Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Athaenara (talk | contribs) at 13:04, 29 March 2007 (→[[Perez Hilton]] {{blpwatch-links|Perez Hilton}}: Posted by User 65.97.31.53.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    CWC is correct, the article as it stands now is a hatchet job. It begins fairly, but more than half the content is taken up by a "Controversies" section which can fairly be termed vicious. — Athænara ✉ 08:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is somewhat better now, but not better enough, seeming to heavily violate undue weight. A "controversy" which is one person making an accusation doesn't belong in a controversies section. Ken Arromdee 04:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The following user/IPs have generated nearly all of the disruptive and tendentious editing of this article in the past two months:

    • (68.212.24.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (March 07) Possible cohort.)

    Their edits in the past month (samples: 1 2) typically:

    1. Added unreferenced WP:NOR non-neutral speculation.
    2. Removed bibliography publisher/year/ISBN information.
    3. Often used misleading edit summaries, even quoting phrases from other editors' summaries.

    As of 13:05, March 22 2007 (UTC), the article is protected from editing. — Athænara ✉ 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On 2007-03-14, two days ago, the subject complained on xyr web log that this entry was not written in a way that adhered to the biographies of living persons policy. I've made a quick first pass, removing some of the most obvious unsourced controversial material, including wholly unsourced claims about the subject's wife, but attention from other editors is required. Uncle G 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Serin. — Athænara ✉ 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have tagged Peter Bucknell first as a {{db-bio}}, later as a {{db}} with a reason, but in both cases it got detagged. The article was earlier deleted, AFAIK because it was created by the subject of the article, and now has been recreated again by the person who is the subject of the article. I will leave it for now, could someone else have a look at the article, the editor, and the subject. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Re-opened discussion from archive. — CharlotteWebb 01:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Gary Radnich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Several users (including multiple IPs as well as CharlotteWebb) have repeatedly re-added multiple unsourced or poorly-sourced negative assertions about this Bay Area television/radio personality. Most pernicious is the accusation of racism, for which the only listed source is an article noting that Radnich has been the target of some racist remarks due to his interracial marriage.[1]

    There are two other poorly-sourced assertions; one a negative description of his show using weasel words ("By some accounts"), and the other an assertion of "constant criticism of baseball superstar Barry Bonds" sourced only by a single video clip. JavaTenor 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This, the edit which I observed to be indiscriminate removal of the lower 75% of the article, left it with one reference which was broken in the middle of the template, no categories, and no stub tag. I did not "add negative assertions", I reverted it as page-blanking vandalism. — CharlotteWebb 01:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that the reverted edit was vandalism in anything other than the clumsiness with which it broke the first reference. The first content sentence it removed was a textbook example of WP:WEASEL, and the second sentence was an entirely unsourced accusation of racism (the article referenced for that sentence being a glowing description of Radnich's multiracial family). I understand your reaction, however, and apologize for referencing you in this context without first alerting you on your talk page. JavaTenor 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clumsiness is an understatement. The user removed 3½ of 4 citations, which linked to SF Weekly, the San Francisco Chronicle, and KRON-TV, a network television affiliate in San Francisco. These are reliable sources. A responsible edit would have been to replace the statements with material actually supported by those sources. Removing such references for no apparent reason is indistinguishable from vandalism. — CharlotteWebb 00:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree in this case, per WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. The first sentence was perhaps salvageable, the second sentence not - it was clearly contentious and derogatory material, and clearly not supported by the listed sources (in fact, it was at least partially disproven by the listed sources). While I agree that the deleted sources are both reliable and perhaps useful in the context of this article, they actually worsened the article as it stood: readers who didn't bother to follow the links might have assumed that the sources corroborated "refusing to take responsibility for his racist commentary". Again, I understand why the edit in question might have been mistaken for vandalism, but I think the policy is clear in stating that this sort of material should be deleted.
    And again, I apologize for bringing your name up; I'd never submitted an entry to the BLP noticeboard before, and was trying to cover all the users I noticed adding or re-adding the material under discussion. JavaTenor 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I question whether the section in question was libelous but it was absolutely and without question a violation of WP:NOR, and an excellent example of why NOR is such an important rule in Wikipedia. Interpretation of complex evidence from original sources is extremely difficult and dangerous, which is why we must avoid it, and especially in WP:WLP situations.--Jimbo Wales 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is currently an ongoing dispute in relation to potentially libelous material in this entry. That the material is potentially libelous has been argued by four editors: Asmodeus, DrL, Sheerfirepower, and FNMF. User Asmodeus is the subject of the entry; DrL is the wife of the subject. Other editors disagree that the material is libelous. Asmodeus and DrL are presently banned from editing the entry. In my opinion, not only is the material potentially libelous, being a one-sided representation of an uncontested lawsuit, but the material is totally non-notable and unimportant in relation to the subject of the entry. For these reasons I believe the section should be deleted. The editors that disagree have a clear antipathy toward the subject of the entry for several reasons, and I do not believe they are in an objective position to judge the issue, despite some of them being long-term editors of Wikipedia. It is my opinion that the bad faith of many of the editors of this entry extends far beyond the particular issue I have raised here, and constitutes a campaign in violation of Wikipedia's official policy in relation to living persons.

    I believe the potential libelousness of this section of the entry has been raised in this forum previously by user DrL. But whatever was the outcome of that process, the current state of the dispute is unsatisfactory.

    I wish to point out that I have no association with Langan, am not a proponent of his ideas, and am not a proponent of intelligent design (with which he has been linked, a link he insistently contests). But I am appalled at the editing which has afflicted this entry.

    As is the way with these things, there are an endless number of potentially relevant diffs. Here, however, are the diffs I consider to be the most critical:

    I hope this helps make the issue clear. I believe this is a serious and ongoing policy violation with potential legal consequences. I believe outside assessment is necessary, given the antipathy to the subject by the involved editors. FNMF 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree with Jimbo; however, WP:BLP applied to the Mega Society, itself, requries that the Mega Foundation be excised from the article if some reference to the dispute between L and the Mega Society is not there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above argument by Arthur Rubin is ridiculous. The references in question are to Langan's work. The notion that mentioning a foundation of which Langan is a member and a founder is somehow libelous, just because there was, in the past, a legal dispute with another foundation, is nonsensical. It is also evidence of the destructive editing pattern afflicting the entry. FNMF 13:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to the above is the comment I left on the Langan talk page here.
    A summary of the arguments for and against removing the links to published secondary references accessible on Langan's website has been made here. FNMF 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see talk page- User: Phil Gronowski has added libelous material to Murphy entry while in a feud with Murphy himself. Murphy says clearly that the fight didn't happen. IT IS NOT referenced under Tarantino's entry the guy who hit him supposedly nor Hamsher's, whose book supposedly was responsible. It is not, clearly, even a minor event much less a major event in the guy's life. Yet here it is PUT THERE by a guy who admits to being in a feud with Murphy. That is NOT what Wales would have us do. WE MUST err on the side of protecting the rights of BLP. The guy himself says it didn't happen - personally, on the very website that Gronowski cites, donmurphy.net. Therefore if we take one thing as evidence we should take all things. PanFordThunder 06:44, March 20, 2007 (UTC)

    • s noone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly trying to edit the article to remove any negative information as 'libel'. The libel in question, which stated that Palumbo has taken negative reviews and reworded them to make them positive, is backed up with citations referring to the original review and a link. I had reported this article earlier and other editors managed to get the article to BLP standards, but s noone is constantly reverting it to his original section which is pretty much a glorified fluff piece.--CyberGhostface 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The paragraphs that are disputed are so long that I'm a bit lazy to read the whole thing. But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that your only source for this claim is by comparing the original review with the quotation? Sorry but even tho this is a very straight forward exercise it's still OR. Also, you need to establish it's controversial. While the practice itself might seem controversial, unless there you have a source to establish that it's controversial in this particular instance it should generally be left out Nil Einne 18:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it original research? On one side we have postings on Nick's websites with his version of the review, and another we have the real review. There's no doubt to the validity of the reviews. Is it controversial? I don't know. Nick's not exactly a big name in Hollywood. But I didn't state that it was controversial, I merely stated that Nick supplied false information.--CyberGhostface 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked out the article. He seems like a really dislikable guy but I went ahead and removed some of the POV remarks. It seems to me that anything posted on the Internet is hard to trace for sure to one person. This was a problem with several of the points made in the article. Steve Dufour 10:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A user, using both an anon IP (86.6.207.111) and as Brine Pepaz is continually adding libellous material to the Daz Sampson article, suggesting that he bears a resemblance to a certain child murderer. This is clearly not encyclopedic and not factually based. It is also potentially serious libel. However, whenever I revert the edit he restores it. // TomPhil 13:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly inappropriate, probably libelous and extremely dubiously sourced. Revert on sight without regard to 3RR and if they do it again, they get a block. FCYTravis 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bturvey (talk · contribs) & 24.240.17.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been battling over this article, with 3RR violations and threatening comments from both to each other. The content dispute centers around allegations of perjury and falsification of credentials. I'm signing off for the night, so hopefully others can step in. -- Scientizzle 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The court case cited by User:Bturvey seems to be verifiable, although the source being used (corpus-delicti.com) is not the best one. I found the case (Drake v. Portuondo) on FindLaw.com. Mike Dillon 05:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This biograhy page seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walter's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake - his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony).

    This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006).

    I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor.

    I expect that they will change the edits again and that this issue will become something that needs an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts them because of their association with him.

    Not only has editor 24.240.17.187 repeatedly removed the accurate edits made to the Richard Walter article that I have made, but this individual is also repeatedly removing my attempts to discuss it in the talk section. Clearly, this person is attempting to further the perpetration of fraudulent information in hopes of staving off the inevitable discovery of Walters as a fraud by the public.

    See: "The Forensic Fraud Archive", which my company maintains to document such cases. Walter is listed alphabetically at the end, with links to supporting court records.

    The acrobat file was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 10 documents per page to see it.

    Please feel free to contact me directly.

    Brent E. Turvey, MS Forensic Scientist [email protected] Bturvey 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrator:

    Richard Walter seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walters's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake. In 2003 and again in 2006 his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony) by a fedeal judge.

    This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006). The acrobat file here was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 100 documents per page to see it. Get the drake file.

    I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor. Now Buzzle45 (talk · contribs), an original anonymous creator of this false information page designed to rescue Walters flailing credibility, has stepped in to replace anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I am not certain these are two separate individuals.

    At any rate, I expected that whoever created the page would change the edits and that this issue would become something that needed an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts more than a few because of their association with him.

    Anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 has removed the Richard Walter page at least six times aleady and has also removed this section from the Talk: Richard Walter page at least six times, since 3/18/07 to prevent me from even having a civil discussion about it with others. Buzzle45 (talk · contribs) has done the same. Not exactly actions that are conducive to resolution, let alone communication. They just don't want the ruling public because of their hero worship (that's assuming that one of the individuals is not actually Richard Walter -this a very distinct possibility).

    This information is not libelous. It is corrective. It is the posting of a court's ruling using the court's own document. The Wikipedia entry currently states that Walters was exonnerated by the judge in the Drake case. This is not just false, it is beligerantly deceptive at this point.

    Note please that I am the only person in this dispute who must testify in court on a regular basis, under oath - and that I am also the only one willing to be identified.

    As it stands, the article is full of false and bloated information about Walters that is designed to prop him up despite the court ruling - so that those who use Wikipedia as their primary nfo source (and there are many too many) will be misled. It is a disgrace to the professional community, and it is the furtherance of a weakly crafted fraud.

    Do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance.

    Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Scientist Bturvey 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brent continues to write libel. His above post states: "Mr. Walter whom has long been regarded as a charlatan by the courts." That is, in itself, a libelous statement.

    To accuse someone of perjury is a serious charge. Mr. Turvey makes that claim on his own websites, but that is a matter between Mr. Walter and Mr. Turvey to settle in civil court.

    I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard.

    In reading the court document, in the final ruling in the Drake case, the judge overturns the appeal.

    In his opinion, the judge states that Mr. Walter "may" have committed perjury (which he did not), but he rules that such an issue is a moot point because Mr. Drake does not have the basis for appeal.

    Thus, Drake's appeal, and all of its allegations are ruled false.

    I welcome you to read the decision on Lexis-Nexis and not Mr. Turvey's doctored version on his websites.

    While on Lexis-Nexis, I would also encourage you to read about Mr. Turvey's false statements under oath in Mississippi last year and his previous false statements under oath regarding his employment by the Sitka, Alaska Police Department as a detective. (Mr. Turvey lost in court in his bid to claim that he was employed as a detective in Sitka).

    Because Mr. Turvey was not allowed into the AAFS, he has spent his short career creating his own organizations and schools. His organizations are nothing more than him and a few of his former "students" posing as a substitute for the AAFS.

    Still, the bitterness of rejection has never been exorcised from his soul. He maintains a website that lists several well-respected forensic pathologists as "frauds" (Mr. Walter is not his only victim).

    With all due respect, his situation reminds me of a jealous child in the playground who wants to "take his toys and play on his own".

    I suggest that the Richard Walter page remain permanently locked in its pre-March 17th state.

    Please disregard Bturvey's threat to "show why wikipedia can't be trusted as a source in my class". He has many more enemies than friends; no one will stand in his defense.

    02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

    Buzzle45 (talk · contribs)


    I don't know if this is the proper place to make a comment on this, but I believe I can act as an impartial party in this dispute.

    On the one hand I do believe that whomever created the page in question, and some related ones, is doing so in an attempt top promote this person in an way that is deceptive to some facts. I did some edits in the past to try to fix this (might have been on as an IP account at the time).

    On the other hand the accusations that Richard Walter was a charlatan in the court case that made the news are simply one sided, unrealistic in my opinion (some lawyer tried to get a conviction over turned because Walters as an expert witness testified about "picquerism" as a term that allegedly no psychologists heard about... which has just got to be complete nonsense, as the term is included in most abnormal psychology classes and even introductory psych textbooks and is, in fact, used professionally by experts in the field of criminology and psychology, for example Robert D. Keppel in several books and articles). Any mention of this case needs to meet WP:NPOV criteria, which would not be simply repeating outrageous accusations of one side if they were truth.

    The accusations made above by both sides are quite extremely biased and do not meet the expectations of this project. The standard policies here of NPOV and Verifiability can and should apply. It was what I was doing with earlier edits and I think it can succeed in the future as well. DreamGuy 17:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Describe the dispute using the following format:

    • Richard Walter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a serious concern about the arguement between and activities of two users and an IP, User:Buzzle45, User:Bturvey and 24.240.17.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Accusations are flying between these three on the article talk page, WP:LE talk page for a little while, and my talk page. The middle user, Bturvey, has been blocked for 48 hours as a result. It seems that there are serious concerns that libellous information is being added, and I have had an email from Bturvey stating that Buzzle45 is "A person acting with Richard Walter sitting over their shoulder, acting as his publicist" I have the email ready to forward to anyone who is concerned. //SGGH 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is Buzzle45. No one is sitting over my shoulder and I am not a publicist. I am concerned that once unlocked, Bturvey or someone on his behalf will continue to post libelous information on Richard Walter's page. Mr. Turvey has a personal vendetta against Richard Walter and apparently cannot rest until he slanders him all over the internet. I am hoping that the article remain locked. If need be, the whole "Drake case" incident can be left off. No information about that case is better than libelous information. User:Buzzle45 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just noticed that this has been dealt with further up in this page, with the sources cited by Bturvey being seen as reliable. SGGH 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo Wales says that in an article about a living person, “no information” is better than “inaccurate information.” It would be best to stub the article, put full protection on it, and allow administrators to do all the direct editing. The people who are arguing about article content should still be allowed to participate on the talk page. If they provide information from reliable sources, administrators can put it in the article. But as a long-term solution, article protection is unacceptable. At some point, protection must be removed; and these editors must understand and accept that they can’t be allowed to use the article to present their own points of view. This is a reasonable and neutral solution. NeilinOz1 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Robert Sungenis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A group of people are using Robert Sungenis' Wikipedia bio as a means of libeling him. They are using a blog which is bascially accusing Robert Sungenis of being an anti-semite as the main source for distorted and ugly accusations. I have removed the section and put up a dispute tag. Take a look at some of the past edits.

    My account has been sabatoged (not necassarily related to this) so I am operating anon.

    Truth_Seeker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:33, March 21, 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs)


    • A blog certainly isn't a reliable source, and seems very POV. I will check on the users making these edits and see what message could be left asking them to check up on their contributions. Protecting the article will be a good idea if the changes continue at a high rate. SGGH 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do so, and keep it in the current "mild" form until all editors can agree.

    How do I get my account fixed?

    Thanks,

    Truth_Seeker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21:03, March 21, 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

    P.S. I created a new account. Truth seeker new 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know, what's wrong with it? If this is it, it looks like it's working.... SGGH 09:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe he/she lost his/her password? If so, you should be able to have a new one e-mailed if you entered an e-mail address. If not, I'm not quite sure what can be done... Nil Einne 18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I got it to work. I wonder if I can delete my new accout? Anyway, here is my proposal for the new section on Sungenis' Jewish viewpoint. What do you think?

    Position on the Jews

    Robert Sungenis strongly holds to a view of Biblical inerrancy which, as he claims the Church has traditionally done, tends to emphasize the literal interpretation strongly where appropriate. This, plus his interpretation of Patristics, Conciliar, and Papal pronouncements has lead him to some of the following positions on the Jews and Judaism:

    1. The Jews did have (in the time of Christ) a "hardened heart", and still predominately have this condition today (ref. Rm 9:18-32; 11:5-23)

    2. The Jews are no longer a special people (above the gentiles) in God's eyes (ref. Gal 3:28 '...There is neither Jew nor Greek...',Col 2:11-16; Eph 2:11-16; Ac 10:34-35; 5:1-4; 6:12-16; Rm 2:28-29; Heb 7:18; 8:13; 10:9; 2Co 3:6-14).

    3. Jewish converts to Catholicism should not practice Jewish rituals and festivals, nor seek special identity markers within the Church (Acts of the Apostles, Council of Florence)

    4. Though speculatively possible, there likely will not be a massive conversion of Jews at the second coming of Christ. Robert also identifies theological difficulties in holding this position. Robert holds that only a remnant will be converted, and this throughout the time of the gentiles. (see the Mark Cameron debates)

    5. Today's national Israel was not predicted in the Old Testament (misinterpertations of Isaiah 66, Genesis 12:3),nor does this represent the final fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (this already occured in the Old Testament, Joshua 21:43-45; 1Kings 8:56; Nehemiah 9:7-8), nor does the the cedeing of control of Jeruseluem to the Jews of Israel in 1967 indicate the time of the "fulfilment of the gentiles" (Luke 21:24, Rm 11:25).

    6. The Talmud is an anti-Christian document.

    7. The Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by and replaced by the New Covenant with Christ (ref., Hb 7:18; 8:13; 10:9; 2Co 3:6-14; Gl 3:10-29).

    8. The New Covenant fulfills the Old, not vice-versa.

    9. Jews do need to convert to Catholicism to attain salvation.

    The same thinking, Biblical exegesis, and interpretation of Patristics, Concliar, and Papal pronouncements which have led to Robert Sungenis being lauded by Catholic apologists when applied to Protestant ideas, have caused some consternation amongst some Catholic apologists and even secular groups when applied to the Jews. Especially contentious to some apologists are his speculations interpreting points 1,5, and 6 to events and people today.

    END PROPOSAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:35, March 24, 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

    Truth Seeker, don’t try to delete your “Truth Seeker New” account. Just provide a link to it from your “Truth Seeker” account with an explanation that you used it briefly when the “Truth Seeker” account wasn’t working. In almost all cases you should use just one account, so use the “Truth Seeker” account and stop using the other one. For the Robert Sungenis article, as a general rule blogs are not acceptable under our WP:ATT policy. Specifically, they do not satisfy our concerns about reliable sources. There are a few exceptions, but the blog that’s being used as a source for anti-Sungenis criticism doesn’t meet the criteria for an exception. The blog, all references to it, and all material taken from it should be deleted from the Robert Sungenis article. NeilinOz1 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When I requested a lock, I requested that a specific version be locked (the one previous to the currently locked). One of the editors somehow just happened to get an edit change in right before the lock went on, and added the links back. The version I requested for locking had all the links to blogs removed. Truth seeker new 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was protected as the result of an edit war. You can't choose a version to protect it on. --Deskana (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've requested semi-protection on the article, but I agree that it's difficult to figure out what the pre-vandalism version is. There are a number of NPOV issues that need clarification in this one. JavaTenor 01:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When in doubt, take it out. Any material that is questionable should be removed. Reduce it to a stub if necessary. Then you can have a discussion on the talk page, to decide what should be put back into the article. Use only reliable sources, preferably those with a neutral point of view. Partisan sources, especially self-published ones, should be used with extreme caution or not used at all. NeilinOz1 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You say Giuliano STOLE a tape from PETE TOWNSHEND of the WHO!!! You say this because it was in an article in Eye Magazine WHICH WAS LATER SUED FOR THIS MATTER AND PAID GIULIANO $250,000 USD. So WHY are you REPEATING IT? We ALL know that legally to REPEAT A LIBEL IS A LIBEL. Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21:22, March 21, 2007 (talk • contribs)

    The magazine's Web site still contains the purported "libel." If it was truly found to be libelous, it wouldn't still be published on the Eye Weekly site. Please provide a source for your assertion that the matter has been found to be libelous by a court. FCYTravis 05:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If a court has found that the statement was libelous, then the article should indicate that it was a false statement. A court case resulting in a $250,000 judgment for libel is notable. It would vindicate Giuliano’s claims. Where can we learn more about this judgment for $250,000? We need reliable sources to support this if we’re going to use it in the article. NeilinOz1 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reviewed the article and I don’t see anything wrong with it at this time. If you have a specific concern, please bring it to our attention. I’ll put it on my watch list. Fair enough? NeilinOz1 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Strikeout* - unrelated crude vandalism.
    2. User John Alder has not edited the article since October 2006.
    3. User 75.45.251.26 has not edited the article since then, either, and reverted Alder's edits. The diff cited above in the report indicates it was Werbe. It may have been.
    4. According to the KFPT AM 790 station page for Werbe's show the subject describes himself as a libertarian socialist. The substitution of "progressive" in the first sentence of the article looks like weasel-wording. — Athænara ✉ 09:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies I didn't check the other anon's contribs just guessed it might be the same person based on thje similar IPs Nil Einne 10:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, just to make this clear, my primary concern was that altho the stuff appears to have died down now, it appears from the history no one was watching. Given that this has been a problem article I just wanted to bring it to attention here so someone could watch it (I personally don't tend to watch articles). Now that Athænara is watching it should be fine. Nil Einne 10:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paul Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This entire article has been structured and written as a very biased attack on the Former Canadian Prime Minister. It contains multiple unsourced attacks, including a claim that Martin's son (who is married and has a young child) is a prominent member of the gay community. The entire article is questionable and goes to great lengths to expand on partisan political attacks that have been made against Martin by opposing political parties. So much of the material in the article is inaccurate and unsourced it is almost impossible to list all of the dubious claims. The article as it is written has no place in a source like Wikipedia. I made some quick changes such as repairing the unsourced and innaccurate reference to Martin's so, but don't have a lot of experience in the protocals for editing Wikipedia articles so am hoping that others in the community can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:53, March 22, 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

    “Outing” Martin’s son as gay is an invasion of privacy and must be removed. Questions of sexuality are especially sensitive, especially if the son is not a public figure and has avoided the spotlight. Unsourced criticism of Martin should also be removed immediately. Beyond that, the article about Martin should not be allowed to be used as a campaign advertising vehicle by his political opponents. Nevertheless, if there is a real controversy about Martin (as distinguished from a “manufactured” controversy that his opponents have blown out of proportion), if it’s about his performance in public office, or some illegality in his private affairs, and if it comes from a reliable source, it should be represented fairly in the biography. The Wikipedia article can’t “side with the critics.” It can’t even appear to do so. It can’t be used as a “laundry list” of every criticism raised by his political opponents. The sources used should be neutral. NeilinOz1 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stephen Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have removed a negative, unsourced statement from this article with the edit summary "Remove unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - in view of the latter, only reinsert if sourced in other than primary sources" (diff). User:Levine2112 then reverted my edit and added two sources. (diff) However, neither source supported the removed statement. I therefor reverted Levine2112 (diff) with the edit summary "rv: unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - these sources (1) do not support the assertion (2) do not show that this is in any way important. DO NOT REVERT without discussion on talk". A discussion on the talk page ensued, and Levine2112 became very argumentative and claimed that he did not understand my logic. Instead of waiting for a consensus to build, he inserted a slightly edited version of the disputed text elsewhere in the article without adding any sources showing why it is relevant and should be included. (diff). I have asked him to self-revert (diff) but so far he has not complied. I have waited some 40 minutes after that request to self-revert and am now requesting some guidance as to how to proceed. But I'm about to go to bed so perhaps an uninvolved admin can take a look. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not become argumentative. I only made an argument. There is a difference. I am still unclear of the point AvB is trying to make there and I have requested several times that he clarifies it. He has refused to. I have also provided as a source an entry on the Stephen Barrett talk page made by Stephen Barrett himself, user:Sbinfo. In this discussion, Barrett clearly states that he did in fact fail the neurological portion of his board certification exam in 1964 and never again re-took them. Thus he is not board certified. Furthermore, I have cited BLP#Using the Subject as a source to AvB to demonstrate that Barrett's comments on an article's talk page can be used as a source of information. I welcome anyone to come to the talk page to discuss my and AvB's points. Cheers! -- Levine2112 discuss 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation has worsened, but there's now a RFC. --Ronz 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've rewritten this based upon sources. Please review. Uncle G 22:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Which specific impasse? — Athænara ✉ 08:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, not trying to be coy. Just seems that all parties have their hackles up about any representation of the whole thing. The disputes seem to center on whether Libby's ethnicity/religion should be included in a category (the questions seem to be both whether this is accurate and also whether it is relevant), and whether there should be some reference to the article about Libby's ethnicity/religion should be included in the Wiki bio. There are now several pages of archived discussions on the talk page. Tensions are high. Not sure all parties would agree to mediation. I can give a further account if you'd like. Notmyrealname 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reviewed the archives you described. In my opinion, Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency can be used as a reliable source. His extensive ears of service with the Associated Press can be verified. JTA appears to be a very small Israeli news agency but kampeas brings sufficient reliability with him from the AP. However, investing a large amount of space in the Wikipedia article to the issue of Libby’s religious beliefs is very questionable. It’s best to reduce such material to one or two sentences, preceded by “Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency says …” NeilinOz1 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue is not whether Kampeas is a reliable source, but whether inclusion of material about the Temple Libby allegedly belongs to violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Given that the JTA is not Israeli, I suspect you haven't really researched this properly. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayjg, as in the talk pages of the article, is not presenting what is contested accurately. Jayjg has removed at times the entire reference, and he has removed every other Wikipedia editor's reference to Libby's being Jewish, or to fact that there has been confusion about the matter of "Libby's" so-called "Jewishness." He objects not only to the mention that Libby belongs to a specific Jewish temple but to any mention that the man is Jewish, as sourced with multiple interviews of Libby's colleagues, professional and personal acquaintances, by Kampeas in his article published for the New York City-based Jewish Telegraphic Agency, an article reprinted in The Jerusalem Post (which is published in Jerusalem and part of the original citation that I included), which Jayjg deleted several times. There is now a Wikipedia article for Ron Kampeas, and one can read about the basis for his authority as a journalist in it. When he worked for the Associated Press, at times he was based in Jerusalem, then in Washington, D.C., as well as other locations (since 1992); then he resigned his AP position to become Washington, D.C. bureau head of Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The article is being cited for the entire article, not just for one detail; however, Kampeas provides verification that Libby and his family are affiliated with a Jewish temple as one of the items that he discusses as evidence of what he terms the matter of "Libby's Jewishness?" being the source of "misapprehension" (and he uses the question mark) in the JTA original source). --NYScholar 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    I originally posted [correction: a response to] a notice about this article in this noticeboard. I don't know where the previous material is, but extensive discussion can be found in the current and archived talk pages at Talk:Lewis Libby. I have documented the citations that I have added and all of my references have at times been deleted by one or two of the same editors. Please review the problems with this article. Thank you. [Update: The original notice re: this article that I posted [correction: a response to] is in archive 10 of this noticeboard [see links provided by user Athænara more recently; useful to consult]: [corrected link:] Archive 10, item 25. Please note: the user posting this current notice, Notmyrealname, has been involved in the content dispute, as I have been, and is not a neutral observer, in my view; s/he is one of those one or two of the same editors continually reverting mention of Kampeas' discussion or citations of information based on Kampeas. I have offered anywhere from one sentence to five lines of text in neutral language, that has been continually reverted by these other users.] --NYScholar 00:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [updated and corrected. --NYScholar 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)]

    As I said, everyone has their hackles up... I would kindly ask that the above user keep her/his discussions to the topics at hand and refrain from making personal comments, such as insinuating that I am a Sock Puppet. To paraphrase the Elephant Man, I am not a sock puppet--I am a human being. And for the record, I'm the one who started the last discussion on this noticeboard. Now, leaving all that aside, the current dispute involves, among other things, whether it is appropriate to include the specific house of worship that Libby is a member of. Again, the intervention of other editors who are not interested parties would be greatly appreciated. Notmyrealname 03:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is absurd; please stay on topic. My comment above says nothing about the previous user in the manner that that user is stating above (read my comment). I referred this noticeboard (as I have done before--[corrected link]: archive 10, item 25--to the current and archived talk pages of Talk:Lewis Libby. I mention that the previous editor is also involved himself/herself in the content dispute and that s/he needs to disclose that, just as I have done. [....moved to my talk archive 4.] For the record, I have never used the term "sock puppet" referring to any particular user in Wikipedia; that is apparently that particular user's own fixation. I am, however, concerned that there have been multiple anon. IP users who have vandalized the article on Lewis Libby, frequently leading to the need to semi-protect it (they increased from March 6, 2007, the day of Libby's conviction, on); none of us other ordinary users would know who they are, as they are "anonymous." Speaking for myself, I edit Wikipedia using one user name. This one. I do not edit Wikipedia using an anonymous IP. I think that this article still needs semi-protection, due to the potential vandalism by anonymous IP users. --NYScholar 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [....]

    Sorry, I assumed this had been a reference to the earlier discussion on this board [3], not the request for semi-protection. I have never been blocked for violating the 3RR, however that is not the case for several of the other editors in this dispute. The current version of disputed text that the above editor is trying to insert includes not only a misplaced reference to an article that discusses why some White Supremacist groups think that Libby's ethnicity is important (a topic already poorly covered in Neoconservatism) as well as the actual house of worship that lists Libby as a member. The above editor is also impeding any meaningful discussion of the issue on the talk page by inserting dozens of comments each week. Again, the input of outside editors with no stake in the topic would be most helpful. Notmyrealname 02:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone can see from the Lewis Libby logs and talk pages (or my own edit history) that I am an interested party. I have cataloged the above user's attacks on my on my talk page. The above comments and the other several hundred over the past few weeks on the talk page are typical of the situation we have on the Libby page. Again, it would be helpful for other non-interested editors to help everyone bring this issue to some sort of resolution.Notmyrealname 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [To shorten the comments that I added here in response to other user, in response to the request below, I have moved them to my own talk page archive 4. I may shorten them further if I have time. I am working on a non-Wikipedia-related project with a deadline and cannot take more time with this Wikipedia dispute. Please see the talk pages of the article on Libby. [Note: Counting edits is misleading; most of my edits are typographical corrections to the comments that I added. See my talk archive 4 for the moved comments and the current and archived talk pages of the article for other comments by me and other users specifically about the editing content dispute (not contributors; in my view, contributors are not the subject of this dispute; the dispute is about article content being deleted by users).] --NYScholar]

    • (Previous discussions, same article: in WP:BLP/N archives 10 and 12.)
    • Please make your comments as concise as possible.
    • Fellow editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.
    • More than thirty of the last fifty edits in the noticeboard history are by NYScholar—not only far too numerous, but in complete disregard of the request at the top of the noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 10:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry Athaenara; I moved most of my comments to my own talk page archive 4 and added [....] above; I hadn't noticed the request at the top of the noticeboard; I had followed a link that went directly to this section originally; most of the edits that you count are actually minor typographical error corrections in my comments, which I found after posting them. --NYScholar 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    I would add to this discussion whether others think it appropriate to list Libby on the Temple Rodef Shalom page. He is the only congregant listed. Notmyrealname 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [....] See Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom. --NYScholar 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    [....] Moved reply [by User Quatloo] to my comment to the appropriate talk page. It showed up after I had already moved my comment that it refers to there. --NYScholar 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    I have seen several additional problems with the article’s tone; you may have overlooked these problems, because they were clustered in the last section of the article. I’ve cleaned them up. If there are any further problems, please let us know. NeilinOz1 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • David Gaiman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a small number of users are CONTIUALLY adding to the David Gaiman's page that his son is the fantasy author Neil Gaiman, there is absolutely no evidence that this is true. Gaiman's own website never mentions his father as being called David, similarly the article they use as basis, has no evidence that this is the same Neil Gaiman. I accept that it is possible, but to add something that is merely possiible (even probable) does disservice to wikipedias attempts to be a reputable encyclopedia --90.241.1.65 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heather Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - DailyKos.com dug up a 14-year-old child molesting allegation against Jay Hone, the husband of Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), three weeks before an election. As secretary of the state's Department of Children, Youth and Families, Wilson moved the investigative file from one location to another within the department. Political enemies have been trying to get mileage out of it ever since, and DailyKos.org dug it up three weeks before the election.

    Despite these smear tactics, Wilson won re-election and now a Wikipedia editor wants to reward their efforts by permanently enshrining them in Wilson's Wikipedia article. Hone was never arrested or charged with any crime and the county prosecutor, a Democrat, admitted in a 1996 interview that Wilson broke no law by moving the file.

    My efforts to enforce WP:BLP have been met with accusations of vandalism. Please help. Kzq9599 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Even if there is a reliable source proving that the Patricia Madrid campaign tried to use this as a campaign issue in 2006, it should be removed from the article. Since Madrid did not win the election, she didn’t get any traction with this issue even if she used it. All editors agree that no laws were broken by either Wilson or her husband. The allegation against Wilson’s husband was never proven. He was never even arrested. In the current atmosphere created by the Mark Foley scandal, this allegation is completely poisonous. We shouldn’t even touch it unless we’re forced to do so. By using this material, we would be forced to provide links to news articles that explore details of the unproven allegations against Wilson’s husband, who is a private person.

      This issue is decided by the prejudicial effect of hanging this unproven allegation around the neck of Wilson’s husband for the rest of his life. That prejudicial effect far outweighs any benefit to the article that might be gained from including a campaign issue about his wife. The section must be removed. If Wilson’s husband had been arrested and brought to trial, that would be different. If Wilson had broken the law by moving the file, that would also be different. The burden of probable cause would have been satisfied at least. But we don’t even have that much here. Obviously the authorities concluded that no crime was committed, so it should be kept out of the article. It's a close call, but in articles about living persons we must err on the side of caution. Delete the whole section. NeilinOz1 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • It is possible to address the issue, which was a 1998 campaign issue, in its proper historical context, as part of covering the 1998 election campaign, without including anything about the husband at all, and keeping the article focussed upon Wilson and Maloof. I've provided a suggested wording for doing so on the talk page, which I recommend reading.

        As I pointed out on the talk page, covering the issue fairly, and sticking to the parts that actually involved the two election candidates and their negative advertising, can have a beneficial effect, inasmuch as if anyone tries to one-sidedly re-hash the issue years later for partisan purposes, readers can come to Wikipedia to read about both sides of the 1998 campaign and how the entire affair actually concluded. My suggestion was also to not have this removed from its historical context and in a "controversies" section, as it is now, but to include it in chronological order, alongside the existing discussions of the other election campaigns, giving it historical context.

        In other words: The husband is not legitimate territory for the article, but the election campaign's negative advertising, and Wilson's public responses (one problem with the current text being that it doesn't present Wilson's publicly stated view of her actions in public office at all) within that campaign explaining her view that her actions in public office were entirely proper, are, as long as they are in historical context and confine themselves to the politicians. Uncle G 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dmitry Salita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Unsourced personal opinion added by User:German.Knowitall and other material is deleted without reasonable explanations. // TAG 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed a lot of unsourced nonsense from that article. --Deskana (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also removed some stuff that seems to have no references online. The only references were exact replicas of the text of the article, which either means they were copied from that website (without referencing it, probably violating copyright laws) which means they should be removed, or that website copied Wikipedia, in which case it has no source and should be removed. --Deskana (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work Deskana. I fully support your edits. NeilinOz1 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Please advice on how to deal with this in future ? --TAG 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Well, I just read through the article. Anything that didn't have a source and was criticism I removed immidiately. Anything that didn't have a source (regardless of whether it was positive, negative or neutral) I tried to find one for. For example, I copied the first few words of a quote from the page, and entered it into Google. For one of the quotes the only exact match was Wikipedia, the others being totally unrelated to the person that had matched on random words. For another there were two exact matches, but it was pretty clear one was just a copy of Wikipedia, so therefore it was unsourced. Then basically all you're left with is sourced comments, which is what BLP says is the standard. I hope this advice is useful to you. --Deskana (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks once more. I've not removed information about him that was published on his website - as self-published was fine per Wikipedia guidelines. But I'm fine with your decision - as this information is in one place (his website) - not spread out - so anybody will be able to find it. Your assistance has helped to get out of edit war.--TAG 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mortifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to add the phrase that this man is Jewish. While this is not necessarily libelous, Mortifer is unrepentant and refuses to find a source; his reasoning is that Mr. Stern looks Jewish. Worse, I think he may be getting him mixed up with Howard Stern (the other guy); as I will likely not be around, I ask others to please watch this article. If you see this phrase added, or even if it is present at all without a source, please remove it. Update: after looking through user's contributions, this appears to be a spa that has often added the unsourced phrase "who is Jewish" to articles, often when it is questionable or controversial (see Huey Long. Someone please watch this person, as I do not have time to undo his reversions. Thanks. Patstuarttalk·edits 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    People might also want to watch what's going on in the talk page. There was a lot of speculation about the subject of the article which didn't appear to have anything to do with the article, & some of it rather negative (e.g. suggesting he had built up a legal fortress in Bermuda by bribing corrupt officials) which I removed. Nil Einne 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This article still suffers from biased editing. See the talk page and the problems of the article lacking "full citations" (over thirty external links are not identified as "full citations"); the article clearly does not clearly, adequately, and consistently identify the authors, titles, publications, dates of publication, and dates accessed of the sources used in the article. I have pointed this out, but no one has stepped up to correct these violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citations, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, WP:BLP#Public figures, and Wikipedia:Manual of style (with links to several of these other articles). I have previously given much of the needed information for providing "full citations"; this information is accessible (see talk page archive pages). There is no reason not to disclose fully the full citations, unless one is engaging in trying to hide what the sources actually are. Assuming WP:AGF, one hopes that that is not what is going on in that article. But the article appears to be trying to present the subject in a positive light but avoiding citing the titles of articles used as sources and showing how much of the material comes from Pipes's own websites [and/or from other sites; from articles sympathetic and/or critical of him; authors and titles etc. are needed to see nature, reliability, and notabilty, and verifiability of the sources linked]. That is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Articles in Wikipedia dealing with subjects relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the parties to that conflict, the Middle East, and living persons whose notability relates to their work on that region and that conflict and the parties to it seem continually to suffer from biases and lack of actual Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (This is my second attempt to call attempt to this article in this noticeboard. Subsequent editing by others of this article has not assuaged my concerns about it. Please consult the editing history of the article and the current and archived talk pages and the misleading way in which the archive of the talk page was constructed initially. Such obviously-biased and misleading articles do not represent Wikipedia in a positive light, in my view. To mislead Wikipedia readers, who may be students, is not doing a service to these readers.) --NYScholar 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    Certain individuals are disruptively editing this entry in an attempt to slant POV. Users FeloniousMonk, Arthur Rubin, and Guettarda have reverted reasonable edits that were worked on by a number of editors who established consensus. Instead of involving themselves in the collaboration process, they simply revert. As admins, these individuals should be fostering a cooperative environment rather than editing in a disruptive fashion. --Honorable citizen 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am putting E.S. back on the list here for the third time - I don't know how to link in the archived entries for Ellen Simonetti here. One of our disruptive editors is just off of a week-long block and is back at it again already, now having nominated the article for deletion, though we had that discussion a month ago or so. It has become a nice article, IMHO (special thanks to AE!), if fellow wikipedians can keep it that way. I think it best that I let others handle this situation; I am going to stay out of it. I've also been working on the article for blog where similar problems for E.S. could appear. Bdushaw 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dominic Davi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Dominic Davi was recently arrested following an allegation of rape, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper (philly.com) and you can see the here . Except the information was reverted because "allegations aren't notable". Before starting a needless edit war, I'd like to know if this is true according to Wikipedia policy? The information is certainly from a reliable source and being arrested and extradited seems notable. Chevinki 23:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd probably agree with you, as such heavy charges seem notable to me. Wikipedia, however, doesn't have any policy regarding notability. We have Wikipedia:Notability, but that's a guideline in dispute. Just be careful and continue using language emphasizing that these are alleged acts and charges, and continue to cite your sources extremely well. Also, looking at the page's history, it seems that you have violated WP:3RR — a policy designed to prevent back-and-forth edit warring — which can be grounds for a temporary block. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the rules and their purpose. WP:3RR makes exceptions for obvious vandals. It seemed like it was simple vandalism to me since the information kept being blanked any an anonymous editor without any given reason. I asked for semi-protection for the page and was told to keep reverting it. When it was blanked with a reason given, I came here. So I think I'm pretty safe from being blocked. Until Wikipedia:Notability and all that gets sorted out, I figured this board was experienced enough in such matters to be a de facto guideline. Chevinki 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=118767265"