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.

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

Remove this page and urls to it - Raymond Hoser

NLT --- Collapsed

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

Subject: False, defamatory and hate mjaterial about me on wikipedia
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:26:51 +1030
Please remove the entire page at: Raymond Hoser
This material is false, defamatory and incites hatred.
Attempts to edit are continually blocked trolls within wikipedia including users Mokele and User:HCA
Who have automated settings to revert to lies any pages we try to alter.
The webpage also breaches trademarks as does your "snakeman" pages so please remove them as well.
As it is not within your ability to publish truth or abide by the laws of trademarks and misleading conduct, please remove the pages forthwith.
Furthermore remove the words "Raymond_Hoser" from any and all wikipedia url's including non-English ones.
A copy of this e-mail is being sent to my lawyers.
Thank you.
Snake Man Raymond Hoser
Snakebusters - Australia's best reptiles

Phones: (Redacted)

Catherine Chatterley

Re: the supposedly biographical entry on Catherine Chatterley

The paragraph dealing with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is polemical and not biographical. One might say that she has been a public defender of the CMHR but to make (unfounded) allegations about the critics of the CMHR and to accuse them of anti-Semitism is unfair, potentially libellous.

A biographical entry should confine itself to facts, not the opinions of the author. Wikipedia should not be promoting dubious and even mendacious texts disguised as biographical notes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk • contribs)

Klemen Jaklič

More eyes on this, please; we have a user edit-warring to remove his nationality despite clear evidence, and also edit-warring over his name. (It appears in sources both with and without the diacritics, sometimes with one source using both versions; to me, it seems that the version with diacritics is more common and that some of the use of the version without is due to web formatting stuff, but other input would be good.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The venice.coe.int document, the only one which mentions his citizenship (the Harvard one doesn't), is a primary source. It is his CV. In other words, he claims Slovenian citzenship, but we have no independent confirmation of that. That is probably because most secondary sources don't consider it relevant. Then neither should we.

The name, yes, a Google books search does show more entries with the mark over the last 'c.' But there is no BLP issue involved in either usage. The article's talk page is empty, and this should be discussed there. Churn and change (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we disbelieve him about his own birthplace without any compelling reason to do so? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People often make mistakes in their bio; at times, they lie (plenty of examples at all levels and in all professions); an encyclopedia cannot take information provided by people about themselves at face value. We believe only secondary sources. Of course, they can also make mistakes, and maybe even lie. But with reliable secondary sources such mistakes are presumably rare, and hence the policy of depending on them. Note that WP doesn't explicitly prohibit using self-published sources talking of themselves (see WP:SELFSOURCE); however the moment an editor disputes a claim, you end up with no support from guidelines. If you are adding material, the burden of proof is on you, and WP:SELFSOURCE is only for undisputed material. Churn and change (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely not how WP works, especially with regard to BLP identification. The word of a random editor does not supersede reliable sources from the subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFSOURCEs are not really reliable sources. They are acceptable in restricted circumstances. True reliable sources are largely secondary sources (and sometimes tertiary sources). In your case the "restricted circumstances" in which WP:SELFSOURCE applies have ceased to hold (there are many conditions listed there—check them). If you believe that is not so, and that the editor's questioning the source's accuracy is not in good faith, take it to dispute resolution. There is no BLP issue in removing the material; there is potentially one in adding it. Churn and change (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are exactly the circumstances that allow us to use SELFSOURCEs. It is a source about the subject, contains no extraordinary claims, no claims about third parties, no claims about events unrelated to the subject, is clearly authentic, and is not the main source for the article. As well, there is no BLP issue in using a source written by the subject to write about the subject - if there were an issue, it could be a neutrality issue (say, if the source was self-serving), but there is no issue. Editing under the belief that a random WP user knows more about the subject than the subject himself knows is the BLP issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are allowed for info about the subject. "I was born in X" is something that is perfectly fine to be backed up by a primary source (Absent any secondary). Whats the issue? Because any opposition to that comes down to 'I dont believe you'. Which isnt how we work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No more comments on this? Perhaps that's because it's just obvious that a user's personal opinion is not more reliable about a subject's birthplace and nationality than a source coming from the subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank L. VanderSloot

Edits are being made with justification as follows:

Your lone objection does not constitute a consensus. The source in question was not discussed on this page prior to now. Furthermore, there was also a second source that I cited (also never discussed here) which you deleted without explanation, along with the accompanying text. If you are debating the reliability of one particular source, than begin a discussion here about it and see if you have consensus to delete it. In the meantime, you have no basis for edit warring over the text in question that refers to the company as an MLM. Furthermore, you hamfistedly deleted other information (such as the text about the DSA) that was completely unrelated to the MLM "issue" (and the source you are questioning) without offering any reason whatsoever. If you have an issue that you think requires any further discussion, then you can state it here and see if it gains any traction. In the meantime, I'll ask you nicely to stop deleting the text, because if you keep doing it, I;ll have to request that you be blocked.

The problem is that the sources include such wonderful expositions of "fact" rather than "opinion" with names like Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them which might possibly not be a reliable source for contentious claims of fact, which the other editor does not seem to accept. The BLP was stable from 27 July until this new editor appeared, and I suggest that the discussions n the topic did, in fact, reach a "consensus" and more specifically that it is up to him to get a new consensus if he wshes to make contentious claims using opinion pieces. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man argument -- it's not a contentious claim that the company is a multilevel marketing company. I've cited 4 sources that all refer to it directly as such, and yet for some unfathomable reason, you're using your objection to only one out of those four references as a reason for removing neutral text from the article (i.e. simply referring to the company as an MLM). The company has also long been listed on WPs list of MLM companies (along with an appropriate citation).[1] I wonder how many sources that refer to the company as an MLM would be needed to placate you, as there many available -- even the FTC refers to the company as an MLM. And what "new" consensus are you talking about? There was never an old consensus. And why sarcastically use quotes around words like "wonderful", "facts", and "opinion" to gin up your argument about that one source? That's not being neutral. The lone source you're disputing is Mother Jones magazine;[2] they do excellent investigative journalism and have a respectable reputation, so objecting to the title alone seems like a mighty thin premise. This all looks a bit whitewashy and like WP:OWN to me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, did you notice the part at the top of the page where it says you should notify other editors if you talk about them? My invitation must have been lost in the mail eh? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The post is about the article, not about you, although you do seem to have made an awful lot of edits to it. And I would note that the other editors on that article seem to also dispute your edits, which suggests you do not have WP:CONSENSUS on your side for the stuff you added (including clearly political silly season articles). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current edit being pushed is:

VanderSloot, in a newspaper advertisement,[19] devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Peter Zuckerman, a reporter who had written articles about pedophiles being permitted to work with Boy Scouts in the Grand Teton Council,[20] was gay.[21]

Where the [20] is the link to the lost of articles by Zuckerman, and does not mention VanderSloot in any way whatsoever. I suggested the list of Zuckerman's articles belongs in the Zuckerman BLP and was greeted with:

Despite the overwhelming evidence I presented above,[36] Collect came along today and just decided to delete "MLM" from the article anyway without any further explanation on the talk page.[37] There's a very disturbing pattern of partisanship and WP:OWN on this article, and Collect's latest actions are a stellar example. This doesn't come across well, particularly since several reliable sources have described Vandersloot as been being overly aggressive in his attempts to stifle criticism. He's gone after several journalists and bloggers several times, and when he did, it made national news. It's a sensitive issue, and the optics of a few editors here trying to game the system could generate adverse PR for Vandersloot, so it is completely unacceptable. It could be perceived that they are acting on behalf of Vandersloot, regardless of whether or not they truly are. If these shenanigans continue (such as the earlier vote stacking using SPA/sock puppets and Collect's latest edit), I won't be pussyfooting around and wasting time with WP:3 or WP:DR; it;s a serious enough matter that I will be compelled to take this straight to WP:ArbCom and request that the offending editors be permanently blocked. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Which I consider to be a teensy bit tendentious on his part. Especially the silly claim that I am exerting "ownership" on an article or that I am an SPA. The issue here, however, is whether the Zuckerman list of articles is properly stuffed into the VanderSloot BLP. The editor also inserts such wonderful cites as "Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them Back" , Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney and "Pyramid-Like Company Ponies Up $1 Million for Mitt Romney" as sources for claims of fact about VanderSloot and his company. I have the funny feeling that such named articles are opinion pieces <g>. Collect (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the link to a list of articles has been replaced with a link to the relevant article by Zuckerman. Are there any other outstanding content related concerns? a13ean (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the Zuckerman article refers in any way to VanderSloot? If not, then it is a really bad source for any claims in the BLP on VanderSloot. Meanwhile, I consider the use of "opinion articles" in general to be of dubious value in a BLP. Collect (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said that you’re behavior constitutes WP:OWN and I stand by it. I didn’t say that you were an SPA, I provided specific links to who the 3 SPAs/socks were and you weren’t among them.[3] Not only that, but I already corrected you on this scurrilous charge on the talk page,[4] and yet here you are repeating the same histrionic lie.

Furthermore, despite your claim that I added the following -- “VanderSloot, in a newspaper advertisement,[19] devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Peter Zuckerman, a reporter who had written articles about pedophiles being permitted to work with Boy Scouts in the Grand Teton Council,[20] was gay.[21]”, in reality this has been in the article since at least June without being contested. All I did was identify the reporter by name (Zuckerman)[5] and added the link Zuckerman’s article.[6] The obvious rationale for including the link to Zuckerman’s articles was already explained to you[7] -– Zuckerman’s articles were already mentioned as the focus of Vanderslot’s attack ads, so of course it only makes sense that there is a link to them. Nonetheless, for some unfathomable reason, you unilaterally deleted the link.[8]

Nor did I insert "Pyramid-Like Company Ponies Up $1 Million for Mitt Romney"; that article, published in Mother Jones (a well respected source) has been linked in the article since May 27 and I didn’t put it there. Not only that but you know full well that I didn’t put it there because you immediately tried to revert the edit back in May when it was first added and you were arguing with the editor who added it,[9] (I didnlt make any edits on the article until a few days ago), and your reversion was undone. Why do you think it’s OK to continually tell lies? And why are you still chafing so about the title “Right-Wing Billionaires” – it’s neutral, it describes Vandersloot to a T (he is a right wing billionaire), and there is no basis for your arbitrary deletion of the link. This too was explained to you already,[10] and yet you didn’t hear it. Your dishonesty truly sucks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion required by WP:BLP is not "arbitrary". You added Zuckerman's name and the link to stories which have no relation to VanderSloots's biography. As for your personal attack for continually telling lies I ask you to redact that scurrilous and uncollegial post per WP:NPA. Collect (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is certainly not required and merely repeating it over and over again doesn’t make it so. Zuckerman's name and his article have a very obvious relation to Vandersloots's biography. The WP article refers to Vandersloot’s attack ads against the author of the Boy Scout case -- the author was Zuckerman -- so of course it’s warranted to identify him by name and include a link to the article that was the focus of Vandersloot’s attack. As for your other comment, it was not a personal attack but a simple statement of fact, and I made the case to clearly support what I said. So rather than asking me to redact my comment, you should be acknowledging that your charges were erroneous and apologizing for having made false statements about me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

judicial elections

Is this edit [11] proper in a BLP? It appears to me to seek SYNTH in making a sideways allegation that the person has "bought judges". In short, I suggest it may violate BLP both for VanderSloot and for the judges named. Will someone have a closer look please? Collect (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what the problem would be. The sources name VanderSloot and the judges. Why wouldn't we do so? And, the article doesn't say anything about Vandersloot buying judges. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not read how the edit is worded? Cheers. The section is SYNTH seeking to tie VanderSloot to improper buying of Judges pretty clearly -- and I know of no other BLP where such contributions are so linked. frinstance:

In 2000, VanderSloot was the primary contributor, donating $50,000, to Concerned Citizens for Family Values for an attack ad campaign against incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak, who was running against Republican challenger Daniel T. Eismann

Where the source is [12] specifically labelled as editorial commentary, and is not a "news article." In fact the payoff for the editorial is How can anyone expect to get a fair day in court if he goes up against VanderSloot or his company before a judge whose campaign benefited from VanderSloot's support? which I consider likely to be opinion and not fact. [13] is also an editorial with the tagline of If you buy radio stations, who needs attack ads?, [14] also used as a "source" here is not even a "reliable source" at all -- it is a pdf of an ad -- and essentially can only be used to prove the ad exists - but other than that, it is not a source for "fact" in any case. Its use here is strictly in the cause of SYNTH and not in the cause of an encyclopedia BLP. So we are down to the final "source" [15] which manages to have VanderSloot being surprised that a group he gave money to did not comply with all regulations. Not really a lot to hang the entire section about buying of judges on, really! Collect (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the WP article doesn't say or imply that VanderSloot "bought" judges, so there is nothing that could have been synthesized. It says that he financed ads on behalf of certain candidates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the only "synth" taking place here is happening in Collect's own head, he is correct that these are opinion pieces and so cannot be used for statements of fact (or, rather, can only "rarely" be used in this way, per WP:NEWSORG). So, unless better sources can be found I'd agree that most of this passage should be removed. (No-one would want Fox News commentators to become reliable sources here...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Berrios

I noticed a level 4 warning to an IP (see User talk:68.250.73.249) followed by a very formal response from that IP complaining about the article and about Cluebot's reversions and warnings. Several highlights:

"I am writing with regard to the article on Cook County Assessor Joseph Berrios. After reviewing the article posted on Wikipedia we have found that much of the material posted is pejorative at best and most of the cited sources are editorials written by supporters of political rivals."

"We have also found that large sections of the text on Mr. Berrios’ article page have nothing to do with Mr. Berrios and are indictments of other people some of whom are deceased and cannot object to the material written about them."

"Please feel free to contact me so we might discuss the options of this office provided through your foundation. We look forward to hearing your response and stand ready to work with you to remedy this problem post haste."

I have not been involved with this article and know nothing of its history, Mr. Berrios or this IP; I just happened to notice the IP talk page.

Looks like a serious issue.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh. Took a 15-second look at the article's lede and it is very POV. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the material the IP kept removing that HughD kept restoring. I have removed it for now. Some looks very inappropriate, some looks sourced and some is probably in a gray area. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) FWIW, I blocked User talk:68.250.73.249 for disruption and edit warring, and not necessarily because I think the material that he was removing shouldn't have been removed. That being said, I think there is a likely conflict of interest (the editor refers to his edits as the actions of "this office") and I agree with A.B. that the attention of some neutral, uninvolved editors on this article would be helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest, yes, but there are special rules for this in the case of BLP issues; see WP:BLPEDIT. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all the above - I've temporarily semi-d the article to encourage the IPs to discuss rather than keep blanking - I also note that there seems to be some missing sections already, someone may want to get the article cleaned up. I am open to unblocking the most recent IP that I've blocked if they are willing to discuss, any admin can feel free to undo that particular block. – Connormah (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"most of the cited sources are editorials written by supporters of political rivals" Not true. The article is a fair representation of reliable sources. The article is very well referenced. Every sentence in the article is based on the lede from a reliable source. The main sources are the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times, and other sources include the newspapers of record in Chicago, as well as Chicgo Magazine and the Chicago Reader, perhaps te 4 most significant print news in Chicago. Editorials where cited are indentified in text as editorials. In this subject preponderance of reliable sources may lead to a non-neutral, negative impression in any conformant wp article. Hugh (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for the record may I respond to the IP ad hominim, I created thiss article and have editted it and i am not a political rival of the subject, what I am is an experienced wp editor with extensive blp experience, I am familiar with the issues. Hugh (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"large sections of the text on Mr. Berrios’ article page have nothing to do with Mr. Berrios and are indictments of other people some of whom are deceased" The article mentions Mr. Berrios' mentors and predecessors in office by way of providing context to explaining his appointments and elections to office. Hugh (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironicaly, included in the IP's multiple page and section blankings was coverage from reliable sources of formal ethics investigations into the subject of this article and in particular Berrios' use of government resources for personal use, ironic since the IP maps to Cook County's main offices and during normal working hours. Please note that no contact information was provided. Hugh (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from our lede (before this material was deleted):

"Berrios shamelessly hired relatives and friends to government jobs under his control, complemented elected office with a private lobbying practice, used ballot access law to political advantage, and vigorously defended accepting campaign contributions from those doing business with his elected office."

Hugh, I thought the rule was that Wikipedia drew no conclusions and expressed no judgements of its own? That's a pretty hard-hitting finding on our part and it was smack in our lede. Am I missing something?

I don't know if this guy is a good guy or a bad guy. Even Kim Jong-un gets an article that meets our policies (WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) and I suspect that, whatever your opinions, Mr. Berrios is no Kim Jong-un.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if he is good or bad either and don't care. I know what rs sez. I know what the subject sez, the article has many direct quotes from the subject. There's no conclusion, no judgement, no OR. That sentence is in the intro and it is a composite from multiple rs. Is the word shameless over the top? I can find it for you in multiple rs wrt the subject, tho refs are not required in the intro. It is accurate. It is the crux of the notability of the subject, which is the goal of the intro graph. The subject not only hires relatives, divides his time between lobbying and elected office, keeps an election lawyer in his cabinet on the public payroll, and accepts campaign contributions from those doing business with his elected office, but also aggressively and vocally defends his right to do so, in court in person and in the press, which the word shameless was meant to capture. I will remove the word shameless, but I am going to revert to the most recent blanking. Most of the refs are links, please my fellow editors take a few moments to skim a few refs before you form judgements of the neutrality of the POV. thanks. Going forword I ask support from my fellow editors that we take it by cases and invite our IP to be more specific in identifying "large sections" and writing by political opponents and more favorable rs, etc. I say this recognizing this IP will take considerable coaching wrt wp culture, but i've dealt with worse and I'm up for it. thanks. Hugh (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV template added, POV discussion started on article talk page. Hugh (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing with regard to the article on Cook County Assessor Joseph Berrios. After reviewing the article posted on Wikipedia I have found that much of the material posted is pejorative at best and most of the cited sources are editorials written by supporters of political rivals. I am extremely concerned that the editing process monitored by ClueBot NG has prevented this office from removing content that in one breath states that Mr. Berrios was the first Hispanic to hold office in the Illinois House then adds a quote from a less that reputable publication and author that negatively describes Mr. Berrios. Such slights and factual inaccuracies are pervasive throughout this article and most of the sources used or cited are editorials, written by individuals who have supported opposing political parties and candidates. I have also found that large sections of the text on Mr. Berrios’ article page have nothing to do with Mr. Berrios and are indictments of other people some of whom are deceased and cannot object to the material written about them.

I understand that monitoring of such a large body of work that is designed to be globally accessible and editable can be difficult and I also understand that the ClueBot NG system is not perfect. Our concern revolves around issues of fairness and accuracy and we hope that we will be able to work with your team to remove the false, derogatory, and in one section raciest tone and content currently posted in the article on Mr. Joseph Berrios.

Mr. Berrios is a public figure and as such, a certain amount of information should be readily available to the public and I am more than happy to provide such information. Our primary concern is that Wikipedia in this case is being bent to push a political agenda and thus the accuracy of much of the information contained in the aforementioned article is without merit and provides the public with a skewed view of Mr. Berrios.

All attempts to remove the derogetory information have been met with undo edits by the same administrator who created the negative posts HughD, even when the artical was placed in protect mode.

Please feel free to contact me so we might discuss the options provided through your foundation. I look forward to hearing your response and stand ready to work with you to remedy this problem post haste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.145.150 (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:Orlady is dealing with the worst problems in the article.

User:HughD is not a Wikipedia administrator and has not claimed to be one. I am a little surprised that HughD was fortunate enough to escape being blocked for egregious edit warring (to 9RR in around five hours) against the IP and others. WP:BLP concerns are a potential exception to the WP:3RR rule - "I wrote the article!" is not such an exception. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:HughD reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: )

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is morphing into a larger conflict over content in articles about Chicago politicians. I'd like some additional eyes on the articles before things escalate.

After working on Joseph Berrios (where User:Reaper Eternal followed up after I left off), I looked at several other articles about Chicago politicians and family members (mostly articles that HughD had worked on, as Chicago politics seems to be a major interest of his), and I found some other instances of serious BLP concerns -- articles that are largely compilations of accusations and innuendo against the article subjects. There is no disputing that Chicago politics are seriously corrupt, but IMO these articles have been WP:UNDUE. I've excised some content that I found excessively negative for BLPs and I've worked on revising/rewording some content to make it more balanced. However, User:HughD seems to feel strongly that his content is appropriate because it is reliably sourced, so he is restoring the content that I remove.

The current focus of contention is the article Edward M. Burke and Talk:Edward M. Burke. The article has had section titles like "Attorney in Burke law firm convicted of ghost payrolling on Burke's Finance committee" and "Campaign fund chair accused of running Hired Truck firm as woman-owned business" and text full of details of each incident. Here's some history of the article from the last 2-1/2 days, in chronological order (note that most of the early changes were small; the most recent reverts are the biggest):

Other articles that concern me include Joseph Berrios, where there has been no meaningful talk-page discussion since the page was full-protected; Patrick R. Daley; and (to a lesser degree than the others) John Rice (alderman). --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rani hamid not only women international master in bangladesh.

rani hamid not only women international master in bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.169.59.167 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha, Bangladesh National News Agency, she is. http://www1.bssnews.net/aboutsportsgames.php Do you have a source that says otherwise? --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Esteve Head

Hi. Can someone please take a look at this article? The IPs have been repeatedly removing sourced information regarding the facts that Head's claims have been exposed as fraudulent ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]). In this most most recent edit, a few IPs have replaced the sourced claims with other claims about her whereabouts and state that she only worked in real estate. The real estate information is unsourced and If our BLP policy is correct, contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed, especially if potentially libelious. More information can be found by checking the article history and on this discussion. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sourced one bit, removed some unsourced. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Adamson

This article needs further amplification 10:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC) for example

When Adamson started at Netherne Hospital his salary was just over £1,000 P.A. This was never increased to keep up with inflation. The excuse given was that his post was not 'officially recognised' as it was 'not on the official establishment'.
A benefactor from the MRS Smith's Charitable Trust offered to double Adamson's salary and build storage space for the growing collection of patient's work, This offer was refused by the Hospital authorities. saying "It would put his salary above the doctor's" * Edward was therefore obliged to shoulder this growing financial deficit and subsidise it personally for many years. Had he not done so, the profession Art Therapy could well have atrophied and disintegrated later into Occupational Therapy*

Documentary evidence to support this is now held by the Wellcome Trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensingtonjohn (talk • contribs) 10:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK but is it published anywhere? If not, we cannot use it as a source.--ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Melamed

This article contains several unverified claims and there seems to be evidence of self promotion. The subject's consultancy firm is mentioned and several claims as to his importance and influence are unverified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.48.57.36 (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Bonoff

Please help at Terri Bonoff, a local politician whose article has become an edit war zone. One user is taking pictures of her opponent's campaign literature, posting it to Flikr, and using that is a ref. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 16:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed YouTube and Flickr being used as sources - unsure about American political websites so not sure what other ones are questionable. Giant Snowman 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redsbest, LiteralTruth99, and 71.220.92.117 are all single purpose accounts, focused only on this article. Dream Focus 16:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Payal Rohatgi

Issues over the birthdate at Payal Rohatgi have been going on since at least 2008 with debate over birthyears ranging from 1973 to 1985. At least 2 of these editors have claimed to either be, or have a close connection to the subject of the article ([22], [23]; the hotmail address in the second reply is also used on the subject's twitter feed, although that feed is unverified (although I have no reason to doubt it)). In 2010 the ensuing controversy left the date blank [24]. Since then it's been added back and this wrangling over the date continues.

The 183.87* IP has been editing back to the 1984 (although in one case 1985 [25]) since at least July. The previous conclusion was to leave the year out [26].

The 1980 date is supported by an India Times bio page, and the IMDB page. I know the latter isn't generally considered a reliable source. The only sources I'm aware of that are still up are these two.

This article apparently has a 4 year + history of problems with this particular date, so it would be nice if we could get a satisfactory answer to this. In the meantime I've removed the date seeing as how that was the prior consensus, and there seems to be some controversy over it. Shadowjams (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Famous women often lie about their age trying to pretend to be younger than they are. So you can't trust the official source. Do they have birth records online somewhere? Dream Focus 19:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the message they left on my talk, they claim to be able to supply some information, but that seems more suited though to IMDB or some other source, rather than us, of course. And if they did that and someone else wrote about it, even in passing, great, we have a source now. I removed the date because it's under debate and I'd rather err on the side of caution, however it would be nice if we could settle this. I don't know how easy it will be to communicate with the IP because they're changing IPs, however I did leave a message notifying them of this discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

Is being a Democrat a) relevant here and b) most importantly, is being a Democrat part of a Criminal Career? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as controversial. Consensus has agreed to the removal of the content and it was just removed by another editor. Lets wait and see if this is an issue needing to be dealt with at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Is there enough sources to redirect Sam Bacile to this page at this time?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Thomas

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

Considering a recent spate of unsourced BLP violations, trivia and nonsense, and since there's a lot of unsourced content remaining, this could use a once-over from anyone who's knowledgeable on the subject. And perhaps some eyes on this in the future.... 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig McEwan

My name is craig McEwan and i have never created a Wikipedia page although someone has and put libellous information on it. Could this please be removed ASAP

Thanks Craig McEwan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.248.84 (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you were referring to this edit, it's been reverted. Jonathanfu (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-adoption information

Some personal detail about Jessica Long's birthplace and biological parents, which IMHO might be a violation of the privacy provisions of BLP, has recently been added to the biography. An online source in Russian has been cited to support the added material. Firstly can someone fluent in Russian please verify the claims, and secondly we need to consider whether such information should be included in the article at all. Roger (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't anyone have anything to say about this? More detail has been added, in bad English, since my post above. Roger (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source via google translate, I'd say the source does verify the claims. I don't see a problem w/rt privacy, myself, at least in principle; I don't mean to endorse every detail of the current version, but the source seems okay and I don't see reason to object to having something about her adoption. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the TV show is not relevant, nor are the names of her parents relevant absent stronger sourcing. Collect (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dustin rhodes

They have in his personal life that he is married to John Cena as of December 18, 2002..... dont think that is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.217.196 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? Can you challenge it with a reliable source that says otherwise? Electric Catfish 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyron Dyer

Nyron Dyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone claiming to be the subject, editing under both Ndyer2012 (talk · contribs) and 2.25.192.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), continues to edit this article, introducing unreferenced information. I have tried explaining WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:AUTOBIO - no luck. I am at 3RR and would like wider eyes please. Oh, and I say "claiming to be the subject" because they seem more concerned with trivial information i.e. correcting a sporting position and height rather than adding information I, personally, would see as more important such as sports club history. Some of the claims added by "Mr. Dyer" are also factually inaccurate i.e. claiming that he played in qualifying matches for the 2010 World Cup - he didn't make his debut until a year after the tournament! Giant Snowman 14:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help you out, and report if necessary. Electric Catfish 17:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earl_Dixon_(musician))

The individual represented in this article does not appear to meet the required Wikipedia guidelines of 'notability' as to merit the creation of a dedicated article. This article does not appear to be about a singular individual whom has yet to achieve any notable or significantly profound achievements. I presume this articles only function is most likely that of self-promotion.

Vik Muniz

Review request for Vik Muniz

His wiki page was previously created by his fun but contained inaccurate information, and references without proper citations. Request by Vik, we've edited this page, let us know if the update is appropriate.

No, it is not. Please read wp:COI and wp:SOCK. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Pepper

Not a major thing, but an IP has been adding an unsupported ethnicity to this bio. Not replying to talk page prompts (even these new and very pleasant user talk templates we have now). I'm at 3rr, and they seem persistent. A few more watchers should suffice. (Pepper may well be Jewish, of course. Haven't found anything to support it though). The Interior (Talk) 22:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added to my watchlist - ping me if you think I've missed anything. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew A. Frank

Being a COI editor does not actually exclude the figure from editing their own page. Just edting the page IS NOT a violation. More eyes is a very good idea, so that he knows he cannot get away with anything that would be a violation, but just editing in general isn't.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the dif showing the changes he has made [27]. I am not sure that there is anything wrong with these additions but will leave that to others.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maung Zarni

There is a sentence under the education section

He claims[1] to hold a PhD

Linking to http://burmesewithfakephds.blogspot.sg/

The reference of this appears to be one persons personal blog, with a couple of emails that are by no means official documents. I find it hard to believe that one personal opinion is relevant to the biography of this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.32.163 (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindus persecuted in Pakistan

The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)#Lawsuits

I wonder if we need such controversial detail about living people in this article. The article Mike Richards (producer) does not say anything about the lawsuit, yet Bob Barker articles does say much about lawsuits. --George Ho (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Roberts (filmmaker)

From 2009 to 2011 Alan Roberts (filmmaker) was involved in production of a film called Desert Warrior. After the project completed filming, it was revised without knowledge of the participants as the 2012 film Innocence of Muslims. Lines and scenes were edited and altered from a story about "Master George" to a story about Islamic prophet Muhammad that many consider insulting. Some people online are calling for Roberts' death, so I feel his bio and the Innocence of Muslims article should make it perfectly clear that he was not involved in the version currently circulating. "Sam Bacile" has taken credit in 2012 interviews as director of the inflammatory version. BLP is crystal clear on this, and how we describe Roberts' earlier involvement has significant real-world implications for his safety. I'd appreciate if a few other editors keep a watch on the articles on the film and on him. Several editors insist on naming him director of the inflammatory version, but this is nether fair nor accurate. Wikipedia should not be making statements that could put his safety in jeopardy. Jokestress (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VICE magazine is not RS for biographical claims, and, in fact, does not make claims of his name as "fact." The material purporting to give his "real name" is thus improper under WP:BLP especially considering te contentious nature of the claims. There is no reliable source given for him seeking anything inflammatory, thus such claims are not allowed by WP:BLP Collect (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Sanders

Article seems unreliable. It says he resides in West Bloomfield, MI. A few sentences later, it says he lives in Oklahoma City. Huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.209.168 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Zadek

Simon Zadek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The individual represented in this article does not appear to meet the required Wikipedia guidelines of 'notability' as to merit the creation of a dedicated article. This article does not appear to be about a singular individual whom has yet to achieve any notable or significantly profound achievements. I presume this articles only function is most likely that of self-promotion. Also note the long list of publications he has placed...his website...seems like an ad for his consultancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommacao (talk • contribs) 09:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a notability flag to this article, may go further depending on how things work out. PatGallacher (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Internet Technologies

I stumbled across what appears to be a credible complaint made at Talk:Heritage Internet Technologies#Vandalism of malicious, libelous editing. I don't have time now to do it myself but someone should investigate it.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected Heritage Internet Technologies for one week. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Samara (3rd nomination)

I've got some history with one of the editors involved, so I think it would be more productive to bring it here. I saw this on the AfD discussions (it is hard to miss), and it seems to be heading into some rather nasty BLP territory, especially in regard to another editor. Could well do with some neutral eyes. - Bilby (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That AfD needs a couple of editors to just shut up. I dropped a note on Qworty's talk page asking them to refrain; asking the other editor is probably useless but I'll do it anyway. I'm loath to delete this speedily , though spammy it surely is, and the COI is pretty clear as well. I looked at an older version and find no reliable sources there--but this AfD might as well run its course, and if it ends in delete I have no problem salting it. We can figure out how to deal with the promoter later. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, someone with some experience with WP:OUTING should look at what's going on there. Especially toward the end I'm wondering if this is still OK. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Getting very close to outing, although there has been some disclosure also. All in all, not an example of how to do an AfD. The Interior (Talk) 07:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the offending material which amounted to outing, had a look at WP:RFO, bit complicated, if anyone wants to take this further by going for suppression feel free to do so. PatGallacher (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. The sooner that AfD closes the better. The Interior, it's par for the course: an AfD with a COI (thus a lack of AGF following by violations of NPA, hopefully not leading to ANI) often spells FUBAR. TTYL, Drmies (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad O'Brien

Recent edit appears to rely heavily on blogs and non-neutral sources [28]. The appearance is that a non-neutral user, with the purported agenda of amending a perceived liberal bias, is constructing a controversy section from a mixed bag of references. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it is your assertion that a user must be neutral in order to participate in Wikipedia? Silly me, I thought it was our contributions to Wikipedia that were required to be neutral. Perhaps you can point me to the policy which requires that Wikipedia users think and feel "neutral"? Bobinisrael (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and in the process, violating WP:BLP policy on the talk page - see the not-really-very-NPOV-named Talk:Soledad O'Brien#Transparently leftist bias on Wikipedia... AGAIN. section. And yes, it's User:Bobinisrael at it again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troublesome, per this talk page section [29], in contrast to the article, which looks pretty decent, and even-handedly cites charges of bias from both sides. In the rush to take offense numerous articles, editors, and subjects of biographies are being pilloried. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's quite "troublesome" that a user is here to challenge the dominant leftist bias of Wikipedia. Not as troublesome as completely vandalising an article and deleting an entire section filled with legitimate sources derided as "conservative blogs". Breitbart.com, Dailycaller.com, Humanevents.com, Huffingtonpost.com, PBS.com, Mediaite.com, Theblaze.com, Nationalreview.com, Townhall.com, and Washingtonpost.com, and Redstate.com are all legitimate news sources. Bobinisrael (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that Wikipedia has a "leftist" bias, then the correct approach is to get the policy changed rather than inserting edits that you know are in violation of current policy. TFD (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, The Four Deuces, please point of specifically where my edit to the Soledad O'Brien article violates current policy.Bobinisrael (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lisa Miller (Psychologist and Scientist)

Maybe some of you are also interested in spirituality. Perhaps you'd like to have a look at the complaint on the talk page linked above, where a problem with Lisa Miller (parapsychologist) is signaled. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of the Soledad O'Brien biography page.

I have added a paragraph to the "Controversies" section of her page, originating from an exchange she had with Joel Pollak on her show. AndyTheGrump has vandalised the page by completely deleting the section, while deriding the sources I've used to cite facts as non-neutral. The facts are not in dispute. I have warned him not to vandalise the article again, but predictably he has. The sources used to cite the facts and opinions were Breitbart.com, Mediaite.com, Dailycaller.com, Theblaze.com, Washingtonpost.com, PBS.com, Humanevents.com, Huffingtonpost.com, Townhall.com, Nationalreview.com, and Redstate.com. It should also be noted that opinions regarding critical race theory rejecting Soledad O'Brien's false characterisation of it (the core of the controversy) come primarily from two lawyers who graduated from Harvard Law. Bobinisrael (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please explain to this halfwit how WP:BRD works, what WP:VANDAL says, and why we aren't interested in his bullshit. His entire brief editing history consists of nothing but a string of attacks on the integrity of Wikipedia contributors, along with a crusade against a 'leftist bias' that apparently includes everyone on the planet... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you cannot address a single problem with the entire paragraph you continue to delete. If you have a specific point to make, make it. Since you don't, however, you just continually vandalise the article despite it being diligently written in an NPOV manner with legitimate sources. You can have a problem with my demeanour and candour, I'm not here to make friends. What you cannot do, however, is vandalise articles because you have a personal grudge against me. Either raise specific issues about the paragraph I composed, dispute facts and opinions that are sources, or cease and desist from your continuing vandalism. Whining about my dissenting political orientation DOES NOT justify vandalism. Bobinisrael (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go boil your head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern, I composed the paragraph in question in the same manner as this paragraph. I am confident that an honest review of these paragraphs will instantly reveal that they are well-written while closely adhering to all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and polices. The composition of both paragraphs is NPOV, the facts are not in dispute (the actual relevant videos are sourced), and the analysis of the subject matter at the core of the controversy regarding Soledad O'Brien, critical race theory, primarily comes from two folks who are qualified to do so. Cheers. Bobinisrael (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the merits, Bob's wandering into 3RR territory.[30] I also find it funny there's a reference to an "edit war" back in March, which there was some apparent new accounts and IPs coming in, although it was hardly a notable edit war by the standards of many political/news person articles. If there's consensus for a criticism section then a smaller version of that issue would seem to be relevant, however the treatment given it by bob seems to violate WP:UNDUE as is.

Basic advice about Wikipedia:Criticism should be noted here. Discussion of it in the article is relevant, but it's pretty obvious why Bob's POV pushing ended up here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You realise the reference to the Wikipedia edit war that occurred after Pollak's appearance on O'Brien's show is the least important sentence of the entire paragraph, right? If you think there's undue weight given to that entire ONE SENTENCE which is cited and described as such by a legitimate source, then please try to substantiate your statement by comparing this event to other edit wars that arose under similar circumstances. Otherwise, the sentence should remain. More importantly, the persistent deletion of the entire paragraph without ANY specific criticisms constitutes vandalism. You can't just throw around Wikipedia policy acronyms to justify deletions of entire sections without specifically connecting them to a grievance with either the way the content is composed (and I composed it in a perfectly NPOV, which is evident) or the sources cited (all are reliable sources). Of course, AndyTheGrump and his sidekick 76.248.149.47 have not done either. Bobinisrael (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "POV pushing", it's a desire to add an entirely relevant controversy to a media personality's page that is conspicuously absent. I am not obligated to pretend to be "neutral" in talk pages, what matters is whether or not the content I contribute to the body of an article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unlike many others on Wikipedia, I do not feel compelled to maintain a false veneer of "neutrality" (which doesn't exist, anyways) about who I am. My contributions to articles, on the other hand, are NPOV and compliant with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Nobody has yet to provide any specific justifications for the deletion of the paragraph demonstrating where either the composition of the paragraph or cited articles violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies. The real POV pushing is coming from those who wish to cleanse the article of this controversy, while cynically projecting their own motives onto me.Bobinisrael (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be neutral, only your edits. For the record, I don't think your edits are "vandalism" by any stretch, nor do I think it's appropriate to call the removal vandalism either. It's more like a low-grade edit war. My undue comment applied to the point as a whole, not to the edit warring part, that was more of a curious aside. I should have made that more clear.

Anyway, like I said bob, I think if the criticism section is to stand, some coverage by the National Review (I didn't check if it was just the blog or the magazine... that distinction probably matters as far as RS goes) suggests there might be something there worthy of some small inclusion. But that paragraph outshadows everything else in that section, and many of those sources are to political blogs. Make your argument on the basis of reliable sources and notability. This discussion about personalities doesn't help reach consensus.

The paragraph DOES NOT overshadow everything else in that exception, outside of it being much better written and sourced. It is not any longer than the other two segment under the same section. NONE of the sources I cited are simply "political blogs", they ALL have editorial oversight. Bobinisrael (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I mention I've never edited that article (unless it was run of the mill vandalism reversal... i haven't checked. certainly I haven't recently). Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "edit warring" doesn't bother me that much, at least not at the level it's at right now. I'm not a stickler for 3RR, but that also assumes some attempt to engage. I know there are talk page discussions going on, but they don't seem to be going very far towards consensus, which if we want to have any semblance of order on politically charged topics, is critical. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in me undoing the vandalism from AndyTheGrump, since he will only vandalise the article again unless he is warned by some sort of administrator not to do so. That is why I am here, to solicit the assistance of an administrator to compel compel AndyTheGrump to cease and desist with his vandalism. Otherwise, this is an entirely fruitless endeavour. There is nothing controversial here, I composed a high quality segment written in line with all relevant guidelines and policies and it is being deleted by another person committed to vandalism. Bobinisrael (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Bob, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Bombardment, and I also suggest you stop descriving other editors who have a different opinion to you as "vandals." I suggest you both use the article talk page to discuss content disputes. Giant Snowman 14:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something specific to say, then say it. Clearly demonstrate where I engaged in bombardment. If you can't do that, you're throwing around allegations that I am violating Wikipedia guidelines by invoking each one you can remember and hoping one of them will stick. The fact with the most references supplied was that Soledad O'Brien was criticised for mischaracterising critical race theory, and the source WERE NOT redundant. Up to this point, not ONE person has demonstrate any clear reason why ANY part of the segment I composed should be deleted, let alone the entire paragraph. I have seen other comments you have made about me, and you are not here to assist in improving the quality of the article, rather to join in with your ideological allies to assist in silencing me. Bobinisrael (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Ellory

A few weeks back, articles were published in the Daily Telegraph and the New York Times, accusing author R. J. Ellory of faking glowing reviews of his own work (allegedly using sockpuppets) whilst belittling that of certain "rivals". Reference has since been made to the Daily Telegraph article and external links were added to both articles.

Since that time, there has been a slow tag-team content dispute between various editors and one registered user and two pretty static or static IPs. This involves alternate, similar and unexplained blanking by these three editors and restoration, talk page advice and talk page warnings by various other editors:

Accounts: Roger Ellory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
77.100.46.44 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
94.11.171.216 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

A few hours ago (last night, UK time), one of the editors left a message on my talk page:

"I do not understand what is happening here. Potentially libellous statements regarding myself and my work are being left on my wikipedia page, and I cannot remove them. This is grossly unfair, unjust and biased. Simply because an article appears in a newspaper does not make it true. Please could you assist me in resolving this issue. Many thank. R J Ellory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.171.216 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC) "[reply]

I was about to add a section title to the message but there was an edit conflict and the page now contains a duplicate of the above message, again unsigned, but made according to the talk page history, by Roger Ellory (talk · contribs). There have also been gentle words of advice about possible conflict of interest and blp policy in general.

My advice was to use the edit summary; to use the article's talk page and, if he had a grievance, to take the matter to this BLP noticeboard. I have added a blp sources template to the top of the article and added a disputed section template above the allegedly offending material. I have also removed the Daily Telegraph from external links, as this is already referenced and linked to in the article body (I thought this to be overkill). Perhaps the external link to the New York Times might also either be used in the article or else removed from external links?

I have also opened this issue here and will inform users of this entry. All help gratefully received in resolving this issue.

Regards, Esowteric+Talk 08:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this was a widely reported story, and he is reported in multiple papers to have publicly apologised for his behaviour: [31] We need clarification what exactly is libellous or unfair about the content. JN466 10:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender

An edit war (slow but sustained over years) about Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender includes edits apparently made by or on behalf of the subject herself, removing allegedly defamatory (but sourced) content. There is a risk either that defamatory content remains in the article history (if the removed material is indeed inaccurate); or that conflicts of interest affect WP:NPOV (if the removed material was in fact accurate). — Richardguk (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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