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

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

I am flagging the second sentence of the current version of the article, as changed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Flannery&diff=737366707&oldid=727851857

The articles cited on the page state that his name was in the Panama Papers. However, this is not the same thing as being under investigation (usually this implies investigation by the police). I am not an expert but this looks like it could be libel. Ballystrahan (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed, watchlisted. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Ballystrahan (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This article contains false information and fake links that are completely irrelevant to the person. Link of page: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Mehmood I would recommend this page to be reviewed annd false statements to be remove as soon as possible.

Thank you, Wiki member. 5/11/2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihassan32753 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ihassan32753 Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia are two separate wikis. IN order to get assistance on this article you might want to try this page on Simple Wiki or if you need admin assistance try this one instead. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been some recent edit warring at Jim Lawson (sports executive) that has WP:BLP implications. I have fully protected the article until consensus is reached on the talk page for how to appropriately discuss the disputed content. Input from additional editors would be helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Brian Bulatao never served in the 75th Ranger Regiment as someone incorrectly listed in this profile. He served with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg NC, and the 7TH infantry (Light) at Fort Ord, California before leaving the Army as a Captain and attending Harvard Business School. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.99.94.81 (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There was a deletion request for the Rebecca Campbell (educator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by the article subject, stating that she is receiving harassing emails from weblinks that are on the article. I just closed the AFD as "no consensus" as there were some convincing counterarguments, but I think this article and situation need review by editors who are more familiar with the best practices of handling offwiki harassment and BLP issues. I've lengthened the protection on the article in the interim, but only as a stopgap measure until more people weigh in. I've pinged Bearian as they were in e-mail contact with the subject and could perhaps clarify the situation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I emailed her last week. I hope to get an update to you all. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

In an unconfirmed request an editor asked for their BLP to be deleted on the alleged grounds that they were receiving harassing emails. The notability of the subject was fully passed. Investigation by AfD participants showed that the editor's email address could be found in many places on the web including on the subject's public web site but not on Wikipedia. It is therefore hard to see why Wikipedia should be held responsible for the harassment. The AfD was closed as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Although no IP edits had been made, the closer semi-protected the BLP. I have no problem with this as I think that all BLPs should be semi-protected permanently. I think that Wikipedia has handled the matter adequately. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC).

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

WP:BLP Issues and WP:UNDUE

I have reviewed the Steezy Grossman video currently hosted on a Russian Website where John alleged to be depicted defecating on another male who is lying in a contorted position (the original video on Youtube has been deleted). The video certainly could be described as shocking (an understatement). One problem with this particular video is verifying that the person in the video is in fact John. The person who is defecating is wearing a helmet and facing side view only away from the camera in such a way that it's impossible to accurately identify the video in question and that person to be the same as Blippi (John). The sources provided seem reliable, but I wonder if this content is WP:UNDUE and runs afoul of WP:BLP. The way the current section on Steezy Grossman is worded seems intentionally written to embarrass and humiliate the subject of the bio. I think mentioning his involvement in producing shock videos meets the bar for inclusion, but mentioning one particular video seems undue to me, particularly since the video in question does not with certainty identify John as Blippi. The person in the Harlem Shake Poop video is wearing a helmet and has very long hair compared to Blippi. I think this section needs to be toned down and some of it's WP:OR statements needs removal. Comments? Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources deemed that particular video notable. They also include coverage on the reactions of the subject that regretted doing it. I don´t see an issue with making edits to improve WP:NPOV or with removing any clear WP:OR but given the amount of coverage that the video event received I don't think that removal is justified. I would recommend however, keeping it only on the Steezy Grossman section and removing it from the lead, after trying to reach a consensus about it in the talk page of the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed some WP:UNDUE statements and a claim not backed by the referencing source. I also made a proposal in the talk page to remove some of that information from the lead. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits to clean up the Steeze Grossman section. As per your recommendation, I have removed the WP:UNDUE content from the article lede.Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Editor User:Crystallizedcarbon and I worked together to address the issues. The blippi bio article appears to comply with Wikipedia standards after being scrubbed, reworked, and WP:UNDUE and WP:OR content removed. The changes are a reasonable compromise which respect the right of the subject of the bio to a balanced, well sourced article which is written in a neutral manner while still providing all the notable and relevant coverage of the subject of the bio. This report can be closed at this point. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source. This RfC also concerns the application of WP:BLP § Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS) to content from Quackwatch. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Quackwatch. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The article about me is marked C, so I hope it is OK that I correct some errors and suggest adding some material. There are many things that should be changed; if you prefer, I could rewrite the entire article myself, or dictate the changes to a friend.

1. I do not think it wise to publicize my precise birthplace and birthdate, since this information can be used for people to steal my identity. I suggest saying instead (in both of the two places it appears) that I was born in the Bay Area of California in 1944.

Y Have removed, reflecting sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

2. I was a visitor at the Courant Institute from 2002-2019. I am currently a visitor at the mathematics department of the University of California, Berkeley.

3. my Ph.D. was awarded in January 1973, not in 1972.

Y Fixed as per sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

4. I was an Instructor at MIT in 1972-73; this fact is not included in my employment history.

• Here is the source. --Camelia (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

5. In addition to being a former President of the Association for Women in Mathematics, I was a member of the Board of Directors of AAAS and a Trustee and and Vice President of the American Mathematical Society. There are many other positions in which I have served scientific societies, but these are the major ones.

@Þjarkur:, these are the sources for these informations:

• Member of the Board of Directors of AAAS, here are the sources: 1 & 2
• Vice President of the American Mathematical Society (1994-1997), here are the sources 1 & 2. --Camelia (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

6. I am not sure my marital history is appropriate for this article, but am willing to have it reported. I do, however, think it would be more appropriate to replace "her advisor Fred Almgren" by "mathematician Fred Almgren" or "mathematician Frederick J. Almgren, Jr."

Y I have removed this paragraph as it's not necessary to include for non-public individuals, especially if they think it might not be appropriate. Others may disagree here as the three individuals named here are all notable. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

7. In listing the societies of which I am a fellow, the Association for Women in Science was omitted. On the other hand, the Association for Women in Mathematics was listed twice, and the second time it was stated that I was a member of the inaugural class of such fellows. That is true, but it is also true that I was a member of the inaugural class of fellows of the American Mathematical Society.

8. The listing of selected publications does not include some of my more widely known and cited publication while including others that are less significant. I could provide the citation information on three papers I would like to include, and if that is too many, then of two papers already listed that I would be happy to have removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanETaylor (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• ​Have made some changes. If you could point to secondary sources for the other changes, that would be quite helpful. Feel free to suggest a different selection of publications on the article's talk page. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Jay White

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

Please correct the spelling of the author's name in the References section, number 4. The name of the author is spelt Ite Lemalu, NOT Itu Lemalu. Thank you.

Corrected, thanks for your report. Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

More experienced eyes requested on this week-old article about a death row inmate who is days away from execution. It's been the subject of a lot of editing, and there is a lot of detail about crimes. I see NOTNEWS, OR, and BLP concerns, but I don't have much experience in criminal BLPs, but it seems like it could use the attention of experienced editors. Thanks. – Levivich 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Given that the article subject is not a public figure and was only convicted of one crime, wouldn't the rest of the alleged/acquitted crimes fall under WP:BLPCRIME? I am going to revert the information sourced to primary sources like court cases and request page protection. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong. The portion of the SCOTUS case being used is not a primary source. It's a third-party analysis of Reed's defense claims and the claims made by Texas. That's called a secondary source. More importantly, even if it were a primary source, it still wouldn't make it an illegitimate source. Wikipedia has no prohibition against primary sources. It states only that primary sources should not be used to create original research on this site. Since that's clearly not what was being done, the distinction between primary/secondary sources is entirely moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AE85:B139:FD99:B083:AC3C:E2C4 (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Except that court records are always treated as primary sources on wikipedia. And they are forbidden to be used on BLP articles as the only source for any content. WP:BLPPRIMARY explicitly says

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

So no, not moot. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify that they're forbidden to be used as the only source for any content on living persons. It may be acceptable to use them as sources on content which doesn't in any way affect living persons although it would be rare that arises in BLPs and it's also going to be rare they're enough if they're the only source anyway. For example, even if a court record is used for information on a subject's parent's divorce and both parents are long deceased, this could reasonably be considered to affect the subject and for that matter other living children, so would generally also not be acceptable. A key thing to remember is if no one else thought it was important, it probably means we shouldn't consider it significant either. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Reed's crime and pending execution has drawn attention to the case means that the court documents about his case are 100% fair game to include to expand on existing RS coverage of the case. Ideally, we should try to present the court documents as quoted by the RSes (as to avoid OR on what important facets there are from the court decision) but other things, likely specific remedies or rulings not spelled out in detail in RS can be sourced to these. The advise against court documents is to prevent editors from including legal actions taken against BLP that are not at all covered by RSes from being made "public". Reed's case, the crime and court history is very much well public, so we are not doing any additional "harm" by including court documents. --Masem (t) 18:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I mean sure, in a very limited set of cases, it may be fine to include some very limited additional details remedies or rulings not spelled out in detail although we have to carefully consider why the secondary sources did not spell out such details and whether the lack of coverage suggests they may not be significant. Especially in a case with as much attention as this. But the idea that the fact the court case has been covered in RS means it's 100% fair game "to expand on existing RS coverage of the case" based solely on these court documents goes against the one of the fundamental tenets of BLP and the reason why have have such a limitation in the first place. Let's remember what we're discussing here. Editors are trying to expand the article to include discussion of other crimes the person was accused of, but not convicted, of based solely on court documents [3]. The details of these other alleged crimes may be covered in reliable secondary sources, they may not be. We have no idea, because people are solely relying on court documents to source these details. What they're doing is clearly not okay, and the claim it is, IMO is not in any way supported by BLP policy or its general implementation or interpretation on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I was just writing to point out that removed content of that diff as a problem, and fully agree with that diff removal; none of those other accusations seem to come up in a spot-check on searching RSes, so clearly pulling court documents to support is inappropriate, particularly those unreleated to the specific court's actions. (Eg in one of those removed cases, it uses a amicus brief, not the court's decision, so not a court action and thus 100% not usable unless RSes are covering that). What I do know from doing other non-BLP SCOTUS cases is that while RSes will cover the major decision points, they won't cover the "technical" facets: what exactly the court order was, like reversing the case and sending back to the lower court, and once the case is back at lower courts, the ultimate closure is frequently overlooked by RSes. Stressing that is focusing on the court actions (not even the BG of the case) and not any other documentation related to the case, that's one of the rare times I would believe it is fair once we have everything leading up to the case and final major decision related to a BLP being covered in multiple RSes. And this would be particularly important for a BLP that is accused of a crime with RS coverage but ultimated ended up acquitted, we want to show that closure if the RSes started to cover it but failed to "finish". But again, I'm stressing this should only be to cover the actions of the specific court as what to be included, nothing else. --Masem (t) 19:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Separately, I am a bit worried about why this was removed. In just doing searching now, the debate over Reed's purported innocence is dominating coverage. I do think there are some names that should not be named, but there is reason to talk about the newfound doubt in the claims and the protests happened to free him. That's all sourced to RS, so does not fail these use of court documents to support it. --Masem (t) 19:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Some of that information could be restored, but I definitely think we should not use the fiance's name. Does WP:BLPCRIME mean we should avoid descriptions such as "Stites' fiancé"? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the exclusion of the name. If the info is well sourced I do agree we may have to include some of the info on the claims. I think this will have to include the person's relationship with victim since it seems quite relevant to the allegations. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sanjay Misra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This autobiography is pretty terrible, but the subject passes WP:PROF. It could do with some TLC if anyone feels like doing a good thing. Guy (help!) 10:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Jim Hoffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The entire entry for Jim Hoffman appears to be nothing but a vanity project by conspiracy theorists and is being kept online by them. The man is not a known person, literally all sources are from his own conspiracy website. This Wiki page breaks every known rule and should simply not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:982:3678:1:14B2:B599:E99A:4558 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the self-sourcing and unreliable sources. It might be worth including the Bentham-published (i.e. predatory open access) papers if there's an RS discussing this. Guy (help!) 12:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Karen Bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Political bio recently turned into an unevenly sourced spamicle, by an IP from the US House of Representatives. I found and removed at least one copyright violation passage, but this needs much more attention. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

I think that discussion should've stayed right here, since it's a BLP discussion. Moving it to the more generic reliable sources noticeboard will tend to take the emphasis off of the sourcing issues that are specific to BLPs. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi - an IP editor is edit-warring to remove content from Kia Jam - see this diff, and several previous ones from earlier today. I've looked at the material, and it is sourced to 'LA Biz', with an additional supporting primary source. The IP does not appear to be arguing that the material is untrue; rather, they are saying that its dissemination is damaging to the subject. I believe that there is no policy-based reason for the removal, and have reinstated it, but wanted to get some eyes on this to ensure that others agree this is the right course of action. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 19:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Update - the IP continued edit warring, and made a legal threat, so I have blocked them. Additional views on this would be very welcome. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: In most cases, it doesn't much matter what the IP thinks or argues. This doesn't appear to be a particularly strong source -- it's also paywalled or similar, from here -- and what it's reporting is emphatically not a criminal conviction or admission of guilt. From what I can see, the source is also careful to re-iterate that Jam denies the charges (or does not admit guilt or whatever), which is something our article currently does not do. Are there sources (other than the IP) saying that the payment had a significant impact on Jam's further career? If not, I'd remove it pending further discussion. MPS1992 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

MPS1992, thanks for chiming in. I've removed the content for now while this is discussed. That leaves the article with a single source, IMDB. I just searched for better sources, and the first three independent, non-UGC sources I found were the SEC filing, the 'LA Biz' article, and this, from The Wrap, which is also about the settlement. I'll try searching for more sources later on today, but if I can't find more sourcing I may nominate at AfD as I'm not sure the subject passes GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Ten days ago I filed a report (Archive293#Linda_Fiorentino) and never got a response or heard back. Just want to ask if this got sorted. Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure what you want us to say. I removed anything that looked like a BLP vio, mainly the use of things like marriage licenses and high-school yearbooks. The article was page protected and it looks like others did a little clean up. There has been no more activity from the user in question. If they do return, then I'd suggest trying to handle it like a content dispute and try to get them to the talk page to discuss it. In most cases, I try to give people who claim to be the subject the benefit of the doubt, but ultimately we rely on the sources to provide us information. Zaereth (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's alright if the user isn't pushing further, but my request was not exactly page related - it was for somebody with better knowledge of the proper procedures to explain to the user how things work and does not work around here. The user is/was clearly failing to follow our procedures, and when the user claimed to be a certain person, I thought you guys could explain to the user the process of verifying a real life identity, which would settle the issue one way or the other. Maybe? I pointed towards the user's message on my talk, and thought it best to let you guys handle it from there. This time around I just was curious if anyone did get in touch with the user; I understand I have no business getting any details but I got zero feedback, so... Anyway, maybe no reason to stir things up. Now at least I know somebody did look at it and took the active decision to do nothing, as opposed to my request "falling between the chairs" so to speak. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I did not realize from the post that you were looking for that. From a BLP perspective we're more concerned with correcting any BLP violations than dealing with user problems. In such a case, the usual method is to leave a template message on the user's talk page, filled with links to the various policies. Personally, I think that's a little too impersonal, and try to leave a hand-typed message to help explain the relevant policies and explain to them why they matter. While it is helpful to verify their true identity, it is not really that necessary, as we still go by what the sources say. If someone truly is the subject then they are probably familiar with everything that has been written about them, and providing sources is where they can best help out. If they become a problem you can always repot it at WP:COIN or, if really a problem, at WP:ANI. This may end up being an imposter or a one-time use account, so unless it becomes an ongoing problem I wouldn't worry about it.

In general, if no one answers you on a noticeboard like this, either 1.) we didn't really understand what you were looking for, 2.) the problem is not really one handled by this noticeboard, 3.) no one was convinced by your argument that this in fact is a problem, or 4.) they just went and took care of any BLP issues themselves. Either way, you can rest assured that many people did read this and looked into it. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. In case you feel my going to the "wrong" place, here's how I ended up here. I visited the WP:BLPHELP link displayed on every living person biography talk page. Of the four options offered there, I felt "ask for assistance at the biographies of living persons noticeboard" was the only appropriate one, because I'm not the person involved, I'm just some random wikipedian who got approached by the person involved (allegedly, at least). In particular, I neither wanted to take this to the article talk page, nor take the lead on this myself (mostly since I'm no expert in these matters). So I was hoping an expert would make a judgement on the proper course of action, and possibly reach out to the user discreetly. If you're telling me this place is the wrong venue for such a request, that's fine, but maybe extend BLPHELP to explain the difference? Thanks for your extensive reply, btw - I feel satisfied I can leave this issue behind now. CapnZapp (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Tobias Madison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Poorly sourced allegation in graphic, lurid detail have been slow-motion edit-warred into and out of the article. My reflex response was to rev del the most recent. I missed at least one, though. Please opine.-- Deepfriedokra 10:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Would be interesting if you had discussed this on the talk page, since it was already in conversation. If you are concerned about "in graphic, lurid detail" why did you remove the entire body of text? There had been a specific edit where someone added the details, from a RS citations. Jooojay (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

We do present allegations in a BPL if the person is a public figure WP:PUBLICFIGURE and it is widely publicized like this one - the section WP:BLPCRIME. A fine example of this is basically every BPL article connected to Me Too movement, Weinstein effect, and Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. Some further examples: Matt Lauer, Jens Hoffmann, Mario Batali, John Besh, and there are many others. We had a discussion happening on the talk page of this article which was ignored, WP:CON. Some of the language in the allegation section could have been changed, particularly the part about the alleged crime details - but I don't understand why you would remove the entire section. Jooojay (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Also do we call it "edit warring" if its coming from bouncing IPs on an article that may have COI edits? I would be inclined to call this vandalism. Jooojay (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not very experienced at Wikipedia, so I could not understand the explanation about filing, but I hope this is clear.

Somebody has repeatedly (!) vandalized this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schandra_Singh

They keep adding a comment like, "Considering the limited . . ." That is totally inaccurate and defamatory.

This first happened at 20:58 on 2/6/2018. Then again(after other editors removed them) on: 0:48 2/11/2018 20:26 2/12/2018 12:27 2/21/2018 4:18 3/26/2018 21:47 4/11/2018 19:22 10/25/2019

At the same time they slandered her, they also slandered her sister, an actor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Singh both on Sabine's page and by the way they referred to Sabine on Schandra's page on these dates on Sabine's page: 17:36 2/6/2018 3:49 2/8/2018 0:49 2/11/2018 12:30 2/21/2018 4:21 3/26/2018 22:13 3/30/2018 6:35 4/2/2018 19:19 10/25/2019

Those defamatory posts came from a few different ISPs but were often on the same days, and they were clearly from the same person, as no two people would post the exact same libelous statements.

Do you need me to post separately about Sabine Singh, or will this one post manage for both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtolmach (talk • contribs) 02:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtolmach (talk • contribs) 02:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well that's a problem with an encyclopedia anyone can edit, because invariably someone will come along and vandalize the place. Any information like that, which doesn't have a reliable source, can and should be removed at first sight. There's no way to stop vandalism, but if it's an ongoing problem you can ask for page protection at WP:RFPP. That can help reduce or eliminate the problem. That's the good news. The bad news is that this article doesn't have a single reliable source to support any of it. All we have are gallery sites and IMDB. Lacking any reliable source, I would say this entire article should be deleted on the afore mentioned grounds. We need reliable secondary sources just to pass notability guidelines.

Same thing with the sister. We just have to be vigilant in watching for vandals. However, the sister does have reliable sources to support notability. Zaereth (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism from October 25 in the Sabine Singh based on this thread [4]. If you see BLPvios that haven't been removed please do remove it or at least make it clear when you open the thread that some stuff hasn't been removed. (If a problematic edit is the most recent edit, then it hasn't been removed.) BTW, the IP involved in the most recent attempts is now blocked for a year Special:Contributions/108.16.207.46 after I requested a block at WP:AIV. They made some changes back in April 2018, along with other tasteless changes to other articles in the intervening time, and earned themselves a 6 month block from that which expired about 1.5 months before they made those October edits. You're right that other IPs have been involved before and so this probably isn't going to stop further attempts but it may help. As Zaereth has said, we can only be vigilant. This is one of those unfortunate cases where the subjects are basically unknown enough that edits like that can easily survive nearly 3 weeks as few people are watching the articles. But the editing is sporadically enough that it's unlikely WP:semi protection is justified. I suspect this must be some weird grudge or grievance since I can't find any thing which would make the subjects a target other than obvious stuff like racism and sexism. Nil Einne (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A paid user has added a detailed section to Robert E. Coughlin regarding this person's involvement in the Abramoff Probe. As contributions made by paid contributors require extra analysis and review, could editors help me check if the extra detail added is WP:DUE? Thank you. BeŻet (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:BLP others for a discussion about the wording of the widely used ((BLP others)). The wording has been relatively stable for many years, but there has been a suggestion that it could be improved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So, there's a BLP-related dispute there, and I'm not really able to engage the editor outside of edit summaries. I'm not sure this is a better forum than 3O, but it's a nuanced issue so I thought I'd try here first. Very briefly, mostly per WP:BLPNAME, there's a dispute over the inclusion of the name of a private individual who is totally unknown outside of this context, who's experience/involvement was apparently sufficiently traumatic to them that they now refuse any kind of interviews/involvement (it's unclear whether they were "just tired of being hounded", or if it's possibly professionally damaging to them). Since they're otherwise unknown, their name doesn't add any context (and, although it's a bit subtle, some of the hounding relates to the date they reported seeing the birds - April 1st, which resulted in a lot of jokes but I haven't found any serious accusations. It's possible (but tenuous) that an allegation of deliberate fraud on their part could be a significant criminal accusation, since it resulted in a lot of federal grant money getting tied up in investigations and the like - but I'm not a lawyer. Their name does appear in a fair number of sources, including those of quality. Right, so I'm soliciting outside opinions/intervention here because it seemed like the most sensible option, if there's a better place, I'm happy to hear it. WilyD 17:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I would avoid. Seems like the situation around the Star Wars Kid up until recently when the person forwardly connected himself to the meme as part of his antibullying awareness activities. Up until then, there were plenty of sources that named the person but it was clear he purposely did not want to be attached, so we did not name him prior. This reads like a similar case , in that the person is not a public figure and trying to remove connections from themselves to the material. BLPNAME definitely applies. --Masem (t) 17:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This bird sighting is routinely referred to with the person in question's name. His name is mentioned in all, or nearly all, books related to the search for the Ivory-billed woodpecker. The name has appeared on Wikipedia for at least 13 years, and there are over 1,500 web pages referencing this name. It is important to cite the name to prevent confusion betweem the several Pearl River claims over the years. "A person can also become a 'limited public figure' by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest." This certainly applies here. Deleting his name here will not protect his anonymity. After twenty years, and with no way to prove or disprove his sighting, legal concerns are not a factor. PragmaticRealist (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the person's name mentioned in "scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts" as per WP:BLPNAME? Keeping the name doesn't seem to add "significant value" to the article or aid in understand the article topic. I have removed the person's name for now until a consensus can be reached on whether to include it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you list non-blog/nonSPS sources that include the name? I can see the blogs just fine, but that we can't use here per BLPSPS. --Masem (t) 18:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"Is the person's name mentioned in 'scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts' " Yes. Google Scholar yields 14 results for this name relating to the Ivory-billed, cited over 300 times. Google Books yields 8 pages of results. Again, the name adds value, because that is the name by which the sighting is referred by science and the knowledgeable public. To remove the name will add confusion, and won't protect the person's identity. PragmaticRealist (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the Google Scholar results, and none of them suggest to me that the person's name is actually a particularly important or significant important part of the sightings. Nor that it's removal will significantly harm a reader's understanding of the topic. IMO it's fine for people to use the name in discussions in the article talk page if they feel that is most convenient, but it's probably not necessary to mention the name in the article itself. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say:

Is his named mentioned in scholarly or book sources? Yes. It's not terribly hard to find.

Does his name add value to the article? No. He's not known to be an expert or a particularly uncredible witness or anything. If we replaced his name with a fake name, nothing would change (unlike say, if he were known to be a professional ornithologist, or to be unreliable from other contexts, or something)

Has his name been intentionally concealled? Not that I'm specifically aware, but he refuses to discuss this or have contact with anyone involved, which certainly suggests a strong desire for privacy (and in Gallagher's book, it's suggested his connection to the event could be professionally damaging for him) - which to my mind is along the same lines.

Is he a loosely-involved, otherwise low profile individual? I'd suggest yes - certainly low profile, but "loosely" is of course somewhat subjective - probably one of the hundred most important people on the topic, definitely not top ten, say. In depth works on the subject will typically mention him as a prelude to later, far more significant events.

If he didn't refuse contact on the subject (and perhaps if there wasn't a related dispute on whether we should perpetuate the date being April 1st as part of making him the butt of jokes), I probably wouldn't be too concerned. But thinking about those two points has made me reflect on whether it's really best practice to throw his name out when it's not adding anything. WilyD 08:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This section of the Ivory-billed article is about "Evidence of persistence past 1944." There is a known list of famous "rediscoveries" of this bird. The Dennis sightings, the Heinzmann feather, the Lowery photos, the Kulivan sighting. It is ludicrous to suggest he's "loosely involved" or "low profile" in this topic. He's famous in this topic. Ask anyone who has followed the rediscovery story. Google his name. "If we replaced his name with a fake name, nothing would change" That is simply false. Facts matter. If we changed his name people would believe that there was another sighting in 1999 in addition to the Kulivan sighting. If we delete his name people will have to match facts to determine it must be the same sighting. It's not going to protect his identity because anyone Googling his name will find an account of his sighting immediately, as would anyone reading an account of this sighting almost anywhere else. It will certainly cause confusion on Wikipedia, just like it would if we deleted Lowery's name; if we did, many people would assume there was another set of photos of which they are unaware. In the birding world, in the scientific world, in the literary world, and until a couple days ago on Wikipedia, it's been the Kulivan sighting. It makes no sense to suddenly make Wikipedia the exception. I'm baffled this suddenly became an issue. PragmaticRealist (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There's also the issue of what name to replace his with. Any name we use could match with another living person who is uninvolved. Using (Redacted) would send the wrong message. Best just to leave it as is.--Auric talk 12:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I had changed it to say "An LSU forestry student", as that's everything about him that's important. That kind of phrasing is pretty common in similar cases. If you look at the other people's names - Dennis was a noted ornithologist, who rediscovered the Cuban Ivory-billed woodpecker when it was suspected extinct (in 1948) - that it was him matters a lot to how credible you evaluate the point. Lowery was a professor of zoology and director of the LSU Museum of Zoology, this goes a lot to his credibility. Heinzmann was working as a conservation biologist for the Florida Audubon society, published several articles in The Auk - that it's him and not someone else matters to evaluating credibility.

If we avoid being daft, obviously I don't literally mean replace his name with a fake one. But his name doesn't add anything different than any other name or no name, because we don't know anything about him that gives additional context. And he's obviously incredibly low profile. We don't know where he lives, what he looks like, whether he's still alive, what he's doing for work (if he's working). We (probably?) know where he was working 15 years ago. But we do know he wants (or wanted) to be left out of the business, and we don't accomplish anything by naming him other than to continue hounding him. Yeah, his name isn't terribly hard to find. But it's not terribly useful. WilyD 13:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

But you seem to be purposefully dodging my point that "Kulivan" is routinely referenced to identify the sighting. That's why Jackson and Gallagher and Hoose and Steinburg and the New York Times have used his name. They weren't "hounding" him. A name is just a name, until it becomes permanently identified with a fact or event, which this one certainly is regardless of how you argue it. Using his name, which is standard practice, is factual and useful and true for the reasons I've outlined. His name will forever be associated with the sighting, deleting it on Wikipedia after 13+ years, and leaving it everywhere else, serves no purpose. The ship has sailed. It's history. Leaving the name here serves the purpose of identifying the sighting in the standard fashion, and preventing confusion. PragmaticRealist (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I doubt the claims about potential confusion. "An LSU forestry student in 1999" is a clear and sufficient description. I agree with Nil Einne that the Google Scholar results do not suggest the name is particularly significant or useful to have in the article, especially if the person in question wants to have a low profile. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

In Gallagher's book, Luneau refers to his treatment as "hounding"; it's from there I pulled the phrase (and that bit - page 133 if you have the book) that brought to my attention that Kulivan apparently wants to be left alone. We can't control what other people do, we can only control what we do, so it makes perfect sense for us to say "Is what we're doing here the best ethical choice?" And us participating in hounding him, even if we're not remotely the majority of that, for a detail that doesn't actually add any value to the article, doesn't seem like that. The date, place, and "LSU forestry student" is far more than sufficient for anyone who really wants to find more info (unless there's a 2nd such student I'm unaware of?) WilyD 17:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly the situation around the Star Wars Kid and why we opted not to name him despite having sufficient RS to do so. This is BLPPRIVACY issue, WP should not add to existing privacy problems, unless the person is public figure, which this observer is certainly not. The fact we can source this person feeling that they are being hounded gives us more reason to avoid naming names. --Masem (t) 18:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The name of the Star Wars kid is in the very first sentence of the Wikipedia article. And I agree, it shouldn't be, because the whole point of the video was people laughing at him and he didn't choose to go public. If you mentioned his name, almost no one would recognize it. If you call him The Star Wars Kid, millions would. The Kulivan sighting is vastly different. Virtually all knowledgeable people on the topic know his name. Kulivan is an adult. He chose to tell his story. This happened twenty years ago. The uproar of this sighting has faded into the distant past. If it's a poor ethical choice to use his name, why would Gallagher himself, the source of your concern, use Kulivan's name at least ten times in that book alone? Why do we hide it in the article and cite his name in the references? WilyD, can you a least concede that some permutation of "the Kulivan sighting" is the standard way by which this sighting is referred, by scientists and laymen alike? PragmaticRealist (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

If you go back through the Star Wars Kid history, you'll see his name was excluded for a long time - until he chose to publicly embrace the role for anti-bullying activism reasons, if I understand correctly. I suspect that everyone closely involved with the subject matter knows his name, and virtually no one else does - he is a very low profile - so, I doubt it is for "laymen", depending I guess on what we mean. If I asked my dad, say, who's an avid birder with no particular interest in ivory bills (I *think* - he does have a reproduction of the Audubon print framed (but also the Reddish Egret one, Blue Jays ... and I feel like I'm forgetting one)), I don't think he could come up with the name. Books or articles that mention the sighting for more than a sentence will include his name. But his involvement is apparently sufficiently stressful or problematic for him that he wants to be disassociated with it. If I said to anyone interested in ivory bills "An LSU forestry student reporting seeing a pair of ivory billed woodpeckers in the Pearl River bayou in 1999", they'd know what I was referring to without his name. And really, he's unimportant. It's a narrative device for telling the story of how the Cornell team got together. But "person of no particular credentials reports seeing an ivory bill. People go looking and find nothing much." stories are a dime a dozen.

As far as why Gallagher might do it - well, 2004 may be a bit late to not realise the impact of the internet, but perhaps not. Wikipedia's policy for these kinds of cases wasn't enacted until December 2005. And these things are still evolving. But at the time, if it was just a physical book in the library, people looking for information on ivory-bills would probably find his name, but people looking for info on him probably wouldn't discover he was involved with this. So, how you thought about a book was different. If Kulivan lived here in La Belle France, he probably could demand Google obscure searches so his connection to the incident isn't so public and easy to find. But since he probably lives in the States (though we don't know, because he's a very low profile person!), he can't. But Wikipedia can (and has) chosen to take the path of trying to minimise harm, where we can control it, even though we don't control everything (there is value in being a role model). Like - his name has no particular value: there's nothing we know about him as a person that makes him particularly credible (or non-credible), because we don't know anything about him (other than he was a forestry student at LSU). WilyD 09:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC):

It's known as "the Kulivan sighting." That's why his name has particular value. Virtually all top Ivory-billed experts think the name has value or they wouldn't use it. It has much more value than him being identified as an "LSU forestry student." What does that mean? He's more credible, less credible? Or is it included so people can figure out that it's the David Kulivan sighting? People don't try to obscure his name because it's widely available public knowledge, except on Wikipedia when you started editing the article. Tim Gallagher is editor-in-chief of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology's Living Bird magazine. Cornell uses Kulivan's name, in multiple places, on the internet, right now. Seems to me the source of your concern isn't the least bit concerned or he'd at least scrub the name from the Cornell site. But I give up. I know that almost everyone who has followed this story through the years would agree with me, and I'm confident there would be considerable eye rolling that this is even being debated, but they're not doing the editing. I do think you are improving the article in general. Best wishes. PragmaticRealist (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson § RfC on self-sourcing, an issue previously discussed here. Guy (help!) 09:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Thanks. You beat me here. This was the next place I was heading. Doug Mehus T·C 15:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Template:Infobox_person:_proposal_-_Let's_not_insult_the_natives_(BLP). The original proposal was at Template_talk:Infobox_person#Let's_not_insult_the_natives_(BLP) and its place of implementation would be at Template:Infobox_person; it was proposed there to shift the proposal to Village pump, because it affects a big number of pages, so that's where the discussion should be focussed now. Boud (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The Wiki page for Cori Schumacher, American Politician, has an inaccuracy that needs to be edited. Schumacher is not a District 2 representative in Carlsbad, Ca. She is an at-large representative.

City of Carlsbad official government page for reference to the "at large" position of Schumacher is here http://carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/officials/default.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyawnd8 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

As I've indicated on the talk page of Wikipedia's Billy Mitchell biography and in a now-closed discussion on this noticeboard, Electronic Gaming Monthly and EGM Media have explicitly verified that the Twitch livestreams of Mitchell scoring 1.047 million and 1.050 million on Donkey Kong present those events accurately. Editor Wallyfromdilbert's claim that Mitchell has only "a single publicly witnessed Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 from 2004" is obviously untrue. When I pointed this out to him on the talk page, he seemed to suggest that he doesn't regard Electronic Gaming Monthly and EGM Media as reliable sources. When I asked him for a clarification on October 18, administrator Sergecross73 violated WP:RTP by collapsing the discussion to hide it from view. As I've indicated in the same now-closed discussion on this noticeboard, that's only one of many actions taken by Sergecross73 to ensure that Wallyfromdilbert never has to clarify the reasons for his anti-Mitchell revisions and apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations, and Wikipedia's Billy Mitchell biography makes multiple false claims about Mitchell that I haven't even had time to address yet. I'm trying not to make enemies here, but administrator Masem's suggestion that these issues aren't BLP related doesn't seem correct to me. Is there someone following the discussion on this noticeboard who can tell me whether Wikipedia has formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? Thanks for your time. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've already told you twice. See WP:Desysopping. Your best bet is to take this problem to WP:ANI, which is where Wikipedia deals with problem users. I can't say it any clearer than that.

I don't know whether Electronic Gaming Monthly is a reliable source or not without seeing the specific source in question. I'm not going to follow diffs to the talk page and try to sift though a bunch of these circular discussions. If you want to post the source here, I would be happy to give an independent review. Even reliable sources like the NY Times print stuff that is unreliable, such as op/ed columns, and most sources are only reliable for certain types of info, so I'd need to see the exact source in question. EGM Media is not in itself a reliable source because it's a publishing and marketing company. It may have publications that are reliable, but the publisher/marketer/promoter themselves is not such a source.

Masem is right, though, and so is everyone else here. None of this violates WP:BLP policy, and if it does, then I challenge you to read it and tell me where. This is what we call a WP:Content dispute, which should be handled as specified. And if nobody agrees with you, then that means WP:Consensus is against you and it may just be time to drop the stich and stop beating the WP:Dead horse. (That's why people keep closing these discussions, because no matter how many times we answer your questions you keep ignoring the answers, as if we'd never said anything! As if asking ad nauseam will eventually get you an answer you want to hear rather than the reality. It's insulting to our intelligence, and I fully agree with Serge and Masem on closing these discussions. They should be given a medal or barnstar or something.) Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. This is exactly why his discussions keep getting archived, including the one at the top of this page still. He gives long-winded rants that don’t contain a request for a specific change, he gets told an answer he doesn’t want to hear, ignores it, and then he just repeats himself over and over again. It’s WP:IDHT to the highest degree. There’s two very simple solutions for the IP. Submit a specific WP:EDITREQUEST, (this has been attempted zero times) or wait for the protection to end and make policy-abiding edits. Regurgitating the same rant he concocted last July ad nauseam at any venue he learns about is not an option. Someone please close this again. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You know, I once scored like 2 million on Defender. (I don't know because we maxed out the scoreboard, but after 2 days straight we had so many extra lives that we could've kept it going for eternity. It's easy once you figure out the pattern. That's what I see here, a gaming pattern. The IP posts the same thing, waits until the section is almost auto-archived, and then posts the same thing again. If this isn't a case of WP:Competence then it's someone gaming the system, in my opinion. I agree. Someone call game over. Zaereth (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I've told you nearly all of this last time, so the fact that you aren't listening is not a good sign per WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

If you truly want to make a change to that article, what you should be doing is take your time to make a proper request on the talk page. I've outlined how in the previous discussion and won't repeat that but will give the example I gave last time of the sort of request you should make [7].

As I also pointed out, if there is a dispute over whether EGM is a RS, although this is technically a BLP issue it's best handled at WP:RSN. But you should make sure there is actually dispute first since it's completely pointless clarifying whether EGM is actually an RS if no one actually disputes it is. I've seen no real evidence that there is a dispute as you tried to use Twitch to make some dumb pointless claim, not EGM. Clarifying whether EGM is an RS is not going to change our article unless someone like you actually makes the effort to use EGM as a source. Using Twitch as a source, no matter if it's mentioned by EGM is not the same thing.

Again I've given you an example [8] of the sort of thing which could see a change to the article. If you continue to ignore it and instead open these pointless threads, the only change that is likely to happen is you being blocked. So if you really care about making a chance, why don't you actually take the time to do things the right way?

Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Again this is basically stuff I said last time. But if I may make a minor additional clarification to what Zaereth has said, in the modern wikipedia the only real way someone is forcefully desysopped is via an WP:ARBCOM case i.e. if there is truly something that warrants desysopping you need to go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. However there is no way that arbcom is going to consider anything here warrants a case and if you try and open one it'll quickly be closed.

In that manner, opening an ANI case is better, as measures short of desysopping would best be handled there first, like an administrator undoing their actions or refraining from continued action. In addition if there really is sufficient concern over an administrator to warrant desysopping, it arising out of community discussion by multiple experienced editors seeing this egregious misuse of the tools or other extreme misbehaviour is the sort of thing where arbcom may consider a case, unlike some random IP.

That said, I don't actually recommend even an ANI case. There is a reasonable chance that opening an ANI case (as an arrbcom one) will just result in a WP:Boomerang i.e. you the person behind the IP will be blocked probably long term, or even subject to a community site ban. (If you're lucky, it'll only be a topic ban.) Note that if this happens, anyone including Wallyfromdilbert will be free to remove any new threads you open on the article talk page, and any admin including Sergecross73 will be free to block any IP you use for evasion.

BTW, last time one of the final things I said was please don't open an arbitration case (or ANI) since I spent so much time trying to get through you and it will be wasted if you then just got yourself blocked long term. Frankly it's starting to get to the point where I don't care or am even wondering if it would be for the best. The more you fail to do the actions that could actually result in change and instead ignore what you're being told and just repeat the same futile actions, the more people are going to feel this way.

I'll repeat this one last time since it's the only way I can think of to try and get through to you. I took the time to even compose an example for you [9]. Why on earth are we still here rather than you going to the talk page and doing something like that?

Nil Einne (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the IP editor probably has a lot they could add to the article without dispute. The problem is that it's not clear what exactly they want changed and no one has been willing to do the legwork for them of creating the content. Is this thread going to be closed? If the IP editor is going to get to continue to ranting about me here, I'd rather just take it to ANI myself. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem I see. I have no clue what the specific issue is, nor do I have the time to sit down and dig for it like an archaeologist. I like to think I'm patient and helpful to others, but I'm starting to see why Judge Judy is the way she is. Our needs are simple: bring us some evidence and ask us to help solve a specific problem. Don't be vague; we're not mind readers. We're happy to give advice on policy, but when people just repeat themselves or keep saying "but I feel it should be this way" or "I feel that way..." it just gets frustrating. For the record, I've seen Wally around a lot, he seems to understand policy, and I have no reason to doubt his assessment, but am willing to take a look if I don't have to hunt for it. Likewise, Serge is new to me, but I've seen no evidence of then doing anything but what an admin should in these circumstances. All I need is actual proof, diffs, etc., and I'll figure it out myself, but curiously all I get pointed to are talk pages. What is that supposed to tell me? Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Not only do I have no history of misconduct, I have no motivation for it here either. I merely performed a very basic page protection on a page I’ve never edited, on a subject I have no history with, on a very basic case of edit warring last July. All I’ve been doing since then is try to explain policy to the IP, both in how they should move forward, and how the page protection followed policy. Very basic policy, and yet they argue with me every step of the way. There’s no grand conspiracy here as the IP suspects. It’s no different than if I protected the page grapefruit or horseback riding tonight due to edit warring. I’m not “deep in the pockets of big grapefruit” or something. Just protecting pages due to basic policy violations. Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth, the IP editor has been repeating this same type of behavior for months now. To be clear, I never claimed that Billy Mitchell had "only one single publicly witnessed score" or that Electronic Gaming Monthly was unreliable (the article from the IP editor on the talk page looks reliable [10]). I removed content sourced to a Twitch reference, while the other content was already in the article [11]. The IP editor has never proposed a suggestion for what to put into the article regarding Mitchell's Twitch scores based on the magazine article, or else it would most likely already be in the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I can tell. I really meant that as a compliment to you both, so I hope it didn't come off some other way. The IP seems more interested in hearing themselves talk than what anyone else is saying, and in the ensuing drama and waste of time it causes. Like I said, it appears to be a game to them. I recommended they go to ANI because that's likely the easiest way to solve the problem (ours, not necessarily theirs), but for our part I think its best just to stop giving them what they want by simply ignoring and archiving this. Zaereth (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert Honestly I don’t even see AN/ANI as necessary, there’s already a strong consensus on how to handle this here. Close any discussions at BLP/N that don’t address a specific BLP issue. Close any off-topic/unconstructive talk page discussions at the subject’s talk page. If the IP has specific changes in mind, then he uses the WP:EDITREQUEST system. I, along with probably anyone here, would be more than happy to allow others to answer the edit requests if the IP is untrusting in how we would address their specific edit requests. Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sergecross73 and Zaereth, thank you for the advice. After five months of this, it gets a little tiring. I'll go back to ignoring the IP until they present some kind of proposal. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I believe nobody should have to defend themselves from baseless accusations, and it's really our duty as good Wikipedians to step in and say, "Whoa, whoa, wait a second..." If the IP had something substantial to show they would've done so by now, but it always just goes back to the talk pages. Hopefully, this will be the end of it, but if it persists ANI will still be there. Zaereth (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks to Zaereth for the link to WP:Desysopping. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Colleen Plumb I am wondering why there is a wikipedia page for this person. She's an adjunct professor at Columbia College Chicago, and as such her work cited in this article, as making her "noteworthy", is no more than to be expected for any other academic professional, or even artist. She has won no noteworthy awards, has published only one book (which won no awards), there's no mention of any published articles, and yes she has exhibited her photographs in a number of galleries, but no more so than any other struggling artist or academic artists. And there is no indication that these latter won any kind of award or prize. The whole entry, in fact, reads as little more than an advertisement for her work.

Under Wikipedia's rules on Biographies of low-profile individuals, I hardly see how this article worths inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarkenberg (talk • contribs) 19:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Then nominate it for deletion (instead of what you have been doing, which is blatant self-promotion).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, mind you, he has a point: all substantive content by one of two single-purpose accounts, that is usually a reliable marker for an advert. It has no RS, so I have draftified it. Guy (help!) 22:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that current articles listed under Marie Yovanovitch's biography especially those written in November 2019 are opinion pieces stating politically motivated views that currently have not been proven or factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:987:4100:B3C0:4831:CD56:1F70:8964 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Guy (help!) 22:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional eyes/admin intervention needed at Emily Gorcenski - new account is edit-warring Twitter-sourced material into this biography with defamatory/negative intent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring over controversial content, charges of anti-semitism. Well sourced on the face of it, but I haven't read through to discern if the sources are themselves neutral publications, or whether there's a persistent attempt at whitewashing. More eyes needed. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation of a 'love triangle,' involving non notable figures. True or not, a breach of privacy. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The addition has already been reverted, but it was a controversial assertion unsupported by any references and ended with a speculatory sentence, so clearly violates policy.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

My fault for not clarifying: I'm requesting rev/deletion of the edit. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. I contacted oversighters to request for suppression and the material has been suppressed. Usually, in case of egregious BLP violations, material that is revision-deletable is also oversightable. If you wish to request revision deletion, please follow the instructions at WP:REVDELREQUEST. Users without a Wikipedia account may contact oversighters by sending an email to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. Politrukki (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Your article says “Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[4] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is an American activist and whistleblower.” which is false.

By his conviction it should read, “Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[4] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is an American activist and agent of a third party who committed Espionage against the United States.”

A whistle-Blower is protected under federal law, he was not a whistle-Blower, but a person who committed Espionage against the United States for a third party which cost several US agents their lives; look in his conviction documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zjohngates (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zjohngates: She is described by reliable sources as a whistleblower. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Zjohngates, she is also described as "she". Please be mindful of the pronouns. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

As Julian Assange's wikipedia entry is full-protected, could an administrator update it to reflect recent developments (Sweden has dropped investigation into the rape allegation against him). Thank you. Dirkbb (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You should probably use an ((edit request)) template on Talk:Julian Assange with the text you propose to add to reflect that, it will be easier for admins to catch and update. Make sure to include referencing. --Masem (t) 15:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This has been reported before, but the reporter mentioned no violation of policy. I think there has been violation of policy here and will provide arguments for this.

As a reminder, user TheTechnician27 has modified the article, calling Stephen Miller "a white nationalist" without any qualification of the claim, only referring to sources he believes support this claim. HOWEVER, most of the sources he quotes are all sourced from only one, the SPLC's exposé on Stephen Miller and what they called his "affinity for White Nationalism", the article expressly never directly claims that Stephen Miller is a white nationalist. The conclusion that he is one is TheTechnician27's, and therefore qualifies as Original Research. If I may quote the policy:

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."

As the SPLC never states that Stephen Miller is a white nationalist, to use it as a source to include a claim that he is, no matter if we agree with the conclusion or not, is Original Research and thus should not be allowed. This issue has been raised over a few days in the Talk page of the article and neither TheTechnician27 nor administrators that have taken his side have addressed it.

Furthermore, TheTechnician27 has included quotes as references to his claim which do include claims that he is a white nationalist. However, these claims come from Ilhan Omar, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and a left-leaning editoritalist. These sources are clearly not neutral, but I know reliable sources don't need to be entirely neutral. That being said, I will refer to the policy on opinionated or biased Reliable Sources([[12]]) that states:

"Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."

It seems clear to me that politicians like Ilhan Omar and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez are subject to neither editorial control, nor have a reputation for fact-checking nor achieve the level of independence from the topic, being active politicians opposed to Stephen Miller. Therefore, according to that policy, the claim should not be presented as factual, but as an opinion held by many people.

So to sum up, I think TheTechnician27 has included Original Research by including his conclusion drawn from the SPLC's exposé as a factual claim in Stephen Miller's article, and he has not followed the rules regarding reliable sources with regards to biased and opinionated sources. Therefore, I suggest the article needs to be amended to remove the claim he is a white nationalist, and rather a reference added either saying that he has been accused of having affinity with white nationalism (based on the SPLC's claim) or that he has been accused by many politicians and left-wing commentators of being a white nationalist. However, to present this claim as factual is in violation of Wikipedia's rules and brings the site into disrepute, suggesting political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.220.213 (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I want to make clear that—between the "BLP emergency" thread on this very noticeboard and the article's talk page—this has been looked over by four administrators, none of whom have raised any concern whatsoever about this label. The label "white nationalist" is still demonstrably justified without the words of Democratic Congresspeople calling him such, as can be plainly seen from the other quotations listed in the citation block. This IP has, for the past two days, been persistently engaging in a partisan effort to soften Miller's blatant affiliation with white nationalism by insisting that he be called a gardening tool instead of a spade, when there's been a clearly established consensus among experienced editors both here and on the talk page that the label is categorically not a problem and that WP:RS has been met. At this point, I've largely stopped responding on the talk page, as I feel continuing to do so, given the overwhelming evidence that Stephen Miller is a white nationalist, is a waste of my time. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

We should not WP:LABEL him a white nationalist, especially in Wikipedia's voice. In fact, the SPLC doesn't even call him that. We should simply document his affinity for white nationalism, and if others have referred to him as a white nationalist, then their views should be attributed if they are noteworthy. - MrX 🖋 12:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll quote administrator bradv, after copy-pasting the citation block into the article's talk page: "This claim looks pretty well-sourced to me." If you'd like more quotes directly calling Miller a white nationalist, however, I've already added an article from The Guardian by scholar on the extreme right Cas Mudde calling Miller a "white supremacist" (note: white nationalist and white supremacist are sometimes used interchangeably), and I would be fine adding an article from The Washington Post by Paul Waldman entitled "Yes, Stephen Miller is absolutely a white nationalist". Likewise, again, three other administrators have seen this and have raised no concern whatsoever.

Miller is casually familiar with—and recommended an article written by Jared Taylor from—the white supremacist publication American Renaissance, recommended the white nationalist site VDARE, frequently brought up Calvin Coolidge—now a white nationalist icon—for his eugenics-based immigration policies, was in frequent, flagrantly racist communication specifically about racial politics with a white supremacist editor at Breitbart News, and touted a virulently white nationalist anti-immigration book where Indian men rape white women and the antagonist is an Indian person called "turd eater". Please tell me why this label is ill-suited. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You are making the fallacy of appealing to authority rather than referring to actual Wikipedia policy. Whenever someone points out your quotes do not explicitly support your edit, you go "I'll add another source then" and go to Google to find another opinion piece or article in which someone who shares your opinion is quoted echoing it to add up to that list, without removing the problematic ones, and when someone points out it's an opinion piece, therefore opinionated and biased and subject to relevant policies precluding what you use them for, you just go and add another rather than do the proper thing of removing the incorrectly used sources. That's not how it's supposed to work, 12 inappropriately used sources do not equal one good one. Maybe you need to ask yourself why you feel like you need 12 sources for one edit. BTW, your Cas Mudde opinion piece also refers to Trump as "white-supremacist-in-chief", so if it's accepted to label Miller a white nationalist, then it ought to be also accepted to label Trump a "white supremacist" in his wiki page. Evidently, his wiki page doesn't carry that label. In your last paragraph, you are trying to get other editors and administrators to approve your Original Research by presenting your reasoning. Wikipedia is not for partisan debates like you're using it right now. Again, you are not being asked by myself and others to remove the information contained in the references you use, just to abide by Wikipedia policy on contentious labels and proper use of reliable sources, using in-text attribution to include claims about Stephen Miller rather than presenting them as an uncontroversial and evident fact. Why do you refuse? 173.177.220.213 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll quote Mr. Mudde's page on the University of Georgia SPIA's website: "Professor Mudde is an expert on European politics and the foremost scholar on the far right in western democracies." His words calling Stephen Miller a white supremacist (again, sometimes used interchangeably with "white nationalist") clearly carry authoritative weight, whether you agree with him or not. As far as "appealing to authority" is concerned, that's the point: if administrators are in agreement that the label isn't an issue, then that's their call to make. Sealioning about for days on end doesn't change that none of them thought this was an issue. The argument that if we accept Mudde's quote to support the label alongside other quotations we must then apply the label "white supremacist" to Donald Trump's page is disingenuous at best, as there's little to no credible material elsewhere to make such a claim. Calling Miller a "white nationalist", on the other hand, is backed up by mountains of evidence from the SPLC's exposé as well as Mudde's article. The two are clearly different. Mudde's quote is used in conjunction with other sources, not as a standalone accusation. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It's absurd to say that Cas Mudde is an authoritative source on the subject of "white supremacists" and therefore him calling Stephen Miller one is sufficient to label him a white nationalist in the Wiki article, but it's not sufficient for Donald Trump. A source is authoritative or it is not, if you only consider it authoritative in conjunction with other sources, then you are doing Original Research. In fact, if you think the lack of "credible material" over accusation of Trump being a white supremacist is sufficient to ignore Mudde's claim, that means that you yourself do not consider him a reliable source on the matter. Have you stopped to think about why is it that you can find news sites referring to Stephen Miller's proximity and references to sources affiliated to white nationalists but none of them actually just write "Stephen Miller is a white nationalist" and that when you go fishing for quotes calling him a white nationalist, you only find opinion columns or quotes from politicians? Maybe it's because the hard news sections know they don't have the material to justify calling him one, and that should provide the answer to this question of whether there is source reliable enough to call him one without any qualification. Administrators are not gods, they are simply people who are supposed to know the policies of this site better, it is telling that none of the administrators you refer to in your appeal to authority have addressed any of the policy violation claims that have been made on you and made no reference to anything but their own opinion to support your edit. Again, you could simply write "Stephen Miller has been accused of being a white nationalist by many politicians and by Cas Mudde" and then present his credentials. Then a casual reader of the article would be properly informed and would have the information to make up his own mind on the subject. Rather, you seem to just be trying to use Wikipedia's authority to push your own opinion on others. 173.177.220.213 (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I have indeed been making this point in the talk page for a few days, because I find this to be an egregious unencyclopedic edit, and neither you nor any of the admnistrators you refer to have addressed any of them. You have consistently ignored any argument, dismissing it and simply retelling your claim or even outright ignoring arguments. It is telling that you have noticed my comments on the talk page enough to point out I've made many interventions there, yet in 3 days, have failed to address any argument I made there, you have only ignored them, until I repeated them here, and responded only to say that my arguments ought to be dismissed out of hand while attacking me as "partisan". As my IP shows, I'm not even American, and therefore have no direct political interest in the debate.

Now, as to your defense, you claim that even without quotes from Democratic politicians, the label is still 'justified'. By what criteria or reasoning do you think it is justified? Because without their claims, and the claims of I think one or two opinion journalists that express that as an opinion rather than as a fact, what citation do you offer to support your claim that he ought to be labeled a white nationalist without any in-text attribution? You can't just say you have one that does it without providing it. And as I've pointed out in my original contribution here, if you think that the quotes you've chosen, though not expressly qualifying him as a white nationalist, justify the conclusion that he is one, then you are running afoul of the "No Original Research" rule, because it is not allowed for editors to look at claims from reliable sources and then draw their own personal conclusion from them (no matter how obvious they may appear to you) and insert them into an article.

I am baffled as well by your refusal to compromise anything on this. Despite many quoted rules that suggest it would be more appropriate to say "he has been accused of having an affinity for white nationalism" or using in-text attribution of the claim, you keep refusing to consider any alternative other than expressly labeling him a white nationalist directly, in Wikipedia's voice.173.177.220.213 (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, unless you can provide a mountain of evidence that Miller is white nationalist, i.e. sources that directly support your claim, you are violating BLP policy. And promoting fringe views. In 2017, left-wing pundit Joy Reid implied, but did not directly claim, that four individuals – Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Michael Anton, and Sebastian Gorka – in Trump's orbit were sympathetic to white nationalists or alt-right members. Politifact interviewed independent experts and although some of them said the four "had placed themselves uncomfortably close to white nationalists", Politifact concluded that all experts "agreed that none of the four were white nationalists themselves". I'd suggest you also read the last paragraph and you'll perhaps understand that you are unwittingly playing into hands of white nationalists.

Speaking of Joy Reid, although it is clear that Reid has promoted conspiracy theories and made homophobic comments[13][14][15], I would not suggest labelling Reid "homophobe" or "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice.

I'd suggest you pick three best sources and provide quotes that directly support your claim. I did not spend a lot of time reading the sources that are cited in the article because it seems obvious to me that someone is using ref bombing to distract from the fact that they don't have a strong case. It is also not true that all the cited sources are reliable; some are clearly not reliable for controversial statements about BLPs, specifically if not attributed in-text (check Wikipedia:Perennial sources) and the reliability of a specific source always depends on context. For example, I cannot use this article from generally reliable The New York Times to support a claim that Earth is flat. I would suggest you take NOR policy seriously and focus on content, not contributor. Politrukki (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC opened

Just to let people know, an RfC has been opened Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)#RfC:_White_nationalist. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The pornographic performer Ramón Nomar allegedly sexually assaulted a woman during a pornographic film shoot in 2016. The allegation received substantial news coverage in the context of the MeToo movement[16][17], but is currently not mentioned in his article. Under the now-deprecated WP:PORNBIO, Mr. Nomar would possibly have been considered notable for his industry awards, but I haven't found non-trivial, reliable biographical coverage unrelated to the assault allegation. Should information about the allegation be added? Alternately, should the article be sent to AfD? Cheers, gnu57 17:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Industry awards are not very significant. I would equate that to me getting an article for winning the safety award at work. Porn stars in general are a dime a dozen, and with the exception of a few, very well-known names (like the Jenna Jamesons and Ron Jeremys), most are not notable enough to have their own article. In looking at the sourcing for this article, there is almost a total lack of reliable, independent, secondary sources, so I would recommend AFD. Zaereth (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This article David B. Samadi does not adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous. Because such material has been repeatedly inserted I am reporting this issue. Dr. Samadi has been the subject of a smear campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthveracity99 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks to be all well sourced and accurate to me, so it belongs in the article. There is nothing libelous about reporting the loss of such a major lawsuit or the reason for it, as long as it's reliably sourced and true. Looks to me like another great example of the US medical system at work, and why it's worth the 10 hour drive to Canada or Mexico, or the $1500.00 round-trip ticket to Romania just to get honest, reasonably-priced, and just as good medical care. Zaereth (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur. There are about three sentences related to the lawsuits, all stated in neutral terms and adhering to the sources, including The Boston Globe. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The crucial part is that material is removed when it is unsourced or poorly sourced. The Boston Globe and the New York Post are reasonably reliable, and I have double-checked that what is in their stories matches what is in the article. Truthveracity99, if you think those sources have gotten something wrong, I'm afraid you'll have to take it up with them. If they haven't, and what they published is accurate, well, part of our neutrality is that we include good and bad from reliable references. BLP doesn't mean we do hagiographies or whitewashes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Their are multiple issues on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshall77 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Are you talking about Douglas Chapman the stuntman, the football player, the footballer, the hockey player, or the politician? And what are some of the multiple issues you see, so we'll know what to look for? Zaereth (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably Doug Chapman (American football) based on the OP's previous contribution to Talk:Doug Chapman (American football). That said, I'm not sure that there are actually multiple issues, the stuff they mentioned on the article talk page don't seem to be something to worry about. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay technically the article does have a multiple issues template, but it looks to just be general referencing issues, not ideal especially for a BLP but not that abnormal. I didn't see anything that looks like an obvious problem. Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Most of the stuff on this page is sheer slander. This Wikipedia article is unfortunately the sum of biased edits. Please delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.87.58 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not. I blocked this IP for white nationalist-based vandalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Meredith Russo#Regarding the Post Millennial article regarding the inclusion of the information in this diff; specifically, whether the citation provided meets BLP standards or not. I'm linking it here in hopes to get more eyes on it. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

The page claims that she is an American singer born in Los Angeles USA. But then in the Early Life section it says she was born in Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.125.22 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This has already been fixed by another editor. Station1 (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Came across this article while searching for BLPs that use rumors and speculation. The lead: Dmitry Baksheev (born January 28, 1982) and Natalia Baksheeva (born January 25, 1975), are a family from Krasnodar who were accused of killing a local woman. According to rumors, the Baksheevs are also responsible for a series of murders and cannibalistic acts. At the moment, the Investigative Committee of Russia is verifying the couple's involvement in other crimes that have occurred in the region. That doesn't seem to pass WP:BLPCRIME, and, even worse, parts of the article seems to present this as fact. I don't know anything about the case, though, so I thought I should bring it up here in case someone else can find better, more up-to-date sources and rewrite it into something that passes BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I've nominated it for deletion on the grounds that it's nothing but rumor and therefore a violation of BLPCRIME. Link: [[18]] May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I've edited the article to include more recent material from the original article on the Russian wikipedia, such that they have been convicted.--Auric talk 22:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

He has been thrown out by his wife and lives with his PA. When I enter this it gets deleted why??

Probably because, @Tobywho: you did not provide a source. Everything you write on a BLP should have a reference, so readers can see where you got the information from. No tabloids, blogs or gossip magazines; you need a good reliable source. Curdle (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to tackle this right now. Here we have a biography heavily edited by COI editors (I just flagged one), an article that apparently already had problems. It needs TLC, proper writing, secondary sourcing--and I suppose we need to keep an eye on this. If any of you have a moment to spare for article improvement, maybe look in the copyright/paraphrasing issues... Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Alexandra Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent and persistent spate of edits to add unfavorable text to 'controversy' and 'philanthropy.' At a glance it looks like someone may have an axe to grind. Would appreciate more eyes as to whether any of this merits inclusion, or is someone's pointed spin. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfavorable material seems warranted. BLP seems vastly bloated for a person of such low importance. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC).

That often happens with artists' bios, which easily become resumes here. Her interaction with a celebrity has raised the profile, as well. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

We do not allow the addition of poorly sourced material just to try and balance an article. That's not how WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV work, let alone WP:BLP.

This [19] was an obvious problem. It only contained 2 sources. One was a probable RS but was from 2012 so cannot establish a controversy occurring in 2019. The other was to the subject's personal website so is not suitable as the sole source for any controversy, and not surprisingly it didn't mention any anyway. We do not cover social media controversies unless they are covered in RS, no matter how many angry Tweets or Facebook posts or whatever someone can find. (I don't think any has actually tried that yet.) While the 2012 source does mention a controversy and Grant's work, it doesn't really seem to establish much controversy surrounding Grant's involvement. The prime controversy seems to be over the project and its founder of which the subject seems only a small part.

These [20] were exclusively sourced to primary sources court and similar records in fact, something explicitly disallowed per WP:BLPPRIMARY. One was a particularly egregious example as it's incredibly ORry. It tried to contradict alleged statements with a search. But it's not clear that this search actually disproved the statements. (Did she actually say it was registered with the IRS because Non-profit organization laws in the U.S. are complicated. Also is it possible the charity is registered under a different name? These are the sort of questions a reliable source should consider before coming to conclusions, but people easily miss hence why the use of primary sources is often a big problem.)

This [21] makes a claim which doesn't seem to be supported by the sourced. One is from 2011, so cannot establish what happened in 2018 unless it was updated. The other is from 2018, but still talks about them as business partners. Maybe this claim could be cited but frankly with it being phrased as "understood", it sounds a lot like idle speculation by random people to me so it seems best to remove it until someone actually provides a citation.

I agree that the article is a bit bloated and probably has too much positive material that isn't well sourced. The solution is to pare down the other material, not to add poorly sourced negative material. For example, [22] I removed the charity stuff since frankly it only has 2 primary sources to the organisations themselves and an interview so doesn't seem to be a significant endeavour. To be fair, that interview source does mention it in the intro rather than just the interview itself, so some may disagree. Still if anyone does want to add it back, it probably should be pared down to the bare essentials without mentioning everyone they've supported at least not without secondary source coverage.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that this sort of editing [23] [24] is not the right way to go about paring down the content. For starters, the editing summaries are very misleading, and in no way explain why the content was removed. This may be in part because there is no particular reason to remove that content. Even if the claims that Keanu Reaves is no longer involved in that endeavour are true, it doesn't mean mention of it in the article on the artist isn't merited when it seems to be sufficiently sourced. Likewise the Shadows books. The other book, while the only source is an interview it does establish the book in the intro and so it's probably good enough for a brief mention of the book. However I wouldn't object if someone does feel it needs better sourcing, but this should be properly explained in the edit summary, and not just "updated content". Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The editing history is IMO concerning. It's possible User:BlackOpsPom, User:Fighttoright123 and User:Tarteàlafraise45 are just new editors attracted by whatever social media controversy that was referred to. But frankly I'm not convinced especially since the first 2 seem to use very similar edit summaries. Still I can't be bothered opening an SPI, but maybe someone else will. Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems I was right about the first two hence the blue links. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think Nil Einne has a valid and persuasive point, but I’ve only opened one SPI, and it’s been ages since I even posted a singular diff. I think someone else willing to request a check would be better suited. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

With the blocking of the first 2 by a CU (before I submitted my comment), I don't think there's any point for an SPI anymore. I strongly suspect a CU was already run on the 3rd editor and it wasn't blocked. From what I can see via the edit summaries, it's possible that it's the same person using a mobile device and desktop, but it's also possible it is genuinely someone else given the different edit summaries and with so few edits, I don't think a behavioural match will be established. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

And whether or not Tarteàlafraise45 was related to the other 2, they seem to have socked too and have now being blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems this isn't a one sided thing either. The article was only recently expanded [25] but the editor who did the expansion is also part of some sock farm User:MootsieOrangeville. I was originally wondering if this was some sort of PAID editing case especially given the suspected connection to a foundation banned editor, but it looks like that wasn't the reason for the ban. Still there is probably good reason to go through the article with a fine tooth comb given that few involved seem to be the sort of editors we can trust to follow our policies and guidelines in writing good, well sourced, BLP compliant, content. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Also I think I figured out why this is getting so much attention. I initially assumed this was related to the social media controversy over some project that I removed. But actually, since a Google search for her name finds countless recent stories speculating on her relationship with Keanu Reeves, it's more likely that alleged "controversy" arose because of interest in her arising from said speculation. Especially I'm guessing from "fans" of Keanu Reeves. This also suggests the possibility of a bunch of genuine new editors adding unsourced info or or removing sourced info is far more likely. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Alfred E. Smith dies Nov.18,2019 of a heart attack in his sleep at his home in New Cannan Ct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.115.80 (talk) 19:14, November 21, 2019 (UTC)

IP user, please provide a reliable source that confirms this. I can so far see no coverage that suggests that Smith has died and the policy on biographies requires good sources for any significant claims about a person. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO this sort of thing where we can tolerate a Facebook post or Tweet from some official source (like one of the charities he was involved with). But I had a look and nothing although did find enough to suggest the OP is probably correct. It's quite common for older people with a relatively low profile it can take a while for sources to emerge so it looks like we'll just have to wait. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually one of the problems with this is there's a lot of results for the name. I finally found [26] [27]. These are probably barely enough to add it to the article, although I won't add it myself pending better sourcing. Neither seems to confirm the date either. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, thanks for giving those. They have apparently been added since I last looked. I agree they establish the subject's death but I wouldn't add it until we at least get a date,as you said. The funeral home says "obituary pending" so I'll check again later for better detail. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I see the article has now been updated, so this seems somewhat moot. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Why does this have a BLP tag?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: placed that tag last month as part of a group of changes she(?) made. It's probably best if she explains. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee and Eggishorn: Hi, yes I copied the wrong template in by accident. I have corrected this. Thanks for asking. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

As I have specified in the talk page, this biography of a living person is full of NPOV statements. It reads like a long condemnation of an individual. There needs to be some neutrality reintroduced and encyclopedic content put back in this article. Can someone help with a consensus (on talk page) to put the NPOV tag on this article? . Rabbabodrool (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Keet Dailey Not verifiable. Vanity page. Information outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.195.155 (talk • contribs)

Page has been deleted following AFD. Madam Fatal (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

There is an unsourcced paragraph of contentious material in the article about Alice S. Fisher, a partner at the law firm where I work. I have suggested an alternative paragraph, with a source, at: Talk:Alice_S._Fisher#Fixing_Unsourced_Paragraph Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. JZ at LW (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned about recent edits about WP:BLP subject Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (all done by editor User:AstuteRed who registered last month but appears quite familiar with our policies): [28], [29] and creation of About the Civilization of Death which seems not farm from an attack page. I'd appreciate input from BLP-familiar regulars on whether those edits are ok in light of BLP policy and related (WP:UNDUE, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Chodakiewicz wrote the book and spoke on it. Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland's best newspaper, writes that this is what Chodakiewicz is famous for: ""Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (born in 1962 in Warsaw) became famous in July last year with a lecture on "Civilization of Death" during meetings "History Stop" at the Center. Janusz Kurtyka. He talked about the experiences of his ex-girlfriend Debbie, who in 1984, working as a registered nurse, pulled out of the anus a gay hamster, whom he smeared with fat and put into the anus. He explained to the audience that "snuffing in cocoa" is an offense against God, because God does not allow semen to be thrown into feces. He said that for the Marquis de Sade, anal sex was a way of denying God. The lecture met with the protest of even some right-wing historians." in [30]. Many other media coverages of this. AstuteRed (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC) - sock puppet of banned user

This translation has some ambiguities that render it confusing for me. MPS1992 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Sloppy copying. Here is proper:

"Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (born in 1962 in Warsaw) became famous in July last year with a lecture on 'Civilization of Death' during a 'History Stop' at the [IPN's] Janusz Kurtyka Center. He talked about the experiences of his ex-girlfriend Debbie, who in 1984, working as a registered nurse, pulled a fat smeared hamster out of the anus of a gay man. He explained to the audience that <euphemism for gay sex> is an offense against God, because God does not allow semen to be thrown into feces. He said that for the Marquis de Sade, anal sex was a way of defying God. The lecture was met with the protest of even some right-wing historians."

AstuteRed (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user

Polityka, Poland's best magazine, also tells this cause for fame: [31]

"Chodakiewicz's activity is not limited to history. He also speaks on current political topics: ... Recently he has dealt with the threat of 'civilization of death' and has reflected on 'anti-culture of totalitarian minorities'. He became famous for the suggestion that homosexuals are connected to zoophilia. It can't be quoted."

AstuteRed (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user

I've made some edits to that article since the material was added, so when reviewing this please take note of the current revision of the text. François Robere (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Ahn Sang-soo (born May 1946) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would some other's mind taking a look at this article, in particular this edit. The content about the introduction of the bill seems like it's something which should be mentioned in the article, but the addition of the image seems WP:UNDUE (there are licensing issues issues with it as well, but these are separate from BLP stuff). Anyway, even the name of the file itself seems to be a BLP violation of sorts. The account which added the file (Minswho) made a bunch of edits back on July 27, 2016, but then sort of vanished only to reappear to add this content. My guess is that the editor saw something about this on the news and decided to add it to the article. In principle, that's OK, but the edit does have sort of a WP:RGW feel to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the picture (it's non-free, scraped from the KBS News website, and the caption violates WP:NPOV)). The rest seems to be sourced OK. Neiltonks (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Neiltonks. Although content about the topic seems something worthy of mentioning, the image did seem inappropriate for the not only the reasons you mentioned, but also because of it's licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Please could a BLP wizard review David Sloman? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ilian Mihov article being edited by a single user who has added a "Critics" [sic] section and keeps reverting the state of the page if this section is removed or edited. This section is irrelevant to the biography of the person and potentially libellous. At very least the title "Critics" (or 'Criticism') is misleading, as the text the user has added to this section does not make it clear why this is a criticism of the person. Moreover the citations provided seem conjectural.

The same editor is now adding the same material to other articles. Beach drifter (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I've worked some on this article, and have gone through the sources and talked to the editor about relevant policies. I would really like someone else to look at it. I have tried to get the editor to see that the content is not going to work, the sources are terrible, not really sources at all, and there is no indication anywhere that this thing they are going on about needs to be included in the article. The editor has also inserted this into another article, and seems connected to a blog, that they are using as a source, that is just a hit piece on this professor. At this point this is probably a 3RR situation and I do not want to continue to revert. There appears to be several editors involved that are SPAs and have something to do with the content. Thanks for any help. Beach drifter (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed the section for now because it seems to be based on synthesizing several sources, mostly primary source documents. I'm also not sure that the article subject is mentioned in any significant way by looking through the sources. Hopefully Dazhong Gao and the IP editor who restored the same content will explain their reasoning here or on the article's talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Lilly Singh#Allegations of cultural appropriation is a nice hit piece on Singh. I’m sure some criticism is warranted but this feels overblown. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

There are some serious WEIGHT issues there. I think it could reasonably be cut down to a single paragraph. By the third paragraph it definitely seems to feel excessive. Guettarda (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)