Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

Shortcuts

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

DYK and List of New York Legislature members expelled or censured

List of New York Legislature members expelled or censured

There is a DYK hook proposed for this article, see nomination page Template_talk:Did_you_know#List_of_New_York_Legislature_members_expelled_or_censured:

Did you know ... that in 1781, New York State Senator Ephraim Paine was expelled from the Senate for neglect of duty?

There is a discussion about whether to highlight this particular article through the DYK process. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#DYK_hook_about_fact_of_history_from_over_200_years_ago. Editors that contribute here at BLPN are encouraged to contribute there at the thread at WT:DYK. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it if users expressed their views at this thread rather than at the DYK thread, so it's clear that the matter has been resolved at the BLP noticeboard. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Either way is fine. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just having a bit of a look and I was wondering, this hook, it a higher degree of exposure and increases traffic to the article greatly? There are only the two living people with articles Mike Cole and Hiram_Monserrate and it's true the content about them is in that list is completely negative.Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the page itself focuses on individuals that were sanctioned about 100 years ago, or more. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the objective of putting the article as DYK? Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To highlight an interesting fact from a brand-new article, and to highlight the work of Wikipedia contributors for writing or expanding new sourced content on this project. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which puts it on the front page and attracts a high traffic viewing figure, Wikipedia:Did you know there are a lot of experienced editors involved there that I am shy to comment but, I also am a bit hesitant to support as regards the BLP concerns and the aspects of setting a president for such comparable situations in the future, although the hook is not specifically about the living people I was drawn to them when I read the article. One way I would be able to support DYK for the list is if the written content was removed about the living people (only while the DYK was on the front page) and only a link to their complete article was left. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A reasonable suggestion. I have shortened two entries, and removed another two entirely (two where individuals were investigated but no actual sanction itself was enacted in the end result). Cirt (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Monserrate should be removed. He's not actually been expelled, as there seems to be a judicial appeal pending.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was actually expelled. This caused the Governor to have to call a special election. The appeal actually upheld the expulsion. See Judge Upholds Expulsion of Convicted NY Senator: Judge won't block expulsion of New York state lawmaker convicted of assault. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but "Attorneys for Monserrate have not yet commented. They are still deciding whether to appeal the judge's decision or to pursue a similar suit in state court." [1]--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The special election is 8 days away. The individual was expelled. The seat is currently vacant. To date, Monserrate has not put forth a 2nd appeal. Unless you have a source to the contrary? Is the State Senate seat not currently vacant? Cirt (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't. I still think this is where we don't do recent stuff very well. Makes me twitchy.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well we have multiple sources confirming he was expelled. We also have multiple sources subsequently confirming that said expulsion was upheld on appeal in United States federal court. And the seat is now vacant. So the former Senator was expelled. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) At present, it's a clearly true statement that Senator Monserrate was expelled from the State Senate. At most, the article should bear a notation that the expulsion is being disputed in federal court (although an initial motion for a preliminary injunction was denied). No view on DYK'ing the article at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source confirming that Monserrate is currently disputing the expulsion in federal court. Unless you can suggest a source that does? Cirt (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. this article. In the words of the story, "on Wednesday afternoon, the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals granted Monserrate an expedited appeal, with briefs due between March 2 and March 9, and oral arguments scheduled for March 12." I've also personally verified that the appeal is pending on the Second Circuit's ECF site (Docket No. 10-604). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you, Newyorkbrad, for suggesting that source. I have added it to the article, and updated both the list article and the article about Hiram Monserrate. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Hiram Monserrate's appeal claim = rejected, by United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See [2] and [3]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any further thoughts on whether this can go on the Main Page via DYK? cmadler (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seyran Ohanyan (yet again)

Basically, the previous issues involved the insertion of Azerbaijani propaganda that stated that the current Defense Minister of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic is an "alleged war criminal", making accusations that he was personally involved in a deliberate massacre of civilians. As has been indicated in the talk pages of both articles, there are no sources that say Ohanyan was at Khojali, and there are no sources that say those elements of the 366th CIS regiment that were involved in the attack on Khojali were involved in the subsequent massacre (which took place at a different time and location, some 4 to 5 km from Khojali) of civilians who had fled the town during the attack. Yet there is in the Khojaly Massacre article a sectioning titled "The role of 366th regiment of CIS army", in which Seyran Ohanyan's name is mentioned. The clearly intended implication is that the regiment, with Ohanian, took part in the massacre: i.e., it is a restatement of the unsubstantiated "war criminal" allegation that was removed for BLP reasons. I've tried to remove it, but it has been reinserted. Meowy 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the editor who reinserted the content has confirmed what I assumed was the intended implication [[6]] Meowy 03:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the last time I tried to work on this BLP issue, you are trying to intimidate me away from this subject. Please do not delete my posts to this noticeboard. Once again, there are several partisan editors on this article, and their actions make it almost impossible to edit on it, at least for me.--Jarhed (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last time you "worked" on this BLP issue you were warned about your gross incivility [7]. You are on record as saying you "don't even know where Azerbaijani is", and, for this subject, "I can't summon up any reason to care about it". And since you have also stated you "don't give a fig about wikipedia proceedings or formal complaints", I again ask you why you are frequenting a noticeboard about Wikipedia proceedings? Meowy 03:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that this person was the commander of the 2nd battalion of the 366th regiment, and after the regiment was withdrawn he remained in Karabakh. No one denies this fact, including Ohanyan himself. So I see no problem here. De Waal mentions him a few times in his book:

Around 50 of the 350 or so remaining soldiers of the 366th Regiment were Armenian, including the commander of its 2nd Battalion, Major Seiran Ohanian. For the Karabakh Armenians, the regiment and its large stores of weaponry were a godsend. Even before the August putsch in Moscow, soldiers had been offering their weapons for sale or for hire. The American human rights activist Scott Horton says that in July 1991, an officer named Yury Nikolayevich, mistaking him for a businessman, offered to sell him a tank for three thousand dollars. Others tell how Armenians simply paid the regimental officers in vodka or rubles to open fire or deploy its weapons. [8]

Following the ignominious part it had played in the storming of Khojali, the Soviet 366th Regiment was ordered by Moscow to withdraw from Karabakh. At the beginning of March 1992, a column of troops was sent to Stepanakert to escort the regiment out, but local Armenians blocked the roads to stop its leaving. The soldiers were eventually airlifted out by helicopter, and almost all their equipment stayed behind. Major Ohanian also stayed, as did many of his Armenian comrades and several Slavic officers - including the would-be lank salesman Yury Nikolayevkh, who was later spotted training Karabakhi fighters. On 10 March, the 366th Regiment was disbanded in Georgia. [9]

This has nothing to do with BLP, we just state a fact that after the attack on Khojaly the 366th regiment was evacuated and disbanded, but some of its personnel, including Ohanyan, stayed in Karabakh, and joined the Armenian forces. It is sourced info that one denies. Grandmaster 06:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Meowy is wrong by saying that "there are no sources that say those elements of the 366th CIS regiment that were involved in the attack on Khojali were involved in the subsequent massacre". Quite the opposite, the sources say that soldiers of 366th regiment took part in killing of civilians. Human Rights Watch conducted its own investigation, which is available online in full. It says in particular:

At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. [10] Grandmaster 06:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the editor who reinserted the content has confirmed what I assumed was the intended implication - Meowy, don't be misinterpreting what I write. Ohanian is blamed for taking part in the Khojaly Massacre. What I am telling you is that he's not formally indicted through the war crimes tribunal due to the fact that he's in the office. Azerbaijani side may or may not convict him through the war crimes tribunal but the fact of the matter is that he's currently blamed for participation and the information is sourced. You can't deny that the facts that he commanded the units of 366th regiment. Hope that clarifies Tuscumbia (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if those who are replying actually read what is being reported by Meowy. There is evidence that the 366th did attack Khojali and Grandmaster is providing quotes to support that (as if anyone questioned it). There is on the other hand no evidence that the 366th was implicated in any massacres, which is the point made by Meowy.

The 366th participated in the capture of the city because it was attacked.

The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Feb 25, 1992. pg. A.9

Azerbaijanis attacked the last remaining Soviet military base in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, killing two soldiers and wounded two others, news reports said yesterday. Azerbaijanis also fired rockets at the territory's administrative capital, Stepanakert, and seized several major munitions depots. ITAR-Tass said four civilians were also killed in Azerbaijani attacks, and at least 35 wounded.

Le Soleil Lundi 24 février 1992, p. B6, L'Azerbaïdjan attaque, AP

Un porte-parole du département local des Affaires intérieures cité par ITAR-Tass a déclaré que les militaires de ce régiment avaient commencé à exprimer ouvertement leur mécontentement concernant la neutralité de leurs commandants, alors que les forces de l'Azerbaïdjan tirent non seulement sur la population de cette enclave arménienne mais aussi sur les soldats restés neutres. Translation: A spokesperson of the local department of Interior quoted by ITAR-Tass declared that the soldiers of this regiment [366th] had started to openly express their dissatisfaction concerning the neutrality of their commanders, when Azerbaïdjan's forces were shooting not only on the population of this Armenian enclave but also on the soldiers remaining neutral.

Le Soleil Mardi 25 février 1992, p. A13, Les troupes de la CEI répliqueront dans le Haut-Karabakh

Le commandement régional de la CEI a pris cette décision au lendemain de l'attaque par des forces azéries d'un régiment d'infanterie mécanisée basé à Stepanakert, capitale du Haut-Karabakh.
Translation: The regional command of the CIS took this decision shortly after the attack by Azeri forces of a mechanized infantry regiment based on Stepanakert, capital of Haut-Karabakh.

The battle in which the 366th was implicated made fewer than a hundred of victims, probably most of them combatants.

Toronto Star, Feb. 27, 1992, pg. A. 17, Reuter

Azeri Interior Minister Tofik Kerimov said almost 100 Azeris were killed in the battle, with 250 wounded. Armenian sources put the figures far lower.

There is actually no evidence that the 366th was implicated in what happened 4 to 5 km away from there... in fact Azerbaijan counter-attacked just hours later.

Even on March 1, the information was unclear, in contrast with Goltz’s crew. CanWest News, March 1, 1992. pg. 1

The boys are among refugees from the Azeri village of Khojaly, captured last week by Armenian paramilitary troops, reportedly backed by Russian troops from the former Soviet army.
Accounts by refugees and authorities helping them in Agdam contained many conflicting details on what happened in the latest of what Azerbaijan says is steady success by Armenians capturing Azeri villages in the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Some refugees reported seeing people killed, but the eyewitness accounts were on a much smaller scale than the death toll reported by the press service of Azeri president Ayez Mutalibov, quoting Khojaly prefect Elhan.

Now, the Wikipedia article on Khojaly massacre contains a section titled: The role of 366th regiment of CIS army, implicitly suggesting that they were implicated in a massacre and thereby adding the name of Seyran Ohanyan (failing BLP). Besides, the information quoted from the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper is inaccurate, they personally received the order to reply if attacked again, which they did. The fact is that the reported massacre happened kilometres away from the capture area. There is no evidence that Seyran Ohanyan was even in the captured area, let alone kilometres away from where there supposedly was a massacre. - Fedayee (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

366th regiment shelled Shusha, and was shelled in response. Armenian leaders themselves admitted that. A quote from de Waal's book, p. 312:

Ashot Manucharian said that "we often paid the Stepanakert Regiment and they fired at Shusha" (from his interview of 15 October 2000).

So this regiment was really a disgrace for the Soviet military, they shelled Azerbaijani towns for money or vodka. Of course, when they shelled Shusha, they were shelled back, but Khojaly never shelled this regiment. And the 366th regiment had no orders to attack Azerbaijani towns, and the command of Transcaucasian military district said that they did it in violation of their orders. In any case, the 366th regiment took part in the attack on Khojaly, which is why their role needs to be described. And after the role they played in the event the regiment was withdrawn and disbanded, but some of its officers stayed in the area of the conflict. The article just provides this info, and does not say anything about Ohanian's personal role in these events. So there's no BLP violation here. No one denies that the regiment took part in the attack on the town, and no one denies that after their role in the attack became known the regiment was withdrawn and some of its officers refused to leave. So, all the info in the article is verifiable, and accurate. Also, according to HRW, the soldiers of the regiment took part in the massacre as well. I provided this quote above:

At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. [11]

So clearly, this issue has nothing to do with BLP, as no living person is being accused of killings. It should be further discussed at talk of the article. Grandmaster 11:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you would come up with De Waal, I mean who else? Can you provide any other sources for that? Newspaper records are abound with the coverage of the nearly daily shelling of Stepanakert, including the destruction of hospitals, schools, and even the Parliament just hours prior to the capture of Khojali. The HRW information comes from testimonies which are not the most accurate of sources and which contradict the few independent observers who were there during and not after the event. On a Memorial report, for instance, we find.

По сообщению телеоператора объединения «Гольфстрим» И.Бурганского, находившегося 26.02 в районе Ходжалы, большая часть мирных жителей погибла от минометного огня, который велся подразделениями обороняющегося гарнизона, однако достоверность данного сообщения вызывает сомнение, так как большинство обстоятельств штурма, описанных Бурганским, не совпадают с информацией, полученной из всех других источников. Translation: According to the cameraman of "Gulfstream" Burgansky, who was in the Khojaly region on Feb, 26 , most of the civilians were killed by mortar fire, which was conducted by divisions of defending garrison, but the authenticity of the message is questionable, since most circumstances of the assault, described by Burgansky, do not coincide with the information received from all other sources.

Igor Burgansky’s version corresponds to the version provided by one side of the conflict, and he was the only photographer (according to him) there during the course of the event. The Memorial dismissed it claiming it does not correspond to that (note that the Memorial is a known critic of the military... not the most credible of sources to describe the 366th actions). That of course is not true; The Role of Media in Reporting Ethnic Conflict, Conflict Management Group, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. January 1994, page 31-32; Dan Sneider, Moscow correspondent, Christian Science Monitor.

Before I left, I had heard of all these reports, I talked to one Western news photographer who had been on the scene. But even he had not actually seen the events himself. His account was based on having been flown up to a mountain side by the Azeris in a helicopter to take photographs of bodies on the hillside, bodies which seemed to indicate that they were of civilians, but also adult men, but seemed to indicate that they had been shot at close range. So I had that information together with all the other conflicting reports. I made my way to Karabakh and spoke to the Armenian authorities there, who gave me their version of events which was of course completely different. They described the battle as they saw it. I interviewed soldiers who had been directly involved in the battle, who had been firing on Azeri forces. I was in Khozhali, I saw the city, the damage that was done, some of the damage fit the description of the battle that I got from the Armenian side, which was that there was a big battle, the Azeris tried to move out of the town under fire, it was in the middle of the night, they fired on everything that they saw…

This description above describes what went on in Khojali, not Nakhichevanik. The HRW and Memorial have gathered all the information and have come up with a story with events from Khojali and Nakhichevanik, basically they've mixed what happened in Khojali and Nakhichevanik. The truth is that there are no independent observations that the 366th was implicated in the supposed massacre of civilians. Besides, as the Memorial reports, those who found shelter in Khojali itself were not harmed while the town fell under total Armenian control, unlike the road of Nakhichevanik.

So again, please provide sources which documents that the 366th was implicated in these events and that Seyran Ohanyan was even there where there was a supposed massacre. BLP rules are very clear, please go and read them. That section is titled in a way that one will believe that they were engaged in massacres and that the name of Seyran Ohanyan is included in it. If you provide no evidence then I will have to report you for failure to respect BLP rules. - Fedayee (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been provided. You may like or dislike them, but HRW is a well known and reputable organization, which conducted its own investigation. Ohanian is not mentioned in connection with the massacre. Only a well known fact that he stayed in NK after the regiment was withdrawn is mentioned in the article. No one denies this fact, even Ohanian himself, otherwise how could he become the leader of the Armenian armed forces? And the 366th regiment needs to be mentioned in the article, because it played a major role in the attack on Khojaly. I really see no point in further discussion here. Ohanian is not accused of anything, and the 366th regiment is not a living person. Even if we assume that the regiment was a person, it is long dead, as it was disbanded back in 1992 for the role it played in Khojaly massacre. Grandmaster 07:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the same 366th regiment and its role in Khojaly massacre is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, for instance 8th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union). Their role in this event is well known, and even confirmed by the Russian military command. I see no reason why we should obscure it in any article. Wikipedia is free of political censorship. Grandmaster 08:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of answer is this? These are the four lines and I bolded whatever is related to Khojali:

According to international observers, soldiers and officers of 366th regiment took part in the attack on Khojaly.^[1] Memorial called for an investigation of the facts of participation of CIS soldiers in the military operations in the region and transfer of military equipment to the sides of the conflict. Soon after the massacre, in early March 1992, the regiment was withdrawn from Nagorno-Karabakh. Paratroopers evacuated the personnel of the regiment by helicopter, but over 100 soldiers and officers remained in Stepanakert and joined the Armenian forces, including the commander of the 2nd battalion major Seyran Ohanyan,^[2] who currently serves as a Minister of Defense of Armenia. Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper reported that:

Only about one line is about Khojali. Half of the quotation from Krasnya Zvezda is not about Khojali, and the entire section without exception has nothing to do with any massacres. For the umpteenth time the section’s title is: The role of 366th regiment of CIS army and this in an article about a massacre. Meowy’s report and criticism is obviously accurate but you answer without any considerations. The only reason why Seyran Ohanyan is in that section is to implicitly suggest that he was involved in a massacre, since the Azeri government's propaganda tries to involve him on practically all the websites.

Also most of your reply has nothing to do with the claimed massacre. The only claim you make which has anything to do with massacre is the following: Btw, the same 366th regiment and its role in Khojaly massacre is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, for instance 8th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union). Their role in this event is well known, and even confirmed by the Russian military command. I see no reason why we should obscure it in any article. Wikipedia is free of political censorship.

That's simply untrue, the massacre is said to have happened outside of Khojali, and the Memorial report says that those who found shelter in Khojali were unharmed. The 366th was accused of participating in the attack of Khojali itself, on the night where many died (under a hundred according to the official Azeri figures). There is no evidence that the 366th participated in any massacre against civilians. Also, if we were to rely on HRW when it reports refugees’ testimonies, there was tens of thousands of victims in Kosovo, see here how those testimonies can not reflect what exactly happened. - Fedayee (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source exists which indicates the 366th regiment's involvement in the massacre (far less one which indicates Ohanyan's). The article is about the massacre which took place many miles from Khojali, it is not about the attack on Khojali. That section is in the article for no other reason than to slander a living person by insinuation. Accusing a person (or insinuating an accusation) of committing war crimes is a serious matter. I'm disapointed that those higher up the Wikipedia pyramid seem unresponsive, and seem content to allow this issue to continue, letting it spread out from the earlier BLP issue with the Seyran Ohanyan entry. Meowy 02:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on saying that "Not a single source exists which indicates the 366th regiment's involvement in the massacre", while I quoted twice the source that says that 366th was involved. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm quoting it one last time and consider this issue to be closed. Here:

At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. [12]

The article is about the attack on Khojaly, as it resulted in the massacre. It is a very strange argument that the attack on the town is not related to the massacre. Same with evacuation of this regiment, as it was the made as a result of the role of this regiment in the massacre. Sources have been provided just above. If you think that highlighting the same thing in red will make it more convincing, I beg to differ. Sources exist, the section must remain. So let's continue discussion at talk of the article. Grandmaster 07:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Grandmaster's point - I'd like to make a correction to what i said in red. My words "not a single source exists which indicates the 366th regiment's involvement in the massacre" has carelessly overly abbreviated what I had said at the outset: "there are no sources that say those elements of the 366th CIS regiment that were involved in the attack on Khojali were involved in the subsequent massacre". I had hoped that being concise and red would attract some attention from uninvolved editors, but I ended up abbreviating too much. Meowy 00:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that his name should be removed since it is there for no clear and defined reason. The above quote I'm afraid is not sufficient, it's one thing to open fire and it is another to be involved in any massacre. I see a revert war going on there, I think that concensus when involving a biography of living person is not required when both side agree that there is no evidence that the person in question was involved in any massacre. -RobertMel (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - More, if the mention of the 366th is to give a context, why is it not rather included in the background section? That would be more logical. Having it there but without having Ohanyan name I guess could satisfy both side, which would also remove the WP:BLP issue. -RobertMel (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to have that - esp since the article needs a brief summary of the background. The trouble is Grandmaster's "the article is about the attack on Khojaly" statement. The article is NOT about that (unless Grandmaster wants to rename the article and reduce the "Khojali massacre" to a subsection of a bigger article about the capture of the town by Nagorno Karabakh forces). The attack on Khojali was a legitimate military action, given that the town was being used by Azerbaijani forces as a position to fire missiles at Armenian-held Stepanakert. The massacre did not actually happen in Khojali, but near a village several miles away, after the capture of the town. Meowy 18:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the attack on the town and the massacre of civilians that became a result of this attack, both in the town and outside of it. As for Ohanyan, his name is not mentioned in connection with the attack and the massacre. So clearly there's no BLP issue here. The article only mentions a well known fact that after the regiment was withdrawn from the region because of its involvement in the attack some of its personnel, including Ohanyan, stayed. That is an accurate info, and it is not denied by anyone. The British journalist Thomas de Waal describes this in his book about the NK conflict:

Following the ignominious part it had played in the storming of Khojali, the Soviet 366th Regiment was ordered by Moscow to withdraw from Karabakh. At the beginning of March 1992, a column of troops was sent to Stepanakert to escort the regiment out, but local Armenians blocked the roads to stop its leaving. The soldiers were eventually airlifted out by helicopter, and almost all their equipment stayed behind. Major Ohanian also stayed, as did many of his Armenian comrades and several Slavic officers - including the would-be lank salesman Yury Nikolayevkh, who was later spotted training Karabakhi fighters. On 10 March, the 366th Regiment was disbanded in Georgia. [13]

And 366th cannot be described only in the background, in fact, this regiment was one of the main acting figures in the event, and its role is mentioned by all independent investigations, and even admitted by the Russian military authorities. These people were selling arms to the Armenians, and were offering their services for hire, and this is well documented. The attack became possible only because of 366th involvement, and the armored vehicles and the crews of 366th took part in shelling of the town and according to Human Rights Watch in killing of the civilians. I do not think that this important information could be obscured. On the contrary, I think that this section should be further expanded, as there's more information from investigation by the Russian Memorial organization about the role of this regiment. Mentioning 366th in the background would be the same like mentioning al-Qaeda in the background of the article about September 11 attacks. Grandmaster 20:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Shirley

Kellie Shirley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saw this from WP:RFPP. BLP page that could use some eyes, please. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Mignogna fandom problems

Vic Mignogna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The page on Vic Mignogna seems to suffer from "fandom problems" as fans (and anonymous IP addys) see it fit to just randomly add info without properly sourcing the statements. I found this comment by RobertMfromLI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) abit troubling and had to revert the page back to a section of text that at least had some suitable and "stable references." Unfortunately, i'm thinking that the whole article cannot function without being in direct violation of BLP policies time and time again when people continuously edit the article adding in unreferenced material. I'm willing to give the article the benefit of the doubt, but it's not looking too good.... //--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on your Talk Page, you are mis-representing the changes you reverted. Please learn how to use the edit history. I did NOT make the changes you reverted. The Vampire Knight stuff (which is all I have removed) is a RUMOR, and is not citable (nor was it ever cited any time any anon included it). My intent was as follows... ask Vic... if it was true, I was going to find a reference so others would also stop reverting it. Since it is not true, there shouldnt be any references to find. My post was an explanation to those who heard the false online rumor so they would understand what it was they were adding. They are still free to find an acceptable reference that states otherwise, but it should be very difficult for them to find an acceptable reference for an untruth.

I also do not approve of the slew of recent, uncited changes to the page, and am in full support of you over it.

You may wish to revise your statement above to indicate the correct person you are having problems with, as it should not be me. I have made none of the edits you are complaining about, and have created NO content for that page.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 18:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quite appreciate the fact that you made a joke of the situation.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite appreciate the fact you accused me (directly or through implication, intentionally or accidentally) of edits I did not make. Nor do I appreciate the fact that (as I stated, and my edit history proves) you still ignore the fact that I had no intentions of allowing uncited information of that sort being added to the article. The "joke" part was do I really need to call him to get info instead of others simply researching him themselves, especially since I'm big on things such as the info wanted needing Wiki-valid references. So, you still misunderstand the "joke" - but that may be my fault, as "joke" is probably the wrong word.

As I stated, getting info from Vic for others to include only if valid references are attached is in no way against any Wikipedia rule or guideline. I am fully against simply getting info and dropping it in because someone said so. And as stated, this is not a page I actively edit, because even though other's may not find my additions COI, I think, being a personal friend of Vic's that my direct additions to the page would be. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Really, do we have to argue about it? You seemingly made a mistake in attributing content additions to me (or worded the above in an ambiguous way implying it - at least to me). I have never made content addition that isn't ref'd using Wikipedia valid references. I have even (unlike you in Vic's article) went in and found & added citations for other people's additions when they've added content without them. You could have either done the same or added a "citation needed" tag - or did what you did (revert). I'm happy with any of the three... but the fact is, you will not find a single content addition by me that does not properly have a reference attached to it. A habit I never intend to break for any type of addition that requires one.

And just so you can verify my "track record" yourself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI

As I said above to you...

I also do not approve of the slew of recent, uncited changes to the page, and am in full support of you over it.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 17:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pincus

The article on currently says "by requesting that he not write about Murry Gunty, a self-confessed election fraudster while at Harvard Business School". The article on Murry Gunty mentions the blogging incident, but says "Gunty, or one of his representatives, once requested that a blogger Mark Pincus redact his name from an essay about ethics that claimed Gunty had engaged in unethical behavior at Harvard Business School", and doesn't say anything more on the incident. This isn't surprising since Murry Gunty appears to be somewhat notable but not for the election fraud while he was at university. While the basic facts of the incident appear to be without dispute, e.g. [16], do people feel the current situation is fine? Or does mentioning the election fraud give undue weight to what was a minor thing, and should we just mention the incident without going into any details? Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a bit of weight out of both articles. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Clinton, Jr.

This article is in dire need of reliable sources. I just deleted an entire section on criminal convictions which was sourcely entirely to World Net Daily. Woogee (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lindzen

We have a problem with an editor attempting to add original research to the Lindzen article.

Talk:Richard_Lindzen#No_statistically_significant_warming_since_1995

Quotes by Lindzen are being mined from their original context in order to present Lindzen as a believer in the view that "global warming stopped in 1998" which he is, of course, not. The editor, John Quiggin, has taken the same quotes out of context at his blog, here.

An example of the original context for one of Lindzen's remarks is here:

According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007). Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged. It should be noted that, more recently, German modelers have moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008).

(emphasis added)

A few similar, scattered quotes have been used to justify a new section as follows:

View that recent period of warming ran from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, and has since stopped.
Lindzen has argued that data since the mid-1990s show that global warming has ceased.
Writing in Newsweek in 2007, he stated "warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy." [19] In a paper presented to the Competitive Enterprise Institute Lindzen referred to the "warming episode from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s" and the "fact that the global temperature anomaly ceased increasing by the mid nineties" as evidence against climate models. [1].
An open letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon, signed by Lindzen includes the statement "there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling."[20]
More recently, he has stated that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and restated this as "warming has ceased for the past fourteen years".[21][22] This claim has played a significant role in recent controversy about climate change.

There is, by my reading, a majority opposing Mr. Quiggin but now he has a supporter who also wants the material in the article so I guess I'll have to bring it here. Clearly, there is no effort being made to faithfully present Lindzen's views here so could we have some help to stop this?

Alex Harvey (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a BLP issue. Lindzen clearly said it. The fact that Lindzen keeps saying nonsense is his own decision. -Atmoz (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out that it doesn't automatically follow it's not a BLP issue because Lindzen clearly said it. Also undue weight is a BLP concern. However none of this means it's necessarily a good idea to use immediate removal of material that's existed in the article for a long time nor that you should argue for a 3RR exemption in such cases Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nahum Galmor

(moved from ANI) This showed up as a new article created by a new user. It's well-written and referenced, but there are allegations of selling chemical weapons and some other stuff. Would a more experienced editor be able to look it over for possible WP:BLP violations? I'm going to mark it as patrolled. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created in one edit by a new user with one edit. Lots of primary documents, clearly requires a good checking over. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name list at WCAV

I (Ucucha (talk · contribs)) removed a long list of names from the WCAV article, and Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) restored them. We then got into this discussion at my talk page, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so I'm asking for more input here.

I argued that the list of people connected with the television station should not be included because of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPSPS—these people are not public figures and their names are unsupported by third-party reliable sources.

Neutralhomer argues that they should be included because they are also on the site of the television station, because that site is a non-self-published source, and because such lists are also included in other similar pages. Ucucha 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha obviously hasn't even read the page as he would quickly notice the page is that of a television station and not a radio station. More so, each time Ucucha has raised a concern, he is WP:BLPNAME or WP:BLPSPS, I have met it (see the user's talk page) and knocked it down as something that doesn't meet what is going on here. Ucucha has not come to any consensus on the page, not taken it to talk, not taken the whole issue to WP:TVS or ANI, just "drive-by removed" the list and went on. When questioned, did he list policy after policy (which, like I said, were rebuffed). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion regarding television/radio; I have corrected that. It was late when I read the page yesterday. We obviously disagree on whether aspects of BLP policy allow the list in the article; what I am hoping will happen here is that uninvolved editors will have their say. They may agree with you, they may agree with me—that remains to be seen. Ucucha 18:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's start with this: I think that by the nature of the job, there is no expectation that their names and roles at the station would remain private. They each appear on TV at least weekly, identified by name and station role, and so that information is very much public. Whether they should be listed is another question, but I think they can be listed. cmadler (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether they should be listed, the list of names as presently constructed serves very little purpose. I can imagine the article being expanded in a manner in which the names would be purposeful, see for example WXYT-FM (which has issues of its own) for an example of presenting the names of on-air talent in a more meaningful way. cmadler (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I draw attention to TV3 Winchester, a sister station to WCAV. Take a look at their "Personalities" section. This is linked to their bios on the website of the station. These people show up on the station on a daily basis, are identified by graphics on screen with name and title. That is the way I would like to see the WCAV list, linked by bio. To be honest, I would like to see all "personalities" sections like this, but that is neither here nor there. Having the names linked back to the respective bios would be good to confirming and immediately referencing the names listed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting to do this now? Presently it looks like a long valueless list of not notable living people. On the website they don't appear to have bios, there is this meet the team . Personally I am against adding valueless data especially when that data is the names of living people.Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I think a single link to the station's bio index (in the case of TV3 Winchester, [17]) is preferable than linking each person individually; the individual links don't serve much purpose. Again, I think the real goal should be to replace a simple list of names and jobs with a more meaningful prose description. cmadler (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Meet The Team" page, ya gotta click on the pictures of the reporters/anchors/meteorologists/etc. to get to their bios....and yes, I am suggesting we do this now. Hell, I will do it right after getting a Pepsi from downstairs if ya like. Also, what is it with "names of living people" that sets people wild around here? Keith Olbermann, living person, got an article...what's the big deal? Jim Hanchett, News Director for WCAV, living person, doesn't have an article just a link (or soon to be one)...again, what's the big deal?
I will add those links in a moment. Pepsi time :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hurry, thanks, I missed that, duh, at least if there is a link to something like that it has some value. As regards long list of meaningless names, you could put micky mouse there for what value it would have except for a few local people, but the wiki is supposed to be written for the wider audience, if you live and watch the show the bare name is known to you but to anyone else is is of no value at all. As in, and these are the twenty meaningless names of the faceless not notable people that work in the weather department. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL says, "Long lists of links are not acceptable" and "Choose the minimum number of links that provides readers with the maximum amount of information." Is it really that hard to click the person's picture (heck, you don't even need to be literate!) to get the bio? Since the station has thoughtfully grouped links to the bios together all on one page, we should just link there. If they are "faceless not notable people" then what is the value to listing and linking them at all? cmadler (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it would be better to just say and there are staff that work there or something and a link to the bio page. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Took me about 5 minutes (after Pepsi time) and if you direct your attention here you will see a great looking page. Now, the "Former Personalities" section, I am not going to fight over. There are more and more people who say these aren't needed and I am starting to become part of that group. If you look at pages like KABC-TV, the former personalities section is insanely long. But let's stick with the first and then go to the second. Current Personalities section is up and linked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think that's excessive linking, but that's more a WP:MOS and WP:EL issue than a BLP issue. cmadler (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was either that or remove them entirely and that would be an entire section of information lost. So if there is some excessive linking, it is a good trade for potential lost information. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to be here on another matter, but I saw this. I don't know what the practice is with television stations specifically, but on most other article we would remove the list of people other than those that hold key executive or creative positions. I think it's absurd to include a complete list of reports, let alone a list of the former ones. For the ones that do get included, we do not need to link to their bios at the station website--just to the station website that gives the evidence they work there and what their positions are. We're not removing information--the information is on the station site, which is where it belongs. Anyone would know to go there if they wanted to find it. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use the main bio page as the reference or link directly as I have done, either one works for me...but removing them from the page entirely shouldn't be an option as it would be lost information. Yeah, it is on the site, but not everyone knows where to click on those sites. Hell, even I have trouble sometimes looking for the bio sections, they are buried under a whole bunch of other links. So to say that people could find it there (as in on the station's site) is kind of a mis-statement. I think having the information on Wikipedia, referenced in one way or another is a good thing. We have numerous people within WP:TVS and just working on their own who constantly update these pages as new people arrive and old people leave. It is a constant process. So there is never out-of-date information listed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of times where 'information' is lost, when it was never suitable for inclusion on wikipedia (I can thinking of plenty of article on computer & video games as well as TV series and the like where people have tried to turn them into some sort of game guide or episode guide where this has been removed, sometimes to some wikia site if some exist but ultimately whether or not some other site exists to take up this information is not our concern). Also whether or not the information is widely available on other sites should only be of minor concern, the key point is whether the information meets wikipedia policies and expectations. As for this specific case, I'm undecided but what I've seen so far has not been particularly convincing, any I mostly agree with DGG that any thing which includes a bunch of names of non notable people without really imparting any additional information other then they work for some company and perhaps a link to the official biography is always going to have problems like this. To put it a different way, whether it's Joe Smo or John Doe that currently works as a reporter for the station doesn't seem particularly useful or interesting information to the reader?Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is ours to say what is useful or interesting to the reader. We are just supposed to supply the information and let them make that decision. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't ours to say what is useful or interesting to the reader, but we do and should have standards for what is included in an article. That's why we have policies like verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. We don't just vomit out all the possible information on a subject, we organize and present it in a meaningful way to allow readers to gain an understanding of the subject, and give them sources and external links if they want to dig further. There are issues worth discussing about this, but I don't think there is a BLP problem. cmadler (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's MOS and EL as someone said a bit earlier, funny that what is valueless rubbish to one user is apparent gold to another? At the end of the day if you take away the internal views and the bots and perhaps the people who are named in the article no one looking at or reading the article anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Value Line

People associated with this company has been subject to apparently well-founded accusation of fraud. A considerable amount of material on them , including some apparently duplicative articles relying upon both the legal facts and unsubstantiated gossip have been contributed by User:Vlanalyst, a name with obvious COI problems. I think this material deserves wider notice, and I bring it to attention here. I apologize for not going into the details, but this is not my usual subject. Two articles have been deleted; even though one was deleted by me under G10, attack page, any other admin who would like to restore it and remove the unsubstantiated part is welcome to do so--I would consider it proper attention, not a violation of our BLP provisions. I acted quickly to remove the page, without taking the responsibility to sort out the material. It is very possible that this and the other deleted page would stand, if properly written. Whether the editor mentioned should continue to edit on this topic at all is another matter entirely. I have not blocked him, just issued a warning. Any other admin should do whatever they think appropriate in this. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis James (musician)

It looks like someone is turning parts of Dennis James (musician) into a hatchet job. I can't easily sort out the history, because there has been tons of addition & reversion, and probably some effort to add CV-ish stuff by James or someone close to him, which has really confused the matter. I believe that, in the confusion, usually good editors User:Kevin and User:Brambleclawx have accidentally restored material that had BLP issues. I don't have time to sort it all out right now, but someone certainly should. I've also mentioned the issue on Kevin's and Brambleclawx's user talk pages. - Jmabel | Talk 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed my bad revert. Oh, and blocked the editor responsible for the hatchet job. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to do something with this article a couple of days ago, but not only was my removal of controversial material reverted, my warning to the editor who inserted the material was removed by the editor who reverted me. I won't waste my time trying to fix this any further. Woogee (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Meyer

Resolved

– tweaked and trimmed a bit towards NPOV Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we do something about the biasness against religious leaders on Wiki?? On Joyce Meyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Meyer and many other pages of religous leaders on wiki there seems to be a lot of talk about their controversy and not enough about their good. On the other hand it seems that every atheist page on here from Ellen Johnson on down paints a positive picture of them. Even Madalyn Murray O'hair's board has been re-edited and a lot of her controversies have been deleted. I went to erase Meyers' controversies and it was re-added. There are some real nasty stuff written about her on there while very little good is discussed of her. It makes her out to be some monster. Can we do something about this?? I know a lot of the hate is coming from atheists going on there and editing the pages. Bjoh249 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy is the bane of this site and negative content about people users do not like is what some editors come here to add, we have policy and discussion as a chance to remove such additions, it is not easy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Correa - ANI discussion FYI

Vladimir Correa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questions about sourcing were raised in an AfD discussion of the BLP of gay porn performer Vladimir Correa. The AfD closer opened a discussion here, but the concerns raised were never addressed. The original BLPN discussion is now being discussed at ANI in the larger context of BLP sourcing by a particular user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Lipton

I just removed some material from James Lipton (the host of Inside the Actors Studio, that was clearly vandalism. One of the statements even had a citation. Now that I look at the article, I see a lot of potentially incorrect information which is sourced to "Stated on Inside the Actors Studio, 2008" and suchlike. Could people check this article over? Abductive (reasoning) 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct these days to say I heard him say it on the telly or such as ..^ a b c d e f g h Stated on Inside the Actors Studio, 2008, but looking at it quickly there is nothing controversial or with BLP issues left there that needs immediate removal, if you are interested in the topic, take a little time and move to talkpage discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Garn

The recently revealed hot-tub incident seems to be gaining weight and attracting she-said and he-said editing (to which I plead guilty, in an attempt to keep balance). --CliffC (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try and keep it to the basic simple reports, void of the disputed titillating details, a limited link to an enlarged speculative commentary will suffice.Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Arcuri

The Mike Arcuri article is getting hit with a lot of egregious BLP violations. Woogee (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christine O'Donnell

Christine O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - attempt to insert negative material based on a WP:PRIMARY source backed by a non-WP:RS blog source. An IP user, so far using 128.175.100.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 128.175.100.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has re-inserted the material at least four times, with myself and another editor trying to explain on the talk page why the material needs stronger sourcing than has been provided so far. I don't want to get caught in an edit war, I turn this matter over to you guys. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McNutt III

Resolved

– Handled by Off2riorob. NW (Talk) 03:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone with more time than myself take a look at Bill McNutt III? It's a complete mess right now, and needs attention pretty badly. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Can somebody please take a look at the last thread on Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica? There is an issue concerning the usage of the name Joseph Evers, who is purported to be a shadow owner of the website. One source mentions his name in passing (saying that he was not available for comment) and a few others, including ninemsn, seem to be based on his personal blog post. Several editors, including myself, have doubts as to whether he exists or not, and since he has clearly gone out of his way to be a non-public figure, even if he does exist I believe his name should be kept out of the article. Hoping that several experienced BLP editors can look at it with an objective eye. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source issue on Tucker Max

The website, www.quotabletuckermax.com, is being used as a source on this BLP article three times (sources #37, #38 and #39), and is being used as conjecture on the talk page [18]. I have already posted my doubts that this is an adequate source for BLP articles on the Reliable Source noticeboard [19], but the only person who commented there was the same person who has been using the website as a source for the article.

As the website is devoted entirely to holding Max up as a subject of mockery, it is my understanding of wikipedia policy that it shouldn't be discussed on the article talk page [20], let alone in the article itself. Seth Kellerman (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that site http://www.quotabletuckermax.com is not a reliable source for content in T Max's BLP. and that they should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Mottola

This article was full of claims which were potentially defamatory or of little obvious relevance, all without references. I have deleted a significant amount and some entire sections. Not being an expert on this I thought it a good idea to bring this article to the attention of others who pay attention to such things. Wrotesolid (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS some of the matterial, if true, is of obvious interest, but I have no sources for such claims and so have removed them to err on the side of innocence.Wrotesolid (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Bonella

Kathryn Bonella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Gamblor72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There seems to be a consensus that the page creator is directly related to the subject, see talk page. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Park Grill

There's a lot of POV and BLP violations in this article. I've removed "mobbed up" and "ex-con", but it needs more work. Woogee (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive semiprotection of vulnerable BLPs - proposal

A proposal to tweak semiprotection policy to include preemptive protection of vulnerable BLPs is here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when it is the administrators and the logged-in users who are trying to push the libel and violations of POV, and it is anonymous users who are trying to remove them? It happens... 97.120.254.36 (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then they could get it semi-protected anyway. Your point is somewhat irrelevant. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Hanrahan

Resolved

– edits removed, resolved at ANI here

This is just a heads-up. An edit war at this article led me to block new user Willhanrahan (talk · contribs) for 3 hours and point him to WP:BLP/H. I then looked at the article, found it had been heavily vandalised, restored the last good version and semi-protected it for a day. Meanwhile new user Petercarterruck (talk · contribs) had been editing it; I have explained on his talk page what had happened, and also given him {{uw-username}}, because Peter Carter-Ruck is a famous libel lawyer in the UK, and I doubt if the real one's first action would be to edit his client's article. Longer semi-protection may be needed if the vandals return. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter McCluster/Ole Miss

Could someone fix this page? on the right hand side box it says Dexter's date of birth is August 7th yet in the first paragraph it says his birth date is August 25th. Could someone please fix this so his propper birth date is posted. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.130.92.185 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Reverts and vandalism on nationalistic basis

Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.

The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now there is user User:Stephen G. Brown writing to me "Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish" on the Poles discussion page, not refering the topic. Common, where are the admins when needed? Free Belarus (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Oliverio II --- campaign worker removing accurate and sourced information

User Wilkerson_cl keeps removing accurate and sourced information from the Michael Oliverio II entry. CL Wilkerson is Curtis L. Wilkerson who is a known operative and employee for Oliverio's campaign. I have warned this user, and I am documenting these incidents on this page to alert others on Wikipedia. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See: "According to TSG's Web site, Wilkerson's success rate is more than 84 percent with his clients, including Sens. Truman Chafin, Mike Oliverio and Evan Jenkins." <http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/charleston-daily-mail/mi_8044/is_20060925/callaghan-manage-campaign/ai_n46272535/> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.220.206 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Yusuf Ali

~~Muhammad Yusuf Ali~~

~~I am concerned that this article contains negative assertions, and has only one source (RS or not, I do not know). Chzz ► 08:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy deleted, G10. Chzz ► 08:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Jesse_Ventura

User V7-sport adds content that does respect wikipedia policies especially in the section about the early life of Mr. Jesse Ventura. His "sources" are not reliable. One link is to a personal site that shows a "does not exist" message. The other does not mention at all that Mr. Ventura was part of an "organized crime syndicate".

Another paragraph that has problems is the one mentioning a certain military officer personal opinions as "accusing" Mr. Ventura of lying about being a navy seal. Clearly the wikipedia users who added these two paragraphs are adding content that seeks to damage the image of Mr Ventura by attacking his character. This goes against wikipedia's neutral point of view

Please look at the article and help protect it against these kind of edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Ventura&action=history

--Grandscribe (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and am watching the article. A refutation should only be included if a claim can be reliably documented. I see no such claim on the part of Ventura documented. Yworo (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations on 'jim bell'

Closing section started by sockpuppet of banned editor/subject

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article 'Jim Bell' was entered as a hatchet-job by editor Skomorokh in late 2007, and he repeatedly tried to obstruct corrections, even from multiple editors. Eventually, the subject of the article (James Dalton Bell) showed up December 26, 2009, and he was set upon and repeatedly reverted by an editor (Gogo Dodo) who had never edited on 'Jim Bell' before, and subsequently has never done so afterwards. Bell was set upon by a number of persons who tried to maintain the biased POV in the article, and eventually they blocked Bell for specious and malicious reasons, indefinitely. They violated the WP rules on 'protection', by 'protecting' both the main article and the talk page simultaneously. When violations of BLP were removed, the Cabal repeatedly showed up to revert those violations of BLP. In a very recent incident, NeilN reverted someone else's corrections to the existing violations of BLP: NeilN simply said, "whitewash" http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jim_Bell&action=historysubmit&diff=350526886&oldid=350515803 , with no comment on the talk: page. There has been repeated 'meat-puppetry', with daedalus969 asking Eyeserene to 'protect' both the article and the talk page simultaneously, an obvious violation of semiprotect policy. Astonishingly, Eyeserene's actions actually helped protect those violations of BLP from being corrected by others, yet claimed that there had been 'excessive violations of BLP'. In one case, a series of edits removing material specifically identified as being libelous were reverted, with no attempt to determine why the edits were so labelled. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jim_Bell&action=historysubmit&diff=350526886&oldid=350515803 Many (but far from all) of these violations of BLP are being removed by another editor, Keystroke: His edits may provoke consternation among the Cabal, but infrequently are his edits reverted, except by clueless folk (Skomorokh and NeilN). This establishes that there were, and still are, violations of BLP in the article, violations that persons like Skomorokh, Daedalus969, NeilN, Explicit, Eyeserene, Woogee, Department of Redundancy Department, THF, and Gogo Dodo have been trying to keep for months. This is the 'intractable' problem referred to in this article: When a critical mass of POV-pushers inhabit an article, it is difficult to dislodge them. 71.36.125.149 (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of James dalton bell would seem to suggest you are JDB. If so, is there any particular reason you're talking about yourself in the third person? In any case, while I can't comment on the way users have treated JDB, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive591#User:James dalton bell and a quick look at the contrib history suggests he's very far from blameless and the block was appropriate. The protection of the article talk page, while unfortunate, is not unprecedented and appears to have been necessary in this case because of sockpuppetry by JDB. If JDB would agree to stop this (either by reforming his behaviour and successfully applying for an an unban via an appropriate means or by stopping the sockpuppetry), unprotection may be possible but I'm not holding my breathe given the problems so far. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"seem to suggest..."? IOW, you're using a hunch to justify your position. Evidence, please. "Very far from blameless"? Could you be much more specific, rather than deliberately vague. Sounds like you're trying to justify the abuse of other editors and even administrators, without actually admitting that abuse. "is not unprecedented"? In other words, you try to justify an obvious violation of WP:ban (protecting both an article and the talk page) AND maintaining violations of WP:BLP seemingly based merely on the fact that such violations of WP policy have happened before. Are you sure that JDB is able to agree to "stop this"? It appears he has been blocked, at least at one point, from even posting on his own talk page. (all the pages dealing with unblock assume that a person is able to post on his talk page.) What's up with that? And, notice that you have totally ignored the allegations of violation of BLP above: It is as if you had said, "Because of those other things, I've decided it's okay for plenty of violations of WP:BLP to remain." Is that the official policy of WP? Instead of trying to blame the victim, as is typical for Admins, first determine if the person posting has a valid complaint. If so, fix the problem. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And so far, it very much sounds like you're part of the problem. 71.36.113.36 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to tell the truth, eh? [21] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that your posts are so short. On the history page of article "Jim Bell", all you said was "Whitewash" to a substantial set of edits that must have taken a while to add. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jim_Bell&action=history You didn't identify the reason for the "whitewash" claim, nor did you apologize for acting like a troll. Previously, you had also trolled the same guy, Keystroke, http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJim_Bell&action=historysubmit&diff=346837778&oldid=346617880 but he parried you. I see that while Keystroke identified many examples of violations of WP:BLP then (and others, before and after), neither you nor almost anyone else engaged in any sort of similar removals of these BLP violations. It's obviously because you didn't want those violations removed, right? Yes, you're the master of the quick, ineffective retort. Why are you so quick? It's because you have to be. I just checked your "contributions" list (in this context, that's quite an Orwellian label), and you've made 98 edits so far on 3/22/2010. You're obviously crazed. (OCD=Obsessive Compulsive disorder.) You make edits that revert and disrupt. You engage in no serious debate. Anybody who you disagree with, who makes reasoned criticisms of you, you call them "rants". You're a sorry excuse for a Wikipedian. 71.36.113.36 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to check each of the alleged "sock puppet" IP addresses, since there didn't seem to be too many,and I noticed an odd thing: All of them were of material posted at articles somehow concerning Jim Bell. Yet, if it were "JDB" posting, wouldn't you think that he'd be posting at other articles having nothing at all to do with "Jim Bell"? And if somebody is so good as to be able to identify his postings, and to actually prove they originated with Bell, ("It has been established that this IP address has been used by James dalton bell. Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks"). then that same somebody should be able to dig up a substantial series of edits in articles and talk: pages that have no obvious, overt connection to "Jim Bell". And that same somebody should be able to explain how he or she knows that these unconnected postings were also the product of "JDB". Why has not even a single IP address, posting to an article not connected with "JDB", been claimed ("It has been established") to be identified? The answer is quite simple: The "it has been established" wording, which sounds so authoritative, is merely a guess. Sounds like the people in malicious control of the article "Jim Bell' are simply hostile to any IP posting in that article. In order to be labelled a sock puppet of "JDB", a person need merely post something in "Jim Bell" under an IP, and do so in a way which contradicts the desires of the persons in control of that article. Removing violations of WP:BLP is one form of IP editing which will automatically label a person a sock-puppet of Bell in the article "Jim Bell". WP policy officially allows posting under an IP address. Obviously, there are gangs of editors and administrators that want to less-than-formally enforce a ban on IP posting. 71.36.113.36 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago, my sister had a poster which said, "If it is the truth, what does it matter who said it? Nil Einne (I wonder if he could be a sock-puppet of "NeilN", also above!!!!) never learned the truth of that statement. If somebody claims that there are violations of BLP in an article, it should be considered utterly irrelevant as to who made the complaint: People should study the article, and find out if those violations exist. If so, they should be fixed. IMMEDIATELY. It is utterly wrong and abusive to ignore such allegations, based solely on the unproven claim as to the identify of the person making claim. 71.36.120.162 (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to report this exchange to WP:SPI (Sock-puppet investigations). Are the names "Nil Einne" and "NealN" phonetic homonyms, or aren't they? And, what is the probability of an editor being automatically hostile to an unknown IP editor who just shows up on WP:BLPN? And what is the probability of the only two responses both being hostile, and being phonetically identical? Sounds like they made a mistake. 71.36.120.162 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The probability of two editors both being standoffish to an obvious sockpuppet of a banned editor? Pretty good, I'd think. Dayewalker (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test succeeded. I reported, here, that I would initiate a sockpuppet investigation of NeilN and Nil Einne. I then reported to their talk: pages that I would do so. Within about a minute, I got a new message. Naturally, one of the two NeilN or Nil Einne decided to deflect the accusation, by making a counter accusation. Looks like I was right about "NeilN" and "Nil Einne" being sockpuppets of each other. (actually, I suspect the arrangement is a bit of a combination betweenn "sock puppet" and a "meat puppet": There have long been "boiler-room" operations, right? On WP, there are POV-pushers. So, why not "boiler-room POV-pushers"?) Notice, also, that neither "NeilN" nor "Nil Einne" has done anything (even rhetorically) about the WP:BLP violations still present in the article "Jim Bell". First, I pointed out the BLP violations, and Nil Einne (who seems to have more time to waste) entirely disregarded that allegation, being more concerned about who I am, and is still entirely unconcerned about BLP violations. Isn't that curious? Even now, neither NeilN nor Nil Einne have tried to cover up their lack of concern about BLP violations: The least they could do would be to start pretending to be concerned. Evidently, they realize they've been caught. The reason WP is corrupt to the core is that it doesn't actually enforce the BLP rules, and allows thugs like NeilN to troll articles to push POV, and to prevent others from removing WP:BLP violations. 71.36.120.162 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense. Either file the SPI in the correct place, or please stop talking about it. An SPI claim has no business on this page. Dayewalker (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an extensive history of advocating on BLP issues, including in the noticeboard, as a simple search in the archives or even on this page where I count about 3 posts from me in other matters. To suggest I don't care about BLP is clearly nonsense as I suspect several people on this noticeboard can tell you. I also find it somewhat ironic that you suggest I'm a sockpuppet of NeilN then complain about his? posts being too short, again anyone who is familiar with me on wikipedia would probably agree my posts being too short is not a problem. Perhaps a quick check of my several paragraph long comment on the recent RFC BLP would dispel both notions for you. Regardless, I made it clear from the beginning that I had not looked into the alleged BLP problems, I started to in particular wondering why the talk page was protected but once it became clear why and the similarity of your IP and geolocation with other sockpuppets of JDB I stopped also considering there is already another editor, Keystroke, who it looks like is likely to stop any excesses if they exist and who would be capable of seeking help on their own if necessary. (Of course I'll freely admit I'm automatically sceptical when someone makes far ranging complaints about several established editors including admins and admin abuse at least one editor of which I recognised and also when I looked into the case, one of the admins involved. Particularly sceptical whenever the word 'cabal' comes up.) Given the way you've responded, it's clear I've made the right decision as even if I accept in good faith that you're not a sockpuppet of Jim Bell, I don't think your judgement that there are problems is worth my time investigating. Anyway this is my last post on this matter, if you want to file a SPI be my guest. (Incidentally looking at NeilN's contrib history reminded me of at least one place I'd seen him? before that was at Talk:Justin Bieber which coincidentally is also one of the pages I was thinking of but couldn't rememeber the name of above when I mentioned semiprotecting talk pages not being unprecedented although in that case primarily because of the large number of young fans who can't resist declaring their undying love or desire to marry the subject of the article. I also do remember Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident which was also semiprotected for a time, that one for similar reasons to this, i.e. persistent sockpuppetry.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as advice to the IP, the best place for your concerns are on the talkpage of the article, just bring then up calmly one by one and discuss the actual issue with the editors there, that is the only way to deal with an issue like this, I don't really know the big picture but it just seems to be that the subject feels the article is a bit opinionated and a negative portrayal of the situation, sometimes this happens and to stop the disruption personally I would take a little bit of weight out of the article, but that is just me, the talkpage is the place for this, one specific issue at a time. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This IP range has been blocked (was a banned editor) and the article talk page was semi-protected (mentioned above) due to severe disruption. If you check the history, Bell wasn't interested in having a constructive discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, another sock of the upset subject, great, sorted, he looks like a smart person to me, more than able of simple discussion. Being banned is not a final call, he keeps coming back and trying to talk about it, repeatedly blocking him is a poor show. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of James dalton bell you can say, oh look at the disruptive sock or you can talk to the user who could well just be the upset subject of the BLP and see what his problem is and see if it can be sorted by editing and end the disruption.Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the article talk page history, the user's talk page, and the various ANI threads? Discussion was tried, repeatedly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I had a fair look, otherwise I would not have bothered commenting, he is not that bad. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to judge whether or not he's "that bad," based on one sockpuppet interaction. This guy was banned for good reason, so the less said about him the better. Dayewalker (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised that you would advocate not blocking the socks of a banned editor that, rather than calmly pointing out article flaws, continue the attacks on other editors that got them banned in the first place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socking and being upset is not a big issue that the wheels drop off, the ip is clearly upset and likely has his good reasons. Anyway he is blocked again so don't worry, all is sorted. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, NeilN (aka Nil Einne, joint meat-puppets) are trying to conceal valid observations that they (and others) are trying to conceal from WP:BLPN further valid observations that there have been BLP violations and POV violations in the article "Jim Bell". They aren't doing their own reputation and fate any good. But worse, as long as they continue to do it within sight of hundreds or thousands of editors and administrators, they are making valuable legal evidence that WP actually has no intention of enforcing its BLP rules: Neither is under any illusion that they are keeping their fraud secret. Rather, they are simply trying to sweep it under the rug under the eyes of everyone else. Every time they revert or obstruct another filing, claiming it's by a 'blocked sock puppet', they are demonstrating that it's more important that their own personal interests are maintained, and that their collusion is concealed. It's quite simple: NeilN = Nil Einne. Both are trolls. 97.120.246.46 (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video evidence enough?

Would it be enough proof of 5 videos that this woman has appeared in some phone sex commercials? Here are the links to some commercials she has starred in:

The appearance and accents match perfectly, and seeing as this person has already been broadcasting their cleavage across the internet every week for the last over 2 years, it would not seem out of the ordinary that they would have done work like this. Yet people on the talk page say multiple youtube videos aren't enough and it "isn't notable enough" despite the article already being barely a page long.--Sinistrial (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube uploads are not a reliable source (anyone can upload and doctor) - and interpretations of youtube material is certainly original research. If the information cannot be verified from a secondary source, it should be excluded.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Information must be from reliable third-party sources, this is especially important when dealing with WP:BLP. Youtube videos are primary sources and are not reliable. The relevent policies and guidelines are: WP:BLP, WP:YOUTUBE and WP:OR. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, even if we were to accept that she really has been in such commercials, the absence of coverage in reliable secondary sources generally means the subject matter is not significant enough for mention in the article Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious reversiion of notice of BLP violations

Above this section the editors NeilN and Dayewalker have tried to conceal a well-reasoned, logical allegation of BLP violations. More importantly, it was an allegation so-far entirely disregarded by everybody posting on this page. It also contained an allegation that NeilN and Nil Einne are some kind of puppets of each other. (sock? meat?). A few allegations of scattered 'obvious sock puppet' are strewn through the reverts, as if that assertion alone would be sufficient to justify such obstructionism. (WP:BLP violation allegations provide no exception for 'obvious sock puppet'. Apparently the editors and administrators around here are not aware of how legally perilous their actions are, and the people who actually claim to run and control WP certainly are not. It's very simple: The policy of WP claims that BLP violations 'must be removed immediately'. This is true no matter where the complaints come from. (Even if alleged to be from a 'obvious sock puppet of a banned editor'. Understand why?). This discussion lasted on WP:BLPN for a day. Plenty of people saw it, and could have done something about it. That they did not, and that Dayewalker even reverted the material added above demonstrates how low these people can go. Is he really so dense that he doesn't realize that covering up these allegations then puts the onus on anybody who is aware of this obstructionism? Since the material can be seen in the History page, then anyone who visits this page is constructively aware of the allegations not only of BLP, but also NeilN and Nil Einne's meat-puppetry. Don't be a DOLT: as in, WP:DOLT (Don't overlook legal threats). 97.120.242.154 (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.246.46 (talk) [reply]

^ Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. Human Rights Watch, 1992. ISBN 1564320812, 9781564320810, p. 21
^ Thomas De Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, NYU Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-1945-7, p. 173
^ Thomas De Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, NYU Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-1945-7, p. 173

[1] Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. Human Rights Watch, 1992. ISBN 1564320812, 9781564320810, p. 21

[2] Thomas De Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, NYU Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-1945-7, p. 173

[3] Thomas De Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, NYU Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-1945-7, p. 173

[1]

[2]

[3]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards