Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
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.

Herb Schildt: BLP notices are being vandalized and not archived

The article on Herb Schildt is in violation of wikipedia's own policies as regards Biographies of Living Persons since it cites two NNPOV polemics, one of which was a copycat drive by, and a book that was mistakenly based on the first NNPOV source.

Furthermore, these notices to this site are being vandalized by someone who apparently sees they are not archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.80.153 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous notice is archived at Archive 83. And prior notices at Archive 46 and Archive 37 and Archive 45. The "issues" referred to have been the subject of a long, long revert war. Editor User: Spinoza1111 was blocked indefinitely for his behaviour there and on other pages. He continues to make the same edits from anonymous IPs, the above notice being clearly his work.Barsoomian (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]"

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

- Wikipedia "Biographies of Living Persons"

This is the policy, and it is quite independent of my harassment by a bunch of half-educated convenience store clerks and the former options speculator Jimbo Wales, who saw fit to make offensive comments at my blog whilst supporting the harassment I have been subject to on wikipedia.

Neither "C: the Complete Nonsense 3rd Ed", nor "C" the Complete Nonsense 4 ed", nor "The Annotated Annotated" can be considered "high quality sources". As Dr. Malcolm McClean concluded last month on comp.lang.c, these are polemics. They are disorganized lists of genuine errors (of the sort that appear in many computer books), trivial pursuits, and linux-centric shibboleths with a clearly polemical purpose of putting down a Windows-centric author helping primarily Windows programmers get started on C.

A high quality source would be an analysis of Herb's "errors" by a reputable academic computer scientist such as Brian Kernighan with at least Herb's track record of publication (Herb has published several books which the market has judged to be of sufficient quality for multiple editions).

But note that although Brian Kernighan did mention the problem of software listings in books being incorrect in his 1975 "Elements of Programming Style", and that Edsger Dijkstra was equally concerned with the cavalier attitude towards bugs exhibited by his colleagues, neither of them ever targeted any author or computer scientist by name.

Why?

Because until Watson, Crick, Edward Teller and Thomas "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Kuhn and to a great extent after the 1950s, there has been, in the interest of real scientific progress, a collective agreement, which used to be called a "gentleman's agreement" and has received unmerited scorn for that term, that the focus be on ideas and not individuals; that no one individual need be singled out and made into a byword as was Schildt. Dijkstra and Kernighan were of this school.

It is true that Edward Teller waged a campaign of personal destruction against Robert Oppenheimer, and that Watson and Crick were pond scum who dealt with colleagues and women in bounderish fashion, and that Thomas Kuhn blessed this blackguard conduct as somehow being progress. But in general, real scientists (as opposed to computer thugs and their hosts of frightened clerks) continue to focus on ideas and not personalities...which is why wikipedia is relatively reliable on mathematics and real science as opposed to computer science as it is practised.

However, once corporations commercialize things like DNA and programming languages, the gentleman's agreement means that the "gentleman" loth to name specific scapegoats is at risk for the consequences of speaking truth to corporate power including, here, the corporate power which has ranged itself behind Open Source in order to protect its expropriation of the theft of intellectual production by postmodern slaves.

To criticize Schildt without naming him is to interrogate the C99 and C98 standards, both of which were highjacked by vendors to preserve their investment in bad C compilers. It is to find (for example) that the "void main" controversy results from language in the C99 standard which inappropriately recognized a Linux practice while continuing to allow "freestanding" programs in which void main() is permitted.

It is easier to spend, as Seebach and Feather have spent, minutes gaily and randomly sniping at code snippets and exhibiting what these two individuals think is a superior insight, while trashing Schildt.

The Schildt article is poorly sourced on the work of an individual (Seebach) who was not invited to join the C99 standard, but who paid his way in as a volunteer. Feather's work is slightly better and was reviewed by some real professionals (one of whom I worked with when he was at Princeton). But like Seebach's Snarky Tirade, Feather's is poorly organized as a laundry list of genuine errors (of the sort which appear in many computer books and are indemnified by disclaimers of warranty as is software), trivia, and shibboleth. Feather's is a drive-by, copy cat shooting. Steve Summit witlessly sourced his C FAQ on Seebach and the result has no more meaning than the echoes of the Malabar caves in Forster's A Passage to India.

Edward G. Nilges Hong Kong 21 April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.168.124 (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Kirtanananda (poor sources were tagged in August 2009)

• Kirtanananda Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This diff - is a summary of the dispure of the tv documentary, self published book by one of the authors of the article Henry Doctorsky[1] is disputed along with (selfpublished) IUniverse ;-) book After the Absolute: Real Life Adventures with a Backwoods Buddha which is proposed to be used along with self-published periodicals. Issues brought up here in August09[2], but no conclusion reached on this 'swami'. Come on folks just let us get to the bottom of it, Kirtanananda is a known, notorious criminal, well victimised for the crimes and for being gay (not self-confessed at the time), a helping hand from those who know the BLP policy is really welcomed. Thank you for your comments. Wikid^as© 03:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For some odd reason, the editor is convinced that a documentary by a fairly prolific documentarian and distributed by a PBS is unacceptable as a source. I don't think anyone actually disputes that Henry's book is not an appropriate source. Similarly the so-called self-published periodicals were an official publication of the community of which K Swami was the leader. That seems a fair enough source for statements about the community representing the viewpoint of its leaders. Sure it would be great to have better quality sources, but that does not justify gutting an article. It might well be that the documentary is only a collection of interviews and might even be pushing a POV. In that case, the artful editor will be careful to attribute controversial assertions in a way that makes it clear it is the opinion of the speaker being presented and not necessarily the entire unblemished truth. The documentary is at the very least a verifiable record that quite a lot of people who were formerly close associates now have a very different opinion of the swami. older ≠ wiser 04:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bkonrad, why do you insist on using a documentary if [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] clearly exist and are more than sufficient? Just wondering? Wikid^as© 04:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so opposed to using a documentary? No policy prohibits or even deprecates using published video sources as references. Just wondering. older ≠ wiser 11:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides what is listed on the RSN and the reasons why it fails. It is a documentary over 3 hours long!! Besides the point that you can not expect others to watch it all, as you yourself confirmed we can not be selective about what parts of it we use. [8] According to the author he did not get to the bottom what actually happened, in the filmmaker's own words, it remains "murky". In the Wikipedia terms murky means 'poor source'. I know you will not agree, so it makes very little sense in arguing with you. That is why the notices were put up in both BLPN and RSN to get a neutral view. Wikid^as© 13:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Being too long is not a disqualification for being a source. That's just ridiculous. You had put the source up on BLPN and RSN and got absolutely zero response, so that hardly provides any support for your interpretation. Because the documentarian does not draw a conclusion about "murky" events does not mean that the documentary itself is murky or unreliable. That is your spin. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Too long is not a disqualification, to be selective from a volume of primary sources joined together is. It is also hard to reference to the video source (not impossible), you just can not ask for an exact referencing that complies with WP:CITE. Just be honest and find one contentious issue anywhere in a good article or feature article of BLP of criminals, where the source is a documentary without a single critic's review? It is either a poor documentary or investigation was not done properly. 3 Hrs documentary broadcasted on a TV and not a single page with a reliable review? Good grief. I am dully impressed by your desire to ignore other sources. In any case, it is the duty of editor who adds it to the article to ensure that this source is good, so far no good response at RSN board. And no, it was not me who put this source on that board. However even if it is a good source in general -- it is hard to imagine it will qualify as a quality source for BLP contentious matters. Lets wait and see if anyone thinks that documentary that got no reviews since 1996 from a single critic is a suitable source. I rest my case. Wikid^as© 15:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever you might be "dully impressed" by, I have not expressed any resistance whatsoever to other sources. They would be welcome. My only issue here is why you seem so obsessed with deprecating the documentary and the community publication Brijabasi Spirit. older ≠ wiser 15:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

True, you did not start the current thread on WP:RSN, though it was in response to your edits, and which nonetheless has not seen support for your interpretation. I was thinking of your previous attempt, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 41#Video as RS for BLP, which likewise did not generate any support for your position. older ≠ wiser 16:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reiterate my opinion here that the documentary film by Jacob Young (1996) released through WNPB-TV (West Virginia Public Broadcasting) and the WVEBA (West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority) can be used as a legitimate source in the Kirtanananda Swami article because the documentary contains various cited references, and it directly quotes court testimony, numerous interviews, TV appearances as well as newspaper clippings relating to the alleged illegal activity that took place over the years at the former ISKCON guru's New Vrindaban Hare Krishna community in West Virginia. It also contains numerous direct quotes from Kirtanananda Swami himself, and many of these quotes can be read here: Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. My opinions on this matter can be read on that talk page, and also here on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Now hopefully others can see how this information was wrongly removed from the article. I have compiled a large selection of direct quotes from the documentary film on Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. I mean, since when are direct quotes from a person as seen in interviews on a documentary film not permitted in Wikipedia articles about people living or dead? Are words, exact quotes, that are filmed coming out of someone's mouth not permitted on Wikipedia? In my opinion, that would seem pretty silly, if not downright ridiculous. I think the evidence that I brought up on the talk page sufficiently demonstrates why the sources are good and why the material should be included in the article. There is court testimony which corroborates these things too (U.S. Court of Appeals, and here). As I've stated previously, I think the removal of this material may constitute a form of censorship, perhaps perpetuated by (a) former and/or current Hare Krishna devotee. The extent which this individual has gone to remove this material and keep it from being used further adds to my view that perhaps someone is trying to censor these things in some way, shape or form, and is perhaps trying to hide behind a warped view and a twisted interpretation of Wikipedia policies in order to manipulate things by throwing out all sorts of pseudo-wiki-legal-speak in a possible attempt to discredit legitimate published sources. In my opinion, it seems to be a possible attempt at undermining legitimate published material, and I do not believe this type of thing is good for Wikipedia. So, if others would please review the material discussed on the talk page of the article, as well as older versions of the article itself, and weigh in with opinions on this matter (especially regarding the use of the material from the documentary and whether or not it should be included as a reliable source), that would be much appreciated. Geneisner (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reiterate facts instead of my opinion, the documentary did not recieve any awards, nominations for awards, no reviews by critics and excluding it is not a censorship , but following the guideline of the WP:BLP. I have no objection on expanding on it on Jacob Young page obviously. But first you have to get me a reference to a review to take it seriously. Wikid^as© 13:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that a documentary needs to have won or been nominated for awards or been reviewed by a critic to be considered reliable. It does need to have come from a reliable source; the director seems to have made documentaries that aired widely, and won an Emmy, which seems to qualify him. --GRuban (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dpyb and autobiography found by aosasti

• Article about Canadian poet Dionne Brand seems to be in violation of conflict of interest since it seems it is being entirely edited by the author herself or users with few other contributions to Wikipedia.

• Dionne Brand

Jackie Sherrill

Jackie_Sherrill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A couple of weeks back now, I noticed a section of this article added by an anonymous editor that was completely unsourced and written in a "behind the scenes story as told by insiders" way which seemed extremely POV. I removed it, noting its deficiencies in my comment, and it stood for approximately a week before being added back by, I assume, the same anonymous user (similar by slightly different IP). This time it included a source that 1) was posted under the notice that the items on the page were merely rumors and the poster wouldn't vouch for them 2) didn't actually cover most of the information in the paragraph in question. I once again removed it, and noted on the talk page my problems with the particular section. Since then, I've received no feedback from the user on the talk page, but we're approaching a revert war (a revert each way every couple of days since). Since it's an anonymous user, I can't contact them directly to pursue a discussion, so I was hoping for some guidance. Erusdruidum (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It'd probably be a good idea to leave identical notes on both of the IP's talk pages. Explain what they've done wrong and where they can go to get more information on the issue. You've brought the issue up on the talk page, so I don't think there's anything wrong with you reverting the edits until something is done about it. If it gets into edit-war territory and the IPs won't discuss it in spite of your best efforts you may want to request temporary protection for the page but I don't think you're there yet. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a week. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the protection. I did post the message to the 3 most recent IPs. We'll see if between that and the protection it's enough to ward it off. Thanks again Erusdruidum (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the protection wore off, it was re-added verbatim from another very similar IP with nothing on the talk page. How frustrating. Erusdruidum (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And again. What are the options here? Longer term semi-protection? Erusdruidum (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Once more, this time with the user adding information to the article itself (not the talk page) about how he can't find a reference to the article online... No response on the article talk page, or any of the talk pages for the IPs he's posting from. Help? Suggestions? Erusdruidum (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I left a template asking the IP to not do it, the content is not really a big issue or defamatory or anything like that, it is just a bit pro the subject, imo it's not much of a problem and just reverting and requesting discussion for the time being, its on my watchlist, but as I said just revert and ask the ip to discuss and lets see how it progresses, regards. Perhaps ask User:Bearian who semi protected the BLP for a week to semi protect it again for a couple of weeks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming non-notable person in Russell Crowe

Russell Crowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have tried to make clear to an editor that per WP:BLPNAME, we do not name non-notable private persons in articles, yet this editor persists in inserting the name of a private citizen who is not notable into the article. He continues to return this information to the article, [9] [10] [11] [12] despite having been told and the rationale explained. Instead, he claims that I don't know the policy regarding naming such persons. Could someone please comment on this? Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

BLPNAME says "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." Thus I would exclude the name here, even though it's appeared in many news stories on this one incident. This is particularly the case because the incident was not initiated by the person in question (i.e. they were not seeking publicity), but rather by the article's subject. Rd232 ^talk 08:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Its locked , fully protected, personally in this case I would leave this name in , I think it is well enough known and was globally covered that inserting the name is fine, I recognised the name when I saw it, so there can be no harm as such. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would leave it out. The person is not notable for any other reason, and adding the name adds absolutely nothing of value to the article. As per WP:BLPNAME, it should be left out. Dayewalker (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We routinely add such names, I have resisted the insertion of such names more than once and consensus was against me, the policy and the community just does not strongly support the excessive restriction of widely published names of not notable people that the addition of which is appears non controversial and not detrimental to the individual. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. WP:BLPNAME says "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." To me, that's the bottom line. This non-notable person's name adds nothing to an article on Russell Crowe's life. In fact, including it could be seen as giving undue detail to a single incident to Crowe's life. Dayewalker (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been quite clear, from my experience community consensus is for the inclusion of such names and the policy you are quoting is not strongly against it when there is no clear detriment to the person and (tomorrow) if you want me to I will present hundreds of such names (don't quote me on hundreds) but lots and lots that are included in articles right now. As regards your mention of undue weight, the content is already in the article with or without the name there is no change at all to the weight of the content.Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't, there's no need for that. We'll just agree to disagree here. Dayewalker (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

otherstuffexists, yes but when the otherstuff that exsts is in the majority then it does have a value and it is clear from the usage of such names that there is community support for the incluusion of such non controversial, well known names. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As I said above, I respectfully disagree. Even if there is consensus to add the name (which there doesn't appear to be on this page, or the article page), consensus doesn't trump policy. Dayewalker (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My experience, at BLP/N anyway is the opposite from O2R. We generally exclude such names particularly when there hasn't be widespread continuing coverage and the controversy is largely one sided. P.S. I would say that I didn't recognise the name. P.P.S. I would welcome say 5 most similar examples from O2R Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think the most relevant part of WP:BLPNAME - "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." If the name is removed from the article, does the content still give the same information about Crowe? Yes, it does. Our understanding of Crowe is not diminished by the name being removed, and it is not increased by the addition of the name. In understanding the event and its impact on Crowe, the name adds nothing of substance. Rossrs (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The most recent was Paula Dubois, the not notable at all private person who editors insisted to name during what must have been a time of great grief for a mother whose son had only just died in controversial circumstances Kristian Digby . Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Craig Evans the man that threw an egg at John Prescott . Neither of these names add anything at all to the articles in question, but the names are there. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How many wrongs does it take to make a right? It's interesting that you mention Kristian Digby. You and I both commented at length at Talk:Kristian Digby against the use of his mother's name without purpose, and the editor who disagreed ended up saying that he was prepared to accept that her name not be used. I was prepared to accept that his mother's name be used if there was a good reason for doing so, but a good reason was never presented, in my opinion. And yet it's in the article. The talk page discussion did not support its inclusion so that's not an example of consensus determining the use of the name. It's more an example of consensus being disregarded, at least in terms of the talk page discussion. I don't recall if the matter was brought here. Rossrs (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The matter was not brought here and it was inserted and supported during the discussion, the reason given was that the name was given context by adding that she went to the inquest..usually the names are inserted without any consensus as such, mostly so few editors are bothered about an issue that it is simply inserted without question, in this case a few editors seem to be bothered but the community as a whole imo want to insert such names and they do insert them at will, and unless they are challenged by a few editors that are bothered the name sits in the article, this is all I am saying. I can link you to multiple similar situations were I have resisted such additions, Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you're right. Often the names are added at will, and often the inclusion stands because it faces little or no opposition. We can't catch every instance of this taking place, but if we believe that it is against the policy and guidelines that have resulted from considerable thought and discussion, we should support those policies and guidelines and oppose those instances that we see. If people want to keep adding non-notable names at will, they should consider having the guidelines rewritten or updated. Individual editors may be ignorant of the policies or they be apathetic or they may disagree with them, but that doesn't negate the policies. Being outnumbered doesn't make our viewpoint wrong, only less likely to be taken seriously. I know from the Kristian Digby discussion how fruitless it can be but I'd rather the Russell Crowe situation be discussed further, and maybe one day this will be the example that is held up to deter the addition of non-notable names. Rossrs (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy violation or not, I think the name itself detracts from the encyclopedic, neutral tone of a well-written article. In a consensus (as opposed to a BLP) issue, I'd vote against its inclusion.FellGleaming (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Four points. 1. Consensus can change. 2. Consensus is local (otherstuffexists). 3. In providing comparable examples, bear in mind "person initiated event or was to blame for publicity involved" as a factor. Thus the Prescott guy would be distinguished from the Crowe guy. 4. To clarify a point made above about "not adding value" and "undue weight": I would say the name has negative value as it is not in itself relevant to understanding the incident as it relates to Crowe, and on the contrary distracts from what is important. It is (in the Crowe bio context) noise, not information; chaff, not wheat. Rd232 ^talk 22:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

3 is a good point which I also tried to make albeit perhaps not so well explained ("and the controversy is largely one sided"). I agree that people do tend to add names, and to some extent that may seem to set consensus but when the issue comes up, there's usually consensus or close to it to remove the name (from my experience) after sufficient discussion particularly from those who understand BLP (by this I simply mean those who are aware of BLP and understand it well enough they're not going to make a clearcut BLP vio or think such a vio is okay). I have to agree with Rd232 that this is to some extent a case of otherstuffexists in that there's a lot of non ideal behaviour which is unfortunately difficult to change, but doesn't IMHO really indicate we should encourage or accept it when it comes up Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria

Resolved

 – Violating editor indefinitely topic-banned

On Talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria Amoruso (talk · contribs) has repeatedly called an Egyptian judge on the International Court of Justice an ***** I have removed the phrase once and asked Amoruso not to reinsert it, only to have Amoruso reinsert it and reply "I read the egyptian's judge opinion and in my opinion, he's ************** (emphasis in original). nableezy - 04:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Amoroso's behavior is completely unacceptable. I suggest he be blocked if he continues with this libel. Zero^talk 05:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• I had reverted the first instance with clear indication that it was a WP:BLP violation. Unomi (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion in a talk page. Complete Non issue, and I think users who brought this here should be blocked, as well as the usually disruptive user, Zero, who is trolling here. I clearly stated it's my opinion. It's called free speech - I believe his statements were ********. It can't be libel because it's an opinion, and it's ridiculous. Note that Nableezy is also lying - I haven't repeatedly called him an antisemite. I said he's ********* and then added that it's my opinion, and then explained it again. So it's just twice, not repeatedly, and it's expressed as an opinion. Perfectly legitimate. I say Close this quickly, move on and reprimand nableezy and Unomi for disruptive behavior. Amoruso (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But isn't that the point, it is your opinion and as such you should not be expressing it on the talkpage, you should only comment regarding improvements to the articles and regarding claims you can cite. I also don't think opining of such controversial uncited claims is correct on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a non issue because This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living people. That's not even the case. Its not the talk page of the person, it's about a university in Israel. We were talking about the relevance of a very controversial and political and biased ICJ decision. This is what the U.S. had to say about it:

On July 13, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution HR 713 deploring "the misuse of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)... for the narrow political purpose of advancing the Palestinian position on matters Palestinian authorities have said should be the subject of negotiations between the parties." [13] The Resolution further noted that twenty three countries, including every member of the G8 and several other European states, had "submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case."

Misuse, narrow political purpose, objections of every member of the G8. And in my opinion, the Egyptian opinion in particular (and he was accused of bias even before the case.

"Israel claimed that Article 17(2) prohibited Judge Elaraby (btw, I never mentioned him by name until now) from sitting as a judge because “he [had] previously played an active, official and public role as an advocate for a cause that is in contention in this case....Israel complained about Judge Elaraby’s 2001 interviewwith an Egyptian newspaper “two months before his election to the Court, when he was no longer an official of his government and hence spoke in his personal capacity.”41 The newspaper quoted Mr. Elaraby’s comments that “Israel is occupying Palestinian territory, and the occupation itself is against international law” and that Israel’s territorial claims were fabricated to create “confusion and gain[] time.” That is clearly an antisemitic statement in my opinion - claims that Israel has fabricated things to create confusion in the world are repeatedly stated by antisemites. anyway, judge Burghental said about this: "although a “formalistic and narrow” construction of Article 17(2) had not been violated, legitimate concerns existed because “this question cannot be examined by the Court without taking account of the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict” and because the outcome would depend upon “the validity and credibility of [the parties’] arguments.” 45 Against this backdrop, he reasoned that Judge Elaraby’s remarks created an unacceptable “appearance of bias”46 and that the Court had “implicit” power to ensure the “fair and impartial administration of justice.”"

It is at least arguable that if a judge is appearing biased against Israel and still takes the case he's ************* Amoruso (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but with BLP applying on the talkpage just as much on the article do you not see that if you could not cite it and insert it into the article you should not be opining it on the talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So if I can't cite "the judge's opinion is ******" I can't say "the judge's opinion is ******** in my opinion" on a talk page about a university in Israel? Amoruso (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, at least it is as I interpret BLP policy. It is your interpretation and opinion as a not notable person, if you had a citation from a notable person and in a reliable citation the notable person opined the same thing then that comment could legitimately be discussed for possible insertion in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

in what article? I'm explaining why in my opinion the ICJ case was not relevant to the issue, and I mentioned how the egyptian's judge (without even mentioning his name) opinion appears ******** to me. I don't see what the problem is. Amoruso (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:BLP applies not only to articles but to every page on Wikipedia. You cannot call a living person an antisemite without solid reliable sources calling that person an antisemite. nableezy - 15:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you're misrepresenting what I said. I'm not calling him an ******** as fact, I'm saying that his comments are ******c in my opinion. He comes off as an ********* in my opinion. I don't see anything on WP:BLP about opinions, and this would seem to reflect the same standard in libel laws across the western world. "Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable". anyway, this is all I had to say about it. Amoruso (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a court of law, and you dont have free speech here. You cannot say such things on Wikipedia without sources that do so. Saying "it is only my opinion" does not allow you to say whatever you feel. This really is not that complicated. nableezy - 17:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Stating that a person is antisemitic because they argue that the Government of Israel has fabricated territorial claims (over what is internationally recognized as being occupied territory) is a bit far fetched in my opinion. You are seriously cheapening the term anti-semitic by using it in this fashion and I think you should consider retracting or at least redacting comments you have made to that regard. Unomi (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

and that's your opinion. Insinuating that Israel has fabricated territorial claims regarding its homeland of 3000 years in order to create CONFUSION is ********** to me. ******** often say that Israel or Jewish power create confusion around the world or disaster to advance their agenda. and that's my opinion. that's how free speech works. Amoruso (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"free speech" does not apply to talk pages per WP:FORUM. Editors opinions about the subjects of WP:BLPs on talk pages are unwelcomed, unneeded, and against policy. Please use the talk page to discuss how the article can be improved. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

[copied from user's talk page] Amoruso, you do not appear to be listening, and to an extent people are pussyfooting around, so let's be really clear here. WP:BLP applies everywhere, and the most important thing you need to know about it is that if you insist on engaging in commentary that is identified as violating the policy, that is, is polemical commentary about living individuals, then you may be blocked from editing. There are a whole raft of essays and guidelines covering this area including WP:TRUTH, but the most important is WP:BLP and also WP:NOT, which describes what Wikipedia is not for, including being a forum for discussion or an experiment in free speech. You have two choices: you can understand and dial it back about ten notches, or you can carry on and I will block you. This is not because of what you believe, it's because of what you are saying and about whom. If you want to blog that stuff then you're welcome, just please don't bring it here, OK? Guy (Help!) 19:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Look, this is a noticeboard for discussion about BLP issues, keep your opinions to yourselves and don't opine uncitable personal opinions on talkpages and move along. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP is pretty clear on this issue, unless there is WP:RS that specifically states he is an antisemite or issued antisemitic rulings, then such text amounts to WP:OR and must be struck from the article. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize that I didn't understand the scope of BLP. What I always meant to say was regarding the opinion rendered, not the person, and I think I made it clear, but that too seems to be a violation of the same policy, which I didn't realize. I realize that and was given a warning by an administrator on my talk page. Why then did a 2nd administrator take action because an involved editor went and asked him to? I think a warning suffices.. I never meant to violate BLP, I interpreted it incorrectly. I should have read this policy more carefully. It doesn't warrant an indefinite ban over my edits. Amoruso (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely topic-banned

I have been alerted to this matter by Nableezy Unomi (edited,  Sandstein  16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)) on my talk page and have reviewed it. Taking into consideration

• that it is a violation of WP:BLP to express derogatory personal opinions about identifiable living persons on Wikipedia, including on talk pages, notwithstanding any right to free speech editors might have under their national legal systems (see Wikipedia:Free speech),
• that Amoruso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has in this instance repeatedly violated WP:BLP and refused to undo this violation even after multiple warnings (some diffs: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19])
• that Amoruso has been previously blocked twice for WP:3RR violations in the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area in 2006,
• that he was blocked in 2008 by Moreschi (talk · contribs) for two months for the following reason: "Very abusive sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amoruso. Next block should probably be indef",
• that this sockpuppetry case showed that Amoruso had used multiple accounts to create disruption in the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area,
• that Amoruso was subsequently informed about possible sanctions under WP:ARBPIA,
• that a brief review of his recent contributions indicates that his main activity on Wikipedia is to promote the views associated with one side of the Israeli-Arab conflict, which is a general mode of project participation that conflicts with WP:NPOV,
• that all of this is contrary to WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions's direction that "editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators",
• that users engaging in abusive sockpuppetry especially in a particularly sensitive area are normally indefinitely blocked or, if they are not, are normally allowed (as here) to continue to participate only on a "last chance" basis, and that Amoruso has forfeited that last chance by way of this most recent disruption,
• but that an indefinite block appears to be not yet necessary given that Amoruso's disruption appears to be limited to the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area, and that therefore a topic ban is in order as a less restrictive measure,

I am in application of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions indefinitely banning Amoruso from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict (to include all broadly related pages, discussions and content, with no exceptions for BLP or vandalism reverts). Any violation of this ban, especially in order to disrupt, may result in an indefinite block. This sanction can be appealed as provided for at WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions, but I will not review any appeal directed at me personally before six months have elapsed.  Sandstein  19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where this came from. "I have been alerted to this matter by Nableezy on my talk page". What do you mean by that? Why would someone go to your talk page and complain about another user when it's been dealt with here? I go into wikipedia, look at my talk page, see a comment by an adminstrator, which I would have complied with, and then your message. I commented on your talk page about past discretions, and the fact that I didn't understand why this was BLP. It's simply a matter of telling me to remove it, sorry. Amoruso (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I didnt alert Sandstein of anything, I posted here and notified you. nableezy - 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. A robust response, and we've not really given the user time to react to the warnings and clarifications over BLP, but as far as I can tell it's based on more than just this one incident, yes? Guy (Help!) 09:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The harsh sanction is puzzling to me too. It appears that Amoruso has not been given ample time to respond to complaints or indeed understand what they were all about. Amoruso is a prolific contributor on Israel-related topics and improved countless articles in the past in non-controversial topics related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, therefore, the ban is also counterproductive. Apparently at least one stale issue (sock puppetry) was brought up to strengthen the case, even though Amoruso has not edited in a long time under any user name and the sock puppet issue has already been dealt with. I ask for the case to be reviewed, and am sure that Amoruso will acknowledge his mistake as he reads the BLP policy again (it has changed over time, which is likely why he didn't realize he was violating it), and refrain from violating BLP in the future. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this might be a case for a suspended sentence. If Sandstein is reading this still, perhaps he could comment on that. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein has indicated that he will not review an appeal filed earlier than 6 months from now. At any event the current appeal at AE is malformed and will need to be reformatted. Unomi (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He can change his opinion and reverse it without a need for a formalistic approach. I presented him with new evidence (WP:RS on which BLP was based on), and with a sincere apology. Amoruso (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Amoruso has also made an appeal at WP:AE. So as not to duplicate the discussion I will respond there to the salient points raised here.  Sandstein  16:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Judge, jury, executioner

Sandstein, I appreciate the detailed reasons that you use to justify your judgement (and you have noticed I take your judgement of me in stride) but it's clear that you have exaggerated on this case. Very peculiar that this judgement comes down in the range of less than half a day(?!). 11 hours using only input from anti-Zionist editors who violate one of your (if not multiple) commandments to promote the views associated with one side of the Israeli-Arab conflict, on a daily basis. This is the BLP page and not the Arbitration page. You are out of line here and I suggest that you take a break from the I-P conflict at this time. This one is classic rage that should go on the Admin noticeboard. --Shuki (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I fully support Sndstein's actions in this case, Amaruso was getting a lot of advice and was just not interested, in fact he continued asserting the violation here, as is revealed he also has history in the same topic field. Off2riorob (talk)

I realize I was wrong. I didn't get any advice from a neutral or administrator. I started discussing this with you, and I thought we were still inquiring about it. What advice should I have believed from the users rv'ing me and attacking me? I really had no idea that this was a violation of WP:BLP. An indefinite ban over a mistake? If an administrator would have told me to comply I would have. Amoruso (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do feel for you but it may be a good thing, there is a big wide wikipedia out there and there is a lot of work needs doing, constructive work, not adding something that is removed the next day and on and on. it is only a topic ban , you are still free to edit the other 99.99 percent of the wikipedia and you will get a review in a few months, your wheels haven't dropped off. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say I am shocked at the way things are going on here. Nableezy who initiated this discussion has been blocked numerous times in the past for his bad conduct. Nableezy is well-known to be a politically motivated editor. His main contribution to en-wp is introducing political propaganda, usually anti-Israeli, to articles. He hardly hides it, and yet he managed to organize a group of supporters who team up with him. He and some of his friends "hijack" articles and prevent any change which they don't like. They also intimidate users who challenge their conduct (I am among them). In this case, he managed once again to drag the en-wp community into holding a "kangaroo trial". This is one of the lowest moments of this community, and believe me, I've seen some low moments before. What does it take for people to tell Nableezy, Harlan Wilkerson and several other editors to release en-wp of their grip and let people edit articles for the benefit of free knowledge? What does it take to make people here realize that the NPOV rule that used to be cherished so much here is becoming nothing but a sad joke at the hand of Nableezy? This is not Wikipedia anymore, this is merely a faint shade of what it used to be. If you want it to finally die, let Nableezy continue his rampage. DrorK (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The behavior cited here does not match the sanction. Unless there's something else going on regarding the community (or certain editors) being fed up with the editor, this seems to reflect either over-zealousness regarding BLP or else a misunderstanding of the conception of antisemitism as it pertains to Israel. On that last point there is a frequent, albeit much criticized, belief in some circles that anti-Israeli opinions equate to or derive from antisemitism. We don't need to get into that here, but it is neither unusual nor surprising that someone would think such a thing. The discussion in question was tangentially related to the article content, but seems to have devolved on both sides to the usual bickering about the legitimacy of Israel's territorial claims. At any rate the editor in question simply did not understand that BLP prohibits name-calling on talk pages, seems to get that point now, and has apologized. Sanctions are supposed to calm disruption, not punish for past behavior, so what's the justification here? Bringing up years' old trouble seems to support the assumption that (some) people simply want to get rid of an editor they are tired of hearing from. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.. For the record, I await his response of course but here's my apology to user:Sandstein and an explanation that my mistake was based on an WP:RS who used the same word prominently. That WP:RS was in the Jerusalem Post and referenced in an article in Florida Law Review.Amoruso (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Amoruso canvassed Hertz1888 here. Factomancer (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking one user of an opinion is not canvassing. I think you're proving Wikidemon's astute remarks. Amoruso (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that Amoruso has apologized and now now understands about "personal opinions/freedom of speech" on talk pages ect is not "good/acceptable", so a ban or whatever is being called for is overkill/punishment, imho. This can always be changed or reviewed in a few weeks/months, right? Anyways, good luck to all :) --Tom (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for information, I have been canvassed via e-mail by Amoruso, in which he states " could you have a look at yom kippur war article and perhaps alert wikiproject israel? i'm concerned that it seems that egypt was victorious in the war, both by picture in the lead, caption and actual statement of who won the war "strategically" based on one misreading of one source... this is in contrast to reality where israel won decisively. don't mention me, i'm currently topic banned". пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Episkopon

Episkopon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Living persons are named as alumni of a controversial secret society (Episkopon), but there is no citation or source for this. I think this is dangerous. I have tried to apply some tags to this article, to indicate where it needs fixing, but I am not sufficiently experienced to deal with this all myself. It's a very contentious and important topic, but the article has some serious flaws. Could someone please take an interest and help out with this? It would be so very appreciated. Thank you.

By the way, the secret society was recently implicated in the press for nearly killing a student during a hazing ritual.

As well, several of the living persons named as alumni are very prominent individuals:

Bill Graham (...a former Canadian politician. In 2006, he was Canada's Leader of the Opposition as well as the interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada between the resignation of Paul Martin and the election of Stéphane Dion as his successor. Graham was variously Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs in the cabinets of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin... Graham serves as chancellor of Trinity College at the University of Toronto; chair of the Atlantic Council of Canada; and co-vice chair of the Canadian International Council. He is a director of the Empire Club of Canada and a member of the Trilateral Commission.)

Adrienne Clarkson (...is a Canadian journalist and stateswoman who served as Governor General of Canada, the 26th since that country's confederation. She was appointed as such by Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, on the recommendation of then Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien...)

Brittny Gastineau, part the third

Brittny Gastineau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been previously covered twice on this noticeboard, here [20] and here [21], as well as in a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Brittny Gastineau (See "Bruno" section).

There is once again a discussion going on as to whether or not to include details on the subject's appearance in the movie "Bruno," where she made comments (which she later said were a joke) about the pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears and abortion.

The consensus has been that including this information is giving undue weight to a comment made in passing in a comedy that all parties agree was a joke, and that it's disparaging to the pregnant person to include details on a trivial mention. The material has been out of the article for months after the previous discussion, but a new editor Reswobslc has come along to readd the information, and claim there is no consensus. I've reverted in hopes of continuing the discussion on the talk page, but I was in turn reverted by 128.104.truth, who was one of the original editors pushing for inclusion of the material, claiming it was "the truth" [22].

I'm not going to edit war over this, but more opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a newcomer to that article. I see no consensus for omission as Dayewalker claims. Just a lot of people arguing over whether or not consensus exists: "yes there is, no there isn't" style. I readded a much briefer, more factual version that amounts to one well-sourced line that avoids the concerns previously brought up. The line briefly says she appeared, said something about abortion she later called a joke. There should be nothing wrong wit that. Reswobslc (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please present your desired addition and the supporting citations here for discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, both can be found in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Brittny_Gastineau&diff=prev&oldid=355478887 Thanks Reswobslc (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You want to add this..Off2riorob (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In 2009 she appeared in the Sacha Baron Cohen documentary comedy Brüno http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889583/fullcredits#cast, in a talk show scene she later described as herself "joking around" . She is depicted cheerfully agreeing with suggestions that a pregnant teen actress should abort her baby. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=43723

That is correct. It is substantially shorter than the entry past folks were contending over, and avoids mentioning who's baby she suggested be aborted, something others have been concerned about. It is not clear to me why there is any further concern. Reswobslc (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets wait and get a couple of opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First off I would like to apologize for my previous edit war over this person's page. But I fully support the recent edits that Reswobslc have added to the page. It presents the material I had tried to include, but in a well-sourced and non-controversial way. It acknowledges that it was a joke, but it does include the necessary information. I had previously tried to present it in a controversial manner, and that was my mistake. My previous mistakes should not be a factor in not including this new edit. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 128.104.truth and (especially) Reswobslc that this should be included. The old version that 128.104.truth was a pest about adding was inappropriate to include based on WP:BLP, but the new version (seen above) presented by Reswobslc is appropriate according to WP:BLP and should be included. Unflattering information should not be removed from Wikipedia articles because it is unflattering. If that were the case there would be some articles that would get so reduced that they would barely be a stub. This information is well-sourced and appropriately worded. INCLUDE --Spidey104^contribs 14:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is unflattering about the comment? Is it that even though the expression is lifted from a comedy show and not real life it could be wrongly interpreted that she is a real life supporter of abortion? Also, who wrote the San fran article? Why does the http address have blog in the title? Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

When I said it was unflattering I was referring to the scene in general; she looks stupid and ridiculous in the movie. The reference is for how Brittny communicated to the world that she was "in on the joke." Nowadays it is normal for celebrities to communicate this type of information through a blog, twitter, facebook post, etc. That part of the new edit is the least important (in my opinion), but it is the part that softens the impact of the scene and why I feel people would be willing to include it in the article now. --Spidey104^contribs 19:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that this is a scene from a comedy program where she had a walk on walk of part where adding it to her BLP would give WP:Undue weight and could well easily be misunderstood and the comedy comment be mistakenly assumed to be her personally held opinion, easlily leading to the mistaken understanding that she said this baby should be aborted and that she supports abortion, which as far as I know is a very controversial issue in America. It is a bit like wanting to add to an actors article that he once played a gay actor and wanting to add, in the movie lala John Harrison said he wanted to have gay sex with (add the name of your choice here) it's misleading and risks attributing and asserting the opinions and comments from a comedy movie to the real person. I see it is already added to the bruno/movie article where it has less weight than if it was added to this living persons BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

She wasn't playing a character in this movie. She was herself. She claimed she was "in on the joke" after the movie came out to try and save herself some embarrassment over being duped, but it's probably not what is the truth. It's not undue weight because it is only two sentences in a much longer article. Leaving the comment about the movie as only a statement that she was in it is not putting enough weight to it. 128.104.truth (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would take even the comment out that she was in the comedy she wasn't named in the credits and is one of the most minor things she has been involved in. She was playing herself, so it is her personal position as regards abortion then? Have we got any reliable citations that also comment on her supporting abortion? Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey hey hey, don't change the subject of the debate. Until now no one was debating whether or not to include the information about her being in the movie, because that is verifiable (especially if you've ever seen the movie). She is uncredited in the movie because of the way she was duped. The quote is verifiable as part of the film, and the secondary citation is where she claims it is a comment made in jest. As a celebrity I doubt she has made any separate claims on her views about abortion because of its controversial nature. But the absence of additional evidence is not the evidence of absence. This should be included. The new version put forth by Reswobslc portrays it in a proper weight (not undue) and in a reasonable manner. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would never support inclusion of this content as presented, we are encouraged through BLP policy to take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity. In this case it also seems IMO to be a case of Guilt by association to her own comedy comments. I also note your comments here in the thread titled return to the fight seeking support from Spidey104 to add the content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I'm certainly glad for the discussion on the matter this time around. 128.104.truth, you were adamant about including this information in the previous discussion because it's your personal opinion this shows "the truth" about her, your above comment about "saving her some embarrasment" seem to indicate that's still how you see it. Whatever your personal opinions are, that's no reason for inclusion.

As for the new suggested version of the incident, I will agree it's better, but I still see no reason for inclusion. It was a comment made in a comedy that no one says was meant seriously. Including it gives undue weight to an off-the-cuff remark, which should be avoided on a BLP.

I'll obviously abide by whatever consensus develops here but my main question is, what exactly does this section add to the BLP? Dayewalker (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Daywalker's comments. What exactly is this adding to the article? How did this event affect the subject's notability? If her appearance in the film had sparked considerable controversy, I could see including, but it being written up a few times in some blogs doesn't really cut it. It appears that the same reason for not including it to begin with (WP:UNDUE) is still very much an issue. As I understand it, the fact that the content didn't have a source was never really an issue. As I said on the article talk page, just because something has a source doesn't mean it belongs in the context of Wikipedia. As an aside, all of this talk of "truth" and "fight" is bordering on WP:BATTLEGROUND, and is quite off putting. Comments about other editors being "voracious" for following policy and having the gall to establish a consensus is not collegial. Pinkadelica^♣ 09:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What does it add? It explains what her part in the movie was. For any other actor in a movie you say what the role was. Since she didn't have a role in this movie it is necessary to say what she did in the movie. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• User:128.104.truth is claiming that there is a consensus to insert this disputed content here with the edit summary 3 for inclusion. 2 against inclusion. 1 neutral. Consensus reached. Thank you for your time. Content is currently back in the article. I dispute that there is any consensus to include the content here and perhaps a few more editors would comment either way to create a clear consensus. If not perhaps an uninvolved Administrator would comment as to the consensus either way, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Should every comment this person makes be included in the article? What makes this comment special? Oh, that's right, some people think it makes her look bad so they want it included. It's been covered by gossip pages, tabloids and blogs after all so it's obviously notable. </sarcasm> --Onorem♠Dil 15:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"It's been covered by gossip pages, tabloids and blogs after all so it's obviously notable. </sarcasm>"

I could use the same argument to support deleting her entire page, so what's wrong with including this small bit of information? 128.104.truth (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If gossip pages, tabloids, and blogs were all that were being used as sources, I'd have to say deletion should be considered. It appears that there are a few good sources there though. --Onorem♠Dil 16:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

128.104.truth, you've seen this article as a battleground since you came to it as an IP. If you think it should be deleted, then AfD it. That doesn't give you a right to assume consensus and edit war on a BLP.

With all due respect, your comment about it being "necessary to say what she did in the movie" makes no sense at all. You've said before it was necessary to show "the truth." It was an off-the-cuff line in a comedy, it's not a political position she's taken. Dayewalker (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to accept the omission of this comment based on the fact that it caused no significant public uproar other than the publication of a few gossip column articles (despite their appearance in the SF Chronicle and New York Post) and based on Wikipedia's intentional bias toward sensitivity toward living people. While I think including the statement in the article is fair game and would feel no shame in leaving it there, my pressure has principally been behind excluding it only for good cause, not necessarily inclusion at all costs. I find User:Pinkadelica's argument that "if her appearance in the film had sparked considerable controversy, I could see including" to be persuasive. On the other hand, Bruno is a fairly well known film and her appearance there, like it or not, is relevant to her notability to a meaningful extent. Is it fair to suggest that the reference to abortion constitutes the majority of the negativity? I think it would be reasonable perhaps to add (instead of simply saying that she appeared in Bruno, but short of referring to that she sold herself out), that she appeared unwittingly as part of a prank - along with a link to SFGate or NYPost - and leaving it at that. Example: "In 2009, she unwittingly appeared in the Sacha Baron Cohen comedy Bruno as a participant on a fake talk show[ref]." Reswobslc (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the content is back in the article and sourced to Page Six no less. Page Six is notorious gossip rag and, as far as I know, isn't considered a reliable source for a BLP. I'm still not seeing consensus to include it, but whatever. It's quite obvious there's an agenda here. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of Page Six. How is it notoriously a gossip rag? Can you provide a citation for that? 128.104.truth (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Content that was discussed here and rejected for insertion has been again reinserted today (diff) by User:128.104.truth , I have removed it yet again. What part of no consensus to include is hard to understand? Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You also removed productive edits to the page. Be more careful in the future. And in response to Dayewalker, I do not see it as a battleground, but you must if you're assuming others do. And you obviously misunderstood my point: I do not think that the article should be deleted; but the argument Onorem Dil made could also be made as an argument for deleting the entire article. Which illustrates how useless of an argument it is. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

By battleground mentality, I'm talking not only about you reverting against consensus (now and in the past, leading to the page being locked), but also recent edits like these [23] [24] where you refer to things like your "side" of the "fight." There's no need to personalize this difference of opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Recently I have seen users that repeatedly insert BLP violating content with a single purpose restricted from editing the article. I for one strongly support such editing restrictions, such editing not only disrupts the biography of a living person but also totally wastes the time of constructive editors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker, to all arguments there are "sides" to the fight, otherwise there is no argument. By the way, notice how I use "argument" and "fight" interchangeably? They are synonyms. For example, I could say I had a "fight with my girlfriend," or an argument with my girlfriend." Stop making accusations of battleground mentality with no real evidence. And may I remind everyone that what I am arguing to include was the original consensus for the article. I know consensus changes, but stop accusing me of adding stuff when all I have done is include information you have decided to censor with little to support your reasoning for unnecessary censorship. 128.104.truth (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When all else fails, scream censorship! Seriously....why is that the go-to battleground cry? The argument actually might work in this instance if the information were not in the article at all, but since the content clearly states she was in the film (which is, after all, what you want the content to convey, correct?), nothing is being censored. As for you needing a citation supporting my assertion that Page Six is a gossip rag, that's not needed as the website itself states that it provides "Celebrity Gossip". That would make it a gossip rag (albeit an electronic one so forgive my antiquated terminology). If you weren't aware of the page's reputation, now you know. All that being said, I believe this issue either can be wrapped up or some blocks need to be handed out because this same issue being rehashed every few weeks/months is becoming disruptive to the project. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

We've gotten completely off the topic. This discussion is now not even dealing with the merits of the addition to the article, and we've fallen back into 128.104.truth edit warring again against consensus, and backing it up with the same old arguments. I agree with the comments above, the next step is blocks being handed out for edit warring against consensus, and possibly topic bans. Dayewalker (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pinkadelica, do I need to remind you that Wikipedia stays away from the libel you're throwing around? And yes, we have gotten off topic. The information should be included because it is the equivalent of stating what role she had in the film. 128.104.truth (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How about you actually look up what libel means before you claim I'm "throwing" it around. I didn't mention a particular person and I can't very well make slanderous statements about a website. A website or newspaper column is not a living person. If you want to claim I'm libeling you, spare me. Commenting on your actions on a website under which you don't even use your real name is not libel. You can't cry about being censored and then complain in the same breathe about being libeled when people make observations about your very public actions regarding this article. That's really beside the point because as Daywalker pointed out, this conversation has degraded into off-topic nonsense. There's enough eyes on the situation now so reinsertion of this and any other unneeded content will be dealt with rather swiftly. If you and your buddy Spidey want to keep playing games with the article every couple of weeks, have at it. There's better things to do round here than keep playing these reindeer games. Pinkadelica^♣ 17:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob Tallman

• Bob Tallman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A cleanup tag was placed on this article due to statements in the section entitled Early years which could be viewed as attacks. While sourced, they place undue weight on the subject's religious belief and do not seem noteworthy as he is not a convert to the clergy where such incidents might be viewed as inspirational. Morenooso (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels

• Patrick Michaels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject is essentially being accused of claiming a position and title (state climatologist of Virginia) he did not hold. Other editor(s) are misrepresenting source to support the POV that the position in question did not exist. The relevant text from the newspaper source is at:

• http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2007/09/27/michaels-resigns-as-state-climatologist/

Quoting and highlighting the relevant sections:

“ Patrick Michaels has officially resigned as the Virginia state climatologist, a position to which he was appointed in 1980.

Controversy arose in 2006 about the validity of Michaels’ position, when Gov. Tim Kaine’s office claimed Michaels did not hold a governor-appointed position and said his views did not represent those of the Commonwealth. At that time, state officials said no evidence could be found that a governor had appointed a climatologist since 1980 and that the ability to appoint the climatologist shifted to the University in 2000.

”

This seems rather clear. The position was governor-appointed in 1980, when Michaels received the title. In 2000, the responsibility to award that title shifted to the University (Michael's employer) and in 2006, the new governor clarified his office no longer handled the appointment.

However an editor is misinterpreting this as "the position itself did not exist", and expressing it in language prejudicial to the article's subject. See diff:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Michaels&action=historysubmit&diff=355699691&oldid=355675003

The article is on CC probation, so I am leery about reverting this violation myself. FellGleaming (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the content from the lede....

a position he was appointed to in 1980and resigned from in 2007 amid uncertainty over whether he still officially retained the position

It is presented in the lede and totally unexplained in the text, it is quite a serious claim and should be expanded on and explained in the text, who did hold the position then and who said he did not hold the position and what was the outcome. The citation goes on to say Regarding the upkeep of Michaels’ office, a replacement has not yet been found. this was after he resigned, he clearly did hold that position and that should be made very clear, the people who claimed that he did not need naming and the situation requires explaining. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I must disagree with Rob, who is in error. It should be removed from the lead as a contested claim on a BLP. Extremely good sourcing and consensus for this claim must be established before restoring it - and then, it should be to the article body, not the lead, unless and until consensus exists that this is important enough not to constitute a violation of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear, I do not support this in the lede at all, explained and cited a bit better I may support it same as KillerChihuahua in the article body. I actually removed it and referred editors to come and discuss here but user WMC replaced it saying he didn't see anything wrong with it but as yet he has not come to discuss it here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification - I have struck my error. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, the typed text can be poor representation of the thoughts. I actually removed it with this edit summary I don't think this is a fair representation of the detail, and not anyway in the lede, there is a thread for discussion opened at the BLPN Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The article text is still making the improper claim. Am I correct in assuming it should be removed? FellGleaming (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There is support here so for for its removal from the lede but it is not really an desperate situation, better to wait for more discussion as you have already removed it once today and the article is restricted to 1RR. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gone from the lede. The discussion in the rest of the article remains, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Arroyo

His article is being subject to an IP using it as a coatrack to make some statement about the Iraq war, and perhaps vilify Arroyo's religious fidelity. Similar edits have occurred in the past at other articles of related people, e.g., George Weigel. I have reverted a second time but do not feel like escalating into editwarring. A few sane eyes on the article would be helpful. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 3 days, per the general trend toward liberal semiprotection of WP:BLPs. Perhaps that, combined with an invitation to the IP to participate on the talk page, will move things forward constructively. MastCell ^Talk 03:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarabeth Tucek

(Copied from WP:ANI)

There are current issues on this article, relating to the subject's date of birth. The only verifiable information I have found is a late 2007 interview, referring to her age as 34 and implying a DOB circa 1973. However, several editors (or perhaps one), currently identified as Mjo5650 (talk · contribs · block log), is attempting to insert a claim that she was born several years earlier, based on personal knowledge. I have asked for sources, but the editor has not replied to my messages except to add a hostile message on my talk page here. In addition, the subject of the article (or someone claiming to be her) has sought to remove any mention of her DOB from the page (and at one point asked for the article to be removed). My reaction to all this, apart from seeking fruitlessly to engage the editors in discussion, has been to remove the contested DOB info from the article per WP:BLP, and revert changes which re-insert it. I'm not sure whether to go for protection of the article, blocking of Mjo5650, or both. Advice, or suitable action, welcomed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What about a twitter tweet confirmation? If the user is adding uncited birth date claims and refuses to produce any citations then simply revert and warn and report, there is a lot of quacking unconfirmed accounts there....the subject is semi notable and their exact day of birth when weakly cited is of no value anyway. Personally for what its worth in this situation I would support replacing the cited interview interview implying 1973, she is approx this age and a editor who simply insists on personal knowledge and cites that on request have not been produced should not be allowed to removed a cited claim. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Twitter would not be a RS. I would remove the DOB/age material. If it is only one person who is inserting the material, warn that person and then block. If it is several people/socks then semi-protection might be appropriate.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As regards twitter -I have been involved recently in more than one discussion where twitter as a self published source for non controversial content in regard to the twitter account holder only and as such for a subjects birth date was supported by consensus as reliable and acceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki

On first blush, there isn't much of a BLP problem with this article. But digging a little deeper, I'm detecting serious problems related to whether the claims in the article are actually supported by the citations. In many or most cases, the article attributes claims to citations that do not fully support them. My efforts to clean up the content and realign our concrete statements with what citations actually say have met with serious resistance on the article talk page, including personal attacks and a general tendency to spend more energy discussing my motives than discussing article content.

Most grievously, some editors have unambiguously argued that because the subject is an accused terrorist, WP:BLP does not apply to him, and have reverted my efforts to clean up the article without discussion beyond personal attacks and accusations of pro-terrorism POV warriorship on my part. I do not want to use sysop tools to enforce BLP in a dispute in which I am a direct participant, but without help, I do not see any alternative. More eyes please, before this boils over. --causa sui (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear which of the positions you've taken on that article's talk page you would like us to focus on here. Is it that you still want to reduce size of two pictures to half of what you admit is the Wikipedia guideline size? Despite the fact that the people in the pictures are mentioned with the subject of the article in 130,000 ghits ... because in your POV the pictures are "not entirely encyclopedic"? Or was there another more grievous issue that you would like us to focus on?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• After a brief run at ANI, the article is now fully protected and I invite interested parties to discuss potential BLP concerns at talk:Anwar al-Awlaki. –xeno^talk 00:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Willie Soon

• Willie Soon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- The continual reinsertion of material that violates BLP, despite ongoing discussion on the talk page. The problem centers around the following source which is being used to impugn the scientific integrity of a BLP.

• [25]

This source has several problems.

• It's a personal letter by one individual, not fact-checked, being used to speak to the actions not only of the letter's author, but other people as well.
• It's not visible on the author's own site, but on a self-published advocacy site which may have modified it, deleted portions, or otherwise modified its meaning. Further, this group is clearly hostile to the article's subject who is being impugned here.
• The letter's version of events conflicts in subtle, but important ways from reliable sources already in the article.

See below for a WP:RS on the same incident. It is the official statement which appeared in the journal involved in the incident. It differs substantially on the number of people who resigned, and the reason for doing so (not a direct protest to appearance of the paper, but because Von Storch was requested to validate his subsequent editorial retraction with the full editorial board first, which the journal's publisher (as seen in this official statement published by the journal) would not allow:

• [26]

Diffs of the most recent revert is below.

1. [27]

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've protected the page to stop the ongoing edit war until others can sort this out. Sorry I don't have time to do more than this, but I'm embroiled in my own battles currently (see above). --causa sui (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Anyone else have time to attend to this? The article is on protection now, but with the offending material still in place. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 12:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom Schulman

Unsourced BLP. The claims that were there previously were not sourced to the provided sources, so I removed them. I just got reverted by an IP editor with no prior edits. I have re-reverted. Woogee (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted another IP adding claims that aren't supported by the references they added Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Bavarian throne

Line of succession to the Bavarian throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I saw this edit, and there is nothing I can do because neither for the original information nor for the new information any sources are offered. Some obvious problems:

• The article is about a fiction. The Bavarian throne was abolished in 1918, and there appears to be no chance that it will ever be revived.
• The article is a single huge BLP violation. It lists 21 living people and makes an unsourced claim about each person on the list.

In the past I have observed similar problems with the poor sourcing and maintenance of such list articles in the scope of WP:ROYAL. Since this facilitates the work of hoaxters and fraudsters, I think we need to start enforcing some minimal standards. Hans Adler 08:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As Bali ultimate said in WT:ROYAL#Non-notable nobility and hoaxes: Template:Former monarchic orders of succession "appears to be a navigational aid to entirely unsourced, unverifiable claims." Hans Adler 08:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted repeated vandalism to Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (b.1951) back in March. This looks like more of the same. Woogee (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, I missed that this was basically a revert of an edit by a one-edit account, and that there was previously a similar edit, also by a one-edit account.

Still, most of these extrapolated successor lists don't have any real significance, and I guess most of them are not notable at all and should be deleted. Hans Adler 09:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thundera_m117 userboxes

I suspect that there may be problems with two userboxes on Thundera_m117's user page. One (shown on the bottom lefthand-side) carries the text "This user knows Anti-semites use Self-hating Jew and irrational Anti-Zionist Jewish Fundamentalist as their political opportunity against mainstream Jewish Community and Israel" and shows a picture of Noam Chomsky; the other (shown in the middle on the lefthand-side) carries the text "This user was not surprise at Mahathir Anti-Semitic hate speech at the Organization of Islamic Conference". Since the user edits irregularly, I edited the user page to remove what I thought were probably BLP violations, leaving the editor a message to explain what I had done. The user has now reverted my edits.     ←   ZScarpia   15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

:Perhaps this is better at ANI? Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Noam_Chomsky article, he is not described or catagorised as an anti semite there so it may well be an issue to portray his as such in that way. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I was working on the principle that this is the place to bring possible BLP violations, not just issues concerning articles on living people. Any suggestions?     ←   ZScarpia   17:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

While the BLP related userbox problems can be discussed here, I wonder whether it might be better to discuss them someplace else. Specifically some of them even not dealing with LP seem close to a violation of Wikipedia:Userbox requirements for "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." E.g. "This user believes that Hitler and Muhammad were the two most evil men". We tend to be fairly lenient with userboxes and userbox discussions are usually messy e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox & Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist but it may be worthwhile in this case if you don't get anywhere with discussion with the user. In terms of the LP userboxes issues, we've tended to be fairly strict on those in recent years AFAIK, e.g. [28] so they're probably a clearer cut issue although I wouldn't edit war over them. P.S. If any of the userboxes are transcluded subpages then you can of course us the MFD process. P.P.S. Just to re-emphasise a point, it's probably best to enter into more discussion with the user before taking this further, given my history I don't believe I can help so won't bother. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   23:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have created a new incident at the WP:ANI noticeboard: User:Thundera_m117 userboxes.     ←   ZScarpia   01:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Kelly O'Donnell

An IP user has been adding some controversial info to this article (diff), citing newsbusters blog.

I do not believe that this is an acceptable reliable source.

Fortunately, following some warnings, the user has taken the discussion to the talk page.

I would greatly appreciate it if others could comment, in Talk:Kelly O'Donnell#Controversy.

I have posted here specifically as it is a BLP issue, and on RSN for reference validation; I hope that I will not be accused of board shopping; I am not involved with the issue, but am a neutral third-party trying to keep the discussion on-track.

To keep the thread clear, please comment on the article talk. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Brown

An editor wants to add material to Jerry Brown, the biography of the former governor of California and current candidate for that office. It concerns whether Brown was the inspiration for a character in a 19790 movie. The offered sources are an IMDB reader review and a number of blogs.[29] While it's certainly possible that Brown was the inspiration, I think we'd need the same high quality sources for this as we'd expect for any assertion about a living person. This has been discussed at Talk:Jerry Brown‎#Americathon, but I don't think we're getting closer to consensus. Other views?   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're correct however the editor is saying that they have a copy of a 1979 New Yorker magazine as a source. Ask them to scan and upload an image. Or someone needs to go to the library and check for themselves. FWIW, I cannot find any online reliable sources making this claim. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if the New Yorker says so then that's a great source. But the clip that I saw of it at their website says it's a parody interview, so it's unlikely to be making a critical judgment of a movie.[30] I've asked the other editor to post an excerpt of the relevant text.   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Will has placed an unfairly narrow requirement on this particular statement, but I have contacted the writers. I'm going to add that the Wikipedia:Citing IMDb proposal failed to reach consensus and is, in fact, a failed proposal. The addition of multiple other sources AS BACK UP of what is essentially an opinion certainly confirms such a statement. I'm working to find more information.Trackinfo (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know, sources must be published in some form. Personal correspondence is not allowed to be used as a source, if I'm not mistaken. But the screenwriters may be aware of some interview or article about the movie that identifies the inspiration.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trackinfo, this is easy enough to resolve. Can you scan a copy of the article and upload it so others can verify? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who subscribes to the New Yorker will be able to access the August 27, 1979 issue and read this article if they are willing to click through enough screens. The article is on pages 74 and 75 of that issue. Send me email if you want more info. The article gives no explicit support for the view that the main character (the President) is based on Jerry Brown. The article is a serious review by Veronica Geng of three movies, one of which is Americathon. Here's the relevant section:

The first joke is nearly the last. Over some pictures of dinosaurs, a narrator says then when dinosaurs died, they turned into fossil fuel, and that "Jimmy Carter became President when everybody noticed we were starting to run out of dead dinosaurs." The movie was made at a time when everybody noticed we were starting to run out of Jerry Brown jokes, but it relies on them for fuel.

I wonder if somebody could have been confusing two different New Yorker articles in 1979. There is another one, dated 23 April 1979, page 41, titled "Gov. Beige". It is easy for the reader to assume this is a spoof of Jerry Brown, whose last name is also a color, and the connection is made explicitly in the article's abstract, which is available to anyone online (even nonsubscribers) here. The abstract says 'Parody of the way Gov. Jerry Brown speaks.' This spoof article, by Patti Hagan, makes no mention of the movie Americathon. So we have no written support from the New Yorker in 1979 that the President in Americathon was intended to be Jerry Brown. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that more careful analysis. I'm the guilty one with confusing 1979 articles. Yet, it sounds like the end conclusion may be the same: that neither article supports the assertion. At best, this seems like a bit of pop culture trivia rather than a significant criticism of the subject.   Will Beback  talk  12:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Nygard

I'm afraid this is turning into an edit war, and thought I'd check in here for some advice on what to do. I don't think it is correct to include the (removed) section on human trafficking given that there's just one primary source. It gets added, I remove it, it gets added again, etc. I made the bold move of removing it (again) until a consensus is reached on Talk:Peter Nygård. There's a couple of reasons this is concerning: it isn't properly sourced material and doesn't match my novice interpretation of WP:BLP, and Nygard has a history of launching libel lawsuits. I'm new to this, help me do the right thing. Alexthepuffin (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, those are some very strong allegations to be backed up only by a single source. The video clip won't stream outside Canada, but I looked up a couple alternate news clips of the allegations, and they were softer in tone. I strongly suggest sourcing that claim with a second source, making sure whatever said is in both refs, and putting Nygard's side of the story in as well (I believe he's chalking all this up to 2 disgruntled employees).

That said, quite obviously no one should be blanking the section, but we do want to be careful about giving the claim undue weight, especially when it includes things like sexual conduct with minors. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 06:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the human trafacking part, there is nothing to actually say that the subject had anything to do with it at all, its being coatracked onto him, it belongs at the company talkpage for discussion there it looks awful dramatic and tabloid type content to me. I would trim it right back if I was going to include it on the company article. Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nyguard still needs some eyes, a new account is adding content to both articles. I am to busy to check. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Summer Watson

Summer Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), subject has an issue with the article referred second-hand to OTRS via Jimbo, ticket 2010041710015426. She complains of someone who she refers to as "stalking" her, adding material stated to be false such as her being born Rachel, which is apparently her middle name not her birth forename. I suspect it is, rather, an obsessive fan whose sources of information are tittle-tattle of dubious accuracy. I have taken first steps to contact her and establish what the problems are, but it appears that Sosoprano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be the user to which she refers. I have not done anything yet about that account as I don't have full details but please watch the article, I think it's fair to say that reverting in anything prurient about her personal life, or changing the name. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• The user continues to revert the information back in, I have informed them that they may no longer edit this article. We do not need WP:SPAs on biographies. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thumbs up to that solutoin. Durova⁴¹² 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Winner

I removed some text from Michael Winner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was allegedly introduced by Dom Joly - if so it was a while back I think. I also semi-protected the article due to fairly constant low-level stupidity, more or less inevitable given the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lara Jones

Lara Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has sadly died of cancer aged just 34. OTRS ticket 2010041710009121 from a family friend. An obituary is expected in The Times, in the mean time I have added a notice from the local paper. I have no reason to believe this is anythign other than completely genuine as what detail there is matches up. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WRT claims material has to be excised because it is "dehumanizing"

The wiki-id User:Iqinn often asserts that material referenced or referenceable to WP:RS had to be excised because it was "dehumanizing".

As I wrote here, I have been frustrated in my attempts to understand which wikipedia policy, guideline or established convention Iqinn is relying on in characterizing these passages as "dehumanizing". (User:Iqinn's reply here)

Here is one of those edits.

In many other instances they have objected to sections of articles that provides references to WP:RS that document that an individual has been referred to using a variety of alternate names, asserting both "dehumanizing", and WP:OR. I plan to ask about that at WP:NORN. WRT to the "dehumanizing" aspect, it seems to me that no one would object to referencing that Joseph Stalin's real name was "Lavrenti Djugvali", that Mark Twain's real name was "Samuel Clemens". I honestly don't understand their objection here.

I'd appreciate input from informed, uninvolved third parties.

Thanks in advance! Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all i would like to ask user Geo Swan why he did discuss and address the given arguments on the talk page where a discussion about this topic has been started? Talk:Ismael_Ali_Faraj_Ali_Bakush#Identity. IQinn (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Geo Swan's view here. The information that Iqinn is removing isn't "dehumanizing" or original research (it would have to be an "analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources", which it is not). There is a matter of whether or not the information in Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif#Identity is too trivial to include, but that is a not an OR or BLP matter. NW (Talk) 17:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like someone with a bee in their bonnet. This material looks to be reliably sourced and neutral, I don't see the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sections like this Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif#Identity creates an idea that is not stated in any of these RS. That is OR by WP:SYN. Such a sections dehumanize the detainees as it deprives them of their individuality. These sections have been mass added just by one editor who is listing any misspelling from mostly primary source he can find. Notable alternate names of the detainees have been added to the infobox. These "Identity" sections are encyclopedic and unnecessary. IQinn (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What idea do you feel he has created ? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The wrong impression (idea) that the "Identity" of the detainees is in question. The identity and name of the detainees are not in question and well documented in reliable secondary sources. IQinn (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

While the "dehumanizing objection" doesn't hold up, the fact remains the original section strongly appeared to be poisoning the well, rather than simply identifying alternate names of the article's subject. I have made an edit to clean it up. If another editor wants to restore the material I deleted in a more appropriate section (such as detailing what DoD documents refer to him, and how and why), that is their prerogative. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The policy on verifiability says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth". What role should my personal notion of what is "the wrong impression", or any other wikipedian's personal opinion of what is "the wrong impression", play in choosing what belongs in an article? I don't think any of our personal opinions of what is "the wrong impression" should play any role in what belongs in article space.

The personal opinion expressed above that: "[T]he identity and name of the detainees are not in question and well documented in reliable secondary sources." Sorry, this personal opinion is incorrect. For some of the Guantanamo captives genuine doubt about the captive's identity did exist.

• Shed Abdur Rahman / Abdur Sayed Rahaman was one of the 38 captives whose CSR Tribunal determined was not an enemy combatant after all, who claimed he was the victim of mistaken identity, because his real name had a vague resemblance to the name of senior Taliban leader.
• Abdullah Mehsud, Mullah Shahzada and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar were the first three former captives to be identified as former captives who "returned to the battlefield". The official account of their early release was that they tricked the camp authorities about their real identity.
• Abdullah Khan was identified as Khirullah Khairkhwa by American intelligence officials in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, for the first two years he was in US custody, even though the real Khirullah Khairkhwa, a famous individual in Afghanistna, bad been captured years earlier, and was present, just a few hundred yards away, in another compound in Guantanamo.

So, no, I can't agree that their identities have been unquestionably established. I think the record shows that, for some captives, confusion over their identity unquestionably existed. So, what about the other individuals? If WP:RS don't document identity confusion then nothing in article space should state captives were held due to identity confusion. I honestly believe these sections don't state any of the captives were held due to identity confusion.

I think we need to proceed from the assumption that we should respect our readers' intelligence, and trust that if our material is neutrally written, cites WP:RS in a fair manner that doesn't distort the meaning of what the WP:RS say, then we can't characterize the conclusions our readers come to as "the wrong impression". Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you truly believe there is a question over the person's identity, then we may be violating BLP by inserting material that isn't even about him. The article isn't named "Detainee 215", after all. But the reality is that there is no identity question: transliterating from Arabic to English is more art than science, and the person falls well below the bar for notability as well. Merging all these detainees into one single list-oriented article is certainly appropriate. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 19:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are certainly entitled to have doubts about the notability of Fahd al Sharif. And, if you think the article should be deleted, you are entitled to voice that opinion at {{afd}}. I see you have someone nominated the article for deletion. So, would it be possible for us to confine questions of whether Fahd al Sharif, or any other individual, merits deletion, to other fora? Could we confine this discussion to the specific question of when it is appropriate to assert a referenced passage is "dehumanizing" and whether BLP authorizes that characterization? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of primary sources there? Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif It looks like a report of court records, are these detainees individually notable, is this person really notable in independent citations? Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

<- He wouldn't identify himself using any of those names since his name is written in Arabic, no ? So, perhaps his name in his language should be in the article just like other biographies. Would that help at all ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a whole bunch of details from court records collected together. Is that a correct thing to do on wikipedia to create a BLP? Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope and frankly who gives a shit about arabic->english naming variations in a collection of court records. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with you...I thought the general idea was to report what other people had reported about people, not to be the primary reporter of court documents and legal documents.Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, we don't matter. A secondary source needs to care, not us. That's what I thought anyhow. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am going to request those participating here help resolve the question as to when it is appropriate to justify excising material based on assertions that it is "denumanizing".
• Who cares about Arabic -> English transliterations? Without references that verify that a transliteration is actually, verifiably, the individual in question, diligent readers and other contributors, can't confirm that our references actually all refer to a single individual. Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Should individuals with Arabic names have their names represented in the Arabic script? Sure! Do you know how to find an WP:RS that sets out the name in Arabic script? I do not. I know that some articles on individuals with Arabic names have had a tag placed on them, requesting wikipedia contributors fluent in Arabic to render the name into the Arabic script. I believe that in almost all cases these volunteers have done this by using their experience, and judgment, and making an educated guess. The reliability of these educated guesses is going to have to vary, based on the individual volunteer's fluency, the trickiness of the underlying names, and the (unknown) reliability of the original rendering from Arabic into English. I don't want to criticize any of the volunteers who offered their best guesses as to how these individual's names should be rendered back into Arabic -- but aren't their best guesses what we would normally call "original research".
• Even if, for the sake of argument, we found a rosetta stone -- an official document, from, lets say, the Saudi embassy, that listed the captives' names first in English and then in Arabic, why wouldn't we still need to list, and reference, the variant transliterations used in English language WP:RS? This is, after all, the English language wikipedia. Almost none of our readers are fluent in Arabic, almost none of our contributors are fluent in Arabic, so even a perfectly reliable Arabic transliteration is going to help someone who finds a reference elsewhere to a name that might refer to this individual is the same name as one that was used in an WP:RS that we know refers to this individual? Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The mention article is not the only one - let's not forget that we have (had) hundreds of these sections that has been mass added to Guantanamo detainee biographies. Here are some more examples. [31],[32], [33], [34], [35] and there are even worst examples. We have 600 - 700 hundred of these BLP's and they are often solely based on primary source and in addition these primary sources are often heavily redacted. IQinn (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sent to AFD for discussion, here Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

My initial question here concerned an edit summary that I was concerned was making a questionable interpretation of BLP in this edit to Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo. Most of the comments here concern Iqinn's defense of [their edit to Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif. While I find the other comments very interesting I hope people won't forget my request for opinions on the claim that it was "dehumanizing" to list the variants of the Uyghur's names on an article about the Uyghurs. Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I ask you before why he did discuss and address the given arguments on the talk page where a discussion about this topic has been started? Talk:Ismael_Ali_Faraj_Ali_Bakush#Identity? Where we started a general discussion about 'dehumanizing' in the Guantanamo section specially the concerning the Identity sections. I think it has been done here now. For the addressing of the this edit to Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo i suggest that can be done on the articles talk page by discussing in detail how many names we include for each detainee based on the sources. IQinn (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above the reason I asked for third party input here on your use of the term "dehumanizing" is that I have been frustrated because, even though I have tried hard, I could not find an explanation, anywhere in your responses, of how the material was "dehumanizing" that complied with my understanding of our policies, guidelines and established conventions. If you interpreted this as a personal attack then that was a mistake. For all I knew the consensus here would back your interpretation of what is dehumanizing. But, by asking for third party input, even if you are right, and I had a blind spot that was preventing me from understanding a valid point you were making, some other person might be able to explain this, where I have found your explanations didn't help me. Geo Swan (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

David Miller

Possible Conflict Of Interest/ Wikibombing: I nominated this for deletion as the subject seemed laughably below the bar for notability, and the article text had numerous issues.

Initially, the only person who objected was a person who I strongly suspect as being the subject of the article. Then, four days later, the delete notice is suddenly flooded with "keep" votes from IP editors (and two registered users who haven't edited in years). Looks like a clear case of Wikibombing, from this being posted to a Linux forum somewhere.

I don't really have any emotional stake in this, but I wondered if there was policy to cover this sort of situation. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would let it go, you could add — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. to any such accounts or IP's which will discount or diminish their votes , chalk it up to experience and move on. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The AFD already has those along with a Template:Not a ballot message mentioning it was linked to from [36]. In such a case, there's really not much more to do, and the closing admin would presemuably have considered this in closing the discussion, remember this isn't a vote. Ultimately it appears keep won because there are sufficient reliable sources discussion the subject. Edit: Er I see those were added later, I guess from this discussion. Anyway I'll leave my comment for the benefit of other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep; the delete request prompted a couple editors to rework the article entirely, so it wasn't a total waste by any means. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine "wikibombing" sounds a lot cooler than it actually is. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Constant Kusters

A note for review and transparency. Having seen this article at AfD (here, I blanked the article of a substantial amount of largely negative unsourced content (here). The article is now a stub although as I don't speak Dutch I'm not even sure the source properly supports the content of the stub. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yasser Al-Habib

Resolved

 – deleted

I just stumbled on this article while vandalism patrolling. It appears to me that it has serious problems from several perspectives and requires some close attention. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems to meet the criteria of speedy deletion as an attack page, I've taken the liberty of nominating it, and have blanked it as requested in the deletion template message. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully it was deleted swiftly by Excirial. Apparently it began innocuously, and a user maliciously turned it into an attack article. An administrator may want to look into the now disappeared article history and take appropriate steps. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bimbapboo

Resolved

 – blocked Guy (Help!) 20:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bimbapboo (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose attack account. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Jay Park

Jay Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article in question is subject to vandalism and numerous BLP violations. There is some difficulty in addressing this as the majority of the sources are in Korean. -Reconsider! 08:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If no Korean editors are available to assist I suggest removing any especially contensious claims and semi protecting the article for a month or so. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Rifkind

Content issue now being discussed on talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne gangland killings

This article looks to me to be a BLP mess. I've started going through removing parts of the article that associate living people with crimes or criminal enterprises without reliable sources. But other sets of eyes would be warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing but I am trying to get something sorted out.

I am concerned about biased and potentially inflammatory language being posted in the Wikipedia entry for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords), specifically under the "Gun Rights" and "Outsourcing" headings. The statements under these headings clearly violate Wikipedia's Impartial Tone guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). I have a conflict of interest, so I am hesitant to make edits myself. Rather, an impartial third-party editor should take a look at the page and I am happy to provide additional information for incomplete sections as well as additional citations.

Thanks,

Stephanie4815162342 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie4815162342 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords. I've tweaked the Outsourcing section but I'd like to hear your concerns about the Gun Rights section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gun Rights section is technically accurate, however its incompleteness makes it one-sided. I would like to add the following: "Giffords touts her status as a 'long-time gun owner.'(1) In 2008, she joined in the amicus brief for the case District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the appellate court ruling that overturned the controversial DC gun ban.(2)

1) http://giffords.house.gov/2008/09/VOTESTOREPEALBANONHANDGUNSINTHENATIONSCAPITAL.shtml

2) http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuSenateHouseMembers.pdf

I would also like to expand the "Outsourcing" section to a more complete and accurate "Immigration" section which would include the following edits and additions: "In 2008, Giffords introduced legislation to raise the cap on the number of H-1B visas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa) from 65,000 per year to their pre-2003 levels of 130,000 per year. Detractors, including programmers' unions, felt the increased cap would put existing workers at a disadvantage. Supporters of the increase, such as Microsoft Founder Bill Gates, said the move was necessary for high tech companies to recruit and retain world-class high-skilled workers.(1)

"Arizona's 8th Congressional District is one of 10 in the country bordering Mexico. Giffords has been an advocate for stronger U.S. – Mexico border enforcement, sponsoring or cosponsoring legislation to increase Border Patrol personnel in the region and provide them with 21st century technology (H.R. 1867).

Giffords supports stronger penalties against employers hiring illegal immigrants. She sponsored the Employee Verification Amendment Act (H.R. 6633)(2) and cosponsored the New Employee Verification Act (H.R. 5551)(3) to improve federal programs to verify citizenship of new employees (4).

1) http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid183_gci1306494,00.html

2) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06633:

3) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.05515:

4) http://giffords.house.gov/2009/10/effort-to-extend-improve-employee-verification-program.shtml

Beyond these specific changes, I am still concerned that there are users making edits to this page who are not making them in good faith. I'm not sure what procedures Wikipedia has in place for these situations, but I wanted to be sure and flag it for you. Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please copy the above to Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords so editors interested in that article can comment. I (and probably others) am now watching that article so any changes will be scrutinized more closely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved it over to Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords -- thanks for your attention! Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Can another editor please scrutinize the edits of User:Parallel process? [37], [38] makes me think some synthesis is being used to subtly twist the subjects' view on outsourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat and other related articles

• Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See user's contribs for other affected articles

• • Lord Lovat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Chiefs of Clan Fraser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Scolpaig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

May also involve this IP (probably a simple not-logged-in)

• 86.147.59.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Serious POV pushing related to some off-wiki dispute (Lord Lovat's estates and one or more tenants). Although the content added is minor (mostly linking to an off-wiki campaign site as if it were RS), it's widespread and needs action.

The user's talk seems quite up-front about their agenda and intentions towards WP, none of which appears acceptable to the project's aims:

Internet name of tenant of Lovat Highland Estates who has legitimate and established issues with aforementioned Lovat Highland Estates.

If this doesn't concern you keep your beak out of it.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Now edit-warring too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gave him a uw-npov3 and he seems to have stopped for now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality in women's sports

• Homosexuality in women's sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The sectionHomosexuality in women's sports#Notable lesbian.2C gay and bisexual_athletes is a mess. Because we have List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople, which is well-cited, do we even need this page? It sounds like something that would much better serve as an overview article rather than a list. NW (Talk) 22:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, as it is one of the articles that has a LGB Template I have left the project page a note about this thread here . Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a problem, only three entries have a source, all to the same site. The others have links to wiki pages on them, and may have some sourcing there. We have pretty clear guidelines on this - we do not report rumours, but reliably sourced reports, such as the individuals' own words. I'd be tempted to get rid of this article, because as it stands, without considerable effort, it violates BLP policy. Anything worth covering should be in the List article - and the names could be copied over to the talk space in case anybody who maintains that page wanted to look at adding these in with appropriate sourcing. Mish (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked a random 4 from the list of 32 and they all had sources, and the claims were not controversial. I don't think it would take considerable effort to add the sources and remove names which are unsourced or controversial, so I don't think it will take considerable effort to make this page BLP compliant as the work has already been done at the relevant individuals pages. Delete the ones that haven't been sourced, copy the sources across from the ones that have, and don't let anyone add any new ones without updating the relevant persons article. Weakopedia (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sent to AFD for discussion, here Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WRT claims material has to be excised because it is "dehumanizing" -- redux

I am sorry if I seem to be bringing a question here that seems repetitive.

Four days ago I asked for third party input on a series of excisions of passages that had been justified, in part, based on a concern those passages were "dehumanizing". It was my impression that no one shared the concern of the excising wikipedian that the passages in question were dehumanizing, although some respondents had other concerns.

Subsequently the wikipedian who had that concern has continued to excise these passages, as they did to the article on Abdul Rahman al-Amri, the fourth Guantanamo captive to have been reported to have committed suicide. On Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Amri they wrote:

Wikipedia is a community and there are various opinions. I have no doubt that the Identity section had "dehumanizing" character and was WP:OR and the section has been removed for at least WP:OR that was the result of the discussion.

I responded, "I am not sure whether you are saying that since you think "Wikipedia is a community and there are various opinions", that you are authorized to ignore the opinions offered at BLPN, or whether you think some of the contributors who responded there would share your opinion this edit was authorized on the grounds the section you excised was "dehumanizing"."

Either way I am concerned, because I thought the consensus was clear -- and that none of us is entitled to simply ignore the consensus of a discussion.

I just initiated a discussion over at WP:NORN, over the assertion these passages lapse from WP:OR.

If possible I'd like this discussion to be confined to the question of whether the excision of this passage was authorized by WP:BLP, and have discussion of whether or not the passage was dehumanizing take place at WP:NORN.

If possible I'd like to request that any other concerns with this passage take place elsewhere -- I suggest Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Amri.

Thanks in advance! Geo Swan (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said four days ago on a near-identical passage, this content has BLP and false light issues, not the least of which court documents are specifically excluded as valid material under BLP policy. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't think I noticed your false light concern first time around.

First, these documents are't "court documents". The Guantanamo CSR Tribunals and annual status reviews are not legal procedures -- a point the officers who run them repeated over and over again, when the captives asked why they weren't being allowed legal advice.

Second, WRT to the "false light issues", the US Judicial system addressed the question of whether publishing these documents damaged the captives' privacy. The Associated Press had sued for access to these documents under the Freedom of Information Act. And the Department of Defense declined to make the documents available. The DoD did not claim publication of the documents would damage National Security. Rather they claimed they could not publish them because doing so would damage the captives' privacy. The AP sued the DoD. US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff heard the case. FWIW he ruled that the publication of the documents did not damage their privacy. No, I am not suggesting the wikipedia is actually bound by Rakoff's ruling. But I think it is worth noting that he thought the publication of the documents was actually in their interest. Geo Swan (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Third, the passages that provide references for Abdul Rahman al-Amri's inconsistent identification don't use any transcripts or court records of any kind. They do use memos that list allegations against the captives, but these memos are, I suggest, more accurately described as "intelligence summaries", not transcripts or court records. I would be very interested in discussing your concerns over transcripts, but I would be grateful if the question of whether it could be discussed somewhere other than this section where I hope to have resolved whether this edit, and those like it, represented BLP problems. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few more examples of such sections. [39],[40], [41], [42], [43] we have 600 - 700 hundred of these BLP's and they are often solely based on primary source and in addition these primary sources are often heavily redacted. Just to give some background information.

I continue to believe that these sections are "dehumanizing". These section put the identity of the detainee in question by listing large collections of name variations mostly found in primary sources. This has been done by just one editor who has nearly created the entire Guantanamo section. One could even think that they get paid to spread this propaganda. But this is just IMO.

Sure there are other POV on the "dehumanizing" issue and if this would be a valid reason for removal. I am not a fan of WP:wikilawyering and if other people think we should not remove material that is "dehumanizing" that's fine with me.

But i continue to claim that these sections are mostly WP:OR and i agree on the false light and the concerns that most of it is based on primary sources and from questionable notability. Sure primary sources are valid WP:RS but we have to be careful not to create false ideas by putting them together in a misleading way and not to create ideas that are not there. These sections are unnecessary and un-encyclopedic and there is not doubt for me that it is better to remove these sections and to put the notable alternate names into the field of the info box. IQinn (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The references which Iqinn insists on calling "primary sources" are intelligence summaries. In 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, the SCOTUS ruled the Guantanamo captives had to be told why they were being held, and had to be given an opportunity to try to refute those allegations. These are not "court documents", and they are not "primary sources". The authors of these memos read, collate, interpret, reconcile ambiguities and contradictions between the info on intelligence reports from the DASD-DA, FBI, CIA, CITF, JTF-GTMO, Southcomm, among others. The collation, interpretation and reconciliation of ambiguities and contradictions of info from other documents makes these secondary sources.

User:Iqinn's contribution history shows they have used hundreds of edit summaries that claimed excisions were authorized because the excised material was "dehumanizing". But they have never cited a passage from one of our policies or guidelines to back up that claim. I have been concerned, for a long time, that these claims of "dehumanizing" were simply instances of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I request those who want to address whether or not this passage lapsses from WP:OR voice that concern at the corresponding section I opened at WP:NORN. Geo Swan (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful with name calling. No there is not policy about dehumanizing and we do not have a policy about dehumanizing and we do not need. I have little doubt that we are all responsible enough to remove material from BLP's that is dehumanizing without a dehumanizing policy but you are welcome to draft such a policy and to present it to the community. STOP WP:Wikilawyering. These sections where dehumanizing and had also other serious problems and needed to be removed. And all these documents are primary sources. You call the OARDEC documents now "court documents"? Court documents are usually primary sources and these documents have much lower standard than "court documents". OARDEC is an US military body and the US military is running Guantanamo and many documents OARDEC is summarizing come from the military and other unclear sources. It is absolute unclear how they do these summaries and what quality they have there work and most of the information is classified. They do not have any reputation as working as a secondary source and they do not have an editorial oversight board. They are not what we consider a secondary source. OARDEC is organizing these Tribunals. Your claim that these documents are secondary sources is absolutely wrong and many other editors in the past have told you that. These documents are primary sources.

Looks more like. You do not like other editors to edit your articles WP:Ownership it does not matter how often you shout out your POV, these changes were necessary and have improve the articles and this topic has been discussed above already. Please listen to the community and stop wasting our time by continuing to filibuster over and over again about the same stuff. If you can not accepted that other editors edit you articles than please do not submit to Wikipedia. There are other place where you can publish your research based on these primary sources. IQinn (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kazi Zafar Ahmed

Resolved

• Kazi Zafar Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I feel a little out of my depth with this one as I rarely edit political articles. The article is virtually unsourced with only a single source (not inline cited). POV issues aside for the moment, my main concern lies with the use of words such as "corruption allegations", "misappropriation of funds" and "political vengeance"; all unsourced. There appears to be an older, weakly cited and substantially different version of the article here. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it could be a copy vio, but this http://www.abitabout.com/Kazi+Zafar+Ahmed is legitamate. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused - the link you provided is a self proclaimed wiki mirror. Are you saying the information in the Ahmed article is legit? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the mirror and thought it was a copy vio but the content in the article now looks fine Actually looking at both versions it is pretty much ok and he's clearly notable, but it should be either stubbed back or cited. There are a few citations on the old version and I saw a couple more, it just needs a interested editor to buff it up. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that he's clearly notable, my concern is that there is a large swath of unsubstantiated claims including corruption allegations and the insinuation that the allegations were mocked up by the government. There are no references included in the article to verify the info, the single link included makes no mention of it. I have to log off for a while; I will likely pull out everything contentious and unsourced when I'm back (unless someone has additional input or edits that article while I'm away). Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There were allegations and charges but they should be cited I agree, feel free to trim it back. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pulled out anything possibly contentious and left a note on the talk page regrading neutrality and sourcing. Given articles such as this and this it appears that the article was certainly only presenting one side to the story. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Joe-job

See the names at the end of [44], the accounts have been renamed but there are several pages of suspected sockpuppet investigations etc. where a copy-paste replacement needs to be done. I have no bot-fu so have to do it the hard way, if anyone can help out by fixing this before tomorrow then please do. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, you are looking for a bot to replace the signatures with the new user name? –xeno^talk 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful but there aren't many pages, I did the first one using Copy & Paste. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Delmart Vreeland

I don't even know where to begin. Just look at it. Should be speedied in my opinion, which I'll do if nobody objects by tomorrow. --causa sui (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a mess but the extreme claims do appear to be verifiable. http://cbs4denver.com/local/Delmart.Vreeland.douglas.2.848122.html. Personally I would support clean up and improve but he may not meet WP:GNG I have only had a quick look to see if the content was defamatory. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Badly referenced and not-notable tinfoilhattery. Delete with extreme prejudice.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your right it is very poor. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Gone to afd, where all 9-11 tinfoilhattery belongs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delmart Vreeland.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Francois Serveniere

• Francois Serveniere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - {{BLP unsourced}} tagged as unsourced and non neutral. Though warned, here and there, Ennerear simply removed 3 times the template, here, here and there. Racconish ^Tk 07:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tempted to afd that. It looks like promotion of a non-notable artist.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It does appear to be a promotional fluff piece. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Indelicato

[ No Legal Threats -- Redacted, user cautioned ]

Jay Lyon (musician)

Jay Lyon (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor 66.108.95.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting edits to an article he claims is about him, specifically about his former name (now works under a stage name), but his undo also removed other references. The source for his old name is an interview where he talked about the reasons for his own name change! I would like some other eyes on it to confirm that the article is not unreasonable nor has WP:UNDUE weight, on what is a fairly lightweight minor celebrity.The-Pope (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

Eric Ely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 57#Eric Ely AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination) for more context. There seems to be a beginning edit war. Hans Adler 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Busty Heart

Another OTRS ticket, this time from Busty Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There is an edit war spanning some tens of edits on the talk page between the subject and various others, reinserting a fatuous comment about the porn industry (this person is not involved with pornography). I don't know how we can go about reinforcing the fact that edit-warring with article subjects - especially over asinine comments on a talk page - is a spectacularly bad idea. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Acharya S and Dorothy M. Murdock

There's an ongoing discussion on this talk page which could use more eyes. Questions boil down to:

• What are the standards for including her legal name?
  • Are either or both of the sources which mention the name reliable?
  • Given that no source uses and explicit other first name besides "Dorothy" (with D. M. being the most common), is that a "contentious" bit of information per WP:BLP?
  • Do the subject's alleged privacy concerns allow for the exclusion of reliably sourced name information?

Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the talkpage discussion here. User:Jclemens interpretation of what constitutes "contentious material with no sources or poor sources" is here. How material without any source could cause contention among secondary sources I don't know. I'm baffled at this interpretation.

My argument is that if Wikipedia publishes information about a living person that they have chosen to keep private, it better have a good source for it. This is not the case.

• Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.
• Be wary of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

The source in question is a Holy Blood, Holy Grail style book. As such, it fails WP:Verifiability and WP:RS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts..." It is also reasonable to suspect a feedback loop, as the name appeared on Wikipedia without an RS for many months. The book mentions the subjects name only in passing and does not specify a source. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that your assertion that an RS isn't in fact reliable might be better placed in WP:RSN, but the "is an X style book" is singularly uncompelling. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do the authors have a good reputation for checking facts? How about the book where they claim space aliens built the pyramids? Seriously. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The first name doesn't seem to be well known or widely reported and for that reason appears to be weakly cited, if the subject has alleged privacy concerns why not remove it its not like much information is lost. Is it widely reported to be her name? Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia and we're in the business of sharing information? 100% of the sources which give a first name for Murdock use Dorothy. It's neither unsourced nor contentious, although it is certainly less used than D.M. Murdock. My argument has never been that local consensus couldn't be developed which would remove the name, just that BLP isn't a lever to force its removal against consensus. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the name is not widely reported in reliable sources. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No we couldn't force the name out with BLP policy but it is worth a little discussion and perhaps a straw poll would sort it out? Sharing information yes, but not to be the primary vehicle of this name that she wants to keep private.The first name appears not to be well known or widely reported and is only in a couple of hard to find book comments, reminding me of outing. Is there a citation containing the subject's alleged privacy concerns? Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, nobody is talking about forcing anything. Jclemens insists on portraying it that way for whatever reason. WP:BLP is a core policy and governs biographies of living persons, and it is perfectly appropriate to reference this policy on the talk page.

I think everybody working on the article concedes that the subject has expressed privacy concerns regarding her name. Jclemens says "alleged" because he does not consider her privacy concerns valid. But that is beside the point. Whether or not we believe her concerns are valid is irrelevant. The point is that she is concerned about her privacy. It's not for us to judge beyond that. From here we should apply the policies outlined in WP:V and WP:BLP strictly and conservatively to insure that any sources used are high quality, that the material in question is given reasonable attention and weight in these secondary sources, and to insure there is no circular referencing going on. If not, the name should be removed.

As it stands, Wikipedia appears to be the primary vehicle for this information, and both sources cited appear to have gotten their information from Wikipedia in the first place. Yes, it does look like an outing. Scouring Google books looking for a quote that will make the name stick is not what Wikipedia is about. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I say "alleged" because no one has shown me evidence that Ms. Murdock has, in fact, requested privacy. She has my email address. Leaving that aside, I'm all for legitimate privacy concerns--but trying to hide your first name is not a legitimate privacy concern, doubly so when the name has already been RS'ed. While it is not for us to judge the merits of privacy concerns, it is our responsibility to judge the efficacy and reasonableness of such concerns. If Ms. Murdock is a notable figure, then her name is not just "fair game", but expected information. Think of a celebrity who is known by a pseudonym: we cover their names if they've been RS'ed. No attempt has been made to add any information to the Acharya S article that would allow any unwanted person to contact Ms. Murdock in any way other than her website. It doesn't include her country of residence, year of birth, or anything of the sort. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am with this also, where is this claimed desire for privacy? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

She has never publicly released her name, so it is only "expected" on Wikipedia if it is covered by high quality reliable sources. The fact that USER:Jclemens considers her privacy concerns "illegitimate" is irrelevant. Her name is NOT reliably sourced. That's the basis of this discussion. To reiterate, the source used is low quality and likely got the name from Wikipedia in the first place.

On Tuesday she wrote the following on Facebook: Just an FYI - I HAVE NEVER REVEALED MY FULL NAME IN PUBLIC. If you see a site claiming to know my "real name," do not believe it - and do not send me familiar "howdy, yada, yada" messages using it. The attempts at outing my personal information are entirely against my will by typical religious disrespecters of persons, and are obviously designed to endanger me and my family.

Further down she says: I am also the victim of violent crime, including the abduction of my small son out of my arms by three hired thugs, which triggered a nationwide Amber Alert. I had to go into hiding, and I have good reasons to do so.

Apparently this concern is not considered "legitimate" by some editors because the kidnapper already knows her full name. But publicizing her full name on Wikipedia is not going to help her keep a low profile. And it's really not for us to judge; we simply don't know all the details. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So we have an instance where a self-published source conflicts with a reliable source (again: RSN is the place to impeach an RS. Until impeached, both RS that use the name are presumed RS by WP:V). The self-published source that purports to be Murdock still doesn't say what her name is. While assuming good faith that Murdock's security concerns are legitimate, neither this post nor any of those who've taken it at face value have explained how the suppression of a reliably sourced (or even unreliably sourced, for that matter) first name aids her personal privacy and security. If one is serious about hiding from adversaries, one keeps no part of one's identity, including the name. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Google, there appear to be over 90 unique web sites that connect "Acharya S" and "Dorothy M Murdock". Even if Wikipedia were to suppress the name, and even if every Wikipedia mirror followed suit, there are still hundreds of blogs and other postings which use the name--Only two of the top 5 Google results are versions of the Wikipedia article. Thus, an argument in favor of safety and privacy will have an extremely difficult time that such removal would have any material impact of Murdock's security or privacy--the name is out there, it's been picked up by RS'es as well as everyone else, and an argument that Wikipedia self-censoring it would help her security and/or privacy strains credulity. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Suppression? Censorship? Where did this type of inflammatory language come into play? We're talking about enforcing policy and respecting a living persons privacy. You argue that nobody here has the right to question whether a source is reliable? Give me a break. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Rashad Hussain – The Al-Arian controversy

The Rashad Hussain article has recently been the object of an edit war between two editors, centering around content of the Al-Arian controversy section of that article. In short, the controversy involves statements make by Rashad Hussain (a public figure) made during a hearing in 2004, which reportedly included a statement "politically motivated persecution". Over time, there appears to have been conflicting reports regarding the statement in question, adding to the controversy. (A related article Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian, covers the topic in exhaustive detail.)

Existing material, mostly developed by Ism schism (talk · contribs), appears to be well sourced, although I am not certain of the neutrality of the sources (The Politico and Cybercast News Service, among others). User Idahoprov (talk · contribs) has made many attempts to add material and references to an article that questions some of the conclusions. However, the reference is a blog entry on The Long War Journal, and internet publication of unknown (to me) editorial oversight. On the other hand, the author, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, might be considered a qualified authority on the subject.

The question is: Should this material be be included in the article as an alternative point of view to add balance to the article, or should it be excluded as a fringe theory or as not supported by a reliable source?

I have temporarily protected the article to stop the war and have asked the editors to discuss the issue on the talk page, but am not confident that the issues will be resolved without outside input. Therefore, I would like to solicit some input from those experienced in BLP and RS issues. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem that I have with the addition of the blog, The Long War Journal, is that it is used to add Idahoprov (talk · contribs)'s reading of this blog, which is not accurate. As multiple reliable sources show, Hussain has stated that he did make the comments that Idahoprov says he did not - “politically motivated persecutions," please see Obama’s Envoy to Islamic Bloc Admits Controversial Statements About Supporter of Terror Group. This is a clear case of OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Protection of the article is good, longer would be better. This has been going on for months with the two editors. With the article locked eyes should watch for the issues continuing to disrupt at other articles Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mulla brothers

Resolved

 – speedy G10

The Mulla brothers has reliable sources but is rather contentious. Extra eyes appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 12:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

G10'ed. There were a lot of reliable sources about gangland stuff, but only one of the references mentioned one Mulla brother by name, for confessing to a crime that would have itself failed notability guidelines. The rest of the references, while certainly coverage of UK organised crime, didn't mention "Mulla" at all, in any context. Overall, there's nothing here worth keeping, and thus it has been summarily deleted. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Boone Middle Name Is John

This article has Aaron Boone's middle name listed as EFFIN. The corect name, from the MLB website, is John. See http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=111213. I can understand why frustrated Red Sox fans might have made this change, but really. This should be fixed and frozen. This part of the page is not editable by a regular member.Kgilbert78 (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done thank you, a few more edits and you will be confirmed and could then correct it yourself. We can't protect the article without repeated vandalism as this would restrict good faith users from improving the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve Ballmer

Steve Ballmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vandalism, cute and funny but still vandalism. I have semiprotected for a while. Inevitably given his outspoken opinions on open source he is not popular with a lot of technically savvy folks, so we should be alert on this one. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)