Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive5

Jill St. John (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Jill St. John is listed under American Scientologists, but I cannot find any evidence to support this.

• Unsourced/referenced category was removed. SkierRMH 03:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dan Voiculescu (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

User:Biruitorul called attention to it as a problem at Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board (I believe he has not worked on this article himself); looks to me like it has big BLP issues. Some of them might be solved by citation. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Stubbed article. CyberAnth 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete McCloskey (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This edit at least pushes the boundary. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed all potentially controversial uncited material. CyberAnth 07:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard Stilwell

Richard Stilwell this page gives no references whatsoever and I was brought to his page from a completely unrelated page on the Battle of Hamburger Hill, it was supposed to be on Lieutenant General Richard Stilwell who commanded the battle.--Colin 8 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue; it's simply a case of two article topics with the same name that didn't get disambiguated. Bearcat 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This article violates Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons.

It has been the target of frequent wiki lawyering, edit warring, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:V and similar violations. The frequent violators would intimidate the new editors and then call in their friendly admins who then ban such newbie editors as a result.

The biggest problem is that for many years (since 1996), this prominent game industry developer was net stalked, harrassed and libeled by a certain individual named Bill Huffman, an employee at NCR and who lives in San Diego. This guy has run the gamut from instigating a kid who lived near Smart to find out where he lives, follow him around the neighborhood, to spearheading a search to find out information about Smarts newborn daughter. He created a libelous website, which according to forum and Usenet reports, has repeatedly been closed by Smarts lawyers, only to pop up elsewhere. His friends have tried in vein to have his site added to the wiki and now they have resorted to engaging in wars on the talk page as a result of this consensus rejection. All further attempts were also quelched and repeatedly so.

This Huffman character showed up on Wiki a short while ago and even though his edits are not permitted on the article, he has been using the talk page to inject his usual brand of harrassment and libel on other editors as well as Smart. Both actions which violate Wiki. Please see..

Commentary and Criticism of Smart

Marriages and Divorces

Going with the strict WP:BLP guidelines, I started to remove his libelous talk page comments, but this morning I am told that I cant do that, even though I know for a fact that I can.

This is what has been happening and I fear that if I continue to try and impose the wiki policies, that I would be blocked again as I have been in the past.

I offer evidence of Bill Huffmans contributions to date.

We need an admin to please come to the page, read his contributions and draw their own conclusions. For someone who has stalked another person for nigh on ELEVEN years, why would any editor think that Huffmans intentions and appearance on Smarts wiki are anything buy nefarious and an attempt to push pov? WarHawkSP 13:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. WarHawkSP is a single purpose account who has consistently been edit warring on the Derek Smart page. He's been blocked multiple times for 3RR and edit warring on that page, and consistently misinterprets the BLP policy to suit his needs: recently he unilaterally deleted talk page comments he disagreed with, citing BLP's ability to remove libelous material: the talk page comments were CLEARLY opinion, which does not constitute Libel under U.S. law, and were fair comment on a public entity. I strongly advise any decision makers on this topic to ignore his request. PS: WarHawkSP's request has been filed while under the guise of informal mediation on the topic. The fact that he would go behind the back of the mediation and make a claim here, though he did notify the talk page, is rather disingenious to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You're just wiki lawyering. Anyone looking at my ban record shows that I've been blocked for the same things that I am reporting. In that you folks show favoritism to those who don't oppose you. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I clearly posted here because we weren't getting anywhere and its people like YOU who have made the situation go from bad to worse. People like you act like you are infallible. That nonsense you are posting about opinions, is just that NONSENSE. Anyone who understands anything to do with libel and opinion, can clearly read the links I posted and recognize them for what they are: libel. You have no clue what you're talking about and its people like you that gives others who are making their best effort on Wiki, a bad name. Where is the policy that says I have to clear it with you and your friends first before I can post a grieviance on a noticeboard? Where were YOU during all the other mediations that that the page has gone through? Have you even READ through the history? No. One of your friends calls you up to come and block someone, and the next thing you know - just like others before you - you think you have all the answers and then start taking sides. To any sane and neutral person, your post above, when compared to my complaint, just PROVES my point. Unlike you, who offers an OPINION, what I posted is based on FACTS because I have the cites to prove it.

At the end of the day, this person said it best. WarHawkSP 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've repeatedly warned WarHawkSP for incivility, and yet he continues with the incivility and personal attacks against me on this page now too. I think this is a pretty good representation of what's going on. This needs to go to ArbCom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It always easy to claim incivility when you're on the receiving end of a strong opinion. I consider your first post in this section to be uncivil; but you don't see me crying about it. It was not my intent to be uncivil, sorry you feel that way. WarHawkSP 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This edit war has gone on for over a year, this would best be solved by taking a case to Arbcom for review. Quinsisdos 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, after looking over Quinsisdos' link on Arbcom I would have to agree with him. After working for almost a month to improve the Derek Smart page, I think we've exhausted all the other methods of resolving disputes to no avail. I offer my personal experiences with the two incidents here and here as evidence.

1. Trying to improve the edit results in reverts, with rationale such as "I don't know why you're tinkering with this" and "It's fine how it is."

2. Talking about the edit, citing evidence and describing my rationale results in the other editor ignoring my comments. After disengaging for nine days to cool down, I assumed consensus was reached, since four other editors agreed with me and the other editor hadn't responded to my evidence, although he was active in other aspects of the article during that period. I made the edit, citing this fact. Within 12 hours, a revert was made with no rationale beyond, "consensus hasn't been reached."

3. As seen here and here, formal and informal mediation with third parties has been tried to no avail.

4. Finally, surveys and straw polls have been tried on several occasions; when a consensus has been reached, the other side will ignore it later, citing "lack of consensus", or the fact that the methods are non-binding.

I admit that I'm drawn to this article because of the increased...interaction between editors that I don't see with some of my other edits, but at this point, it's become tiresome. Therefore, I support taking this to arbitration. Cardinal2 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Kerr_avon Derek Smart is a game developer who is known not for the quality of his games which have all been critically panned but for his aggressive and foul mouthed defense of his said mediocre games, which have generated >50,000 USENET postings[1]. As such most commentary by authorities in the gaming industry and game reviewers on him in the internet are critical of him [2] [3] and bear citation and inclusion in his biography which does not contravene wiki guidelines as the sources are reliable and reputed. He was single handedly responsible for the longest running flame war in the USENET history, a fact which could be attested as when he stopped taking part in the discussions the flame war ended. The Derek Smart article edit war was mainly due to the SPA's WarHawkSP (talk • contribs) and Supreme_Cmdr (talk • contribs) whose IP addreses originate from fort lauderdale florida (Please see the talk page Talk:Derek_Smart) which is where Derek Smart resides. As such the biography possibly falls under WP:AUTO. Derek Smart himself has stated in his forums that he is going to start a "wiki jihad"[4]. Both WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr who are suspected to be sock puppets of Smart himself have been repeatedly banned for edit warring and 3rrr violation contrary to accepted consensus, and for trying to push there own POV and biased agenda of removing any properly cited contructive criticism of Derek Smart. They cite WP:BLP for removing cited commentrary critical of smart but fail to demonstrate the relevant clause under which the said cited info is not permitted. Once both accounts were banned both the talk page and the article were subjected to vandalism by rotating IP addresses. One solution would be to ban WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr and to leave the page in a semi protected mode where only registered users could edit it, with strict supervisations by admins, and a zero tolerance policy with regard to vandalism and POV pushing and SPA's. Failing that we can request arbitration.

You are the ONLY editor on that page who keeps claiming that people (not just myself or the accounts you listed above) are sock puppets. Get the facts straight. WarHawkSP 00:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I believe you are a sockpuppet of User:Supreme_Cmdr. Beyond that, I believe you are Derek Smart himself. However, this is irrelevant and totally not (practically, reasonably) provable. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to claim that the opposition is a sock puppet. This is the usual Wiki strawman argument with no factual basis. You folks can't seem to make up your mind about who you want to be a sock puppet from one day to the next. If anything, given Kerr's MO on the page in casting Smart in a bad light at every turn, one can argue that he is in fact a sock puppet of Huffman as well. I for one can't think of any editor on that page who I can accuse (Kerr doesn't appear to be smart enough to pull that off without getting caught) of being a sock puppet, because mostly they are mis-guided, have no clue or history on the subject (in this case Derek Smart) they are editing etc. Instead, they rely on pov statements, tainted and unsourced material and copious acts of common sense abandonment when it comes to editing the article.Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that most everyone assumes that WarHawk, WarHawkSP, and Suprmem_Cmdr are all Derek Smart. They all have the same MO, the same writing style, the same set of lies they tell, especially about me. They have to all be Derek Smart. The only way I see that this edit war will end is if the article is deleted or everyone let's Derek write an autobiography for the Derek Smart article. Other than that his edit warring can only be slowed down by blocking/banning his current accounts etc.. Have fun, Bill Huffman 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming from you, color me shocked. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary there was a majority consensus via a straw poll Talk:Derek_Smart/Archive4for inclusion of the werewolves site as a external link.The SPA WarhawkSP is true to form distorting the issue with false claims. There was additionally a recent majority consensus that since Smart became notable via his USENET postings that a USENET archive such as google groups could be used to cite facts.Kerr avon 08:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Once again your post has no basis in reality Kerr. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything you posted amounts to the same thing you post on the Wiki talk page and which have been discounted and tossed out repeatedly. There is nothing factual now npov about your statements. Nothing new to see here. Please get some new material. WarHawkSP 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you beleive in the Goebbelsian theory of that "If a lie is repeated frequently it becomes the truth", The above statements are facts and they have not been discounted at all except by yourself by rhetoric and without providing evidence to the contrary as seen similar to the above statement made by you. Rather than talking rhetoric please respond on this prominent page to the above serious statements made by me.Kerr avon 23:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On a side note let me say that the presence of Smart himself is probably the most important reason for the wiki edit war to survive just like the USENET flame wars survived for years till he left the scene. Till Smart/WarHawkSP/Supreme_Cmdr stop edit warring the edit wars will continue, as they are bent on pushing their own POV disregarding accepted consensus and wiki guidlines.Kerr avon 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And where do you see 'the presence of Smart?'. Have you not been warned about this already and that all you've been doing are making personal attacks against others who disagree with you? Like Huffman, your SOLE purpose is to inject libelous, non-factual and derogatory info into Smart's Wiki. Which is why none of your edits have thus far been allowed. WarHawkSP 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not my sole view, it is the views of others too that SPA's like yourself(WarhawkSP) and Supreme_Cmdr both have IP addresses from fort lauderdale florida with bellsouth as their ISP. Smart's home is in fort lauderdale [5] and his ISP is bellsouth. Isn't it quite a coincidence that you and Supreme_Cmdr who are two of the most rabid SPA's who have been repeatedly blocked due to edit warring by removing cited content critical of Smart too have the same ISP [6] and operate from the same area as Smart. Additionally both of your writing style's are similar to the abrasive and haughty style of Smart which made him notorious in the first place. I restate that this bio possibly falls under WP:AUTO for the above stated reasons. I completely disagree with warhakw's allegations as anyone going through my edits will see that i have contributed a lot to Sri lankan articles and can no way be called a SPA unlike WarhawkSP.Kerr avon 23:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I too concur that arbitration is needed, but can i ask if it will practically accomplish anything. So far there are certain undisputed facts such as that there is no wikipedia guideline forbidding commentary critical of Smart if it is properly sourced from a a reliable source, in fact WP:BLP states that commentrary critical is permitted however it has to be properly sourced. The crux of the matter is that supreme_cmdr and WarhawkSP are hell bent on removing any statement critical of smart even if it is properly sourced. So IMHO arbitration may not give the desired result, as edit warring by removing commentary critical of Smart no matter how well cited will continue to go on till one party or another gets banned or quits. WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr are simply not the type to comply with the arbitration process, as evidenced by their persistent blocking for reverting without consensus and repeated warnings for uncivil behaviour.Kerr avon 11:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elfriede Motzkuhn

At [7] there are up for deletion 15 articles which state that various women were Nazi concentration camp guards. No references whatsoever are presented in the articles which state that they were guards, and that some of them were convicted, and that the fates of all are unknown. These articles were up for deletion before but the nomination failed for lack of consensus. In the present debate someone voted for deletion for non-notability but stated "She was born in 1917. That would make her 89 years old, and I am not overly worried about biography of living persons. " Does BLP fade away if the subject would be 89, or 103? I could see some elderly defamed person seeking a windfall for their family. I would normally be inclined to blank the articles but I'm not sure what to do when they are up for deletion anyway. Blanking a nominated article would seem to confuse the process, but blanking it if it is kept would also seem odd. The original article creators were probably working from a book or webpage, but did not cite it, and this sort of allegation smacks of the Siegenthaler incident, but goes back an extra 20 years. These articles have been mirrored all over the internet, and seem to be the original reports. Edison 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Angela Beesley

Angela Beesley: I suggest for developers to delete all versions of her article that contain her date of birth. It is a sensitive private information of a non-public person. This info may potentially be abuses eg in identity theft. `'mikkanarxi 04:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, I agreee with you ... but she's an administrator ... so I would assume that if there's any troublesome revisions, she can take care of them. ;) At any rate, please see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for the procedure to make such requests. BigDT 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

She's also a steward, which means she can give herself oversight and get rid of the information herself. MER-C 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can make the claim that Beesley is a "non-public person." Does she not sit on public boards? Quatloo 15:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Spero Dedes (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Spero Dedes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) repeated attacks on Dedes' geographic knowledge. Considering the stubbiness of the article, the attacks are taking up about half of the page. I have removed them twice and have issued warnings, telling one user who has at least been civil that he needs to provide sources which question his ability. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe, you should discuss things with the other editors on the Spero Dedes talk page. References are provided in the article. --ElectricEye (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

References are provided now. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "attack" but then it was put back and a comment made on my talk page. Steve Dufour 14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, its on my watchlist now. --ElectricEye (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and nominated the article for deletion, based on the relative unimportance of Mr. Dedes as well as the attack nature of half the article. Steve Dufour 15:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw. Someone needs to provide more references demonstrating his notability. As it is now, the article is mostly about his "mistake". It is biased. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was. I fixed the article. Spero Dedes is a notable american sportscaster. --ElectricEye (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I voted to keep so I guess that the deletion thing can be removed now. Steve Dufour 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Roach (Buddhist) (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Michael Roach (Buddhist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The article is mainly based on the sources published by Michael Roach and his followers. However there is also a controversy on him. My wish was just to include a link of a critical website related to that controversies. The website lists the person in charge by name, but keeps the authors of the article hidden. User:Ekajati found that

• That is, the content is still anonymously authored. These people need to have the guts to put their name on their complaints if they want to be linked to from Wikipedia. The same legal issues apply. The site is still just a bunch of anons talking shit about somebody. Gossip does not deserve to be linked to from WP.

I replied that they offer also statements by the Dalai Lama who states the obvious that "We have seen a photograph of you wearing long hair, with a female companion at your side, apparently giving ordination. This would seem to conflict with the rules of Vinaya, and as you know, the Gelug tradition makes a point of upholding these very strictly. This unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness's teachings and practice." and that is surely not Gossip. Then she argued:

• that the publication of those letters from the Office of HH the Dalai Lama violate copyrights.

So what to do? Do you think it is against WP policies to include that critical site or not? Thank you very much. --Kt66 20:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Ekajati goes into more depth on the copyright issue on the article talk page (near the bottom). Apparently the site may be violating the copyrights of the subject of the article by publishing letters written by him w/o permission as well, which I think may be more significant than republishing letters of the Dalai Lama, who is more of a public figure. It appeared to me when I looked at the site that all the letters were intended to be private, not public, which may weigh against linking to this site, though for copyright reasons rather than WP:BLP reasons. A Ramachandran 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If one checks the site there are no letters written by Michael Roach published there, and never have been. Letters by HHDL's Office are published with permission. I think the main point here is this...

1) The site does have a constructively critical emphasis

2) There is no defamation now liable on the site

3) The site is well backed up by references and quotes from known and respected parties

(220.226.46.53 06:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes, there are copyvio letters written by Michael Roach and other documents belonging to Roach and/or Diamond Mountain there. They are in PDF format and linked from http://www.diamond-cutter.org/references/documents.html. The copyvios include the links titled

• Letter to Lamas (open does not mean anyone else can publish without permission)
• Diamond Mountain Spin (this one has a copyright notice at the bottom)
• Spiritual Partners Poster (poster image rights belong to Diamond Mountain)
• Yoga of Business Poster (ditto)
• Tantra in America (transcript of a talk, rights belong to Roach)
• Magic of Empty Teachers (another talk, has Diamond Mountain logo on it)

These are all copyright violations. The site has no right to publish any of them. A Ramachandran 05:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS FAIR USE, NOT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.......

Diamond-Cutter.org makes use of materials written and published by Geshe Michael Roach and his projects, as well as various Buddhist scholars and the office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The use of these materials does NOT constitute copyright violation as it falls under the definition of "Fair Use" as specified by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: Article 10 (Fair Use)

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.

(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.

(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author, if it appears thereon.

Referenced from - http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/10.html

US Copyright Law defines "Fair Use" in this way:

Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Reference from - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

NOTE: The US Copyright Law does not stipulate that only a portion of a work may be used as "Fair Use". Under US Law, and entire article may also be used as "Fair use".

It is obvious that Diamond-Cutter.org's use materials copyrighted to Geshe Michael Roach and his organisation falls under the category of "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,"... stipulated as "Fair Use" by US Copyright Law. Diamond-Cutter.org is a non profit Educational Site

Diamondwatcher 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This case is closed

This case is closed. All persons who were against including the critical link A Ramachandran, Ekajati and Hanuman Das are the same person. A Ramachandran and Hanuman were confirmed to be sockpuppets of Ekajati. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ekajati--Kt66 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncited controversial claim on LL Cool J page

There is a statement in the Trivia section that says LL Cool J has only 1 testicle due to a childhood accident involving his mother and a meat cleaver. If true, this should be cited. Otherwise, it should be removed. ohaqqi 13:09, 8 January 2007 (EST)

This was vandalism to the article. I has since been removed. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sidhoji Rao Shitole (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Sidhoji Rao Shitole (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Terminator III (talk • contribs) keeps adding Category:Cult leaders to the article. A Ramachandran 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jean Brault (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This article about a Canadian political scandal cited only other Wikipedia articles in stating that he had committed crimes and been convicted. I blanked all but the initial sentence, on the theory this constituted "poor sourcing" and because I could not access all the refs in the related articles Charles Guité and Sponsorship scandal to verify the details about this individual. Is that the correct course? Sponsorship scandal has a great number of refs, Charles Guité only has 2 and Jean Brault had none. Can an article about crimes by a living person rely on references in another article? How about when the link is dead like the one in Charles Guité about his conviction? Edison 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No of course not. When it comes to putting negative information into the biographies of living persons, references must meet the highest standards of reliability to avoid liability. What you are describing is an outrage. Timelist 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to copy the references into all the articles to which they were relevant. Just a comment. DGG 23:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick Griffin (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Nick Griffin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article contains libelous allegations of homosexuality/bisexuality. The editor of these allegations is extremely hostile to Nick Griffin and is obviously using this article to score political points rather than to make a contribution to a decent biography. I believe that speculations about his sexuality are in breach of Wikipedia policy but I also object to the prominence given to these allegations. The subject is a politician recently involved in high-profile court cases and elections but more prominence is given to the speculations about his sexuality than to either the court cases or the elections. (unsigned)

I have paired this section down.[8]. It was a hatchet job full of weasel words. 1) the fact he's married with kids isn't relevant to his dislike for homosexuality or the allegations - that's just inviting people to make a morel judgement. 2) 'Allegedly provoked' - is pure speculation 3) yahoo groups is not a reliable source 4) 'so far has not taken up the invitation to sue him' - weasel words intended to suggest he's lying 5) 'According to some other sources, for example ' - NO one example will not do for 'some' 5) the allegation that Webster's sexuality was well known is inviting a conclusion by the reader. That again is weasel. Unless a relaibel source has drawn that conclusion, and we can report it, we should not infer it.

I fully expect to be reverted - so please do watch.--Doc^g 20:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How are accusations of homosexuality libelous? Sure, untrue claims should always be eliminated, but this is like saying accusations of being Catholic or left-handed are libelous.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Libel is just a false written statement about somebody. It does not have to be morally reprehensible.Butseriouslyfolks 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Libel is not just a false written statement about somebody. In order for a statement to be libellous it has to do one of the following: (a) expose him to hatred, ridicule, or contempt; (b) cause him to be shunned or avoided; (c) lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; or (d) disparage him in his business, trade, office or profession.Binelli 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Danielle Steel (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Danielle Steel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Yesterday, famous gossip columnist Liz Smith presented Danielle Steel with information in Danielle Steel that appears to be outrageous. However, the unfootnoted information has been there since September 2005 and Danielle Steel did not object to the information. See link. Thus, I did not delete the information. I put citation needed on the more outrageous facts and thought I would pass it on to the experts to decide what to do. Please review. Thanks.-- Jreferee 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't all that information be removed per Jimbo's comments? -- ReyBrujo 13:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I removed any unsourced negative information, and also some of the excess personal details. Crockspot 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Steel didn't object to it doesn't mean it's okay to keep. She may just not think much of wikipedia or whatever. It is up to us to keep wikipedia to a standard we expect Nil Einne 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Afshar experiment (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Afshar experiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Dispute, raging for several years, between Professor Afshar and various uncredentialed critics. Many of the statements can be considered to be libelous (and Prof Afshar takes them as such). The problem statements tend to be rather technical, but are along the lines of "Everyone knows that X=Y" with the implication of "Only someone incompetent would think otherwise". I've attempted to informally arbitrate over the years, but its not working. Some sort of banning/protection seems called for. // linas 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My recollection is that more of the pro-Afshar comments fit that description than the anti-Afshar comments. However, I haven't looked at the article in the past few months. Perhaps it's gotten worse. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Revised article to focus on experiment and not Mr. Afshar. -- Jreferee 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pharrell (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• The page on Pharrell williams says he "plays guitar". This is not true, as his production partner Chad Hugo had to learn the guitar for their album "Fly or Die" specifically because neither of them could play the guitar. They previously used synths in place of guitar also for these reasons. I have tried removing this 3 times, but it gets automatically added back. The statement contains no source or reference anyway. He along with many others may at some point have played a couple of notes on a guitar (in the fashion that anyone could) to add to a backing beat, but he certainly doesn't play the guitar, and there is seemingly no evidence to support this. I however can find evidence to support what I've said above.

• • Have you added these comments to the Discussion page for him? That may solve this problem. MsDivagin 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Not a wiki guru, but someone decided to put potentially untrue and slanderous information regarding his sexuality in his biography. 69.133.144.232 22:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraneditor (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

I would like to file a complaint against the editor DMOSS. He obviously follows a hidden agenda in distorting the image of Alireza Jafarzadeh who is a major opponent of the Iranian regime. DMOSS very blatantly adds libel information about Jafarzadeh. His main source is the Iran Interlink site. This site belongs to the Iranian government’s Information Ministry. Along with a number of other websites, Iran Interlink’s only objective is to tarnish Iranian opposition figures and spread misinformation about them. This site is neither reliable nor unbiased. To get more information on it, please check: http://www.iranterror.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=47

http://www.iran-interlink.info/

http://www.iranterrorism.info/

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2160

DMOSS also removes any additions to Jafarzadeh’s bio that is not in line with his agenda of tarnishing his image. If you follow his other edits in wikipedia, you will notice a scheme to spread misinformation about opponents of the Iranian regime. He is in no way a fair and unbiased editor and should not be permitted to continue his smear campaign.

The above request is a user issue, not a biobraphy issue. It may be posted at WP:ANI. However, Dmoss left Wikipedia as of February 9, 2007 [9], so the incident issue may be moot. -- Jreferee 17:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sol Leshinsky (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Although there is no mention in his biographical article, this person is listed on at least two (2) pages as a Soviet Spy, presumably while being a U.S. government official. The person is still living and (as is the case for nearly everyone on these 2 pages) is presumed to be a Soviet Spy based on his inclusion in the 2 pages mentioned below, even though he was apparently never indicted for this behavior. There is no citation or source for his inclusion, even from texts that may have suggested his spying - which unless it is posted as he was suspected, with of course the citations and/or sources, this is openly and clearly libelous. The 2 pages mentioned are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secret_agents#Perlo_group (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Perlo#Perlo_spy_ring_members (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Additionally, it appears that one of the Wikipedia editors has posted a warning on the TALK page about adding slanderous material, implying that there have been previous attempts to libel or slander this person...

This should be removed immediately. In addition, these 2 pages wildly assert a number of other individuals as being spies without ANY supporting sources or citations. In fact, these 2 pages may be the most libelous pages on Wikipedia... Stevenmitchell 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Amy Reid (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Sorry, I don't normally do any editing or revision on Wikipedia, so my format here is probably all wrong.

Today one article I saw positively scared me. It's on the pornstar Amy Reid. Someone has edited her article repeatedly and over a long period of time.I'll quote some of the choicer nuggets:

"She likes to claim she was born in Germany but is a liar"
"She also is a girl with low self esteem who was teased all of her life. Her IQ was proven to be very low."

But what scared me was the more personal, stalker/psycho level stuff:

"I currently did research on her and will be willing to expose how much of a phony person she is."
"She thinks nobody in her family knows who she is, but they will find out soon."

Something about they will find out soon made me decide to go the extra step and suggest that maybe the article should be locked, or in some way prevent that user from continuing their personal vendetta. It's scary, but a person might graduate up from just posting threats online to something worse - like how serial killers start out just torturing animals. Anyway, if something could be done, I think it would be wise. I've already gone ahead and reverted it to a more or less ok version.Aghostinthemachine 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)aghostinthemachine

• I spotted the vandalism independently of your notice here and did some reverting myself. Hopefully whoever it is who's doing the vandalism will go away shortly... Tabercil 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This article was [[10]]. -- Jreferee 17:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Mueller

A determined IP vandal has repeatedly, for several weeks, attacked this page, replacing the FBI director's bio with a description of a company unrelated to Mueller. Block IP edits? RickDC 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When you revert a vandal, please consider placing an appropriate warning tag from Category:User warning templates on their talk page. That way, if they continue to vandalize from that IP, they can be blocked. It doesn't look like it has been frequent enough for protection ... fyi, the place to request that is WP:RFP. I have watchlisted the page so if I see anything, I will revert it, but if you remove vandalism here or anywhere else, please put one of the "test" tags on their page so that they can be blocked as appropriate. BigDT 00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Huizenga (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Wayne Huizenga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Not an experienced editor - This page keeps getting both vandalized and random possibly libelous comments added to it. I am having a hard time keeping up and I am not sure how much of the unverified information to delete. // Butnotthehippo 05:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I just deleted some more potentially controversial information from this page. As to how much to delete - I think it's safe to say that ANY unsourced material which you might think is negative should be aggressively deleted - see Jimbo's note here [11] Cogswobble 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Braun (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Nathan Braun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) The subject of this article was once accused of having sexually groped a woman while they were among a group sleeping on the floor at some conference. The accusations were widely disseminated on the internet, and a special website was even created for the purpose. Some time ago I removed the allegation from the article due to the lack of a reliable source. A better source has been found and the allegation has been added again, by 70.111.245.52 (talk • contribs). I'd appreciate a different set of eyes to look at this and decide if this new source is sufficient. (Slightly complicating matters is that the subject appears to have edited Wikipedia in order to promote himself in a number of articles. He hasn't been active recently, so far as I know). -Will Beback · † · 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources seem to be sound, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is one of the bios which made me glad to see WP:LIVING. -Will Beback · † · 10:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Beetlejuice (entertainer) (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

There are zero references in this page which meet out requirements at WP:RS. This page seriously violates WP:BLP. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cut out unreferenced material and trimmed referenced material so extreme nature of it does not unbalance the whole article. Tyrenius 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sofie Zamchick (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Doesn't seem this person is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Also, other than filmography, this article contains no verifiable information. I also suspect this article may be an autobiography. Thoughts? Chupper 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark Turgeon (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

At the end of the article the start of the Wichita State basketball season is highlighted and identified as begining with a "bang." After looking at previous revisions, people have tried to edit and include the team's success after the "bang" where they didn't play very well. Other revisions have also included trying to delete an mention of the "bang." If the biography hopes to be view point neutral, then there are two options: 1) Eliminate the talk of the begining of the season, or 2) Include the team's poor play.

• I stubbed it. See rationale here. CyberAnth 07:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been reverted by User:Ryulong, who added one source but which does not support the controversy. CyberAnth 07:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• I reviewed the situation and it does not seem to require outside intervention related to the policy of Biographies of living people, which is a basis for posting on this noticeboard. -- Jreferee 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dave Grohl article claims the singer is dead

I'd like to report that the foo fighters frontman's page is claiming the singer dead. I don't think it's true Ihaven't heard any such thing on any news channel as of yet. So i'd like to report abuse. user:tmr55555

Viktor Kozeny

THE PAGE ON VIKTOR KOZENY IS VERY SLANDEROUS AND HAS ABSOLUTLEY NO CITATIONS WHATSOEVER. EACH TIME I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO EDIT THE SLANDEROUS, UN-SOURCED MATERIAL, AND LEAVE ONLY THE HARD FACTS, AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING, IT HAS BEEN ALMOST IMMEDIATLEY REINSTATED IN ITS ENTIRETY. THANK YOU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgatsby111 (talk • contribs).

Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Firstly, is the use of his title in the article name appropriate? Shouldn't it be at Frederick von Anhalt (or variations thereof), since he is not the legitimate holder of a title? Secondly, the article itself makes claims about the legitimacy of his title (or lack thereof) without any references to prove such claims. If his title isn't legit, then we need proofs to make such claims. If it is legit, then the claims shouldn't be there. Corvus cornix 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require outside intervention related to the policy of Biographies of living people. The posted issues do not seem to require outside intervention. For the title in the article name, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If he is WP:RS known as Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt, then that is fine for the article. If there is a claim of a legal title, then there should be a WP:RS to support the claim. -- Jreferee 02:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)