Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive11

Pete Townshend Pete Townshend (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Pete Townshend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The article on Pete Townshend is being hi-jacked by two people (or possibly one person with a sock-puppet account). There was an edit war of considerable intensity that was waged on the article about one year ago. It was then settled with a consensus. But only after the text had grown wildy disproportionate in length and with inflammatory language. The calm prevailed for approx. a year. It has flared up badly again.

The story in a nutshell is that in 2003 Townshend was briefly under suspicion of having downloaded child pornography. The UK police investigated thoroughly, Took away 14 computers from Townshend. Spent 4 months on forensic investigation. Then elected NOT to charge Townshend with any crime. It issued a statement declaring that they had found no images. Townshend had vountarily acknowledged that he had ACCESSED a site on a single occasion - which was certainly a technical breach of the law. The police elected to caution him and Townshend accepted the caution. End of story. Receiving a caution in England is not the same as if you have done nothing wrong. But neither is it a legal conviction or judgement of guilt as that is construed by other countries or by lay persons.

There has been a concerted effort to insert inflammatory (and possibly defamatory) language into the article that will brand Townshend as though he had been charged and found guilty in a court of law. And the sheer quantity of data about an incident that covered 5 months duration in a 43 year career is wildly disproportionate. You can see the excessive exchanges on the Talk page - and the endless edit war of the past 2-3 days prior to an administrator locking the page (which I think was a prudent decision)

Anyway - I believe that this is a serious situation - with a possible sock-puppet account being used as part of a systematic and relentless attempt to demean the subect of the article. It seems to be a vendetta. Assistance and wise counsel much appreciated. Davidpatrick 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wiki-is-truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was the main offender.
• The user displayed a hint on his user page of his quite cynical perspective:

"The truth is...

• what the majority of people think it is
• what Wikipedia's manipulable content policies allow you to present it as

... if you disagree, f^factck you"

• Edit warring finally stopped by the 25th of February. — Athænara ✉ 13:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

List of ex-Christians List of ex-Christians (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• List of ex-Christians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The purpose of this article seems to be to bash Christianity by saying, "See how many people left." I have started to remove some names where the person's WP bio does not mention the subject's personal Christian faith. Steve Dufour 15:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would regard a report that someone had abandoned a Christian faith as being "negative information". If they were reported as taking up Satanism, then that's clearly negative, but merely converting to another religion or losing one's faith is not a criticism (whether or not accurate). Sam Blacketer 16:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the policy says "potentially negative information." I've been going down the list and removing 70 -80 percent of the names after checking their WP bios and removing those that don't mention the person as having been personally Christian. Steve Dufour 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a dangerous game - aren't you worried you might be creating a controversial article viewpoint? In the "See also" section, you will notice a balance which indicates this is not a Christian-bashing exercise. Surely there is nothing wrong with producing an article which states plain fact, and no reason to mark every possibly controversial subject as ready for BLP noticeboard (which is continuously and painfully overlong as it is!). I would say remove this from here, personally. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Revision as of 17:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) "(removed topic, which I added in the first place, because of request by other editor. It was not really blpn material)"

Naeim Giladi Naeim Giladi (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

In the article about Naeim Giladi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), some editors are inserting direct links to white supremacists, neo-nazis web-sites, such as Kevin Alfred Strom of National Vanguard and the Adelaide Institute. I beleive this violates both WP:RS and it is Poisoning the well. Comments? Regards, Huldra 13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked into this. It seems to me that the report misrepresents the situation. Have the other editors been notified that it was posted on this noticeboard? — Athænara ✉ 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it again from a more Britannica-like point of view. Such information would belong in the article only if it were referenced by reliable sources. Direct links to sites which misuse Giladi's writings do not fulfill that requirement. — Athænara ✉ 13:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian Kenny (sportscaster) Brian Kenny (sportscaster) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Brian Kenny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I noticed this article while on RC Patrol. It is totally unsourced. What concerns me is that it contains alleged information about his children which probably should not be in his article. It too is unsourced. Morenooso 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sensitive info about minors removed. Some sources supplied, citations requested where not. Hope this helps. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How is the information "sensitive" when it is on his professional ESPN biography? Generally such biographies are creating with information provided by the subject himself, so he likely wants that information out there. Quatloo 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have children? Would you like potential kidnappers to know exactly where to get at them? I have no other questions than that. Child information is always sensitive, and Wikipedia is no place to display it. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 01:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And the only ESPN biography I have found (here) makes no mention of where his kids are schooled - thank goodness. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 01:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

John Parr John Parr (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• John Parr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The article contains an opinion on his youngest son, James, that uses en expletive. Whether the opinion is true or not doesn't matter, I don't think it is an appropriate use of language in this context and should be reworded. 212.57.228.39 (talk · contribs) 13:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• That obscenity was added 11:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC) by 172.203.67.96 (talk · contribs). I've reverted it. — Athænara ✉ 13:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eldred G. Smith Eldred G. Smith (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Eldred G. Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - An editor has repeatedly inserted information that s/he claims has "long been suspected" regarding an usourced "report." The claim made in the article has recently been denied by the subject's son, who is also the author of a book on the subject. Although the editor claims this information is common knowledge, I could find no evidence on the internet that the rumor in question even exists outside of this article. In any case, suspicions, rumors (even if they exist) and unsourced "reports" are not appropriate for BLP's. LeftField 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation now appears to be resolved. LeftField (talk · contribs) 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article contains the following text:

"A "Growing Up Gotti" episode in 2005 featured a Social Therapist (follower of Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani) intervening in the family problems of Victoria Gotti and her teenage sons."

The actual episode contains no reference to either Newman or Fulani, and no reference at all to any claims that they, or the therapy practice they are associated with, has anything to do with "cults" or "new religious movements." An editor keeps reinserting this sentence, despite the fact that its inclusion is purely POV, and defamatory to the people mentioned. The editor refuses to provide any reliable sourcing for the claim insisting that it stands alone as is, and with the dubious explanation (which the editor seems to have invented) that "popular culture" articles somehow do not need to be as strict with respect to claims as other articles. I do not see any guideline indicating that individuals can be smeared with a "cult" charge without any sourcing whatsoever purely on the whim of an editor. BabyDweezil 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is in no way defamatory, POV, or a violation of WP:BLP. Inclusion in the article does not imply anything other than that it is a reference that has something related to the concept of cults and new religious movements, as portrayed in literature and popular culture. This would fall under a category of satire/parody, and therefore be acceptable. Smee 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

The show had nothing related to the concept of cults and new religious movements. Zero. Zip. BabyDweezil 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Smee, you're edit warring over an unreferenced assertion rather than discussing it on article talk pages as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unless and until you can find a legitimate source for the item, stop adding it. — Athænara ✉ 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Clay Buchholz Clay Buccholz (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Clay Buchholz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article makes a claim that Clay Buchholz stole 29 laptop computers. It provides a dead or nonexistant link as the source of information and the information can not be located elsewhere besides this wikipedia article and other sites that reference it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.153.238 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That has been removed. However, it seems like he is still a minor league player at this time so he probably isn't notable enough for a WP article. Steve Dufour 17:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sid Haig Sid Haig (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Sid Haig (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Rcarey1979 keeps on adding irrelevant POV stuff to Sid's article; "Despite Haig's status as a cult figure in modern horror films, he revealed that he was no expert on the genre.", using an off-hand comment from Sid about zombies eating brains in the original Night of the Living Dead, which was false. Its not relevant enough for the encyclopedia article. Other users have attempted to remove it, and user has given no reason to justify his edits.// CyberGhostface 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The user Rcarey1979 has done nothing but harass Sid Haig, first on IMDB, and now here. (Yes, they actually FOLLOWED him here from IMDB because the admins there kept deleting their posts as well) They have done NOTHING but try to add the EXACT SAME ITEM to his page for several months now. First from the IP 24.62.224.238 and then from the IP 66.30.5.160, as well as their user account here. I, with help from others here, worked very hard to get that article NPOV and up to a Class B rating from a stub. This user also accuses CyberGhostface of being affiliated with our website (www.sidhaig.com), when he is not. With one glance at the past 20 or so hours on Sid Haig's page, one can easily see what needs to be done with this user. They are obviously quite angry at Sid for SOMETHING, but taking it out by vandalizing his Wiki page is NOT the answer. They simply need to find something else to do with their time. If there is some way to block this user from posting on Sid's page in the future, it would be VERY much appreciated. It would be great if we could get the page back online and not have to worry about vandalism from this user YET AGAIN. Thank you. Spirot 01:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the user's statement of "(Posters who run Sid sites delete information they feel is negative to Sid, and Bully others with threats. They want this being a press room/puff piece with no negative info.)" is a complete fabrication. Where are these threats and bullying? Is keeping an article NPOV and biographical making it a "puff piece"? If it was a press room wouldn't I, as Sid's Publicist, be posting all my press releases there? I will also add that I am the only one affiliated with Sid Haig that has made any alterations to the page, and said alterations were made to keep the page NPOV (it took me FOREVER to get rid of that bot!) and biographical, and I think if an Admin takes a look, they will see that to be true. Rcarey1979 absolutely must be blocked from continuing this nonsense. Thank you. Spirot 02:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof of this stalking can be found here [1]. Spirot 02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The imdb link provided above does not work. — Æ. ✉ 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It does, but you must have a membership to log in. (which is free and very easy) Thanks. Spirot 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided applies. — Athænara ✉ 05:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just trivia. It belongs in a Trivia section. Put it there, edit it to conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and you're done. — Athænara ✉ 05:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• From the 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC) summary of the edit in which Spirot (talk · contribs) deleted this section: "Dispute is ended via mediation from Glen." (That would be Glen S, and resolved it is, though not everyone was happy about it.) — Æ. ✉ 06:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Eckel Kyle Eckel (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Chrisjnelson continues to add false and harmful statements about Kyle Eckel. This is a biography of a living person and should be treated as such. Admins have corrected Chrisjnelson and his malicious attacks but he insists on reposting harmful remarks. By looking at the edit history it appears obvious that Chrisjnelson has spent a lot of time trying to spread false and unofficial information throught the internet. Being directly afiliated with Kyle Eckel I know the bold remarks Chrisjnelson tries to imply are completely untrue and not one credible/official source of Kyle Eckel's history can be supported in Chrisjnelson attempt at claiming Kyle Eckel was "kicked out" of the Navy

Chrisjnelson must be blocked from editing this biography. Admins have tried to correct these malicious attacks but Chrisjnelson continues to maliciously attack this biography with lies Navyfootball 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't edited the article in three days. Unfortunately, it took three days for anyone to notice. Also, there is a Miami Herald source - http://www.belleville.com/mld/miamiherald/email/sports/16044329.htm - claiming that Eckel was involuntarilly discharged. Is there another source that more accurately describes the issue? --BigDT 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a source for this statement from the Baltimore Sun obtained through a ProQuest database. Hopefully this helps the situation, yes? Metros232 04:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the source itself (newspaper) cites no valid source of information. Newspapers have published hear say articles and, apparently, are able to do so. The bottom lines is that there has never been any official statement or documentation to validate the claim from Chrisjnelson, or any other writer, that Kyle Eckel was "kicked out" of the Navy or has any financial issue whatsoever. These comments are hurtful to him and would be to any living person mainly due to the fact they are untrue "Navyfootball 05:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)"

http://www.navytimes.com/legacy/new/0-NAVYPAPER-2346524.php and http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,119220,00.html are both from the military and both say that he was kicked out. Is there any source anywhere that describes a different version of events? Obviously, yes, we do not want to include things that are untrue. If the facts contained in these articles are untrue, please help by pointing us to articles that contain correct information. I'm sitting here googling trying to find anything that gives a different version and I can't. --BigDT 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of not carrying on the discussion across four different pages, I suggest we move it to Talk:Kyle Eckel. I have added the three sources that we have there for discussion. Can we continue the discussion there? --BigDT 05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Jameson Andrew Jameson (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Andrew Jameson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - andrew jameson (olympic swimmer) has been vandalised. I don't know how to correct it 195.50.81.249 (talk · contribs) 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I reverted the vandalism by user 209.158.6.202 (talk · contribs) and placed a warning on the vandal's talk page. — Athænara ✉ 02:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Clamp (manga artists) CLAMP (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• CLAMP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This page has been moved to Clamp (manga artists) unilaterally and citing the MOSTM. When this error was pointed out, verifiable sources were shown to support that the new spelling is, per MOSTM, "essentially never used" by primary sources, but the discussion goes on. As these are living people and their preferred, accurately presented spelling is CLAMP, doesn't WP:BLP and WP:ATT trump the MOS guideline? As Jimbo says, "we must get it right". Strict adherence to the guideline gets it wrong. Can I please get some support? Kyaa the Catlord 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• An odd thing here is that the Clamp (manga artists) page history (which I view as appropriate naming for the article, incidentally) is intact, while the CLAMP page history is not. Was one of these page moves done with copy&paste, which obliterates page histories, rather than properly as per Help:Moving a page? — Athænara ✉ 01:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Allow me to shed some more light on this: CLAMP was moved per WP:MOS-TM to Clamp (manga artists) a few weeks ago, no copy/paste move, just a regular move, which more recently was challenged by a few very vocal defenders of the official typesetting. Their proposal to move the article back to CLAMP has since been denied by a poll which ended in favor of applying aforementioned guideline. - Cyrus XIII 08:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't entirely correct. The recent poll came to no consensus to move back (due partially to votes by those who didn't even bother to figure out what CLAMP is, for example one of the "don't move back voters" continues to refer to the manga artists as a musical band), but there was never a consensus built to move in the first place. Kyaa the Catlord 08:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, because it did not occur to an editor acting in good faith, that there would be need for such broad discussion, given that this was just a routine application of the Manual of Style. Alas, the issue has now been discussed at length, the accompanying vote ended clearly in support of the new name, so lets just drop the issue, shall we? And for the record, no one ever referred to Clamp as a musicial band. The term "band" was merely introduced into the discussion, in the sense of a group of artists who permanently collaborate, just with a different medium than music. - Cyrus XIII 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The "band" editor first refers to them as a band, then compares them to other musical acts. You may rewrite his thought process all you want, but even to the end, he was still arguably confused as to what sort of group CLAMP is. And I contest that the "vote" was clearly in support of the move. You had a simple majority, sure, but a request for move is NOT A VOTE. When a move can be controversial, a request for page moving is in order. When the move was contested, rather than agreeing that some discussion should take place, you took a defensive stance assumed the soapbox. But I'll go ahead and assume that this was a simple mistake based on your relative short time being an editor on Wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I never referred to Clamp as a musical band. I read the Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle article (which is linked from the top of the WP:MOSTM talk page) before I ever saw Clamp's article. I made the comparison because it appears to me that your argument would also result in a direct conflict between BLP and the naming convention for bands (compare recent move from matchbox twenty to Matchbox Twenty), because there's no rational reason to distinguish between musical groups and graphic artists in terms of their naming preferences. PubliusFL 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why people bring their questions here and then, instead of waiting for and considering insights from experienced editors, simply carry on the same arguments they were having elsewhere. This noticeboard is not a performance venue. It is, and I quote from the page heading: "for reporting and discussing incidents that require outside intervention" with respect to WP:BLP policy.

Please see

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)
  

and understand also that Wikipedia is not a marketing arm for every daft idiosyncracy on the planet. Thank you. — Athænara ✉ 12:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to refer you to WP:CIVIL. I'd also point out that I referred to the MOS in my initial post here. What part of intentionally mispelling a person or group's name is not related to BLP and precisely Jimbo's assertion that we "must get it right"? Kyaa the Catlord 13:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Kyaa, MOSTM is well-established and has been applied broadly to Japanese organizations even though many prefer all caps (e.g. most of Category:Japanese musical groups). As to your claim that it is never written Clamp, I'd direct you to NY Times as a prominent example of "Clamp" for this artist group. Since not using ALL CAPS is the normal approach for article titles on Wikipedia, one would generally need a clear consensus to do otherwise, which the move request failed to demonstrate. Dragons flight 13:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say "never written Clamp?" I have repeatedly pointed out that it is only written "Clamp" by those who inadvertently mispell their name. WP:COMMONNAME is even more established and states that we should use the most commonly used spelling. MOS-JP states we should use their pseudonym, making note of any other names they use. There are mountains of links, ISBN numbers for printed materials and other verifiable, reliable sources that could be linked to show that this is the common spelling of the name and that Clamp is a very rare way to spell their name. MOS-TM states that we should not invent new formats for commonly used names and gives the example of MCI. It has been argued that CLAMP doesn't meet the same criteria, but I can counter that by stating that just like MCI is a symbolic representation of (oh god, don't make me look it up again), CLAMP is a symbolic representation of the artist group. A simple majority is no reason to continue to NOT "get it right". Kyaa the Catlord 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The consensus which is based on solid Wikipedia policies and guidelines is getting it right. You are not. I refer you also to Prince (musician) and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. — Æ. ✉ 13:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring myself and walking away. Accuracy does not appear to be a concern. Please close this request. Kyaa the Catlord 13:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

O.K. — Æ. ✉ 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Lamborn Wilson Peter Lamborn Wilson (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Peter Lamborn Wilson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - is not a widely known author - his areas of interest run from pirates to Islamic heresy to anarchism---but he is a source of controversy. Much of the controversy in the Wikipedia article, though, relates to a pseudonym (Hakim Bey) he has used over the years for some of the books and essays he has written. In the article, in the opening paragraph, we find the following sentence: "He sometimes writes under the name Hakim Bey. The pseudonym may or may not have been a name-of-convenience or collective pseudonym used by other radical writers since the 1970s." I submit that this pseudonym has been used by other writers, and that it is impossible to prove that everything written and published under that pseudonym was in fact the product of Peter Lamborn Wilson. Given this, and given the controversial nature of a small percentage of those writings (dealing with pederasty/pedophilia), I submit that the criticisms within the article (i.e., that Peter Lamborn Wilson advocates pedophilia) are unjustified, unsubstantiated, and may qualify as libel. I have stated a number of times in the article talk page that verifiable evidence, per Wikipedia policy, must be submitted that proves all of the articles were written by the same person, and that person is, in fact, Peter Lamborn Wilson. All of these statements on my part have been rebuffed. So, I bring this issue here, I ask for an examination of the article, and a discussion of its content. Thank you. ---Charles 22:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you can point to particular instances of the name "Hakim Bey" having been used by other people. —Ashley Y 06:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the most egregious example of which I am acutely aware: Why I wrote a fake Hakim Bey book and how I cheated the conformists of Italian "counterculture" (example). Now, in this case, the person calling himself "Luther Blissett" (which is itself a pseudonym used by multiple authors) wrote and published the "fake" as a critique of Hakim Bey's writing, and so he revealed the charade in order to mock all of those who had been taken in. The fact that he wrote and published it and was able to convince people it was Bey's indicates the difficulty of definitively saying that everything published under the name Hakim Bey was in fact written by Peter Lamborn Wilson. I do not think such a statement can be justified and supported by the facts currently in evidence. ---Charles 19:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But there's no suggestion that "Hakim Bey" is a "Luther Blissett"-type collective pseudonym, is there? The hoaxer might just as well have published a fake book under the name "Peter Lamborn Wilson". —Ashley Y 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there has been no public announcement, as it were, that "Hakim Bey" is a collective pseudonym, as is the case with "Luther Blissett" and "Karen Eliot"---both of which are, or were, psudonyms used by a small group of mostly British authors in the '80s and '90s. I am not even suggesting---though it has been suggested by others---that "Hakim Bey" is or was a collective pseudonym. What I am saying is that it is very difficult to know what the situation truly is, given the fact that PLW neither admits nor denies having written at least some of the articles, books, etc. published under the name "Hakim Bey". In the case of the article, most of the criticism lodged against PLW for advocating pedophilia/pederasty is based on a few articles published under the name "Hakim Bey." If one is going to criticize an author for taking a stand on an unpopular and controversial issue, one had better be certain of one's facts. In the case of this article, I say again that such certainty does not exist, despite whatever Robert Helms happens to think. ---Charles 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree there's cause for caution in the matter. I happen to know that PLW wrote the Hakim Bey essay "Boundary Violations", since I saw him present it at a club in Seattle about ten years ago. (No-one applauded.) Of course, my say-so is not a reliable source...

Can we perhaps represent the issue in the article? We can say that PLW has written essays as HB, and we can say that some essays written as HB advocate pederasty, at least. —Ashley Y 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be addressed in the article, in some manner. I erred in seeming to advocate that all reference to HB be deleted entirely---that would certainly be going too far. But, the article as it stands is flawed in the way that it addresses the issue. I appreciate and agree with your approach. Thanks. ---Charles 06:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer Zodiac Killer (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Zodiac Killer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - There is a major movie opening this week about this case, and I expect there will be a lot of material added to this article. I have just deleted a lot of info about suspects, since most was unsourced and about living people. I expect the editors (who seem to own the article) will object and try to reinsert it. Thanks. Jeffpw 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Has there been a problem as this report anticipated ten days ago? — Athænara ✉ 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected, so the number of editors editing it has dropped dramatically. There are also now admins watching the page, so the addition of controversial material (when I found the article, living people were accused of being the Zodiac serial killer) is discussed, sourced and sometimes reverted. Jeffpw 08:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the update. — Æ. ✉ 09:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett Stephen Barrett (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Stephen Barrett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  
• Quackwatch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  

Tim Bolen is in legal dispute with Stephen Barrett, the webmaster of Quackwatch. Everything written by this user is exactly in Tim Bolen's style. His team (including lawyer) is awaiting trial for libel and malicious prosecution.

The following IPs have been misused:

• 4.233.98.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- Used on March 1, 2007 to make gross violations of BLP at Talk:Quackwatch. Signed as Tim Bolen.

Upon discovering this misuse of Wikipedia to make a long list of accusations, misrepresentations, and even some totally false statements made against better knowledge (he has been informed, is being sued, and yet repeats them), I immediately deleted the entry per BLP. Wikipedia should not be used for an extension of his off-wiki war against Barrett. Was it proper of me to delete it?

I also began tracking down other possibilities and found other IPs (same IP range) from the same location (he does live there), making violations showing the same level of personal involvement (there may be other IPs that can be identified later):

• 4.232.90.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- Used on August 22, 2006 to vandalize a revert at the now deleted Quackpot Watch article (about Bolen himself) and to vandalize the Stephen Barrett article.
• 4.233.98.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- Used on August 24, 2006 to vandalize the Quackwatch article three times.

Another matter of directly related interest:

• Ilena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (Ilena Rosenthal) has just been indef banned because of actions here related to her bringing the same battle to Wikipedia. She has also been sued for republishing Bolen's original statements, but got off because she was not the originator of the statements. (See: Barrett v. Rosenthal)

It is worth noting that he [Bolen] makes legal threats against potentially all Wikipedians:

"One more thing - In my opinion, what happened to Ilena Rosenthal does not apply to you at Wickipedia because you are an EDITED publication which makes each of you separately and together legally liable for the content of your presentation. So step carefully."

This is also typical of his style, to make intimidating threats in best SLAPP-motivated style.

If anyone needs more information, just use my email link or use my talk page. Please notify me of any comments here by posting to my talk page. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

→ (Combined two near-duplicate reports above for simplicity and comprehension.) — Æ. ✉ 01:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• The three userIPs are inactive now, and there's no disruption currently apparent on either of the two articles. — Athænara ✉ 06:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

James Dobson James Dobson (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• James Dobson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Yet another article under the guise of biography that is little more than a slagfest of controversies and critcisms, with the subject's own views described from primarily his critics' POVs. I have made some NPOV changes in the "Social views" section of article and, given the POV perspective of most of that section, deleted the entire very long and article-overwhelming "controversies" section per WP:Undue weight. I have described my concerns further at Talk:James Dobson#Slagfest or Biography? // CyberAnth 06:42, 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 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• This issue is still active—it was raised again a few weeks later. — Athænara ✉ 12:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

James Dobson - tendentious editing or vandalism nightly for about 6 days. "Divine right" keeps reappearing even though it is an ancient political term having nothing to do with Dobson's views on marriage. This, or something similar (in the James Dobson#Views on marriage section) is the proper text to maintain NPOV or something reasonably close:

"He believes that men, while not created by God as superior to women, have a role which includes servant leadership within the family. Their wives, and children at home, are to submit to their authority in matters of conflict.[1][2]" Witnessforpeace (talk · contribs) 02:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I added references [1] and [2] which explain "not superior to women" and add some details concerning "submit" Also, existing reference [3] contains and extended ans sincere quealification that clearly indicates that my text "recommend" belongs in there, as well as my explanation as to what mothers ought to do instead of working outside the home. This has also been reverted about 6 times with no explanation given in the discussion, and no exlanation as to why the reference is being misued. Witnessforpeace 02:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article seems not to be currently under attack as described. — Æ. ✉ 14:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction. I happened to look at it between reversions. A closer look at the history gives a different picture. Two accounts (very likely the same editor) have been making identical edits:

• 67.168.239.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

• Jerry1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 1a + 1b 3 4

Jerry1964 has been WP:3RR warned once. [I'll get diffs and add them soon Done.] I just wanted to reverse my error of judgement quickly first. — Athænara ✉ 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Diffs added above—Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, Wikipedia:Edit warring, violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. — Æ. ✉ 15:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No further disruption in the past week. — Athænara ✉ 09:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Burt Reynolds Burt Reynolds (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Burt Reynolds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - please revert this page to before the unsourced and poorly sourced stuff by Dalbury was added not to mention he added these pic links to burts page too. [image markup removed] … "Image and video hosting by TinyPic" … So please revert, Thanks Rogue Gremlin 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If Dalbury has admin rights, they should seriously be called into question for removed stuff that i had valid proof for, and then adding "unsourced and poorly sourced stuff" in its place. Rogue Gremlin 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ALSO If Dalbury has admin rights they should be seriously called into question for abuse of power, for his manipulation of Burts page, By removing my validated stuff, and adding his "unsouced or poorly sourced stuff" in its place.Rogue Gremlin 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Those links were added in a 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC) edit by 70.161.65.223 (talk · contribs). — Athænara ✉ 06:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of that Dalbury is still abusing power by removing validated stuff and replacing with "unsourced and poorly sourced" material that even if you check websites, his "poorly sourced stuff" only represents about 3%, where as my verifiable stuff represents 97% but because he has admin rights he keeps reverting the stuff validated by the 97% to put in the "poorly sourced" 3% stuff, which constitutes abuse of power is there a board i can report him to, so they can check his edits and call into question hid admin rights? It seems as i remember one but i dont remember how to get to it.Rogue Gremlin 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment There were some BLP concerns with the article, in that it had some entirely unsourced material discussing the subject's personal life and finances. I've removed that. However, that does not seem to be related to the editing dispute at the page, which is apparantly over where the subject was born. In case anyone is curious, the claims of admin tools being used to advantage in a content dispute seem to be entirely unfounded. Jkelly 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this WP:POINT report is baseless. — Athænara ✉ 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Gremlin: your report and your accusations were spurious. Stop the tendentious and disruptive editing already. This was your last edit to the article. The other editors were right, you were wrong, get over it, capisce? Continue on the path toward becoming a good editor. Thank you. — Athænara ✉ 13:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hamas members (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Some debate over at Category:Hamas members if the category should be a subcat of Category:Anti-Semitic people. // Liftarn

The debate is at Category talk:Hamas members. Plenty of RS were provided. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If RS were provided we wouldn't have this debate. // Liftarn

I read the argument over there. I doubt that this noticeboard will resolve your differences. — Athænara ✉ 12:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but some help would be nice. // Liftarn

Nobody can help when both sides are intransigent. — Æ. ✉ 12:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that it's a binary issue, category or no category. // Liftarn

There seems to be quite a bit of debate over whether Hamas is an antisemitic organization, although I don't really think that's the issue here (at least, not the BLP issue.) When it comes to Hamas being antisemitic, that's sounds about right. At the very least, the organization leadership does/says antisemitic things. After all, I believe they did say something about "drinking the blood of the Jews" in one of their videos (just as an example.)

However, I think the real issue of contention here is whether it fits the BLP policy to categorize individuals within Hamas as antisemitic because of their ties to Hamas. I believe the WP:BLP policy says that we need to make sure that for categorization, the category is clear from the article. So I think the real question that needs to be asked here is: "Does membership in Hamas constitute a clear assertion of antisemitism upon its members?".

On one hand, Hamas is an antisemitic organization or is at least run by antisemites. On the other hand, people may be in Hamas who are not antisemitic. For example, someone can be an American Republican and not support anti-abortion legislation (for non-Americans, anti-abortion legislation is currently one of the big issues in American politics today.)

I'm personally unsure of the right course of action here, but perhaps some individuals who are more experienced with WP:BLP can comment. .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that it should only be applied on an individual basis and not for the entire category. Anyway, I'm backing down from this. I edit Wikipedia as a hobby and this is too much trouble to be worth it. They probably deserve it anyway regardless of they actually are antisemites or not. I dubt any of them will sue Wikipedia anyway. // Liftarn

Adam Keller Adam Keller (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Adam Keller (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) The article claims he is a supporter of Hezbollah. Two links are given. One in Dutch and one in Hebrew. I managed to get a babelfish translation of the Dutch article and the article says no such thing. // Liftarn 14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) the only editor who has claimed the refs support that claim, or are there others as well? — Athænara ✉ 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt Drudge Matt Drudge (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Skoppensboer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - The user has engaged in edit-warring at the Matt Drudge article, and has moved content believed to be in violation of WP:BLP to his userspace. He was warned and the content was removed. After the warning he restored the content.RWR8189 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The content I replicated on my user page was found to be WP:BLP by only one other editor. If you read it, it is clearly encyclopaedic and no lawyer on earth could consider it problematic. I contend that there is a cabal of conservative editors sanitizing all information from certain pages that they deem critical to their cultural heroes. This is a practice that should be stopped before WP becomes the plaything of political activists. Skopp (Talk) 22:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The content in question uses an article that is a source of dubious reliability, offers a non-specific link to radio archives, and uses original research to make conclusions. Those are the problems, not some cabal.--RWR8189 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll make the radio link specific, ok? Hope that satisfies you. There is absolutely no OR at all. Skopp (Talk) 23:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As a BLP patrol volunteer, I have a strong opinion in this matter. But as I am already directly involved in a complaint against this user on this article, I will refrain from expressing it. - Crockspot 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The most obvious thing in the user's proposed section is the lengths to which s/he has gone to propel a conclusion that Drudge must, of course, be wrong. It exceeds the limits of WP:NPOV. A referenced comment is one thing, a carefully structured and multiply-referenced enjoinder against a neutral view is quite another. — Athænara ✉ 04:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jabron Hashmi Jabron Hashmi (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Jabron Hashmi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - First British Muslim soldier to die in the War on Terror, widely reported but a few users repeatedly editing the article to suit their POV, including what I believe to be many sockpuppets. Not especially frequent, but constant. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a few of the negative comments off. The fact that a soldier is not popular with the people he is fighting against (while the war is going on anyway) is not notable. Steve Dufour 18:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Aciddicaparty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Noseheadsing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Yahyahashmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Ben10withapens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

No edit warring as in report since March 3. — Athænara ✉ 03:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness Nigel McGuinness (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Nigel McGuinness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I originally posted the following at WP:COI/N but was told it was a BLP issue so have decided to take the case here. The case has been argued here before however at the time there was not a large amount of input and the debate was still raging. I feel enough time has passed now for another look at the case to occur to get a clear answer on the topic.

The conflict of interest and debate occurred back in September of 2006 and was never completely resolved and thus I believe a re-look at the case should occur.

Prior to the debate the real name of the professional wrestler in question was listed, sourced to the USPTO of the registered ring name. A new user, TrishBunkey (talk · contribs), appeared and removed the information citing privacy which lead to a debate about censorship, how the USPTO a public source is a private source and whether precedents suck as Buckethead and Criss Angel applied.

It was discovered that TrishBuckney was the webmistress of the official website of Nigel McGuinness and sent a note to the wikifoundation to have the information removed. The information was removed due to this by admin FCYTravis (talk · contribs) (06:05, 23 September 2006 FCYTravis (Talk | contribs) (rm real name per OTRS ticket #2006092210008209)), who subsequently unlocked the fully protected article even though the dispute was still going on. Some other admins, namely Alphachimp (talk · contribs), disagreed with this conclusion and other users also disagreed leading to many versions of the article being deleted from the history to remove any reference to the real name. The dispute eventually died down as FCYTravis was adamant and no area came to a conclusion.

For the previous arguments on this case see;

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive137#WP:BLP Concern - Wrestler's Real Name
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive1#Nigel McGuinness
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 14#Nigel McGuinness
• Talk:Nigel McGuinness

I would like a clear look at the dispute as the legal issue of ones publicly available name being banned from their own article in question seems bizarre, the conflict of interest involved with the people in the dispute, the lack of policy on a case such as this, censorship and how the result of the discussion was clearly against precedent set by other articles.

In addition to the above it is of note that one of the arguments against inclusion of his real name was that wikipedia was the only source, however his real name is also available on his imdb page as seen here. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Another prior discussion is in WP:COI/N Archive 2. — Athænara ✉ 13:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Simonetti Ellen Simonetti (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Ellen Simonetti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - There is a small edit war brewing over allegations brought by Chulcoop (talk · contribs) regarding a disagreement he is having with the subject about an advertisement on the subject's website. The disagreement resulted in an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Simonetti). I personally believe that the article as it stood before Chulcoop arrived probably passes WP:BIO and the subsequent unsourced statements violate WP:LIVING and stand a good chance at getting the article deleted when it probably shouldn't be. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it should be deleted to me. It's all just about her blogging. Steve Dufour 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The bit about requiring employers to have a blogging policy, so employees will know the corporate position before disputes or disciplinary actions arise, might be notable. — Athænara ✉ 11:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a comment posted on the deletion discussion for this article:

"STRONG DELETE Unfortunately it is now clear this marginal entry should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a proxy battleground for two blogs, particularly where one is dedicated to slandering the other. Wikipedia can not allow itself to become a posting ground for every nut-job complaint on every subject."

I'd like to see more of that kind of spirit here. :-) Steve Dufour 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect to notability in a context which is larger than WP:BLP policy as such —

Corporate blogging policies are notable in the encyclopedic sense in at least four ways:

• Advertising medium for employer:

• e.g. SaaScon workshops for a 2005 IDG conference; Signpost article about Microsoft

• Critical of employer:

• e.g. Delta/Simonetti; July 2006 article in The Scotsman

• Integral part of corporate culture:

• e.g. Sun Microsystems policy for company-hosted employee blogs

• Underneath the radar:

• e.g. Electronic Frontier Foundation employee blog advice

See also: a young article, Employee branding. Note: my references are to help you see what my point is, not stand-alone support for that point. — Athænara ✉ 05:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be 100% in favor of a WP article on corporate blogging policies, and mentioning Ms Simonetti in it. However I still don't think just having a blog makes a person notable enough for a WP bio. Steve Dufour 07:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Chulcoop (talk · contribs) has actually been far less disruptive than several other editors, including:

• 70.50.77.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 74.107.36.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 64.229.187.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 67.71.123.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  

And Chulcoop's recent version is far better than versions such as this one. — Athænara ✉ 11:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Afd result: Keep. — Æ. ✉ 02:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz (4) Barbara Schwarz (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Barbara Schwarz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I was not able to work out the process to nominate it for deletion since it has already been nominated 3 times. She is clearly non-notable, except to a small group of her "anti-fans" Steve Dufour 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A more experienced editor is now considering deletion and this is being discussed on the article's talk page. Steve Dufour 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD has decided to keep the article three times, and that's a reason to nominate it for a fourth?!?--Prosfilaes 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The main point raised on all the previous AfD's seemed to be that the article was an "attack piece". The first two AfD's were claimed to have been brought by Schwarz herself and the last one by Steve at her request and with the same "attack piece" reasoning. The real reason that the article deserves an AfD is notability. There are strong arguments to be made that she does not meet the wikipedia notability standard. While those arguments may have been mentioned previously they were overshadowed by the wrong use of AfD to handle an "Attack article". Trying to base an AfD on "it is an attack" as the sole reason will not get the article deleted, just rewritten, and is, IMO, actually not a reason at all to go AfD. BLP/N, RfC, even AN/I, are all better means of handling an attack article, I think. This article needs to go up again for a clean look at the notability issue, IMO. --Justanother 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother writes: The real reason that the article deserves an AfD is notability. False; the subject meets and exceeds the primary notability criterion, as the subject's notability was discussed at length in the article's Talk page archives. The subject has had four print media articles published about her in English; I understand there are also some in German. The subject is a noteworthy figure in the history of FOIA, the US court system, and scientology. The subject also passes the "Google test" with many hits from .gov domains, related to her FOIA activities. Orsini 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous Schwarz (1) (2) (3) discussions in WP:BLP/N archives 1, 4 and 10 indicate that this specific noticeboard is unlikely to resolve these specific issues. — Athænara ✉ 06:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
(Related Rathbun (1) (2) (3) discussions in archives 4, 7 and 10.) — Æ. ✉ 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mark Rathbun article has been improved and now seems to be a worthwhile article. If anything the Barbara Schwarz article has gotten worse over time. Steve Dufour 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the BLP issue is in regards to this article. Can anyone explain this for me? .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, there is only one: scientology does not appear to like how their former German president has conducted her life and filed record numbers of FOIA requests, and it does not want her association with it made known. In other words, there is no genuine BLP issue. Orsini 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

V, I think Steve was asking help in how one would go about starting an AfD for an article that has had previous AfDs. That is no longer a problem so I think this BLPN item can be closed. If someone wants to cover other material or has another question then they might want to open a new BLPN item. Steve, am I right, can this specific item be closed now? --Justanother 16:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Orsini is correct: there is no role for WP:BLP/N in this. — Athænara ✉ 05:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Inayat Bunglawala Inayat Bunglawala (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Inayat Bunglawala (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - What takes precedence; WP:RS or WP:BLP? A blog accused Mr. Bunbglawala of sending them threatening e-mail, but ultimately found it could not prove it. Several users wish to add this accusation in since it was mentioned in an Israeli tabloid. I have taken the "Presumption in favor of privacy" guideline in BLP, others disagree. Whether YNet is even an RS at all is also another issue. // Tarc 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Given that the site is a blog, it makes my decision easier to say that WP:BLP takes precedence. The source doesn't really seem that reliable. But even then, I think that BLP should take precedence because if there's something that a person doesn't want others to know, or that others don't deem pertinent to the encyclopedia at all, it should be able to be disregarded. There's always that factor of "is this important/relevant enough to be included?" So in short, I say remove the information if it is deemed inappropriate in context. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to drop a line when I read this yesterday. Just wanted to say thanks for the input. :) Tarc 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

TARC mis the issue. ynetnews is a source that fits WP:RS. This site is used extensivly in wkipedia. this is the web site of Israel's leading news paper. This is not an issue of blog Vs Wikipedia policy but an issue of wikipedia llowed to publish what was already published by WP:RS source. Zeq 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, you are now completely misrepresenting and distorting the dispute. The primary issue was exactly as I noted above, regarding what takes precedence. I mentioned Ynet as an RS as aside to the primary issue. I did not and have not edited the article due to a question of Ynet being a reliable source; I edited it due to the policy on WP:BLP. Tarc 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind assuming the reliability of ynetnews, but the paragraph in question accuses the subject of criminal behaviour. When you actually look at the source, all it says is that some person claims "strong circumstantial evidence". It doesn't even assert that there is any evidence, only that some person claims it. This is rather less than what is in Inayat Bunglawala. This is poorly sourced in the sense that the source does not support what is said in the article.

Accusations of criminal behaviour of living people, even "merely" saying that "there is evidence to suggest", ought to be considered very carefully before inclusion. This strikes me as a rather blatant violation of WP:BLP. —Ashley Y 06:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Another point: ynet content is often simply reprinted from WND, a relatively doubtful source of information infrequently cited by more reputable news sources. — Athænara ✉ 10:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That "editorial"

I finally found the piece that ynetnews referred to as an "editorial."

It was not an editorial. It was an opinion piece Inayat Bunglawala posted on a collective group blog called Comment is free which is hosted by The Guardian. Bunglawala's post, "This code could open doors," is about the Dan Brown book The Da Vinci Code.

It appeared on May 22, 2006 and comments continued to be added through June 10. The few Bunglawala remarks disputed for the past month or more were among those comments.

I think anyone who reads the page itself will see that the ynetnews article about it was very far from straightforward reliable reporting. It should not be cited as a reliable source for a claim that Bunglawala emailed anonymous death threats to anyone. — Athænara ✉ 12:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the offending paragraph. It is a tenuous accusation, poorly sourced, and potentially very damaging to the person concerned. Metamagician3000 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Subhash Kak Subhash Kak (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Subhash Kak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Some editors (User:Dbachmann, User:Gobalan Achayan and User:Lumidek) are adding libelous, defaming, poorly sourced and/or false material on the talkpage and in the article. This has also happened in some other articles where Subhash Kak is mentioned. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayfield (talk • contribs) 12:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dbachmann (talk · contribs) no edits to the article since 5 March
• Gobalan Achayan (talk · contribs) no edits to the article since 24 February
• Lumidek (talk · contribs) no edits to the article since 18 February

Is there more the noticeboard should know about this report? — Athænara ✉ 03:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tommy Hansen (porn star) Tommy Hansen (porn star) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Tommy Hansen (porn star) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This page should be deleted from the main Wikipedia. On the discussion page people are exchanging links to "protein eating" of this porn star. Very disturbing for everyone else in the world named Tommy Hansen, and very downrating regarding respectability on Wikipedia. Best regards Tommy Hansen, PDFnet, Denmark 83.88.224.135 (talk · contribs) 09:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article talk page post which did not discuss improvements to a Wikipedia article (the purpose of article talk pages) has been removed. — Athænara ✉ 06:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Norman Stronge Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?] How do I get a peer review or good article please? - Kittybrewster 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Try peer review. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Joyce Hatto Joyce Hatto (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Joyce Hatto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Joyce Hatto is dead. Why is her biography protected by this policy? 80.47.137.95 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Because of the {{BLP}} template. Fixed. — Athænara ✉ 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Colin Angus (explorer) Colin Angus (explorer) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Colin Angus (explorer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A contributor is repeatedly adding the same libelous and unsubstantiated information to the biography of expeditioner Colin Angus. A warning has been issued, and changes made, however, the offender continues posting the same negative messages from different IP addresses. There is no information on or off the internet that supports these allegations."Kingfisher2"   — 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Kingfisher2 above, there is no libel issue. The content of which the report complained was encyclopedic, referenced and linked as per normal Wikipedian practice:

Feb 07 - Bayscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Feb 07 - 139.142.99.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Feb 07 - 139.142.113.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Feb 07 - 24.108.204.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Mar 07 - 139.142.98.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

By comparison, the following edits (including Kingfisher2's) were less encyclopedic:

(1) Jul 2006 - Yeniseyriver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Created the original stub.)

Note: What the BLP subject calls the Yenisey River is the Yenisei River, the site of one of his expeditions.

(2) Aug 2006 - 216.232.2.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Added the bulk of the content of the article.)

(3) Nov 2006 - 24.80.176.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Added "best friend" and his website.)

(4) Nov 2006 - Salsa29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Added—see 24.80.176.70 above—"who was the real brains behind the operation.")

(5) Feb 2007 - 70.66.194.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Removed encyclopedic content.)

(Added links to subject's own website to other articles, warned to stop.)

Note: It is a commercial website: store speakers tours

Note: While the subject's own website can legitimately be included in the BLP article's external links section, it cannot support the removal of encyclopedic material.

(6) Feb 2007 - Kingfisher2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Removed encyclopedic content.)

(Added subject's own website as reference for "circumnavigation of the planet" claim.)

(Added vandalism warning, normally used on user talk pages, to article.)

(7) Feb 2007 - Freddy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Removed encyclopedic content.)

(Again added subject's own website as reference.)

(8) Mar 2007 - Mustang13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Removed encyclopedic content.)

(Again added subject's own website as reference.)

(Again—see Kingfisher2—added vandalism warning to article.)

Two are what might be termed COI anti-SOCKs (see 09:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC) post below)

(9) Mar 2007 - Harveyjt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Uploaded image of subject, experimented several times with placement in article.)

(Removed image from article next day.)

(10) Mar 2007 - Galiano kayaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Blanked article talk page.)

If, as seems likely, the subject and/or one or more of his colleagues have been editing the article in disguise, then conflict of interest and sock puppetry issues are involved which must be addressed appropriately. If, however, COI/sock editing ceases and the article is allowed to develop normally with the input of other editors, then taking the matter to COI and sock puppet noticeboards as well won't be necessary. — Athænara ✉ 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restored article talk page. Added tenth COI SOCK to list. — Æ. ✉ 06:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• A more recent post on the article talk page indicates that two of these (9 and 10) are COI anti-SOCKs, so to speak. Confusing. What's needed is editing from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. — Æ. ✉ 09:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All the participants now seem to understand the Wikipedia policies and guidelines which pertain as explained on the article talk page. — Athænara ✉ 04:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders

• Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders -- I believe there are BLP issues with the naming of this category. There are reliable sources within the medical community that say autism is not a "disorder". As the term is controversial, it must be used carefully. However, the category is applied to articles on people within the autism rights movement who object to the term "disorder". These applications of the category are BLP violations, as the term is both controversial (reliable sources on both sides) and viewed as disparaging by these people. I believe the category should be renamed to Category:People on the autistic spectrum, which is neutral to both points of view, and I have laid out my rationale in full at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 3#Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders. — coelacan — 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that your name change is preferable in that it completely avoids having the lengthy (and no doubt exhausting) argument about whether or not it's a disorder. Your proposal is both neutral and fair in my eyes. .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Carla Martin Carla Martin (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Carla Martin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Two apparent special-purpose accounts (who I suspect may be sockpuppets of the article's subject) persist in whitewashing this article of any discussion of the incident for which she is notable -- alleged witness-coaching during the trial of an accused terrorist. I came to this article through an RfC and am unsure what to do next to make this article encyclopedic instead of looking like a resume.// PubliusFL 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Schmetterling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Spaceexplorer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 68.50.13.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 68.55.54.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) +

Writing the article like a résumé—are there more? This conflict of interest editor is engaging in extremely disruptive editing. Maybe post it on WP:COI/N too? There's more than one thing wrong here—WP:OWN, WP:NOT, etc. — Athænara ✉ 16:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Four Five reversions (UTC timestamps, 8 March 2007) in less than two hours:
• 14:49   15:45   15:50   16:17   16:25   → 3RR warning 16:39

• All revert to previous version by Spaceexplorer, used for 17:40 revert after {{3RR}}

• WP:AN/3RR report at 17:43
• Blocked for eight hours as of 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Second report by PubliusFL on post-block 3RR violations.
• Second block thirty one hours.
• Identical revert from fourth + account after second block.
• Checkuser request by PubliusFL. Open proxy blocked. — Æ. ✉ 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article appears to have a better understanding now of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. — Athænara ✉ 07:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

George Clooney George Clooney (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• George Clooney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A few years ago, George Clooney made a joke about Charlton Heston. His joke was "President of the NRA announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's.". Some people want obviously to make a bigger story than what it was and dedicated a huge and complete section to that joke for the only purpose to decredibilize him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annegc1 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• The editor who contributed this one appears to be a single purpose account to allow only positive information about the Clooney family. S/he has removed cited information multiple times and repeatedly attempts to add her/his own POV about the incident in question. CovenantD 08:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Annegc1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Well, well, well ... I can see I should have looked at the poster's contribs when I was pulling up the data for the {{unsigned}} post. This user is indeed the problem here. — Athænara ✉ 09:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

…and has backed off. — Æ. ✉ 07:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan Lindsay Lohan (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Lindsay Lohan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A small section was requested detailing Lohan's lip syncing on Good Morning America prior to the release of her second album. RadioKirk thought the information was unnecessary, as the event was not notable. I disagree, and think that the press coverage given at the time indicates this. We can't resolve the issue. Find the discussion here [2].CnsBiol 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Possible lip-sync, one in a short series of live performances—fails notability and the proposed WP:NOTNEWS;
2. Possible sing-along to voice track (per artist's publicist), video inconclusive—fails WP:V;
3. End of story per WP:BLP, even if I seem dismissive of yet another evident argument-for-its-own-sake, "new" editor. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lipsynch/singalong account inactive since suggesting on March 9 that he or she has other accounts. — Athænara ✉ 08:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neil Clark (journalist) Neil Clark (journalist) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Neil Clark (journalist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article is involved in yet another edit war/content dispute, mainly between editors
• ElenaZam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and
• citylightsgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Within the last 48 hours, the page has been reverted several times by both editors, and it is very difficult based upon the content and ongoing discussion for a neutral (vandal-fighting) party such as myself to figure out what needs to be done with this page. Please see recent edits, examples [3] and [4]. I can not get an understanding of "which editor means well".

This issue was brought here on 25 January 2007 [5] with no resolution. Both have accused the other of false information and violating many policies (personal attacks, NPOV, original research, vandalism, sockpuppetry, conflict of interest, etc.).

• Oliver Kamm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The same situation/editors are also tied in with the Oliver Kamm page. I believe that admin intervention is necessary at this point, and then a protecting of the page once correctly sourced, neutral content is written/restored. Thanks! Vendetta 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Citylightsgirl was blocked eight hours for 3RR violations on Oliver Kamm. Not a long block, so there may be further developments. — Athænara ✉ 02:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sample Citylightsgirl edit since the 8 hour block expired: removal of several paragraphs of content, addition of one all-caps paragraph of complaint.
• PunctualPeter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is, I would guess, a sock sent into the fray in an attempt to elude another 3RR rap. — Æ. ✉ 09:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be more going on here than meets the eye, cf. WP:AN/I report posted by Citylightsgirl in January, after which she was referred here. There was zero discussion of the report here between 25 January and 3 March. — Athænara ✉ 11:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Both articles protected. — Æ. ✉ 08:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Josh Wolf Josh Wolf (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Will an Admin please delete the redirect page entitled Josh Wolf? In that way we could move the page Josh Wolf (journalist) there and end an edit war over whether the title should be that or Josh Wolf (blogger).

Currently what his proper job title definition is has been the point of the court case involving him and many editors are taking up sides on the issue. By being able to move the article to a page without a job description we can avoid a POV edit war over the title of the article. The page that needs to be cleared is just a redirect to the Josh Wolf (disambiguation) page. Wowaconia 07:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we just edit the Josh Wolf page, changing it from a redirect page to the content page now housed at Josh Wolf (journalist) ? Tvoz | talk 07:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - moving the history is the problem, Wowaconia reminds me. So we would need admin intervention. Tvoz | talk 07:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to solve the problem, wouldn't it? Done. FCYTravis 08:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick Bollettieri Nick Bollettieri (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Nick Bollettieri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - article is self promotion. The content is copied from own site Bio Page.

What is the best course of action for me to do? Delete the violating content? Rk2578 08:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If the subject was the person who did that, yes, it's self-promotion, but it may not have been him. I see you posted this concern on the article's talk page also, which was a good thing to do.

The article has been around since early July 2004 and it was still developing normally more than two years later in September 2006. *

• Alison Shemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was the one who added the material copied from Bollettieri's site in the next edit on the 27th of September.

The simplest solution is to revert to the last good version * before website content was copied into it, then check it over to see if any legitimate wikifying got lost in the process and repair that if needed. If you don't know how to do it, tell us here and one us will, OK? — Athænara ✉ 11:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC). — Æ. ✉