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;" |

Anna Graceman

Anna Graceman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The database of the US Copyright Office is being used to support the birth year of this musician, as well as her actual name, as shown in this diff (highlighted, readded text under Early life section ... originally added with this edit, though with modifications made by me regarding the web site source itself). An editor is challenging whether the source is reliable (diff), and since this involves a BLP, I'm looking for justification whether this source can be used to back this kind of information. Even with that, I'm not exactly sure whether to restore the content, given the nature of the information, as the challenging editor has now removed it twice. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to add my point of view here right from the start.

• To call the copyright catalog of an official government office a dubious information source is incomprehensible. For copyright entries you need proof of (real) name and birthdate, otherwise you don't get an entry. There can be a lot of money involved with copyrigt claime. If there is one thing for sure, it is that they got the name and the birthdate right. Even though they are not disclosing the month and day for privacy reasons, at least the year has to be 100% accurate.
• The entries in the database for (Redacted) include all songs she released until 2016. Compare with the article itself. It is statistically impossible that there is another singer called Anna Graceman who wrote exactly the same songs in the same time frame as the one this article is about.
• In the copyright database there is first a contact address in Alaska in the entries. In the later ones an address from TN. The article itself states that AG moved from Alaska to Nashville, TN, making it even more unlikely to be a coincidence. The point the editor is making, that there might be other singers by that name, makes no sense, since he is just assuming without giving a single evidence. The burden of proof is with him, not the other way around.
  

The question for me is, why he is obviously trying to keep her name and her birthdate a secret, even though there is a reliable source. And this sourse is public, therefore no private information is disclosed that is not available publicly anyway. Even if the birthdate (Redacted) would be right, there is nothing on the official website to support this claim. The name of a link is no proof of any kind. An official government database entry always beats that any time. On top the link provided as a reference is a private link that is not publicly available. A google search reveals that this link is unknown to the web. It looks like as if the link was just created and it would be interesting to know how he got hold of that link out of the bliue, if it is not public and was unknown so far. Especially since he didn't correct the birth year information right away when he reverted the entries two times in a row shortly before.

It is not clear what his motivation is to keep the name and year of birth a secret and maybe he is even connected to Anna Graceman or the family in general, as the link he provided might suggest. In earlier entries he replaced two pictures in the article provided by another editor by two other pictures that he claims as his own work and of which at least one looks like an official press photo.

As much as I am for keeping really private information private, I can not see any harm done by adding her real name to the article, especially since she is over 18 now and no minor anymore, no matter if the birthday is in (Redacted).

After all Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a personal advertising platform where you can add and delete information to your like in order to fit your peronal agenda, even if the article is about yourself. This also applies to the deleted part about the AGT participation. The main reason why this might have happened is, because most references in that part do not exist anymore. The managers of Anna Graceman's social media accounts cleaned out everything lately that is older than 2 or 3 years, as if they want to erase her past in some way. And now the whole part about AGT in the Wikipedia article gets deleted by the same editor who added the two new pictures and deleted the USCO birthday reference without any justification. It almost looks as if the birthday and name dispute was used as a distraction to get rid of that part without raising bigger attention.

I think it is a general question how situations like this should be handled, if some evidence points to unjustified manipulation by an editor who has very likely a connection to the person the article is about. NewWorldOrder2017 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What NewWorldOrder2017 is alluding to on the (Redacted) birthday is this edit by Nightshade387 pointing to content in a post from her official website (which all I can see there is a link to a video for her song "Superstar" and nothing else). I'm not so sure we can call this reliable because even in the insertion of the content by Nightshade, after the source, it reads "There is debate about Anna Graceman's actual birthdate". If there is debate about this kind of thing, then the birthday shouldn't even be in the article in the first place, for that reason among others. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Tumblr source that was provided menawhile is a tricky thing. Tumblr entries can be edited at any time again and I am more and more sure that the person the article is about still does neither want to have her real name revealed, nor her birthday and that people around her play catch now with other editors. The latest revert was made almost instantly by an IP from Franklin, which is close to Nashville. Too many coincidences in my book. There is no question at all in my opinion that the USCO is a 100% reliable source. Otherwise we would also have to question if birth certificates are reliable sources. Very strange behaviour by these editors. I am out of this erticle. Like this it is just no fun. As expected her name and the whole part about AGT fell from the truck. Queestion is if Wikipedia should allow to be forced like this to alter the infomration on a page as it happened in this case? NewWorldOrder2017 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BLPPRIMARY is applicable here - Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. The US Copyright Office is not an appropriate or acceptable source for personally identifiable information - including birth names or birth dates. WP:BLPPRIVACY is also relevant - we include full names or dates of birth only where they have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Inferring information from URLs is not a reliable source. Unless there is something better, and policy compliant, the information should be removed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would go further and say the material should be removed full stop. The argument for using the copyright office is correct in one aspect - they require accurate information. Likewise anyone who has dealt with media personalities knows they lie about their age all the time - with some good justifcation given the rampant age bias in the media. So primary sources are unreliable for age and DOB where there is conflicting information. This does lead to an interesting question in cases like these (which I have not seen answered satisfactorily) if the copyright office has work A registered to person B, can we in biography C say they wrote A when we refuse to acknowledge the registered creator is the same person? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. First problem is, that the term "public record" is not properly defined anywhere. Is it dependent on if a databsse like at the USCO which is accessible for anybody to do ressearch is providing "public records" on the same level as e.g. birth and marriage certificatse? Is it necessary that a pubic record is provided by a government or can it be any other organization? The next thing is that the USCO provides only birth years, not full birth dates, excatly because of privacy reasons. So is just the year already too much? Or is it too little? And last the address argument. The record only gives P.O. boxes and business phone numbers. A P.O. box is practically not usuable to locate a person, since it doesn't let you make any connection to a physical office or private address. The same actually applies to phone numbers.

When I check articles about actors like e.g. Jeff Goldblum, birthdates are never referenced to a reliable source, but they are never disputed. Yet in this case we have a huge discussion if even the birth year is supposed to be in the article (based on a source that is 100% reliable). You find me puzzled over all this. With the same chain of arguments you would have to remove the birthdate of all biographies of living people in Wkipedia.

In the end it is OK to use an article in a newspaper as a reference whose soures are not verifiable at all, but it is not OK to use sources that are 100% reliable by their nature? This makes no sense at all. And when soembody decides to go into show biz, that person wants to be a public figure, otherwiese (s)he would become a cab driver. Being public is what they want, it is what they earn money with. I don't think that a real name and birthdate fall under a strict privacy policy in these cases. The public interest who this person really is, especially in a biography, counts more than being fed lies, even maybe if they are coming form the person the biography is about. Biographies about living people shouldn't be allowed at all then.NewWorldOrder2017 (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What you really need to do is propose such changes at the WP:RS and WP:BLP policies pages as would allow use of official records being allowed. Absent that, we are stuck using what those policies state. Collect (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Douglas V. Mastriano

Douglas V. Mastriano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article, Douglas V. Mastriano, is filled with laudatory, poorly sourced promotional material about a congressional candidate in central Pennsylvania. Mastriano -- one of seven candidates for the seat -- is a retired Army colonel and author, but his actual portfolio is far too thin to warrant this sort of gushing coverage.

It includes a segment on education that lists four unverifiable master's degrees, helpfully noting that "Mastriano was awarded the 2009 Eastern University Alumnus of the year in 2009 in St. Davids, Pennsylvania."[3]

The "Strategist" section is vastly overlong, consisting mostly of reprinted material from his academic thesis. The "Congressional Candidate" section fails to note the most notable aspect of his candidacy -- his willingness to campaign in uniform -- and includes largely fluffed-up assertions such as "Mastriano is considered an expert on Russia and the NATO security situation in Eastern and Northern Europe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pristine2 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pristine2:, this definitely has every appearance of being put together either by the subject or some-one close to him. Half the edits and 60% of the text were contributed by Majorbuxton, a single-purpose account who has edited on almost exclusively about Mastriano. A large portion of the text about the subject's accomplishments is cited either to either a participant's biography for a symposium at Norwich University or to an article in a very small, extremely local newspaper from the same town in Vermont where the symposium took place. I am certain that the bulk of this was contributed to those outlets by the subject. Many of the other cites fail verification since they do not demonstrate what they are claimed to. For example, the statement about him being a "...much sought after [sic] public speaker..." can at best be considered sourced to a video of a one-time C-SPAN Book TV appearance. Large sections are completely unreferenced and can only have been added by an editor that knows the subject personally. For these reasons, I will be editing large sections out as failing the Biographies of Living Persons and Promotion policies. Thank you for bringing this to attention. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There may have been some good material deleted in some of those puffery reduction edits – e.g., that he is an Eagle Scout and served in the first Gulf War and Afghanistan – although there was a lot of junk there that really needed deletion. I added a list of other publications. The section about his military honors is completely unsourced. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Gagnon

Joshua Gagnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article reads like self-promotion, or at least puffery. I'm also not sure it meets the notability requirements.

I have trimmed the worst excesses. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Trim some more. There appears to be no noticeable actual news coverage of this pastor. Press releases in a local paper and an SPS fail, as far as I can tell, to establish genuine notability. Heck, AfD is in order I fear. Collect (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I've spent as much effort as I think the subject justifies. I certainly wouldn't contest an AfD. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

After further removal of off-topic discussion and puffery, I reduced the article to two sentences, and submitted it for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Gagnon. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Vladimir Peftiev

Controversial contribution of user:Czalex introduces WP:BLP problems, specifically:

• Poorly sourced exceptional claims (accusations and allegations of human rights violations and backing a dictator are linked to Russian-language web publications with no significant weight or not sourced at all).
• False balance of information attempting to equalize media allegations that support critical accusations with decision of General Court (European Union) that dismisses those accusations.
• Due to false balance and poor sourcing, possible violation of WP:NPV.
• Due to previous points, a problem of potentially libelous and defamatory article.

Discussion is still in progress with no obvious consensus, assessment from BLP perspective is required. More info on article's talk page. 93.84.44.122 (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users with no prior Wikipedia contribution are trying to delete well-sourced information about an oligarch - while leaving the obviously self-promoting glorifying unsourced parts of the article, telling about Peftiev's charity and hobbies.

The information the anonymous users are trying to delete refers sources such as:

• Official EU documents accusing Peftiev of being a sponsor of the Lukashenka regime (doesn't matter if the accusations were lifted later)
• Malta Today stating that Peftiev may have Maltese citizenship
• Wikileaks
• France24, one of France's top media
• Ogonyok, one of Russia's top magazines, the detailed article about Peftiev was written by Pavel Sheremet, one of the best-known post-Soviet journalists
• Charter97, Narodnaja Vola, major independent Belarusian publications

These are reliable sources, removing information citing them is a direct violation of Wikipedia principles.--Czalex 20:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Judith Hallett

(Setting out my involvement, for transparency.) A controversies section was added to the Judith Hallett page, which in itself falls foul of BLP guidance, and also uses weasel words. As the page is one that our project edits (the controversies section addition was not made by one of our project eds), on 18 March we put a note on our project discussion board asking one of our eds to integrate or remove when time allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Women%27s_Classical_Committee#Judith_Hallett_page

Since then, the section was removed, probably by a newbie. This has been reverted by other eds several times now and is an edit war. The addition of the controversies section does seem to me to have problems, but given that it's a page that our project is involved with, I think it's better if more neutral editors could look at this please. I don't have access to the sources cited so can't fix the weasel words problem either.Claire 75 (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Why not simply change the section heading, at least for a start? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The section appears to be non-notable - not even hitting the importance of "he said / she said" for a BLP. "Controversy" sections are almost invariably a "bad idea" and where they are written as badly as this, ought be excised. Collect (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

While I agree in principle RE Controversies, Hallett's conflict with Heath/Hanson was well covered. There are plenty of sources out there that went into detail about it - albeit mostly book reviews related to it. here and here for example. There are quite a few more. But its about classics, so its hardly going to be mainstream. Of course when you start linking people who have savaged your work with the unabomber it tends to get a bit more press. If anything the Wikipedia coverage could have been written more strongly and still not been a BLP violation. If there was an article dedicated to the classics conflict (rather than the people involved in it) the content would certainly be easily reliably sourced. Adler's 'Classics, the culture wars and beyond' (which was used as a source for the WCC content) on Hallett's biography is specifically about the inter-classics conflicts and goes into extended detail - including Hallett's involvement in it (WCC) and her conflict with Hanson/Heath. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• The controversies section at permalink is a shocker. The content is pretty bland—the shock is that such silly stuff should be in a biography (a 1987 protest "accomplished little"; someone claims Hallett was wrong in her comments in a 1999 spat in a webforum). Beam me up. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephen J. Yates

Stephen J. Yates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article lacks substantive background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isp561 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Isp561:, it would be helpful if you specified in some way what substantive background information you believe is missing. Some links to reliable sources that substantiate the missing information would also be useful. Your request kind of expects a group of volunteer editors to guess what you think should be added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Jan Grabowski (historian)

Non-involved editors needed at Jan Grabowski (historian) and Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Grabowski (historian).

Grabowski is an award winning, Canadian historian who has received positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals, described an "eminent Canadian historian" by CBC, coverage is generally favorable (as well as pretty wide) in mainstream English language media (as may be seen with a simple google-news check). Grabowski however has faced criticism from Polish nationalists which has even led to death threats, possible per the BBC part of "surge of anti-Semitism online and in Polish state media".

Our article at present has been tagged with a POV tag (without a clear rationale), and is filled with quite a bit of negative criticism from WP:FRINGE/WP:BIASED sources (mostly non-English sources). The article at present contains approximately 2120 words of prose. 261 words describe 5 positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals. 639 words (or 30%!!!) describe 4 negative comments namely 110 words for Polish historian Grzegorz Berendt in an op-ed response in Haaretz to an article in Haaretz, 37 words for Historian Piotr Gontarczyk speaking on Polish Radio 24 reported via the right-wing internet portal wpolityce.pl,, 201 for words Łukasz Męczykowski (per [2] a PhD in humanities that is a fan of tanks and the British Home Guard and who is a school teacher) on the website/blog histmag.org, and 291 words for Bogdan Musial in a Polish publication. The latter two are of particular concern - inclusion of Męczykowski on histmag.org does not seem DUE under any reasonable standard. Bogdan Musiał on the other hand is known, however he is quoted without context, he is described in RS as belonging to an "ethno-nationalist school", as treating Żydokomuna (Judeo-Communism) not as an antisemitic canard but as historical reality, and has made widely repeated comments on Jewish religious beliefs.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Icewhiz's description of the issue is blatantly false. The criticisms are mostly from reputable historians who specialize in the topic and who've published far more on it than Grabowski has. For example Grzegorz Berendt, a member of the Jewish Historical Institute. Hence, Icewhiz is simply not telling the truth when he claims that these are "FRINGE" sources (indeed, it's sort of the other way around - while there has been some praise for Grabowski's book his finding stand in complete contrast to existing research and literature and as such are fringe themselves). In fact, when it comes to his comments about Bogdan Musial, Icewhiz is pretty much violating BLP himself. Musial is a very reputable historian and a specialist in the area of Polish-Jewish relations during WW2. He is also NOT a "nationalist" (he is in fact regularly attacked by Polish nationalists for not being pro-Polish enough). Icewhiz went and found a throwaway line in one source which lumps Musial in with some others, but that is clearly not enough to label someone as a "ethnonationalist". At the end of the day, it's true that Grabowski has been criticized by some "nationalists", but he's also been criticized by non-nationalists, and the former in no way invalidates the latter.

I should add that Icewhiz has been relentless in pushing a particular POV in this and related articles. Particularly disruptive and concerning are his constant references to other editor's ethnicities and especially his demands that we use ethnicity as a criteria on which to judge the sources (basically he appears to think that articles about Polish history should not use Polish sources - funny how nobody ever shows up to French history articles and demands that all French sources are removed, or British history, or Italian history, etc. - unless he personally approves them). The WP:TENDENTIOUS nature of his edits makes me think that a topic ban from Polish-Jewish relations might be appropriate although I'm not sure if it's risen to that level yet (and it's also true that there's a few disruptive IP accounts on these articles which are busy pushing an opposite POV).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss as to how "has a PhD in humanities" is suppose to be a point against a scholar. History as a discipline IS part of the Humanities!!! Basically, Icewhiz appears to be complaining that a particular source actually studied what is being discussed! Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have referenced every single assertion regarding Musial above to a RS. Nothing wrong with being a PhD in humanities filling teaching roles (per his histmag.org profile) posting on a website/blog - this does not make a notable opinion for inclusion. I have not commented on editor ethnicities, and I believe we should use diverse sources (and have commented on this subject when we have not - on locations that are not part of Poland today one should note).Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Steve Smith (cricketer)

Steve Smith (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Steve Smith admitted to Ball Tampering" has been added in the very first line in his wiki page. This incident just broke out, and should be analyzed further before adding it on to his wiki page. Moreover, Steven Smith did not tamper the ball himself. He apologized on behalf of his team's leadership group for his teammate's actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.192.8 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it, it doesn’t belong in the lede. It might warrant a mention in the body of the article but that can be worked out on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I took out the new section that was added to the body as an unsourced BLP violation, as well. Page protection has been requested by Daiyusha Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Tricia Walsh Smith,

Tricia Walsh-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am new to Wikipedia (Oliverdue)but a huge fan of Tricia Walsh Smith, so my first edit was her page as some of the information was incorrect. Unfortunately I have had my edit repeatedly undone by an editor called Oakshade. He has somehow stopped me revertng the page back to my version. As I am new I don't know how to get around this so I'm making an official complaint. I feel Walsh-Smith's page isn't non partisan and has a spiteful slant. It should simply state facts, not be detrimental to her reputation. I edited out "Dancing around London in bondage gear," a throwaway line regarding her Bonkers video. The song "Bonkers", is the theme song of the first play "Bonkers" that she wrote. She does not dance around London in bondage gear, she dances around London in jeans and tee shirt. The tone of "Dancing around London in bondage gear," is derogatory. I also removed material regarding her divorce as once again the tone was mean spirited and parroted peoples opinions. The wiki policy quite clearly states, "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if it is potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue." I hope this can be sorted and Tricia Walsh Smith gets a page that is fair and no longer mean spirited. Thank you, Oliverdue Oliverdue (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• "User called Oakshade" here. First of all the above user has refused to participate in any talk discussion of this issue already started on the talk page and has chosen just to edit war.

There are so many things wrong with this user's contention, I don't know where to begin.

Firstly the above user removed the sourced by The Times sentence, "Its video featured her in bondage gear and dancing around London" - not "Dancing around London in bondage gear" as Oliverdue claims (see straw man).

Secondly, and most importantly, they also removed over 7,000 bytes, mostly from the extremely heavily sourced "Divorce from Philip Smith" section [3][4] which not only is a very basic statement of facts and reporting on the analysis and influence of this case on the legal community, plus it's sourced by The New York Times, The Guardian, The Times, New York (magazine), CNN, The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun and MSNBC in which none are tabloids as Overdue claims and are some of the most respected news sources in history.

I should also point out regarding that sentence on the video, the (terrible) actual video itself shows her in bondage and dancing around London.[5]--Oakshade (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Khaled Malas

I believe the artist/architect/art historian Khaled Malas is notable. I also believe that his article has been written from a neutral point of view. i do not support the placement of tags by an albeit more experienced wikipedian than I.~~Articgoddess02~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Articgoddess02 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that lots of iffy material removed as not being of specific relevance has been reinserted. This BLP has problems, and, since I am officially banned from acting, I am asking others to examine this. Collect (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Kirsty Gallacher

Kirsty Gallacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two queries.

Firstly, is this an acceptable paragraph? Note the quality of sources and see also: Sky's Kirsty Gallacher sues The Sun over 'embarrassing' story headlined: 'Thirsty Kirsty TV collapse' Press Gazette

In December 2016, Kirsty Gallacher suffered an attack live on air which included the slurring of speech and her collapse. She was rushed to hospital for tests and found to have been suffering from "extreme exhaustion and a viral infection".

References

Secondly, is this paragraph undue?

On 12 August 2017, Gallacher was stopped by police in Eton near Windsor Castle, breathalysed at the roadside and arrested. She pleaded guilty at Slough Magistrates' Court for being over three times the legal drink drive limit the morning after a night out. On 4 September 2017, Gallacher was banned from driving for two years, ordered to serve 100 hours of community service, pay £85 prosecution costs and an £85 victim surcharge.

References

Pinging editors that have reinstated this material: Dream Focus, Newroderick895, Arjayay, Davey2010. --94.117.77.132 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• An IP address, I assume this same guy, was reverted three times on most of the articles he edited on so far. So I figure just vandalism, he removing a lot of reference text. This is the only time I reverted him anywhere, and I said why in the edit summary [6] (It reads :She pleaded guilty at Slough Magistrates' Court for being over three times the legal drink drive limit the morning after a night out.). So part of the large amount he removed should've been left there. I didn't bother reading all of it since the person just seems like a vandal. If you wish to discuss and remove one section at a time with a valid reason given, so be it, but don't go rampaging around cutting out large amounts at once. Dream Focus 17:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Only I didn't start "cutting out large amounts at once", rampagingly or otherwise. There were four separate edits: [7][8][9][10] It was all restored in one edit by user:Davey2010. --94.118.53.218 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So you admit you are the same guy who just got blocked yet again? Someone block this IP address as well please. Dream Focus 20:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, how is this vandalism exactly? --94.118.53.218 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, but most importantly, notwithstanding the quality of the references, is the IP arguing that any of the statements are incorrect? If so, which, and on what grounds?
As for the first section, people may remember the slurring, or the Sun article about the slurring, without knowing that she subsequently sued the Sun. If they read the article, and there is nothing about it, they may assume the worst; whereas to cover the event, citing medical reasons, protects her reputation. Maybe we should add suing the Sun?
As for the second, if it was just an accusation, it clearly would be undue, and would fail WP:BLPCRIME but to be found guilty of a criminal offence only 6 months ago, and for which she is still serving a ban, seems reasonable to include. - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So every arrest, no matter how minor, is recorded on every BLP? You say It is "reasonable to include" because it only happened 6 months ago? Would it therefore be unreasonble to include if it happened earlier in her career? How much earlier? Arrests are fairly common; I don't know if celebrities are more prone to them, but we do know the media likes reporting them. It would get more than a little unwieldy up in here if every biography utilized all the info out there. Unless they are particularly unusual, or can be shown to have had an impact on the subject's career via secondary sources, arrests should be left out. --94.118.53.218 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• My main reason for reverting was that I didn't really see any valid reason for its removal at that time, The incident was heavily reported and as such I felt it should be reported, That being said a few celebs don't have drink-driving incidents on their article yet they too were heavily reported on, Ofcourse every celeb makes a mistake and in this case there was no job lost and no consequence in terms of her job and so I do agree with the IP in that we don't need to report on every little cock up a celeb makes .... but then again this could all simply be a case of the BLP wanting to removing "negative" content from the article .... In some ways I feel as if the content is there to simply "shame" the BLP and nothing more (On a side note Ant McPartlin also drank & drove however the stark different between these 2 blps is that one is in rehab and been axed from the television show they host for now as well as being axed from a TV advert deal (ie there's been consequences for one) where as the other has been banned from driving and had to pay a fine .... See what I mean ?). –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Note the IP is Hillbillyholiday evading their block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll start with, I know about how Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias because it changes daily (like a newspaper in a way). However, we don't want to be a newspaper and report newpaperish things. I think we should strive to report things that are themselves notable yet significant in the scope of the subject's overall life and career. To help decide, I'd ask myself, is this information that --as written now-- will be significant to this person's article say ... 5, 10, 100 years from now? If not, then it seems to fall in the category of trivia; perhaps newspaper-worthy, but likely not encyclopedia worthy. I'd try to keep in mind that we should strive to be better than many of the sources we use. Zaereth (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

N.B. : Contentious material should not be reinserted until after consensus is reached. And often large amounts must be removed, by the way. Wikipedia is here to be fair to the victims or subjects of BLPs, not here to make sure that they are properly punished. Is the person notable for the crime? And is the amount of space taken up for the crime proportional to its importance? That is what the editors on that page must weigh. Collect (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus from editors not evading their blocks, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Andre Birleanu

Andre Birleanu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The personal section of this article has been subject to repeated attempts by IPs to delete it, which have been reflexively reverted by established users. Looking at the section more closely, despite some sourcing I think I tend to agree with the IP, especially the comments about the mother of the subject's child. I declined a request to protect this page, and brought this here to see if others agree. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed some material which was inadequately sourced by far. It needs further work, some is undue and some is inadequately sourced still, and some is nearly incoherent. MPS1992 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I've also condensed the page by removing WP:UNDUE, promotional, and unsourced content. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Violations of Wiki BOLP guidelines in Tom Fitton page

Tom Fitton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In violation of Wiki policies on the biographies of living persons, this page does not have a neutral point of view and is negatively biased. In fact, the page focuses almost exclusively on alleged controversies and criticisms to the exclusion of a neutral discussion of other work related to involvement in a national, non-profit organization.

[[11]]

Thank you, TF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.118.42 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Controversy sections are generally to be avoided, and we don't consider opinion pieces as good sources for facts about living people and their views or behavior -- especially with words like "lunatic ravings". So I have re-organized the article, re-worded some content, and removed one opinion piece. Others may wish to have a look over what's left. MPS1992 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans has now edit-warred this all back into the article -- not the first time they have been re-inserting this and similar content in the same article. MPS1992 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You complained about a "controversy" section and an op-ed by a WaPo columnist referring to Fitton's ridiculous attacks on the FBI as the "ravings of a lunatic". The controversy section has been removed and the op-ed has also been removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Gary Null

• Gary Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor claiming to represent the subject of this article has posted at its talk page. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

See a new entry at ANI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#New_Legal_Threat_at_Talk:Gary_Null

Roxy, the dog. barcus 22:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A Google search does show him as Null's lawyer. He should try to work with us on the talk page, one point of contention at a time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

His contention is that the article correctly describes Null as a quack and having that information easily available makes it harder for him to con the desperate.

His individual points are just the same overwhelming flood of bad-faith nitpicking that we usually see in such cases. ApLundell (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Rebekah Mercer

Resolved

 – a citation that verifies the claim has now been added

• Rebekah Mercer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Copied from Talk:Rebekah Mercer#Citation needed for politico claims page:

I've tried twice to add a citation needed in the Donald Trump section, for a claim I am unable to find a source for. Each time it was removed, the first time I assumed by mistake. The claim is:

• Some said[who?] she had not favored Corey Lewandowski as possible Republican National Committee chair and that Lewandowski had reportedly resisted paying for services from data firm Cambridge Analytica–a company funded by the Mercers–early in the campaign, though a close associate of Mercer's denied the stories.

Where is the source for that? The editor reverting my tag included the comment "see footnote 13 - footnotes aren't needed for every sentence", and footnote 13 is https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-rebekah-mercer-227799

I cannot find "Corey" nor "Lewandowski" in that article. What am I missing? There are mentions in https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-tech-data-fundraising-224865 and https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-campaign-corey-lewandowski-manager-224536, are they the sources? Please understand I am trying to verify claims made to meet Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. -84user (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC) -84user (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe this dispute (actually a misunderstanding) was readily resolved at article talk. There was no reason to take it here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Main page on April 1

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Quick straw poll on faux politician trio. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erickson

Caroline456 and I could use some eyes on the new article Paul Erickson, where we've run into a whole bunch of neutrality-related issues. This is an article about a South Dakota Republican operative who's received a lot of news coverage recently in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Dan Schneider (TV producer)

This probably needs more oversighting, e.g.[12] MaxBrowne (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There's some on the talk page as well, where an editor requesting removal of the material has innocently copy-pasted it. MPS1992 (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Don Marion Davies 1917-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Marion_Davis[[13]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.170.120 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ip user, did you have a question or suggestion to make about this article? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Felix Sater, again

Protection on Felix Sater has expired (applied by CambridgeBayWeather, 29 August 2017 [14]). We have some problems and I don't want to cross 3RR myself.

1. [15] - first introduction of blog as source for controversial information
2. Special:diff/832620526 reintroduced
3. Special:diff/832735853 reintroduced again (apparently logged out)
4. Special:diff/832891133 reintroduced again (apparently logged out)

See my request for non-use of this oddball source on the article talkpage and warnings on the editor's talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Restore those edits. They're based on a court filing in the subject's lost appeals case, and are entirely factual as the article states using this public record [Source redacted] and the original source video from MSNBC where subject lied about his violent felony conviction. "Oddball"? What has that got to do with factual sources. Attacking the messenger is the province of those who cannot attack the message, nor the facts. Whomever reversed those edits should be banned from Wikipedia. Facts matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spelunkingmerica (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Take it up on the article talk page. Having a source is necessary, but how and whether to use it needs to be discussed and agreed upon. --Jayron32 18:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Where facts come from also matter, and it is a clear violation of BLP to use court documents. See: WP:BLPPRIMARY. We need reliable, secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a month. I'll let others sort out the particulars of the content issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Doug Ford Jr.

Does [16] comport with the exception to WP:BLPCRIME or does its re-inclusion require a specific and clear affirmative consensus on the BLP talk page? The accusations were made in an Atlantic article which carefully ascribes the accusation to "The Globe and Mail" and does not make the accusations in The Atlantic's voice but phrases it as a question only - which was made in a heated election season.

"There's nothing on the public record that The Globe has accessed that shows Doug Ford has ever been criminally charged for illegal drug possession or trafficking. But some of the sources said that, in the affluent pocket of Etobicoke where the Fords grew up, he was someone who sold not only to users and street-level dealers, but to dealers one rung higher than those on the street. His tenure as a dealer, many of the sources say, lasted about seven years until 1986, the year he turned 22. "That was his heyday," said "Robert," one of the former drug dealers who agreed to an interview on the condition he not be identified by name." seems to be a weak source for a claim of explicit felonious conduct.

In short, a newspaper with a specific political position carefully refrained from making an explicit charge which the Wikipedia BLP does not shrink from making. If the source does not make a criminal charge, then ought Wikipedia then make the charge the source does not make? Collect (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me The Globe does indeed make the explicit charge--but that is beside the point, as I see it. This is indeed a slim reed on which to predicate that entire section. I would personally be comfortable with a brief reference to this ("...accusations of drug activity in the past...." or some such), but as currently constituted, I'd say the section runs afoul of both WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you must be referring to The Atlantic with "a newspaper with a specific political position"; The Globe and Mail is considered by many to be "Canada's newspaper of record" and is well respected for its balanced journalism and broad coverage, though it is often considered moderately conservative, politically. It's that paper that first made the charge: "This investigative report reveals that: Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s." The Atlantic is just covering it (as did Huffington Post, Maclean's, the Toronto Star, CBC, numerous others). The Globe's report appeared in May 2013, a year and a half prior to the next Toronto election. The Globe continues to assert their allegation as fact as recently as February 9 of this year ([17]: "Among the things we already know about Mr. [Doug] Ford: He was, as revealed by this newspaper, a drug dealer in the 1980s.". It hardly seems inappropriate for Wikipedia to repeat these much-covered allegations, not in Wikipedia's voice but in a neutral tone of coverage of an event. As for the BLPCRIME protection for low-profile individuals accused of a crime: Doug Ford is as far from low-profile as I am from a ballerina. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"The Atlantic" poses the "charge" as a question - not as a claim of fact. "Is Toronto City Councillor Doug Ford, Rob's Brother, a Former Hash Dealer?. The "Globe and Mail" was, and is, active in Toronto politics, and one should note that the allegations are entirely anonymous. The Daily Mail is more careful than that. Actual allegations of felonious acts are one thing, anonymous rumours of felonious acts are a full step lower in credibility. WP:UNDUE clearly applies, and the extended story certainly makes a "contentious claim" to say the least. Collect (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And if anyone's interested, there has been an RfC active on the article's talk page for some time on this very thing. See Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN trumps WP:BLPCRIME: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" Nixon Now (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A source which does not make the accusation as a matter of fact, but reports it only as an "anonymous" rumour is not usable for Wikipedia to make the claim as a matter of fact . Period. We are not Rumourpedia yet. Collect (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what you mean by "The Globe and Mail is active in Toronto politics". Like virtually all newspapers, they do run editorial endorsements. In the Globe's case, they've endorsed the Conservative Party in the most recent federal and provincial elections so if you are alleging that they are left wing as opposed to Ford's conservativism, you are mistaken. Also, like all responsible newspapers, the Globe's editorial division and news division are separate. The article in question was also the subject of a complaint to the Ontario Press Council, which upheld the Globe and Mail's position and rejected the complaint. Nixon Now (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Globe and Mail does actually make the accusation as a matter of fact, as they made clear in their statement to the Ontario Press Council which can be read here and says, among other things, "The facts were established, through multiple interviews with multiple, independent sources, all of them anonymous" and then proceeds to go into great detail about just how thorough the investigation was:

"2. Were adequate efforts made to verify the allegations?

This story was 18 months in the making, in large part because the reporters (on the advice of editors, and in some cases, legal counsel) were sent back multiple times to corroborate details and further authenticate information provided in previous interviews. More than 100 people were approached. Many refused comment. Many referred to second-hand information about the Fords’ role in the illegal drug trade. Our reporters searched only for people with direct knowledge – those who had purchased hashish from Doug Ford, supplied him with hashish or witnessed him possessing large amounts of the drug. Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge.

Mr. Chairman, it may be worth reiterating at this point that the focal point of our investigation was never the recreational use of drugs or some fleeting misjudgment of youth, as has been suggested by the participants, perhaps as a way of diverting critical public attention; this was about a serious and sustained commercial activity, something most of us associate with criminals.

Some of our sources were interviewed more than five times and the reporters went back to them repeatedly to run new names and anecdotes by them, in order to test the credibility of these sources. Some of our sources met with senior editors and, on three occasions, with legal counsel for The Globe. Each person who was quoted anonymously said they were afraid to attach their name to the story, citing the influence of the Ford family or problems they may face in revealing their own involvement in the drug trade. One person sought legal advice and was advised that there is no statute of limitations for drug trafficking offences in Canada. Another source who wanted to go on the record sought the approval of his immediate family, who convinced him not to consent to his name being published. One concern that came up with several sources was how the disclosure of their identity might affect their ability to travel to the United States.

After repeated, unsuccessful efforts over many months to convince sources to agree to the use of their names, we faced a dilemma: we could publish the story citing only anonymous sources, knowing the facts of the story are both true and in the public interest, or we could not publish at all. The latter option would have been journalistically and socially irresponsible.

Accepting this, we set extraordinary standards for the extent, documentation and validation of each interview. In addition to these direct sources, the reporters worked for months to seek all available public information, including court documents, related to the cases cited in the story. Additionally, as many of the events documented in the story occurred before the advancement of the Internet, they spent months examining microfiched newspapers, yearbooks and old phone directories for further contacts and information."

Nixon Now (talk)

the more it became apparent that the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings is a heck of a weak claim for felonies.

Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge. is extremely carefully parsed, again not making any actual charge of crimes by Doug Ford Jr.

In short, the claim being sought to be made in Wikipedia's voice is not stated as such by the newspaper which used very carefully parsed language, indeed.

Wikipedia is not Rumourpedia, as this sort of edit tries to accomplish. Collect (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

And how did the Ontario Press Council rule, User:Collect? Nixon Now (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The Ontario Press Council (OPC) found that the G&M did not violate the Press Council's rules. They did not rule that Doug Ford Jr. committed felonies. [18] In fact the OPC specifically does not examine legal issues or make any evidentiary findings at all. In short the OPC made zero findings of "fact" at all in this matter. Clear? That is how the OPC "ruled." I suspect it is not what you wanted to hear. Collect (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures, which Doug Ford certainly is. Secondly, an argument that The Globe and Mail isn't claiming that Doug Ford actually dealt drugs is pretty much debunked when they prominently write: "This investigative report reveals that: Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s." at the top of the article. In any case, Wikipedia is not saying that Doug Ford for sure dealt hashish, which would be problematic under BLP, but it's saying that The Globe and Mail reported that he had done so, which is fine, given the widespread media coverage after the G&M report. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Steven Christopher Parker

Steven Christopher Parker Hello, my name is Steven Christopher Parker and I am the subject of the wikipedia page. A business owner who is trying to harass me recently made a request to delete this wiki page in an attempt to hurt me professionally. Please ignore this attempt, as it is without cause or meaningful reason. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scparker888 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

While both the WP:PROD and WP:A7 deletion attempts have been ended for technical reasons, this does look like a page that might not survive a proper Article for Deletion attempt for notability. I will not be starting it myself, but others may want to take a look. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

St Edward's School, Oxford

A single purpose editor has been repeatedly adding information to this article about a former teacher that has apparently been convicted of sexual crimes. The content is referenced, but it has been repeatedly removed by different editors. I think this may be a bit of a grey area where maybe adding this content could be seen as a WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE violation, but removing it might be seen as whitewashing. Could some more experienced editors please have a look and provide advice? ANDREVV (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Shooting of Stephon Clark

Stephon Clark was recently shot and killed by police in Sacramento, while unarmed and hiding in his grandmother's backyard. The press has reported that he had past criminal convictions.

In our article on his death, I had added Clark's convictions in a manner that I hoped would not lead or prejudice readers, but would nevertheless make the information available. Those convictions have been removed [19] as a "SYNTH impression... BLP smear." The editor who removed them, SPECIFICO, has asked that we take the issue to BLPN. So here we are: advice is appreciated.

Also pinging @GreenMeansGo, Darkstar1st, and MelanieN: they're participating in the conversation or have helped at the article as well. -Darouet (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Michael Carroll (Lottery winner)

With this edit/blind revert, Oshwah has added unreferenced material to a Biography of a Living Person. Including details of where their bank accounts are/were held.

[20]

Is this acceptable behaviour for an administrator? 94.118.44.96 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Being an admin has nothing to do with it. This appears to be a content dispute. Oshwah asked you to take it to the article's talk page in his edit summary and I've done the same thing in mine. Please do not re-do your edits to the page a third time. Please, instead, start a talk page thread on the article's talk page. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. And BLP policy trumps a "content dispute". Why have the both of you added unreferenced and probably undue material? Why don't *you* start the discussion rather than blindly reverting? Isn't it better to be cautious when it comes to BLPs? And why should I ask at a barely watched talkpage? Surely this is the correct venue for BLP problems? 94.118.44.96 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like while I was posting here, you were re-inserting your preferred edit a third time. Please self-revert and start a talk page thread. David in DC (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)