Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive23

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

William Schniedewind – User informed of policy 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC) – 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Resolved

– User warned

What's our policy on possible BLP violations on article talk pages and user talk pages? There seems to be an organized campaign by two or three users (or at least user names) to post allegations against William Schniedewind and IsraelXKV8R. The allegations are unsourced, but we don't normally source talk pages. Still, the fact that it's a talk page shouldn't give a user free rein to post possibly defamatory accusations. I have also left a post at WP:ANI based on the attack contained in this edit, but I don't want to start leaving warnings, blocking or reverting because I have been in communication for a while now with User:IsraelXKV8R to try to bring him up to speed on how WP works, so I might not be viewed as neutral. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks 02:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy is very unambiguous about this. BLP violations include postings of unsourced or poorly sourced material anywhere in Wikipedia, including talk pages, AfD discussions, noticeboards, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I obviously haven't read the whole policy recently. Shame on me. It is clearly stated here and elsewhere. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on how WP works! ;-) -- But|seriously|folks 04:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Church_of_Christ_(Temple_Lot – Issue resolved – 20:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

could someone remove the threads entitled "Disputed Citation" and "OTRS / WP:BIO / WP:NPOV / WP:COI" from the Talk page at Church_of_Christ_(Temple_Lot)? It repeatedly references the 'unsourced or poorly sourced material' which was finally removed from the article. Because I'm not an established editor, If I remove the information, it will likely be reverted, and then even more discussion will probably ensue, in violation of WP:BLP. Piledoggie 12:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

specifically, I would like to appeal to ≈ jossi ≈ to please clear that Talk Page of that material, and also if necessary, to warn the user who kept posting discussion of the BLP dispute, even after he was told repeatedly it was a violation of WP:BLP to do so. I don't want to provide the name of that user here, for fear it would spark yet another round of spiteful violations of WP:BLP. Piledoggie 17:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see there any material that violates WP:BLP. In a few weeks, you can archive the talk page, if you want to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I had removed the most glaring examples, is why there are no 'glaring examples' of WP:BLP violations there. The possibility exists that the offending editor will restore those (which he authored) in which case I will apprise you of it. Piledoggie 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, 'the possibility' more than existed...it is in fact what has happened at the Talk Page in question, during the past three hours or so. The 'most glaring example' of a WP:BLP violation was restored by The Jade Knight, and for obvious reasons I would prefer not to link to it publicly in any Wikipedia article, talk page or user page, let me know if isn't completely obvious, or email me via my user page if necessary. The situation has suddenly become "urgent" again....The Jade Knight is continuing his persistent and misguided harassment of an editor who has sought only to keep a Wikipedia article from being childishly defaced. If you take a closer look at The Jade Knight's logic, you will realize that he doesn't know what he's talking about (regarding libel, print journalism, WLP:BP and so forth) ---but nevertheless keeps insisting that he does! It's weird, I'm telling ya. IThis is not a situation for mediation: I'm being harassed and pestered by a 'know-it-all' who is less than half my age, and in regards to a WP:BLP violation for god's sake -- and it needs to stop immediately! P.S. I think I will also post this to Jonel and Jossi's talk pages, those two are the only administrators so far who have actually examined the situation without wrongfully assuming that The Jade Knight is the editor being harassed, vandalized, etcetera. (note: If he claims to have been "repeatedly vandalized, please ask to see the alleged instances of vandalism. If he claims I was twice "banned for violating the 3RR rule" please be aware of the WLP:BP exception [1]) As pointed out by myself at the Talk Page in question, and also at the Talk Page of an administrator who had accused me of WP:SSP violation, I am also User_:69.154.18.251, 69.149.223.55 and 69.152.175.114 ... BUT NO OTHER USERNAMES in connection to this dispute. The reasons for the multiple usernames are a computer glitch...forgetting to log in...and attempted to circumvent The Jade Knight's malicious harassment and mischaracterization of my original edits at Church_of_Christ_(Temple_Lot) beginning July 28. Piledoggie 00:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm not an administrator. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Would an administrator experienced in BLP issues please have a look at my preceding comments as soon as possible? This is tagged "Urgent again" because The Jade Knight is attempting to re-insert the BLP:WP violations removed by User: Jonel yesterday (dispute is described in the archived link 'Church_of_Christ_(Temple_Lot) – Material removed – 19:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)' Piledoggie 00:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am puzzled again why a WLP:BP complaint marked "URGENT" is evidently ignored by editors and administrators experienced in WLP:BP issues. An example of the quandaries involved is in this recent exchange at the Talk Page in question:

Somitho requested the unprotection, but was not the administrator to unprotect the page. Checking the page history would have made that clear. The Jade Knight 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidently administrator User:Cbrown1023 permitted the page to be unprotected, in the mistaken belief that the page had been protected in order to guard the reputation of 19th century church founders. 69.154.18.251 11:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of Cbrown's belief, Somitho requested that he unprotect the page. Considering that Somitho was your OTRS contact, I'm surprised that you gave him such a mistaken impression of the BLP violation. The Jade Knight 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Somitho is Joshua Brady of the 'Wikipedia Support Team'??? That explains a lot. Yes, Joshua Brady finally replied to my complaint with the absurd explanation that I'm not the deceased founders of the LDS or RLDS church, therefore my complaint was invalid. Well that explains a lot. Somitho/Joshua Brady must be diverting my further complaints to Wikipedia Support Team. Why he would continue to ignore the situation knowing that a deceased person from the 19th century isn't involved, is beyond me. Such weirdness! WOULD A COMPETENT WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE INTERVENE. Piledoggie

Piledoggie, your strident tone, lack of clarity in what you're objecting to, and behavior both on this noticeboard and elsewhere probably aren't helping you here. You've had numerous people (including myself) tell you why they don't think there's a BLP issue here, and have been less than clear in explaining why you disagree. So, please, take a deep breath, then calmly and clearly what the problem is and what your desired outcome would be. And, to clarify a comment you made above about The Jade Knight attempting to re-insert something I've removed, the only edit I've made to either the article or the talk page is this one to the article; The Jade Knight has not edited the page since my edit. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Please read earlier today, when I asked Jossi to look at the TALK PAGE for the temple lot article. If you go back in the history of the MAIN PAGE and the TALK PAGE, you will find user Jade Knight repeatedly inserting the offending material, which is a complete violation of WLP:BP. My strident tone is because this is a 'criminal complaint' not a "content dispute.' It has NEVER been a 'content dispute.' Courtesy of Jade Knight and his new 'sidekick' blahblah5555, Wikipedia was in violation of criminal codes regarding libel, defamation, and internet libel and defamation. The "lack of clarity" is caused by the fact that I'm a less proficient Wikipedia editor than Jade Knight, combined with Jade Knight's harassment of me, and his obfuscation, and his outright confusion about issues involving libel and defamation. Please Go back to Day 1 of the dispute, July 28, 2007 at page history for the article in question. Piledoggie 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the current talk page (and looking through the history, it seems that nothing that has been there in the past isn't there now), I'm not seeing anything that's a BLP problem. The only part of the discussion that is about the living person in question is a disagreement about what the Kansas City Times article says in the "Disputed Citation" section. The KC Times is clearly a reliable source under Wikipedia's BLP policy and WP:RS guidelines. Thus, discussing what the article actually says is not problematic. Nothing in the second section mentioned above is at all about the person in question.

Further, the person in question is not named. Nor is any hint to his identity given in the talk page, nor can I find it in the talk page's history. This is clearly "writ[ing] conservatively, with regard to the subject's privacy".

Nowhere on the talk page is any source, reliable or unreliable, linked to. Nor are the contents of anything from The Watchman discussed; that site is only mentioned insofar as to say that it is unreliable and shouldn't be used.

Is your problem in the two paragraphs you deleted here? The first does not refer at all the person in question. The second discusses the contents of the KC Times article mentioned above, and is thus well-sourced. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my concern with the Talk Page in its present form relates to that bizarre comment by Jade Knight. I point out that the 'paragraph unchanged for many months' is this one:

It should be noted that both Jade Knight and blahlbah5555 first edited and then censored (removed) an accurate paragraph which had existed at this article, untouched, for many months [2]

-- and so then Jade Knight then links to a much more recent edit, and alleges I was being "disingenous" to claim otherwise (and by the way, it should tell you something that Jade Knight equates "Ingenious" (misspelled as ingenuous ) with "disenguous" ...that's his speed, that's what I'm dealing with.)

My complaint is not with the Kansas City Star/Times corporation or any newspaper company, it is with a specific defamatory report published many years ago. It is particulary inaccurate and completely defamatory. Why do you and Jade Knight suggest that 'mainstream newspaper companies' are beyond reproach with anything they ever publish? That's strange, I don't understand. Maybe I would if I were not a former award-winning scholastic journalist, and a former full-time employee of the Kansas City Star and another local newspaper, and the School of Journalism, Gannett Annex, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1982-82. (I was a classmate of Brad Pitt's, he also majored in Journalism there as you can see by that Wikipedia article. I digress, but it is to try and illustrate I'm no dummy. Piledoggie 04:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we're moving towards understanding now. Please do leave out the personal attacks on Jade Knight, though; they're unnecessary, unhelpful, and rude.

As to the substantive parts of your comments, here's the deal. No one's claiming that mainstream newspapers are infallible. My guess is there's probably a few Wikipedia articles about well-known problems in mainstream newspapers. They can make errors, they can be biased, etc. It doesn't take a genius to know that, it usually only takes having been mentioned in a paper. But newspapers are towards the high end of sources when it comes to fact-checking and other quality control. Which is why they're generally considered reliable sources (note "reliable" rather than "perfect", "completely accurate", or "100% trustworthy"). It's a rebuttable presumption, but it is the objector's burden to rebut it (unlike with, say, personal blogs, which are presumptively invalid).

You say your problem is with a particular report. The issue with that is that we have only your assertion that the report is inaccurate in this case. You haven't provided any sources with a different portrayal. Thus, we have no more reason to think that the report is any less accurate than, for example, this article from today's New York Times. And since a practice of not discussing *any* article that might be defamatory if inaccurate is one that's clearly going to lead to there not being much of an encyclopedia here, we have our Verifiability policy and related Reliable sources guidelines. Discussing the actual contents of newspaper articles is wholly within that policy. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(sigh). Clearly this process isn't working. No sooner do I answer a question or concern, then someone else jumps in, expresses the same question(s) or concerns, meanwhile ignoring my previous answer to it. This is strange alright, full-on Twilight Zone, like a carnival game, where one ducky pops up, asks a question, I answer it, the ducky disappears, then another ducky pops up, asks the same question, etcetera. I think I'll abandon this thread. I can see this process has often worked, for a lot of people. But it shore ain't working for me! lol. Piledoggie 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Michael Lynn – Resolved. – 23:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Michael Lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I realize that this was not done on purpose, the editor almost definately didn't get the implications he was making, but when he changed my article to say that I released "few" vulnerability details, he changed the article dramatically. If that claim were true it would have serious legal (not to mention ethical) remifications for me. He changed it because he felt it was a POV issue, but its a hard fact, either I did mention details of the vulnerability or I did not. There are two ways you can find that I did not, first all of my conference materials are available online, you can see for yourself that I don't discuss any packet formats, any protocols, I even specifically have a slide informing them that they will get no info from me about the bug itself. I would link to the material but I'm barred by an injunction from doing so (see article, it explains why). The other way you know I didn't release any vuln details is that no-one has yet reproduced my work, and its not like there wasn't anyone trying...This is a serious issue for me, I don't agree with everything in the article, but all but this I'd say are valid POV issues, this however is a matter of fact, and as listed, i consider it libel. --Michael Lynn 03:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This [3] is the edit in question btw, I don't really have problems with his other edits --Michael Lynn 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the offending edit on my own, see talk page Michael Lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion of why. I do realize that the editor probably didn't know the implications he was making with this edit, so I'm not mad or anything, but given that this time of year (when Black Hat is ongoing) i get more attention than any other time of year, and I'd hate for some stupid reporter to throw my name in their story and include false information because of a simple mistake. --Michael Lynn 04:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Note that you can correct mistaken facts per WP:AUTO; if you do you are supposed to note it on the talk page. ←Ben^B4 05:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Nikolay Davydenko – Vandalism removed – 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Resolved

– Restored previous version

I posted this on the discussion page but I don't know how all this stuff works so:

Under playing style the first sentence says "Davydenko employs an aggressive tanking game although he is capable of playing an all-round fix. His main strengths are his ability to retire, lightning foot speed,bank balance and return game." Later it says "Davydenko's best tank shot has to be his backhand which he can hit out at will, cross court and with extreme angles or dolly it into the net if needed." Later in the last sentence under trivia it says "...due to the fact that he throws more tournaments per year than any other player..." the highlighted parts are speculative at this point, to say the least. 66.65.88.136 05:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like classic vandalism. I'll check it out. - Crockspot 05:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I had to go back about a hundred edits to find an unvandalized version of the section. Restored. Resolved. Article is currently semi-protected. - Crockspot 05:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Natasha Vita-More – Resolved. – 04:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Resolved

Natasha Vita-More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user has repeatedly added / reverted undos of a paragraph of rather unpleasant unsourced text contrary to the policy for Biographies of Living Persons Hpengwyn 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Article cleaned up and tags added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Victoria Beckham – Resolved. – 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.
Resolved – No BLP issue to resolve Victoria Beckham (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) - Year of birth is either 1974 or 1973, but we don't have a reliable source for either year. I just placed the birthday instead of the year. // Miranda 15:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Richard Rossi – BLP Violations removed – 02:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Resolved

– BLP violations removed

Richard Rossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Controversial faith healer/exorcist/preacher/filmmaker Richard Rossi appears to have benefitted from scrubbing of his vanity entry to remove references to his criminal past.

Rossi was convicted of "aggravated assault" for nearly beating his wife to death. His trial was covered in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, among other papers. It was a notorious case: After Rossi's wife accused him of the crime, she later recanted and insisted that a "doppelganger" beat her. Charges of attempted murder ended in mistrial. Rossi served a prison sentence plus probation for the crime.

Subsequently, Rossi was sued by a congregation in Long Beach over control of church funds -- and Rossi's failure to disclose his criminal poast. This was covered in the Long Beach Press-Telegram; links to the articles were removed because there's a fee to retrieve the entire article. The posted clippings are free.

Rossi has had other disputes with congregations and denominations, also documented by press accounts.

Please see Talk for newspaper documentation -- which has been removed/edited out repeatedly.

Because of repeated purges of this Wikipedia entry, I respectfully request editorial oversight and correction.

Links/documentation are in Talk. Thank you!

--Achristiansoldier 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

See the existing Richard Rossi section further up this page. I believe the "scrubbing" was done by volunteers from this noticeboard, in accordance with WP:BLP. I memory serves me, you were blocked for repeatedly reinserting that material. - Crockspot 17:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Crockspot, but your judgment in this matter may be suspect. You seem to have ignored major newspaper articles which support that very material. I have apologized for not understanding Wikipedia's process for editing, and for inadvertently vandalizing the page... but you should apologize for apparently enabling dishonest editing -- despite verifiable newspaper links. If you actively support concealing the violent criminal past of a Wikipedia biographical entry, your judgment as an editor should be reviewed.

I respectfully request that other editors follow up on Crockspot's work on Richard Rossi.--Achristiansoldier 18:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I wash my hands of this one. But I will point out that your credibility on this subject is pretty thin, considering that your edit history is limited to only this subject, you've been blocked for BLP violations against the subject, and you are making personal attacks and accusations against another editor there without any proof (that the editor is actually the subject). You appear to be a single purpose account, and that purpose is to bash the subject of that article, and now editors of that article. You can't expect other editors to be inclined to examine your evidence, no matter how legitimate it may be, when you are engaging in personal attacks. Good luck. - Crockspot 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, you err in attempting to make this about my "credibility." The facts are in black and white, in newspaper articles.... dozens of them... referenced now on the talk page. Please note that I have confined my discussion of this to Rossi's talk page. When the entry is edited, it should be done impartially. Rossi has a checkered past, to the say the least, and his trial was widely publicized. If there's any entry at all for him, this material should be prominently included. It's his chief claim to fame.--Achristiansoldier 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of the edits I made to that article were to format and improve the existing sources. I also made two reverts of BLP violations that you inserted, for which you were blocked by a third party. So I don't think that there is anything 'suspect' about my work there. You are also learning a lesson that I learned myself the hard way: Don't expect editors to even bother looking at your evidence if you present it couched within a personal attack. That said, I'm done with this article. As far as I am concerned, there are no current BLP violations in the article. So there is no action to take. Content disputes are to be worked out on the article talk page by consensus. Better luck with the next person who tries to help. I have more productive ways to spend my time. - Crockspot 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you mean well, Crockspot, and your work on behalf of Wikipedia deserves applause. Unfortunately, stepping away from this dispute is not your finest hour: Rossi is a violent felon, according to a U.S. court of law, who served prison time for beating his wife into a coma; his bizarre trial was widely covered in newspapers. (What's more, he has been sued for concealing his criminal past -- according to the Long Beach Press-Telegram.) Why you don't see that as relevant biographical information is.... baffling. In a post on my user page, you stated that: If Rossi's only claim to fame, as you state, is his arrest and trial, then he probably shouldn't even have a bio on wikipedia, per WP:BLP1E. - Crockspot 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC) So which is it? A BLP violation, or not?--Achristiansoldier 20:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you not state above in bold that you would prefer someone other than me be involved? And as far as I have read, he was eventually cleared of the beating of his wife. I have no idea if he really did it or not. What matters is that the justice system has, in the end, determined that he did not do it. If I am correctly stating what that determination was, then the incident should have little, if any, mention in the article. I haven't determined if the subject meets the criteria in WP:BIO, so I cannot say if it is a WP:BLP1E situation, and at this point, I am not even inclined to try to figure that out. If you want someone else to help you, then go ahead and find someone else. - Crockspot 20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard Rossi was convicted of aggravated assault for the crime of beating his wife; he served 96 days in prison, and four years probation. These facts are not in dispute. Please read more: Rossi has not been cleared of anything. His conviction stands.--Achristiansoldier 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Tōru Ōhira – Article semi-protected. – 21:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Resolved

– Sources for 1929 birth have been added and anons being warned

Tōru Ōhira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Four user IPs (which I suspect are sockpuppets), User:210.213.240.27, User:210.213.240.28, User:210.213.241.7 and User:210.213.243.198 have been repeatedly adding nonsense by changing the birth date by from September 24, 1929 to May 24, 1940 and adding a narrator credit Seijuu Sentai Gingaman when he is clearly not (Norio Wakamoto is the narrator for Gingaman). This is becoming a huge bother for me. Greg Jones II 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added references to the 1929 date and am presently giving the IPs factual error warnings.--Sethacus 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, did I forgot to mention? There are three more IPs: 210.213.241.112, 210.213.240.29, 210.213.241.59, all of them which are connected to the Phillipines. Greg Jones II 20:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Never mind. Greg Jones II 21:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of Skull and Bones members – Living people sourced or removed. – 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

List of Skull and Bones members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No sources at all on List of Skull and Bones members, could be a huge BLP issue if not corrected. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The article lacks sources that are reliable; there is a mention of a list found in the Yale library but there is no source provided. It cannot stand the way it is now, as there are people in the list which are still alive. I have no other option than to delete the list in its entirety, pending sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Would an error listing someone in S&B be possibly defamatory or libelous? I don't see how. I'm not disagreeing with the deletion, though. ←Ben^B4 04:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Among people of a certain view, being identified as S&B would be considered confirmation that they are in league with an eevil conspiracy. - Crockspot 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Some days I think we should cover the planet in tinfoil. Geesh. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This was overkill; there are no BLP issues concerning the membership of, say, William Huntington Russell and Alphonso Taft (Bones, 1832), and living people for whom sources could not be found could have been removed following a good faith effort to find sources. The unsourced deceased persons are certainly a problem, but one that could have been handled in the normal matter (see Wikipedia:Eventualism) and didn't require immediate action. I'm going to use this as an excuse to read a book on Bones that I've been meaning to get to eventually and use that as a source for the list, which I'll be restoring to add the appropriate references. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Soap opera actress's home address and location linked to page – Resolved, as much as possible without oversight – 18:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Kirsten Storms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kirsten Storms, a young actress, has a link under her page that is a Windows Live link to her home address in Lakewood, California. This is not only an invasion of her privacy, as well as not sourced, but potentially dangerous if a stalker were to find this information online. I think this page needs to be protected. (EDIT: Also, the link needs to be removed from previous versions of the page, as someone could go back and still find it.) 98.196.202.92 19:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You will have to email WP:RFO ←Ben^B4 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Heritage Foundation – Material removed, article semi-protected. – 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Resolved

Heritage Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A mid-level employee of the Heritage Foundation who is not a public figure had a road-rage incident unrelated to his job or his employer. A Wikipedia editor keeps reinserting text about the incident in violation of WP:BLP/N and WP:WEIGHT. (Before someone accuses me of COI, I don't know this person, and I work for a competitor.) THF 13:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if BLP or WEIGHT technically apply, but plain common sense does. I deleted the section and ask other editors to do the same if it's replaced. What a non-representative employee does away from work should never be part of the article about his employer. ←Ben^B4 14:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not necessarily opposed to leaving the information out, but isn't/wasn't the person in question a Vice President of the organization? It sounds like he's a representative employee to me. Take, for example, that the Washington Post article exists in the first place. If he was a non-representative employee, it wouldn't be newsworthy, but the Post obviously thought that this detail made a relatively common occurrence newsworthy. I'm willing to be convinced, but the information is obviously not libelous, and I'm also not sure that BLP and WEIGHT apply. I also think that the anon user is behaving inappropriately. It doesn't mean that the information is irrelevant, though.Athene cunicularia 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

76.26.145.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This anon editor is repeatedly reinserting the text, this time with snide comments about the BLP policy. Salting is needed. THF 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RPP. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I had left a message on this users talk page but they have continued to add the content. I'm out of reverts. Morphh ^(talk) 17:51, 09 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, there is no 3RR when it comes to BLP, although you should take care since admins may not always agree it was a BLP issue (at least make clear you are ignoring the 3RR because of BLP concerns of course). Personally, I think this is a BLP issue. Particularly considering the policy on single events & privacy of names; naming someone who potentially isn't noteable enough for a wikipedia article, even if he's a somewhat public individual, for a single event which may not be noteable enough to mention strikes me as a big red flag. Indeed I would say all undue weight issues involving identified living people automatically become BLP concerns. Edit: on second thoughts having reread the policy, the 3RR exception probably wouldn't apply since the stuff being removed was sourced and probably not libellious even if BLP concerns still arose Nil Einne 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Margaret Carlson – Stubbed and sourced. – 18:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Resolved

– article is now a well sourced stub

Margaret Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Margaret Carlson is rather a mess. A large chunk of perhaps overly opinionated material was removed, but now what remains simply makes no sense. Needs a complete rewrite. 70.226.97.200 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Chris Langham listed in Category:Convicted child sex offenders even though he was acquitted – Category deleted. – 14:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Chris Langham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Category:Convicted child sex offenders states it is for "people who have been convicted of a sexual offense against a child or minor, have publicly admitted offenses, or have been placed on a Sex Offenders Register for a sexual offense involving a minor". Langham was charged with sexual offences but acquitted of these charges. He was found guilty on charges of possessing child pornography, but they aren't classed as "sexual offenses", if they were, the media wouldn't be stating that Langham was acquitted of the sexual offences // 172.141.208.196 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Category removed. - Crockspot 04:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is incorrect. In the UK, anyone convicted of a sexual offence - including downloading child porn, for which Langham was convicted - is placed on the Sex Offenders' Register. He hasn't yet been placed on the SOR because sentencing hasn't yet taken place, but he certainly will be; it's automatic. See [4] for a comparable case. The categorisation seems appropriate given the quoted scope of the category. -- ChrisO 06:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect - he was placed on the register on the day of conviction, he signed the register at the court at the order of the judge. --Fredrick day 12:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the article that confirms this, so I have removed the cat again. - Crockspot 12:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this whole category is problematic - on quick examination of 10 articles, several have no references. This needs to be responded to quickly; otherwise WP:BLP requires the deletion of these articles. Risker 05:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nom the CfD? ←Ben^B4 06:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be nominated for deletion. It's a bit tabloidesque. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing taloidesque within a uk context, if you go on the sexual offences register - you are a sex offender - that is the accepted terminology within the UK to describe such people. Chris Langham is a convicted sex offender - that is easy to cite from good quality sources 1, 2. If it's not sourced then remove the cat (as was done with Chris langham) but I don't see anything wrong with the cat itself. --Fredrick day 12:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If he had been listed in the cat "Convicted sex offenders" then you would be correct. He was listed in another category entirely, and the grounds for his inclusion there are shaky at best - no evidence of child molestation was involved in his conviction. I concur with SlimVirgin about deletion of the category, but it is important to make sure that all the articles currently in this category are either properly sourced or deleted. Risker 13:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

But the category does not mention Child Molestation. Look at what it actually says This is a list of people who have been convicted of a sexual offense against a child or minor, have publicly admitted offenses, or have been placed on a Sex Offenders Register for a sexual offense involving a minor, as defined by their local law. Within the UK, possession of pornographic images of children being raped and tortured is considered an offense against a child. He had admitted his offense, he had been placed on the UK Sex Offenders register. Which criteria for the inclusion in that cateogory as it is written does he not meet? --Fredrick day 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree he fits the definition of the category. The problem here seems to be that part of the category's definition is UK-centric. It does not match the category's name in countries that differentiate between possession/distribution/making of child porn, at least in terms of placement on the sex offenders register. Avb 16:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PS To put this into some perspective for non-UK editors: see this Wikipedia article and http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,951373,00.html Avb 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those confirm that Pete Townshend is a child sex offender. As I explained below, Pete Townshend was also placed on the Sex Offenders Register for child porn, but he isn't placed in Category:Convicted child sex offenders. As other editors have proposed, I also support the nomination of this problematic category for deletion. Crazysuit 21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Avb 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Further - acceptable sources refer to him as As a child sex offender, a 'nonce' in jail parlance, the actor can expect rough treatment from other prisoners. He will be probably be housed in a special wing of the prison and is likely to be on suicide watch. 1 --Fredrick day 14:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Only 22 Google results for "child sex offender" + "Chris Langham". In fact, there's only one source that refers to him as a child sex offender, and that is in the informal sense, rather than the legal definition. Crazysuit 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The important text in the category is placed on a Sex Offenders Register for a sexual offense involving a minor. I assume whoever edited the category intended involving a minor to refer a sexual offense against a minor. Pete Townshend was also placed on the Sex Offenders Register for child porn, but he isn't placed in Category:Convicted child sex offenders because, like Langham, he isn't a convicted child sex offender. It does seem ridiculous that Chris Langham is classed with Jeffrey Dahmer. Crazysuit 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for deletion. - Crockspot 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Casey William Hardison – Article deleted. – 14:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Resolved

– article deleted

Casey William Hardison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Completely unsourced, and removing the unsourced material and OR would remove the entire article. There's lots of unreliable SPS on the web about him, but questionable notability otherwise. THF 15:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're quite right. At the moment I'm inclined to speedily delete it under a combination of CSDs A7 and G11. Let's see if I feel the same way after dinner. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Listed at AfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take the bold action of blanking the page, and will post a link to the last version at the AfD page. - Crockspot 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And was immediately reverted. :( - Crockspot 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If no other editors beyond the one who reverted me object, I am invoking WP:IGNORE and reblanking, per WP:V and WP:BLP1E. - Crockspot 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it live so that another editor can try to source it. But even if well sourced, I don't see how it is going to get around BLP1E. - Crockspot 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Michael Sessions – Inactive. – 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Michael Sessions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking for a BLPC on Michael Sessions, who is most notable for being an 18-year-old mayor, but whose article has a lot of material on some of his legal problems. I'm not familiar with the subject (which just went thru AFD). The article raised alarms for me in terms of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and I placed a BLPC tag on it. There was an objection, I insisted, it has stayed. Editors are making good-faith efforts to ensure everything is sourced, but that doesn't necessarily address the balance issue. Is anyone else concerned about the article? If not I have no objections to untagging it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment on the opinions Dhartung has expressed, and as author of part of the wiki in question, I am concerned. I've shared with Dhartung that in principle I can see how it would appear this way, but this is/was a developing story and at some point some consolidation of some of the numerous references may need to occur to meet Wiki standards. So at this point, in my eyes, the choice is either list nothing , or let the story unfold and revise in process. That much being said, I think it is both balanced and referenced as it stands, and my thoughts on future consolidation lean more towards readability.

Dhartung is also correct, this person is primarily notable in that they are a sitting teenage mayor in the largest city in a Michigan county, but the initial felony charge would certainly have been a regional midwest/U.S. story even if the mayor was not a teenager (as it stands, it has gotten international press). Further, the crime occurred against the mayor's teenage campaign manager (Thomas) and his mother. So even here, this seems consistent with the "age" notability and strong connection to the initial election and wike entry. Of the three sitting teenage mayors, this one by far has had the most positive wiki entries, having citations on the Wiki of many of their TV appearances, (positive) newspaper stories and trips abroad. While I agree by its nature the controversy section appears negative (as it well should), as a whole the article does list the good along with the bad, and does appear balanced to me.

It also needs to be noted the article failed the Afd and resulted in Snowball Keep. The article has also been subject to deletion vandalism. Kirksmonkey 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Gregory Kingsley – Inactive. – 13:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Subject says on Talk page that article contains errors and would like to correct them. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied and emailed address given. ←Ben^B4 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Kim Rhodes – Resolved. – 13:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

74.64.94.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding a list of Kim Rhodes' children to her article, which is not-notable, after multiple warnings to stop doing so. I am requesting that an admin action be taken to, perhaps make one last final warning, and/or block this IP from editing. Thank you for your help. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 04:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced, too. ←Ben^B4 04:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the information is unsourced, not that the names of a celebrity's children are included. But not only is it unsourced, those names do not appear elsewhere with a Google search, and are likely dubious. Quatloo 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this user seems to be more widespread.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The user also came off a 99 hour block a few days ago, and since then has been making substantially the same kinds of edits that the block was issued for. - Crockspot 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also appears to be a static RoadRunner address, same pattern going back a year. - Crockspot 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

David Strathairn redux – Link removed. – 13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

David Strathairn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor is citing WP:BLP as a reason for persistently removing a website called "David Strathairn Online" from the external links section. This website is a "fansite" of the kind commonly included in link sections of celebrities. It contains no derogatory information. Can someone who follows this page please weigh in? --Mantanmoreland 14:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

it's a non-notable fansite and I have removed it. In regards to BLP - the issue might be a marginal one but I agree with the argument put forward on the talkpage of that article. --Fredrick day 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your basis for removing that site? It is a useful source of information on this actor. There is no policy against listing fan sites as links. --Mantanmoreland 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like a perfectly fine external link, with no BLP concerns at all. There were no actual BLP concerns raised on the article's talk page, either. It's fine. ←Ben^B4 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed by Mantanmoreland for reasons pertaining to WP:COPYRIGHT already pointed out by others and discussed on the talk page of the article; please see updated discussion on Talk:David Strathairn for the full discussion and also the discussion re: fansites in Wikipedia talk:External links#Fan sites addressed in this policy?[13]. BLP concerns involve the verifiability of fansites and their reliability; they are "self-published" sites and such sites are not generally allowed in biographies of living persons (as sources and/or as external links), unless the sites are official sites of the subject. These are content and quality of content matters as well as copyright infringement matters as they concern the content of biographies of living persons. External links are part of that content. Please consult WP:V and WP:V#Sources, particularly [[WP:#Self-published sources (online and paper)]], which do pertain to such articles that are biographies of living persons; that is why WP:BLP is cross-referenced there. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Don Schrader – Problematic material removed. – 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Don Schrader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please clean up this article, or delete it again as necessary. It is a contested expired prod. It is claimed he is notable, but the article is pretty smelly at the moment. Viridae ^Talk 23:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted all the weird and possibly defamatory unsourced stuff. ←Ben^B4 13:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This should have stayed deleted. He's just a colorful local character who writes lots of LTTEs. Fails WP:BIO. I'm nominating it for AfD. - Crockspot 15:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Schrader. - Crockspot 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Victoria Silvstedt – Resolved. – 13:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Resolved

– libel removed from talk page

Victoria Silvstedt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although this is not usual to remove stuff from talk pages, I think that the talk page Talk:Victoria Silvstedt should be edited. What is allegated in this discussion is libelous by itself and should be removed, of course from the article, but also from the talk page. Hektor 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's fairly usual and complete proper to remove libellious stuff from talk pages, both the BLP policy and arbitration decisions agree Nil Einne 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed all unsourced and poorly sourced negative commentry from both the article and the talk page per BLP. Check out the edit histories Nil Einne 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Hektor 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved now, so tagging resolved. If someone reverts Nil Einne, feel free to revert back citing WP:BLP. If it becomes a problem, remove the resolved template above, and ask for help here. - Crockspot 15:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Hicks – Article deleted. – 13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.
The article has zero references, and has been tagged as such since Feb 11, 2007, but said he was an "alleged gang member" as well as the owner of a car used in a murder and incarcerated awaiting trial for another murder. I blanked the article, even though it was up for AFD, and even though some of the statements may be sourceable to news stories. This seems to be in accord with the WP:BLP policy to immediately remove unreferenced allegations of criminality. Edison 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Natascha Kampusch – Inactive, no specific concerns listed. – 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Natascha Kampusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm concerned about the level of hostility that seems to be apparent in the article and talk pages for this woman. It seems particularly inappropriate for an article about a crime victim. But I'm unsure how far to go in deleting/editing content and comments, especially since there are some prominent negative press articles. I would appreciate assistance/guidance from people more experienced with BLP. Thanks // SiobhanHansa 21:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

- The article seems fine, now. The talk page I only skimmed. What are some of the specific concerns you have? ←Ben^B4 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Michael Savage (commentator) – Inactive. – 17:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

[copied from WT:JIMBO ←Ben^B4 09:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)]

Could you, or someone who monitors your talk page, come look at Michael Savage (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I know you left a message on the article's talk page some time back and removed some content. This article will always be somewhat contentious, but I worry that some of the content is unecessarily inflammatory. For example, One postcard mentions his "thought of inserting my camera's lens in your A-hole to photograph the walls of your rectum." I would truly like to see this article move to GA status, but I do not see any way it can in its current state. Ursasapien (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Nathan Hecht – Resolved. – 13:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Nathan Hecht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please disregard my previous comment, which resulted from hitting "send" prematurely.

I edited the article about Justice Nathan Hecht to make it objective. The existing text is quite unbalanced, both in tone and content. It primarily emphasizes Justice Hecht's brief national appearance as an advocate in favor of White House counsel Harriet Miers' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. The length of this discussion, as well as discussion of its sequel in the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, was quite out of proportion and was written in a way that reflected bias against Hecht. I hope that the revisions present a neutral bias.

Justice Hecht has been a district and appellate court judge for decades, in which he authored hundreds of important cases. None of these are noted, while a brief media event is documented at length. This is bad policy in a biography.

The Judicial Conduct Commission complaint was rather unceremoniously reversed by a special state court appellate panel that was appointed under the same special constitutional provision that created the Commission. Reiterating the allegations of what turned out to be baseless only reflects bias on the part of the biographer. I admire Justice Hecht, so if writing on my own I would wax eloquent as to his many achievements and contributions to Texas law. Obviously this would not be appropriate in a Wikipedia entry. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, I simply reduced the material--I hope--to a balanced summary of his career and an abbreviated summary of the Miers incident.

I also eliminated all of the controverted cross references, whose inclusion suffers from the same defects as the text.

My elimination of the references to Justice Hecht's appeal for funding of his defense costs was done for the same reasons. There is nothing out of the ordinary or unlawful about such a request. For example, does anyone doubt that governmental officials who are falsely accused should be compelled to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars from their own pockets? Justice Hecht has lived for decades on a meager judicial salary, and his style of life is spartan. He could never afford to pay for the kind of legal services required to defend himself against charges of this kind.

However, if the ommitted matters must be mentioned in the biography, fairness would compel inclusion of thousands words necessary to add balance and counter the innuendo of the original text and references.

The controversies featured in the bfor the same reasons as the attacks regarding the Miers event. Under these circumstances, keeping the biography balanced and of reasonable length suggests removal of most of the material altogether.

If the material I edited out is allowed to go back in, I will need to clean up the slanted wording of the original text and also to add balance by supplementing the total biography by thousands of words,including case law references, quotations from the appellate court decision in Conduct Commission case, etc. I hope this will not become necessary.

You should be aware that Justice Hecht continues to be subject to unremitting political attack, most recently in the form of litigation asserted by a plaintiff-lawyer group that is seeking to keep the supposed "ethical" issues alive through various frivolous lawsuits and legal complaints. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barrister noir (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

This looks like innocent Wikipedia:Recentism to me, but editors have stepped in an apparently resolved the BLP issues. ←Ben^B4 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

John Kosmina – Resolved. – 02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

John Kosmina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a living person and it is poorly written, unreferenced and quite possibly damaging. The history seems to indicate a string of edits and reversions. I don't have the knowledge or time to tidy this up, but it needs to be done. Some of it quickly I think.Jim77742 02:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has stepped in to make some improvements. Let's see how it goes over the weekend. - Crockspot 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of Chinese dissidents – Resolved. – 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Resolved

List of Chinese dissidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is entirely unsourced, but much of it is obvious. Removing the unsourced claims would simply delete the article. I don't object to the list, but someone familiar with this needs to take time to source it very carefully. 90% of these people are still alive and we are publishing they are subject to arrest in various jurisdictions because of their political beliefs. SchmuckyTheCat

The section header: To be dealt with "according to circumstances of the situation" does not indicate where that quote comes from either. This one needs a lot of help. Would it be appropriate to move the contents to the talk page, and move individuals back as they are sourced? - Crockspot 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Move all unsourced to talk. Maybe ask the help from the Wikipedia:WikiProject_China as they may me knowledgeable on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. - Crockspot 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Tom Jakobek – Resolved. – 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

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

Unsourced rumors of political corruption inserted into text. --221.114.141.220 07:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He does not seem notable enough for an article in the first place. He was only a city councilman. Steve Dufour 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks kind of ugly, but Jakobek was budget chief for 10 years - not exactly a random alderman. Wily D 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind about the article since the space given to the controversy has been reduced. I now think it's ok for WP.Steve Dufour 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Editor is removing my questions as a 'BLP' violation – RfA closed. – 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

I posted the questions below to Crockspots administrator election and editor Tbeatty keeps removing it. What is the problem?

More questions from Bmedley Sutler

15. I saw on your home Wikipedia userpage that you are a member of a group called Conservative Underground, so I went there. It is a disturbing site with a lot of hate, against many groups but mostly Gays and Liberals, IMO. I looked at some of your posts. I fear that you maybe aren't right to be an administrator when you make homophobic claims like : "Pretty much any dude with "bear" in his handle you can assume takes it up the ass." Link. Could you explain that claim a little more? Isn't that pretty homophobic? And this one "I've noticed what seemed like an organized, or at least coincidentally coordinated, effort on Wikipedia to scrub any citations of Bill O'Reilly criticizing liberals. They pull every possible justification for it out of their asses, like "O'Reilly not a notable person", "spam links", "O'Reilly is not a reliable source, neither is Fox News.", etc. ad nauseum." Is that a canvassing? The O'Reilly Soros thing was one of your biggest battles Link Another thread called "Fags and Firearms" Link that you posted in is full of homophobic hate. Is that the sort of NPOV we need from an administrator? Will you keep posting homophobic hate there if you become an administrator? Is your possible homophobia the reason you have fighted so hard to keep claims of homosexuality from the Matt Drudge article? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 05:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 09:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing people as homophobic without a reliable source is a BLP violation as well as a personal attack. --Tbeatty 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Anna Svidersky – Protected redirect. – 17:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

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

The article concerns a murdered teenager and includes her present family amongst other people. This highly offensive edit summary [14] needs to be deleted and the editor who left it warned to refrain from such abusive language in future. Tyrenius 10:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Dennis Rader – Inactive. – 03:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Dennis Rader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Controversial and unsourced comments have made its way into the article. The article needs to be checked for sources, as it is in a extremely bad shape, and unsourced comments needs to be removed. Seeing the article is about a serial murderer, particular care is needed. Thanks. --DarkFalls ^talk 06:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing most of the controversial statements can be traced to this link which is cited but not as a footnote. ←Ben^B4 23:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It probably is, but inline citations are probably needed instead of using external links, as the article is of a incredibly sensitive nature... --DarkFalls ^talk 08:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Anne McCaffrey – Other photo requested. – 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Anne McCaffrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned about the candid, unposed snapshot of Ms McCaffrey currently used on her bio page. I consider it disrespectful to use one which displays an eminent, respected, highly successful, and much loved author in what may be discomfort and/or confusion. At very least, she is unaware that someone is taking her photo. Yes, she's getting old, but is that a reason to deprive her of her dignity? I first complained about the photo on the discussion page in January, 2006. It has not been changed, nor has anyone responded to my comment. I believe that a more appropriate photo should replace it. The one which appears at Fantastic Fiction http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/m/anne-mccaffrey/ is recent enough to be illustrative of her age, but in it she is groomed and poised.

I seriously question whether she would approve the use of that snapshot, were she aware of it. I feel sure her agent would gladly supply or authorize a different photo. --Tygerbryght 23:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we sure have a lot of such photos. Can you contact her agent and ask for another photo to be released under the GFDL or a commercial Creative Commons license? ←Ben^B4 23:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've written requesting permission, and suggested either of two photos on her website, both candid. One is receiving the Lifetime Achievement award, the other is in her garden.--Tygerbryght 01:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Sourcewatch – Inactive. – 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Does SourceWatch meet the criteria for inclusion on BLP’s, even when used as an external link in BLP’s? I would say no, as it is an open source Wiki, but I would appreciate some feedback. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an open wiki. Certainly not a reliable source, but it seems to be okay for an WP:EL provided it has more info than the article would if it reached featured status. I don't see how it could be a BLP problem; what are your specific BLP concerns? ←Ben^B4 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I gathered from stalking your edit history that it's James Inhofe and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_M._Inhofe -- I read that sourcewatch page, and although there's a lot of political criticism, I didn't see anything that was anywhere near libel or defamation. Is there something specific? People like to link politicians to all the political rating sites (on the left and right, I see pro-life and 2nd amendment ratings all over too.) ←Ben^B4 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As an open wiki, it is not a reliable source for citing. As an External Link, it may be appropriate if, as already mentioned, it adds value to the article beyond what would already be in an article reaching Featured Article status. Considering that much of the content at SW originates from Wikipedia, I would think that the cases where it would be appropriate as an EL would be few and far between. In BLP articles, we have to be especially careful with sourcewatch, as they do not have a NPOV policy. - Crockspot 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Karla Homolka – Resolved. – 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Karla Homolka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been repeated postings that Karla Homolka, a living person, has recently been involved in a relationship with a particular man who also has a Wikipedia article. These postings keep getting made despite being repeatedly deleted. I have also deleted the corresponding claim from the article about this particular man. There have been no reliable references posted to back this claim up.--Dash77 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be an Internet rumor, and I see that the Wikipedia article has been used as a source. This is a serious allegation. The page should be semi-protected at least. Have so requested on WP:RFP.--Mantanmoreland 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Both articles have been semi-protected for a period of one week.--Mantanmoreland 14:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Khalid bin Mahfouz – Inactive. – 14:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

I recently had a look at the article, and found that some portions of the article were unsourced or cited an unreliable source. I also found some cases where the article might not be of encyclopedic tone.

I'm not as active with wikipedia these days as I wish I could be, so could someone with more spare time than me check that all of the statements made in the article (and mentions of him elsewhere in the encyclopedia) cite reliable sources, and that we aren't citing anything that has since been retracted?

Thanks, Andjam 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A Mahfouz representative had at one point objected to portions of the article, it has been rebuilt several times since then. As with other controversial figures accused of funding terrorism the article appears unbalanced due to the relative scarcity of sources for fleshing out biographical detail in contrast to the abundance of documented allegations. However, I assure you that no source has been misrepresented. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Terry Gerin – Resolved; article is now sourced. – 14:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

See also Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Personal_attacks_by_Moe_Epsilon and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.onlineworldofwrestling.com. You still haven't proved you're right. Your blanking non-contentious material, which was not in violation of BLP. A BLP vio is when contentious material, good or bad, is written on an individual. Nothing you blanked was in violation, and you have proven in the past as Rodney Anoai and Warrior (wrestler) to make the same mistake. — Moe ε 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Christopher Walter Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley – Inactive; article protected. – 16:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Kim Dabelstein Petersen continues to insert libelous material into this subject's biography, or to remove material that might render the libels less harmful. Note that one of the links that has been inserted in the subject's biography is to a libelous article that was later followed by a correction. In accordance with Wikipedia's policies to remove obviously libelous material, this link and any reference to it in the text should be deleted. It should also be a matter of policy that details of libel settlements should not appear in biographies.

It is not clear that discussion of the subject's views on the single issue of climate change should be so prominent at the center of what is otherwise a straightforward biography of a public figure with a wide-ranging career. We recommend that to avoid future disputes the entire section on "Philosophy or political views" and all related links should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.230.46 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

These claims are absurd, as was pointed out when an IP user claiming to be Monckton repeatedly vandalized this article in the past. The mythical Guardian settlement of 50,000 is mentioned nowhere that anyone can find. It is wrong to call Monckton's rebuttal in the Guardian a correction. Further, the Guardian article is still on their website and makes no mention of any correction. They don't even link to Monckton's rebuttal. If Monckton had won a judgment of libel, the Guardian would be required to remove Monbiot's piece. The claims of a libel settlement appear to be false.SeaAndSand 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This article had its history deleted last December for similar reasons. I'm not convinced that it's libelous to link to a libelous article, given the differing standards for libel in US and British courts. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the article is giving undue weight to Lord Monckton's views on global warming, and per biographies of living persons we really must err on the side of caution. Wholesale deletion of the aforementioned section may be avoidable--Monckton appears to be a prominent figure in the skeptical movement. On the other hand, the section represents a synthesis of his articles and counter-articles, which probably constitutes original research. Certainly things can't go on as they have. I would also suggest that both KimDabelsteinPeterson and the apparent representatives of Lord Monckton voluntarily refrain from editing the article. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, it would be helpful to know who "we" are in the phrase "We recommend that to avoid future disputes..." Is this Mr. Monckton's legal firm or other official representative? Raymond Arritt 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i just noticed this one. The following quote is the main reason that i've reverted a couple of times - citing lack of references:

He won £50,000 libel damages from The Guardian, a UK newspaper, in respect of an article by George Monbiot falsely claiming that he had incorrectly treated the Earth as a blackbody in his calculations. The Guardian was compelled to print a correction drafted by Lord Monckton (New Law Journal, June 2007).

I've checked with Google and other resources - and i cannot find a single mention of such a lawsuit, which would have been highprofile - and would at least have been mentioned in the Guardian, i've also checked the New Law Journal (a strange place for this) and i can find no such mention in their reference for Jan-Jun 2007 [15] - nor that anyone has won anything. Currently this is libel against Mr. Monbiot - And should go.

I've had no edits on the article - except to revert vandalism, and to keep out blatant POV statements.

I also have to say, that despite complaining several times - Mr. Monckton (or his secretary - or whatever it is) has never substantiated what the complaints against the current article is. --Kim D. Petersen 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides the issue that Mackesen alludes to, which was entirely unrelated, and deleted. There is also this one [16] [17]. --Kim D. Petersen 03:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

John Howard – Inactive. – 16:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a whole lot going on with this one, so anything I say right now would be out of date in 5 minutes. Suffice it to say that the guy is apparently very controversial in Australia, and a lot of stuff is getting put in which seems to violate undue weight or be very tangentially related to the person himself. It could certainly use some eyes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jeff Winter – Resolved, source attributed. – 16:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

Jeff Winter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we say he's a freemason?

There is a dispute over whether he is or is not a Freemason, and the statement's inclusion in the article.

ComeOnBoro (talk · contribs) claims to be a representative of Jeff Winter, who (it is claimed) asserts that he is not a mason.
Refsworldlee (talk · contribs) believes that the information should not be censored.

Either ComeOnBoro is telling the truth, or perhaps Winter would like to conceal the fact that he is a freemason.

The published source: http://www.mqmagazine.co.uk/issue-12/p-41.php seems to be relatively trustworthy, and very much appears to be official publication from the Freemasons.

Can anyone with more experience on such matters advise whether the statement should be included, on grounds that Wikipedia does not censor, or removed? slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 17:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to attribute to a source. It shouldn't be in the lead. I've cleaned up the page a little, though I question the WP:WEIGHT if the subject of the article disagrees with the claim. I leave that decision to other editors. THF 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What is it about footballers? I can't imagine another sport in which a referee is considered such an important figure. :-) Steve Dufour 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.