruled libel and defamation, "self-evident"/prima facie libel and defamation, must be removed immediately from Wikipedia because they violate one of two of its key policies -- WP:V and WP:R. Further, drawing testimony and quotations from court cases are not valid, as Vassyana pointed out here.  (sorry I had the wrong link above, I fixed)  Renee (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on Paul John Ferris this weekend
I just got a call from a freelancer for News Of The World (Sunday edition of The Sun).

The Glenburn Young Team are a group of idiot youths in Glasgow who added a line to Paul John Ferris (a Glasgow gangster turned author) saying "He was lucky the Glenburn Young Team didn't kill him in 2008." This was added 26 March and not reverted until 1st April.

They also created an article on themselves (Glenburn Young Team) which was created 17:47 on 14 Dec 2007, tagged for deletion at 17:48 and deleted at 18:21.

I said:


 * We get rubbish all the time, we sigh and remove it. This being the Internet there's a certain proportion of idiots.
 * We have stricter rules for articles about living people, and that shouldn't have been there six days - it should have been spotted sooner. Our apologies to Mr Ferris.

There's been no complaint from Mr Ferris, but if this makes the paper on Sunday I expect an eye on Paul John Ferris (and Glenburn Young Team) would be a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Isavella Dara


I don't often deal in BLP (most of my interests are long dead), so when I came across this I thought I would bring it to the attention of editors better versed in BLP policy. It isn't particularly negative, just entirely unsourced and of marginal notability to boot. Pastordavid (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

J. T. Snow


Last sentence in section "Early Years" unsourced and possibly defamitory --Hennap (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sentence removed.--Slp1 (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrick T. McHenry
. It would be appreciated if some BLP savvy people could look over Patrick T. McHenry and its sourcing. Vassyana (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

 * - I don't know what to do with this article. If I deleted what I suspected was unreliable sources, I'd have to stubbify it, but when I put the article to AfD, it failed. Any advice? Andjam (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead remove all material that's not reliably sourced. The previous afd called for stubification anyway. This will eventually die in a future afd, but we're not there yet.--Docg 10:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A Massachusetts District Court isn't a reliable source? I agree the article needs tidying, but I disagree with the amount of material you've removed. Thedarxide (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The BLP concerns are addressed now. I don't think anyone would have a problem with putting reliable sourced information back in. — BradV 14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How have they been addressed? What reliable sourced information? Andjam (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This was what the article looked like when I made that comment. I see all the unsourced POV has been added back in. — BradV 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've reverted to that version for now. As I said before, verifiable, properly sourced information can be added back in. This is going to need attention by a number of people to ensure that unsourced information doesn't end up back in the article. — BradV 03:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the birth date from the article because there is no source given for it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is still slightly slanted towards the negative and one editor keeps on introducing a section about a move called "Monkey stealing peach" that adds nothing to the page at all. They have provided one link of a person making fun of it online, but it's not from a reliable source. Hell, I could make fun of it on a blog and the person would probably use that as well. Why is it important to note? On top of that, they continue to add that there is a "possibly unrelated" move present in other martial arts systems. That is basically original research because it can not be confirmed that this is true. I have removed that bit, but I'm sure the editor will re-add it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lack of any comment on the talk page or at the least a link here, initially made this appear to be kim fan-boy vandalism. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The solution is re-writing it as an article about a pen name used buy an 'unknown' author as their is no evidence that a real person called 'Ashida Kim' exists. p.s. Added an advert tag as that's all thats left. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was a fan. By adding a link to a website ridiculing the technique, the person was pretty much saying "hey, look at what else this nut claims he can do." --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the the edits by Bradv, not the random monkey peach thing. That is not amazingly relevent but as he is an internet personality contributing to a meme might be so I left it alone. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We're currently disagreeing about the use of court documents to expose his real name. Can someone else look at the issue please? Andjam (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the real name. There's a good rule of thumb for BLPs - if you have to go do a public records search on someone to find something out, it probably doesn't belong in their Wikipedia biography. Wikipedia is not for investigative journalism. FCYTravis (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that others have already done it, the paragraph removed stated that! --Nate1481(t/c) 09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been hiding a name derived from court documents from the talk page. I've been accused of censoring a contributor's comments based on this. Would anyone like to provide a third opinion? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah
Nathaniel Bar-Jonah is a living person but I can not tell from the references what is true and what is not. Is about.com considered a reliable source? I thought it was a mirror site of wikipendia but now it is owned by the New York Times. Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. He has appeared on Most evil a psychology Discovery Channel show, which is a much more reliable source than about.com. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have edited it and removed about.com as a ref. see here, I'll try to get some more sources later. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you be thinking of answers.com (which mirrors wikipedia), rather than about.com? Andjam (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither are reliable, just look where your about.com link takes us. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a web search and listed some links to news articles on the article talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He died yesterday so its a good thing we caught this before than. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Runhardt Sander
- Biographical article of a "German lawyer and political functionary" linked to far-right political parties, including placement in the neo-nazi category (now reverted). There are absolutely no references given in this article, the "official" website for this individual is now reportedly "hacked", and interestingly there is no parallel article for this person in the German Wikipedia. Would appreciate suggestions on how best to proceed. Risker (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just my suggestion: you could try to find references, and if you don't find sufficient, then nominate the article for deletion. Note that the corresponding German article was deleted on 21:20, 9. Okt. 2007 by Michael Sander (same surname), apparently after a deletion discussion.  (I'm assuming "gelöscht" must mean "deleted".) In the deletion discussion, they talk about sources (Quellen), relevance, "Original Research", etc., and then Michael Sander posts a message when deleting the page.  Eep, I see that I was the one who marked the page as patrolled.  Sorry about that. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * this website mentions that the German page had been deleted and gives the text of two deleted pages, that one and Reichsbürger-Union. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the German Wikipedia you can find some other references and documents about the activities of Runhardt Sander, see the articles: Freie Wählergemeinschaft Die Nationalen, Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Bildungswerk or Frank Schwerdt . Much articles and deletion discussions in the German Wikipedia are dominated of neo-nazis, see the exemples in the german website named Nazipedia . About the background of Runhardt Sander see also this german information . Heinrich8 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I've added some notes and references to the article, most of them are german. I hope it is enough.Heinrich8 20:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the article for deletion using prod. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some links added, please don't delete, don't support the german neo-nazis (I don't want to hurt you, please to accept my excuse]. Allways, if one has uncovered a fact in the net, Sander has deleted or covered the related information. For example his contact site at fourtway.info. So it ist hard to made a article with good sources, see the fate of the article about him in the german wikipedia. Heinrich8 00:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I've nominated the article for deletion by AfD. The deletion discussion is at Articles for deletion/Runhardt Sander.  Wikipedia is for verifiable, published information.  Other websites instead of Wikipedia can be used for collecting new information or information that is hard to verify. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned for adding fact tags
I got banned for adding 3 fact tags to the article about Michael Behe. Not deleting statements, but just for adding fact tags. 2 of the statements were unsourced attacks on the credibility of living scientists, and another was a totally off topic statement about a living author, that probably shouldn't even be in the article, but needed a citation nonetheless. Can a wikipedia user now be banned for asking for citations for statements about living people? GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is extremely unwise to bring up libel in any discussion, and even more unwise to say 'I hope you are sued for libel'. If there are BLP issues, then say there are BLP issues rather then unnecessarily bringing up libel. BLP goes beyond libel in any case Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * suggests to me your behaviour at least partially predated your block. In particular "We've got some real crack editors working on this page" is likely to be perceived as a personal attack, even if that was not your intention. If you want to say an article is crap, say it, don't bring the editors into it... Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough criticism. I was certainly less than civil. I disagree that it is unwise to bring up libel, because the editors/owners of that page are defending material that is at best irresponsible, and at worst libelous. To say that a scientist's view is "rejected by the scientific community" without any source is begging to get yourself and wikipedia nailed with a lawsuit. Furthermore, the ban was totally inappropriate, and the material I fact tagged is contentious, unsourced, and about living people. Do you disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GusChiggins21 (talk • contribs)
 * It's hardly libelous to say that a scientist who supports "intelligent design" is supporting a view that is rejected by the scientific community. Truth is an absolute defense to libel, and that is true. FCYTravis (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are some jurisdictions where truth is not an absolute defense (see libel) but since the person in question live in the US, that's largely irrelevant. This discussion does illustrate precisely why I think libel is mostly a red herring. If the claims in an article are well supported by reliable sources (and in this case, it should be easy to do so, if it hasn't already been done so) then it's fine to have something in the article per policy, if not then no. There's no point arguing over whether it's libellious or not since even if it's not, it could still violate BLP and in any case, legal issues should be dealt with by our lawyer, not random wikipedians. Nil Einne (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thankfully, Wikimedia's servers are in the U.S. too. FCYTravis (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that this guy's views have been rejected by the scientific community is thoroughly documented and well-sourced. You have the right, of course, to disagree with the scientific concensus; but to dispute where modern science stands, or to pretend that this is not well-documented, is contentious and disruptive. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys are completely missing the point. You're saying: "it's not libelous because it's true, and intelligent design isn't supported by scientists". This is both untrue and irrelevant. The only way that you could say that a person's views are rejected "by the scientific community" is if you have a poll of scientists; see wikipedia's policies on claims to consensus.

I'm sure there has been no scientific poll regarding Michael Behe's particular views; the only evidence you can use to support this statement is citations about intelligent design in general, which is rejected by a majority of scientists (although I wouldn't call it a consensus, because of the prevalence of supporters of theistic evolution). Citing scientific consensus regarding intelligent design as proof of scientific consensus concerning Behe's specific theories is original research, and is not allowed.

Furthermore, it's irrelevant whether it's true or not, because I was banned merely for asking for citations. The policy is that all contentious material is to be sourced, or removed. It wasn't sourced, so it should have been removed. But, instead I merely asked for citations, and was promptly banned. This was an abuse of power by the admin, and a violation of wikipedia's polciy regarding biographies of living people. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well nothing is unanimous in science. But over 99% of scientists in biology and geology subscribe to evolution. And every major scientific organization in the US and internationally has issued statements rejecting intelligent design. And intelligent design has only two ideas in it; Behe's irreducible complexity and Dembski's specified complexity. And both have been repeatedly and soundly rejected by reviewer after reviewer. In addition Behe's irreducible complexity was soundly rejected in US Federal Court proceedings. Even Behe's couple of dozen colleagues in his university department, his fellow faculty, have issued a statement on their webpage saying his ideas are complete nonsense and they repudiate them. So irreducible complexity definitely is rejected by the "scientific community" whatever that means (although it obviously is a matter of definition; however, your definition is tendentious and has been rejected here by consensus). And I am not so sure you were only "banned for putting on a couple of fact tags". If I remember correctly, this was the climax of a much more extensive and exciting sequence of events.--Filll (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. You are wrong on every count, you are distorting facts, your reasoning is full of logical fallacies, and fails to even address the topic at hand. I'm not going to argue ID with you, even though you want to, but suffice it to say that intelligent design is predicated on the complete lack of evidence for evolution and overwhelming amount of evidence contradicting it, including the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity, and other issues. Your claim that 99% of scientists support evolution is incorrect, and misleading; there is a small minority than supports special creation, and a large group that supports theistic evolution which is actually a design theory. Your claim about individual scientists rejecting Behe are irrelevant; there is a claim of consensus, and this can only be supported by a source showing consensus; individual scientists, even hundreds of them, do not ever add up to consensus, no more than interviewing thousands of John McCain supporters proves that the consensus of American voters supports him. And if there are so many scientists that think Behe is wrong, why not just cite them instead of claiming consensus? And again, no material was removed, it was just fact tagged; that's it. Banned for adding 3 fact tags. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is poorly constructed and inapt. The entire American voting population gets to vote on the president - whether they support McCain or not. Thus you are correct that only sampling McCain supporters would create a fatally flawed view.
 * However, science is, by definition, carried out by scientists. The opinions of non-scientists are unimportant and irrelevant when attempting to construct a scientific consensus - that many uneducated people might believe something, does not make it true or even a remote possibility. A demonstrated consensus of opinion of scientists is the scientific consensus. There is a demonstrated scientific consensus that intelligent design is a thoroughly rejected and discredited pseudoscience. That you and others do not like that, is neither here nor there. FCYTravis (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're making a straw man argument, AND completely missing the point of what I wrote. Your attacking the straw man who was saying that the American public should be cited as a source in an article. No one said that, so quit distorting facts; I'll assume it was an accident, but you need to take the time to actually read what people say in the future. And again, I'll make the point I made earlier, until anyone actually addresses it: Scientific consensus regarding intelligent design in general is NOT the same as scientific consensus regarding a specific book, or Michael Behe's views. And furthermore, citing dozens of scientists is NOT evidence of consensus; according to wikipedia policy you must ONLY cite the individual scientists' opinions, not claim that ALL scientists believe something, and only support it with citations of SOME scientists. To support a claim of consensus, you must have a citation of consensus, not the individual opinions of people who support a position. Try to stay on point in the future. GusChiggins21 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well what about Kenneth R. Miller? He clearly subscribes to theistic evolution, but not intelligent design. What about Francis Collins (geneticist)? What about Joan Roughgarden? The official position of the Roman Catholic Church? Signatories of the Clergy Letter Project? These are all people who agree with theistic evolution but not intelligent design. I am afraid this is just blatant obfuscation.--Filll (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What you're saying is ridiculous on its face. How can God guide the process of evolution without design? Theistic evolution supporters may not support the specific theories pushed by Behe, Johnson and others, but there can be no doubt they do NOT believe in evolution by natural selection. Theistic evolution means God created people, he just happened to do it by natural selection. That's a far cry from believing that life came from nonliving matter (how?), evolved exclusively by natural selection, and is nothing more than an accident. And again you're trying to debate ID, and again you're failing to address the issue at hand. I will repeat it in caps, in the hopes that ANYONE here will address it, instead of trying to argue about evolution: WHY ARE WE BANNING PEOPLE FOR ADDING FACT TAGS TO CONTENTIOUS MATERIAL ABOUT LIVING PEOPLE?!GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A couple of points here (1) You seem to be awfully upset and shouting in all caps, which is prima facie evidence of unCIVIL behavior and a violation of WP:AGF and a personal attack, for which you should probably be sanctioned again. Is that what you want? What are you so upset about ? (2) You are the one bringing up the general topic of ID. It has no business being discussed here since this is not a debate site. It is off topic (3) Regardless of whether intelligent design is a good theory or a bad theory or reasonable, people oppose it. So we report that. Even if they are incorrect; that is none of our business. --Filll (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sick to death of you twisting the truth, lying (which I've caught you doing multiple times on my talk page), and being uncivil. No one is angry about anything, YOU are pushing the evolution issue, and you CONTINUE to fail to address the issue we are trying to address, which is whether attacks on a scientists credibility need to be sourced. Not whether they're valid, or true. Whether they need to be sourced. I'll say it again; why am I banned for following wikipedia policies? GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the defenders of evolution here on WP seem to feel the need to make every article about a creationist or intelligent designist a major coatrack to tell the world how wrong these things are. Borock (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are invited to tell us, aside from irreducible complexity, why there is any reason whatsoever to have an article on Michael Behe on Wikipedia. He is a third rate academic at a 3rd or 4th tier school. He has done no research for at least 20 years. He is not funded aside from his DI fellowship. He does not publish aside from his ID books. He is not notable or interesting in any way shape or form aside from his involvement with ID. For example, there are about 20 other faculty members in his department. Do any of them have articles on Wikipedia? We would delete his article except for the fact that he has made himself over the last 20 years very prominent in this one area.--Filll (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DING DING DING!!! We have a winner! GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This was a matter of dispute? Um...whatever.--Filll (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Filli's question, which has relevance to WP BLP policies
I have never heard of Mr. Behe before. If what you say is true he should have a stub length article saying what he is notable for. That article should link to the main article on Intelligent Design, where all of the criticisms of Intelligent Design should be explained. Borock (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that Behe has created the major idea that is used to tout Intelligent design, a powerful public relations movement. He had a central part in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, beign the main scientist testifying for the defense. He has written several of the main books in intelligent design. He has a central role in the upcoming Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed movie. He had a central role in the Flock of Dodos movie. He had a central role in Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. So, considering that probably another 10 or 15 more minor figures in intelligent design have their own biographies, why should he not have one too?--Filll (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If he is that important his article should reflect that, of course. What we don't need is for every article about an Intelligent Design person to have a long section on how bad Intelligent Design is. What if every article on a socialist went on and on about how bad socialism is as an economic system and how it has been rejected by mainstream economists, etc. etc. etc.?  Or what if every article about a rap artist told us how bad rap music is and how it has been criticised for various things? Borock (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez, again
Disagreement over whether to use Category:DADT and link to the DADT article under see also. Proposed source to justify the category and link is the Marine Corps Times; editors disagree about whether the article is specific enough to justify that particular connection. The biography subject strongly objects to it. The article is under arbitration probation per Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine. Requesting outside opinion about whether the category and link should stay or go. Durova Charge! 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow-up; the category was deleted yesterday (Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_2) and renamed to Category:Sexual orientation and military service with the explanation This category is for articles relating to the worldwide treatment of sexual orientation by military institutions. So requesting independent opinion about whether to use that.
 * Suggested replacement for the see also link would be identity politics. Durova Charge! 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been reworking the contents of the newly-renamed category since the close of the CFD. I don't feel it's appropriate to include Matt Sanchez in the category. His relationship to the topic of the category, "sexual orientation and military service," is tangential at best. Very few articles on individuals belong directly in that category; indeed, I removed most of them (including such barely-related people as SCOTUS Justice John C. Roberts) as having only the remotest possible connection to the topic. The only biography article that remains is Barry Winchell because I'm stumped as to where else to put him to keep him in the category structure. I have no idea how Sanchez identifies his own sexuality. If he's gay or bi he can go in the sub-cat Category:LGBT military personnel but only of course if the reliable sourcing exists. As for linking to DADT in his article's "see also" section, it seems just as remote a connection as the category. Identity politics seems like an odd choice as well, as does placing the article in Category:Identity politics. I just don't see the categorizable connection. Otto4711 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So is your recommendation to take out the DADT link without replacing it? Regarding the categorization, I think the disagreement boils down to editor differences about whether a man who self-identifies as straight would participate in gay porn for economic reasons, and whether article content to the contrary is sufficiently sourced.  Durova Charge! 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DADT is already linked within the text of the article, so no, along with what I said above, I don't see any need for having it in the see also section. I don't really care if Identity politics replaces it, I just don't see the relationship so I don't see the point. As for the category disagreement, I guess I'm not getting it. For him to be included in the category, "sexual orientation and military service" should be a central or defining characteristic of him. It's not as far as I can tell. Now, if his reserve contract gets voided on the grounds of his having participated in "homosexual acts" then he can go in the subcat Category:American servicemembers discharged for homosexuality. But there is no justification for including him in the high level SOAMS category. Otto4711 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your responses. The investigation cited in that source closed last year without a discharge.  Best regards,  Durova Charge! 07:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian Death
OTRS had a complaint about this article from one of the ex-members of the band, Valor Kand. He feels very upset about the article, which is quite unflattering about his role in the band (the breakup and the various versions of the band involving more than a little bitterness). I've asked Arkady Rose to have a look over it, and anyone else who wants to look over it should feel free - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing revert war between an IP address 98.220.43.195 and Valorkaend (presumably the Valor Kand, as above). I have given the IP address a 3RR warning. Valorkaend deserves one too, but seems to be trying to reforming a negative view of the history and himself, so I haven't given one for now.  The whole thing looks stuffed full of original research and due for a massive crop to me.--Slp1 (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Stuffed full of original research" is putting it mildly. I had a look at the article; it's a mess. The good news is that there are plenty of reliable third-party sources out there that can be used and cited. The bad news is: trying to re-write the article to match those sources will mean deleting large sections of original research, rumor, gossip, unsourced speculation, personal opinions, and God knows what else at the objection (I suspect) of the die hard fans of the group. I'm not sure that's something I want to do all by myself. Anyone interested in re-writing the article to match the sources? J Readings (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick/Nicolas Ruston


I am not sure if this is the proper place to report this but I thought that I would start here. Yesterday and today User:Bengough99 created the above two pages. A quick look will show that they are identical so, at the least, they should be merged. I suspect that they may also have WP:COI and WP:NOTABILITY problems. If you would like me to report these pages at these, or any other, places here at Wikipedia please let me know. Also, if this was not the proper place to bring notice of this situation please let me know about that to. Thank you for you time and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 21:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have redirect one article to the other, and added a couple of tags about lack of references and questionable notability. Not sure about the conflict of interest myself. I will give it a few days and look for some reliable sources, and if not, it would probably be suitable for WP:PROD --Slp1 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The artwork seems to be quite remarkable. Based on the work, I expect that notability will not be a problem. (I realize references are needed.)  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is striking, I agree. Unfortunately I have done some fairly extensive searches and haven't been able to find any independent secondary sources for him, that would indicate his notability. I have prodded the article, but perhaps others will find sources in the interim.--Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reposting of a Deleted Libellous Article on a User Page
I recently stumbled upon a very contentious and disturbing MFD discussion here, which seems to bring a larger issue to light regarding the latitude some admins are inclined to give to user pages. In short, an article on this particular religious group and its leader has previously been deleted from Wikipedia several times, amidst allegations of libel, defamation, lack of reliable sources, lack of notability and the like. The primary author of the article Cult free world, has now reposted the article in his user space, under the pretext that he's rewriting it in a more suitable fashion. Although Cult free world cleaned up the "article" considerably during the MFD debate, several editors who were involved with the article's previous incarnations warned that libelous material would undoubtedly be reinserted into the working draft, which he keeps carefully guarded from meddling contributors, who don't share his POV. Considering what I see as a long history of very obvious POV pushing, personal attacks & documented libel (which apparently has already been the subject of a court case) - I would have thought this MFD would have been a no brainer. Unfortunately, the closing admin chose to ignore all the editors who expressed WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL concerns, accusing us all of being "involved parties". Well, I never had any prior involvement with this article, and I'm somewhat dumbfounded by the closing admin's decision to allow the user page version, which BTW is appearing on google searches.

As predicted, objectionable accusations of rape and incest have been reinserted into the article almost immediately. Cult free world is so brazen that he/she even attaches a copy of the 100 plus page court document from the libel suit, as he's reprinting the objectionable material! LOL! All this would appear to be part of a prolonged campaign of what appears to be harassment against Reneeholle. How can this be allowed? To my mind, this editor is using Wikipedia not only as a free web hosting service for some sort of personal campaign against cults, but also as a means of harassing real life "enemies" via a private attack page, disguised as an article under construction. Sincerely, this is one of the worst cases of harassment and abuse I've ever seen on Wikipedia. My understanding is that WP:BLP pertains to ALL PAGES on Wikipedia, including user pages. Am I wrong? Would some other editors please take a look at this? Cleo123 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost immediately !! what was this for ? get your facts correct before coming here. --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do have my facts straight. As I see it, you made a show of cooperating with some editors and cleaning up the article for purposes of the deletion debate. As soon as an admin made the naive decision to keep what seemed to be a relatively harmless NPOV article, you went right back to business as usual posting inadequately sourced allegations of incest and rape. You and your cohorts have aggressively fought with anyone who has tried to remove anything from YOUR article, contrary to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:LIBEL, WP:HARASS and WP:OWN. Wikipedia is not a battleground for real world disputes, as the most recent sock puppetry report against you alleges. Cleo123 (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you care to go through the history of the page, you will find, that all members in the SSP case are the one who reverted any attempt from my side to complete the article, wish your statement show of cooperating with some editors  was true !! That case of SSP is yet another personal attack on me only to prevent that article from getting published, this is done by the paid members of the cult, who do not wish to get any information out in public domain, this is/was the sole reason as why the page was deleted at the first place by Jossi, and then nominated for Speedy deletion twice (in my user-space) and then MfD, and now this case of SSP, apart from numerous notices at this page. It should be understood, that wikipedia does not work according to PR policy of any cult, it has its own.--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Klonsky
Article written almost entirely from biased and inaccurate sources, apparently, see Talk:Michael Klonsky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 15 April 2008

George Weigel
Just a heads up; I am posting here prophylactically to avoid an edit war. An older but mostly inactive IP has twice added objectionable material, as much on the grounds of WP:OR and maybe WP:SOAPBOX as actual BLP, to said article. I left a note explaining briefly what the issues were and reverted a second time, but do not wish to get sucked into too much reversion, even over something so clearly obvious. A few eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Continued addition by anon, semi-protected for a while. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult free world/Proposed page
. This is a userfied page, but BLP applies outside of article space. Could a few BLP-experienced folks take a look over the claims and sourcing? Vassyana (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gene Green
The BLP policy says "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone." That's almost where I am now. Different IP's keep re-adding the defamatory material, but I don't know if it's all the same guy or not. Art LaPella (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Page semi-protected for a month. CIreland (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Various unsourced controversial remarks and some blatant reader-leading original research also removed. CIreland (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Biography about Joan Ifland CEO of the Sugars and Flours Project.
I don't know where to begin Joan Ifland's biography. I have been pouring over Wikipedia for days and need to finish this project. I have Joan's resume, her accomplishments and Endorsement of DSM-IV Dependence Criteria In Eating Behavior. Where do I begin? I have read: Your first article, Biographies of living persons, the help section,Manual of Style(biographies), Citing sources,Reliable sources which I am getting confused with citing sources?

Cindy Leach —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePureTransition (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Try Help desk--Docg 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Placeholders
A discussion concerning the use of image placeholders on biographies of living persons at Centralized discussion/Image placeholders may be of interest to editors at this noticeboard. The placeholder images have recently been uploaded to 50,000 articles, and while there has been disagreement about the use of these images in various corners, there has not been a centralized discussion on this issue affecting the community. Please contribute your thoughts and publicize this discussion anywhere you feel would be appropriate. Thank you. Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion please
Will someone please look at this ref?

This is London

Its extreme negativity leads me to suspect that it is highly biased and shouldn't be cited. Can I get another opinion please. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's "This is London "


 * Crappy tabloid. Biased, but not given to lying (much).--Docg 19:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Brennan-Jobs.
Any reasons on why it shouldn't be redirected to Steve Jobs? -- Jeandré, 2008-04-13t19:11z


 * Nope, done.--Docg 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Lee (comic store owner)
I've had this page on my watchlist for a while, never thought much of it until I've recently taken more notice of BLP. Yes, I'm a latecomer to the party, but that aside, isn't the summary at Comic Book Legal Defense Fund enough for the basic facts of the situation? Does the store owner require an article? There has been some reporting of the case in The Comics Journal, which is a fairly reliable source, but that has tended to focus on the case and how it impacts comics rather than on the individual. I'm also a little concerned about the dab page description, too, Gordon Lee. Appreciate the thoughts of people more experienced in this area. Hiding T 14:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a good article, it's all about the controversy related to one book, by the looks of it. Can it be refactored as an article on the notable case? Guy (Help!) 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll mention it at WP:COMICS, see what comes up. Hiding T 10:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

David L. Cook
has had potentially harmful material added to it by. The material has been reverted and  the offender has been warned with 4im. However, has asked that the offending material be removed from the history, on my talk page. I don't believe I have the capability to do that. Toddst1 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The information added was false and defaming. If allowed to remain in the edit history, it could be read by other editors or the public at large and could harm the reputation of the subject. I am asking that it be deleted from the edit history. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * it looks as if this has been handled by WP:OVERSIGHT, there are no revisions of that article in that IPs contributions or deleted contributions. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Mian Soomro
In the biography of Muhammad Mian Soomro "Corruption and Use of power", the two cliams made there, namely the arrest and beating of an opponent and the embezzlement of property both are untru with no reliable source listed, nor have i seen any such reliable source that i can point to. In the absence of such verification this information should be removed. In the past this correction has been requested but no change was made. kindly see to it that this section is deleted as it directly violates the Wikipedia rules for posting biographies of living persons as the claims in it are not sourced or verified nor is any such source provided. Footnotes do not link to a source either.

"~ be" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearl2340 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any such claims in that article. --Fredrick Dayton (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Terri Nunn
Please watchlist this article. Unsourced claims that this actress posed nude for Penthouse while underage have been repeatedly inserted by various anon/SPAs. They've been removed before, but they keep coming back - and this time, it's been in the article since January. A friend of mine pointed the article out to me - otherwise who knows how much longer it would be sitting there. FCYTravis (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have deleted Penthouse Pets of 1976, and I suggest further scrutiny of the contributions of may be in order.--Docg 11:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Austin Weird
This is the second time I've come to this board asking about a section of the Keep Austin Weird article. The section was removed last time I brought it here, and I just noticed that it had been replaced without discussion. I've removed it a couple of times today, but I'm guessing based on my previous experiences with the editor that it will likely be replaced again. The issue is that a user insists on including what appears to be a section of poorly sourced original research about "Famous Austin eccentrics", former section title of "Austin Weirdos". Anyone have a moment to take a look...see if I'm overreacting? --Onorem♠Dil 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are not overreacting. The policy that applies here is perhaps the clearest policy that Wikipedia has.  "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion,"


 * The only items that are sourced are that a couple of people have run for office and got a certain % of the votes. Under the policy, this information could be left in but to do so would make the section pointless.Wanderer57 (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've warned the user concerned.--Docg 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the sanity check. I was fairly confident in my removal, but wanted an uninvolved set of eyes to take another look. --Onorem♠Dil 16:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Zehrudin Dokle
I ran across this article today. It's a biography of living person, whom I think is a director/ actor. I marked it for speedy because it lacked sources and the subject did not appear notable. The tag was removed and now that I look at the article, I wonder whether a speedy tag is appropriate or whether this article needs a lot of work. Also, if this isn't the correct forum for this question, let me know. Thanks! Tnxman307 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the article has many problems, but it asserts some importance, so it passes speedy. It may need AfD, but several editors have been editing it by removing such content as it has-I restored it. DGG (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael T. Studer
Michael T. Studer seems to me to be a big BLP violation, but i am not really confident enough on the needs and requirements to make the call. It does, however, have phrases like blank-check companies run by Michael Studer and Meyer Blinder, for instance, cheated investors... and ...Studer was intimately involved in the fraudulent transactions. The only reference given is "a Google search". Anyone? Cheers, Lindsay 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Carolyn Jessop
There are various WP:BLP and WP:SOAP issues in this article. Ms. Jessop wrote a book calling her mother (possibly living) a child abuser and her husband a rapist, etc., and the article is transmitting all this as if these were facts. I don't have time to clean all this up as I'm on wikibreak. But, her husband is about to hire a load of lawyers though, so I think we need to be very careful here. Someone please take a look and keep an eye on this! -- Kendrick7talk 22:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done some necessary cleanup, mainly attributing opinions in Jessop's autobiography to the author (rather than asserting these opinions as facts), as well as some trimming. It may need a few more eyeballs for the next couple of weeks, given the current controversy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aliza Shvarts and abortions as art
Wikipedians may want to watchlist the freshlisted Aliza Shvarts article - its a BLP of an individual who intentionally went on an abortion spree for artistic purposes. There may be repercussions. Skomorokh 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Dominican Athletes With Unethical Sports Practices
Extreme BLP violation. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Corvus cornix talk  01:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ellen Young

 * - Revision 204586172 contains potentially libelous statements inserted by . I recommend it be deleted from the article's history. MrPrada (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jason Leopold

 * I'm not a BLP expert, but a couple of IP addresses (presumably the individual in question) have been making what amount to legal threats on Jason Leopold, complete with terse legal documentation and other things. Can someone who is experienced in this actually deal with it? --Haemo (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Chanelle Hayes


I am having to repeatedly remove graffiti added that is erroneous and put there to spread rumour and hate form this page. Their is much controversy surrounding Miss Hayes and people get very emotional about the rumours put out in certain websites and winds up on the page having no basis in fact. I am trying to keep the page subjective and simple as the more there is the more I have to edit. I fear if I do not look in there on a daily basis to clean up erroneous and subjective/libellous info then t page will deteriorate and I want to help Wickipedia keep this page clear on rumour and usubstantiated hearsay. I hope the moderators understand.Nightfactoy (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I indefinitely semi-protected the article, which should stop most of the nonsense. However, I am also concerned at some of the material added by autoconfirmed editors. CIreland (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:American criminals
There's a dispute over at Category talk:American criminals over how liberally the category should be added to articles, and I thought it might be of interest to participants here. Be advised that this debate stems from the long-running dispute at Peter Yarrow (now in mediation, with this being the most relevant sub page). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At the same time, an alleged archive of American Criminals has been posted on the talk page of User:John celona that raises grave BLP concerns. David in DC (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Schildt
There seems to be a recurrence of problematic editing on this article, referring to "Criticisms of Schildt's books" but with rather poor sourcing (apparently blogs, Usenet FAQs, etc), and referring to a neologism, "bullschildt". I would appreciate it if someone else took a look this time, as my own trimming down after an earlier outbreak of this attack material has been challenged and it would be unseemly to get into a personality contest. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Pritam
I don't normally pay much attention to BLPs, but I just noticed this page, (it was linked on the RefDesk), and it seems like a very negative article to be both unsourced and about a (presumably) living person.

There is a sort of a reference in the external links section, but that seems to be some sort of POV heavy blog or something. The history shows that a few other questionable links have been removed from the article, often by bots. APL (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have turned the flamethrowers on the article and removed the allegations, they should be removed on sight unless they can be sourced. --87.112.70.168 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Gillberg

 * - this article needs urgent attention. Some anonymous users have been active there lately, now joined by a single-use account . Two things are happening: false accusations about "alleged scientific misconduct" are being added to the article (the accusations of misconduct against the subject of the article was examined and dismissed by the ethical board and are without basis--they are not even "alleged") and ref tags linking to court records, news reports and government records are being replaced by blog entries and private translations on a self-published site. I have reverted this user twice tonight. The article has a long history of edit warring along similar lines, and at one point a user even tried arbitration as a way to include various accusations against the subject (after which the article received lots of attention, was protected and the false accusations along with the POV activities finally died down). I think it's about to restart. Pia (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Julianna Mauriello
Hi! Sorry I am new to wikipedia and I really do not understand how to do all this special editing you guys are doing. But here is the thing, there is an actress here that has a page called.

(text removed - Wanderer57)

Sorry if I messed up your board.


 * The talk page of the article mentions the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Have you read the policy?  It is here:WP:BLP  If you edit articles about people, it is important to understand the policy.


 * I removed part of what you put in above. I removed this to conform to the policy. not because I thought what you did was vandalism. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Please use four tilde characters at the end of your entries in talk pages. This is changed by the Wiki system into a "signature" and a date stamp. It makes it easier to follow a discussion. (The tilde is the shift character on the key next to the number one.  It looks like this: ~ . Wanderer57 (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Hemmer
There is an edit war between a registered user (queensenglish) and multiple IP users over an external link to a comic looseley based on this person. I'd like to see if an admin would be willing to make a judgment on the referenced talk page. I tried to follow the logic and explain, but am not sure I was able to do so.Naut2b (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jason Leopold


I would like to request some more eyes on this article. Mr. Leopold has been editing this off and on for a while now, and I have generally reverted his changes. I would like to make sure I am not violating BLP in anyway, and to perhaps fight a possible COI. Any help would be appreciated. Arkon (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jin Jing


I would like to request some more eyes on this article on a living person. Someone insisted to add such extreme negative sentence "Some even said "she first lost her leg, now she lost her brain."". The source of such attack on Jin Jing is also not reliable. According to the policy on living persons in Wikipedia, such extreme negative personnel attack should be removed immediately. Thanks.--Jingandteller (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Solomon Trujillo
Article on the CEO of Telstra, Solomon Trujillo, who is undoubtedly quite famous but his bio is sorta crap, and has made the news. Could someone please wield the BLP machete of loving grace upon it - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiktor Poliszczuk
I don't think that this article is neutral, it reads like a criticism rather then neutral biography, with uncited claims: "None of his works were published by any university and he is not affiliated with any university department; nor does he have a university degree as a historian [...] Along with several authors, Wiktor Poliszczuk is sometimes accused of playing freely with historical facts, appealing mostly to the reader's emotions." I've tagged the article as possibly incompliant with LIVING but the tag is being removed. Comments appreciated at Talk:Wiktor_Poliszczuk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stubbed it, given that it's a living person whose article has been missing references since February 2007. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes
- There is a content dispute over who said what, and what exactly did the person mean. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen appears to maintain that Benny Peiser has withdrawn his criticisms with Naomi Oreskes's findings, while User:Lawrence Solomon has argued that Benny Peiser hasn't withdrawn his criticism completely. This content and edit war has become disruptive, and has even gotten national media attention here. As such future edits regarding who said what needs to tread lightly due to the media attention. ThePointblank (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note the sources that Solomon used are dodgy at best: a scientific paper that was rejected; commentary on a partisan political website; and his personal (and thus unverifiable) correspondence with Peiser. This doesn't fit our injunction in WP:BLP to "Be very firm about the use of high quality references." Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue has been published in a major Canadian paper and looks very much like Wikipedia has egg on its face, again. Personal correspondence is not unverifiable, merely difficult to verify. There should be a standard way that is accepted as reliable. There doesn't seem to be one right now and that's hurting the reputation of this encyclopedia. Peiser apparently was alleged to have said something in the Oreskes page that he denied in personal correspondence. You don't just go down a check list with something like that, you find a way to get at the truth. TMLutas (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. The columnist is disingenuous; the retraction mentioned is real, if grudging.  The columnist is apparently a climate change denier, it is not a huge surprise that he would choose to misrepresent this matter in this way. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Papania
My name, Brian Karjala, has been dragged through the mud at the above mentioned page. I've tried to make corrections but the false information about me remains. I was not fired from James Dobson's Focus on the Family. Nor have I admitted to receiving counseling for depression. The slanderous author gives people the impression that "he" had a conversation with me, which is not true. The author also implies guilt by association by attempting to link me to the financial crime of my former Focus on the Family supervisor. My reputation as an online minister is potentially damaged by the slander on that Tom Papania Wikipedia page. On my personal websites I've reported factual information about Papania's fraud which is why I've been slandered by this individual and/or his supporters. It is character assassination without addressing any of the info from my reports (though some links to my sites are provided). Can I obtain the IP address or identity of the individual who has posted the false information about me (for potential legal action)? What are my options? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.187.232 (talk • contribs)


 * Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) gives a pretty good summary of what your options are, and how you can proceed. In the meantime, since you've already mentioned the article, we can look at the article and remove any unsourced information, with might also resolve your issue. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I don't know if you are Brian or not, none of the content that mentioned that individual had a reliable source, and thus I've removed it from the article. I will try to keep an eye on it, and hopefully others will who see this discussion page will do the same. If you still feel it necessary, you can send an e-mail and follow the instructions on Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). -- Ned Scott 05:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. 71.219.187.232 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WOW, somebody is impersonating me and edited my previous post. This is Brian Karjala, check my user ID verses the person who is claiming to be me. Two sentences in the first paragraph were added and were not from me; another user is impersonating me and I have deleted the rants posted under my name. I never threatened to sue Wikipedia. I appreciate the help Wikipedia editors have offered. Check the edit summory to see that something fishy is going on. To verify that I'm the real BK go to http://www.christianissues.com/updates.html -- the user name BrianKarjala is not me! 71.219.187.232 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Very sorry about all of this. I am recommending that the user is blocked unless he can provide any proof of his identity. I recommend that you also send an e-mail to [mailto:info-en-q@wikimedia.org info-en-q@wikimedia.org] so that you can verify your identity, without giving any of your personal information out on the Wiki. In your e-mail give them a link to this section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tom_Papania and include your IP address that is showing in your user signature. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Monique D. Davis


IMO, this is not really a biography, but a stub bio with a large section about one negative incident. I  wanted to split that off into an article on the incident, but was reverted. More eyeballs welcome. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 22:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough
editors are trying to insert Christian Terrorist as a label in front of a person that Scarborough tried to represent. There is no reliable source describing this person as such and it wasn't what Scarborough was defending him for (Scarborough tried to defend him in a capital murder case). The only reason to inlude the pejorative is to smear Scarborough as a defender of Christian terrorism or a christian terrorist. Even the article on the killer doesn't describe him as a christian terrorist as there is no reliable source that uses that label. --DHeyward (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, he did gun down an abortion doctor while shouting, "stop killing babies," so one can sort of understand why the label just might be appropriate. Nor do there appear to be "no reliable sources" calling him a terrorist; try Google Scholar, Google Books, Google News... &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don;t mind his article having it, but in Scarboroughs its a form of ad hominem and is used to paint him as a defender of terrorism. It's enough to describe the crime without the pejorative label.  The editor is attempting to smear scarborough, not the killer.--DHeyward (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So you would like to describe the gunning down of a physician in a positive way? A more positive label? Well we can certainly work on that, but in the meantime Christian terrorist pretty much fits the bill. Kek15 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The news links didn't seem to use the term to describe the individual. --DHeyward (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who do you think performs acts of Christian terrorism? Angels? Kek15 (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As it is, that small segment of his life is only highlighted in blogs that oppose Scarborough. It is a very small segment and has a WP:UNDUE problem as well. It's not really relevant or comaprative to his other accomplishments since in essence all he did was refer this person to another lawyer. --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no smear going on here. Griffin was later convicted of killing an abortion doctor and Scarborough did attempt to represent him. I don't think anyone disputes these facts.  And it is exactly what Scarborough was attempting to defend him for.  The same as Johnnie Cochran defended OJ Simpson - that does not involve Cochran in whatever OJ did or did not do to his wife and her friend.  Scarborouogh's fleeting relationship with this man is correctly described in the Scarborough article.  It is what it is, nothing more or less.  For a public figure, this unfortunately is significant enough to merit inclusion in his profile. Kek15 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless you have a consensus of reliable sources that call Griffin a "terrorist" (of any kind), you cannot refer to him as such in Wikipedia, stated as a fact. This is BLP 101. - Merzbow (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah I know, like they say in the Army, there's no reason for it - it's policy. The terrorism part is established by his own actions and the connections to a Christian "rescue" group is included in his profile.  Kek15 (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From BLP: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)." If you cannot produce any sources that call him a "terrorist", it is you who are making "conjectural interpretations". - Merzbow (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, chapter and verse - very good. This issue has actually been settled for the time being. Though it is clear to me (and some others) that this man meets the definition of the term, it is equally clear that the requirements for its inclusion are lacking. This has been accepted. So at this point, it is moot. Kek15 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Attorneys represent all kinds of people, representing a person does not mean that you adhere to their beliefs. Corvus cornix talk


 * I absolutely agree with this (you're preaching to the choir). As I say so above with reference to Johnnie Cochran and OJ Simpson.  I only want to define and describe Griffin for what he is.  This point is obvious and for me goes without saying.  This is why I don't consider this a smear. See the Eric Robert Rudolph article where he is properly described as a Christian terrorist, with proper sourcing.  The name of his attorney is also included in the piece.  This is no smear against Rudolph's attorney either. The crimes of their client does not reflect on ANY attorney as everyone is entitled to a defense. Kek15 (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul McGarr
An anonymous user (86.11.131.192) keeps changing this page to make make comments that are IMO designed to present Paul McGarr in an unfavourable light. I'm new as an editor of Wikipedia, though not as a user, and I'm not quite certain how to proceed. On the discussion page and in the summaries of my changes I have made several requests to him to discuss the matter but he simply ignores them. --Mia-etol (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To avoid edit-warring I will refrain from deleting the comments until the matter has been settled, as every time I delete them the anonymous user undoes my deletion. --Mia-etol (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment is not meant in an unfavourable light. It is factual and if required I will reword it. I however think it is important to reflect the busy and to some contrversial style of McGarr. At present the article does not do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.131.192 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously I disagree with you there - I think it reflects a personal POV and is by no means an objective comment. However I will await the opinions of others. --Mia-etol (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is egregious either way, but I think the salient question is whether he works as a math teacher all the time, or whether he takes hiatuses from this job to engage in his political activity. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The question to 86.11.131.192 is whether Paul McGarr takes an inordinate amount of time off to engage in political activities. If he can show this I'll withdraw my objection to his change. --Mia-etol (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Many insertions of possibly defamatory claims in Robert J. Marks II
Several members of the Intelligent Design WikiProject have inserted a claim in Robert J. Marks II that the subject is a proponent of an ideology that is despised by many -- especially members of his profession. Two members have done this at least three times apiece. Recent examples:

I have given prominent notice on the talk page of the WP:BLP required to support such a claim. Several editors have responded by synthesizing the claim from low-quality sources. None has managed to produce a high-quality source. One editor has tried to link to an opinion piece on the web that attributes the ideology to Marks. I have produced WP:BLP strongly suggesting that Marks propounds an ideology distinct from that attributed to him.

Prompt response is important. Marks is a subject of the controversial documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which opened on 1100 screens Friday. As I've worked on this note, a newly arrived editor has reentered the claim and deleted a great deal of previously undisputed content, including a section on Marks' technical contributions. ThomHImself (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First, Expelled open on 1000 screen not 1100 (I don't see that as at all relevant anyways but we might as well be careful). Now, I don't see much of an issue with this. Both pro-ID and anti-ID people have characterized Marks as being a proponent of ID. That's about as strong as we can get. Now if we had some reason to think that Marks disagreed with that characterization, say had said "I'm not an ID proponent" or something similar then we'd be able to include that. But when both sides in a highly controversial issue agree that someone is on one side there's not much we can reasonably do. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Please
Please can I get some comment on this?

Please look at the section Desi Arnaz. I compared this to the source book, "Desilu: The Story of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz".

Should the part about the phone call should be in Wikipedia? I ask because:


 * It is not correct in some details. According to the source, it was Desi's daughter Lucie who phoned her mother, not Lucille who called Desi. The part "I'll talk to you later" was Lucie talking to Lucille, not Lucille to Desi.


 * It gives the impression that Desi was alone for the last two days of his life, which is not true.


 * It is very personal detail.

Wanderer57 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well personal or not, if it was in the book we are using as a source, then there is no problem. However, as you assert, if it is not in the book, then it should not be in the article unless another source can be found for it.--Filll (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The phone call is in the book. The article has a couple of the details incorrect. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He's dead. He's a notable figure.  Why was this posted on the B Living P board? Bearian (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Yes he is dead. I posted here because I wanted to put the question in front of people with interest and experience in biographical issues. There may be a "BDP" discussion that I'm not aware of.


 * The point I'm most uncertain on is whether a phone conversation between two people two days before one of them dies is something that should be in the encyclopedia.


 * In the 368 page biography, there is plenty of context that makes the conversation somewhat significant. In our article, I don't think we can do it justice.


 * If I was writing the article from scratch, I would not put the conversation in. But because I'm considering removing it from an article written by others, I wanted to get some other input. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tory Christman

 * - First, adds info about a supposed formal name for this individual, in this article about a WP:BLP .  This is personal information about this person which is unverified, so I removed it. That same anon-IP then added the info back in, again, with zero edit summary . I reverted this a second time, and then this exact same info was added back in a 3rd time by, with a rather inappropriate edit summary: Fuck it, I don't need to cite someone's name..  -- Actually I was debating whether to report this to WP:ANI, or here, or both - but as this is an article about a WP:BLP, and this personal information which is new to this article is unsourced, and per WP:V we really should have a WP:RS/WP:V citation to back up this information about a living person - I am reporting this here.  I also am pretty sure that  is the same as .  I would appreciate it if others looked into this please.  Thank you.  // Cirt (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Genie (feral child)

 * There is an issue of whether or not it is ok to include this person's real name according to WP:Biographies of living persons.
 * WP:RFC/BIO yielded no help. For An Angel (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I put a note in the article talk page. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did too.--Slp1 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. For An Angel (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The material has been reinserted, despite a strong consensus against its inclusion. I have since removed it again. The editor is making the argument that this person's name has been "widely disseminated", when in fact it was last published over 30 years ago and has since been intentionally concealed. More opinions on the subject welcome. --Slp1 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The material has been reinserted, despite a strong consensus against its inclusion. I have since removed it again. The editor is making the argument that this person's name has been "widely disseminated", when in fact it was last published over 30 years ago and has since been intentionally concealed. More opinions on the subject welcome. --Slp1 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just made a post at the bottom, and then found that the case has already been discussed here, so I'm moving my comments to this part of the page. This is about a girl who was severely abused, was tied to a potty, kept in her room, beaten if she tried to speak, etc. She was rescued at the age of thirteen. The child spent time in hospitals and in foster care. At the time of her rescue, her name was published by the media, but when the media interest in the actual criminal case died down (her father committed suicide before the trial was to start), she continued to be discussed, not in the news, but by psycholo­gists, linguists, psycholinguists, neurologists, etc. In order to protect her privacy, these people began to refer to her as Genie, and that is how she is referred to even today. There is currently a disagreement about whether or not using her real name in the article is against this Living Persons policy, and it doesn't look as if we are going to get an agreement any time soon. Someone is arguing that it's okay to report her name because the media reported it at the time of her rescue, but it does seem that her name has been intentionally concealed for the last 35 years. Someone did find a 2006 book which mentions her name once, and refers to her as Genie the rest of the time. Other books dealing with this case seem to use just "Genie" the whole time. Ashton1983 (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Floyd McKissick, Jr.
The topic of the Wiki article keeps removing anything he finds to be negative, as he's running for election. If the information is correctly referenced, and is public information, and is from a reliable source, how does one get him to quit reverting to an earlier version? Evets70 (talk)
 * Have him blocked assuming you are absolutely sure the information is true and the sources are good. John Reaves 12:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ronnie radke
MySpace and Shoutmouth (I'd never heard of it, but the site apparently features user-submitted info) are being used as the only sources for a biography including information on drug addiction, broken families, robot obsession, and his current criminal status. I'm assuming that I'd be safe in passing WP:3RR in this situation, but I'd prefer if another set of eyes would take a look and perhaps try to explain to this persistent user why some may feel his edits are not acceptable. --Onorem♠Dil 13:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Recreated at Ronnie Joseph Radke. Still questionably sourced. I've removed the worst of it, but I'm guessing it will be back soon. I'm hoping to have some time to find good sources this afternoon. --Onorem♠Dil 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And his focus has now turned to Ronnie Radke... --Onorem♠Dil 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert J. Marks II
I didn't format the preceding entry correctly. User:Philippe locked this article while I was preparing it. He indicates that he is not on Wiki much at present. The potential harm to Marks arising from the last four words of the first sentence is at its peak now. See the talk for discussion of whether the characterization of the subject is justified. ThomHImself (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Marks is notable as an IDist. He gave Dembski a "postdoc" in his "virtual lab".  He has written a prominent pro-IDist paper with Dembski.  He is featured in Expelled.  The whole controversy over Baylor shutting down his "virtual lab" revolves around the issue of whether it was shut down because it was pro-ID or whether it was simply shut down because Baylor was concerned that it gave the impression that it was approved by Baylor.  The entire issue presupposed Marks' support for ID.  Disputing this is just silly.  Guettarda (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Intelligent Design WikiProject participant Guettarda, WP:BLP policy applies to claims made about living persons everywhere, and not just in articles. I ask that you, as an ethical matter, delete your own comment. And I ask you to join, even if very late, in the discussion at the article. Indeed, the "entire issue presupposed Marks' support for ID." ThomHImself (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tom, if you follow through your own logic, you should delete your own comments as well, since you are also connecting Marks with ID. Guettarda (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The talkpage of this article already contains a wealth of documentation on Marks' participation in shoring up and publicising ID. ThomHImself has admitted to being Tom English and to have been for a short time a member of Marks' EIL. Under his real name he has also engaged in advocacy on behalf of Marks' reputation and sought to downplay his involvement in ID. I would therefore assert that he has a fairly clear WP:COI on this matter. HrafnTalkStalk 08:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just learned how to report Intelligent Design WikiProject participant Hrafn's deceptive use of an unreliable and irrelevant source containing the claim about Marks that's under dispute. My name and website were always on my user page. Here's an example of "advocacy" (and Wes Elsberry's response). ThomHImself (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ThomHImself: thank you for that positive and mild-mannered comment directed at me. I am confused as to why you consider my being a Intelligent Design WikiProject participant noteworthy -- most of the editors involved on this article are likewise participants. As to "reporting" me, it was in fact myself who repeatedly suggested that if you had a problem with the consensus on this article that you should bring it up here or on the RS noticeboard (rather than edit-warring against this consensus). I find it odd that you cite the Austringer thread rather than the Panda's Thumb thread that sparked Perakh's piece. HrafnTalkStalk 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I gather that Tom sees "Intelligent Design WikiProject participant" as somehow discrediting us. Or something of the sort.  Guettarda (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

From the top of the page, "IMPORTANT - do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Please link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here." The potentially defamatory claim, unsupported by WP:BLP, that Marks is an intelligent design (ID) proponent is under dispute. I ask that repetitions of it here be deleted along with this comment. ThomHImself (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is getting awfully close to a legal threat, if it has not crossed the line already.--Filll (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I observed above, both pro and anti ID sources have identified Marks as pro-ID. Unless Marks says somewhere that he's not pro-ID that's pretty hard to refute. You are of course welcome to contact Marks yourself and ask him. He could put up a statement saying he's not an ID proponent on his website or something similar. But in the meantime, this looks fine to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even better, I suggest you contact Marks yourself and get him to remove himself as a signatory from the pro-ID list, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. This has been done before. If he does not support ID, and now that it is clear that the list is used to promote ID, this should be an easy and noncontroversial thing to do.--Filll (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia must abide by its own policy in biographies of living persons even if the "consensus" is that the policy should be ignored. A claim that Marks advocates a particular ideology must have a reliable source for a biography of a living person. This section illustrates how members of the Intelligent Design WikiProject draw attention away from the simple fact that they cannot produce the source. ThomHImself (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence: [Other editors please feel free to add to this list (but please sign your additions to avoid confusion).] HrafnTalkStalk 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * His collaborator William Dembski repeatedly says that his work with Marks is on ID in this interview.
 * "Robert Marks’s “Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory” website – touting intelligent design..." -- National Center for Science Education's 'Expelled Exposed' website.
 * "Maybe Marks is indeed a great scientist in his field, but his (with Dembski) anti-Häggström paper seems to show, first that he shares Dembski's pro-ID views...", Mark Perakh.
 * His signature on a Discovery Institute propaganda petition.
 * His participation as one of the 'victims' of 'Big Science' in a pro-ID propaganda film.
 * The quote "Other supporters of intelligent design featured here include mathematician David Berlinski, theologian Alister McGrath and Baylor University engineering professor Robert J. Marks II." from .--Filll (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Other supporters of intelligent design featured here include mathematician David Berlinski, theologian Alister McGrath and Baylor University engineering professor Robert J. Marks II." from .... is a movie review considered a reliable source for allegations of this nature? I'd have no problem citing a movie review for facts about the movie being reviewed (or other movies it's being compared to; or the novel on which the movie is based); but this seems to me to be outside the scope of its reliability. TJRC (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch
Several users - one new and the others with a very sparing amount of edits throughout the last few years - keep inserting into Rupert Murdoch's article that his mother is an Orthodox Jew, using the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs - specifically this article - as a source. Can this website be used as a source in a biography of a living person? Especially since, based on the background information given in the article Elisabeth Murdoch (senior) (Rupert Murdoch's mother), she does not appear to be Jewish, and this reference doesn't appear to be correct in the first place. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Udall and his opponent Bob Schaffer (Senate 2008)
sole purpose on wikipedia, it seems is to write negative material without WP:RS on Mark Udall and downplay criticism on Bob Schaffer. I told this user to use WP:RS, but he has not replied. I came across this a few days ago when I notice some of the claim his user inserted was from editorials or partisan websites. I feel I was generous to leave in some of the material on Schaffer's article, such as World (magazine), but this user has repeatedly reinserted the claims. Paper45tee (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Both articles protected. Please pursue dispute resolution ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers
Bill Ayers was a 60s "radical" who, by his own account, "bombed the Pentagon", amongst other things. There's an ongoing dispute over this article with respect to whether he can be "accused" of bombing, given that such an "accusation" would be, according to some, a "criminal accusation". My position has been that edits consistent with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTABLE should be allowed to stand even if someone claims someone would be "distressed" by inclusion. In other words, WP:RS etc trump WP:BLP or WP:HARM in the event of a conflict. Thoughts?Bdell555 (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, the "dispute" is a revert war the above editor has carried out with three others to add two sentences to the article. The first is simply a rhetorical introduction saying that Ayers "declines to discuss" a particular incident in his autobiography.  The second is a near-exact quote from an editorial published on a conservative think tank website.  In the quote the editorialist paraphrases a statement a government informant purportedly made in an unspecified written document, accusing Ayers of the incident.  The specific claim is that Ayers refused to scrap plans to bomb a police station in a way that would likely kill people, because concern for human life was "unrevolutionary" (in the words of the editorialist).  That's a major violent felony however you cut it.  I won't make the BLP argument again here, which should be pretty obvious.  Whether or not a person has admitted to committing one crime, we cannot insert unreliable claims that he committed other crimes or that he had a disregard of human life in doing so.  This has already been discussed at length and the proposed material rejected on the article talk page and at Wikipedia Talk:Biographies of living persons (where, incidentally, the editor is proposing to do away with BLP policy entirely).  There is no conflict here between BLP and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  It probably wouldn't even pass WP:COPYVIO, much less WP:RS and WP:NPOV.  On WP:RS alone, an editorialist paraphrasing an out-of-court statement by a government informant is not a reliable source. - Wikidemo (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kanwar Pal Singh Gill


The user User:Singh6 is continuously adding defamatory information to articles like Kanwar Pal Singh Gill using a propaganda site http://www.ihro.in as the source.

I raised this matter at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, where two editors commented and agreed with me that this site does not classifies as a Reliable source.

I am not the only person to have opposed this user. Many others have also reverted his edits, but he continues to add the information citing ihro.in as a source:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

I think Wikipedia authorities don't actually take the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard" very seriously. So, I am bringing this issue up here again.

The information is against Biographies of living persons, and is not even directly related to KPS Gill. There were many torture killings against Khalistani militants and their sympathizers during KPS Gill's reign, but ihro.in has absurdly exaggerated propaganda information (see the above diffs).

The user Singh6 is obviously a sympathizer of Khalistani militants:
 * His comments about killers of Gandhi: "I am glad that Beant Singh and Satwant Singh did not resign from their bodyguard jobs to assasinate criminal Indira Gandhi. Atleast! India can not declare these young educated police officers as terrorists. I, being a Sikh, 'salute' both of these martyrs of Sikh Nation."
 * Removal of anti-militant comments by others and addition of pro-Khalistani comments
 * Pure propaganda
 * Removal of tags like refimprove and peacock from articles on terrorists:
 * He added articles on religious extremist terrorists to the categories "Skh martyrs" and "Sikh warriors" and when another Sikh editorremoved them, he added them back again..

I even suspect that this guy is an anti-Sikh propagandist, who is making these edits to malign Sikhs and make them look like supporters of terrorism.

Can somebody please stop all this.

// 202.54.176.51 (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

 * - After contacting Goddessy.com to inquire about the information mentioned in the article on Stephanie Adams, they confirmed that the information was false and defamatory and she sued as a result of it. They also said that they would be contacting Wikipedia's general counsel to have this information removed. But I just removed it because it was never added in the beginning and the person who added it was doing so to be malicious. When mentionings in articles might constitute some sort of libel, it might be better off to avoid the issue entirely. Don't you think? Swiksek (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your recent deletion implies that you're referring to a very demure mention of what a New York Press article describes as an incompetent foray into teaching. If Adams's company is going to brandish the law at Wikipedia, let it. Meanwhile, "because it was never added in the beginning" is an utterly bizarre rationale for removing something, and you may wish to give convincing evidence for your assertion that the motive for addition was malice. And while I am no lawyer, I very much doubt that mentioning such a thing in an article "might constitute some sort of libel". -- Hoary (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well according to the Goddessy e-mail, the actual lawyer of Wikipedia for Jim Wales (Mike Godwin) was contacted and the false mentioning in the article will inevitably be removed. I was just doing what is ultimately going to happen anyway. Contact Wiki first and they will probably confirm what I already know. Swiksek (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are in contact with Goddessy and have access to their email and know what legal correspondence has passed between lawyers, why don't you clarify exactly what your relationship is to Ms Adams and Goddessy? -- Sean Martin (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What "false mentioning"? And the usual legalistic channels are open to Adams's company; until it uses them, why are you so desperate [see edit history] to have this stuff removed? -- Hoary (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate [I read a note Jim Wales made to you telling you to refrain from editing this article] to try to defame her again? According to Goddessy, the legal channels were already used and Wikipedia is going to ultimately remove it. The false information about Adams is not mentioned anywhere else but a non-prominent publication. Adams is known for being a model and an author. All the information about her on the internet is vast compared to a tacky column. If it was sourced on several occassions by several reputable newspapers, that would be understandable. You referred to it as "stuff" and that is exactly what it is. Not even newsworthy enough to be in the Daily News or USA Today. 71.167.226.96 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If "the legal channels were already used and Wikipedia is going to ultimately remove it" then let's let that process do it's work and avoid an edit war in the meantime. In that meantime, if you're going to argue that the NY Press website is a "non-prominent publication" shouldn't all teh items supported only by references to Ms Adam's own Goddessy web site also be removed?  -- Sean Martin (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article would be quite a bit smaller if information that is not sourced or is sourced only to that website was removed. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Exactly.  But then it would be less to SA's liking. -- Sean Martin (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall Wales telling me to refrain from editing this article. He did indeed once mention it in email to me. As it was private mail, I don't think I should quote it here, much though I'd like to. Are you Wales or a close friend of his, or just what are you saying about any epistolary or other relationship with him or myself? &para; Meanwhile, I'm not desperate to defame Adams, who doesn't interest me. I am however interested in Wikipedia and I should like to help prevent this little part of it from becoming a mere hagiography and portal for sales of Adams/Goddessy-branded astrological and other materials: I see that it already has more than one link to a commercial outlet of hers. &para; Just what information about Adams here is false? That she ran some class where women paid fifty bucks a pop to be told how to snag rich men? That she did a poor job at it? &para; Adams is known for being a model and an author. And not as a "spokesmodel", investor or philanthropist, then? It's true that she's not well known for being a teacher. My own impression is that she's known slightly among middle-aged readers of Playboy for having appeared in it, and also vaguely remembered among readers of NYC tabloids for some argument with a cabbie -- and that's about it. I think the article should pull out all the feebly sourced or unsourced stuff about "spokesmodeling", investing, philanthropy, etc etc; until it does, mention of this pedagogic misadventure seems at least as worthwhile (not least for its explanation of one appeal of the charity events at which Adams is said to be a fixture). -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The New York Press has not been established as long and is not as well-known as USA Today, CBS, ABC, Fox 5 News, The New York Post, and so on. It was more of a rant than an article and is too questionable to be noted, at the risk of libel. Ladysekhmet (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Goddessey.com also has not been established as long and is not as well-known as USA Today, CBS, ABC, Fox 5 News, The New York Post yet seems to be frequently cited as a source for information in the article. NY Press, BTW, has been around for 20+ years. How long is needed before something can be considered "established"? By that measure Ms Adams, for example, has not yet established herself as an author. -- Sean Martin (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ladysekhmet", are you saying that if an article is libelous, then noting it is also libelous? Now, I do realize that US law is potty (e.g. its "antimonopoly" legislation allows Microsoft to continue to buy up all its competition), but even by US legal standards this does seem farfetched. And anyway there could only be a problem if the article were libelous. Is it? -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * She is an "exotic mix". What does that mean???
 * "Raised from birth by her aunts, who were former models". Fine but is that important enough to be included?
 * Direct descendent of President John Adams. Again, fine but is it important enough to include?
 * Is it important to list people's "ex-boyfriends"??
 * After going through all the public appearances, Playboy, website, etc, the bit about "Adams prefers to keep the details of her personal life private" reads like a joke.
 * I think all this could be deleted without significant loss. Other opinions? Wanderer57 (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, absolutely. And how about the (sourced!) paragraph devoted to the fact that she was one of eleven people to make a "cameo appearance" on a TV program? (And for that matter, is there any source for the marriage to the [never named] "Italian investment banker"?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys sound bitter, jealous, angry, and miserable. You know you can never be with her or any other beautiful celebrity, so your feeling of being powerless is pacified by your measly ability (like the rest of the world) to edit on an explosively overall potentially libelous web site. You're not hurting her. You're only feeding into your own sickness and eventually it is going to kill you inside. What have you done with your lives that's notable? All you can do is write about other people who are notable. And you're not even getting paid for it, nor are you by any means professional. Get a life. Then do something with it. 208.120.11.47 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note - I would remove the above comment but I think it might be useful if a sockpuppet report comes out. Wikidemo (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that Swiksek and some of the others may be sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets. There are a number of coordinated  single purpose accounts that have done nothing but guard over and add details to this article. Depending on whether you believe the BLP concerns are in good faith or not Swiksek has violated WP:3RR and is edit warring.  Discussions on this subject appear to have been WP:CANVASSed and forum shopped to various places.  This whole thing just doesn't pass the smell test.  I see no liability whatsoever to Wikipedia, although if the cited article's information is untrue, damaging, and in reckless disregard for the truth the truth they might have some liability.  That's for the courts and the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer to figure out, not for editors to get into a fight over.  If Wikipedia receives a bona fide demand to take the material down they are certainly free to do so; we should not on their behalf.  I've restored the mention of her "how to marry rich" course (which is encyclopedic and interesting, and next to her Playboy stuff and all that does seem relevant to her notability).  The New York Press article is a reasonable source for that, as is the Learning Annex website.  However, I have omitted the analysis that the New York Press gave her class a bad review.  That statement did not have a good enough balance of relevance, believability, BLP-friendliness, and strong sourcing.  It's basically a journalist from a free paper who attended her learning annex class and reported back with a "she was a sucky teacher" article that made fun of her.  Not what encyclopedias are built of.  Wikidemo (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. I just stumbled across this. 208.120.11.47 is talking about bitterness whilst sounding bitter. That's clever. Lessons by example. -- Qaddosh|talk| contribs 07:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the article makes fun of Adams, I don't think that's all it does. It makes fun of the participants, and the notion of an education in how to fleece or anyway find rich men. And it also seems interestingly descriptive. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless that Learning Annex class somehow became a huge sensational success, it's not important enough to even mention, IMO. And the story that somebody didn't like the class is less important. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apart from any talent she may or may not have she's a pop culture phenomenon so her career is a matter of self-promotion the public's interest in her is mostly fluff. So I think it's a question of finding useful, illustrative fluff that people pay attention to and helps define her stardom.  I found the learning annex class kind of interesting but I don't know nearly enough about the subject matter to know how that fits into her overall efforts to be famous, do her spirituality teaching thing, etc.Wikidemo (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User NonvocalScream sees fit to remove basic facts about only one playmate Stephanie Adams, from the EXACT SAME format of other playmate's articles, yet not remove those facts about them as well. Date of birth and measurements of playmates should remain for Stephanie Adams, just like they remain for the other playmates. This user has become a nuisance and is maliciously trying to damage this article. Swiksek (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Park Place (Ontario)
Can somebody please look at the recent history of involving myself and ? I am concerned that his addition violates BLP, and I have hit three reverts. Thank you. --NE2 02:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have taken a look and have re-edited the entire article. It may benefit from a bit of further work, and I wonder how notable the location is; perhaps it can be further reduced and merged into the article about the City of Barrie. Specifically, I have removed the references to the person convicted of accessing child pornography as it clearly has no relationship to the location being described, and have commented on the talk page about his relevant notability and the improper use of this article as a coatrack.  Risker (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Corn Children has inserted the section again with the person's name removed. I do not feel comfortable reverting because I would be violating 3RR. --NE2 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Hi folks,

Could some BLP-watching admins (and other users if desired) please visit WP:ANI? There's a fairly major issue involving legal threats which I am not sure how best to handle. Thanks Stifle (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It needs to go to arbitration. I'll post a request on WP:RFAr shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Lloyd
The entire article is about one non-important incident which violates WP:BLP1E. This needs major work to make it not be a BLP violation. Corvus cornix talk  23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Hart (poet)
I don't know what Hart did to piss this person off, but they persistently work to cut him down and make him look bad. Back in January, the edits were pretty obviously unacceptable. However since then the IP has learned a degree of subtlety, graduating to this and then this. The user has now learned to game the system beautifully. S/he is quite willing to invest substantial efforts in hunting down and posting negative reviews of his work, so his/her work is always well referenced, although in one case s/he turned out to have quoted from an Amazon.com book review. [Comment: the quotation from an Amazon.com book review was inserted by yet a different editor, and as it had no validity it was deleted. - 24.155.14.119] Yet they are clearly attempts to cast Hart in the most negative possible light. I have just stubbed the article as a hatchet job in violation of WP:BLP. In doing so I removed a substantial amount of referenced material. I request a review of that edit, and advice on how to proceed from here. Hesperian 06:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The hatchet job was restored. I have now reverted and semi-protected. Because of the potential perception that I am using administrative tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute (which is not the case) I ask that someone review the situation. Hesperian 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief, he can't be that bad a poet, can he? Seriously, I support your actions and see no conflict. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian stubbed this article after someone posted Hart's own published comments on a fellow Australian poet. I cannot fathom how removing this material is a gesture of neutrality. Now the article is left with bits of praise, with no real sense of who Hart is. That's what is missing now. Who Hart really is, and how the academic community perceives him, is the basis for an excellent article. Was the piece excellent before Hesperian stubbed it? No, but we were all working on getting it there, and at least it was informative (until Hesperian stubbed it), and anyone who felt the piece lacked balance was free to add strong and positive reviews of Hart's work. Hesperian has deleted well-researched, accurately documented, informative material about Hart, material that was not available anywhere else on the web. Significantly, it was material that was submitted by several editors, not just one. Hesperian's stub amounts to a hatchet job on what was growing slowly into a well-rounded and important analysis of a highly successful poet and critic. Such an article needs both positive and negative reviews if it is to have any validity at all. Some of that material might not flatter Kevin Hart, but so what? Is is Wikipedia's purpose to flatter? If so, it has no reliability. Please bear in mind that all deleted material was well-documented and was originally published in scholarly, peer-reviewed presses. In my view, Hesperian has abused this system, and it borders on vandalism. You should look closely at the article's contents the day Hesperian stubbed it. The inappropriate comments he cites above had been deleted long, long ago.

[moved here from my talk page] Hesperian 01:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You stubbed this article after someone posted Hart's own published comments on a fellow Australian poet. I cannot fathom how you are being neutral.  Now we are left with bits of praise, with no real sense of who Hart is.  That's what is missing now.  Who Hart really is, and how the academic community perceives him, is the basis for an excellent article.  Was the piece excellent before you stubbed it?  No, but we were all working on getting it there, and at least it was informative (until you stubbed it), and anyone who felt the piece lacked balance was free to add strong and positive reviews of Hart's work.  Let's face it: you've deleted well-researched, accurately documented, informative material about Hart, material that was not available anywhere else on the web.  Instead of deleting this legitimate material if you didn't like the point of view, why didn't you balance it?  We all have agendas, let's admit it; neutrality is an illusion, and everything has a point-of-view, no matter what the WP principles say otherwise.  (Ironically, that tenet is one of the building-blocks of Hart's scholarship in deconstructive philosophy.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We both know you're not here to write a neutral article; you're here to bag him out. I am usually loathe to cut out referenced information, but you don't get a free ride to run someone down just because you've learned the fine art of tracking down negative reviews and/or quoting the most negative sentence from a review and/or quoting out of context. One can clearly see an evolution in your edits from outright attack to subtler attack to far subtler injection of negative bias, so I'm glad you're not bothering to deny you have an agenda.
 * As for my agenda, I must say that I really don't give a fuck about Hart. I'd never heard of him before I was asked to stick my nose into this. I've never read one of his poems, and I couldn't care less about his deconstructive philosophy. That's right, I'm a complete philistine. My agenda is to improve Wikipedia articles, and removing a blatant hatchet job is one way of doing that.
 * Having removed such a large quantity of referenced material, I immediately submitted my edit for review at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. You feel free to move this discussion there, and continue it in my absence. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed.
 * Hesperian 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not out to write a neutral article? Of course not!  That's my point.  There's no such thing, and you're a fool if you think there is.  Neutrality is not created by YOUR hatchet job--and indeed you did take the rhetorical axe to it--but by a welter of information, some of which is "positive" and some of which is "negative."  I--and several others, apparently--added material that did not flatter Hart.  Well guess what?  It's not the purpose of an encyclopedia to flatter.  Your agenda is not indeed about Hart; if it were you might have found some "positive" things with which to create balance and thus the semblance of neutrality.  Your agenda is to prevent the dissemination of useful information that will shed proper light on all the awards that Hart has received.  If you had no agenda, you should have stayed out of it.  If your agenda is to "improve" Wikipedia articles, well guess what?  You failed.  Miserably.  (And BTW those edits you cite are NOT all from the same editor.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian's guesses about an editor's motives are irrelevant. The only question is whether the material added by the editors was relevant, informative, and documented. The reviews of Hart's poetry and Hart's own views of poetry and his fellow poets are all relevant, informative, and documented. Therefore this material should stand. Hesperian needs to back down and stop policing articles about which he admittedly knows nothing at all. Let those who know something about poetry and scholarship have their say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I quote from the NPOV/FAQ page: "Lack of neutrality as an EXCUSE to delete. The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed."

This policy makes a strong case that the possible "bias" of the editor's additions to the Kevin Hart article should stand. Any editor who finds bias has the burden of adding material to balance this perceived bias. Hesperian and others need to stand down and either leave the article on Hart alone or add documented and relevant material of their own.

Let me add that Hesperian has continued to accuse me of sock-puppetry (note that his/her diatribe begins "I don't know what Hart did to piss this person off"), which is a ridiculous delusion. There have been at least four editors that have been involved in the development of this piece. I restored edits made by another editor because I agreed with that him/her that the article is valid and informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)