→[[Hockey stick controversy]]: snappity snap snap. . .comment. |
81.77.248.148 (talk) |
||
Line 637: | Line 637: | ||
* {{article|Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley}} - An IP user claiming to be the subject has been drastically altering the article and issuing legal threats.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&diff=136413038&oldid=136405348] The article additionally seems to be poorly referenced. I've advised the IP user of [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself|options they have]], if they are the subject.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A81.77.248.148&diff=136419113&oldid=136415568] // [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
* {{article|Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley}} - An IP user claiming to be the subject has been drastically altering the article and issuing legal threats.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&diff=136413038&oldid=136405348] The article additionally seems to be poorly referenced. I've advised the IP user of [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself|options they have]], if they are the subject.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A81.77.248.148&diff=136419113&oldid=136415568] // [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please remove the article about me, pending action in the Court of Session for libel. I have made repeated attempts to prevent or correct these libels, but to no avail. The action will be filed in 14 days. If anyone from Wikipedia wishes to contact me to discuss resolution before the action is filed, I may be contacted at monckton@mail.com. If I am not contacted, the action will be lodged without further notice, and an application will be made for service outside the jurisdiction where necessary. It is likely to attract considerable publicity, and it will serve as a useful warning to those who come across it that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I shall be applying for an order that all Wikipedia content that in any way references or identifies me should not be permitted to be broadcast on the Internet within the jurisdiction of the UK courts. |
|||
I shall repeat what I have told Wikipedia before: the article about me, which is presumably supposed to be a straightforward biography, is repeatedly amended to make libellous comments, particularly in connection with a) my alleged views on the HIV virus; and b) my alleged views on climate change, both of which have been seriously misrepresented. Also, despite my repeated attempts to remove it, a link has been posted to a hostile article about me, but without posting any link to the correction which the newspaper in question was obliged to print the following day. |
|||
I have done my best to get this matter resolved by other means, but without any success. Unless I hear from Wikipedia, it will become unlawful for Wikipedia to transmit any material in any way mentioning or identifying me into Scotland, and my US agents will apply for the judgment of the Court of Session to be enforced, with damages and costs, in whatever jurisdiction wikipedia uses. It is not acceptable that I, as the victim of a libel in my own biographical entry, should be prevented from editing or removing the libel, while Wikipedia can continue unmolested to blacken my name. |
Revision as of 19:43, 6 June 2007
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.
Additional notes:
| ||
The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons.
Category:BLP Check
→ In re {{BLPC}} template and WP:BLPC
I created this page as a simple category to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Recent changes to BLPs
A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad (actor)-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Docg 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Docg 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Docg 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Unreliable BLP sources
NNDB Notable Names Database
- Special:Linksearch/*.nndb.com
Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
- From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
- I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Jewish Virtual Library
- Special:Linksearch/*.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index [5] of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Wikipedia"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Tucker Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recently, edits have been made to the Tucker Max entry which violate the Wikipedia standards against slander and libel and are entirely unsourced, unverifiable information. These have mainly been made by the user Antiscian and anonymous editors.
Generally speaking, the whole article has devolved into a slander-fest with little or no NPOV content. Most NPOV immediately information is removed and the focus remains on making unsourced, or marginally verifiable negative comments about the subject. At one time, the article had a fairly decent mix of neutral, balanced information, but over the past few months, that has been shaved away. It's best summed up on the talk page.
In the interest of full disclosure: I am the IT Director for Rudius Media, Tucker Max's company. However, I think that it can be objectively said that the article as it is written (especially with the recent edits) is decidedly non-NPOV and definitely violates the BLP policies. It's certainly not encyclopedic. If this article is ever to resemble a quality entry, it's going to require some monitoring and perhaps even some protection. --ljheidel 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Antiscian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 75.8.237.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 74.237.35.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 74.214.101.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 66.205.148.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Added userlinks. I don't know whether or not this issue has been resolved. — Athaenara ✉ 12:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The content regarding Max's appearance on the Opie and Anthony show and his engagement at South by Southwest that editors keep entering into the article is also severely POV and non-encyclopedic. In both cases, editors have taken statements out of context, combined them with opinion and personal slant, then stated the amalgam as fact. (i.e. Opie and Anthony did not throw a book at Max, Max did not admit at SXSW to "spamming" anything, etc.) Thus the issue hasn't been resolved. --ljheidel 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you completely and will remove it. This is totally defamatory and has no place in the article.--Samiharris 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Add GeorgeMichael69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. --ljheidel 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: {{Gibraltarian}} and Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Blocked User:Gibraltarian
- Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Juan Carlos I of Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unfortunately it seems that this article and now this noticeboard are being attacked by the former User:Gibraltarian. He has an appalling record of sustained abuse, edit-warring, sockpuppeting and vandalism (he even repeatedly vandalised his own request for arbitration, which I've never seen happen before or since). He was banned by the Arbitration Committee in January 2006 - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian - and has now been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. However, he's continuing to use 212.120.*.* IP addresses to edit/vandalise articles and talk pages. He is essentially an obsessive xenophobic crank whose M.O. is to delete anything (even if sourced) that doesn't fit his POV and add anything (which he never sources) that supports his POV. He's now taken his campaign to Juan Carlos I of Spain where he's repeatedly deleting Juan Carlos' title of King of Gibraltar, which is verifiably part of the Spanish royal titles. He's also deleting this message from the noticeboard.
I would be grateful if BLP watchers could add this article to their watchlist and revert any edits coming from 212.120.*.*. Please don't block an individual IP for more than a few hours - he's using Gibraltar's largest ISP and indiscriminate blocks cause too much collateral damage for our saner Gibraltarian editors. -- ChrisO 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- In this edit (which was rightly reverted within minutes) he also (as 212.120.239.37) removed quite a lot of material from other sections of this noticeboard. — Athaenara 02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- He's doing this repeatedly now. I just reverted his latest attack. He's simply rolling back to the rant that he posted at 14:43, 5 May 2007, and wiping out everything that everyone's posted since then. It's completely typical of the egocentric vandalism which he's inflicted on Gibraltar and Spain-related articles for nearly two years now, unfortunately. -- ChrisO 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- 212.120.239.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit Talk:Juan Carlos I of Spain here and this noticeboard's talk page here. — Athaenara ✉ 13:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- 212.120.231.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit both COI & BLP noticeboards today. ChrisO is all over that, I'm just reporting here. — Athaenara ✉ 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- 212.120.238.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit five pages today. — Athaenara ✉ 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- 212.120.231.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit four pages today. — Athaenara ✉ 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- 212.120.239.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit four pages today. — Athaenara ✉ 16:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- You know, what makes this all the more insane is that the material Gibraltarian is complaining about isn't even in this article. It was split out into a separate article weeks ago. -- ChrisO 18:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hardly - that's just hit-and-run vandalism. Gibraltarian is unusual, in that he's a remarkably persistent vandal - he's been at it for nearly two years now. -- ChrisO 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- John Sweeney (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Dispute at the moment over some information that some are calling a "smear campaign", against a living person, and others are calling... not. However, notability of the information is also not necessarily relevant in article about living person. This article is becoming more heavily trafficked, related to the recent "Scientology and Me", program, that aired on BBC One's Panorama program, on May 14, 2007. // Smee 11:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is the objectionable information? I just looked at the article and didn't see anything untoward there. -- Really Spooky 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I assume the objectionable information is the section removed in this edit. However, that information is both well-sourced and neutral, meaning that it is an editorial issue about whether to include it, and not one relating to WP:BLP. Trebor 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The BLP policy has a section about private figures which specifically says that material must be relevant to the figure's notability, something which we don't do for articles in general. By your reasoning, all the allegations that had to be removed from Richard Gere would also not be BLP, and I don't think that's correct. Ken Arromdee 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Being sued for libel strikes me a highly relevant to a person who is notable as a journalist. What was the nature of the information removed from Richard Gere? It's difficult to see what point you are making about without at least a diff link, and I can't be arsed to go fishing around the archives to try to understand something you haven't bothered to explain yourself. -- Really Spooky 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Spooky here. The libel trial got major press coverage and he is a journalist. JoshuaZ 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- What they said. I presume the Gere information is related to this RfC (which appears fairly widely debated anyway). In which case, I'd say there's a difference between including an allegation about someone's personal life, and an actual event which relates to someone's career (as libel relates to journalism). Trebor 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The BLP policy has a section about private figures which specifically says that material must be relevant to the figure's notability, something which we don't do for articles in general. By your reasoning, all the allegations that had to be removed from Richard Gere would also not be BLP, and I don't think that's correct. Ken Arromdee 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole "Controversy" section could be removed as it just talks about this libel suit and a tiff he had with a Scientologist the other day. As it is these two minor incidents take up about half of the article. He seems to be well respected and accomplished as a journalist. Steve Dufour 06:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, I'd say his notability has stemmed primarily from the recent controversy. But either way, I still feel this is an editorial issue - the information is neutral and sourced. Trebor 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've never heard of him, but I don't live in the UK. The article says he has had a 20 year career as a journalist and has won several awards for his work. Steve Dufour 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, the Church of Scientology is using the libel case as a way of indicting Sweeney's credibility, per its long-standing policy of "dead agenting" its critics. This isn't to say that the libel case shouldn't be mentioned in the article, but editors should be aware of undue weight considerations. -- ChrisO 18:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suggested removing the material on both minor incidents. Steve Dufour 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- The libel verdict is still there and in my view is far overweighted. Shouldn't this be reduced to one line? --Samiharris 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Shane Ruttle Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 72.143.225.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I received a complaint from the subject of this article, which indicates that libelous info is being added by IP address 72.143.225.236. This is information I won't repeat here, but this is the link.
The subject's complaint to me continues as follows:
"This is serious slander, completely untrue, and I demand that this claim be deleted from the history of the article, and that the user who posted it be disciplined. Additionally, he and Dogmatic and Swatjester have violated my privacy by adding a reference to my having been arrested. This is very misleading, since while I was arrested, all charges were dropped and I have never been convicted of anything. Moreover, there are legal proceedings underway in which I am suing the police.
My understanding of accepted norms and practices within the media is that old arrests which never resulted in convictions, are not usually mentioned, because they are prejudicial. Furthermore it is a violation of my privacy, as I was found innocent of all charges, and the grounds of arrest were called into serious question before the court (hence the lawsuit against the police). Also, the source of information is a tabloid newspaper which is not considered credible by any reputable researchers.
Lastly, these editors keep adding references and a link to a libelous DVD about me, produced by a neo-Nazi group which has sent me repeated death threats, and has attempted to engage in witness intimidation during my participation in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Adding references to this DVD in the article is a form of personal harassment, and since the DVD is also libelous and will soon be the subject of a libel lawsuit, it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to include a reference to it, let alone make it easier for people to find it and order it from this neo-Nazi group."
Frank Pais 13:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- A BLP violation warning was placed on that anon user's page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- BLP template added to talk. I will add this page to my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Shane Ruttle Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Too many links that don't deal directly with the subject at hand, and no sources to provide proof that he attended, worked, or anything else to have him as involved with the subjects provided in the linksSanchiTachi 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Frank Pais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - refuses to find proper sources, refuses to allow deletions of sources that violate WP:SOAP, refuses to allow information that he didn't put in personally, is violating WP:OWN, is possibly Shane Ruttle Martinez/claims to know him personally, see above article by Frank on this issue SanchiTachi 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- CmrdMariategui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Newly created name that did the exact same thing as Frank Pais via reverting, yet has no previous edits to his credit, and has put a message on my talk page ("Stop editing this page you are in the wrong. --CmrdMariategui 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)") SanchiTachi 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- An addition: The article in question, along with Canadian Marxist Candidate Page and the Paul Fromm (neo-Nazi) were edited/created by the same people, lack properly sourced information, contain lots of POV and other descriptives that are unsourced/unncessary, and don't seem to follow notability requirements of "the person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (the independent aspects). SanchiTachi 03:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt
- Carl Hewitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ruud Koot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- TheHoover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 64.75.137.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 72.235.115.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ruud Koot has placed an unflattering photograph of of Professor Hewitt on the article about him. Did Professor Hewitt give permission for this photograph to be taken?--TheHoover 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- The photo was taken at a conference and then loaded to Flickr. He's wearing a Wikipedia T-shirt, and this is the only appropriately licensed image of the Professor I can find in a Google image search. Take a look at the full size image. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that it's free, it's entirely inappropriate for this purpose and I've removed it. If we can't find a good photograph of Mr. Hewitt, no photograph at all is preferable to that one. FCYTravis 23:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, FCYTravis. Could you please leave valued project member User:Ruud Koot a friendly message explaining what you've done. Perhaps he could email Prof Hewitt to ask for a more appropriate image. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that it's free, it's entirely inappropriate for this purpose and I've removed it. If we can't find a good photograph of Mr. Hewitt, no photograph at all is preferable to that one. FCYTravis 23:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note that there is no requirement for Carl Hewitt to have authorized the photo. However, as a poor representation, it's arguably no better than no image. I see no evidence to back up TheHoover's implicit assertion that this was done maliciously rather than in an attempt to improve the article.
- Also note that this is TheHoover's sole topic of contribution in his four Wikipedia edits; I suspect that he is either Carl Hewitt himself (yet again) or an associate - in which case he should make himself aware of our policies on conflict of interest. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
A point which is worthy of consideration: "Unflattering" is a subjective assessment, one which I (and perhaps many others) do not share. — Athaenara ✉ 23:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the picture is not particularly unflattering - it's not a glamour shot, but neither is he puking into the rosebushes - it's a fairly normal looking shot of him laughing. Makes him look like a fun guy, if anything. WilyD 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree the image looks quite bad when thumbnailed (he seems to be yawning, while it is quite clear that he is laughing on the full size image.) It certainly isn't the best picture we could wish for, but I personally don't find it "unflattering". However, if Carl himself objects to this image that wish should probably be respected. —Ruud 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Inaccuracies in biography of Prof. Hewitt
Repeated reverts by Arthur Rubin and Ruud Koot have introduced inacurracies in biography of Prof. Hewitt by depriving researchers of proper credit for their work. -- 64.75.137.250 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above IP address resolves to Honolulu, HI. Prof. Hewitt coincidentally was scheduled to be at a workshop in Honolulu on May 14. [6] How odd is that? If I went to a conference in Hawaii after the end of scheduled classes, I certainly would extend my trip for a week or two. There's an ArbCom decisions (see link above) banning Prof. Hewitt from autobiographic editing. He's used a bunch of sock puppets in the past to circumvent this ruling. User:TheHoover appeared on May 10, and has only edited the Carl Hewitt article, and shows uncanny knowledge for a new Wikipedia user. I think blocks are in order. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 13:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand the objection Hewitt has here. My best interpretation would be that by only listing selected papers in his bibliography, instead of each paper and conference presentation he has ever written or given, we are not giving enough credit to the co-authors of the papers not listed. —Ruud 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Edit war at article on Prof. Hewitt
Supporters and detractors of Prof. Hewitt are having an edit war. Each side says that the other is acting unethically. The detractors claim that the supporters are acting unethically because of conflict of interest. The advocates claim that the detractors are acting unethically because academic standards should prevail.--72.235.115.241 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above post is likely a sock puppet of a user banned from editing this topic. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CarlHewitt. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jeffrey Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Wikipedia bio of this guy is dubious. It is not clear whether it is libelous or just sophomoric. It needs attention. Greg Kuperberg 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Isopoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Circuspeanuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 71.199.62.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I added {{BLPC}} to this article and restored the version which existed prior to complex serial vandalism by three userIPs (userlinks above) in early April. — Athaenara ✉ 23:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's another issue here: the content is in many ways identical to the IMDB bio which gives as its source indivisiblePR.com which in turn links to JeffreyGold.com where much of the same content is on subpages. It is a {{primarysources}} problem. — Athaenara ✉ 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I found five news articles relating to this person, and posted them to the talk page. (Links go to abstracts.) - Crockspot 05:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Richard Huggett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A multitude of very stark statements about the actions, motivations and consequences of behaviour of this man. But not a single source is given. Mais oui! 13:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
A ghastly mess. I have stubbified and would appreciate help in rebuilding with sources. Sam Blacketer 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Having just read the un-stubbified version, I believe it was largely accurate - Huggett was a notorious "byelection troll" and I recall reading about him at the time. I might have an opportunity to trawl Lexis-Nexis in a few days' time to verify the old version's statements. -- ChrisO 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Accuracy may be helpful but what we really need is sourcing. He seems to have had it in for Liberal Democrats in particular (I have heard rumours as to why which are broadly what was in the article) but we really need some good sources for them. Sam Blacketer 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Tony Zappone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:k72ndst has expressed the concern ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tony_Zappone) that this entire long biography of a photographer with a tie to the assassination of President Kennedy has zero sources or references. I tagged the article BLPC and would appreciate guidance from those more familiar with WP:BLP. --K72ndst 11:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree and I also question whether this person is significant enough to warrant an article.--Samiharris 18:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
- Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- David Cornsilk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mostly unsourced article that appears to be a hit-piece on a non-notable individual. Thick skins required. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bad faith nomination of sourced article. Subject is notable and mentioned in several articles including Cherokee and Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- While sourced, this is a very long article on an unimportant individual. Quatloo 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest keeping an eye on this article. I just deleted 2 over-the-top political cartoons drawn by the subject of this article (Cornsilk) depicting Cherokee Chief Chad "Corntassel" Smith in KKK regalia. I'm not sure the cartoons are needed in an article on Cornsilk, even if he did draw them. Here is the earlier version of the article with the cartoons.
This article is apparently controversial and wrapped up in much older disputes going beyond Cherokees to involve Linux, etc.; see:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cornsilk
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2 (see some of the diffs cited)
I don't know who's right and who's wrong in these disputes, but BLP concerns must be monitored in the meantime. --A. B. (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll tag the images for deletion. In afterthought, they may not be appropriate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Adam Kline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 67.183.128.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 67.168.61.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 63.168.67.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I just made major revisions to Adam Kline (mostly removals). It was a lengthy, more or less plagiarized (unless the contributor was columnist David Postman) diatribe about Kline's opposition to off-road vehicles. I have reduced that part of the article enormously, and cited to Postman for what remains. I suggest that people concerned with BLP keep an eye on the article, because in my experience it is likely that whoever added the diatribe in the first place will be back to restore it, plagiarism issues (and non-encyclopedic character) notwithstanding. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I trimmed it more. The still rather large blockquote, in a section of its own, was in my opinion giving too much weight to that aspect of his politics, so I took an axe to it. --Tony Sidaway 06:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Paul Magriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, there is somebody adding a comment on the biography of Paul Magriel, a living person, declaring that a "Susan Silver" is the author of his work, "Backgammon". With this notice I assert, as the co-author of the book, and the book's editor, that this is not the case, and I would really appreciate it if you could stop whoever is adding this specious information from doing so. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roserose1 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- 12.75.161.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 12.75.161.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 12.75.161.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 12.75.162.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 12.75.162.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 12.75.163.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 12.75.163.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 165.155.192.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User talk:165.155.192.7 is tagged as registered to New York City Public Schools. Something similar seems likely for the 12.75.16*.* range as well. — Athaenara ✉ 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- 65.102.179.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Michael DelGiorno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is unsourced in general, but there is a particular problem with one IP editor, User:65.102.179.133, repeatedly inserting very negative unsourced info. When the article was brought to my attention, I added the Living people cat, warned the user with blp1, and let it settle for a couple of days. The user is now back reinserting unsourced negative information again, and I have notified him of 3RR (he already violated it, but no previous warning), and I also gave a vw warning, just to cover all the warning bases. I believe attention from an admin is required. // Crockspot 21:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Edits such as this one are extremely problematic, and for that reason I agree that 65.102.179.133 needs administrative attention. — Athaenara ✉ 09:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nicholas Gruner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are many problems on the Nicholas Gruner page. Information is being added without being cited, original research may exists, and an entire section is written by someone who appears to be a Sedevacantist (an ultra-traditional Catholic who sees the current Catholic Church as heretical). It needs major revision.--Msl5046 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Steve Javie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Apparently involved in a problem in a recent game, his article is under attack, but even prior to that, there is a completely unsourced Controversy section, which either needs to be sourced or removed. Corvus cornix 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sprotected for a week. If cleanup is needed as per WP:BLP, please do not hesitate to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- John W. Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello there,
I keep removing unsourced references to John Morgan's IQ as per policy of the Biographies of living persons. The various agruments have included that it is public knowledge (I am from the public and have asked many in the public, all of whom have answered negative to that statement) and that most people, including a significate amount of untracable non-users, disagree with me so I am wrong.
I have just been accused of Edit Warring for what I consider to be vandalism because it is unsourced. While I think IQ is hardly encyclopedic and should not be included or hinted, in this particular case it seems extremely biased, putting the person in question in a very favourable light which could be taken as braging/glotting or extremely intellegent and therefore should not be opposed, both of which are hardly views of impartiality. I am removing any mention to IQ as I believe it to fall under Biographies of living persons policy that "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". I am notifying you as I am not comfortable with being accused of Edit warring when I believe myself to be following policy. --Kirkoconnell 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I left a note on the talk page. - Crockspot 05:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I copied the above out of archive 17, and am reopening this case. I've been sitting on the article for the past ten days, and I have determined that at the best case, there is an abusive meatpuppet team of three working this article, violating, circumventing, and evading 3RR, committing personal attacks against User:Kirkoconnell, posting personal information about him in edit summaries, and continuously inserting the same piece of unsourced information. At worst case, we are dealing with one person here. Below I have listed every IP address that has ever edited the article. The vast majority have edit histories limited only to this one article, and are involved in the reverts and attacks. Some have been blocked and/or warned. One was blocked for evading the block of another. There is also quite a bit of consistency with unsigned talk page comments. I made some notes at the end, bold notations are blocks and warnings, italics are behavior I observed in edit histories, PA-personal attack, RV-reverting the same unsourced info, PI-disclosing personal information. - Crockspot 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- 24.138.48.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EastLink (Halifax) Dartmouth, Nova Scotia - B:3RR W:Tilde
- 24.222.89.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EastLink (Halifax) Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia - W:Tilde not involved?
- 24.224.195.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EastLink (Halifax) Halifax, Nova Scotia - W:NPA
- 24.224.254.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EastLink (Halifax) Halifax, Nova Scotia -
- 142.68.12.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - W:NPA
- 142.68.12.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - not involved
- 142.68.13.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - PA
- 142.68.13.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
- 142.68.13.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - strange
- 142.68.13.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
- 142.68.13.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
- 142.68.14.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
- 142.68.14.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
- 142.68.14.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV, PA
- 142.68.14.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - B:Evade3RR summary:(This is User:24.138.48.196 evading 3rr block)
- 142.68.14.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
- 142.68.14.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV, PA, PI
- 142.68.14.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
- 142.167.192.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Stentor, Truro, Nova Scotia
- 142.167.217.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Stentor, Truro, Nova Scotia - RV
- 142.167.233.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Stentor, Halifax, Nova Scotia - RV, evading?
- 142.167.238.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Stentor, Halifax, Nova Scotia - RV
- 142.167.238.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Stentor, Halifax, Nova Scotia
- 142.176.13.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Stentor, Halifax, Nova Scotia - B:3RR x2 RV, PA
- 206.191.22.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sheraton Ottawa Hotel - RV
The only way I see to resolve this without blocking out all of the Maritimes is to semi-protect the page for an extended period of time. As this person or persons seem to have no other interest than this article, he/they will have to create an account(s), and be accountable for their behavior, or not be able to edit. I know that long term sprotects are something that the community tries to avoid, but in this case I believe it is warranted. - Crockspot 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I support temporary semiprotection on the grounds that it halts edit warring while discouraging irresponsible users from editing and encouraging responsible editors to register.
- Note: as a member of a high IQ organisation myself, I am not at all comfortable with the term accusation (see article talk page & article edit summaries) in the context of public acknowledgement of it, but "I thought I would settle this debate, for good!" is funny :-D Athaenara ✉ 03:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Chaparral Middle School (Moorpark) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Repeated personal attacks against the school's principal being made by anons. Best to keep an eye on this article. Corvus cornix 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 71.100.1.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 211.224.128.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 218.223.221.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 200.245.35.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jbillyradio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Glenn Greenwald is a political commentator, erstwhile independent blogger and now a columnist for Salon.com. There are allegations from the blogosphere that at some point in his career as a blogger he left comments on other peoples' blogs using different names. The accusation is essentially sockpuppetry in the realm of political blog comments. Even if the accusation is true it is unprovable, negative, potentially libelous and unencyclopedic. The Wikipedia is a resource used by the world at large. The crime of "sockpuppetry" is an inside baseball sort of thing and has no meaning to the general public. Anyway, an edit war erupts over and over on the article with Greenwald-haters and sockpuppets adding this information to the article again and again. // AStanhope 04:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just posting to add: This issue has been brought up before on the BLP noticeboard (entry #9 in Archive 15. Also, Greenwald has explicitly denied the accusation, which (as noted by AStanhope above) can not in any verifiable sense ever be proven or disproven because the only original source of "evidence" lies on partisan websites with a longstanding animosity towards Greenwald, and as such, are motivated to discredit him. R. Baley 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've blocked (for 3RR violations) the anon who keeps adding the disputed claim. Strangely enough, she doesn't appear to be very appreciative... -- ChrisO 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Now the same person, Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (under yet another IP 211.224.128.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as indicated by this and this (edits made during the 24 hr block, btw) is adding the info to Sockpuppet (Internet) as promised. R. Baley 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've blocked (for 3RR violations) the anon who keeps adding the disputed claim. Strangely enough, she doesn't appear to be very appreciative... -- ChrisO 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Doug Dohring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - contains allegations of unethical financial dealings at a company when per the reference cited these occurred after Dohring had left the company and he had no involvement in them. Contains an allegation of his being linked with "spamvertising" with no citation and no evidence. When I have tried to correct these the editor who wrote them has repeatedly reverted them or changed a few words without changing the substance. When I have place well referenced positive information about this individual, quoting reputable sources including Wired Magazine and Media Matrix, they were deleted entirely. Details are on the discussion page for the article. TashiD 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I checked out the spamvertising allegations, and they are true. I've added a source to substantiate them. Dohring and his business partners are apparently connected with the Church of Scientology so I am concerned that past edit warring and POV pushing related to that subject may be continuing here. Beware and check all claims carefully. Jehochman Talk 10:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- The link you added does not go to an article. It goes to a page that says “this article does not exist”. If you do in fact have evidence that this company was linked to something — and can show how this is relevant to this individual’s bio — I’d be happy to leave it. But I don’t see it. More importantly, there are also other serious and potentially libelous statements in this article — inferring that this individual was involved in financial misdealings when in fact, per the document cited, the alleged misdealings occurred after he had left the company. The article cites an SEC document on the misdealings, yet Dohring’s name is nowhere in the document and there is nothing in it that links these “misdealings” to him. Another entry infers that Dohring profited from these misdealings through the company’s IPO, with no citation and no evidence that this occurred. (Even if it were true, the alleged misdealings occurred after the IPO, after Dohring was out of the company. So how is this even relevant to this person’s bio?) It infers that he made money off of illegal actions, with no substantiation. I have detailed these on the discussion page.
- I do not understand your statement about “past editing wars” or “POV pushing”, or the connection to a Church. I don’t see any such thing in this article. The article on Biographies of Living Persons clearly states that “Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space... This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.”
- The article on Doug Dohring does not meet this standard. It has unsourced and/or poorly sourced contentious, negative material. When I have tried to correct it the same editor simply reverts them — which happened again tonight, without responding in any form to the questions raised on the discussion page. Let’s stick to the point, get it fixed and get the article up to standard. TashiD 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Peter Nehr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Anitanehr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Anitanehr, the article's main author, is the subject's wife. She says that she was "assigned to establish the Wikipedia listing for my husband" (see User talk:Anitanehr). This raises an obvious WP:COI issue, as well as issues under WP:BLP. No WP:RS is cited, which implicates WP:NOR. Further, there is no indication that this first-term Florida legislator is WP:NOTE. Finell (Talk) 07:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone elected to a state legislature is generally de facto encyclopedic. The COI/RS issues should be remedied. FCYTravis 06:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hal Blaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article on Hal Blaine seems to be a rip off of www.rockhall.com. I dont see any credit to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.105.192 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- James Dicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been repeated deletion of well documented material in this article by single purpose editors. The article content may well be controversial, because Dicks is controversial. The article started out as a pure commercial message for Dicks. I added much of the controversial (but documented) info. The article has since survived two Requests for Deletion. Since there are possible BLP issues, I refer it here.
Smallbones 11:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Alfred G. Gilman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 129.112.109.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 129.112.109.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The following unsourced text is being repeatedly inserted into the article by an anonymous user (129.112.109.250 or 129.112.109.251): "Al Gilman continues to be despised by the UT Southwestern student body and abhorred by the faculty who are too scared to speak against him for fear of reprisal. His overall approval rating is currently 22%, an all time low for any Dean of the medical school in its 63 year history. Send your comments to Alfred.Gilman@Utsouthwestern.edu ."
I've reverted it three times. -- Takwish | Talk 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ben Bernanke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wassermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wolfowit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There seems to be a bit of a spat going on on this article. It's probably worth keeping an eye on this, as the dispute seems to have been going on for a few weeks now. -- ChrisO 19:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- From a look through his edit history, I suspect that sooner or later User:Wolfowit will have a chat with Arbcom or maybe WP:CN. Raymond Arritt 19:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's pretty likely, yes. Apparently Wolfowit was involved in sockpuppetry, for which Jayjg blocked him (though it doesn't seem to be documented anywhere). I've asked Jay to clarify this. -- ChrisO 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Some of Wolfowit's socks had already been identified and blocked by me and other admins due to unrelated problems before Jayjg did a checkuser and found the connections. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Warriors for innocence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone has added the "biographies of living persons" notice-box to the Talk page of this article. Since the article is about a group or orginization is it supposed to be there/be used like that? CyntWorkStuff 08:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Someone believes that this fits easily as well as Project for a New American Century or Hockey Stick Controversy would. BLP would extend over the mouthpiece website of individuals, such as this blog. And someone has a name: Kyaa the Catlord 08:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Gackt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Uncited information keeps being re-introduced into this biography of a musician, while an official source on the artist's date of birth keeps being discounted by the same editors, apparently based on the (unreferenced) preconception, that the subject is rather eccentric. Not only is giving the year of birth as "unknown" and "????" quite unencyclopedic in terms of style, it also gives the article an undue air of mystery, that best belongs into the realm of fansites. Cyrus XIII 16:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- The year of birth was displayed as part of a live performance of the artist during an anniversary/best of tour. Footage of that performance has been made available by the artist on DVD, which also makes it highly doubtful that he is indeed making an effort to keep this common bit of biographical information from the public. At the same time, the article references the artist's early life exclusively through his autobiography, though readers are being made aware of the nature of both sources in either the respective foot note or right within the main text body. - Cyrus XIII 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- A stage prop is hardly a reliable source for a birthyear. There have been no public releases of any kind with an official date of birth, and the artist in question has claimed publicly that he was born in 1540. We aren't claiming that the birth year is necessarily wrong or doesn't belong there because he's eccentric, we're stating that the birth year is in dispute, as is the validity of the source, and thus it is more appropriate to list 'year unknown' than an unfounded claim. Discussion on the Talk page for the article has led to everyone but Cyrus XIII agreeing that the stage prop should not be considered a reliable source for the birth year. Does it really meet verifiability requirements? Nique talk 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hugh Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
71.55.132.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just removed a...contentious paragraph from the Hugh Grant article, despite it being IMHO well-sourced. Probably just some well-meaning fan, but I have chosen not to warn the editor in light of the "selective" blanking. If this is the appropriate venue, external input would be appreciated, as I've removed a fair amount of vandalism from this article and may be impaired of my strategic distance :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Alenka Bikar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Persistently edited to serve as a photo gallery and external links to photographs and videos that are not of encyclopedic meric (such as "Alenka Bikar the hottest ass" and so forth).
- I will try to revert vandalism to this page, but it is worth posting at BLP Notice Board. Nimur 17:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: Stephen Barrett section in BLP/N archive 11.
- Stephen Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There has been an ongoing dispute to add the following content to this article: Stephen Barrett is not board certified. This information is verifiable by a number of sources that have been given the approval of the editors at a sister noticeboard for WP:RS. See the conversation here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Stephen_Barrett. Now that we have confirmed that our sources are reliable, there are still just a couple of editors who think this content should be excluded as it constitutes a violation of WP:BLP. Please see the talk page here: Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Another_suggested_compromise. It should be noted that the sources which we have include Barrett himself at Wikipedia stating that he is open with this information. (A brief background: Barrett's detractors have claimed that Barrett is reluctant to admit that he is not Board Certified; Barrett responds that he is public with this information.) Anyhow, I would greatly appreciate any and all of your expert guidance here. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 04:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Here is a BLP interpretation from one of the editors in favor excluding the information: Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Umbrella_of_Policy. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- The sources that Levine wishes to use are among others to chiropractic magazine while the subject of the article is a noted critic of chiropractics. The problem should be clear. JoshuaZ 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- True, some of the sources are from chiropractic trade publications. Of course the main sources which have been deemed reliable by the editors at the Reliable Source Noticeboard are two court documents and a statement made by Barrett himself at Wikipedia:
- These sources confirm that Barrett is not Board Certified. Barrett himself says that he is not Board Certified. Barrett says that he is public with this information. I really don't see the BLP issue here. However, I bow to the input of the expert editors here. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- But Barrett says (with good reason) that the information as presented is misleading and not relevant. Given that and the related concerns, keeping it in the article is problematic. JoshuaZ 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- What Barrett says is misleading is the source that says that he was "forced to admit" his lack of Board Certification on the stand and that it was a major revelation. Sure Barrett had to say he wasn't Board Certified since he was under oath, but he contends that he wasn't reluctant to admit this and it wasn't a major revelation as this information has been public for thirty years. As he says here on the talk page of his article at Wikipedia, he is open with this information. Regardless, whether or not Barrett was reluctant to admit this information is besides the point as we are just going to say, "Barrett is not Board Certified" and leave out the POV issues from either side. Now then, the sources I list above verify that Barrett is not board certified. We have several other secondary sources which discuss his lack of Board Certification. My question is: Are there any BLP concerns with simply stating that Barrett is not Board Certified? And if so, what are the concerns specifically? Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- The sources that Levine wishes to use are among others to chiropractic magazine while the subject of the article is a noted critic of chiropractics. The problem should be clear. JoshuaZ 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe you already asked these questions and they were answered: Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_8#Board_Certification. -- Ronz 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have asked this question before, but it has not been answered by a third-party expert in BLP policy. That is why I have posed the question here. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'd refer Levine2112 back to the relevant discussion on the Barrett talk page (and certainly the archive linked above by Ronz), where the specific BLP concerns have been explained quite adequately. An overlong discussion, at least two straw pols, an article RfC, and a stalled mediation once again led to a lack of clear consensus to include, and where Levine2112 routinely ignores other editors' compromises. Yet another RfC is ongoing but it is being ignored by most editors who have taken part in the first RfC. I should add that the report at the top of this section (addendum: this also applies to the description of the dispute in "Starting fresh" sunsection below) is shockingly inadequate and almost completely fails to describe a dispute over a seemingly small factoid that still has not been settled after 15 months. It's a BLP issue indeed. A special case in one of WP:BLP's grey areas. At the very least we should err on the side of caution if we don't have a clear consensus. Mentioning the disputed factoid would only be relevant in its context: criticism of Barrett. Levine2112 aims to include it in the article out of context. I feel that outside commenters would do well to take a good look at the talk page and its archives. Why give weight to a handful of partisans whose criticisms have been deemed "statements of opinion, not of fact" by various courts? Disclaimer: As you can probably tell from this response, I'm involved in this discussion and recuse myself regarding any BLPN work on the matter. AvB ÷ talk 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize that I didn't mention your "out of context" argument above, but I wasn't sure to which part of the BLP policy that applies. I didn't come here to this Noticeboard to engage in debate with you. Rather than having the third-party editors go back and sift through the entire talk archive, it will most assuredly help them for you and/or Ronz to list out all of your specific BLP concerns here. Even if they are grey, the editors who wish to comment here will benefit from knowing exactly what your BLP concerns are. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't come here to this Noticeboard to engage in debate with you. You have posted a very one-sided report here and shouldn't be surprised that others are correcting it to some minor extent. Don't act as if "out of context" was the only thing said in the debate, or as if I am only referring to my own contributions to the debate. If you want to include disputed context, please provide good reasons instead of trolling the various boards or pestering fellow editors with yet another demand to "list out all concerns". No way. This is not the way to do dispute resolution, Levine. My patience with you just ran out. Take a look at the top of this page. This board is for a specific kind of conflict caused by editors who want to include insufficiently sourced material, like you. Not to report people who want to keep such content out, like me. AvB ÷ talk 19:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Again, if you feel my report here is one-sided, you are more than welcome to explain your side of it here. It will certainly help the BLP experts here aid us in our endeavor to resolve this dispute. According to the top of this page, this noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention. I believe that is what we have here. Please don't mischaracterize my attempts to resolve this dispute as "trolling". I simply went to the RS Noticeboard first, got the answer that the sources are indeed reliable, and then they advised me to take up any BLP issues here at this noticeboard. I hardly think that qualifies as trolling. Anyhow, let's not discuss this here. It is inappropriate. Rather, let's discuss BLP concerns. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- You're wikilawyering. This board is intended to help editors remove unsourced or poorly sourced BLP information from the encyclopedia, not the other way around. AvB ÷ talk 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please re-read the first sentence on this Noticeboard: This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention. We have had a dispute about putting in material which you feel may cause a WP:BLP issue. We have had discussions about this for a long time and now it may require outside intervention. I would appreciate it if you helped those who wish to comment here by giving the specifics areas of BLP which you believe would be in violation if this content was added to the article. Otherwise, I am sure that the BLP experts here can get a sense of things for themselves. Please don't accuse me of "wikilawyering". I am not. I am merely trying my best to settle a longtime dispute by following the WP:DR process. This step falls specifically under WP:DR#Discuss_with_third_parties in which we ask for third-party opinions from a discussion page for specific policies relevant to the issue. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Who exactly will you listen to, Levine2112? You certainly don't accept my opinion here on this board (which, I may say, is based on experience, in contrast to your wikilawyering). Which of the editors here on this board will have sufficient credentials in your eyes? Who's going to waste time helping you post poorly sourced material? It is my considered opinion that you will not listen to anyone who does not say what you want to hear. It is, therefore, my opinion that responding to you on this matter outside of formal WP:DR processes is a waste of time. AvB ÷ talk 23:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you being so hostile? This is completely inappropriate behavior. I posted here to get some third-party input on the concerns you brought up. I will listen to the third-party editors who respond here. I am hoping that they will either say that there is no BLP issues or that there is some issue and here are what they are. That's all. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Starting fresh
Disputed content: "Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified."
This statement was made by Stephen Barrett on Wikipedia: "One thrust of their campaign has been to suggest that I have midrepesented my credentials. I certainly have not. The words deliberately make it sound like what I said was somehow extracted under pressure. The fact that I am not board certified has been known by chiropractors for more than 30 years and has never been a sectret."[7]
BLP concerns itself with getting the article right and relying on good sources. Above, Barrett himself tells us that he is not Board Certified and that this information is not a secret. There are other primary and secondary sources that verify that Barrett is not Board Certified, but I think this comment by Barrett helps us determine if there is a BLP violation more than any other. I think it falls perfectly under this provision in BLP: Using the subject as a self-published source.
I would love some third-party input on this topic. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Disputed content: (diff).
- Start of discussion, first arguments and explanations given to Levine2112: here.
- Cont'd discussion: here.
- Cont'd discussion, compromise proposals: here.
- AvB ÷ talk 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
AvB is directly involved in this BLP dispute. I would like a third-party opinion on whether or not adding this statement violates BLP given that there are several reliable sources verifying this information, that Barrett himself says that he is open about this information, and that no editor here has claimed that this content is false:
- "Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified."
Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've already recused myself from any BLPN duties in this case. I did so above in a part of the discussion you've sor of ended by "starting fresh". I am posting here as a concerned, involved editor who does not agree with the description of the dispute presented by you. I'm doing so at your repeated invitation. AvB ÷ talk 20:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Then please provide a description as you see it. Currently, what is being proposed is entering the text: "Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified" to the article Stephen Barrett. Do you agree with that? Do you agree that you have BLP concerns about entering this text? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that one editor has continously harped on about this for several months suggests WP:PUSHPOV is the primary motive especially after not one but two RfCs. Shot info 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Lindsay Lohan
- Lindsay Lohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hey guys,
I have no Idea how to work this thing but i just checked Lindsay Lohans article: Her date of birth in incorrect, she's one year older.
thanks, henriette — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.248.74.8 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Henriette, All I'm seeing, both on and offwiki (World Almanac) is July 2, 1986. Do you have a source that says '85? Ispy1981 20:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Alan Feinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Adam sk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (added article in July 2006)
I suspect I am not doing this right, as it is the first time I have run across this problem.
There is a bio of Alan Shawn Feinstein (Alan Feinstein) which is extremely laudatory. In fact, things are not that clear, and the local paper ran an article about the source of some of his wealth. He also seems to be a very self-promoting person, as far as I can tell, he never gives a nickel to any charity without requiring that they publicize his donation. He makes tv ads about his contributions.
I made a couple of mild edits to include this info, leaving the ton of laudatory stuff alone, and then in looking at the history found that someone else had tried to do that and had had their edits removed. Also, someone has already flagged the article as of disputed neutrality.
It's annoying to see a long article that really seems off the beam. What's the policy on this? Can it be fixed to be accurate and then frozen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudyjh (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Almost all of the text in this bio was copied from two sources: the March 2004 article in The Providence Journal and the Feinstein Institute page on the Roger Williams University School of Law website. It needs serious copyediting. — Athaenara ✉ 05:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Article has ostensibly been edited by the subject, contains zero citations, and is in need of a clean up. Made attempts to get citations for some statements, removed others, and tagged the article ([8], [9]). My edits have been repeatedly reverted, first by Naconkantari, then Starnestommy. I can no longer try to improve the article or I will be in breach of 3RR. I've also been given a vandal warning, which is obviously completely unwarranted. --81.179.113.175 02:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Jordan McCoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article about Jordan McCoy is sophomoric, childish and detracts from Wikipedia. In addition, it is not an accurate image of young Jordan McCoy, who has reported history with drug involvement. Citations are available. // 70.225.37.79 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Note this edit by 70.225.37.79 (it was reverted). — Athaenara ✉ 07:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Carla Baron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"Material found in self-published books, zines, websites and blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." - Wikipedia
In light of the above caveat-
I wish to report that an organization named IIG West has self-published an article on me that I consider to be in extremely poor taste and defamatory.
- IIG Official Investigation of Claims of Carla Baron - contributed by user name: Grinder2112 (talk · contribs)
I am requesting full protection for this page, of which I am the subject.
I had emailed Wikipedia twice now regarding this issue, with no reply. I'd appreciate a firm and quick response to this matter. I understand that your volunteer associates are quite busy, but this matter is of a critical & professionally damaging nature.
Thank you,
Carla Baron Psychic profiler 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- There are a couple of issues here. First, similar criticism is also on the Randi site, see: http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-07/072106gentle.html#i6 . Is that site not a well known skeptics site? It seems unlikely that it would come under the BPL self-published classification above. Secondly, why are you writing an article about yourself, more importantly, restarting it after it has been deleted. This looks a lot like self promotion. David D. (Talk) 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NOT. Specifically the following section.
- Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
- You should not recreate the article after it has been deleted. You should leave it to other wikipedians to write about you. David D. (Talk) 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NOT. Specifically the following section.
Subject has complained on OTRS. My opinion: keep it deleted until it calms down. This is not a high priority topic. David.Monniaux 06:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- 'until it calms down'? This is not a fast-happening current event that might blow over. She's a media figure complaining about a link to an unflattering report written about her in 2005. It's never going to 'calm down' because any article written about her will certainly include a link to that or some other article about her she doesn't like. Here's a suggestion to Ms. Baron: Go prove them wrong. Win their money, then donate it to a charity for crime victims. Chris Croy 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well at least let's wait until we stop getting emails every 5 minutes. Also, can somebody investigate whether that report is legitimate news, or just some crank? David.Monniaux 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are you asking if James Randi a crank? He hosts one of the sites critiquing Carla Baron. David D. (Talk) 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not add my name to the Wikipedia listings for my name whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carla_Baron
I found this listing when someone emailed the link to me after it was created by someone. I know not who.
I do not need to create publicity for myself, as it is well-known I star in my own series on Court TV. I was merely adding links that I have sanctioned as official for Carla Baron. This is for genuine Carla Baron fans to easily locate links that are mine. I am sorry if I was "redundant" on these as I am new. That is the extent of it. - Carla Baron Psychic profiler 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think much of the problem here is due to your inexperience. David.Monniaux deleted the article, apparently at the request of an e-mails from yourself to OTRS. Why then did you recreat the article? Possibly you did not realise you recreated it? David, can you see who created the first version you deleted? I had edited that first version and I could have sworn Psychic profiler was the user who created that article too. David D. (Talk) 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- My guess is that she was editing the article today to remove the link but this was AFTER she emailed OTRS. While she was editing it, David read her email, deleted the article, then she unknowingly re-created it. It was apparently speedy deleted again at some point before May 29th. Chris Croy 09:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's bad to delete an article about someone who has chosen to be in the public eye and is. There will be negative links; use of psychic powers is controversial, and some people delight in pointing out the man behind the curtain. But NPOV demands that they be there. More importantly, we can't just blank the page as per my comment on the talk page; it looks like vandalism instead of proper administrator action.--Prosfilaes 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your expedient and authoritative efforts in protecting the integrity of my page, David.Monniaux - Carla Baron
Psychic profiler 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The Bus Uncle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dispute between User:Tony Sidaway who raises BLP concerns and User:Raul654 who says they don't exist. Please comment. —— Eagle101Need help? 06:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the article complies with the BLP, with respect to their private lives. The information about the 3 people involved in the incident have been reported heavily in the press back in June 2006, and references (which are various newspapers, reliable sources) clearly marked. All the content is based on what is written by the media. Those people are notable for one event, given their 15 minutes of fame, and this article does cover that event instead of the people, and Roger Chan Yuet Tung redirects here.
- The article did not delve too deeply into the 3's personal lives, since they only mention their jobs and the district they live in, with no mentions about their family. The focus is on the criticism and analysis near the end. Those experts were certainly related to the subject at hand, in fact, they came as a consequence of the Bus Uncle's confrontation of the bus. If this article simply states what has happened, from various points of view of multiple journalists, I don't think it's biased in anyway, let alone violating WP:BLP.--Kylohk 08:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- BLP applies to unsourced or poorly sourced material, which is not the case here. It must not be used as an excuse for woolly-minded blather about "dignity" (i.e. censorship) since WP:NOT censored, in theory at least. *** Crotalus *** 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The truth is probably half in between. While they may have been a bit of an undue focus on the private life details of the involved parties, the article isn't terrible, and seems to be very clean now (perhaps unnecessarily so?). The version I saw (it's undergoing heavy edits) seems fine, although Tony is complaining about their names being in the article - this may be an editorial issue, but I don't think BLP really weighs in much there. Other than that, any "undue focus on private lives" is now gone ... WilyD 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus seems to be that their real names are sufficiently well known that they should be in the article. I am uneasy at this but it's not the main problem. There were issues of tone, which I've attempted to fix in recent edits, and there was a fair amount of irrelevant material about the Bus Uncle fellow himself. Past political campaigning, bragging about a checkered past, and so on, which while perhaps entertaining for readers of a scandal sheet are of no relevance to the incident. As the BLP says of such minor persons known only for a single event: editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. The only reason for notability is a six minute cellphone recording. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't dig too deeply into the old article - and the relevency of background material is hard to judge for me as someone who knows very little about the issue. As I said, it probably did go into some unnecessary detail before - I was more concerned with the state of the article as it is now when I took a look. WilyD 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus seems to be that their real names are sufficiently well known that they should be in the article. I am uneasy at this but it's not the main problem. There were issues of tone, which I've attempted to fix in recent edits, and there was a fair amount of irrelevant material about the Bus Uncle fellow himself. Past political campaigning, bragging about a checkered past, and so on, which while perhaps entertaining for readers of a scandal sheet are of no relevance to the incident. As the BLP says of such minor persons known only for a single event: editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. The only reason for notability is a six minute cellphone recording. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Libertycookies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This recently created article contains a lot of OR and is basically an essay expressing one contributor's opinion. Serendipodous 12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- article in AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_and_influences_of_J.K._Rowling ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Article deleted after short AfD discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Bill Freeman
→ See also: first AfD, second AfD
- Bill Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article has been previously deleted for violating the guidelines for biographies of living persons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Freeman_%282%29) Since it has been re-posted with the same factual inaccuracy and bias, it seems worthy of speedy deletion. It is obviously using wikipedia as a means of personal attack rather than the factual information it was designed for. Since there seems to be no way of maintaining a neutral, factual article about Bill Freeman's life and work as a Christian author and speaker, is there a solution for this situation? Rather than having to repeat this cycle of deleting the article, it being re-posted, and having to delete it again, could it be blocked? Wh4ever 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it resolved? Although the article has been deleted three times, as recorded on the logs page, it has not been protected against re-creation. — Athaenara ✉ 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think that it is wise to protect. First AfD was keep. Maybe someone will write the article properly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hockey stick controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - It just came to my attention that Raymond Arritt posted a notice here regarding my posts on Hockey stick controversy about the unethical behavior of Michael Mann. The notice was posted on May 13 and archived as inactive on June 5.[10] The only comment was by a user who is on a wiki break. Raymond claims there is no reliable source for the information I posted. This is not accurate. The reliable source is the English translation of the Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, which is also listed in the "External Links" portion of the article. See Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics by Marcel Croc, translation by Angela den Tex, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, February, 2005. Here's the quote from page 28 (9 of 12):
- The “Censored” Folder As the story unraveled, more intrigue came to the surface. McIntyre:“On Mann’s FTP site, the directory for the North American network contains a subdirectory with the striking name BACKTO_1400-CENSORED. The folder contains PCs that looked like the ones we produced, but it was not clear how they had been calculated. We wondered if the folder had anything to do with the bristlecone pine series: this was a bulls eye. We were able to show that the fourteen bristlecone pine series that effectively made up Mann’s PC1 (and six others) had been excluded from the PC calculations in the censored folder. Without the bristlecones sites, there were no hockey sticks for Mann’s method to mine for, and the results came out like ours. The calculations used in Mann’s paper included the controversial bristlecone pine series, which dominate the PC1 and impart the characteristic hockey stick shape to the PC1 and thereafter to the final temperature reconstruction. Mann and his colleagues never reported the results obtained from excluding the bristlecone pines, which were adverse to their claims.”
The fact Mann knowingly withheld results that were contrary to his claims is a significant violation of scientific ethics. The facts around this issue have never been disputed. I would like to have this issue cleared up so this information is available to Wikipedia readers.RonCram 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that with format as per WP:CITE this should be a reference in the article rather than isolated in the external links section. — Athaenara ✉ 02:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look. It is obviously an open and shut case. It is shocking to me that anyone would even claim this well-respected science magazine is not a reliable source.RonCram 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ron, you are aware that N&T is a popular science mag. right? [11] --Kim D. Petersen 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (bad online translation) --Kim D. Petersen 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Scientific American, also a "popular science" magazine, is respected and is often a reliable source. Is the Dutch magazine very different in this respect? — Athaenara ✉ 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, SA is pretty much the same. Neither is peer-reviewed. --Kim D. Petersen 07:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good think wikipedia doesn't allow non-peer-reviewed information to be added, Eh, Kim? oh snap, no, thats just the opinions of a few editors, when they want to censor what information can be added to an article, which seams to be a popular thing in the Global Warming articles...--Zeeboid 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ooohh, snappity snap snap. When presenting a NPOV of a subject, and peer-reviewed literature (or the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community) is contradicted by editorialized uninformed opinion (thing Wall Stret journal) and/or wishful thinking (thing Sen. Inhofe) many editors here (not just 'a few') know which carries more weight. The wheels of science often turn slowly, but they do turn, so if the teensy amount of naysayers (wrt to AGW) eventually turn out to be right, then it will be published, a new consensus would develop, and finally, it would be reflected here, in an encyclopedia (not a platform). And we won't have to rely on the random editorial, newspaper, or that one contrarian scientist somewhere to support ideas we don't like. My 2 cents. . .carry on then. R. Baley 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good think wikipedia doesn't allow non-peer-reviewed information to be added, Eh, Kim? oh snap, no, thats just the opinions of a few editors, when they want to censor what information can be added to an article, which seams to be a popular thing in the Global Warming articles...--Zeeboid 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, SA is pretty much the same. Neither is peer-reviewed. --Kim D. Petersen 07:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Postscript: According to the masthead and a cover image on its website, it's actually Natuur Wetenschap & Techniek (NWT). — Athaenara ✉ 06:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Scientific American, also a "popular science" magazine, is respected and is often a reliable source. Is the Dutch magazine very different in this respect? — Athaenara ✉ 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ron, you are aware that N&T is a popular science mag. right? [11] --Kim D. Petersen 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (bad online translation) --Kim D. Petersen 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look. It is obviously an open and shut case. It is shocking to me that anyone would even claim this well-respected science magazine is not a reliable source.RonCram 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
According to climateaudit.org, the February 2005 NWT cover story is based on two peer-reviewed papers published in Geophysical Research Letters and Environment and Energy (see Greenwire for more on the latter.) See also "Breaking the hockey stick" and "Revisiting the 'stick'," both for the Financial Post, the business section of the National Post. — Athaenara ✉ 07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- There are extremely serious WP:BLP implications here. RonCram wants to state that "Mann knowingly withheld results that were contrary to his claims" in a published article. This is the most serious accusation that one can make against a scientific researcher. IANAL, but if it cannot be proven true that Mann knowingly withheld contradictory results, it seems Mann would be well within his rights to seek damages from Wikipedia (and perhaps RonCram as an individual). Raymond Arritt 14:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm here because Raymond asked me to comment. In my opinion, RonCram has done us a disservice by not giving us the background to this problem. Ron apparently feels very strongly that Wikipedia must contain the claim that Michael Mann knowingly violated scientific ethics. Discussion at Talk:Hockey stick controversy has been solidly against this idea, so Ron has turned to other tactics:
- he created Scientific data withholding as a POV fork of Scientific data archiving, for the sole purpose of attacking Mann (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific data withholding).
- he alleged that because User:William M. Connolley is associated with Mann, Connolley should not edit Hockey stick controversy (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_6#William_M._Connolley_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29). No conflict of interest was found.
- Ron posted for a second time on the conflict of interest noticeboard, making essentially the same argument that Connolley should not edit Hockey stick controversy (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_10#William_M._Connolley_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29_.282.29). Several people in the dicussion felt that Ron was abusing the noticeboard, and I speedy closed the discussion.
Essentially, Ron is not getting his way in the content dispute, and is trying to use noticeboards to get the upper hand. Ron's behavior is long past the point of being disruptive. If there's a BLP problem here, it's Ron's persistence in attacking Mann. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Peter Openshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This New York Times article, along with a talk post by an IP claiming to be Daniel Brandt, provide some insight into what is wrong with this article: namely, it is a "biography" which contains two sentences about the judge's career, followed by four paragraphs about a potentially-embarrassing statement he made in court once. Thoughts on how best to clean this up? JavaTenor 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cleaned up a bit, there is no need to write a BLP based on one incident. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's currently two paragraphs about him, followed by one on the statement, but people are trying to turn it into a redirect in the middle of the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Mary Manin Morrissey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A friend of my parents' is a lawyer, and he is currently mediating a despute between this individual and a former disgruntled employee of hers. Knowing I am admin here, he just gave me a call saying that, during the mediation, the topic of the person in question editing her Wikipedia page came up. Apparently he has added a ton of untrue/biased/slanderous material and when she tries to remove it, she is reverted. He mentioned the allegations of additions section as an example. I quickly glanced at it and it appears sourced, but I didn't have time to check if it was reliably sourced. While I told him the process to e-mail the foundation to remove untrue BLP information, we should make a headstart by trying to clean this up as much as possible. I am in my last 10 days or so of college and finishing up projects, finals, etc. so I really don't have time to deal with this myself right now. If some people can look this article over for BLP problems and remove them ASAP that would be great. VegaDark (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted material that was sourced to unreliable sources such as emails, personal blogs, and discussion forums and placed warning in talk. I will keep the article on my whatchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that I handled this right. The article is completely unsourced, and a quick google shows me nothing useful (at least not in English). Removing the accusations that concerned me left only her birthdate. I also removed some categories. Please someone check this out as it is an equally sensitive topic to have this info removed if it is true. diff--BirgitteSB 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted it - a quick Google search turned up nothing conclusive to source it, only a few passing mentions. FCYTravis 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An IP user claiming to be the subject has been drastically altering the article and issuing legal threats.[12] The article additionally seems to be poorly referenced. I've advised the IP user of options they have, if they are the subject.[13] // Vassyana 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please remove the article about me, pending action in the Court of Session for libel. I have made repeated attempts to prevent or correct these libels, but to no avail. The action will be filed in 14 days. If anyone from Wikipedia wishes to contact me to discuss resolution before the action is filed, I may be contacted at monckton@mail.com. If I am not contacted, the action will be lodged without further notice, and an application will be made for service outside the jurisdiction where necessary. It is likely to attract considerable publicity, and it will serve as a useful warning to those who come across it that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I shall be applying for an order that all Wikipedia content that in any way references or identifies me should not be permitted to be broadcast on the Internet within the jurisdiction of the UK courts.
I shall repeat what I have told Wikipedia before: the article about me, which is presumably supposed to be a straightforward biography, is repeatedly amended to make libellous comments, particularly in connection with a) my alleged views on the HIV virus; and b) my alleged views on climate change, both of which have been seriously misrepresented. Also, despite my repeated attempts to remove it, a link has been posted to a hostile article about me, but without posting any link to the correction which the newspaper in question was obliged to print the following day.
I have done my best to get this matter resolved by other means, but without any success. Unless I hear from Wikipedia, it will become unlawful for Wikipedia to transmit any material in any way mentioning or identifying me into Scotland, and my US agents will apply for the judgment of the Court of Session to be enforced, with damages and costs, in whatever jurisdiction wikipedia uses. It is not acceptable that I, as the victim of a libel in my own biographical entry, should be prevented from editing or removing the libel, while Wikipedia can continue unmolested to blacken my name.