Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive22

Antony Perrat

• Anthony Peratt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Editor User:Velikovksy added (1) A contentious sentence to this biography.[1] without any source. (2) Contentious category tags,[2][3]
• Without reliable sources, I both removed them, [4] and warned the user that I thought it was a violation of WP:LIVING here.[5]
• Editor User:Velikovksy subsequently threatened me with unfounded claims of Conflict of interest,[6] (following another COI report), then changed their username to User:Mainstream astronomy
• Under the new username User:Mainstream astronomy, they have restored the contentious material,[7], again without reliable sources, which I have highlighted on the talk page.
• During the Conflict of interest incident mentioned above, another user queried whether User:Velikovksy had an agenda,[8], and a look through their editing history shows a preponderance of adding contentious material,[9][10][11][12], which may be valid, but shows a trend. --Iantresman 22:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder about the new user name (as about the old, considering the topics being worked on) DGG (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That contentious sentence (first bullet point above) is OR, so I removed it. But I don't see any evidence that article passes WP:PROF. Does anyone agree? If so, let's WP:PROD it. CWC 03:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• User:Mainstream astronomy has now added a ((prod}} template to the article which I have no objection to in principle.
• However, User:Mainstream astronomy has added a number of new unsubstantiated controversial comments to the template, such as: "itinerant" expert, the person is on the outskirts of academe, is not considered important, He is pretty obscure, etc.
• This is third time this user has added such material to this article, and also to another living author,[13] without substantiation.
• I suspect that the user used to go by the Username User:ScienceApologist under which username, similar unsubstantiated controversial comments were made,[14], including suggestions of improprietry,[15], all contrary to WP:LIVING guidelines.
• User:ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of other living people too,[16] and also under yet another username, Joshuaschroeder too, eg.[17]
• Surprisingly, User:Mainstream astronomy admits that he doesn't know whether the subject is legitimate![18]

Yes, that PROD text was probably too strong. I've WP:BOLDly condensed the text, just to be on the safe side of WP:BLP. Cheers, CWC 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We're now running an AfD instead of a PROD. CWC 10:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Lise Skaret

Resolved. Article deleted by Gamaliel, DRV endorsed

• Lise Skaret (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A rash act by a 19 year old girl shouldn't be forever immortalized in an encyclopedia, especially with a compromising picture. Per WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E and others. henrik•talk 12:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to ascertain the importance of this topic, should it belong on Wikipedia? Is it notable enough? If so, I suggest redirecting to a properly named article, as this is most definitely not a biography. As for the picture, WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not censored.--Ispy1981 15:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The photo has no source information regarding the copyright holder, and will be deleted unless that can be provided per WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought about this for a bit, but I decided to kill it. A teenage stunt shouldn't be immortalized by a Wikipedia biography. Perhaps those interested in this can add a small bit about it to the russ article, since there seems to be a history of wacky russ stunts. I will open a discussion at WP:DRV if anyone wishes to object to this deletion. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is here. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• DRV endorsed deletion. Resolved. - Crockspot 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

David R. Hawkins

Resolved. Article deleted by User:Zscout370

There are critical links that are being removed on the Hawkins page that I believe should be included. They are good, legitimate criticisms. There seems to be a bias about removing any critical comment from the article now.[19] Thank you. --Alienlifeformz 16:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Monica Leech

Resolved. speedy deleted after AfD

This article, up for AFD, stated that soem said she was paid too much for the work she did for the government, and that a talk show caller had made a specific obscene suggestion as to what she did to earn it, and that she had pursued a libel case against a newspaper that reprinted the talk show comment. I blanked all but the first sentence of the article, that said she was a "self-employed communications consultant, who runs her own company." The article reprinted unsourced libel. If the court case were notable, there might be an acceptable article, but I wonder, given the recent WP:BLP1E deletions by admins. Edison 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good call. I'm wondering if Natalee Holloway should be moved to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway to conform with WP:BLP1E?- Crockspot 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so. It's certainly not a bio. -Jmh123 23:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

She was non-notable before the disappearance, but the right-to-life issues of the killing of her unborn child Connor, and the Missing white woman syndrome on the 24/7 news channels made the case notable, apparently. With the front page stories and news coverage, millions came to feel that they were close friends, and news stories often referred to her only by her first name. WP:NOT#NEWS became policy after that, so if an identical case came along today the outcome would be interesting. Our style more recently has consistently been to title the article as the case, not the person(unless they were notable before the incident). Edison 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Article has been recreated. Tagged for CSD G4. - Crockspot 02:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• And deleted again. - Crockspot 03:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Frank Fahey

Resolved. User warned

Frank Fahey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A couple of users are inserting unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory material about Frank Fahey into his article. Sources are being cited that do not support the mateerial being added. Some of the wording used is definitely not NPOV. See [20], [21], [22] and [23]. -- Donald Albury 22:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Placed a warning on article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

David Strathairn

Resolved. Content issue resolved, legal threats retracted

On the David Strathairn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia page, someone has repeatedly been inserting more biographical information related to Mr. Strathairn's biography, along with a list of references. I run David Strathairn Online at www.david-strathairn.com, where ALL of that family and background information comes from. That information is exclusive to David Strathairn Online, and Wikipedia DOES NOT have the authority to reproduce or reprint any content from that website without expressed permission. Such a libel warning is printed at the top of the Biography page here: http://www.david-strathairn.com/bio.html] where it states: "This biography is copyrighted and was compiled/written by Andrea Weaver. Not for reprinting or reproduction."

I have repeatedly deleted the stolen information and it keeps reappearing. I just recently deleted it once again and, for the moment, it has not reappeared. Should you continue to violate the copyrights on David Strathairn Online, legal action should be taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiweaves (talk • contribs)

There does not appear to be any copyright violation. You don't own his biographical details. Can you provide the url to which you believe the material is being taken from? (Additionally, the material is sourced and non-controversial; none of the references even use your site (missed one).) shotwell 08:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I actually do own this biography. It was written by ME, and some of the information was provided by Mr. Strathairn through a contact. Wikipedia, on the otherhand, has no right to copy parts of the biography and is in violation of the copyrights on what I wrote. The url was already provided above for the stolen content, but since you don't seem to check links on stolen copyrights anyway, here it is again: [24] If you continue to steal copyrighted material from my site, I will not hesitate to take legal action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiweaves (talk • contribs)

You own the biography, but you do not own the facts. Even if the information was provided exclusively to you, once it was released to the world, it can be repeated on other people's pages. The only type of legal protection over facts is over trade secrets, and that requires first of all keeping them secret.--Prosfilaes 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. Stealing copyrighted content, regardless of what it is, and passing it off as your own is still, well, violating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiweaves (talk • contribs)

I don't understand what possible objection there can be to use of the personal information on this authoritative website in Wikipedia. Mr. Strathairn is a notable, widely known performing artist and the article is fair and neither even remotely libelous nor invasive of his privacy. This material was not plagiarized and was properly attributed via a footnote. It cannot possibly be a copyright violation. However, a claim from a website of "stealing copryighted content" is serious, and I've posted a notice on the Administrator's Noticeboard to ask that this user's claims be addressed by an administrator versed in copyright issues.--Mantanmoreland 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how biographical information can be copyrighted myself. Wildthing61476 16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple. Information such as the name of someone's parents, etc. is not eligible for copyrigh. A biography is. The Wikipedia article does not include text taken from the copyrighted biography on the site in question, only information. Even apart from that, some of the information being removed by Andiweaves is clearly marked as coming from sources other than the official site, so to claim that it is exclusive information is ridiculous. JPD (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What Andiwaves is overlooking is that the material is footnoted to his website. Additionally, his website is listed first among the External Links. Far from material being "stolen," I'd say that this article goes out of its way to direct readers to this website. If there is any attribution issue that I am missing, he should say so. Honestly, he is acting as if this was some kind of attack article. I wonder if Mr. Strathairn, who portrayed Ed Murrow very recently, is aware of this complaint.--Mantanmoreland 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To the point, it's the principle of it. I work very hard on this website, so it's not appreciated when Wikipedia or any other webmasters come along and just take material, more particularly without asking to do so. The other "references" that you link to for the information came from my site initially--the source. If you're going to continue to steal material, at least have the curtesy to reference and provide credit to where the information comes from.

Oh, well that changes things completely, not with regard to your "copyright" complaint but rather use of the material in the first place. If it's not Strathairn's official website, then I will have to rethink use of the material at all as well as the link to the site.--Mantanmoreland 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a complete misunderstanding of exactly what copyright is, and what is copyrightable. The exact text that you have written on your site or substantially similar text to it to the point where it can legally be regarded as a derivative work is protected under copyright. However basic facts are not. If I start a website on an up & coming actor, and I'm the first to publically publish his place & date of time of birth, that information does not become my exclusive copyrightable property, only the specific text I used to describe the information does. Exxolon 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since BLP issues are not involved, I'd suggest that this discussion be moved to Talk:David Strathairn. I think that there is a problem with use of this website as a source, but not the one raised by the website.--Mantanmoreland 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't just provide "official" links on Wikipedia pages, so I find that unfounded. It may not be official, but Mr. Strathairn is well-aware of its existence and provided writings/corrections/material on the Biography page some time ago. It's the most complete, reliable resource on his work, and it's not right to delete reference to that information. I understand copyright laws, and that doesn't change the fact that information has been taken without credit, both on Wikipedia and other sites.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs)

You may not be aware of WP:LEGAL, but you should review it. You've made a legal threat, and repeated it at least twice. - Crockspot 00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know I have. That being said, the majority of the offending content has been removed, which is appreciated. Should it stay that way, I hope this matter can be resolved.

Unless you retract/strike the threats, you are subject to a block. - Crockspot 00:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the info is removed, yes, I retract. I'd like to close my complaint.

• Resolved. - Crockspot 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Boorem & Mika Boorem

Resolved. Benjamin Boorem article deleted

Benjamin Boorem appears to be a non-notable person who was convicted of money laundering. I am not quite sure that he merits a Wikipedia page, especially since the only reason it seems to have been created is to add negative material to another page, that of actress Mika Boorem, including claims that she is his daughter, although these don't seem to be explicitly supported by sources. (There was a wealth of other negatively-skewed material added to Mika Boorem's page, also unsourced, which I have now removed.[25]) My main question is, does Benjamin Boorem's page pass notability criteria? Tell-Tale Ghost 00:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. Violates WP:BLP1E. I tagged it for a CSD A7. Cleanup on isle three please. - Crockspot 01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Benjamin's page is toast. I forgot to tag the talk page, which is now tagged as an orphan talk page. Marking this one resolved. - Crockspot 16:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Laurette Onkelinx

Resolved. Unsourced material removed, users warned

• Laurette Onkelinx (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Two Belgian editors are edit warring here: User:BogaertB and User:Mario scolas. I feel a bit awkward because I warned the latter not to edit war, but now that the former has reverted again, I feel I have to mention the problem here. The text that is being added and deleted, also has a WP:UNDUE problem, as the passage that the "charge has been dropped" is not very prominent - and the casual reader may even think it refers to something else (the passage between brackets preceding). There are references for the story on the internet, but none from established Belgian newspapers who did not dare to touch the story (as far as I know, only Humo mentioned the story, to debunk it, well after the charge had been dropped). The story appeared on militant muslim sites, on extreme-right wing French speaking Belgian nationalist sites and on the blog of a Vlaams Belang politician (Marie-Rose Morel). (So, some people may understand the bad blood between the two editors)

Basically, because trustworthy sources did not mention this (although they were not unwilling to criticize this minister on other occasions, see the rest of the article) I would say that if this thing cannot be shortened (giving a more prominent place to Morocco dropping the charge), the passage should be deleted. WP:BLP, WP:Undue, and "not really about the subject, but we all like something juicy now and then". --Pan Gerwazy 01:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jonas Renkse

Resolved. Vandalism reverted, doesn't appear to be a recurring problem. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jonas Renkse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mr. Renkse has been repeatedly reported as having passed away as of last week (untrue)

Some of the versions allege that he committed suicide, which the community considers mal intentioned and hurtful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogs00 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears as though this was the work of an anon vandal who went on a spree with this article 3 days ago. I'm putting it on my watch and warning the vandal.--Sethacus 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Graham Ovenden

Resolved.

Could someone have a glance to check recent revisions regarding the controversial aspects of his work. Thanks. Gordonofcartoon 02:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Current version is OK of the particular passage. Sourced. Not undue weight. Tyrenius 02:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Kofman

Resolved. Sourced

• Jeffrey Kofman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This bio does not cite a single source. There are two LGBT categories applied. I don't think sexual orientation is disputed, so I did not remove them, but this one needs some quick help. If I removed everything unsourced, there wouldn't be anything left. // Crockspot 04:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Another editor has removed the cats pending a source. - Crockspot 04:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• hopefully your concerns will be allayed by the edits i've made to the article.--emerson7 | Talk 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Greg Lloyd Smith

Resolved. Speedy CSD A10

• Greg Lloyd Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Repeated untrue statements of libelous nature are posted to this article including references to an alleged lawsuit by Amazon.com, Inc., untrue comments regarding Quakeaid and completely false allegations regarding Jennifer Monroe and Greg Lloyd Smith being the same person. These statements are untrue. They have been fabricated by users who either have been sued by or pursued by through legal means, lawyers for Greg Lloyd Smith or one of his companies. I have attempted to amend these comments and the user/administrator restores them without any shred of evidence or proof for the claims being made. I request that the page in its entirety be removed. // Greglloydsmith 09:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The present form of the page looks like an attack page. It is possible that neutral information could be collected about this man, but there is no evidence of it so far. There are some primary sources regarding Greg Lloyd Smith's legal troubles. Because of the BLP risk, and since notability remains to be shown, I think taking the page to AfD could be the simplest course. EdJohnston 01:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion CSD A10. No neutral version in the history. Zap the bugger. - Crockspot 02:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gone. - Crockspot 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Anthony Cooper

Resolved.

• Douglas Anthony Cooper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The "neutrality and factual accuracy of this article" are in question, according to the tag at the top. This article WAS being attacked by a stalker, but I am told that it is now protected. I am the subject of the article in question -- I have checked the current version, and there are no factual errors; also, it appears neutral enough to me. Nevertheless, I would be happier if the article were removed in its entirety: I am nowhere near important enough to require a wikipedia entry, and given that I am currently being stalked by an anonymous vandal -- who continually libels me on the web -- I would rather I simply did not appear in wikipedia at all. (If you do keep the article up, you can remove that caution at the top, but I really would prefer that it were deleted.)

• Stubified article keeping only sourced information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Discrimination in Malaysian Parliament

Resolved. Article deleted by User:TexasAndroid, User:Seechew left with empty contribution log as a result

• Sexual Discrimination in Malaysian Parliament (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Seechew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This article primarily consists of unsourced alleged incidents of sexual discrimination and a “blacklist” of parliamentarians. I have submitted it for a G10 speedy and will post a notice on the editor’s talk page. May wish to watch for recreation in same style. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Smail Tulja

Resolved. Problematic content removed

• Smail Tulja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article about a man being tried for murder, but assumes his guilt. Needs a lot of scrubbing, perhaps even a speedy. THF 13:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed everything potentially libelous that was unsourced. Anything about him being a criminal needs to be sourced before being added back in. Basejumper 16:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Akebono Taro

• Akebono Taro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

One editor is assuming bad faith and I believe wrongly re-emphasising a negative nickname and reverted what seemed to be a well balanced review of Akebono's post sumo career to one with a more negative spin. Any reversion would just be reverted again, and the other editor has already expressed bad faith in other editors of the page. I am looking for outside opinions I also posted this on RFC/biographies and all the information is on Talk:Akebono Taro. XinJeisan 08:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT: Private individual defamed in Wikipedia article

Resolved.

UPDATE: the individual defamed in the citation in a Wikipedia article and, by extension, discussion of the situation in Talk pages (supposedly prohibited at WP:BLP), states that he will contact the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and other relevant law enforcement agencies after 17:00 hrs UTC/GMT today if this complaint is not addressed or resolved by Wikipedia administration by then. Piledoggie 15:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Church_of_Christ_(Temple_Lot) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An old newspaper report about a still-living person, who is not a public figure, nor a celebrity, and which is unusually inaccurate and libelous, keeps being linked in a Wikipedia article. While the newspaper report does not provide a name, the .pdf copy of it is part of a webpage which repeatedly provides the name of the individual, as well as false and defamatory material, most of which is not rebutted in a sketchy "rebuttal' included there since May of 2005. Until yesterday, the website containing the copy of the newspaper article was repeatedly linked to the Wikipedia article, prompting an OTRS ticket which was mistakenly revoked after only 24 hours. Incidentally, the 1990 newspaper report is web-published without copyright permission. I should have posted the problem here, four days ago, when the dispute began (see history for that page). As it is, a huge amount of quibbling has taken place between users and editors (including myself), none of whom are thoroughly acquainted with WP:BLP issues. A good summary of the situation, and of some of the dilemmas and misunderstandings which have prevented it from being resolved, is at User_talk:Cbrown1023 Could at least one administrator experienced in BLP issues please read yesterday's discussion on that talk page entitled "urgent", then take the appropriate action and/or advise me, including--if necessary--via my email at my user page? Piledoggie 14:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Kansas City Times is (or, was, as it is no longer published) a reliable source. Neither it nor the Wikipedia article names the person who set fire to the church building. The relevant material in our article is written neutrally, and is an accurate summary of the KCT article. The fire is a notable event in the history of the church, and should be covered. Nothing is sourced to the Watchman Expositor, nor should it be. I see no BLP problem here. There may be a copyright issue in the hosting of the KCT article, but that's an entirely separate issue.

Also, legal threats, direct or indirect, are not welcome on the wiki. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

the individual defamed in the the Times report responds: "...except for the reply about the copyright issue, the reply by Jonel is just more "noise" and obfuscation, it is obvious the history of the dispute/complaint was not examined. The Kansas City Times report cited in the Wikipedia article is an unreliable and defamatory source. The Times .pdf is clearly sourced to and by the Watchman Expositer, online edition: http://www.watchman.org/lds/KCTimes01-02-1991.pdf , and more significantly, repeatedly linked in the Wikipedia article's page history and discussed on its Talk Page, in contravention to Wikipedia's strict regulations regarding unreliable and defamatory sources. For the sake of urgency, here it is:

http://www.watchman.org/lds/fire.htm :::[26]

It is 1721 hrs UTC (1:00 PM Eastern Daylight Savings Time).

This thread will now be forwarded to <info-en-q@wikimedia.org> in a last-ditch effort to protect Wikipedia as well as the offending editors and administrators, from criminal prosecution.

If Jonel and Wikipedia administration do not enforce WP:BLP then legal threats has no relevance here, except in that it constitutes a "legal threat" of its own. 69.154.18.251 17:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend removing the objected source, and protecting the page until this issue is resolved. - Crockspot 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Above IP user is actively making legal threats. There's no such thing as criminal prosecution for something like this and the FBI will probably laugh in their face if a call is made. There's no need for this drama. I suggest a short block of this IP user to prevent further disruption, per WP:NLT. I'll also look at the article and check for WP:BLP issues. Jehochman ^Talk 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The FBI has been contacted previously in regards to exactly the same offense at another popular website, and took an active interest, and the offending material was removed before further action was required. And the FBI [field] officers contacted then said to please contact them again if the same or similar problem occurred, again. Internet defamation of a private citizen is one of the "internet crimes" investigated and prosecuted by the FBI[27] In other words, the 'legal threat' was neither laughable nor inappropriate, and you should offer a gracious apology for stating otherwise, but I somehow doubt you will. Also, the offending citation was removed shortly before you viewed the article, I'm not sure yet by whom. I don't wish to point-for-point argue with other comments in this thread, except to urge any editor or administrator to not jump to conclusions before closely examining the page's history, talk page, and salient user pages. To those who have responded to this crisis in a reasonable and considerate manner, I thank you very much, and that's an understatement. Wikipedia Team was notified, but the FBI (and other relevant "law enforcement authorities" were not notified. Anyone that questions the need for law enforcement intervention in an internet defamation case, please imagine what you would think or do if someone appeared near a busy intersection during rush hour, near your home, with a sign containing your name, and particularly defamatory and unfactual allegations, displayed in what appeared to be a very credible format. In that event, you would spare no effort to see that criminal action cease as soon as possible. THIS is why the FBI doesn't "laugh in the face" of complainants. Piledoggie 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Recently some editors have changed the article so it no longer points to the watchman.org site that was hosting the Kansas City Times reprint that mentions the fire. The watchman.org site claims that this person was convicted of third-degree arson in January, 1991, though it offers no reprint to back that up. I would suggest that we just get rid of the sentence that says the fire was set by a former member of one of the churches, because it doesn't seem germane to the article. To keep that sentence, without saying who it was, raises the question of how we know, and might indicate we should follow up with a citation for the arson conviction. Also it sounds like WP:WEASEL because we don't say who did it. But it's hard to see why that's very relevant to the topic of the article, unless I'm missing something, so I don't see how the added labor of referencing is worthwhile. So my proposed change is: replace a former member of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) who had recently joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by the simpler phrase an arsonist. EdJohnston 18:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed, you may be absolutely correct, but in that case this is just a run of the mill content dispute, not a BLP issue. If the parties can't agree, this should go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Piledoggie has removed the BLP dispute tag ([28]). Are we done here? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

yes! please see my reply just now, further up the thread. Thanks again...and I have to rush to an appointment now, not related to this dispute, so I won't be able to reply for awhile if someone has a further question or comment. Please feel free to email me via my UserPage if you would like (anyone). Piledoggie 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues not fully answered. (a) What is Piledoggie's actual issue? He doesn't want us to point to watchman.org, but he won't say what is incorrect about their account of the matter. (b) There is a complaint above by 69.154.18.251 who says that the original Kansas City Times article was libelous. We have not seen a clear version of an alleged fact which is being disputed. There is no reason for us to remove a newspaper reference, but it would be helpful to know what the IP believes is wrong in the newspaper account. EdJohnston 19:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

Fred Phelps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I'm not entirely sure I'm doing this right, so please let me know if I have done something wrong. There is information on this entry that should be removed immediate according to WP:BLP, but since I am not a user, I have posted a request for edit. Just in case I am supposed to post here as well, I am. If someone would like to let me know on my talk page one way or the other, I would appreciate it. The request I have made can be found here. Thanks! // Drake Maijstral 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the excessive coverage of a fringe theory, but more editing is probably desirable. I've also left a {{welcome2}} package and a message on this editor's talk page. (What a great start to editing here!) Cheers, CWC 02:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Theophanous

Andrew Theophanous (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Two versions of the Andrew Theophanous article have emerged from two or three contributors, both with an opinion on his activities, with very little discussion just reversion conflicts. I have a declared political bias and have done the best I could using reasonable quality sources. The other author seems to be someone with a great knowledge of Theophanous who has a very favourable view. It is most probably the man himself or close family member. Given we both have a bias and have made little progress in resolving the differences, it's probably time that others more familar with the Wikipedia has a go at fixing the mess. Apologies in advance if this is not correctly formatted.Visasforsale 11:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read the article and deleted one sentence with an unsubstantiated claim about a third party. I could have missed other WP:BLP problems. I'll watch the page for more BLP violations.

As an Australian, I followed Theophanous's travails in the media. As a wikipedian, I find the Andrew Theophanous article ...err... rather unencyclopedic. Fortunately, someone has done a good job putting warning tags on it, and there's probably no great urgency about bringing it up to scratch. CWC 13:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ross McKitrick

• Ross McKitrick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A line critical of his work has been included which is based solely on a blog post. The line: "Yet, after Lambert ran the regressions using the correct angle measurments, he claimed to have found that they "no longer 'explain' half of the surface warming trend McKitrick has pointed out." The source: [29] I have removed it several times, but it keeps getting replaced by various editors. Additionally, Sourcewatch, a wiki critical of the subject is repeatedly included in external links. Thse both violate WP:BLP: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link" I have detailed my thoughts in the discussion and edit summaries, but have been accused of whitewashing. I would appreciate more opinions on the matter. // Theblog 19:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The editors in question have stopped adding the blog supported lines for now. --Theblog 01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Portillo

Repeated problems at this article eg [30], also 89.242.99.202 is making a lot of unfounded statements about other public figures here, SqueakBox 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection on this page, but it was rejected. I'm taking the page off watch now, so you're on your own. (I refuse to spend my time manually reverting policy violations once a decision is made not to use the perfectly reasonable automatic process) Mark Chovain 02:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Minka (porn star)

• Minka (porn star) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A little background - my primary work is obtaining free images, which I normally do by contacting article subjects. The subject of the article above told me that her birth year as stated in the article is incorrect, and I could find no verifiable reference of the birth year as stated in the article, so I removed it. (The reference seems to be the entry at IMDB, which I don't think can be classified as reliable or verifiable.) I've twice removed the birthdate based on the lack of reliable sourcing, but my edits have been reverted. Rather than get into a revert war or go to oversight, was hoping it could be reviewed here. Would welcome any advice. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're in contact with the subject of the article, perhaps you could suggest that she ask IMDb to correct their entry? Seems that that would eliminate the problem. --Stormie 05:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I advised her to do that - it's not the first time (had a similar issue with Kelli Maroney). But IMDB's errors really aren't our problem, we just shouldn't be echoing them. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it's the case here but as a general observation it's not unknown for people to lie about their age. Teens do it to get into clubs; actors to present a more youthful image. --ROGER ^TALK 10:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree, but the onus is on the person who adds the information to provide a verifiable source for it. If the article subject says the date is wrong, we have to take her word for it unless reliable sources say otherwise. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Which is a good argument for just taking unsourced dates out and leaving them out until properly verified ones turn up. --ROGER ^TALK 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• The IMDB citation is incomplete. I also don't think that IMDB is reliable for information other than filmography-related info. I don't have time to find it now, but IMDB is discussed as only reliable under certain conditions somewhere in policy or guidelines. - Crockspot 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In a case like this, people are going to keep adding the date because they think it is accurate and they think they are improving the article. If the subject of the article is unwilling to contact IMDB, the only thing we can do is post a note on the talk page and an inline note in the article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen and heard in the past, IMDB is not particularly responsive when it comes to changing or verifying its info. But I like your idea of an inline note. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Since you're in touch with the article subject, and she has an official web site, the best option is to get her to add the correct date to her bio there, and that will be a Wikipedia:Reliable source for our purposes. Meanwhile, I'll put the article on my watchlist, and will back you until a more reliable source than IMDB is found. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds good, I'll ask her to do that. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• As someone pointed out on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, IMDB disclaims the accuracy of any information contained on their site. I would say that means "unreliable". I think that as an EL, or to source info like what movie someone was in, it can be used, but otherwise should not be used to source content, especially if contested by anyone, particularly the subject. - Crockspot 12:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill misconduct issues

Over at Ward Churchill misconduct issues (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) a fork from the main article (due to the length of the topic, there is currently an issue with two external links in the article. Both the links are from self published sites, on pro-Churchill and one anti-Churchill, and both need to be removed.

Relevant statement from WP:BLP:

• Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article

I think its rather cut and dry, but in order to not provoke an edit war, I would rather post it here, and have the community deal with it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TDC's view, it looks straightforward, the links should be kept out of the article, at least one persistent editor disagrees and keeps reinserting them. --Theblog 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is a complete coatrack for BLP violations. I have speedied it accordingly. The editors should incorporate non-violating material into the main Ward Churchill article as appropriate; I've offered to provide the text of the deleted article to any editor via email. Nandesuka 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a slew of redirects to this article, which are all now deleted as well. - Crockspot 18:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the article has been temporarily undeleted via a deletion review and sent to an AfD discussion, I'm taking the {{resolved}} tag off for now. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles requested about Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya, Originator of Bhattacharya Model of Universe

I found the information about Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya in www.unipathos.com see the foloowing 1)linkshttp://www.unipathos.com/main/component/option,com_weblinks/catid,2/Itemid,23/ 2)http://www.unipathos.com/main/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

3)http://www.unipathos.com/main/content/view/8/37/ 4)http://www.extremeastronomy.com/forum/search.php?searchid=13873 5)http://www.bautforum.com/search.php?searchid=884948 6)http://forums.astronomydaily.com/search.php?mode=results Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya has his own model of Universe look at link http://www.unipathos.com/main/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,27/ and http://www.unipathos.com/main/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,28/

Dr.Srabani Chakraborty

BLP tag removed

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this. However, I tried to add a blp tag to Talk:Scientology weddings since the article concerns living persons. Two were mentioned by name, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. The tag has been taken off twice. Steve Dufour 15:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Contestants on TV shows

This is a recurring problem where users are creating personal pages / biographies of contestants that take part in singing competitions like Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2007 or Indian Idol. Ideally, there is no need to create personal pages of contestants who are not significant people as they do not have any singing contracts or albums. The Administrators delete the pages and someone goes and creates one. For some users, they feel that the rule is being misinterpreted and pages of contestants must be allowed. Following are some discussions that have taken place till now related to deleting the personal pages:

• Discussion on page deletion
• Ongoing discussion on page marked for deletion
• Reasoning by admin on deleting pages

It is important that the admins look at this issue and probably refine the Wikipedia policy stated at [31]

According to one of the page creators, the following point makes it a valid argument that personal pages of contestants should be allowed:

9. Has won or placed in a major music competition."

However, it does not make sense to create a personal page of every contestant as otherwise you would see Wikipedia flooded with personal pages of participants from all the shows that are telecast worldwide.

So please clarify this confusion so that users will abide by the rules and will save time for administrators.

Thanks Wikizen07 22:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sada Abe

• Sada Abe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Two editors keep adding that she was a rape victim as a child and putting her in the rape victims category. Respecting her privacy and for BLP concerns this should not be here, can someone investigate and if approriate block anyone knowingly restopring what seems a very obvious BLP violation as we arent here to out victims of rape, SqueakBox 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I happened to notice the edit warring on the article. (As a matter of fact, I warned the above user for 3RR.) The article subject is unknown to be living and would be over 100 if still alive. That aside, the alleged rape would have been in the 1920s, and the information being added seems to be correctly cited from a reliable source. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The person in question seems to be nationally famous as a murderer who carried her victim's and lover's genitals around in her handbag. I'd say being raped as a child, is, first, basically irreplaceable in our article, having a strong bearing on her main item of notability; and, second, highly unlikely to be the main BLP issue of concern, concerning her main reason for notability. We aren't here to "out" victims of rape, but that's hardly the case here. Surely the sex murder is more important than the rape. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's unknown if the person is alive, we assume they are as most things with BLP are slanted in favor of the living person's privacy. (This is of course excepting the rediculous, or the faith based. If a man was born in 1730, I think we can assume death; and we don't want a BLP entry for Jesus suggesting the cleansing of the temple is libelous BLP violation.) 102 is not unheard of. Also 3rr do not apply to potential BLP violations. As to the sourcing, that is the crux and meat of your argument, and it depends on how good the source is. From my reading, there are barely any sources at all, and she is being accused of really foul behavior. Basejumper 22:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Columbia University Press - a book from a university-affiliated scholarly press. That's the best possible source under Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey and Gayle King in the Romantic friendship article

There are accusations of a closeted homosexual relationship which violate BLP considering both are in relationships with men and that it is denied by both. Basejumper 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. I don't know what it was doing in the middle of a section about fictional relations. --ROGER ^TALK 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sara Gilbert

Resolved. User warned

An editor keeps reinstating material about Gilbert's being in a lesbian relationship and that they are expecting a second child. No references are being provided, however. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall running across this. If you need references, here are a few: Sara's bio on IMDB, her partner Allison's bio on IMDB, bio on About.com, Bio on saragilbert.net, Celebrity Baby Tracker at ivillage.com, Celebrity Baby Scoop, and bio on TV.com to name just the first page of a google search. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not one of those sources, with the exception of possibly the saragilbert.net link (if it can be verified that Sara Gilbert controls that site), is usable to source sexual orientation information like this in the biography of a living person. - Crockspot 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. Was not sure what links are allowed. Thanks for the info! (I actually didn't even know about her pregnancy until reading this and looking it up, lol.) ^Ariel♥Gold 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• User warned. If user persists, please drop a line here or on my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hold on I can't find anything reliable on them having a second child, but is whether or not she's a lesbian in question? Because, I thought it was common knowledge she is.--Sethacus 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Reliable source: Curve (magazine) openly lesbian Sara Gilbert --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • And this cites a People magazine article from February stating Sara is pregnant with the couple's second child.--Sethacus 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian Lowe

• Ian Lowe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ian Lowe, one of the people from British Center for Scientific Education has been trying to help us on the article avoid some wrong statements and potentially libellous statements from editors who might be on the other side of some disputes. Some of this material appears in blogs, which might not be particularly reliable, by those who oppose the BCSE. While I have no problem with using this information as examples of how vehemently the BCSE is being attacked, I feel uncomfortable with characterizing these "rumors" as "fact", particularly when the person involved is strongly objecting. Can someone offer some assistance and/or advice in this matter? Thank you.--Filll 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the problem stuff has been removed. Actually we WP editors do get along well, considering that we are all really chimpanzees. :-) Steve Dufour 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Rossi

Resolved.

• Richard Rossi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article on Richard Rossi is being sabotoged by posters obsessed with slandering him and adding content of a defamatory nature, including old poorly sourced articles legally proven false. Rev. Rossi has won legal judgements and financial compensation for these very reports. Respectfully, Wikipedia must investigate such posters and editors and their identities as they are potentially legally libel for defamation of character in Rev. Rossi's future legal actions against those engaged in slander of a malicious nature.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksbernstein (talk • contribs)

• The "attack" section is pretty bad. Mostly poor sources, and some of the more reliable looking ones are obscure. I'm putting a BLPC template on it. - Crockspot 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the unacceptable sources from the "Attack" section, but it will still need to be rewritten to bring it in line with the remaining sources. I tagged the section as totally disputed. All I have time for now. - Crockspot 03:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious material moved to talk for better sourcing and re-write. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy

• Don Murphy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I would like to add to Don's article about how he consulted with Transformers fans in many elements of making the movie, current an unknown practice. The only parallel is Snakes on a Plane, where fans essentially yelled loud enough to get more snakes, and to get a particular line of dialog added. To actually want such input from the get go, much to the anger (it seems) of the studios is very notable in my opinion. Shouldn't this bold, "Moviemaking 2.0" move be recorded in his article?

This was written about in the New York Times, and republished in the International Herald Tribune, c|net, and likely others. -- Zanimum 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. However, some people might say that the information should be in the movie's article not in Mr. Murphy's. Steve Dufour 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this really a BLP issue? It's more like a content question, as it seems unlikely Murphy would be harmed by such a mention. Nor would such a brief mention create an "undue weight to controversy". --C S (Talk) 16:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a BLP issue in the sense that Murphy strongly objects to the existence of his article altogether nor does he appear to want any changes made to the article. I agree with Steve's comment that the place to put this info is in the Transformers (film) article, SqueakBox 16:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unaware that Murphy had raised objections to his article. --C S (Talk) 17:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

They are much more than objections. Murphy has pointed out that the inclusion of an article that he does not approve which may or may not contain slanderous material is completely illegal under US right to privacy laws. Who will protect us if the madman sues?FoolsRushIn 05:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, while Murphy is determined in his ways, he has shown some signs of restraint on his message board, I'll give him that. But as a person who chose to pursue a career in the film industry, he should have gone into things fully aware that he would have somewhat of a public profile. By starting a website and writing a book, he has acknowledged that the public has an interest in his career, and he is welcoming their interest, thus acknowledging he is a public figure.

As long as we do not publish anything invasive or elsewise unjust, we are fully protected by the US Constitution and the laws of whatever industrialised country we live in for our right to free speech.

Should this text about the movie be in his his article, or Transformers? Frankly, it deserves a space in both. He was the one who decided to pursue such measures, and thus it is completely relevant to him, while it is also relevant enough to the movie, to deserve mention there.

Do I have any objection against re-adding this content about his usage of the web, to his article? -- Zanimum 14:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to be accurate so when he sues you you don't come crying to me. First off, the guy NEVER wrote a book. So you are wrong. And the test that the courts use to determine whether you are a public figure are quite rigid- otherwise every cop could be considered one. And Free Speech does NOT apply to publicly posting things about people on the world wide web. "Somewhat of a public profile" does not equate with being a public figure under the law and hence we have less protection than you would think.FoolsRushIn 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, whatever. I really couldn't care less about this biography, if it weren't for the fact one of the people on his message board, whom went to school with me, dragged me in to police the whole thing. I have not read up about him, and so I admit my mistake about the book, he didn't write it. By free speech, I meant that it wasn't libel.

But does this content harm him in any way, shape, or form? Can anyone else jump in? -- Zanimum 13:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

As you might know, this is a group that wants Jewish people to become Christian. Many people, of course, think this is a bad thing. It might be. However the article on the group borders on being an attack article. About 10% is on the group itself and about 90% is about how evil their goals are. I put a neutrality tag on the article itself and since they are living persons I thought it would be ok to mention the article here. Steve Dufour 11:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has been much improved. Steve Dufour 02:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice spot, but I'm not sure it's a BLP problem. Basejumper 22:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Amir Khan (boxer)

Amir Khan (boxer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Lots of unreferenced material:

He went to Devonshire Road Primary School, Smithills High School and Bolton Community College in Bolton. He was a hyperactive child and a born fighter, according to his father, who encouraged him to take up boxing. His hero is Muhammad Ali. He drives a car round Bolton thinking he is hard , girls hate him as Bolton birds dont like Muslims . The whole white community of Bolton is praying for the day he gets knocked out in the ring .

Needs a whole rewrite.--Wolf ^{talk | हिन्दी | বাংলা} 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is indeed lots of unreferenced stuff there. I spotted one uncited negative claim, so I took it out and explained why on the talk page.

Lots of anons are editing there. 82.28.127.3 (talk · contribs) added that "drives a car ... praying for the day" stuff, 217.155.96.118 (talk · contribs) took it out. 82.28.127.3 has vandalised another article, so I left {{uw-vand2}} and {{uw-biog2}} warnings on user talk:82.28.127.3.

Cheers, CWC 14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Timothy J. Boham

• Timothy J. Boham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A little concerned that this article (on a former gay porn actor accused of murder) has quite a few unreferenced claims, and seems to be attracting single-issue editors and socks. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it, I am also concerned about some of the material visible on the article talk page. DGG (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed that, and one of the editors of the page restored it. I have re-deleted the questionable talk page content. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He also restored the content I removed from the article itself. I removed it again and let the editor know about the BLP policy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty Tony

• Pretty Tony (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Has been the subject of an edit war involving User:Prettytonyinc (presumably the subject of the article) getting indefinitely blocked for vandalism blanking the page and replacing it with other material several times. User:Jettgy and some anon IP addresses continue the affair. However, the article as it was prior to the edit war contained potentially defamatory unsourced statements, which I have now removed. —Stormie 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Moshe Aryeh Friedman

• Moshe Aryeh Friedman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article is extremely derogatory, and the sources are partisan. The talk pages and the deletion discusssion also contain slurs like "nutcase," etc. Basejumper 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked the AfD discussion so the derogatory remarks won't been seen by search engines any longer. The other issues still need addressing, obviously. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master)

• The blanking of the AfD has been reverted. Specific issues with the article have been raised on the talk page and addressed in the article. The article is thoroughly-documented using reliable and verifiable sources, with no evidence of a partisan bias provided. While the article would benefit from a more-balanced presentation, I have had great difficulty finding such material in reliable sources. Alansohn 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my note in the edit summary when I reverted your restoration of the AfD, I should have come here first. The AfD was blanked because it had derogatory comments about the subject of the article and thus violated WP:BLP. Such blankings are routine. You have given no reason that this discussion should be restored and it is easily available by accessing the article history. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reverting the entire content of an AfD because of alleged concerns of some comments included therein seems rather Orwellian, to say the least. If there are specific issues, they should be specified and addressed. Blanket removal of the documentation of an entire process is censorship in its most insidious form. Alansohn 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• As Jimbo says (see below), it's no big deal. Any user can go to the edit history and read the full version at any time. If Gamaliel had deleted the page, banned you indefinitely, deleted your user and talk page, and then meticulously scrubbed wikipedia of all traces of your edits, THEN you could claim Orwellian censorship. Currently, you are only inconvenienced by two extra mouse clicks. - Crockspot 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that no one has specified what constitutes a personal attack and that no consideration has been given to addressing the specific issues, if they really do exist, is censorship. The fact that it only takes a few clicks to get to material that is so patently offensive emphasizes the reality that absolutely nothing has been accomplished. I would have no objection to redacting any genuinely offensive material, but we haven't even be told what it is in this AfD that should offend our delicate sensibilities. This whole exercise looks like an Orwellian crock to me. Alansohn 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's crap like this that makes Wikipedia so unpleasant for me of late. Taking a routine act perfectly in line with established policy and hysterically turning it into an affont to intellectual freedom is unproductive, offensive, and absurd. It's quite simple: Personal attacks against living people are prohibited on Wikipedia. No one should have to "specify" that outright namecalling is a personal attack. And in the face of patently obvious personal attacks, I took the action that had the least impact on information availablity that was possible given WP policy against such attacks. Anyone can still access it with a couple of clicks. If that is Orwellian than you have no idea what the word means. Wikipedia is under no obligation to permanently preserve the personal attacks of every random person on the internet. If you think adding two extra mouse clicks to access this material is a loss to the intellectual history of the world, then put it on your blog and preserve it there. Enjoy the libel suits. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would defer to Jimbo if there was any support for the actions taken here, but the reference provided stating that "When an article is deleted and there have been some harsh comments (and the truth or untruth of those comments seems to me not very important) it is often a good way to let someone walk away with dignity." is rather explicit that this would be the case only When an article is deleted and there is no notability for the individual involved, which is clearly not the case here; it's an interesting quote from our leader, but is not at all relevant here. What is relevant to this article is that wiping away the most visible traces and leaving the history available to anyone on the internet isn't even a fig leaf. If the issue is exposure to libel suits due to personal attacks (which is a canard in and of itself), you've accomplished absolutely nothing; The information is still there, it's just two clicks away. The action that would have the least impact would be to identify the offensive information and redact it out permanently. What has been chosen here is an answer that leaves all of the libel suit risk without actually solving any of the alleged underlying problem. Alansohn 02:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The principle of the statement clearly applies to this case. If you're arguing that we should take further action to remove the attacks, then great. But it would be incredibly difficult to selectively remove the attacks from the public history without taking out the sense of the commentary or violating the history requirements of the GFDL. Putting them behind a blanking is about as good as it's going to get with the current technical tools, and doing so is just plain good courtesy. Regardless of whether someone's notable enough for an article, personal attacks have no place here. Arguing to make them more visible is pretty much a non-starter. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure who we're being courteous to, as there is no indication that the article's subject has expressed any opinion on the content of the AfD in question, negative or otherwise. If there is libelous information, hiding it in history still leaves it accessible to the public and exposes Wikipedia to risk of a law suit. I am entirely in favor of specifying what is offensive and refactoring it to removing those personal attacks that would expose Wikipedia to a libel lawsuit and leave the 99.9% of the text as is. It's harder, but it would actually address the issue, rather than hide the libelous statements in plain sight. Alansohn 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The purpose of the blanking is so that when someone Google's their name, they don't get a hit on a personal attack from an old AfD. The solution that you suggest would be very difficult to execute, and would result in ACTUAL censorship. Wikipedia does not censor. - Crockspot 04:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• We don't wait until the subject of the article complains about personal attacks, we remove them when we find them. This prevents another potential Seigenthaler controversy and it is the right thing to do. Blanking the article preserves the AfD discussion for Wikipedians while hiding the libel from search engines, which I think, given the technological limitations of the database, is a good compromise between the desire to preserve information and the desire to eliminate libel. But you complain that is "Orwellian" while demanding an even more Orwellian solution - making those negative edits disappear. If current, established WP policy does not please you, then campaign to change that policy, don't attack the people enforcing it. If that still isn't enough for you, then you can do something about it yourself. Instead of complaining, go through the AfD discussion, identify each personal attack and libelous remark, identify which edit it comes from, then send a list of those edits to a Wikipedian with Oversight power who can individually delete each of those edits from the article history. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• No one has ever specified what is offensive in this AfD discussion. All we have is the Big Brotherish statement that these are things in there that are so patently libelous that Wikipedia is at risk of another Seigenthaler controversy by leaving them available to the public. I have no issue whatsoever with the discussion in the AfD. The fact that those who are demanding that the "offensive" text be removed have done so with a sledgehammer not a scalpel, and have never specified any specific item that should be removed. Rather than using the existing refactoring techniques to excise those specified issues that would supposedly expose Wikipedia to risk (a standard practice that is anything but "censorship"), we are told that all the text must be deleted, but that it will still be just two clicks away. This seems to be another classic example of "we destroyed the village to save it". Nothing has been accomplished, no risk of libel has been mitigated and a dangerous and disruptive precedent has been set that far surpasses either the Jimbo Wales prcedent cited below (which only applies to case where an article was deleted) or the Siegenthaler Controversy (where the specificly false information was removed). Alansohn 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read the AfD at all? You might not think the namecalling in there is offensive, but you aren't the subject of the article. It doesn't matter what you think of it, even if it does not meet the legal standard of libel or your personal threshold for offense, it's prohibited by Wikipedia policy and it's just plain wrong. No "disruptive precedent" has been set here; blankings are routine and unobtrusive. Your proposed solution of refactoring wouldn't add any further protection from libel suits. But if you want to refactor the page yourself and remove all personal attacks, go for it. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• In my review of the AfD, I have found a number of scurrilous terms used to describe the article's subject that could well expose Wikipedia to libel charges. My survey has found the following offensive terms in descending order of frequency: "wacko" (3 times), "nut" (or "nutcase" - 3), "crackpot" (2), "lunatic" (2), "ass" (1) and "rather strange dude" (1). By means of full disclosure, I used the term "crackpot lunatic" to describe the individual in question. If there are any other libelous terms please list them here, so that we can begin the effort of refactoring to make the AfD contents available, defend the subject from libelous claims made in the AfD AND protect Wikipedia from libel suits. Alansohn 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo made some recent comments about blanking AfD discussions (link is to multi-diffs, so there are comments of others mixed in). Gamaliel's action seems proper to me. - Crockspot 22:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this looks like a textbook case of what Jimbo meant by an AfD discussion that should be blanked to prevent search engine indexing. Nothing is lost or censored here, the full discussion is immediately available via the history link. --Stormie 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support for Gamaliel's correct action here. Certain comments should never have been made by editors in the first place. Tyrenius 01:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we work on some of the other issues regarding a biography of a living person as well:

Regarding sources. I am not sure they all are up to the standards of a Living person's biography. For that purpose, partisan sources are not allowed.

Jewish Tribune is the Agudath Israel paper in England. Agudath Israel is an ultra-Orthodox organization which has a very hostile relationship to the organizations the gentleman the article is about is affiliated with. They openly accuse each other of idolatry, heresy and bloodshed. It is no more appropriate for Jewish Tribune to be used on his biography than it is for the paper of his groups to be used in the article about Rav Shteineman.

Note 9 is from YnetNews, which follows the tradition of many fvery good European and Israeli papers by being openly partisan. One can argue, and I would, that this is actually much better journalistically because it is full disclosure of bias, which always exists inherently. This paper is Revisionist Zionist, pro-settler and pro-settlement paper. This means that it cannot be used on an article on a living person who is very opposite in the other direction.

Also there remain guilt by association and POV problems.

"May 2006 Friedman met with Atef Adwan of Hamas and an acting Palestinian Cabinet Minister in Stockholm, Sweden - where Adwan was attending a conference.[6]" Seems an attempt at "Guilt by assosciation" and was left without context. The article sited mentions this meeting was in order to arrange humanitarian food aid to the West Bank. This, I think, could be fixed just by expanding the description.

"Friedman also is known to have an association with the far right Freedom Party of Austria. A far right politician and Holocaust Denier attended his son's Bar Mitzvah.[7]" This is guilt by association, which is not permitted on a Biography of a Living Person.

The section on the attack against him seems to lionize the attacker, and the attack is portrayed as justified. It needs to be more neutral and to portray the event similarly to the way any other similar attack on an unpopular person would be discussed on Wikipedia. It also has a statement that the man removed himself from Orthodox Judaism by denying the holocaust. None of the sources in the article make the claim he denied the holocaust, only that he attended a conference where many denied it. He himself seems to have defended the historical record at that conference. (That is beside the obvious point that even if he said the holocaust didn't happen he would be a poor historian, but Judaism does not require one to believe in the holocaust to be a member of the faith.)

In general the article also needs to have a tone change. It reads like a hit piece, and could be better organized into sections. Basejumper 11:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the blanking of the AFD, but can somebody fix the template so that its link goes to the correct article's history... at the moment, it goes to the history of the log page, which is useless. JulesH 17:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In any AFD, if, hypothetically, someone calls the subject of a biographical article, or even another editor in the AFD a nutcase, crazy, a crackpot, or an ass, wouldn't it be proper for any other editor (especially admins or those who are living people patrollers) to delete the violation of WP:BLP or WP:NPA, post a warning on the offender's talk page with a diff, and post a statement of the action of the discussion page of the AFD, again with a diff? The AFD can be left with (WP:BLP violation removed) or (WP:NPA violation removed) to explain the lacuna or lack of continuity in the discussion. The appropriate discussion would be left unimpaired. I see no evidence on the discussion page for the AFD that NPA or BLP was referred to by any participants in the subject AFD, although there might have been postings on participants' talk pages. This failure to act in an appropriate and timely way led directly to the after-the-fact need to blank the entire AFD discussion, which is a result to be avoided. Taking appropriate action during the AFD would have immediately improved the tone and prevented BLP violations from being left on the page. The persistence of personal attacks and derogatory comments during an AFD only serves to inflame passions and potentially get posted on blogs to bring in a posse of vigilantes to further spam the AFD. Then there would be no need for such a cumbersome process for looking at the AFD the next time the article is put up for deletion. Does this seem like a process that living persons patrollers could follow in future AFDs? Edison 15:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirsten Powers

• Kirsten Powers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Another case in which I have been contacted by the article subject. She objects to the fact that statements are repeatedly being placed in the article labelling her a "conservative" and "Democrat in name only". These statements, if referenced at all, are attributed to self-published sources and use weasel words. I, and a couple other editors, have reverted these edits and attempted to keep the article neutral, but they are repeatedly put back in, apparently by someone with a POV to push. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous argument, you yourself have entered POV edits into the article, claiming that Powers is "very left-wing". That is a direct quote. You also claimed that the The Fairness Doctrine impedes on free speech. That is also POV. Edits I have maintained are not POV. I do not say, "She is this", I say, "She has been criticized" and then cite a source. That's not POV or weasel words. It follows the rules precisely.--69.249.195.232 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice that term in the revert (I just restored a previous version I thought was neutral) but it is POV and should go. However, undue weight is being given to criticism by self-published sources, in my opinion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments about someone's political position in salon.com are no more reliable than any other blog, represent the views of one individual only, and are not a sufficient source. It is possible than a better source might be found, such as a well-known commentator in an established publication, in which case they could be quoted as that persons view. DGG (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This morning I received another complaint from the article subject, objecting to the accuracy and neutrality of the article. I've boldly removed the disputed sections until they can be written in a more neutral and well-sourced form. (I'll do this myself later, just pressed for time right now.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen

• Richard Lindzen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - In the James Annan wager section, blog entries by James Annon describing his side of the story keep getting inserted despite the "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article." rule. There is a decent secondary source that has similar, though not exactly the same, views, yet the blog keeps getting linked cited and the information used. // Theblog 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Linking to Annan's blog seems reasonable, as he is one of the two parties in the episode being discussed. The material is clearly attributed to Annan so any sensible person would recognize that they're getting one of the two sides in the debate. Note also that the "decent secondary source" described here is an opinion piece written by a prominent skeptic of human-induced influence on climate, not an item of objective reporting by a disinterested party. Raymond Arritt 04:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The blog contains information about the article subject which was/is used in the article, a clear violation of WP:BLP. The secondary source is reason magazine, which I assumed was not self published, but if I'm wrong, then I obviously recommend it and any information it provides be removed too. You are incorrect about the author's GW stance, however it does not matter as Wikipedia focuses on the source (ie self published = not good for BLP, not self published = better), not the author. --Theblog 05:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Edward McSweegan

• Edward McSweegan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I don't think there really is a BLP issue here but this does seem appropriate to raise here where those familiar with similar issues can help address it. An editor claiming to be the subject of the Edward McSweegan article is not only objecting to its very presence but insists on adding a disclaimed to the article. There is also an ongoing AFD. --ElKevbo 19:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a major rewrite to the article, as the original version was cut down to a stub (heavily plagiarized, and borderline slander), but despite attempts by myself and Studerby to get this article up to snuff, McSweegan is still ranting about how it isn't accurate. However, it includes actual interviews from the Washington Post and CBS News. I came very close to reporting him to AIV, but given the sensitivity of the matter, I decided against it. Dunno what more we can do ... Blueboy96 19:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems per Dr. McSweegan's post at the AfD ([32]), he claims the article was originally intended as an attack page. It's hard not to come to that conclusion, based on the article history. The author, Freyfaxi (talk · contribs), subscribes to the fringe theory that Lyme disease is a biological weapon. As mentioned above, it was heavily plagiarized. I see the best way out of this is oversighting all versions prior to ThuranX's edit today. I also think that Freyfaxi should be subjected to some sort of sanction as well. Blueboy96 23:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(As I posted at ANI) : The article has now been oversighted, but I want to bring a quote left by Dr. McSweegan at the AfD to the attention of administrators: "I'm going on vacation for a few days; when I get back we'll settle this in public, not behind Wiki's barred doors." [33] Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If we have an acceptable version now, perhaps deletion of the past history is in order? - Crockspot 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

V.T. Rajshekar

• V. T. Rajshekar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Serious difficulties in handling article on this very controversial writer. How to split material between the article on the subject and that on the Dalit Voice magazine he edits. Whether the article should go in multiple categories such as Pseudohistory, Conspiracy theorists, Antisemitism. Not many good secondary sources available. Itsmejudith 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyria Moore

• Tyria Moore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article is unsourced and contains potentialy libelous and sensitive material about her AND her parents. I suggest delete for now, but to alow the article to be recreated if sources are found. Basejumper 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked it, pending sourcing. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to a redirect, since there seems to be no notability outside her connection to Aileen Wuornos. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Amy Mihaljevic

Amy Mihaljevic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

207.58.222.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) persistently adds information about alleged suspects of the crime, claiming that "This information cites reliable sources and should not be removed". In fact, I don't see any, at least not inline referenced, which should be a must for this kind of thing. I'm reluctant to sprotect the article and/or block the user, as I'm not too well versed with handling of BLP issues. Can someone lean a hand? Duja► 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I was forced to semi-protect the article and instructed the anon to defend his case here. [34]. Duja► 16:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Response: Here is the section of the article that has been removed.

[long bit of material removed, the article history (esp. this diff) is sufficient if anyone needs to see it -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)]

As you can see, this information has already been reported in the Cleveland media, as well as nationally released books by FBI agents assigned to the case. It is indisputable. Just because a fact makes certain readers uncomfortable, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. That is a dangerous slippery slope. This information is already available to anyone who takes the time to do a simple google search. There is also precident for naming suspects in other wiki articles. Please see [Zodiac Killer].

Further, since this is an unsolved homicide, it is very dangerous to keep this article protected. New information is coming out on this case every month and the more information provided to readers here may help find this young girl's killer.

Please undo protection immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.58.222.242 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

This entire article looks like a promotional for Renner's book. The book, and other writings by Renner including his blog, seem to be almost the sole source for the article. The article seems to be a result of this man's obsessive interest in this long cold case. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't a BLP discussion. If he's written bios on those suspects, it would be a BLP case - as it stands it is a dicussion about the content of the article. Did we really need the article discussed in 3 different forums (4 if you count that his bio is up for deletion as punishment).

When I read comments like "seem to be almost the sole source for the article", I have to think "am I really so smart that I can find 20 articles, and TV interviews about the case in 3 minutes? Well, apparently so. When you do a Google News search, for example, you have to check the archives - not just look at the first page of what comes up for past first month. I have about 7 This case was on Americas_most_wanted - it was one of the first cases John Walsh detailed. I heard about it on the other side of the country. Renner doesn't need publicity to sell his book - he was interviewed on TV and there were many articles about the book. He's also been in the news a lot (as an interview subject - not as a reporter or investigator) as he's directed a movie of a Steven King short story that was an official choice in the Montereal Film Festival, as well as having acted and worked in production in various films and TV shows. He didn't know the BLP rules (if there are any for suspects).

Back to the BLP point, since you mention it, people didn't say a BLP-word when Crystal Gayle Magnum was written about (finally taken down) or when the Duke guys accused of raping her were being written about on Wikipedia. I'm just saying - he's getting really attacked and he's a newbie. He needs information, not labelling. Nominating all his articles for deletion (and his bio) was a vindictive gesture from Videmus Omnia, which he did to respond to Renner's constestation of the image deletion of Amy. I find that to make 4 deletions and to have such a huge grilling of an expert newbie very, very harsh.

• Until someone is at least charged, we shouldn't be naming names of suspects. Particularly people like Bound who the police feel are uninvolved. What is the point? At most there should be a short sentence saying "Over the years, there have been a number of suspects.", with citations to the news articles covering those suspects (if they exist) that people can go read further if they care to. - Crockspot 04:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the material again and re-protected the article. It turned out that the sources are written by himself, apparently based from leak(s) from at lest one investigator; no one else was indecent enough to publish them. I'm at loss whether to AfD or CSD the article, block the author or what; why should we tolerate BLP COI SPAs? Assuming good faith is one thing, but when the good faith is combined with utterly bad taste... Duja► 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Mihaljevic. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Amazingly excessive Yes, and you also marked up for all the world to see - happy now? Just to teach him a lesson for the crime of wanting to keep an image for which it can be argued there is fair use (or it can be easily obtained)? This was completely unnecessary.

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Amy Mihaljevic
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Amy Mihaljevic
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Mihaljevic
• [Image:Amyphoto.jpg for deletion]
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Renner BlueSapphires 08:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oversight needed - This diff] is probably going to have to be oversighted from this noticeboard's edit history. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are aware of the oversight policy on such things. They usually aren't lept upon with great speed and vigor. In any event, the mention of the names has already transpired in the news. And one of the names is a pseudonym.

• Comment: If the removal of those names is crucial, then you'd better get up and nominate: Arthur_Leigh_Allen for oversight (he has a full BLP as a Zodical killer suspect - the Zodiac killer killed about 19 people in the SFO Bay area in the 1960s and 1970s), as well as asking to remove the information from this section of the Zodiac_killer case. Personally, I find it odd that only one of the 4-5 suspects are named on that article. It is as if we'd convicted him ourselves. Maybe because the Zodiac Movie did, Wikipedia feels it is ok.

What all of you are forgetting is that Renner is a professional journalist, and he's written a book about this, naming those names already, and those names are already in the news - in print. That is the legal standard in the U.S. for defamation and libel, that it is already out in the public domain. As a professional, he's pretty careful about writing libel. What you should have done is educated him as to your views on Wikipedia's position, and learned from him. He's probably a really interesting person. He's directed movies, he knows Steven King, he hobnobs in Hollywood, and he gets enough media attention to not seek cheap status on Wikipedia. Instead you clamped him down, called him names and treated him like a criminal.

See here a comment on Viredus Omnia's behavior towards James Renner

Videmus Omnia attacks people who disagree with his image edits, he is starting to get a reputation for harassing people by deleting all their images. He is blocked at present for deleting every image that Alkivar, Mike Halterman and NeoCoronis made. He started an WP:RFC on Alkivar, for a fairly minor comment Alkivar made to Videmus Omnia's friend Abu badali, Viredus Omnia committed WP:CANVASS, by asking Abu_badali to certify the RFC. after Abu badali was pestering and provoking Alkivar. Abu badali has been subject to an RFC and an Arbcom for such behavor.

• If you look at the history, Abu badali was provocing Alkivar - and he's continuing to do it on his talk page. Abu
• As I'm referencing links to this comment, I see that Videmus Omnia is deleting every image that Alkivar has ever made. I'm getting the idea that Videmus Omnia likes to fight more than he cares about the content of the encyclopedia, becase normally the same person doesn't call an RFC on a person, then delete all their images. That goes *beyond* petty, to something far darker.
• 'Therefore I contend that the fact that Videmus Omnia has targeted all items related to James Renner to be a sort of pattern. An excessive pattern. It is true that Renner didn't understand the BLP policy (and the people there weren't open to discussion either), but Videmus Omnia just jumped in, after the image dispute, and propagated 4 forums worth of discussions on the works of this one man, rather than educate or cope with him, is excessive. Notce that all of them happened in one day, and right after the disagreement between Videmus Omnia and James Renner, at which point Renner became the subject of multi-modal attack. Videmus doesn't cope well with anyone who contests him.BlueSapphires 08:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Paige Patterson

Resolved.

• Paige Patterson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - User 24.107.53.58 repeatedly accuses a living person of criminal or illegal activity. July 11,20,21,26 (Unsourced of course) They also added a copyrighted photo that had previously been removed. July 20 They also repeatedly add the same unsourced POV material, and remove sourced material from the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary article. Paige Patterson is president of this school.

• Tagged the article accordingly, as many aspects are unsupported by reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph C. Wilson

Resolved. User blocked

• Joseph C. Wilson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Massive deletions of properly-sourced information by recently-blocked user -- User talk:Tim Osman#48 hour blocked and User talk:Tim Osman#Block -- have resulted in damage to the integrity of this article's previously-properly-formatted citations and loss of the article's integrity overall. While inserting obviously-biased information into the article, including biased headings, violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the user has interfered with the coding of citations. Please see Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and the editing history of the article. Despite being warned by previous administrators, the user has made these changes today without prior discussion on the talk page, violating tagged notices on the talk page, including Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, WP:BLP, and internally-linked policies and guidelines. I believe that this user needs to be blocked from editing Wikipedia and the article protected or semi-protected so that its integrity can be restored. I have tagged the article with a "missing citations" template and a "neutrality" template to alert other readers to these problems, but I am reluctant to make any corrections reverting the user's changes due my having been blocked for warning of (what I regard as) his Wikipedia:Vandalism to the article before and having been blocked myself for having reverted it before. See WP:3RR#Exceptions for the policies that I think related to such changes in relation to WP:BLP. I have other work to do and do not have time to monitor ongoing problems with this article or to get involved in administrative arbitrations relating to it or other articles in Wikipedia. I am alerting administrators to the problems caused by that user, which appear to me to be doing major damage to Wikipedia and its reputation as a source. The article is not now credible. (I have just discovered a message that the user posted on his own talk page (which would not be accessed by readers of the article per se) instead of posting anything on the talk page of the article. The explanation of what he is doing contains falsehoods about the previous version of the article. I myself was in the midst of shortening it considerably (as my editorial interpolation in a section indicated) when he deleted my previous work and the previous work of others in it. When I attempted to save my shorter version of a section, I ran into an "editing conflict" since he had changed the article in the interim. The user has clearly not consulted Wikipedia guidelines and policies and still does not abide by them. --NYScholar 01:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)] [This is not a personal attack on the user; it is a bonafide notice on the BLP Noticeboard of violations of WP:BLP. Corrected a typographical error in it found later. --NYScholar 11:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]

Since I first posted this notice, an administrator undid the changes to the article by the other user. After that, I resumed editing the article, which took a lot more time, and I posted an explanation re: my subsequent editing of the article on its talk page. [Updated.] --NYScholar 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a personal attack on me and I ask that the user NYScholar be blocked for at least one week for such an attack, which I was told was against Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Administrators? Tim Osman

To uninvolved and neutral administrators: Please assist: Please consult Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and the editing history. Unnecessary persistent edit warring is affecting the integrity of this article. Unnecessary removal of image of the subject and other pertinent and reliably- and verifiably-sourced information. Could use neutral, uninvolved administrative assistance. Unable to communicate with user removing well-sourced notable information from article. Thank you for assistance. --NYScholar 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim Osman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked for one month. Closing. - Crockspot 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib

• Romila Thapar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Irfan Habib (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Arun Shourie is a prominent journalist, former minister in the Indian government and a prominent commentator of the "Hindu right" . His book Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud is strongly critical of mainstream Indian academic historians. Fairly serious allegations have been sought to be introduced in the biographies of Romila Thapar([35]) and Irfan Habib([36]) (possibly others), sourced to this book.

The book appears to be self-published[37] (ISBN points to ASA Publications, New Delhi). The material being added to the biographies are not fully cited - no page numbers, requests for a quote unanswered, and make broad negative assertions (and sometimes more[38]) about the work of these academics.

Shourie's work has attracted close to no attention in the academic world, but appears to be popular, not least among fellow Hindutva adherents.

What weight, if any, needs to be given to Shourie's assertions in biographies of those mentioned in this work? What is to be done with the frequent insertion of material that fails to cite page numbers or supporting quotes from the book? what is to be done with the numbers (and some more) of SPAs (and this longstanding editor) who repeatedly reinsert the same patently non-neutral material ignoring the issues involved despite repeated messages? Doldrums 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John Favalora

John Favalora (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Material which fails to be neutral and unsourced continues to be added even though repeated reverts by numerous users has taken place. An appropriate section dealing with the legal issues was also added, but this act is being ignored and the page continues to have the same unsourced material posted. Proper placement of some material is also in question. Aafm 15:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Help us out here? What material? Who is inserting it? Links to the edits in question would be helpful. Thanks. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See [39][40] plus article history from 12/July/2007 thru current and additions by DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs) which have been repeatedly undone by numerous users but is daily re-added. Aafm 01:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As this is continuing, could I ask for another glance at this situation? Again, DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs) has added material in the following edit [41] which is not appropriately placed, sourced and neutral. Aafm 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Peterson

• Jeffrey Peterson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

and here is the personal page written is a third-person business news page style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Peterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janelvi (talk • contribs) 9:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jared Taylor

• Jared Taylor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – Jared Taylor is one of the most influential thinkers/writers within the white nationalist community. He has sometimes been criticized within that community for not taking a harder line against Jews and Asians. Apparently someone within that community has now started making accusations that Mr. Taylor has been having an affair with a Japanese woman (Taylor was born in Japan and lived there until he was 16, and still has ties to that country). Material concerning that allegation has been repeatedly added into the article, only to be removed, and then reinserted by User:Alabamawhiteman. Mr. Taylor has used the talk page to responded to the allegation and ask for its removal. The allegation is currently sourced to the Talk:Jared Taylor page of Wikipedia based upon Mr. Taylor's comments. All of this is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Alabamawhiteman seems to be an account created strictly to facilitate this editwar, and I would suspect that it is a sockpuppet. I am far from being a supporter or admirer of Jared Taylor; However, I do believe that policy should be uniformly applied, even when we ourselves may have strong difference with the subject of the article. Brimba 19:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I took off 3 bits of uncited or semi-cited material. It is kind of weird that he is being attacked for not being racist enough. Steve Dufour 01:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There now seems to be a major edit war going on. Steve Dufour 18:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's now even worse. Please check out the article's edit history. Steve Dufour 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for intervening. Recent activity on that page has been pretty odd, and seems to be a case of someone using Wikipedia for making unsourced accusations, for unknown reasons. Eeaee 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I scared 'em with my threat to delete it as an attack article. :-) Steve Dufour 17:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have worked, I can't believe the Wiki discussion page was being used as an article source Eeaee 09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The personal material has been re-added. I took it off and am waiting to see what happens. Steve Dufour 07:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Taylor asked on the talk page that the article be locked or deleted. Steve Dufour 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

much too notable to delete. DGG (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll protect it for now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Haroon Rashid Aswat

Resolved.

• Haroon Rashid Aswat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Concerns have been expressed[42] about my interpretation of policy and approach to enforcement at Talk:Haroon Rashid Aswat. Review appreciated. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Several editors have commented there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• List of Scientologist celebrities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A couple of problems here. The "owners" of the article want to include people without knowing for sure that they are really Scientologists. Also for some reason they want to label those who were raised in traditionally Catholic ethnic backgrounds as "former Catholics" without any special evidence that this is really the case. Steve Dufour 06:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Scientologists

Sorry to bring up another Scientology article, but this one has even worse problems than the other. I took out some names from the section on "Former Scientologists" because they were only cited by Internet rumor sites. But they were put right back in. Steve Dufour 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

With no discussion (and evidently no review of previous discussions), and removal of others that were well referenced, all in bulk. AndroidCat 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should WP include a list of former Scientologists in the first place? A lot of people on the list (for instance Christopher Reeve and Jerry Seinfeld) just took some courses and decided it wasn't for them. Is that encyclopedic type information? Steve Dufour 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Good question. I don't have an answer. Perhaps this is something for the article's talk page, or AfD? As to WP:BLP: Does the list still contain any unsourced/poorly sourced entries? Avb 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be differences of opinion about what is a good source, and what the sources are saying. Steve Dufour 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris Langham page protection

• Chris Langham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Chris Langham is a well-known British actor/comedian who is currently on trial for a number of offences of a sexual nature involving young people. The trial is high profile and the evidence is explicit. Perhaps this page could be fully protected until the trial is over as it will probably became the target for vandalism. Some inappropriate stuff has already appeared. // --ROGER ^TALK 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement and Kenneth Kronberg

Some users have expressed concerns. Additional eyes would be appreciated. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

These two articles include the claim that LaRouche somehow caused the suicide of one of his close associates. The claim is sourced soley to a small weekly paper owned and edited by Nicholas Benton, a disaffected former member of the LaRouche organization. Benton is also the author of the article which is used to source the claim. --MaplePorter 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither article makes that claim. Neither article blaims any living person for his suicide. Benton has linked a memo to the suicide, but we only mention he has made the allegation. Could MaplePorter specify which living person is at issue? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A source that does make the claim, but is not cited on the Kronberg page--although perhaps it should be--is Dennis King's latest (July 30 last update) article, "Lyndon LaRouche and the Art of Induced Suicide." LaRouche has responded to that with a press release, "Is Dennis King Contemplating Suicide?" King's article is to be found at www.dennisking.org, and LaRouche's response at www.larouchepac.com. I am considering adding this material to the Kronberg page, but am mentioning it in advance to elicit discussion, so we can all be clear on the approach. Both of these items are newsworthy--neither would be cited for the truth of the matter, but for their mere existence.-- Hexham 11:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fletcher Brothers

• Fletcher Brothers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Lots of accusations being flung there that don't seem to be supported by sources. // Corvus cornix 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I reverted an edit that appeared to be mass blanking but, on further review, it looks like it might be in line with WP:BLP to get rid of a good portion of this. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Every last bit of it unless it is sourced. Basejumper 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Slim Helu

There are repeated changes to his family background which repeatedly keep removing the fact that his father was a Lebanese Maronite Catholic. He hails from a predominantly Maronite village, yet Wikipedia users such as EliasAlucard and many randoms repeatedly keep saying that he is Assyrian and quoting a website that is completely unreliable, poorly written in terms of English grammar and based on propaganda. Most sources say that he is a Maronite and it is really unlikely he is an Assyrian. It's becoming ridiculous to keep changing it back. He is by no means Assyrian and this keeps getting changed each time. Should the page have a protection template? Prince Cadmus II 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The repeated changes from different IPs do suggest the need for semi-protection. No reliable source has ever been added to support the claim of his Assyrian descent. It appears that some Maronites do have this descent, but it would take a very strong secondary source to establish it in his case. You see this matter discussed out on the web, but never with adequate documentation. EdJohnston 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are no reliable secondary sources clarifying this issue either way, it should not be addressed at all in the article. - Crockspot 20:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rein Lang

Roughly translated excerpts from a Postimees article (original here) --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

An advisor to Estonia's Minister of Justice Rein Lang edited the Wikipedia page about her boss in connection with information about his scandalous birthday party. An Estonian wikipedian, Sander Säde, writes in his blog that several officers from the Ministry of Justice attempted to delete from the article a report about the controversial birthday party. Säde discovered that the passage had been targeted from an IP affiliated with the Estonian Information Centre, a partner of several Estonian state institutions. Then the passage was deleted by User:Kairioun and User:Gerog112. Säde states in his blog that Kairi Õun is the name of the minister's advisor.

User:Gerog112 has made legal threats against the Estonian editors of Wikipedia, responsible for restoring the deleted passage, and, presumably, contacted the Wikipedia office in Florida in order to vent his complaints. Wikipedia has blocked Gerog112 from editing for three months. The minister's advisor Kairi Õun told the Postimees that she had altered the Wikipedia coverage of her boss, because it was misleading. "I attempted to change the text, but it was restored. Then I called their headquarters in Florida and pointed out that a large passage about the birthday party, set against two sentences about the minister's entire curriculum vitae, gives the impression of undue weight". She claims to have received a message from the senior administrators (sic!) of Wikipedia endorsing her edits.

The Press Service of the Ministry of Justice was unable to name their officials that were involved in the editing of the Rein Lang article. <...> In an interview with the Kuku radiostation, Peter Marvet, a well-known Estonian expert on information services, recalled that Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the current President of Estonia, had expanded the Wikipedia article about himself.

It's amazing that the editors of Wikipedia include presidents of European countries, is not it? --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kashish Das Shrestha

• Kashish Das Shrestha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I noticed that the entire article on Kashish Das Shrestha violates NPV principle of Wikipedia. It is nothing more than a publicity stunt of the part of the biographer, this article I suspect is written by the individual named Kashish Das Shrestha. Is there any chances to suspend this article unless it cites more resources and back up what the author has to say on the part of his/her subject? 202.52.243.123 12:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Mark Hudson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

(My apologies in advance for the length, I wanted to be as clear and informative as I could be, since this seems to be a pretty heated issue on the various people involved.)

A couple nights ago, I was on RC/Vandal patrol, and saw someone remove a large chunk of info from the article Mark Hudson, Looking it over, (granted, I did not read the entire article or examine it for content, but it seemed to be selective editing to me at the time) I reverted it. The IP user then sent me a message, and claimed that she was the (living biography article, btw) this person's daughter, and she was working on her career, and the information in the article was incited, defamatory and should be removed. There are several people who seem to have made it their personal crusade to keep this info in the article, they constantly put it in, even after it was requested removed months ago, and has been removed by RC Patrol people at various times. At that time, the information was unproven, unverified, and nobody could offer up any sources for citation.

When it became clear this was going to turn into non-stop adding/removing edit wars, I went to someone who is much more experienced with these issues, User:Elonka, and asked for her input and advice. She spent several hours reviewing the logs on all the people who contributed, the talk page, the main page, and read through my comments on the talk pages of those people involved. She found one small article, from over 10 years ago in the LA Times, (that is not the text that these people keep putting back into the article), a small, one paragraph mention that includes the word "allegations".

Her suggestion, and her action, was that this was an "alleged" incident, over a decade ago, barely mentioned, (see the talk page for her full summation, and her edit summaries) and did not deserve to have a huge chunk of the page devoted to it. She created a header titled "Controversy" and put a summary of the paragraph reported by the LA Times, along with proper citations and references.

We both had hoped this would satisfy both sides, the information is there, but the defamatory nature of the wording changed, and the word "alleged" included to clarify. All parties actively involved were notified on their talk pages, as well as full explanations in the talk page, and the summaries of the reason for Elonka's decision.

However, this morning it begins yet again, with Elonka's section taken out, and the full text (which I should add, was not cited with references prior to yesterday) was placed back in the article. I reverted it to Elonka's version, with another note to please read the talk page for the discussion on this subject. (This will be my last action on the article, as I personally feel that this issue is going nowhere, and my reversions are not going to matter, even if my intent is simply to retain the NPOV and the credibility of Wikipedia. The people involved will ignore that, because both sides feel so passionately about the issue, which I fully understand, which is why I am bringing it here, and hoping that someone will take this issue out of my unqualified hands.)

I would like to say first of all, that I do not enjoy conflict. I only got involved with this issue from being on RC patrol, and when asked to look into it further, I did. At that time I felt that (In my opinion) if the information was unable to be cited, or referenced anywhere, that per the WP:BLP policies, it should be left off the article until someone could prove it was true. Especially since the information was both inflammatory, and defamatory. I have no idea who the person is, I personally have no stake in either side, and I can see both sides of the issue, so I feel that someone who is much more experienced in both mediation of disputes, and the WP:BLP policy should step in, and solve the issue in the appropriate way.

Admittedly my experience in such matters is thus far limited, but I'd suggest a partial protection of the page, for a month or two, a full summary of the reasoning for whatever the decision is, and notices placed on talk pages of those who continue to revert this issue back and forth. I'd like to get this issue solved peacefully and diplomatically, while keeping in line with Wikipedia's policies.

Thank you for looking over this issue (and it will take a while to sift through the various talk pages of those involved, history and talk page history, and for that I apologize in advance). I look forward to your decision and action with this issue, as I do not feel I'm qualified to solve this issue, nor do I have the power to stop the constant edit wars. ^Ariel♥Gold 07:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue is still going on. Bunspebble is still removing the information placed by Elonka, even though it is properly cited, and a small paragraph at the bottom of the page. I'd very much appreciate someone stepping in and warning this person about selectively editing articles when the information is presented in a NPOV, and properly cited with links. Thank you, ^Ariel♥Gold 10:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on the daughter's talk page. Unless the older "bad" version of the incident is still being repeatedly inserted, this seems to have moved out of the BLP range, and into a content dispute, so I am inclined to mark this as resolved. But I will give it another day or so before doing so. - Crockspot 20:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Crockspot, as of yesterday, the person was still removing even Elonka's condensed paragraph, and others were adding in the old version, (not Elonka's condensed, cited version,) so it seems to be ongoing. I'd be happy if someone else would watch the page for further action. Thanks again! ^Ariel♥Gold 20:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• A user has added an unsourced statement about current ongoing allegations. I removed and warned the user. - Crockspot 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, we seem to have a logged in user and an IP user making the same edit. The ip is out of Britain, and the logged in user uses British patterns of speech, so I am assuming they are the same user. I gave a final warning to the IP, and I let the logged in user know that he isn't fooling anyone, and will have both the account and the IP blocked if that unsourced bit is added again. - Crockspot 20:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Canderel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 86.136.80.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I noticed the same, Crockspot, and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for keeping an eye on the page, as that last bit of nonsense added is completely unwarranted, obviously. Canderel is the very same user who was in the edit wars previously, insisting on adding information before it was properly sourced. I had previously explained on the person's talk page that once the information was properly sourced, it could be added, so I'm unsure why that did not satisfy the user. It seems there may be an issue of axe-grinding going on, with no regards to neutrality, or citation policies. Again, thank you for your diligence in the issue. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Unfortunately, I'm not an admin, so I can't block him myself, but if he does it again, make a note here and report him to WP:ANI. His account should be blocked indef (in my opinion) on the next violation. - Crockspot 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Robert Prechter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does WP:BLP require the deletion of well-sourced criticism? Editor with WP:COI has announced his intention to violate WP:3RR in order to repeatedly delete material talk-page consensus agrees belongs. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Robert_Prechter. THF 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I welcome the participation of an administrator in this dispute. I did not "announce" my "intention" to violate 3rr policy -- I reminded THF that 3rr does not apply in cases of BLP abuse. Please carefully check the references and links on the talk page.

Also please note that the Robert Prechter article was part of an an arbitration case several months ago, the outcome of which was strongly influenced by BLP violations to Prechter's biography: text of arbitration committee decision. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 17:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can both you give diffs so that we can see the specific cites, etc? My personal view is that EWT is bollocks of the highest order, but BLP requires that criticism be well sourced. Raymond Arritt 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Diff. original reliable source. THF 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)r

Please see [43], and also [[44]]. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 18:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Malkiel certainly is a good source, though "singled out" arguably is overstating the case. I note also the removal of a reference from a well-reputed publishing house.[45] My inclination is to protect the article while the two of you try to reach a compromise. Raymond Arritt 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt to help, I'll comply with any recommendation you have. You're correct about the removal of that reputable source -- in fact, you commented on an earlier dispute involving myself and the other editor, and that editor and dispute followed me to Prechter's page, among other articles. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, my recommendation is to work it out amicably. The criticism is well-sourced if perhaps a bit overstated. I think a compromise is well within reach if both of you don't dig in too hard. Raymond Arritt 18:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're right, though if you take a look at the Prechter and EWT article talk pages, you may see why I'm somewhat skeptical. You seem fair minded, especially from what I read on your user page. It could prove very helpful for you to keep an eye on the disputed articles (which is not to suggest that you don't have better things to do), given how deeply dug in we already find ourselves. Thank you, --Rgfolsom 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think "singled out" is fair: there are only three technicians mentioned by name in A Random Walk and Prechter was one of them. Perhaps "Prechter was one of three technicians singled out by..."? Regardless, NPOV requires some criticism in what is otherwise an entirely laudatory LEAD.

The other sentence Folsom objects to is word for word what is in the book. The details are important, because Prechter wasn't just a little bit wrong, he was a lot wrong: he incorrectly forecast an 80% drop in the market when the Dow in fact was about to go on a gigantic bull run.

To save time, I'd like to declare an impasse now. I appreciate Raymond's assistance and will abide by Raymond's edit; we have had disagreements in the past, but that was on a rare occasion when I was more inclusionist than someone else, so I trust his judgment on resolving the problems of NPOV and COI and LEAD (and BLP accusations) presented here. I am too tired of chasing down Rgfolsom's bad-faith citations to nonexistent support and personal attacks to spend time working this out with him when the inevitable result will be an impasse--he has refused to accept a single edit of mine on any page where we both edit, even when I am supported by WP:3O or RFCs. THF 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish to draw attention again to another BLP violation by THF. Here are the diffs, which show that THF has distorted two separate sources in order to portray Prechter in the most negative way possible. [46][47][48][49][50][51][52] The diffs also show that I have tried to offer compromises edits that another editor received in good faith, but THF rejected the effort with insulting and uncivil language. Bad faith is manifest in these violations, and I appeal for an administrator's intervention. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Pashtun Mafia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is about Pakistani/Afghani individuals and the criminal organisations, which includes drug-smuggling, they allegedly run. The article appears to contain orginal reseearch and is erratically sourced. It certainly doesn't comply with WP:A. Unfortunately it names many names. The main recent contributing editor has created a number of stubs in support of the main article, repeat similar allegations and, again, attribution is erratic. Several have already been deleted. Could someone with more time than I have today take a look please? The main article will take quite a lot of unpicking. ROGER ^TALK 14:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some input on this as I have virtually no experience of dealing with this sort of issue. I know it's messy and not straightforward that's why I referred it here. --ROGER ^TALK 13:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced names from Opium Mafia, which is where Pashtun Mafia redirects now. The article still needs closer inspection, but it's a start. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Trevor Marshall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Information was put in the Trevor Marshall wikipedia page and has been repeatedly removed. The text removed includes information from SEC reports, court documents, patent applications and the need for referencing of current material. How can this be stopped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzayner (talk • contribs)

A look at the talk page reveals that the situation is much more complicated than that. There appears to be a long-standing argument over this gentleman's bio and the validity of his research. -Jmh123 23:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I found at least one edit by Jzayner (talk · contribs) adding a negative claim about Marshall sourced from http://impnvestigator.chat.ru/, an anti-Marshall website. I think some editors need a better understanding of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP etc. (But then, so do I.) I'm not going to be able to help out. CWC 10:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am the subject of this bio. I am very uncomfortable about becoming directly involved in this dispute, but I have reviewed the WP:BLP and it gives clear guidance that I should do so, as the editor/vandal is making detailed and specific claims upon which only I have the underlying data. The claims of Jzayner are certainly intended to defame, and they cannot be allowed to stand. For example, an allegation has been made that the Foundation which I currently head was for some time operating without an IRS certification. In fact, the IRS certificate carries an effective date of 1 April 2004. Further there even seems to be some attempt to imply that I have said HIV does not cause AIDS. HIV does cause AIDS, and I have given scientific presentations detailing the manner in which the disease progresses. Although I can understand that the technical terminology used in molecular biology must be confusing to the average reader, I find it hard to believe that this editor is reading with an educated and unjaundiced eye (NPOV). WP:BLP says subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material, and, unless the admins here disagree, I am prepared to do that in this case, as I did when the Nazi defacements were posted to my bio on 28 May 2007, complete with a picture of Hitler (why didn't the wiki bots pick up 'hitla.gif' as a problematic image upload?). Trevmar 12:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jzayner 13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Responds: this is absurd.

Mr. Marshall the State of California says Autoimmunity Research Inc. out of Thousand Oaks, CA did not receive tax-exempt status till Jan 2007. If this is inccorect you should take this up with them.

What about cancer being caused by bacteria? Your patent application also says and I quote "This invention is a method of killing the stealthy intra-cellular bacteria which are key to the pathogenesis of both Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome(s) (AIDS) and Cancers. It is currently believed that the disease(s) known as AIDS are caused by a virus, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). But much of the long-term (chronic) destruction of the immune system in AIDS is actually caused by tiny, stealthy, antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The HIV virus weakens the immune system so that the stealthy bacteria can proliferate out-of-control, and the damage of AIDS is done just as much by these bacteria as by any virus. These very tiny L-form Cell-Wall-Deficient (CWD) antibiotic-resistant bacteria live within the cytoplasm of cells, including the phagocytic cells (e.g. monocytes, macrophages, lymphocytes, neutrophils and polymorphonuclear cells) of the immune system itself. The cellular proliferation in Cancer is catalysed the action of the same tiny L-form bacteria. They cause the cell nucleus to release mRNA signaling the Th1 cytokine cascade without the need for conventional signaling via, for example, CD4+ T-Lymphocytes. Some of these Cytokines and Chemokines, including, without limitation, Cellular Adhesion Molecule (CAM), create the environment which allows the cellular proliferation to start, and then allows the cancerous growth to gain a foothold in the body."

There has never been any evidence that bacteria weaken the immune system in HIV. There has been no evidence that bacteria are involved in cancer. Mr. Marshall you should also know that mRNA is always released from the nucleus, that CAMs are not cytokines or chemokines.

How come this edit is being related to obviously defamation with pictures of hitler? Take out the one sentence that cites an unauthritative source.

This is not meant to defame you it is meant to provide people with a neutral point of view about you.

My academic colleague, 2005 Nobel Laureate Barry Marshall, has linked bacteria with cancer pathogenesis. Barry and I have discussed each other's research on several occasions. You will find Barry's opinions at PMID:11991099 and PMID:15656929. But, at this point in time, none of this has anything to do with an encyclopedic bio, or with a NPOV. Trevmar 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There being no apologies, in accordance with WP:BLP, here is how I intend to deal with the edits impugning my integrity, and the integrity of my research. On 7/13/2007, while I was out-of-town, chairing a workshop at the Metagenomics 2007 conference, the single purpose account Addiex (talk · contribs) defamed Trevor Marshall by falsely claiming the Murdoch Academic appointment was fraudulent. Simultaneously, Savisha (talk · contribs) began removing all mention of our research from WP:Sarcoidosis, including a citation to FDA approbation of our research. Savisha had previously nominated Trevor Marshall for Deletion on 12/10/2006. On 7/15/2006 Jzayner (talk · contribs) repeated the fraudulent appointment libel, without having checked the sources I suggested when I reverted the Addiex libel. Jzayner (talk · contribs) then engaged in a series of what another editor has identified as tendentious edits of Trevor Marshall. Resolution: WP:BLP is clear in stating that the libel should be removed from Trevor Marshall and Talk:Trevor Marshall. I will do that. Any further edits of Trevor Marshall by these accounts will be closely monitored for defamatory material. Further, I would welcome this BLP becoming even better sourced, and I would encourage the use of clearer language by the editors - as long as such actions are performed in good faith - Trevmar 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ADMINS PLEASE: Jzayner (talk · contribs) is still stalking Trevor Marshall and has today reverted the libellous edits which I (the living subject) removed from Talk:Trevor Marshall, in accordance with WP:BLP and the resolution described immediately above. I implemented that resolution on 20 July, after allowing plenty of time for a consensus to be formed here at the BLP Noticeboard. Jzayner (talk · contribs) has now repeated the identical libellous remarks at Talk:Trevor Marshall IN DEFIANCE OF THE RESOLUTION above.I don't have time to continually deal with this defamation, and I surely cannot be expected to sit back and let it continue. I trust Wikipedia has a procedure for making sure that this defamation will cease. Trevmar 19:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A copy of the Court Order which is apparently being violated in these incidents was sent by FAX to Wikipedia at (727)258-0207 on 7/27/07 after no response had been received to the order and the following text sent by email 7/26/07 to info-en-q@wikimedia.org: " .. Please can an admin revert Jzayner’s edit 146999825, and Jzayner’s reversion of 145957535, and stop these accounts from continuing to harass and libel? .. I note he posted yesterday on the Talk page of the bio: 'A court document is not considered credible information.' Attached is a final order and judgment for Contempt of Court on 143 counts of libel, many of them Internet postings, which is the 'court document' this editor is describing as 'not credible.' The judgment includes an order for the arrest of the individual who posted the libel which is subject of that judgment .. I am sorry to have to bother Wikipedia administration with this. It is taking up far too much of your time, and my time too. I felt that I needed to become involved, as I am the intended object of this harassment and defamation, not the Wikipedia editors who originally created the bio. Unfortunately they have also been having their integrity impugned .. " Trevmar 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An email with a ticket number was received today from the Wikimedia Support Team. The Support Team should be able to help keep things running smoothly from now on. Thanks for your help. Trevmar 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I know this article has been here before. However, I think it has major problems as an "owned article". The most recent have been a controversy over how his education was funded, with the wrong information prefered by the "owners." It was also pointed out that the title itself is POV, and not at all standard for WP. It should say what he is, an author, not what he advocates. Steve Dufour 15:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked. It seems you are correct. The parts about him and taxi driving and his high school career seem to have been inserted just to make him look like a stereotypical fool; and don't have anything to do with his notibility. Also the article about his Icons book also was very biased. I know nothing about the book after hsaving read the article, but can follow links to a half dozen articles b people who didn't like it. Basejumper 15:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've checked out some of the other articles in the creation/evolution area and many of them seem to have the same kinds of problems. Steve Dufour 18:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I bet. I haven't seen them, but it is probably the case. Unfortunately there is probably very little that can be done about it. The majority of editors in such articles will view such things as crackery, but even then, rather than simply explain the person, his history, his ideas, and then adding a short blurb about how his views are not in the mainstream and having links to articles about mainstream views of the things discussed; it seems necessary to them to soapbox and refute his every statement. The same is true in articles about religious minority groups. The articles are dominated by criticism. It's not supposed to be how it is, but it is impossable to convince people to do things properly. In this case, you can remove the taci thing and highschool bit on BLP grounds. They are potentially hurtful and don't add anything to the articleBasejumper 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Those facts are from Wells's own writings. I would just as soon leave them in, I don't think they do him any harm. They might even make him more interesting. A really strange thing about the article is that the section on his most successful book is mainly about the picture on the cover of the book, not the book itself. This is neither positive nor negative towards Wells, but when I have tried to remove it, explaining that I was trying to remove something to shorten an overlong article, it was put right back. (p.s. The article also goes into absurd detail on his college research papers.) Steve Dufour 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Icons article may need work, but there is nothing wrong with including basic biographic information about Wells such as his having dropped out of highschool which is information that would be included in any biographic article. For that matter, I'd be inclined to argue that being a highschool dropout and then getting a PhD is pretty impressive, not a smear at all. And Basejumper, I strongly suggest you actually read NPOV, especially the undue weight clause. Criticism should be included when it is relevant and should be given due weight. In the case of things like fringe science, pseudoscience and "religious minority groups" the vast majority of reliable sources are often critical or heavily discuss criticism, and so the appropriate weight includes a large amount of criticism. JoshuaZ 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ is correct; if it's verifiable and relevant, then it needs to covered, period. FeloniousMonk 15:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help BJ. The article's owners seem to have circled their wagons in defense of it. Of course, as you mentioned, they are 100% sincere that they are doing the right thing; maybe even saving the world from the evils of intelligent design. Wishing everyone well. (p.s. I just checked out the article on chimpanzees, surely an important topic in the study of evolution, and it is much shorter than the one on Wells.) Steve Dufour 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think the aricle on chimpanzees is too short, why don't you fix it? It seems a bit contradictory to bring one article in a noticeboard for attention, and then complain that the people who edit that article who came to discuss it aren't off editing some other article.--Prosfilaes 11:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know very much about them myself. My point in mentioning it is that anti-Creationism seems to be a hotter topic here on WP than evolution itself, which I think is much more interesting. Steve Dufour 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I rechecked the article on JW. The article is certainly biased to the point of the evolutionists who use wikipedia as a battleground in their onslaught on religion. I don't think the taxi driver and dropping out of high school statements are of concern if they are true which I don't know one way or the other and the same things are found in articles on people with high ranks in society. I still have concern over my previous points and ConfuciusOrnis and Orangemarlin's POV pushing. The ip was blocked by in the guise of being an open proxy (yeah right) last time so now the conversation can continue.

The content in the article is still heavily biased and contrast what the references say. The legal threat JoshuaZ is alleging is just a warning to stop reverting to the slanderous and liable content as has been done again. It is hardly a legal threat any more than WP:BLP is. A number of these editors have been chronicly disruptive across the articles related to id and should follow the advice they like to dish out like JoshuaZ "noting" (pushing) affiliations and Orangemarlin on two occasion pushing his POV [53][54] out of spite (WP:POINT & [55]). The article is still used by its "owners" as a means to discredit which speaks volumes abouts Wells' real importance and the threat he poses. 196.207.32.37 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is now a problem with Wells's supporters trying to whitewash his AIDS denialism. Redddogg 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The only evidence for his "AIDS denialism" is a petition he signed in 1996. There is no evidence that he did anything or expressed any opinions about the topic since then. Steve Dufour 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction, there is NO evidence of AIDS "denialism". There is only the signing of a statement 14 years ago which is very prone to interpretation. Not only was this when a lot of scientists were still researching the link between HIV-AIDS - and so can't really be called denialists - there is NOTHING on his current opinion yet the article assumes it is. 196.207.32.38 00:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)