Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive12

Michael Ratner Michael Ratner (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Michael Ratner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A new editor has a remarkable interest in the real estate dealings of the subject of this article's brother, and wants to source claims of some kind of questionable financial dealings to their research into government records. Jkelly 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gibes like "remarkable interest" and "wants to source claims of some kind ... to their research" are unnecessary, borderline-uncivil, and misrepresent the situation. Mywikieditor2007 (talk · contribs) is probably right about both the information and the references—they don't concern only the brother.

This dispute is a symptom of the larger problem: the article uncritically heroises its subject and is sorely lacking the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. — Athænara ✉ 10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Further thoughts on the matter:

• The article as it stands now is overwhelmingly uncritical. It frankly reads as if it were hosted by a left wing qua progressive website, not by an encyclopedia. That needs to change.

• In the context in which the subject's politics and activities have been presented in a non-neutral fashion, the subject's campaign donations in support of his brother's project(s) in a borough where the subject does not live are particularly pertinent.

• Wikipedia is a collaborative effort of contributors with varying skillsets to produce an encyclopedia. In this instance, the deliberate lack of cooperation with an inexperienced editor, by an experienced editor who is also an administrator, threatens to hinder attainment of organizational goals. — Athænara ✉ 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes Daniel Pipes (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Source: Talk:Daniel Pipes The recent archiving of the talk page of this article has made the editing content dispute unclear. There are still problems with lack of balance and lack of full citations in this controversial article on a living person; earlier tags placed by editors alerting other users of this encyclopedia to problems of this kind were continually being reverted by some users and even administrators, making it difficult for Wikipedia users to be referred to the talk page for discussion. Then an administrator placed current discussion in an archive page (1) that was very difficult to follow. [I added a second archive page (2) to alleviate that problem; in that archive page 2 I placed my own comments from February 2007, which the administrator had deleted from the current talk page and moved to an archive of comments from 2003-2006.]

My comment in Talk:Daniel Pipes of March 1, 2007, explains what I find are the problems of that manner of archiving and refers to still easily-accessible full citations for the content of the current version of the article on Daniel Pipes, which can be used in improving the article's citations. The article is currently tagged with an "unreferenced" template (by another editor). I agree that the article needs the "unreferenced" tag, along with the tags that were removed by others alerting to the problems of lack of balance and lack of neutrality; these three problems are interrelated in my view. --NYScholar 00:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC) [moved here from talk page of this noticeboard; misplaced originally there. Sorry.]

Also, I just want to add that I believe that the citations problems that I perceive in this article are fairly easily resolvable; but I myself will not being doing any more work on it (due to the non-productive conflicts that I've already experienced there and future lack of time). I've provided the necessary citations information for other editors to do that work. Explanations are already in the talk page archive (2) of the article and in my own talk page archive (2).] --NYScholar 09:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)]

This article seems like there is way too much of people's opinions about the subject. Although there is some balance since both positive and negative opinions are expressed. Steve Dufour 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia editors' opinions or poorly-sourced other people's opinions that are supposed to be expressed in the article; the article needs "full citations" so that one can see exactly whose POVs are being cited in the external links. Without seeing full citations, it is not possible for Wikipedia readers to see for sure what the sources are, where and when they were published, what kinds of publications they appear in, when they were last accessed, and whether or not they are notable, reliable, and verifiable. Full citations are required in articles tagged as "controversial" and in articles on living persons: WP:BLP. --NYScholar 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the administrator has deleted my comments on the talk page and my archive page 2 from the talk page of this article. I have restored archive 2, adding my March 2007 comments to it, and I have posted a link to this notice on the current talk page. -- NYScholar (talk · contribs) 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What sort of outside intervention are you seeking? — Athænara ✉ 05:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I confess I don't clearly understand NYScholar's report here—it seemed to be about restoring talk pages which had been archived and a nonspecific complaint about references.

There is an excessive external links problem in the Daniel Pipes biography. For example, in the text of the background section, one external site is linked twenty or more times and a single article is linked four or more times.

However, the most obvious problem is patent Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight policy violation. Three quarters of the article's content (~76.5% by text length) is devoted to detailing other persons' antagonism toward the subject's views in the praise, criticism and controversy and massive opinions sections. — Athænara ✉ 03:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:American academic administrator stubs Category:American academic administrator stubs (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Please would somebody clever apply a DEFAULTSORT to all Category:American academic administrator stubs using a bot - Kittybrewster 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• There has been no response to this report here, so I've copied it to Category talk:American academic administrator stubs. — Athænara ✉ 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears Britney Spears (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Britney Spears (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - There's some contention over a certain news topic that surfaced within the last 24-72 hours. Xaxafrad 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  

I believe that there is concensus on the page that claims of a 666 incident have not risen to verifiablity. A different dispute remains ongoing (see below). --Wowaconia 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Britney Spears (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - There is a question of whether including details concerning her recent personal difficulties merit inclusion. The inclusion of several details is being advocated but has been disputed such as...

1) Including the detail that she got tatoos the night of shaving her head or discribing what those tatoos are. Any mention of the hairstylist or tattoo parlor by name.

2) Mention of the heavily reported incident where after leaving rehab she struck a parked car several times with an umbrella out of frustration after failing in her attempt to see her children at her ex-husbands apartment before returning to rehab.

3) Mention that several reputable national and international media sources citing an OK! Magazine article that states sources around her ex-husband reported that she shaved her head over threats of a drug test.

4) Mention that sources close to her ex-husband say he is not pursuing full child custody at this time on the promise that she stays in rehab.

5) While sourced links to reliable newspapers are included concerning the information are provided by the side advocating inclusion, it is contested that these sources are biased because of the headlines and that no number of reliable sources quoting the OK! Magazine article can render mention of it worthy of inclusion on the wikipage.

It is argued on one side that inclusion of this information is "prurient and voyeuristic", and "negative POV by adding all this trivial information", while the other side holds that keeping this information out renders the segment uninformative and seems to be POV from self-described fans. --Wowaconia 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an up-to-the-minute scandal-in-your-face celebrity news site. It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to even attempt to rack up this kind (and amount) of detail. — Athænara ✉ 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You should have been at the page last week. There was an editor insisting that details of Spears partying with Paris Hilton and not wearing underwear was relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia (!). I am one of the editors on "the opposing side" so to speak. I am neither fan nor anti-fan of the celebrity in question - just surprised at the indiscriminate info-dump of anything related to Spears into her Wikipedia article. I am urging that the bare-bones single paragraph mention of her 2007 rehab stints (what we have now in the article) is more than adequate for Wikipedia purposes. I hold the view that in light of WP:BLP policies - that the conservative approach erring on the side of a person's privacy is required. "Presumption in favor of privacy: Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy." Even if the item is "well sourced", I believe that Wikipedia editors must be exercise some discretion in filtering out the speculation and biases contained in these reports ("entertainment news" and "Gossip pages" having relaxed or very little journalistic standards). I am the one that hold that the publishing the above information listed by User:Wowaconia is irrelevant and unnecessary - crossing into "prurient and voyeuristic". --Eqdoktor 10:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

These things happened and have been the subject of a massive depth of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. Which are the requirements of WP:Notability, which is the Wikipedia standard for inclusion.

See also WP:LIVING "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

It seems odd to assert that sources like CNN, the BBC, and other prize winning newspapers abandon their standards when it comes to covering entertainment figures and declare that they are mere gossip rags. Wowaconia 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindly do not set up Straw man arguments by misrepresenting my position. I never asserted nor declared CNN and BBC "mere gossip rags".

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

What sort of journalistic standards of fair and balanced coverage does Jeannete Wells have to adhere to when she writes her gossip column in MSNBC [1]? I grabbed this gossip page at random but I believe it illustrates the point that gossip pages/"entertainment" news (even published by NBC) do not meet WP:V standards. Specifically they fail WP:SPS -

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.

So, yeah - you can find details of Spears umbrella trashing incident and "reasons" for shaving her hair (and other celebrity stuff) in the entertainment news and gossip pages of respectable news outlets BUT these sections in by themselves fail Wikipedia's WP:SPS criteria. I believe Wikipedia and its editors must show restraint in selecting what to include in an Encyclopedia article of a living person.

Moving on, while it is true that WP:Notability and WP:BLP allow for the presentation of unflattering information. It does not give free license to include every single item you can find in excruciating detail. Specifically from WP:BLP again:

• "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject."

As to the criteria to apply to when selecting news events of celebrities (in this case Spear) to be included in Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia:Notability (news) or WP:NOTNEWS provide a useful guideline - Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact. In this case, within the context of Spear's career and biography. I believe that most of the items listed above (2007 rehab stint), even if it could possibly be reliably sourced (which I also dispute) do not raise to the standard as laid out in WP:NOTNEWS.

If the above seems long winded - I apologize, I may have too much time on my hands but I see this as a problem within Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia editors have picked up a bad habit from todays modern news media. It's All the news thats fit to print NOT All the news you can print. --Eqdoktor 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see the question of inclusion causes quite a response from its opponents, one of whom apparently has seen my call to seek the input of the noticeboard as an invitation to continue an extensive detailed argument from the article’s talk page on to this noticeboard.

Below is a link to an older version of the section that was deemed to have “too much information” by those opposing providing details, (Note: I am not advocating that everything that was included in this older edit be included but I ask for it to be reviewed as compared to the existing segment to judge if any details found there should be placed back in)

The link to the older edit is here Please compare to the current edit here Thanks for your consideration --Wowaconia 19:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is little difference between those two versions from the uninvolved Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Neither of them is appropriate in an encyclopedia because they are both overloaded with celebrity-fanatic detail.

I underlined "that does not mean it has a place here," "even if true" and "raise to the standard as laid out in WP:NOTNEWS" in Eqdoktor's earlier post to add emphasis to the point I am making in this post. — Athænara ✉ 10:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A sample of the sort of thing some (usually anonymous) editors try to add to this encyclopedia article: Talk:Britney Spears#How about an External Link to the following blog entry, describing a homeless man's opinion of the recent news of her public behaviour.

Wikipedian editors have been on the job, though, appropriately reducing excessive amounts of unencyclopedic material. — Æ. ✉ 05:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Stacy McCain Robert Stacy McCain (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Questionable defamatory material appears cut and pasted from another site.[2] Not verifiable from the cite it claims the material comes from. [3] Robert Stacy McCain personally denied the charge. [4] McCain's response also shows Wikipedia is the only source now for this questionable content. [5] Raw hit piece intended to slander. Obama bin Levin 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Real problems exist in this article, but not exactly the problem expressed above, which is a stanard "he-says-she-says." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been no edits to the article since the day of this report. — Athænara ✉ 06:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel Debbie Schlussel (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Debbie Schlussel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - typical strong POV possibly defamatory stuff. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Eyes open. Removed some unreferenced stuff, tagged others with fact tags. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo Kurt Nimmo (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Kurt Nimmo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) had been protected after an edit war over an analysis based on one entry this person made in one blog entry. There's a problem here with WP:NPOV as far as undue weight with this being the fourth sentence in the artcle, and possibly WP:OR because it's a synthesis and not a direct quote, and possibly WP:ATT as this author has written plenty else (magazine articles and a book) without expressing the opinion (i.e. Holocaust denial) given him here. The user who kept removing the controversial sentence was blocked for 3RR. I haven't edited the article but I'm concerned enough to bring this to y'alls attention. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification the user who was repeatedly removing this statement was blocked for a 3RR violation on a different article, a block which has expired a while ago. I don't see what this comment has to do with the issue being discussed. Isarig 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Annoynmous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Two formerly frequent editors of this now protected article have been blocked more than once. — Athænara ✉ 05:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Johann Hari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - BLP issue in Johann Hari RFC

We have a dispute that could use some BLP expertise at Talk:Johann_Hari#Request for Comment: Disputed Photo. Briefly summarized, the parties dispute whether an image is usable in the Johann Hari bio article - Hari denies that the picture is him, but some editors believe that the image is unmistakably him, and the image is captioned (on Flickr) as being a photo of Hari taken at an event that he later wrote about. Some editors think that the image is unflattering, and others think that it's a good illustration of Hari practicing his craft (journalism). Does the dispute over the photo's accuracy raise BLP issues? The full explanation is here, and comments are welcome here. Thanks, TheronJ 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rochelle Holt (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Rochelle Holt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Irresponsible Defamation of Thousands of People: Potentially Libelous Accusations and the Case of Rochelle Holt

The continued call for the deletion of the article on Rochelle Holt is unjustified and bizarre. Some Wikipedia editors, like JoshuaZ and Skinwalker, explain the proposed deletion because-- in addition to her MFA from the University of Iowa-- Rochelle Holt pursued further studies at Columbia Pacific University (CPU). The campaign of these editors is part of an orchestrated academic witch hunt. The defamation of CPU is an extension of the irresponsible misinformation phenomenon, which is described quite well, for example, in M. Scott Peck's book, People of the Lie (ISBN 0-671454927; Dr. Peck is best known for his best seller, The Road Less Traveled). Wikipedia editor "Skinwalker" calls CPU a "diploma mill", [6]. This is an outrageously false and potentially libelous accusation, which defames thousands of CPU graduates. Here is a brief description of CPU by former FBI educational expert John Bear: [7].

From the list of Notable Alumni in the Columbia Pacific University article, a whole group of renowned people were deleted, among them, John Sigurdsson, Minister of Industry and Commerce of a European nation, Iceland, [8]; Barbara De Angelis, internationally known and New York Times number one best selling author; award winning scientists Frank G. Shellock (UCLA) and Jerome Workman ; as well as the former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, a Honorary Fellow. A supporter of adult education, Prime minister Wilson was a founder of the Open University in Britain and delivered a speech in 1983 at a CPU graduation ceremony held in Birmingham, England. The deletion of these eminent people from the list is part of the attempt to discredit CPU.

The unfair treatment of CPU by biased editors is unprofessional and should be brought to the attention of fair-minded Wikipedia administrators, contributors, as well as Wikipedia donors and in fact everyone concerned about the quality of the Internet, the advancement of knowledge and intellectual freedom.

The article on Rochelle Holt in its present stage clearly shows and documents that she is notable on several accounts and highly eligible to be featured in Wikipedia:

She is listed in the International Who’s Who in Poetry, London: Routledge, ISBN 0948875593, [9], and her biography is featured at universities and literary publications. Please see citations and references in the article. She received numerous professional awards, grants and honors, including nomination for the Pulitzer Prize. She is regarded by her peers as a major poet and a significant science fiction writer. A Readers Digest survey ranked her first among American poets. In addition to her numerous and well-received books, she published over 2000 poems in about 300 periodicals and magazines, and gave over 700 public readings at universities, schools, hospitals, libraries, bookstores and other places. She has originated a new literary genre within the category of the poem-novel, recognized by experts as a significant and innovative accomplishment. Her plays have been performed in theatres. As a publisher she has advanced the works of other professional artists. Among other things, she has published important scholarly work about the life and art of Anais Nin, Henry Miller, Lawrence Durrell as well as others and contributed to the development of literary theory.

I went through uncounted entries in Wikipedia, and I am amazed to see how many of them are basically just short notes about people who cannot really reach the level of notability as Rochelle Holt does, and nevertheless they are featured in Wikipedia. Thank you for looking into this problem. Paul Hartal 15:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Texas (among other states) lists degrees from CPU as "fraudulent or substandard", and thus prohibited for various uses under Texas law. The use of "fraudulent or substandard" degrees in violation of this prohibition is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas.[10] "Diploma mill" does not satisfy NPOV, but mentioning the controversy should not be an issue of BLP. Everything else is a WP:N argument. I'll take a look at the page tonight, but if Wikipedia had an entry for all 4000 poets in the International Who's Who in Poetry... -- TedFrank 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Texas law (and of other states) is unconstitutional. To deny California laws and standards violate the rights and status of California as part of the United States of America. A federal court ruled against Oregon in this regard. In a separate case,when CPU protested, ODA removed its designation of CPU as a "diploma mill", and simply does not accept CPU degrees in Oregon. This is also unconstitutional but not libelous. A huge difference! Paul Hartal 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to make constitutional claims about Texas educational policy, even if those constitutional claims had merit, which they do not. (Texas is no more obligated to accept California's licensing of CPU as an "educational institution" than they are to accept the fact that California licensed me as a lawyer.) It's fair under WP:NPOV to note the disputed status of a CPU degree. -- TedFrank 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted at 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC) as per result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochelle Holt. — Athænara ✉ 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Roger J. Geronimo (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Roger J. Geronimo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Editorial Bias and Potentially Libelous Accusations: The Case of Roger J. Geronimo

The Roger J. Geronimo article has been featured on Wikipedia for quite a long time and edited by a number of contributors who did not propose its deletion. Why then suddenly the urgency and the change in policy? Also the announcement is given in a dictatorial tone. Some administrators seem to forget that Wikipedia exists in a democratic society supported by donors!

Roger Geronimo was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan. This alone makes him a notable person. He is also a noted tenor. The Internet is a relatively new medium and most of the reliable sources on him are in “old fashioned” printed publications.

It is quite evident that Roger Geronimo’s position as president of Columbia Pacific University (CPU),[11], [12], [13], does not make him very popular with editors such as JoshuaZ and Skinwalker. They either ignore or are confused concerning the legal status of CPU degrees in California. Skinwalker calls CPU a “diploma mill” (20:53, 7 March 2007, UTC), which is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines because he irresponsibly defames living persons! [14]. His outrageously false and potentially libelous accusation defames thousands of CPU graduates. Mind you, a diploma mill is a bogus school, which sells phoney degrees. CPU on the other hand was a real school, accredited (approved) by the State of California where students earned their degrees by hard work. Here is a brief description of CPU by former FBI educational expert John Bear: [15]. Skinwalker refuses to accept the fact that the court that closed CPU did not adjudicate that CPU was a diploma mill. In fact, it ruled that CPU degrees earned before June 1997 are legally valid in California because until that date the school was state approved. Moreover, the State of California acknowledges that these CPU degree holders are eligible to sit for professional licensing examinations, similarly to graduates of regionally accredited universities. So calling CPU a degree mill is malicious misinformation. Skinwalker, and others with similar agendas, should be banned from editing CPU related subjects, or at least apologize for their irresponsible and defamatory words.

Thank you for looking into this matter. Paul Hartal 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Texas (among other states) lists degrees from CPU as "fraudulent or substandard", and thus prohibited for various uses under Texas law. The use of "fraudulent or substandard" degrees in violation of this prohibition is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas.[16] "Diploma mill" does not satisfy NPOV, but mentioning the controversy should not be an issue of BLP. -- TedFrank 16:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted at 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC). The reason which was given: "On PROD for five or more days. Notability." — Athænara ✉ 03:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinbad (actor) Sinbad (actor) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Sinbad (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (1) - Based on a link I received today, the Wikipedia site reported that Sinbad had died of a heart attack. A few minutes later, and after sending numerous email, the information posted had been removed. Aren't there rules on how quickly information can be posted or removed? I thought that Wikipedia was a reliable source of information, but now feel that it too is a place for hoaxes and misinformation. That's a really sad realization. 63.78.167.4 21:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead, you should be delighted the error was corrected so fast! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

AP reports that Wikipedia Falsely Reports Sinbad's Death. --Dual Freq 13:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the page was corrected within two hours of the hoax being posted (it was never added to the page for deaths in 2007, which probably would have resulted in a quicker revert). That's not particularly slow, given that few editors probably have the page on their watchlist or edit it regularly. To say that Wikipedia "reported his death" isn't really accurate, anyway, particularly as Wikipedia isn't a news service; this was just vandalism to one article. MisfitToys 21:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sinbad (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (2) - Why does your page on Sinbad indicate that the man has died? This isn't even close to true. You should remove it immediately (per your policy). 135.245.8.35 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article was repeatedly vandalised and has since been has been protected to prevent further vandalism. — Athænara ✉ 00:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Amber Sainsbury Amber Sainsbury (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Amber Sainsbury (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pretty funny - but i dont think it belongs in a bio ... "On top of that she has a great rack" Sadness Sa 10:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty common straighforward vandalism. Feel free to simply remove things like that yourself. - Crockspot 12:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• I see you already did that. This section can be archived. Crockspot 12:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi Li Hongzhi (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

I believe that on this page Li Hongzhi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), which is protected, there are several Wikipedia Policy violations, so I prepared a draft Talk:Li Hongzhi/Edit request 2007-02-14 which fixes some of these violations. Could anyone of you take the time and look over these and perhaps let me know how to proceed further? This is an important page since it ranks first on google see here: [17] --HappyInGeneral 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the editors to this article are the subject of an ArbCom case under the parent article, Falun Gong. CovenantD 08:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong + Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Evidence. — Athænara ✉ 12:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Which means? This is a biography page, if you don't want to use my change proposals, fine, but go in and blank the stuff that is not according to wikipedia policies. Any neutral admin who read the WP:LIVING policy should be able to do that. Just give it a try, and read it. You should be able to notice that there are sections where there are not so self evident (sourced) conclusions are readily presented for the reader, which pretty much amounts to attacking that person. This page ranks first on google so I would think that is important to have it as safe as possible, what do you think? --HappyInGeneral 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:LIVING "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Can I get an answer regarding this? Thx. --HappyInGeneral 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read through the article and it seems pretty well sourced to me. There are two "citation needed" flags, but the sources for that material shouldn't be hard to locate. The fact that you do not like some of this material is not grounds for its removal. --Tomananda 01:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. The page was updated in 16 March 2007: [18] --HappyInGeneral 09:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby Lewis Libby (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Lewis Libby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• FlagFlogg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is actively vandalizing this page. Please check it out when you can.--Dh100 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• 24.113.182.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) may have been used by the same editor. — Athænara ✉ 02:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• FlagFlogg has been blocked for 24 hours. — Æ. ✉ 02:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fermat1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

↑ edits also as 64.231.32.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• LordSerus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• PSRuckman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Disruptive editing continued to plague the article. It has been protected for one week as of 06:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC). — Athænara ✉ 01:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Article unprotected, editing proceeding normally. — Athænara ✉ 12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Article about suspected sockpuppets of a WP editor?

Is this Kosher? Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The real Barbara Schwarz Thanks. Steve Dufour 23:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What article? You inadvertently placed this noticeboard in that category, which has existed since September 2006. I corrected the markup. ("The real Barbara Schwarz" is a username.) — Athænara ✉ 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Steve, please see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. The category is totally self-referential. That is the main area of interest as far as its suitability here that I see. --Justanother 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess I used the {s insteed of the [s. I didn't start the category. I was concerned because saying something suspected about someone seems to be against the living persons policies. Steve Dufour 02:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I found out that there are many lists of suspected sockpuppets, so this one is not an attack on the person as I suspected. The whole idea seems a little strange. Can anyone add a name to one of the lists? Steve Dufour 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dufour: in your first post on this thread, your syntax placed this noticeboard itself in the category. I added ":" (between "[[" and "Category:") to correct that.

In your last edit you removed the text entirely. Without it, your first post was nonsense again, so I restored it and also copyedited my own previous post to make the username distinction clearer.

Justanother: the guideline you cited states that such "self-references are entirely acceptable ... in the Wikipedia namespace" which is where this noticeboard is. How are you applying it here? Did you mean that Dufour is another such sockpuppet? — Athænara ✉ 06:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I removed the name of the article when I found that there were lots of these lists. I had thought that that one was special. Steve Dufour 13:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW does someone suspect that I am a sockpuppet of Barbara? Steve Dufour 15:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Primal therapy Primal therapy (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Primal therapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I have been involved in a dispute over the admissability of content in the Primal therapy article. This dispute on the article talk page has continued as a result of the persistence of User:Randroide and my own inexperience. I believe if I had found this bulletin board earlier the entire discussion of this proposed content would be deleted by now in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Randroide (talk · contribs) claims that his source, a defunct Spanish magazine, Conocer, is "bullet proof" and has not come up with any credible independent sources supporting the magazine's claims. My view is that none of the discussion of this matter belongs on the article talk page. Any dispute resolution if there is to be any should be carried out elsewhere with oblique references to the disputed content. I notified Arthur Janov of the problem and shall do the same regarding this posting.

Unfortunately the discussion is in several segments (sections and subsections) - hard to sort out because I, in my inexperience, accepted User:Randroide's preferred style of posting. They are:

Reversion of potentially libellous material

Restoration of discussion deleted by GrahameKing (only down to but not including The PubMed reference)

Some great links (only the part tacked on by User:Randroide after my signature plus responses right to the next subsection)

Misquote

Translation of quote, but should it be used at all?

Again with the Conocer article

Requests for comment

Back to square one

Links to the deleted stuff / Not libel at all / The buck does not stop here

I hope this helps in sorting out this mess. Please advise me if I need to do anything to remove this content. --GrahameKing 10:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Archive — don't delete: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When pages get too long. — Athænara ✉ 12:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I had considered this but thought archiving a discussion when a dispute was in progress was not an option. But more importantly this still leaves the content accessible by the public. If the article were simply deleted, that would remove the libellous content completely. How could the article be deleted or versions of the talk page containing the questionable content be completely deleted? -- GrahameKing 09:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Taylor Lewis Taylor (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Lewis Taylor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The article has been previously deleted a few times as unsourced and having generated Wikipedia:OTRS complaints. While I'm somewhat uncertain of "unsourced" claims (I think I remember there being some sources cited in one of the deleted versions. In any case, I'm pretty sure that they could be ), the issue of OTRS complaints seems to indicate that this was a request from the subject that the article be taken down (again, I'm not sure of the actual circumstances). The article has been recreated, and I'm trying to work with the author on the article without biting an newcomer, but I am a bit unsure how to proceed. It seems to me that the subject wishes to retreat from the public eye, and therefore even complimentary coverage could be considered "negative", especially where it may provoke questions about his retirement. I unfortunately cannot give the article much attention at the moment, so I thought it would be best to bring it up here. Dancter 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• StevedayUK (talk · contribs) is the author.
• He included text, slightly altered, from a biography by Gregory McIntosh on All Music Guide—the same bio was cited with this url on the user's talk page.
• Other sources, e.g. this 1996 album review by Thom Thurek on ARTISTdirect, are out there.
• The deletion log of previous versions deleted in October and November 2006 (no indication there of who contributed them).
• A message displayed on a Lewis Taylor Music website says "Latest Official News direct from LT's management: Lewis Taylor is no longer active in the music industry and retired in June 2006." — Athænara ✉ 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the subject is once again requesting the removal of the article,[19][20][21] and based on the subsequent blanking of the page by the article creator,[22] it seems that they have assented. I feel that this might qualify the article for a speedy deletion per speedy deletion general criterion #7: "author requests deletion", but am hesitant to speedy-tag it, as it could be argued that some of the cleanup edits by other users could arguably be considered "substantial content". I'm not even sure that a proposed deletion is appropriate, considering that they are meant for reasonably uncontroversial deletions, which this is not. Should this be taken to AfD? Dancter 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've left a message at User talk:Slow Reality, directing the user to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The page could certainly use a POV overhaul and general cleanup (it reads like a music review, not an encyclopedia article), but I don't see any content that is inappropriate for a living person biography... -- Scientizzle 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Article deleted as copyvio. — Æ. ✉ 09:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Gray (pastor) Robert Gray (pastor) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Robert Gray (pastor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article is malicious and libel. Robert Gray is going to trial in the fall of 2007. There has been no finding of guilt. This entry should be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.32.219.17 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 March (UTC)

I just looked at the article and there's nothing visibly libelous about it. All contentious claims are sourced and all of his alleged crimes are treated and referred to as allegations. FCYTravis 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article in its current form certainly is libelous. The source says nothing about the veracity of the current accusations leading to his arrest — he's just been charged. He hasn't even gone up for trial yet; that's not until November. Notice how the media always attributes accusations to others and uses qualifiers like "charged" and "allegedly." We need to do the same, so we don't pass premature (and possibly libelous) judgment. Saying that someone was arrested for performing an action can imply that he did perform that action. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And I guess that's kind of what you said. In my experience, though, I've always been advised not to write copy or headlines using the format of "arrested for X," which is what this article did. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Article deleted. — Athænara ✉ 12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• Brian Baird (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Someone has vandalized the page of Congressman Baird, including changing his university affiliation, his birth date, his religion, and adding multiple references to "My Nuts."

Is it possible to revert the page to its status before all these changes were made?

Thanks, Brian Wagner, Office of Congressman Brian Baird —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggerz (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Our office just made the changes to correct the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggerz (talk • contribs) 18:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have s-protected the entry, as there are appears to be repeated vandalism by multiple anon-IPs. Crum375 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• There had been further vandalism done by 24.124.48.227 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) that was not reverted. I have fixed it and warned the user. Mike Dillon 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mariane Pearl Mariane Pearl (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Mariane Pearl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Not sure if the opening paragraph is vandalism or not. You decide and please edit if appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.111.4.26 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has been edited since your report here, so it's uncertain which paragraph you meant. You may also comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariane Pearl. — Athænara ✉ 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Result: Keep. — Æ. ✉ 12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• Kenny Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I was reading the biography on Dean Smith the retired, legendary UNC coach and I clicked on the link for Kenny Smith whom he coached, and it was a person describing himsef as the sex. I belive it is a prank. Thank you, TylerDurden33 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, stupid vandalism. Fixed. Thank you for pointing it out! Much appreciated. FCYTravis 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg Jonah Goldberg (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Jonah Goldberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Lucianne Goldberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Cheri DiNovo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unverifiable claims that Lyndon B. Johnson is Jonah Goldberg's biological father have been inserted repeatedly into both Jonah's and Lucianne's articles (and Johnson's), along with claims that Lucianne is widely known as "Luci the bat". Amazingly, this is actually the same anonymous APNIC editor as the neverending Cheri DiNovo dispute; Drugs and prostitution is their current target of choice for DiNovo-related attack edits.

They even persist in labelling anybody who reverts their changes as an "attack queer", in removing from talk pages any administrator comment that addresses why they can't do what they're doing, and in vandalizing user talk pages with personal attacks. I've taken to blocking any IP number that makes these edits for 48 hours as soon as I see it, but I can't speak to how effective this will be since this has been coming from a dynamic IP range and blocks haven't stopped them previously. Bearcat 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask: must the volunteers here hunt down {{userlinks}} by searching at least four article histories or will you (please) provide some? Or were you thinking more along the lines of {{Biography semi-protection}}? — Athænara ✉ 10:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The edits have come from a variety of IP numbers; the only consistent thing about it is that they've always resolved to APNIC, which is a domain registrar for Australia and Southeast Asia. Examples:

124.120.223.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

124.120.224.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

58.10.167.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

58.10.167.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

58.10.167.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

58.10.102.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

125.25.128.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

125.25.133.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

125.25.131.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

58.10.102.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

58.10.102.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I don't know if edit blocks are going to be effective; every time we block one, they just come back a few hours later with a different IP number. At this point, all of the biographies have been sprotected, while Drugs and prostitution hasn't. The problem with sprotection, on the other hand, is that this person simply doesn't quit; the DiNovo business started last November, and the last time an administrator tried unprotecting DiNovo's article the anon was vandalizing it again within a few days. So I genuinely don't know what can be done here, which is why I'm looking for input. Bearcat 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think continued sprotection is appropriate for articles which are being targeted by determined anons. — Æ. ✉ 12:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: The anon user is also now adding the unsourced claims about Jonah Goldberg's paternity directly to Lyndon B. Johnson itself. And on the DiNovo front, they've added plastic surgery to their list of targets, with repeated addition of a link to DiNovo's website, but captioned as "botched plastic surgery" or "plastic surgery errors" or some other such attack edit. Bearcat 09:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest DiNovo target: hag. This has gotten beyond tiresome; is there nothing we can do besides constantly reverting or keeping pages permanently sprotected? Bearcat 08:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A huge amount of the recent vandalism has been from 58.10.167.* Range-block it for a week and see what happens. Derex 09:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Gillian McKeith (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Gillian McKeith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - There's some discussion on the Gillian McKeith talk page about BLP and ATT.

Look at this Google.co.uk search using the terms dr gillian mckeith

There's some text at the bottom saying "In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org."

'Read more about the request' is hyperlinked to UK individual complains of defamation, at chillingeffects.org

UK newspaper the Guardian has mentioned this in this column.

Some wikipedians would like to say that Gillian McKeith requested that Google remove a link. Other wikipedians are very much against this.

I would very much welcome some non-involved person to give me some advice. Thanks. (Full Disclosure - I want it in.) DanBeale 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Neil Gaiman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - People are consistently putting on Gaimans page that he is the son of a Scientologist, I can find no evidence for this except for the fact that the people who put it up when there was NO evidence, are the same people who claim to have now FOUND evidence - even at that there is no evidence that the person they claim to have found an artile about is Neil Gaiman. This MUST be removed it does him great disservice --Foxydavid 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you have removed that mention. I have also removed a mention at David Gaiman, as the assertion of relationship was not supported by any sources. If such sources are forthcoming, editors may re-add that information to these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Would the article 'Head bars son of cult man' in The Times Aug 13, 1968 not be a suitable source? Could this article not be mentioned in the biog page? This article or 'evidence' as Foxydavid puts it, was initially mentioned by other users, I personally had not seen it at first, (which I mentioned to FoxyDavid - there does not seem to be anyone else discussing the issue on the talk page at the moment) but now have seen it on the Times digital archive. Please see the talk page of the Neil Gaiman article for a reproduction of the article from the Times. Personally I think it does him no disservice whatsoever. Magic Pickle 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Rick Sanchez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Can someone please check out this page. Someone keeps adding the fact that Sanchez was drunk and killed someone, eventhough he was not charged. he says in the Rick Sanchez discussion board that

“He wasn't charged with hitting anyone, that doesn't mean he didn't.” He also refrences a stairical article tht mentions in passing that he hit someone, but does not elaborate. This is obviously a basher. The alleged incident he is talking about happened 17 years ago and cannot be confirmed. Please help stop thgis vandalism. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.202.37 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes in the wording of the article. The incident seems to be sourced. Steve Dufour 02:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• Ellen Simonetti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The entry for Ellen Simonetti has experienced a series of problems ranging from serious spamming/disparaging/insulting of the subject to a running set of colorful entries in the discussion section. We don't seem to be converging on a consensus.

The source of contention, IMHO, is the NPOV of the article vs. those who would make some fairly serious negative statements about the subject. A week ago we started with [23] as of today we have [24]. Together with a long discussion that seems to wander around from point of the article rather too much, with various folks expressing their POV regarding E.S.

The article was up for deletion several days ago; at the time I thought the article should remain. But now I am not so sure, given the insistence of a select few people on including what I feel is POV material. The article has stabilized now that it has a degree of protection from anonymous contributors, but I fear that 6 mons. from now the article will be back to the nasty state it was several days ago. Help or advice is requested. Bdushaw (talk · contribs) 09:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(Footnote: previous Simonetti discussion in BLP/N Archive 11.) The POV junk should not remain; the article probably should. If we deleted every article feckless fans and unencyclopedic bloggers wanted to load with junk, there wouldn't be much encyclopedia left!

I cleaned it up a bit more, yielding this version and I have it on my watchlist now. Bdushaw: the last fifteen edits before that were yours—please take a break from the article. — Athænara ✉ 11:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention; I appreciate your recent changes. Signing off from E.S. - Bdushaw 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Before I finally leave this entry, there is something I've just noticed - A careful (or not so careful) look at our discussion page [25] seems to suggest that user "ihatequeenofsky" and user "Chulcoop" are one and the same; the unsigned entries from "ihatequeenofsky" have been labeled as from "Chulcoop". If so, then I have been arguing with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which is so weird as to be a little frightening. If so, then I believe this is "sock puppetry", etc.; the discussion seems to have been a major waste of time. Bdushaw 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• User Chulcoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has edited almost nothing else and created quite a bit of disruption since registration just two weeks ago. The article talk page has been refactored and archived in Talk:Ellen Simonetti/Archive 1. — Æ. ✉ 10:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ref: Talk:Ellen Simonetti#This is an encyclopedia (note "oh yes it is" * edit summary cited there) in re persistent disruption. — Athænara ✉ 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)  (emphasis added)

→ FOOTNOTE: "oh yes it is" * was Chulcoop's response to the previous edit summary: "Encyclopedia, not Tabloid#As a sensational, gossip-filled newspaper. Official policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site."

• 24.44.253.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) now disrupting in similar manner. — Æ. ✉ 08:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of this article is no longer completely out of control. — Æ. ✉ 10:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Reposted briefly

I am putting E.S. back on the list here for the third time - I don't know how to link in the archived entries for Ellen Simonetti here. One of our disruptive editors is just off of a week-long block and is back at it again already, now having nominated the article for deletion, though we had that discussion a month ago or so. It has become a nice article, IMHO (special thanks to AE!), if fellow wikipedians can keep it that way. I think it best that I let others handle this situation; I am going to stay out of it. I've also been working on the article for blog where similar problems for E.S. could appear. Bdushaw 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• 24.44.253.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - who is also
• Chris mais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - tried to {{prod}} it on the article talk page, from which the tag was properly removed on the following day.

The previous noticeboard discussion is in Archive 12. — Athænara ✉ 01:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Branson Richard Branson (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Richard Branson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Please update his file for someone has clearly been tampering with it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.145.206 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• A dozen or more anons vandalised the article repeatedly. Several have been blocked. — Athænara ✉ 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve Bartelstein Steve Bartelstein (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Steve Bartelstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Contributors are repeatedly adding libelous and unsubstantiated information to the biography, including unsourced accusations of drug use. Cswpride 01:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the stuff right after I got there. Maybe it should be semi-protected. It needs some sources too, BTW. Steve Dufour 02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Arun Shourie Arun Shourie (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Arun Shourie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A user Fear the Fire keeps adding a "criticism" section that is based on his interpretation of some of Shourie's positions and "refuted" based on the user's own personal interpretation of the Koran, which is a violation of WP:NOR and essentially serves to defame Shourie by using wikipedia to broadcast an opinion piece on the man. His post [26] has been reverted [27] but he re-reverted[28]. Birdsmight 15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fear the Fire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has since this report been blocked indefinitely. — Athænara ✉ 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Sandra Day O'Connor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I removed the following from the "Supreme Court jurisprudence" section article:

  On the occasion of O'Connor's retirement, conservative commentator Ann Coulter called O'Connor "Reagan's biggest mistake." [29]

  Coulter's opinion on O'Connor seems non-notable to me and seems to conflict with the Biased or malicious content section of the BLP. Specifically, her opinion seems to represent a neligible minority opinion and is not justified in the context of the "Supreme Court jurisprudence" section. Perhaps if the attribution of Coulter's statement included some wording about how it was specifically related to O'Connor's jurisprudence the inclusion could be relevant, but as it is it is just a malicious opinion that is out of place. I started a discussion on the article's talk page. Mike Dillon 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Coulter's opinion may not be Wiki-appropriate, but the failing of the O'Connor article is the absence of legitimate criticism of O'Connor's jurisprudence. The recent Greenberg bestseller doesn't paint O'Connor in a good light, and there's nothing in the article about it. -- TedFrank 15:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Jones Kelly Jones (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Kelly Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Is it just me, or is this article stub-quality, and extremely 'harsh'? The words "arse" and "twat" were both linked to the WP articles - WP:CONTEXT. These words were quoted, as are other phrases which posses no citations - I'm slightly concerned about the tendency towards libelous comments here, and would appreciate someone taking a look at this from a good point of view - WP:POV. Thanks, Carl Turner 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Jim Bob Duggar Jim Bob Duggar (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Jim Bob Duggar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Lilkunta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) continue to re-insert information, ignore explanation of verifiability and WP:Citation requirements. Other users doing the same but User:Lilkunta particularly troublesome. Please assist. // Joie de Vivre 20:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• The reference Lilkunta wanted to add, a September 9, 2001 article which is in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette archives and reproduced as linked on the QuiverFull website, is suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia article. The user seems to respect Wikipedia:Attribution. Am I missing something here? — Athænara ✉ 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• It wasn't that they wanted to add a reference, it's that they keep reverting to a version that reads like a storybook, is POV in tone, and contains questionable references. I am pretty sure that bloggingbaby.com does not meet the requirements for WP:Attribution. The POV and storybook tone concerns are in regards to this section: "A friend of hers talked about a movie that told of the end of the world. Michelle wanted to make sure she'd be ready (should such an event take place), so when her friend invited her to a revival, she eagerly went, and later committed her life to God as a result." Another quote: "They decided having children was for God to control--not them." I took time to explain my reasoning on Talk:Jim Bob Duggar and on Lilkunta's talk page, but they just reverted. The revision, before and after Lilkunta's revert is here. Joie de Vivre 23:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I understand now. You seem to have cleared the article of that sort of unencyclopedic sloppiness—well done. — Athænara ✉ 14:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• (Section briefly returned to noticeboard)

I've returned this section from the archive because there has subsequently been more, not less, disruption from user Lilkunta. See also: AN/3RR and MedCab case. This article needs more attention from additional neutral and experienced editors. — Athænara ✉ 03:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim Bob Duggar help needed

Hello, I am assisting as a member of the Mediation Cabal in attempting to resolve an editing dispute between two editors on the biography of Jim Bob Duggar. I have requested both parties to the dispute take a 5 day break to cool off while I solicit unbiased opinions and suggestions from members of this project. Please examine the article, the talk page and the case page if you are interested in helping resolve this dispute. If someone is interested in improving the article themselves as a third party editor so much the better!--Ulysses411 04:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That article is not in good shape. I got a start on correcting the references, which are presently scattered seemingly at random through the text. I'll have to edit the text into some kind of encyclopedic shape before I know where they should actually be placed.

Question (for any experienced editors): should a list of children with name, gender, birth date for each be in any Wikipedia BLP? I tend toward No on that. — Athænara ✉ 05:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've finished the cleanup. Neutral point of view editors: please assess the results at your convenience. — Æ. ✉ 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance in cleaning up this article. I think it is much more Wiki in tone and format than it was. I will be interested in the reactions by the parties to the dispute.--Ulysses411 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Praful Bidwai Praful Bidwai (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

A problem at Praful Bidwai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Birdsmight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), a possible sock of a banned user, has made repeated edits to the article. I have attempted to discuss it with him at length on his talk page; the correspondence is largely copied on the article talkpage. The latest set of reverts focus on criticism of this (mainstream, if fairly obscure) columnist that is sourced to a self-published website and a fairly obvious partisan website. The editor in question says that as the contentious material is "not ad hominem" it is "not libelous". He has ceased to discuss it and now reverts without discussion. I have to push off shortly; I would appreciate another pair of eyes on this. --Hornplease 15:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also appreciate some commentary on this matter. I feel that the criticism of Yvette Rosser[30] is good enough to be in the Praful Bidwai article as Rosser is a scholar and the article referenced is a copy of an academic work from the University of Texas. The other one is kept on the basis of notability.However, if consensus of users here determines that these are not worthy on blp factors then I will back down on this matter.Birdsmight 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained at length to this editor, the article referenced is not an academic work, but a polemical tract; it is not hosted at a university server, but at partisan website; Rosser herself is possibly a 'scholar', but not in any way one of encyclopaedic notability; and even so, that is not germane to the issue. This has been said so many times, and ignored each time. Hornplease 05:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And as been explained at length to this editor, notable opinions are valid in such cases. There are ample examples where similar groups and organizations (such as CAMERA or NGO Monitor) are cited in biographical articles. Of course, if bulk of the people more knowledgable about the subtleties of blp disputes comment about keeping (or removing) Rosser's criticism, then some progress will have been made.Rosser's encyclopedic notability is based on her credentials and quotability in this case. Birdsmight 06:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As an partisan scholar unattached to any academic institute, Rosser he has no 'credentials' or 'quotability' in this case. BLP does not permit partisan websites. There is nothing else that is relevant, unless policy changes. 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The University of Texas at Austin is not a partisan website. Claims to that effect clearly indicate that I am not conversing with a good faith editor. Birdsmight 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to update everyone: as I expected, the above editor was revealed to be a sockpuppet of a particularly malicious little goblin named HKelkar whom the ArbCom turfed out for precisely this sort of thing a few months ago. Hornplease 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rocky Anderson Rocky Anderson (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Rocky Anderson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Statement that Rocky Anderson" is an embarrassment"appears in Google search results. This should be removed as it clearly is a personal opinion. If one searches from Google, this is a very prominent result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.242.196 (talk • contribs) 00:15, March 20, 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Lesko Matthew Lesko (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Matthew Lesko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article has been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitimothy (talk • contribs) 01:26, March 20, 2007 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane Seth MacFarlane (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Seth MacFarlane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The criticisms section contains information sourced from essentially a personal rants site(at least to me), and not worthy of inclusion in the article. I tried removing it, but it was re-inserted by a user.
• DizzofDailyRaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has admitted the material is from his/her site. I could remove it again, but I feel that user will just intervene again. Especially since that specific user earlier on has re-inserted that section after it was deleted by someone else 132.206.72.204 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

ETA: See talk page at the bottom for the discussion. 132.206.72.204 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved through WP:COI and WP:RS. -- TedFrank 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

George Clinton (funk musician) George Clinton (funk musician) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Mass63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) appears to be vandalizing this and other bio pages (see Mike North, Don Cornelius and others). Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but it might be helpful if some admins check it out. Notmyrealname 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The user (at least under that user name) stopped after your warning. — Athænara ✉ 14:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• O. J. Simpson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I'm not a big fan of OJ, but I seriously doubt there's any evidence that supports the claim that his religion involves eating babies. Also, there is some extremely editorialized speech at the beginning of the article. Sure, I think he did it too, however, that opinion is not a valid biographical piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selhini (talk • contribs) 05:06, March 23, 2007 (UTC)

• 76.172.220.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - vandalism reverted less than four hours later. — Athænara ✉ 06:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Darl McBride Darl McBride (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Darl McBride (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Please note that in the entry "Darl McBride" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darl_McBride erroneously states that "IKON terminated him in 1998 after his involvement in the execution of 33 business acquisitions" This information is false and slanderous. According to the Wikipedia policy Mr. McBride asks that this information or entire page, which contains numerous falsehoods, misstatements and missreprentations be removed. The entire entry is biased. Attempts to remove this in the past have been unsuccessful. I would respectfully ask that you help us correct this information and block any attempts to modify the corrected information.

Again, in accordance with the information posted on Wikipedia which states: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous" the information on this site is both controversial and very poorly sourced. The specific statement about his termination is certainly libelous.

Again we respectfully ask that you assist in the removal of this missinformation. //Cbush 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced, so there's no problem. And yes, he did get fired. MER-C 11:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The source that is used (Stone, Brad (July 2004), The Linux Killer, Wired Magazine) confirms that IKON fired McBride. He filed a lawsuit against McBride, they countersued, and in the end, it was settled out of court. IKON paid McBride a $1.4 million settlement. It is controversial but it is well-sourced, so it should stay in the article. Wired Magazine is a reliable source. NeilinOz1 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Julia Duffy Julia Duffy (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Julia Duffy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Julia Duffy's death prognosticated? Article cites her death as March 26, 2007 on March 25th? Someone should edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.110.189 (talk • contribs) 05:12, March 26, 2007 (UTC)

• 60.49.33.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been reverted. — Athænara ✉ 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gerard Way Gerard Way (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

"While My Chemical Romance were staying in The Colorado Hotel in Michigan, his younger brother, Mikey Way, the bass player of MCR found Gerard hanging from the bathroom door of his suite [1]. All attempts to resusitate him on the scene failed, and was pronounced dead on hotel property around midday on March 23. The band have issued a statement urging fans to "stay strong in this time of need"[2]. Other bands have issued their condolences, with rival band Fall out Boy stating that "the rock industry has lost a god"[3]"

This is UNTRUE Gerard is still alive as he played two shows after the 23rd of march please change this before there is unrest between fans due to this false information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helena14 (talk • contribs) 21:36, March 26, 2007 (UTC)

Your report is malformed and it's unclear what article you're referring to. No action can be taken until your report is not only in the appropriate format, but also makes enough sense for anyone to actually be able to do something about it. --Deskana (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the user is referring to Gerard Way. Looks as though all reports of Mr. Way's untimely "passing" have been reverted, though. Ispy1981 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)