This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

This article edit reverted edits of mine on the grounds that it pushes fringe theory. The text removed is consistent with Mr. Whitman's article. Mr. Whitman is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale University. Before that he was a Guggenheim Fellow. Individuals with his credentials rarely promote fringe theories. The conclusion removed is shared by other scholars. I wish to point out that the editor had the option of only removing text that he found objectionable. Thank you for your consideration. LesLein (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Without looking at the actual text, the argument fails. Individuals with such credentials frequently promote fringe theories outside their sub-specialty, and it is not rare for them to promote fringe theories inside that sub-specialty. Irregardless, I don't see how it could be a matter for this board, except possibly to hide the edit summary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In the diff you provided, your edit summary asks whether the other editor believes that Whitman promulgates fringe theories. The other editor's edit summary doesn't mention Whitman and doesn't, in my opinion, try to imply anything about Whitman, only about your changes to the article. I agree with what Arthur Rubin said, that you've come to a wrong notice board. The other editor's choice of going to the fringe theories notice board−or as someone suggested, the dispute resolution notice board−makes more sense to me (after looking at WP:DR). I see there's a lively discussion there about your content–good luck! —rybec 08:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. Whitman is a professor of comparative law at Yale. The article sourced was in an academic journal on comparative law. Comparative law is Whitman's specialty. The other editor had the option to remove the other material rather than the entire edit. For me it is an acceptable resolution to redact the various summaries claiming "fringe theory." All of the sources I provided (Feuer, Garraty, Whitman) are experts in their fields. Again, thanks for your consideration.LesLein (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Nicole Richie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

There seems to be a slow edit war about her birthplace. One place has a vague source to primary documents. The IP place has no source. Should we just leave it out all together as no RS and contenious?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, when it comes to BLPs no details is better than unsourced details. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved. Would someone else wish to rem the birthplace and bring up RS on the talk page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to public documents and cited it to a reliable secondary source. Gamaliel (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

We overlapped. I added a Highbeam source and inadvertently removed yours; I've restored it, so now we have two.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• This may be a case like Philip Sheridan where the birthplace may have relevance or sentimental reasons. The IP seems to have only edited articles within the family circle and may have inside information without RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Finley Quaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently this artist was involved in a couple of assault cases in the UK, and an IP (presumably the subject) has been reverting the addition of two paragraphs that reference them. I looked at the material and I can't really find fault with the first one, for which - keeping clear of tabloids - plenty of reliable sources exist: [1][2]. I also don't see how this would run afoul of WP:UNDUE. And of course we don't remove negative material that meets WP:BLP but is disliked by someone. Thoughts? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

[3] Diff in question. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Fellow BLPers, I would watchlist this article as some unknown editors are trying to scrub this information,latest diff which appears to be reliably sourced. As to the UNDUE, I am personally aware of this individual's, shall we say, temperemental nature, and the fact that their main claim to fame is being a nephew, I think, of Goldie, with whom I believe he also had a spat. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just to correct my memories, FQ actually claimed to be Tricky's cousin, and later had a bust-up with Goldie's cousin.[4] (setting things straight) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

last few pars inaccurate -- damaging -- refers (unsourced) to unemployment/wasking dishes -- untruthful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.212.230 (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Improper material removed; IP that added it warned. Please report back here if the problem recurs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

watching  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wathlisted as well. More eyes can't hurt.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

William C. Rader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can the Skeptics Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll be used for content to describe William C. Rader's medical practice? such as stating that

• Carroll says Rader's methods are no more scientific than a faith healer and that Rader has produced no "evidence of scientific plausibility for his work,"?

Thanks.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinions must be stated as opinions and ascribed as such. The work in question is not usable as a source for factual claims, as you can note by seeing its origins - everything after the book publication in 2003 is pure SPS and a personal website without any "editorial oversight." The printed book does not contain the word "rader" AFAICT. Which is pretty dispositive that the SPS is not usable for much in any BLP. Collect (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has, as you point out, been published the topic area, Carroll would seem to meet the SPS criteria. Why is it that you don't think he does? The proposed statements are not about Rader but about the scientific nature (or complete lack thereof) of his methods.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And again note that SPS sources must meet the same stringent requirements as sources as any other sources for "contentious claims" about a living person. I was operating on the assumption that Rader is a living person and that the claim is "contentious." Find another source if you wish a contentious claim to be given as fact in a BLP. From here, Carroll's opinions look like ... opinions. Collect (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont really think that it is "contentious" to point out that processes do not follow standard accepted scientific and medical procedures. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's what "BLP" sometimes means around here: with SPS, the "encyclopaedia" article about Rader can be half sourced to his own website, but a sensible and pertinent observation by a well-qualified expert can be excluded. Any measure of common sense tells us that this is absurd, serving no purpose whatsoever. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Then rewrite WP:BLP to say "contentious claims by a person who is right are always usable." Unfortunately, that is not what the policy says right now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, I wouldn't dream of it. It's highly important that our encyclopedia should protect the reputations of people who practice unproven and risky medical interventions. Please think of the poor quacks! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

He's being called a quack by source that we're not allowed to use. As far as we're concerned, he's *not* a quack, because we have no reason to believe he is. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The BLP standards are clear; we can't say he's a quack without a reliable source, and a reliable self-published source is not "reliable" for Wikipedia purposes. We certainly are allowed to remove any assertions that he is not a quack, especially from his own publications. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted some particularly ugly content from this. Could it please be expunged from the history please? I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a link to the revdel IRC to the top of this BLPN page. Just click the little green 'connect' link.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call. I've suppressed a bunch of edits and blocked some IPs. Please let me know if I missed anything or there's any repeat offending there or elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Jason A. Archinaco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be a self-posted ad by the lawyer who is the subject of the article. Lists several cases he's won, and absolutely nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.55.173 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I prodded it. I expect it will be contested, so we'll see everybody at AFD. Gamaliel (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Better call Saul.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Fred Hiatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of users, predominantly Wormcast, it looks like, have done an impressive job forming a coherent, wide-ranging article on Fred Hiatt. While each statement is cited and everything seems to be factually correct, I believe there are subtle but significant NPOV issues in the article. Mr. Hiatt is framed by the article as a significantly right-leaning neocon, an implication I believe he would strongly dispute.

For example, over the article's history, numerous references to The Post's opinions on environmental issues have been included, and in the majority of those cases The Post took the 'green' stance. However, only a general acknowledgement of The Post's usual stance is made, and significantly greater text goes to a discussion of Keystone XL, an issue The Post took the more conservative stance on. While the veracity of the text is not in question, the overall impression is misleading and perhaps comes with an agenda. The same trend of lip-service to liberal opinions and extensive discussion of conservative exceptions to these trends holds true with regards to foreign policy (compare the coverage of Syria, Cambodia, Mali, Afghanistan, North Korea and Japan to Iraq), domestic policy (gay and civil rights, immigration, vs. "warmed to [Bush]'s Social Security proposal), etc.

Going through the revision history, a user poohshap, (possibly his wife? see article text) made significant changes to the text, and many NPOV issues were corrected. I went through that revision pretty critically b/c of the obvious conflict of interest issues, but it seemed neutral (perhaps not surprising if she's a journalist). However over the next month or so, Wormcast undid a significant portion of these edits and reintroduced the slanted tone. Dear BLP gurus, this battle seems unproductive and unlikely to lead to a better, more encyclopedic article. How should we proceed?

Many thanks, Joehjoeh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Poor BLP - seemed to wish to ascribe the national newspaper decline to one person <g> and also managed to make the "neocon" charge appear more widespread than the actual sources support (opinions in any BLP must be so noted). Collect (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Since Collect's edits, the page has been extensively edited to once again espouse a particular point of view, and by the same user. Thoughts? Joehjoeh (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No further action needed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jimbo's talk page is apparently now a forum for declaring things like this about living persons who also happen to be Wikipedia editors. It's the c word that's particularly problematic. (I know exactly who's being referred to, as do Jimbo and at least a few hundred other people.) I'm not going to edit war to remove it - though WP:BLP says I should - but I'd welcome thoughtful opinion and review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of any other considerations, that should probably be revdel'ed. Any admin can do that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – no-one is particularly interested in using revdel on this, and the unregistered editor got bored of edit-warring on it a couple of days ago --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Ping Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ping Fu has been on the receiving end of an extremely aggressive internet campaign (amazon, and comments in online articles about her) because of a book that she wrote. There has been ongoing discussion and relative consensus on the talk page, but brand new single purpose accounts keep appearing to slant the article. More eyes would be helpful. First Light (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

New single purpose accounts are back adding negative unsourced material. May be socks of the same account. I'm at 3rr, but don't plan on going over that, even though it's negative unsourced material in a WP:BLP. First Light (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If it gets too bad, remember to request protection at WP:RFPP. Or ask here and someone will do it. I see the warring has subsided though. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

As the wider internet attacks on Ping Fu continue, more and more new accounts are coming here to slant the POV. The Ping Fu page is still neutral, so they have created multiple new POV fork articles. All were deleted, except the possibly notable Bend, Not Break, about her book. It's already at AfD, and likely to be kept, but this new article is attracting quite a negative slant. Help by uninvolved neutral editors is needed at both of her articles, especially the book article now. First Light (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raffi_Hovannisian&diff=542138982&oldid=542053752

There have been repeated attempts to vandalism this page with unreferenced, potentially defamatory and libelous allegations; not wishing to repeat them, they appear in the introduction of the article.

I have tried to mediate through the talk page and instruct about referencing but the page is continually vandalized. I delete the defamatory information or undo their edits but then my edits are undone or the defamation added again.

It is not done by a registered user; and is odd that it seems not to be one single person as it is done by various IP addresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushton2010 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. If it gets too bad I'll request protection. What's the situation, allegations about embezzlement and so on? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What Frog said.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've suppressed the libellous edits. Any further problems, or if you think I've missed anything, please drop me a line onwiki or via my email - it's enabled. I'm prepared to start blocking IPs or accounts for any recurrences from now. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rawi Abdelal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is continuing vandalism of the page about Rawi Abdelal: continuous efforts to point readers to "Political Science Job Rumors" or "PSJR" as a means to spread gossip that, in that other anonymous forum, borders on libel. At this point literally the only edits of that page over the past month have been to introduce vandalism and the efforts of other Wikipedia editors to undo it. Given concerns about notability, and the fact that the only people editing the page are trying to create or undo trouble, surely it is time to move toward deletion of this page. A bot caught one of the recent edits, but the next one was edited twice in quick succession so as, one suspects, to avoid the attention of the bot. Meanwhile, the page could use the monitoring of other editors to continue to remove efforts to cite to "PSJR" and similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.5.55 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like petty vandalism (grudge?). Thank you for reporting this, I've watchlisted it and we'll make sure it stays clean. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Christina Westover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article history (i just edited it out), has unsourced, highly potentially defamatory material. I dont know yet if she is notable (im researching it), but maybe we can delete and recreate as is without the article history? I dont know policy on this, but the history is really, really bad.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I did a couple of perfunctory searches and found nothing about her except these: [5] [6] [7]. A quick look at those showed nothing supporting the disparaging statements. I've proposed deletion of the article for lack of notability. The disparaging statements were in the article when it was first created—the other contributions of the article's creator might bear some looking-into. For example, that person also edited the Andy Dene Morris article (it claims its subject is partner to Christina Westover), where I saw similar unsourced disparaging statements. I see that Mercurywoodrose is taking care of that article, too. —rybec 09:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I didnt actually fix up the Morris article, but i just looked at its history, wow, that was bad too. thanks for your diligence. i think they should both be deleted as nonnotable, wont dispute that, and of course it solves this problem. I have no prejudice against recreation if they become notable at a later date, but maybe with some sort of protection.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wilma Dunaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears that the "Biography" section of this article was written by the subject, is not NPOV or V, besides the single citation of the subject's own website, which would seem to violate the WP:SELFPUB policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.3.138 (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes but that one reference is what's keeping that article from being PRODed as an unsourced BLP. Still, that's an editing and/or notability issue. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Richard Yoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Yworo (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone probably affiliated with the subject (paid PR?) keeps trying to WP:PEACOCK the article with the sentence, "Richard Yoo frequents the exclusive and invite-only TED conference in California." However, they have no source for "frequents" and there is no reason except to puff up the subject to call TED "exclusive and invite-only". The reader can of course find all about TED by clicking through the link. "exclusive and invite-only" are hardly the most notable or informative things that could be said about TED here.

They continue to attempt to restore this language, using WP:SYNTHESIS from such facts as his having a profile page and a blog at TED, that there is an application to apply for an invitation to TED, etc. Clear puffery based on misuse of sources. No other editors seem to be watching the article so it could use some more eyes and possibly more critical material. Yworo (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's weird. You'd think once notability has been established they'd leave well enough alone? Anyway, watchlisted. If they keep adding that maybe we can request a short preventive block. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed defamatory material about Judith Collins from the David Bain page David Bain.

Can someone please look into this? Jc press sec (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that information was correctly sourced and it does not constitute a BLP violation. There is no defamation there, unless you can point it out for us? I've reverted your changes. We do not remove criticism from articles because someone doesn't like it. What you can do is provide a properly-sourced counterpoint to that claim. Further, I'd suggest you go and create another account, as the idea that you are Mrs. Collin's press secretary is counter to our policies on usernames, not to mention your obvious conflict of interest. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not that the material is improperly sourced or that there is criticism on the page. The issue is that the Wiki article alleges Collins leaked details of a report to the media. That is a defamatory statement, without basis or reference. I have a COI, it is declared and I have outed myself on the Judith Collins talk page. I do not edit content. That's why I have the username that I do Jc press sec (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have amended the paragraph you completely (and arbitrarily) excised from the article to reflect the fact that it was an allegation made by the accused's supporter in an op-ed piece, even though that was a matter of accuracy and not defamation. However, you should not be editing anything related to Judith Collins. If you have a problem with material in articles, request the changes on their respective talk pages so that other non-involved editors without a conflict of interest may consider and act on them. It matters not that you have told us who you are. Please go and read the policy that covers this, if you haven't already. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the material in question in accordance with WP:BLP (Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]) and WP:COI policy (An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be fixed quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons.) So I also asked for help on WP:BLPN. I note your rewording of the material in question is doubtful ("Karam alleged that Jistice (sic) Minister Judith Collins had leaked the report to the press.") as nowhere in the referenced article did Karam make that allegation - because that would be defamatory.

If you care to read the Judith Collins talk page, you will see that I have already stated I DO NOT edit the page, and have not other than putting up an appropriately licenced photograph as requested by other editors. You will also note that I have already told other editors that I would only contribute material/edit requests to the talk page only, for consideration by other non-involved editors.Jc press sec (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In the future, instead of doing contentious edits (by nature of you conflict of interest), and unless the BLP violations are gross and require immediate attention (as opposed to having been there for a while), please request the changes or report them here instead of making them yourself. Further to your assertion that the cited source does not allege a leak: On September 10 the Herald reported on its front page that Justice Binnie found that David Bain was innocent and recommended compensation be paid. This was obviously a leak. At that time we understood the only people to have seen the report were Justice Binnie and the minister. So the wording was problematic, but the allegation is there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right - the wording was problematic, but worse than that it was also defamatory.The original wording in the Wiki article was "...she leaked details...to the media". This is a very explicit statement. Defamation occurs when a (untrue) statement about a person is made, and that statement is not supported by any actual evidence. It is factually incorrect. The onus of truth is on the person making the statement to provide the evidence.

And so, I accept this statement was referenced back to a cited source article which you say contained the ‘allegation’. But I would ask you to please note that the ‘allegation’ in the cited source is far from explicit. That article is carefully and specifically worded to avoid making any such explicit statement alleging Collins is the source of the leak e.g. it states "This was obviously a leak" (no one disputes there was a leak) then says "At the time, we 'understood' the only people to have seen the report were Justice Binnie and the minister".

As you can see, by using specifically selected words, the author of the cited source article has been very careful to avoid making an explicit allegation, because without any actual proof or evidence, this would be defamatory.

Collins was not responsible for any leak. To say otherwise is defamatory.

Unfortunately, the original Wiki article text ("...she leaked details...to the media") was not so careful, which is why it needed to be deleted. This was not an arbitrary deletion or contentious edit. I did this in accordance with WP:COI and WP:BLP policy and posted on this noticeboard. I believe the statement was a gross BLP violation and needed immediate attention. The fact that the statement had been in the article for some time before it was noticed, only makes matters worse as it means the defamation had continued for some time.

We are talking about the biography of a living person here, and as such, issues of defamation or potential defamation should be taken very seriously. I would have expected more knowledgeable support from Wiki editors on this issue. Jc press sec (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

We are all concerned about biographies here. That's what we do. The fact remains that your conflict of interest gives way to the impression that you are scrubbing articles that criticize your employer. So next time you have an issue with any material that references Collins, as long as it does not require immediate and urgent action, please request assistance from other editors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. This seems to be related to the topic on self-published sources near the top of this page. The 'elephant in the room' here is that this and other articles concerning the New Zealand justice system are being filled with slanted material by an editor who is in significant off-Wiki conflict with the system and some of its key stakeholders and are in some cases being used to advertise a self-published polemic on the subject. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000 for further details. I notice that Wikipedia:COI#Writing_about_yourself_and_people_you_know states "You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life".

JC Press Sec - Please don't bandy around words such as "defamation" while bringing up concerns about false claims. Wikipedia has a very strong prohibition on anything that looks like a legal threat, because of the chilling effect such a comment would have on the editors who create content here. Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. If something needs fixed urgently, take it to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. (International editors: "defamation" in New Zealand law includes what is called "libel" in other jurisdictions). Thank you. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This article was a biography of the subject game show host until I WP:BOLDly redirected the article to Legends of the Hidden Temple, the only role for which there was a reliable source documenting his appearance, per WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E (construing hosting a single show to "one event"). Since then, there have been several attempts to restart a biography of Mr. Fogg, many of which are lacking in the reliable sources department: [8] (only reliable source is EOTVGS), [9] (just a [malformed] infobox, no sources), [10] (infobox + one paragraph, no sources), [11] (infobox + one paragraph, no sources), [12] (just an infobox, no sources). RJaguar3 | u | t 14:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Earlier today I blocked an editor for edit warring at Roy DeCarava. That individual has contacted me about the content of the article and informed me about a real-world dispute related to the biography of this individual. This dispute has apparently found its way to Wikipedia. For now I have removed the "Biography" section of the article because it was mostly unreferenced, and I have also fully protected the page. Assistance from editors experienced in handling BLP disputes would be welcome. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Thing is, there is no dispute really, an account with the same family name as the article's subject has continually just blanked the article. Attempts to reach out to them have failed, so I guess block and/or protection are the way to go. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Although this week's edits only involved the one editor I that blocked today, there are actually two accounts with the same family name as the article's subject, in addition to other editors and IPs, who have been edit warring with each other for over a year. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see this edit diff used out of context to make scurrilous and unsubstantiated criminal allegations as if they were fact. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

There is a WP:SPA who has been adding negative material to this article. If you go back to the February 8 version of the article, there were two sentences about Swallow's problems in the Politics section. Originally, the spa tried to add more information while leaving the old information, thereby creating an obvious redundancy problem, among other things. After I reverted that, they have come back and removed the two sentences and created a much larger section called, you guessed it, "Controversies". And to make sure everyone knows how important and how sourced the material is, there many, many citations to local newspapers.

I've reverted because it's WP:UNDUE and some of it is WP:COATRACK (it's fairly complicated). I don't object to what was originally there (or some variant thereof), but that's apparently not damning enough for the spa.

If anyone has some time to look at the issues, that'd be great. For the moment, I'm leaving in place what the editor put in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Looks like it was already reverted again. It seems to me like the first paragraph is more than enough. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The added material is not negative or excessive. The statements added to the article narrative are neutral and factual, and frankly extremely reserved considering the level of media coverage this issue has been receiving in Utah. The neutral factual statements are backed up by a number of footnotes that do not interrupt the narrative but provide a useful research tool for anyone who wants to research the foundation for the neutral statements.

None of the material is WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK. Anyone who does even a casual perusing of the provided footnotes will discover that the article narrative is as described: neutral, factual, and conservative. I invite anyone to actually read the articles provided as footnotes, and then make a reasoned, informed argument that the article additions are anything other than I have described here.Buck Russell 72 (talk) 7 March 2013 (UTC)

At least two of the references used in the article are to editorials critical of Swallow in the major Salt Lake City newspapers. These are the political opinions of the editors rather than objective journalism, and should be removed as references. Clearly, Swallow is involved in a major scandal and the article needs to report that. But he has not yet been formally accused let alone convicted of any wrongdoing, so is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The article must be conservative in reporting the scandal, especially before some definitive development such as a conviction or a resignation. The flood of references on this matter, many saying pretty much the same sorts of things, tends to create the impression that Swallow is guilty of something. In my opinion, it should be toned way down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the article back to the February 8 version, which eliminates the separate Controversies section and pares back the material to something more due and neutral.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The footnotes to the editorials are included to support the position that while the investigation is ongoing, the controversy has led to wide-spread support for ethics reform in Utah. This is not about the BLP policy, or WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK. This is about individuals trying to protect a politician's Wikipedia page from truthful, neutral information. The footnotes serve one purpose: to allow a more-than-casual Wikipedia user to easily research the issue further. There can be only one reason anyone wouldn't want to make that available - to make it more difficult to research the topic. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a tool for further research, not a stumbling block to it. Buck Russell 72 (talk) 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not necessarily "a tool for further research" (for more details, see WP:RES). Reading articles at Wikipedia may or may not be a steppingstone to looking at other information sources, but that is irrelevant to the issues here. Articles have a subject matter. This article is about Swallow. It's not about ethical reform in Utah. And an article about a living person always has to comply with BLP policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The material at issue complies with the BLP policy. No one has yet put forth any argument that they do not.Buck Russell 72 (talk) 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Note I've requested that the page be protected at this time. In any case, Buck Russell 72 (talk · contribs) is just shy of WP:3RR at this point. We don't want him blocked, we want to discuss this issue. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion doesn't seem to be the issue; stubborn reversions during discussion does. Buck is clearly edit-warring, regardless of whether he's breached 3RR. Nonetheless, I'll hold off reporting him for the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article. This certainly warrants a block, but, as mentioned by FreeRangeFrog, that would preclude discussion. Feel free to request unprotection at WP:RFPP once the relevant issues have been addressed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the lock. I have no confidence there will be any constructive discussion, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else there is to "discuss" here. No one has yet, to date, made any specific allegation of any potential specific BLP violation. The reverted edits are factual, neutral, supported, and conservative. The resulting interest in Utah ethics reform - which resulted directly from the recent events involving Swallow - clearly are relevant to Swallow's biographical page. Because there are no specific allegations of specific BLP violations, there is nothing else for me to respond to. FreeRangeFrog and Bbb23 obviously have a political agenda here, and know how to use Wikipedia better than I do. So I guess that's it. If the goal here is to hide neutral facts, that goal has been accomplished.--Buck Russell 72 (talk), 7 March 2013 (UTC)

All of the editors who have contributed to this discussion and/or edited the article know more about Wikipedia than you do. Your comments about "political agenda" and "hid[ing] neutral facts" don't help you. Your stubbornness in reverting while discussion is ongoing does not help you. Although I'm willing to cut you a little slack because your account is new, at some point the exchange becomes repetitious and tedious. You simply don't want to listen to any viewpoint other than your own.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm at a loss for how to engage in a useful dialogue with someone who claims that (1) Wikipedia articles should not contain footnotes that would be useful for further research and (2) the current climate for ethics reform in Utah is unrelated to a biographical encyclopedia article about John Swallow. I guess I just don't understand Wikipedia, so I'll stick to the world I do know, which involves writers with real degrees and experience, peer review, and real names of authors so agendas can't be hidden.--Buck Russell 72 (talk), 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, it does violate WP:UNDUE, full stop. The purpose is not to censor information, but to present it in a balanced manner that does not swallow up the rest of the bio, or to serve people's agendas (whatever those might be). You accuse us of being politically biased, which is amusing considering I didn't even know this person existed until the article was brought here for attention, but you have done nothing on Wikipedia other than edit it. At some point you must realize that if you're making an argument about a greater issue (ethics in Utah?) in a bio, you've pretty much gone off topic and into WP:UNDUE territory. What you need to do is go create an article called "Ethics Scandal in Utah" or whatever that is, and hope it sticks around if it stands up to our inclusion guidelines. I hope we've made all this clear. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, an WP:UNDUE violation. Really? Less than 100 words of text, all written factually and neutrally. Footnotes do not add to the length of the text. Nothing in the WP:UNDUE policy makes any reference to the number of footnotes used to back up a short, factual, and neutrally written narrative. The volume of the footnotes proves two things - that the controversy has been a major one in Utah, and therefore was the primary (only) catalyst for the current climate of ethics reform. Certainly worthy of 50-75 words or so in the article. Or let me say this in a simpler way: footnotes do not violate WP:UNDUE. Period. Show me language from WP:UNDUE to the contrary.--Buck Russell 72 (talk), 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I conclude that the way you propose to present this material, Buck Russell 72, is undue and a violation of our BLP policy, and several other editors have repeatedly expressed the same conclusion. The editors who disagree with you are highly experienced in working on a wide range of articles and issues here on Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, are a relative newcomer whose work here is limited to this Utah controversy. We make decisions here based on consensus, and it seems clear at this time that consensus is against you. Consensus can change, but I suggest that your tactic of accusing experienced editors with no stake in Utah politics of some sort of a political cover-up is unlikely to be successful. Our agenda is building a high-quality, neutral encyclopedia, and nothing more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This article appears to be an autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.189.189 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it, got my BLP shears out and working, would anyone care to check up on the notability of this dear fellow, does he pass GNG? I'm just cutting the article back to the bare essentials. Oh and by the way the whole thing is essentially unreffed. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh and could someone go and template Bruce Sallan (talk · contribs)'s talk page with a COI notice (and maybe a promo one too) as the user is an SPA who created his own bio and added riveting details like he's shy but likes heli-skiing. Don't have the time to root around for it, real life is calling. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done--ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I did NOT write my own Wikipedia article originally and I resent the things being said here. I did correct mistakes and update things. If that is not within policy - FINE - take it off, but the slander being written on something that has been up for YEARS is quite offensive. Frankly, I don't give a hoot if you keep me here or not. EVERYTHING about me - including my heli-skiing and love of it - is public record! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.140.16 (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ronnie Screwvala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography with a history of puffery. I cleaned it out in mid-February, but the fluff has since returned like lint to my corduroys. If anyone else wants to have a shot at it please do. This sort of month-in-month-out maintenance requirement seems inane, though--can an article be protected to prevent slow moving but persistent edits of this sort? Most of this appears to be courtesy of Yogeshdube (talk · contribs), who has an impressive history of promotional intent. 99.137.209.135 (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

depuffed - though there is not a single negative comment at all in the BLP even so. Collect (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you had to return after an IP puffed it up yet again. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bill Luckett (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In November 2012, the page for Bill Luckett was edited to include a claim that he was involved with GLAAD, the gay rights group. Bill has no documented association with GLAAD. The context this edit was made within was that he announced he would be running for Mayor of his hometown, Clarksdale, MS, that same month. There is another candidate, Marco McMillian, who is openly gay. Together, Luckett, McMillian, and a third candidate were the three frontrunners for the Democratic nomination.

This undocumented insertion of GLAAD is clearly the laying of groundwork for a strategy to use homosexuality as an issue in the campaign which is occurring in a deep South town in the Mississippi Delta, an area where this kind of tactic would resonate. No matter what Luckett's personal feelings on gay rights, this undocumented assertion has no place in a wikipedia page. This article should be locked immediately and remain so until at least after the election in June 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.234.24 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns - I have removed lots of unreferenced, or poorly referenced, material, including self-published; I have also tagged the article for improvement. GiantSnowman 14:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Brian David Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The editor who created and extensively edits the Brian David Mitchell BLP and related articles to the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping article insists on including an extensive quotation which he has transcribed and edited from a local TV news video of a witness in a criminal trial commenting on and summarizing his own testimony on the courthouse steps.

I have removed it on the basis (i) a raw video is a primary source, which is not to be used in a BLP per WP:BLPPRIMARY; (ii) the transcription and editing of a portion of the video by the editor (apart from being inaccurate) constitutes original research, which is not to be used in a BLP; (iii) the lengthy quotation is repetitive of material already extensively treated in the article, as the actual testimony of that witness and other witnesses as reported by secondary sources is reflected at length, lending undue weight to the material sought to be included and (iv) lengthy quotations are generally to be avoided in any article.

The editor is essentially a SPS, (something like 3/4 of all his/her edits are to this BLP and closely-related articles and their talk pages) and repeatedly re-inserted the deleted material without discussion. Although s/he has finally staked out a position on the talk page, Talk:Brian_David_Mitchell#Reinsertion_of_transcription_of_interview that talk page gets virtually no page-views or participation, so I am posting this notice here to get uninvolved editor opinion and input. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call. I agree that the edit was contentious at best and the source was completely inappropriate and bordering on WP:OR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This article cites age of living person which is incorrect. I should know, I am her MOTHER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petangel88 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you specify which person? If you let us know, we can correct the article immediately. Gamaliel (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Krista Errickson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL This article? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0259799/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 Has the same birthdate. They may have it wrong so it may be a matter of finding a more reliable source to verify. The book may have erred or IMBD may have, and one sourced the other.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find her in any of the biographical databases I regularly use. Unless someone pulls a date out of an interview somewhere, we may be forced to debate the reliability of these two sources. Since it's been challenged, maybe we should just take it out. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it for now. I have found two articles that move it back to 1962 going by 18yo in 1980 article and 16yo in 1978 article. I am avoiding birthdate dramas so feel free to edit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither 'Mr. Skin' nor IMDB are reliable, so the birthdate can go. But the article has far broader issues re: unsourced content, not the least of which is a section of unreferenced and redlinked awards. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As for age confusion, well, that's not new, and has apparently been fostered by the subject [14]. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why Mr. Skin would be considered an unreliable source. The subject matter it deals in may be considered a bit tawdry, but it has a research staff and isn't user editable. It shows a birthdate at http://www.-----.com/krista-errickson-nude-c3063.html that aligns with what was claimed to be in the older paper edition. Someone has included it in the spam filter, so I had to redact the site name in the link.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A person with the same name as the subject wrote wrote the IMBD bio. So the subject themselves may be trying to become 2 years younger. Should we include both years or none?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tawdriness of the subject aside, I found the prose so awful that it called into question its reliability as an encyclopedic source, much the same way certain mass market tabloids are scrutinized when referenced in articles. I can't speak to the quality of its research staff, so that may be a valid point. But again, I think the age business is the least of the article's problems. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got no problem removing it on the basis of conflicting data. I just don't think Mr. Skin should be considered inherently unreliable. I note that the IMDB biography tries to claim her career ended in 1992, skipping two years of trashy movies. I think we have a case of someone editing the past to her own benefit.—Kww(talk) 18:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that wouldn't be a first here. I haven't done a search yet, but can we establish the claims in the awards section, and then whether the honors are considered notable? The redlinks don't bode well. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Brazenly baring her boobies" doesn't inspire confidence in the source. My take is that 'Mr. Skin' might be reliable for its professed single (er, double) focus, but not so much for overall biographical content. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

See also User:Kerrickson contribs. They seem COI to me. Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard would be the place to discuss the skin source but since it is blacklisted I don't think we can use it anyways.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Good catch re: Kerrickson (talk · contribs). Claims like being Kazan's goddaugther don't belong in the article without a source, and much of the meat of the bio is unreferenced, and appears to have been added by the COI account. I've added a COI template to the article. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see why this book would not be a reliable source. The site, yes, but not the book. Semantics about "brazenly baring...." have nothing to do with the reliability. Being funny or titillating in the prose doesn't make it unreliable. I recall a birthday dispute involving the LA Times saying one thing and a large Australian paper saying another. One was obviously wrong. Should they be decalred "unreliable" because of a minor biographical error? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. My point is that its usefulness as a source is limited by its context. A book devoted primarily to alcoholism in circus acrobats would be useful for just that topic, but perhaps not for broader application. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of the book to check page 168? An editor could easily BS the page number as they couldn't link online because of the blacklist. I myself would only accept a scan or two of the page in question. Two more reliable sources have her circa 1962.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's actually referenced to Google Books before you removed it. It checks out.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the main libraries in Alberta have it. Search: http://www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca/ I could try the rest of Canada and see if I can have a copy brought in. This alone seems to make me think it isn't RS enough for a BLP article. If someone can get a copy and look at page 168 then that may help. The online website that is blacklisted may have been corrupted and not match the book. The reliable sources noticebaord may have advice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Praveen Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praveen Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This living person's biography has been relisted thrice at AfD. Any comments would be most welcome. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Johan Bäckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To say this person would be "highly controversial dissident" is not objective.

As mentioned in latest edit, he is considered as "dissident" in Finland, but in Russia he is awarded human rights activist, and in Estonia - persona non grata. So he has many faces in different countries. Also this article is well too mixed collection of alleged interpretations of his statements about various affairs. Many commentaries go too deep in details. It is very obvious what are his main points --Agerotops (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here. I am having a hard time determining whether the sources used there are reliable, as we require for any contentious claims. Also, the article seems poorly worded, but that's an aesthetic issue. I see a bit of weasely wording as well, but nothing I'd have a heart attack over. Are there any particular issues you have problems with? It would help if you point them out and we run through them in order. My Finnish and Russian (not to mention my Estonian) are very rusty. Which is to say they are non-existent. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Umayya Abu-Hanna‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Umayya Abu-Hanna‎ has suffered from biased editing in both directions - both pro and anti the person (see the article's editing history). At the moment it suffers from some BLP problems, some of them rather blatant in my opinion. However, I don't want to risk falling foul of 3RR and would very much appreciate more eyes looking at the article. --bonadea contributions talk 18:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed most of the negativity and left a comment in the talk page with instructions on how to add it back as per our policies. All of that was horribly worded and obviously a coat rack for someone with an agenda. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• DeleteThis article provides no proof of Roy Maloy's stilt working records or his earlier history. It is also linked to a website that makes false claims of the individuals status within the entertainment industry. This is article is written by Roy Maloy in an attempt to gain notoriety and fame, this article is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LlaelMcd (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

See #Roy Maloy above.--ukexpat (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not Articles for deletion where a policy-based iVote to delete would be appropriate. This noticeboard doesn't delete articles. A Google News Archive search shows significant coverage of Roy Maloy in reliable sources. Therefore, this performer is notable and deserving of a Wikipedia article. The current version of the article can certainly be improved, especially in the area of referencing all claims with citations to reliable sources, and removing a bit of promotional language. But the outcome is very unlikely to be deletion of the article. We don't attempt to "prove" things on Wikipedia; instead, we summarize what reliable sources say about notable topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Matt Fiddes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wihtin this BLP I have tried to make a number of edits as there are a number of references that are not relevant to the edits made. There are still many that remain within the article that I have. I added a comment about a fine from a fake court summons (could be seen as trivial) which was properly sourced. However, it has been removed twice. I feel that evidence suggest on number of edits on this page it is the subject and he or someone linked to him is editing any negative comments from the article. It seems to be self promotion to me. Thoughts? (Edinburgh loon (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC))

I see some puffery there and the article is a bit long for it so yes, there's some stuff that could be pruned. But your edits don't seem to make a lot of sense. Can you be specific as to what you wanted to remove and/or accomplish? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the bit about the court fine in the personal section. Some may see it as only notable locally and undue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I added a negative edit on to the page and it was removed which I am guessing was by him or someone else associated with him. I then added it again and was removed.I suppose I want to highlight that the sign of a negative story it is removed and there are certain parts of the article that is certainly puffed up. It seems to be a promotional page more than a biography and I wondered if there was anything that could be done? (Edinburgh loon (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC))

• Based on a report at WP:ANEW, I have locked the article for 3 days. I have also tentatively removed the court summons material to permit the BLP issues to be discussed. As an aside and as FRF notes, the article needs work apart from this single issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, thank you for your intervention. I just want to make sure that I am not in violation of any policy especially edit warring. My view on the article is that if you study the history back to the beginning the edits are by the subject or those associated with him. There is also a degree of puffery which I have taken out and asked for citations as there are many citations which are not relevant to the statement. If someone was to through it there would very little left and would beg the question is this worthy of a BLP page? This is the first page I have been involved in editing and do not want to break any rules. Advce would be great. (Edinburgh loon (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC))

You added the material on March 6. It was reverted by an IP on March 9. A separate IP restored the material, and I'm assuming that was you not logged in. Then you reverted twice on March 10. Although I don't think you breached WP:3RR because of the time span and because some other edits you made on March 9 did not constitute a revert, your repeated restorations of the material were problematic. I suggest you be more careful in the future. Also, now that you have an account, you should always log in before editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It was me not logged in. I forgot to ensure I was. I will be much more careful but I suppose my view on the BLP is that, if people were to go through it and take out the claims which are not backed up it could lead to the article being redundant. The person removing the edit with the IP is obviously linked to the subject yet has not made any attempt to fix the citation requests? To me it seems a very promotional article with anything negative put in removed. What can be done? (Edinburgh loon (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC))

• Frankie Randall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article contains numerous signs of vandalism, blatantly false information and foul language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.124.173.33 (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I just rolled back something like 20 revisions (!) We'll make sure that doesn't happen again. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Good move, I've watchlisted it too as this seems to be a very recnt campaign of IP vandalism. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In this edit a user repeats an Edit Summary claiming a quote is falsified (it is buried in the list of links). Claims of falsified evidence are a serious matter; quite a bit different from an honest mistake. In addition, the name of the author is wrong. I request redaction on the Fringe Theory noticeboard as well as the related Edit Summary at the New Deal Edit Summary. Thank you in advance. LesLein (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Amia Miley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

it say her first video was for FTVGirls when in fact she was before on "backroom casting couch". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oryors (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source for your claim, then by all means add it. What is there seems correctly sourced. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

DeAndre Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

People keep changing this article saying that he is a killer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorepalmoil (talk • contribs) 05:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Protected, blocked, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Leymah Gbowee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on Leymah Gbowee, while correct, contains some opinion/libelous information in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.128.178 (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to an earlier version to remove that material, but please be careful when you throw around accusations of libel. They can be construed as legal threats, which are not tolerated.--ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

The article on John Olerud is poorly written and and almost has no citations, especially the "Personal Life" section. This article needs to be fixed.--24.22.244.68 (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the material about the views from his house and fight with neighbor as non notable. --Malerooster (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call, I was doing the same thing at the same time, but you clicked "save page" first.--ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Clint Zweifel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

((request edit))

Would someone update the "Political Career" and "Electoral History" sections to reflect the subject's work in office and 2012 election results?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpridmore (talk • contribs)

We are working in the dark a little here. Can you point us to the data?--ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Déjà vu!!! Good call, I was doing the same thing at the same time, but you clicked "save page" first. Well the unsigned bit anyway, still getting the hang of those bot-calling template sirens. :-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Orley Farm School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would appreciate some additional eyes on this one. We received an e-mail at OTRS questioning whether the material that has been reverted and re-reverted a few times is appropriate. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My eyes nearly popped out at the reinsertion of the "well-referenced text", with no less than 12, yes 12 refs stacked up to prove it's true, including such wonderful sources as the Mail, the Sun, the Mirror and Joe Blog's Turnip Gazette! On it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 02:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I will keep watching too.--ukexpat (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Last section on his "death". How did this get by? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.177.201 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Puerile vandalism, now reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear whatever... it's late here and would someone else care to take a scythe or whatever they have to hand to this horribly overloaded, ugly, puffy piece of ... ssh, I'm off to bed. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 04:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit. There are worse... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I'll sort the rest out later. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Sampson (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have received an email at OTRS complaining about people inserting falsehoods into the article. The problem is that there are almost no sources at all: the only one in the article that I can see worth a damn is The Guardian's interview. It'd be great if some editors could go through this, remove all the unsourced material and rewrite it based on some reliable, BLP-compliant sources. There are a few other sources one could add: Metro interview, BayTV (a video interview).

As there seems to be a long-running back-and-forth of inserting unsourced information, it might be quite reasonable once we have cleared it up to the point where it is BLP-compliant, we could then stick it on pending changes. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the addition of unsourced material in the last week or so and popped it on pending changes for violations of the BLP policy. The article still lacks a lot of sources. Here are quite a few we could add: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] —Tom Morris (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Tom Holland (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While on vandalism patrol I noticed that a mild edit war is occurring on Tom_Holland_(actor) over the inclusion of some unsourced material regarding the subject's relationships and some inappropriate commentary on the topic. I have issued BLP cautions/warnings to those re-inserting the material but the attention of some experienced BLP editors and/or admin would probably be a good thing. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 13:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted, thanks! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Navi Pillay‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some extra eyes on the Navi Pillay BLP would be welcome. Sri Lanka based dynamic IPs are repeatedly adding contentious unsourced and unattributed material. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverted the last one and asked for a discussion in the talk page. I don't see blatant vandalism, but definitely some contentious material that needs to be very well sourced. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ina May Gaskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a friend of Ina May Gaskin. I am familiar with her professional practices as a midwife, and the information on the wikipedia page is grossly inaccurate. i was going to edit it, but i thought i should leave it so that whoever is responsible for such defamation can be held accountable. Most importantly, although there are several inaccuracies, she does not keep her birth statistics secret. Rather, they are published in every book she has written, including a book Birth Matters released in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkennedydavis (talk • contribs) 02:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a machete to the article. Frankly, though, parts of it have a promotional tinge, and to the extent her works has proved controversial both positive and negative opinions should be discussed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a major NPOV clean up if anyone wants to help. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I've made some bold edits removing unsourced content and adding content from the NYT and Wash Po's obits of the subject. Additional input and eyes are welcome.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Watching. Good job so far! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! please feel free to jump if you see something that needs correcting etc.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This GA article has serious coatrack issues in my opinion. I've posted on the talk page but I am the only one active there and would like the opinion of others before I edit or nominate for GA reassessment. Please give your input on the talk page here. Thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that entire article is one large coatrack because it's more about the other artists than the subject. I don't see BLP issues per se there, everything about the affairs and the drug use and whatever seems well-sourced and relatively NPOV. If you pare all that down you'll have a stub, and I guess that's not good for GA status. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I would quite characterize the problem as "coatrack". I'd characterize it a a matter of excessive name-dropping. I'm not sure that can be avoided in a case, like this, where the subject is notable principally for her associations with other people who are genuinely notable. I don't think you could write an article on Forrest Gump or Zelig, for example, without it largely focusing with the people they interacted with and the event surrounding those interactions. But, I definitely think that the article does not meet the standards for a GA, on multiple fronts. It should be reassessed. Don't think it would pass in the state that it is in. Fladrif (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Should this former mayor of Detroit have "convicted criminal" listed as his occupation in the infobox? I have removed it before but it keeps returning. Also should his mistresses and convictions appear there? All of these facts are documented but it is matter of undue emphasis in my opinion. Rmhermen (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

But why shouldn't it be there? I haven't edited this article -- but given the content I think a category connected to his criminal convictions is probably appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well for one thing, common sense should tell us that "convicted criminal" is not an "occupation".--ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah -- my apologies, I'm reading while riding on a bus (jumpy screen) and I thought the query was about categories. No, clearly his occupation should not be listed that way. But some coverage of his convictions is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest more editors watchlist this article. The anon editor is determined to make the infobox as unflattering as possible. Gamaliel (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've tried twice now to remove the content from the infobox about his "relations" (affairs, mistress) -- but for some reason the edit is not sticking. I press "save page" and the article then loads, but without the edit having taken place. Odd... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, it's just one editor who has repeatedly added the content. S/he has now been issued two warnings. After the first warning, s/he said, "Ill keep adding it because you are wrong!" We'll see what happens. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI... the editor (76.226.66.20) who kept adding the improper content filed this report at AN/I and was warned about it on their talk page. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Would someone also please look at Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act#Kwame Kilpatrick - the detail about the charges there, particularly those that resulted in not guilty verdicts, look like a continuation of the hatchet job.--ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking briefly though List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes I found none whose occupation was listed as "criminal". Even someone getting a parking ticket is a "criminal", but it's not normally an "occupation".

It seems that even if you've been ripping people off your entire adult life, your occupation may not be "criminal"...

Bernard Madoff - Occupation: Stock broker, investment adviser, financier, former chairman of NASDAQ

That said, in the absence of any sort of respectable job, your occupation here on Wikipedia does seem to reduce down to criminal...

Al Capone - Occupation: Gangster, bootlegger, criminal, racketeer, boss of Chicago Outfit

You'd think we could at least do Alphonse the courtesy of also listing him as a used furniture dealer.

– JBarta (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the hateful, politicized comments. It is no secret that the Catholic Church only endorses the traditional view of marriage. That does not make some one "homophobic" or a "bastard". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.166.196 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The comments have apparently been removed from the article by now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And the article has been semi-protected.--ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Tishma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Checkin34z (talk · contribs)

Anyone read Bengali? The article, heavily worked on, reads like a puff piece. Many of the supporting references for the peacock superlatives come from foreign sources, so it's hard to tell what's reliable, what's a blog, and what's press release. But the bottom line is that it reads like a promo, and is tended by a WP:SPA. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I can read Bangla. The article looks ok to me, it's not really 'puffed' as it described things she has actually done! The 'foreign' sources all seem to be respected Bangla newspapers so not much to worry about. I will review the articles further and get back to you with details. Mahinar (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

results of my check: Bangla sources are all OK... no press releases there, all are 3rd-party written stuffs. Mahinar (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, though I remain skeptical; at least one is a blog [26], and I suspect others may be questionable. I've listed a batch of English links at the article's talk page that are questionable as well. And yes, the tone is rather adulatory, as it would be if it were based on non neutral sources. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely needs some work. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ya, only that one is a blog, but technically it's 3rd party source so ok as they basically publishing reprints of articles about celebrities directly from the national dailies. rest of them are all Bangladeshi newspapers (but not press releases), you can click and they will take you to the respecctive newspaper sites, except one is BBC bangla site. hope i did not miss anything,and glad to help. if you need more help for anything in Bangla stuffs let me know and i will try to help you. Mahinar (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. If the Bangladeshi papers are anything like some of the English sources I found, they'll hardly be models of neutrality. By way of example of how the article can be de-puffed, I've proposed a partial rewrite on the article talk page. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

you're welcome. :) enjoy with your works. Mahinar (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bae Doona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Intensively edited by several accounts in the last few days, this has become a long confection, filled with quotes by the subject, and testimonials to her talent. Is Qworty still taking orders? More eyes....99.137.210.226 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking the last best version was before the latest onslaught, March 1 [27]. Thoughts re: reverting that far back welcome. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Holy smokes. But I don't think it would be nice to revert that far back. It's supposed to be the subject editing, right? Maybe we could ask them to hold off on editing, explain why and then come up with a basic article that has whatever we can successfully source, which I suppose wouldn't be too difficult since she certainly seems notable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been improved to the point where it's no longer an aesthetic offense.... 99.137.210.226 (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This person is not a street artist and must be removed from the list of street artists in the united states. He has never made any street art, only pop art and computer art and has therefore fraudulently added himself to the list. please remove him from this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPD2012 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The article does not say he is a street artist. It simply says that "He is reportedly inspired by artists involved with the Street Art and Pop Art movements" (emphasis added). And what list are you claiming he added himself to? 76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am in the process of checking the OP's claims. To the Original Poster, if you linked to the article(s) in question it would make it a lot easier to deal with, I had to root around to find the list you were talking about as it is a List of street artists, with a US sub-section. Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

To the IP, sorry, but it took me a while to find the list in question, I have now linked it above, and am in the process of checking for sources that say he is a street artist or not. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

CS, Wikipedia needs more editors like you. :) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

CS, just a question. I noticed that he's listed on List of street artists as "Dillon Boy" instead of his common name, James Dillon Wright. And the opening sentence of his article starts out with Dillon Boy instead of his common name. Shouldn't both say James Dillon Wright? And shouldn't the opening sentence of the article be something like: "James Dillon Wright (born May 29, 1979), also known by the name Dillon Boy, is a..."? 76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again and thanks for the compliment, I am actually starting to wonder if this person even meets the Wikipedia:General notability guideline. It looks more and more like it is just a self-serving promotional article on a fairly obscure artist, who is savvy in the use of social media. One ref is to his personal website, one to Jetcomx (okay, not a blog), third ref is dead and the fourth is the fact that one of his works was featured in the Time person of the year 2008 magazine (Obama/Fairey cover), hmm, not a lot of substance really. Any fellow BLPers care to give it another check before sending it to AFD? Got to go. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

CS, you're very welcome. It's so nice having knowledgeable, fair editors like you. You must've read my mind because when I first looked at the article I was thinking the exact same thing: Is this person even notable? I'll leave it to you and other much more experienced editors to decide that. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to me that Wright meets any of the six notability criteria under WP:ARTIST. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not but he might very well meet WP:GNG, and that's enough. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Might"... :p I do understand that he might qualify under WP:GNG, but the claim being made is that's he notable solely because of his art work. But what do you actually think? Do you feel he's notable? I'm fine with whatever's decided, but I'm just curious what makes him notable under the general notability guidelines if you in fact do think he is notable. Thanks for your input. I see all the help you give on this page and think it's great. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I see enough third-party coverage (interviews, gallery showings, etc) to probably keep him above WP:GNG. Someone might argue with me on depth, but if this was at AFD I'd probably opt for a Keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Er, FreeRange, where exactly are you seeing this stuff? Googling for either name just brings up loads of social networking sites, blogs and work-for-sale type sites, and I am not getting *any* interviews, and definitely not RS type coverage. Just curious.

Also, having just checked Wikipedia:ARTIST I do not find that they tick any of the boxes there. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Captain. FreeRange, care to share some links with us? 76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not arguing for this dude's notability, I just said I found enough at first glance to indicate he passes WP:GNG: [28] (Wenn Sie Deutsch sprechen, ja?) [29][30]. I don't have the TIME Magazine cited there, but his main claim to fame (the Obama poster) might get him past WP:CREATIVE #3. In any case if you guys think his bio doesn't merit inclusion, then AFD is the answer. I will agree there is a lack of depth there, but what there is (plus the Obama thing) would probably sway any participants in the AFD towards keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, keep cool, but you're a bit confused, the Barack Obama "Hope" poster is by Shepherd Fairey, was on the cover of the TIME magazine, and our dude, as you say, just had a tiny picture of his take on Obama in the magazine alongside 7 or 8 other works of the same nature. See here[31] CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 01:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well... Captain said it first. ;) I was going to pretty much cover the same points, so I'll leave it at that. The article is trying to hang Wright's hat on someone else's notable accomplishments; a big warning flag for lack of notability. I'm confused by FreeRange's statement, "I'm not arguing for this dude's notability", right after he said "I see enough third-party coverage...to probably keep him above WP:GNG" and "if this was at AFD I'd probably opt for a Keep". In any case, I think the article warrants being taken to AfD. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hah, no, no lack of coolness. Sorry if I came across that way. My point is that the notability was brought up (independent of BLP issues), I did a cursory Gsearch and I saw some material there that seems to indicate there is a measure notability, although as I mentioned there's an apparent lack of depth (e.g., WP:SIGCOV). I do understand he's not the author of the famous Obama piece. That's all. If there are concerns with this bio's merits for inclusion then the best thing to do is to take it to AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Julius Genachowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is it me, or does his entire biography read like a press release? The sourcing clearly comes from his press shop, and it doesn't mention key periods of his life, like his former life, or his huge fundraising "bundler" status for President Obama. Recommend a strict review of the entire biography, and a source-check on the writer.

Not sure what you mean, the article seems fine. If there is negative material you feel is missing you are free to add it, assuming it is also well-sourced and it does not violate WP:UNDUE. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Morgan James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lindsayhartman (talk · contribs)
• 68.175.97.101 (talk · contribs)

Persistent attempts to write article about a singer/actress as promotional vehicle (i.e., including roles as understudy), removal of maintenance templates, using primary and unreliable sources. The larger question is whether the subject is notable, since most or all roles have been ensemble parts. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably meets notability guidelines, given several interviews and reviews, and widespread coverage for her criticism of Into the Woods. I'm guessing someone will remove that pretty quickly. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• One could try AfD though my guess is it would pass. I have indeed just reverted the removal of well-sourced content about that criticism. No argument is given, and it's the best sourced bit in the article. One could, in fact, argue that this is a case of BLP1E, with that critique and subsequent apology being the 1E for which this person is notable. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• I read all the articles and I am convinced that 1E is relevant here. She may still squeak by, though an invocation of WP:HOTTIE will need a more reliable source than me, and the promotional picture in the infobox actually does here a disfavor (compared to this). Drmies (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If the information about her discography so far is correct, she fails WP:MUSICBIO, and she certainly seems to fail WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Put her up. But beware of the HOTTIE boomerang. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And a pretty boomerang she is. In the meantime please consider blocking the disruptive accounts or protecting the page. This is ridiculous. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User:86.167.113.173 and User:NorthLondoner have been adding poorly-sourced information to the BLP Leigh Turner. My attempts to remove it (and related content from other articles) have simply been reverted. Advice from others would be appreciated. Peacock (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for that Peacock. I would like to add, however, that you have been going through my entries deleting all of them without any prior discussion relating to that.

This is not wikipedia good practice, and I would respectfully question your methods and, perhaps, motives. User:NorthLondoner NorthLondoner (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I would also note that 'poorly-sourced' is not accurate. In, for example, the Neil Parish update, that was all sourced directly from Hansard, as quoted here - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004869/Barry-Prings-mysterious-death-internet-bride-battling-family-1-5m-fortune.html

In my reverts, I have added each time we should discuss the issues. I too would like advice from others. Best, NorthLondoner NorthLondoner (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The source for the negative information you added to the BLP Leigh Turner is grahamwphillips.com. Considering that your userpage redirects to User talk:GrahamWPhillips, that's hardly an independent reliable source and your actions clearly violate the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Peacock (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, I am a journalist and wrote that. It follows on from reference to the Foreign Office in the following source - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004869/Barry-Prings-mysterious-death-internet-bride-battling-family-1-5m-fortune.html

However, given that the matter has now been discussed, I accept the removal of this from Leigh Turner's page. NorthLondoner NorthLondoner (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill Browder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm pretty sure a BLP section existed for this article recently, however there still appears to be attempts to add negative unsourced information into this article. Watchers are more than welcome.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeh, and it went all the way up to the top and stuff. I have it on my WL as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

At Hacienda Hotel and Casino, an editor has removed the names of the casino's three owners, stating "I have been requested by the Management at Hacienda Hotel and Casino to remove a few owners names to help alleviate them from getting harassing phone calls." The three names have been reported in the press many times over the years, and can be found on the Nevada Gaming Commission's web site, like all casino owners. They're somewhat public figures, being former high-level executives at a large public company (CEO, vice-chair, and senior vice president at Mandalay Resort Group). So I don't think there are good grounds for removing the information, but I thought I would bring it here for a third opinion before reverting. Toohool (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Almost everybody's name is in the telephone book. No reason for it to appear in Wikipedia. BLPs should respect privacy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC).

Concur. More to the point, it's information we don't want to maintain, and is peripheral at best to the subject. Anyone can click on an external link and find out who is who, etc. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

To whom this may concern,

I am requesting the immediate removal of this page on behalf of my client, Arthur Wolk as it continues to violate the biographies of living persons policies. Before I provide reasons for removal, I would like to remind you of this:

Dealing with edits by the subject of the article Shortcut: WP:BLPEDIT Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. The Arbitration Committee established the following principle in December 2005: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a new editor mistake.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COATRACK Eexcessive focus on lawsuits that Mr. Wolk filed and NO mention of settlement of lawsuit in which defendant removed information from their website and published a statement or updates posted about matter: http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/19/update-on-arthur-alan-wolks-la http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2011/09/a-rare-triumph-for-decency-in-cyberspace.html My attempts to include this have been reverted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Alan_Wolk&diff=544491137&oldid=544481911

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPGOSSIP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AVOIDVICTIM#Avoid_victimization References to obviously biased articles "from the crash landing dept" and the "we-will-not-be-bullied dept" at Techdirt. Contributions made by this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.17.20.40

I do not wish to continue the little war with your editors. My partner did not intend to create this page as an "info-merical" as you have it marked and was trying to just provide facts. I did not make a "legal threat" and my partner is not a "paid flack" as your talk page shows. I believe many of the editors on this page have "bit the newcomers" and I would certainly never want to be a part of your community, so please remove the article so I don't have to continue to "watch" it.

Christine DeGraff Websketching LLC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdegraff (talk • contribs) 01:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Christine, you have received a warning from an administrator on your talk page. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

So nominate it for deletion. I don't see anything there that would make me whip out the BLP chainsaw. And quoting policy while ignoring that same policy by trying to use a blog as a source does not exactly help your case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Aren't all of the references that continue to be added blogs? I thought I did nominate it for deletion. I am not that familiar with how it works, the rules, or anything. I just wanted to add that the case was resolved. It was only people who smelled blood who continually wanted to make the page more and more negative, not neutral. Cdegraff (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I came across as aggressive yesterday. I am just frustrated. I am not familiar with the rules, and I was not trying to hide who I was or trying to post information that is biased. I just want it to be fair. If you look through the history, there has been a lot of unfair edits by people who seemed to have an agenda. Cdegraff (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sophie Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I am having issues with libelous content on my biography page. Please can you help me to remove it???? Sophie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethhaiku (talk • contribs) 10:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Which content are you referring to ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The article keeps having spurious claims made in it such as the subject having been drinking at the time of her accident. n.b. I have no connection to subject. Daffodillman (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that among other things appears to have been dealt with for now. The article looks okay to me at the moment apart from a few things that need sources. They don't appear to be very contentious. I'll keep an eye on the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The comment about champagne is incorrect and surely requires proof? Bethhaiku (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)bethhaiku

It's from The Telegraph article here "...she’d only had a glass of champagne". Hardly encyclopedic information, but the talk page is there for people to try to gain consensus for content that has been challenged. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been trying to compromise with another editor about the inclusion or exclusion of a particular issue. This issue appears in the article's section "Critical Appraisal of Jacque Fresco." The opposing editor insists that information pertaining to the subjects alleged participation in the Ku Klux Klan and White Citizen's Council be included in the article. I have expressed skepticism because the source he is using does not seem adequate. The source itself is a potentially libelous tract. Nevertheless, as I have attempted to compromise with the other editor, I have cleaned up the writing to give better context, which I believe was previously lacking. Anyway I just need someone to look at the issue and determine what is appropriate. My tendency is to exercise caution, because it is a very sensitive issue and can easily become defamatory. There are other bits in nearby area in the same section that might also need additional consideration.--Biophily (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The key is whether or not that involvement with the KKK (or any other aspect of the subject's life) can be considered to have significant independent coverage, and can be referenced by multiple, reliable sources, irrespective of the contextual use of the information by a single person for the purpose of critical commentary. Lacking that, the inclusion is WP:UNDUE at best. In other words, if that's the only place in the bio where that is referenced, then no. If there was an entire section dedicated to the issue in question, then yes. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

How is there not an available photo of him but there is of Mitch Williams? The most famous Toronto Blue Jay of all time doesn't have a photo on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.18.90 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Availability of a properly licensed photo of a living person is the issue. If someone took a photo, and made it available under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then it can be used in the article. Perhaps you can attend an event where this person is present, take a photo, and upload it to Wikimedia Commons? That's how things get done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

see: Wikipedia:Help Desk#Colan. A request to remove a web citation that contains link to a defamatory website. Thanks···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 22:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Or rather, it contains a link to a newspaper website which contains a link to a third website which is (allegedly) defamatory. Seems to have been adequately handled at the Help Desk though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Manny Ramirez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the Personality section in this article a joke? Wow. I'm no fan of Ramirez's, but that section needs to be deleted immediately. I'm not sure how it got into the article without anyone noticing how inappropriate it is. Not only is it a bunch of non-encyclopedic nonsense, it's a huge violation of WP:BLP and WP:DUE. There are also violations of WP:WEASEL such as the sentences that begin with, "Many stories depicted Ramirez as..." and "These incidents are typically described as..." Obviously, the section's sole purpose is to trash Ramirez. In any case, since when do BLPs have an outrageous "Personality" section like this? We could easily find a few sources about anyone that contains some negative descriptions of them, but that of course doesn't mean they should be included in a Wikipedia article. I hope this entire section will be removed. Thanks. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the "sole purpose" is to trash Ramirez. I'm not sure I understand why the OJ part is there, but the 'Manny being Manny' idea is clearly sourced enough to be included. Some people like it. Some don't. I don't call that trashing. --Onorem♠Dil 17:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to a quick mention of the "Manny being Manny" reference somewhere in the article since it's fairly notable, but beyond that, the section is pointless, inappropriate, and not encylopedic. Just look at this sentence: "Ramirez was also described as a prima donna and periodically displayed a lack of enthusiasm and/or concentration, with mental lapses in both the outfield and running the bases." The source is an editorial, so even if the claim is accurate, it's merely the personal opinion of one guy. Again, the section not only is nonsense, but it violates WP:DUE. And can you point out any other BLP articles that even have a dedicated "Personality" section? I've never seen one and have read hundreds of BLPs over the years. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find more sources for the lapses if needed. There have been plenty over the years. It's something that was tolerated because he was such an amazing talent when he was on his game. Ignoring those lapses would violate WP:DUE. I'm also sure we could find BLPs with 'Personality' sections, but wouldn't object to merging the section into another part of the article if the header is so horrible. --Onorem♠Dil 18:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That clearly is being violated. As is WP:WEASEL, which you haven't addressed. And the entire first paragraph is pure rubbish that is completely unsourced, except for the pointless content about OJ Simpson. Hopefully, we can get the thoughts of other editors. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with the OP and have accordingly removed the first paragraph entirely as trivial rubbish. I think it would be okay to retitle the section "Manny being Manny" and summarize the ESPN article about his quirky attitudes and behaviour, or merge it into another part of the article. As noted by the writer of the article the aforesaid phrase had appeared in print 1,621 times by October 2008, which gives it a certain notability. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have now removed the unsourced negative comments about Ramirez and written a phrase to lead in to the "Manny being Manny" bit. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Captain, thank you so much! Your excellent changes now make it fair and encylopedic, and get rid of the obvious junk that doesn't belong. One question/favor: can your content be merged into the article somewhere else? It just seems so strange to have a "Personality" section; a section devoted solely to this content. And I feel that it will only invite other editors to add more junk content about his personality. Isn't there an existing section you can simply merge your content into? Again, thank you. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have renamed the section "Manny being Manny". I don't have the time right now and didn't read the whole article about his strange behaviour, but I've watchlisted the article and will come back to it later, okay? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's great. Hopefully, you can find an existing place to just merge that content, so as not to encourage further inappropriate "personality" edits. But whatever you feel is best is fine with me. I totally trust your judgement. Thank you! 76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the content in question. I understand that we need to be careful with BLPs, but that does not require us to ignore negative aspects about the subject. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

AutomaticStrikeout, I'm sorry, but I feel that your revert was totally inappropriate. This issue is not about ignoring negative aspects of the subject; it's about removing non-encylopedic (and unsourced and weasly) content. We can easily find random negative comments about most famous people in reliable sources, but that of course does not mean it should be included in their article. The content needs to be well-sourced, given due weight, and most importantly, worthy of inclusion. The first paragraph is clearly just a bunch of unimportant nonsense. You definitely should not have reverted the changes, particularly while this discussion is taking place. I would ask that you please revert your own revert since two editors strongly object to the content, and continue the disucssion here. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the content is non-encyclopedic and will decline to undo my revert. However, I will mention this discussion at WT:MLB, so that the baseball editors with more experience than I have can weigh in. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you possibly think that any of that content about OJ Simpson is encylopedic (Captain appropriately described it as "trivial rubbish"), but whether you disagree or not about its importance, almost all of that content is unsourced (and weasly: "Many stories depicted" and "These incidents are typically described as"). Please revert yourself and wait for this discussion to conclude. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Concur with IP, AS your opinion does not count for much, especially where BLPs are concerned, as apparently you haven't read or don't understand the relevant policy. Do not revert my changes back without discussing here. Other editors please watchlist as I'm off for the evening. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am not taking orders from you and do not tell me what my opinion counts for. Apparently you don't understand this relevant policy. You are not an administrator and therefore carry no authority with me. I will yield to the opinion of my fellow baseball editors, but that won't preclude me from taking you to ANI if you are a jerk about it. Also, maybe next time, you should be the one to notify the concerned WikiProject(s) about this type of discussion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, you link to a policy about civility and then include the word "jerk" and a threat about ANI two sentences later, is this some form of irony? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikiprojects do not have the right to any sort of notification about articles in their subject area, and in this particular case there is nothing special about being a baseball expert that would make the slightest difference with a BLP concern. On another note, you and the next guy up have sigs that look exactly the same. Is that like when 2 actresses show up to the Oscars with the same dress? :) Tarc (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Chortle, chortle, I am still laughing at your stupid comment incredible powers of observation. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just joining in here to say that Manny's page has been on my watchlist for a while. I agree with Captain Screebo's edits and will work to maintain them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that an editor changed the section heading from the one we discussed here, "Manny being Manny", back to "Personality". As discussed earlier, I think that will only invite other editors to add random insults about Ramirez, which can easily be found about just about any famous person. I'm not a fan of Ramirez, but I think we need to be very fair about this and enforce the BLP rules. I know of no other BLPs that have a "Personality" section and don't think this article should have one either. It's an open invitation for editors to trash the subject. Again, I would please ask that the "Manny being Manny" content simply be merged into another, existing section of the article. It doesn't warrant having its own section. Until that is done, please immediately remove the "Personality" heading. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that "Personality" is less derogatory than "Manny being Manny". AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, your general point about the "Manny being Manny" heading is very good. The only reason I object to it less than "Personality" is because "Manny being Manny" is a famous/notable line. "Personality", particularly in the article of someone "infamous" seems extremely inappropriate, not to the mention the fact that I have never, in all my years of reading BLPs, seen a "Personality" section in a famous person's article. As I said, I hope that someone will please just merge the "Manny being Manny" content into another, existing section. It's a fair compromise and, most importantly, the right thing to do. It will show that we're serious about adhering to the BLP guidelines, even for someone that may be thought of as very unpopular. I can't believe I'm defending Manny Ramirez, who I'm not particularly fond of, but we need to be fair. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a point there, but I'm not really much interested in staying involved in this dispute, especially my opinion obviously isn't being given any credibility. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You know if you are having a big discussion you could at least let people who watch the page know about it.. most do not watch this page and it is really unfair to be having this discussion here when it really should be on the article talk page or at least the talk page should be tagged with a notice about this discussion. I changed the section header because the "Manny being Manny" header is simply bad and derogatory. "Personality" is far more generic and it does describe what this is about, which is about Manny's personality... I've seen similar sections on other pages... and it really doesn't seem to fit in any other section Spanneraol (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you've seen "Personality" or similar sections in other articles, please provide a couple links. I've read hundreds of BLPs over the years and have never seen a section like that. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never seen one myself. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the BLP noticeboard tag be added to the article? I noticed at the top of this page that it says, "Place the ((BLP noticeboard)) template on the talk page of articles that are being discussed here, and remove it when the discussion is resolved". 76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say that you should have felt free to add the tag when you started this discussion...but took the time to look at the logs. Wow. Protected since July '10...and not even a lock showing. I'm guessing the rampant abuse on the article has probably passed and will ask for unprotection and tag the article for you momentarily.--Onorem♠Dil 17:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the template belonged on the talk page, you could have taken care of that part yourself instead of questioning why it wasn't present. Whose job did you think it was to add the tag? --Onorem♠Dil 18:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not assume that the days of abuse are over. He's still an active player (although now in Taiwan) and the issue of performance-enhancing drugs in sports is not going away. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a chance that abuse would happen again? Sure. But I doubt he's the magnet he was previously...and I think it's worth seeing if permanent protection is still needed. --Onorem♠Dil 18:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't have added the tag even if knew about it because the article is protected. I would definitely not unprotect the article. Ramirez is a huge target for vandals, which makes this discussion easy to understand :P 76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It goes on the talk page. You could have added it. I don't know when that template was added, but I never knew about it until I saw your comment. (or at least I don't remember seeing it before, even if I might have used it in the past.) --Onorem♠Dil 18:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Of course I could've added it then. I must be tired. Well, I'll know for next time. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Onorem, I just noticed that you also mistakenly thought the tag went on the article page instead of the talk page.[32] Great minds think alike. Haha. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought that based on your post here wondering why it hadn't been added yet. Again, I don't think I'd ever even heard of that template before you pointed it out here. --Onorem♠Dil 18:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

On a more serious note, thank you to all involved for keeping it BLP compliant. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there consensus on this then? I fully support Captain Screebo's version. It covers the obvious issue without going into WP:UNDUE, it's well-sourced and I also fully support the "Personality" section title instead of "Being Manny". AutomaticStrikeout (talk · contribs) indicated he had issues with this somehow, so now's the time to bring them up. Keeping in mind that what the MLB project says has no bearing whatsoever on BLP issues. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it, I changed the section title due to the IP's concerns that it would be a shit magnet, but personally "Personality" is a better, neutral title if we are going to address his quirkiness. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I fully support Captain's version. I think he did a great job on it. However, I strongly believe that the content should simply be merged into another existing section. It's simply about one small aspect of the subject and doesn't warrant its own section. I would consider changing my mind if someone can show me a few other BLPs that have a "Personality" section. Dedicating a section to someone's personality traits is extremely odd, and seems particularly unfair and irresponsible when it's someone notorious like Ramirez. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to go looking for other bios just now... what section would you consider moving it to? It doesn't really fit in the career chronology. Manny's quirky personality traits are part of the "story" about him and have been covered by multiple reliable sources. I don't see how that is irresponsible if it is handled in a neutral manner. I agree the original version was poor but it is part of what has been reported about him. Spanneraol (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Offhand, I would say to just stick it at the end of the 1993-2000 section because 1995 is when the phrase "Manny being Manny" was first used (by his manager), according to the content. Also, the first sentence, which starts with "Ramirez has often attracted attention on and off the field for his quirky behaviour and attitude", is very weasly and unsourced. I think it should be removed. However, if it were changed to the more neutral "Ramirez has attracted attention for his quirky behaviour and attitude" I still would not like it very much, but I wouldn't object to it. It's just one of those sentences that make you cringe when you read it because it's simply based on someone's personal description of him (the editor who added it) instead of on reliable sources that quote people who know him saying it. Also, it should be spelled "behavior" since it's an article about an American. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again IP, what are you talking about? I wrote that sentence as a quick fix to replace the junk that was there before, it is a statement of fact which is a concise summary of a reliable source, it is not weasly in the slightest, there is not a single weasel word there e.g. many people say, it is widely believed and so on. I have just rapidly reviewed the source article in question and there are about 20 examples of his odd behaviour and attitude in it ("refusing to pinch hit" "He loped to first base on ground balls" "invited former coaches and teammates to games, promised them tickets, then forgot to leave them") which cover both on- and off-field events. I will make the spelling change now.

Otherwise, how do people feel about citing an example or two, maybe evoking his forgetfulness, which seems quite recurrent and suchlike?

And I don't really see how this can be just an editor's opinion as a) I don't live in the States (my spelling of behaviour) b) I had never heard of this guy before this BLPN post and c) I was just trying to make it more compliant and conform to the source. Oh and that first sentence is sourced, to the ESPN article which is reffed two lines later. If you like, we move the ref to the end, that way the whole para is sourced to the article. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Random contentious statements like that must be sourced. Actually, I didn't think you wrote that sentence; I thought it was there before you ever got involved with this discussion. In any case, the term "Ramirez has often" is without question weasly when there's no source attached to it that verifies the "often" part. I must say that I do not like how you are proposing that we actually search for negative personality traits about Ramirez. Why aren't you asking that we also search for positive personality traits about him? How about all the charity work he's done and the praise he's received for other good deeds? This is exactly what I was referring to earlier; people seeing Ramirez as notorious and so actually looking for negative conent to add about him. Look, I don't like the guy, but this focus and effort on trying to make him look like a bad guy is inappropriate. This is a clear violation of WP:DUE. Although I've asked several times, no one has been able to provide even one example of a BLP with a "Personality" or similar section. So, again, this dedicated section to a living person's personality is not right. Yes, Manny being Manny is a notable phrase and description of him; so I'm not objecting to including a brief reference to it. But having a section devoted to him being odd or a jerk is wrong. Merge the Manny being Manny somewhere else. I already suggested where. Remember, your first comment in this discussion was, "I totally agree with the OP and have accordingly removed the first paragraph entirely as trivial rubbish." 76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming wearisome, I would remind you that after I made the changes you now object to, you wrote Captain, thank you so much! Your excellent changes now make it fair and encylopedic, and I fully support Captain's version. I think he did a great job on it. and you wrote the first 24 hours ago. Anyway, I have now rewritten the section so it is one single sentence, with appropriate punctuation, moved the ref to the end, so it is ALL referenced to the ESPN article and that's that.

And I was *not* advocating to fill the section full of negativity, I was asking for other editors' opinions as to whether it would be appropriate to summarize with one or two examples of his behavior, that's all. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

More examples could easily be added.. and I don't happen to see his quirky behavior as being entirely bad or negative... there is a charming and/or amusing aspect to his quirkiness that exists as well..And I don't think this should be added to his career section since it doesn't pertain to particular years. Spanneraol (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Captain, I didn't realize before that you had added that opening sentence. I saw that you said you objected to the entire paragraph and removed it. I appreciate the fact that you recognized the inappropriateness of the content from the outset. This idea of looking for disparaging content about him is something new. Again, unless someone can show proof that there are other BLPs with a section devoted solely to someone's personality (and presents no positive aspects about them), I strongly object to doing it here. We have a source that says the first published reference to "Manny being Manny" was in 1995 and that it was used by the manager of his baseball team (Hargrove). Therefore, it would not be inappropriate to include it in the 1993-2000 section since it developed directly as a result of his actions while a baseball player, so it's part of his career. Each and every negative (or positive) sentence about him as a person must have a reliable source attached to it that absolutely verifies the content. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The section as it exists does not contain what you consider "negative content" about him... and it is sourced. "Manny moments" can be located for other eras than just his Indians days, so putting it in that section seems wrong. I don't know why you need proof of other articles any way... no two articles are exactly the same and no two people are the same... Because his personality has been written about extensively it is notable enough for inclusion, as long as it is sourced and neutrally written. Spanneraol (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Solution proposal

Do you really believe that "his quirky behavior and attitude" does not have a negative connotation? Or that "Manny being Manny" is not negative? Are they compliments? I'm not saying that the "Manny Being Manny" content shouldn't be in the article - I've never said that - but let's be serious. The fact that no one can produce even one BLP for a famous person that has a Personality (or similar) section says it all. Of course no two articles are exactly the same; that would be impossible; but the vast majority of them are contextually the same, and none of them do what we are doing here: singling out a living person's personality as its own section. In any case, as I said, every claim about his personality must have a reliable source attached to it that verifies it.
So let's put an end to this discussion by agreeing on a final compromise. Here's my proposal:

(1) Rewrite the content to improve grammar and fairness (to align with the BLP guidelines). See my suggested version below.
(2) I will agree to having in its own section if the heading is "Manny Being Manny" since that's precisely and specifically what this is all about. It's a notable/famous phrase for which he's well known, so it should therefore be the heading. And it will prevent creating an open invitation for editors to add random character flaws about him in the article.
(3) A subscripton required tag be added next to the Newsday cite since it's a pay-only story.

The current version is:
Ramirez has often attracted attention on and off the field for his quirky behavior and attitude; these incidents are typically described as "Manny Moments" or "Manny Being Manny", the first known documented usage of the phrase "Manny Being Manny" is attributed to then-Indians manager Mike Hargrove, quoted in a 1995 Newsday article.[cites]

A better version that is more accurate and neutral would be:
Ramirez became associated with the phrase "Manny Being Manny" due to his "reputation for his singular obsession with baseball and his aloofness regarding everything else".[ESPN cite] The first documented usage of "Manny Being Manny" is attributed to his Cleveland Indians manager, Mike Hargrove, in a 1995 Newsday article.[Newsday cite][ESPN cite]

That's my compromise solution. Can everyone agree to this? If so, please make the changes and we're done here. :) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't like your version, the current version is better. I can find similar sections on other pages, for example Paris Hilton has a section called "celebrity status" that seems to be about her sex appeal... I dont think that is any different than a section talking about Manny's personality traits.. yes they arent exactly the same but the people are different. Lots of pages have "controversy" sections that group random controversial remarks or events together... and different pages have other things... I really feel that calling the section "Manny Being Manny" is worse than calling it "Personality" and I prefer the wording that exists to your version as it seems to more accurately relate to him. I would like other people to offer their opinions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the IP's version. It's more neutral to quote a source about Manny's "reputation" than have an editor assert that he has a "quirky behavior and attitude". It also leaves less room for future editors to add random ad hominems aimed at the subject. Rklear (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Rklear, thank you. You did a beautiful job of summarizing my objections. I wish I could have said it so concisely and effectively. Do you have any thoughts on where the content should be placed in the article? Or, if you feel its worthy of remaining in its own section, what do you think would be the most appropriate heading? Thanks, again. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of "controversy" sections. I see quite a few of them in political bios, and they're usually a place where anonymous opponents try to turn the subject's name into mud. Count me in favor of integrating it into the text elsewhere. Rklear (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's been two days without any comments, and there's only one editor who objects to the proposal. So we can give it a bit more time and then go from there. If there are no more comments, we can do #1 and #3, and decide on #2. Thanks for your input. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Julie Menin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jessica Lappin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two articles on opposing candidates in a local New York City election could use some more eyes. Both are rather promotional. But the Menin article in particular has an army of SPAs who have been in a slow edit war to remove anything remotely negative even if it appears to be reasonably sourced, e.g. [33], although I haven't examined it in detail. Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have both of them in my watchlist, but the protection isn't going to cut it since some of the edit warriors are autoconfirmed. I do see some pointless material (does it really matter that one of them is rich?) but nothing that would fire up the BLP chainsaw. Also one of the accounts seems to be adding negative (or at least non-positive) material to both bios so at least there is some balance there. Anyway, we'll keep an eye out. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to appeal to you to request that you take action to protect the neutrality of Julie Menin's wiki page. The user in question, “Maxx Attaxx,” has repeatedly re-inserted the offending passages after I have removed them. Accordingly, and in order to stop ongoing violations of Wikipedia policy and to prevent further edit warring, I request that you grant Julie Menin's current Wikipedia page “fully protected” status.

Over the last month, as part of a partisan campaign, a user identified as “Maxx Attaxx” has published false, biased, and politically-motivated information about Julie Menin on her Wikipedia page. It is clear that Maxx Attaxx is a supporter of and/or otherwise affiliated with another candidate for Manhattan Borough President, Jessica Lappin, because, during the same time period that Maxx Attaxx has attacked Julie Menin's page, he or she has repeatedly published favorable information about Ms. Lappin on her Wikipedia page. Over the last few days, I have attempted to remedy Maxx Attaxx’s blatant violation of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (“NPOV”) Policy [34] by removing the biased language he has added to the Wikipedia page about Ms. Menin. Maxx Attaxx’s response has been to immediately re-insert the same edits. In light of the importance of maintaining neutrality in the biographies of living persons [35], and in order to prevent pointless edit warring stimulated by Maxx Attaxx’s misuse of edit privileges, I request that, during this sensitive period when Julie Menin is engaged in a political campaign, Wiki remove Maxx Attaxx’s edits and then grant the Julie Menin Wikipedia page “fully-protected” status [36].

Maxx Attaxx first began to publish false and biased information about Ms. Menin on February 15, 2013. Specifically, Maxx Attaxx created a section entitled “Controversy” on the Wikipedia page about Julie Menin, and added to that section a discussion of a New York Post article about the fact that Ms. Menin changed her registration from one party to another [37]. Needless to say, none of this is in any sense controversial—unless one is pursuing the same partisan agenda that Maxx Attaxx is bent on pursuing. Worse yet, Maxx Attaxx placed this “Controversy” section towards the top of the page, directly below a section entitled “2013 Election” [38]. When another user moved the “Controversy” section further down on the page, below a section entitled “Awards” [39], Maxx Attaxx responded the next day by moving the “Controversy” section back to the top of the page [40]. At the same time, in the same “Controversy” section that he manufactured, Maxx Attaxx added a discussion of an interview question Julie Menin posed to Diana Taylor, former Superintendant of the New York State Banking Department, on Ms. Menin's cable television show, falsely suggesting that Ms. Menin's question, posed as a journalist, betrayed her personal political position [41].

On February 28, 2013, another user deleted the “Controversy” section [42], and the very next day, on March 1, 2013, Maxx Attaxx re-added the “Controversy” section in its entirety [43]. In this instance, Maxx Attaxx also added information about Julie Menin's home and prior employment, suggesting that Ms. Menin's personal financial circumstances render her out of touch with ordinary New Yorkers – hardly a neutral statement [44]. When on March 3, 2013, another user deleted the “Controversy” section once more, and also deleted Maxx Attaxx’s other biased contributions about Ms. Menin [45], Maxx Attaxx responded, less than 24 hours later, by again re-inserting his fallacious edits [46]. As one user has already noted, Maxx Attaxx’s behavior amounts to edit warring in violation of Wikipedia policy [47].

Notably, Maxx Attaxx began his campaign of attacks on the Wikipedia page about Julie Menin just one day after adding favorable political/campaign-related information to the Wikipedia page about Jessica Lappin [48]. Among other partisan contributions to Ms. Lappin’s Wikipedia page, Maxx Attaxx added information about several political endorsements that Ms. Lappin has received [49]. It seems clear that Maxx Attaxx is either a staffer on Ms. Lappin’s campaign or otherwise associated with and/or supporter of her.

As this discussion of the content and history of Maxx Attaxx’s Wikipedia contributions makes clear, Maxx Attaxx’s edits to the Wikipedia page about Julie Menin are of a partisan and biased nature, and they violate one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia: NPOV. What Maxx Attaxx describes as “controversies” are not, in fact, controversies at all. Wikipedia defines “controversy” as a “state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view” [50]. See also Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (defining controversy as “a discussion especially marked by the expression of opposing views”). That I switched political parties is a simple fact, not a “state of prolonged dispute or debate,” and that one newspaper reported that fact does not suggest the existence of a “controversy.” Similarly, the fact that during an interview Julie Menin asked a probing question of a public official cannot be described as a “controversy,” nor can it fairly be described as indicative of Ms. Menin's political views. Maxx Attaxx provides nothing—and indeed there is nothing—to suggest that there was any kind of public debate or dispute about her interview question. To add insult to injury, the video of the interview that Maxx Attaxx cites is no longer even accessible online [51].

After repeated intrusions to Julie Menin's Wikipedia page, it is now clear that Maxx Attaxx is bent on editing that page for biased and partisan ends, in clear violation of the NPOV policy. The only available solution is to remove Maxx Attaxx’s edits and then grant the page “fully-protected” status through the upcoming election. Notably, this is not a dispute between editors that can be resolved by further discussion on the Talk Page; and it is not a dispute where a warning will have any effect. This is political warfare undertaken by Max Attaxx and his/her preferred candidate, all under the guise of “editing.” I ask that you take action to stop Maxx Attaxx’s ongoing partisan and biased editing of the Wikipedia page about Julie Menin and accord Ms. Menin's website “fully-protected” status through November 15, 2013. Veritas411 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• As a general matter in the Julie Menin article, I've found several instances of apparent sources that do not actually support the text cited. At times, there are actually direct contradictions. I've left most of the sources that actually mention Menin and removed the unsupported assertions. Many passages would benefit from more hands and eyes as to WP:WEIGHT and WP:V. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)