Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive264

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

A. Wade Boykin

This biography is of a living person and contains statements that are not adequately supported by reliable sources. Due to its nature of being authored by anonymous contributors, any Wikipedia article for a biography, especially of a living person, must be based on facts and references that can be clearly identified. This article has many dubious claims such as "made significant contributions to, "an impressive and influential career,"His greatest contributions probably come out of," the whole Contributions section, "well-respected and extremely popular," and so forth. Removing or suspending the article until the content is well documented is recommended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.92.238 (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There's sufficient sourcing to support an article, so removing it is not called for. It's been in article space for years, so userfying wouldn't make much sense. Find refs, or delete unrefed content. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Improving the article makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.92.238 (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Eva Klotz

There is a problem with this biography, I don't say I'm right on this, I'm no historian or judge and I'm new here but I've found written that Eva Klotz father was a freedom fighter. I thought he was convicted for bombings and killings, and he was a known member of an organization South Tyrolean Liberation Committee "which aimed to achieve the right for self-determination for South Tyrol and the related secession from Italy via bomb attacks" and was later infiltrated by neo-nazis. So I've edited the page, which was later re-edited stating that Georg Klotz was a freedom fighter. I might be wrong of course and if that's the case, I'm sorry for the mess and maybe both the South Tyrolean Liberation Committee and several pages on the wikipedia.it need changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.190.177 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I will express no opinion about whether her father was a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist", but the article is (or should be) a biography of her, not her father. Currently, this article gives undue weight to the details of her father's life, while her own life story is undeveloped. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it. It belongs on either a biography about him, or an article on the crimes themselves. Not her biography. While sourced, undue weight by negative association is a BLP issue, guilt by association as it were. 'Convicted terrorist' is accurate but there is probably some wiggle room. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

ITWP appears to have an article on the father and one of the major events he was part of, which may need vetting if anyone wants to import them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that undue weight in this might be a really tricky subject: it's true that the article is about Ms Klotz and not her father and that in comparison to the lenght of the rest of the life and careeer section it's quite long, but it's still 3 lines (the rest of the section is quite short in fact) and half of them is used to clarify the matter; if the article just say, as it was before, that her father was a terrorist or a freedom fighter, without any page (in english) about him nor any short, lightly detailed, account of him; it might seem quite a matter of opinion who he was and his actions; I'm trying to say that without any explanation (be it in the article, in another linked article or as external references) anyone could write he was a freedom fighter or a terrorist or a martian or whatever as the reader won't find references substantiating such a statement, be it true or not. Aside from the fact that the life and career section itself is short (the italian version is a bit longer and more detailed: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Klotz), I've noticed that almost every article about a known face, in particular politicians, has a description of the family of the subject of the article, in many cases there is an entire "ancestry" section. In my opinion, and I might be wrong on this, in this specific article might be important to share some details on her father, not just because it's practice in the wiki or there's not a page on Georg Klotz, but because Ms Klotz herself stated that her childhood was influenced by the actions of her father (source: italian wiki page), she wrote a book on him (as stated in the article) and she is/was a member of a political movement (Südtiroler Heimatbund, Bürger Union für Südtirol and Süd-Tiroler Freiheit) with many common goal (indipendence/annextion to Austria of Südtirol) with her father's Befreiungsausschuss Südtirol (luckly with more peaceful means); so I think that, at least some part of, Georg Klotz's story might be relevant to understand Ms Klotz biography, as he is, of course, a part of not only her biography but of the recent history of her country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.190.177 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Just seen the new version, but I still think that stating that a man was terrorist without explanations or references is quite unfair towords him and his family (including Ms. Klotz), just as it is, towords the victims and their families, to say, without explanations or references, that he was a freedom fighter. Maybe the word "terrorist" need a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.190.177 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it does. What I removed here can be added back once a reliable independent source can be used to reference it using an inline citation. MPS1992 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

David Wolfe (entrepreneur)

This has been raised on the fringe topics noticeboard, but as it concerns a BLP it seems to me that it is more properly raised here.

The situation is that we have a claim about a living person sourced to two references. Both fully support the claim in the article. The first is reliably published in Slate, but only mentions the basics of the claim. The second is a self-published blog, but goes into more detail beyond what we discuss in the article. I would like to remove the self-published source per WP:BLPSPS, but Jytdog would like to retain the source, even though it is self-published, because it has more detail than the first.

In a situation where we have two sources that fully support the claim, can we retain the self-published source in spite of WP:BLPSPS, or should it be removed in favour of only using the reliably published one? Discussion is at Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur)#Scienceblogs. Thank's in advance for any opinions either way. - Bilby (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This misrepresents the dispute, even worse than the last one and like the last one this one too will probably drift off this board.

I shouldn't have to explain to an administrator that a neutral posting looks something like this. Please review WP:CANVASS. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What is incorrect? - Bilby (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is pretty clear - you can use a self-published source, but only if published by the subject of the article. It still then is WP:PRIMARY. However, this isn't the case. There is still WP:IAR, but... ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Terry Hall (singer)

I think the concluding section indicating that Terry Hall is currently married to Anne De Linda/Lindy Heymann and that he has a son named Orson Hall with her needs confirmation by him. Can the legal date of her marriage to him be documented along with the year of Orson Hall's birth? I understand him to be married currently to someone else. Is she referring tongue in cheek to the 30th Anniversary Tour concert video while talking to the interviewer in Ireland? I would remove the paragraph, but I wouldn't want to do so if I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.16 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Bratya Basu

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

I'd appreciate more eyes on this. I've cut neatly a year's worth of unsourced, promotional content and resume-like listings. Given a WP:SPA's interest, the questionable material is apt to reappear. 2601:188:180:11F0:7D87:6735:32A7:C08C (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Jumping the gun a bit, but at the same time the IP is probably right. Certainly, when it comes to the content, the previous was a clear WP:BLP and WP:PROMOTIONAL violation. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like most of the promotional content has already been removed but I also made a series of improvements removing additional peacock language and grammatical fixes. Meatsgains (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

2G spectrum case

This case was initially referred to as the '2G spectrum scam', and was alleged to be a criminal act of corruption. However in it's verdict in December 2017, the court has acquitted all the accused in the case, stating in its judgement that it has

[1] "Absolutely no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any charge against any of the accused",

[2] "some people created a scam by artfully arranging a few selected facts and exaggerating things beyond recognition to astronomical levels"

and virtually saying that there was no scam.

In light of this, articles of the accused, including Manmohan Singh, A. Raja and Kanimozhi, and also other articles related to this topic, should be reviewed to check that there are no violations of WP:BLP, because there was an inclination in the past to talk of this case as a proven scam. Continuing to use the word 'scam' may be a case of WP:Libel. The media have also mostly stopped referring to it as the '2G scam'. The Discoverer (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Amy E.Smith

Amy E.Smith new aspiring author.I have 3 books on Amazon.com chidrens books."The lonley Feral Cat.Penelopes cross country adventure& Sparky Survives.They are wholesome childrens books for all children to read.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy E. Smith (talk • contribs) 11:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amy E. Smith: - congratulations, though that does not mean that you necessarily merit an article on Wikipedia. Please see WP:N for our notability requirements. Giant Snowman 11:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ian Swingland

User:Ianswingland objects to some of the content at Ian Swingland; the edit currently under dispute is [3]. Notice that an earlier, rather broader, edit [4] is no longer being proposed.

There are two apparent issues: that of the trial, and that of the OBE. The outcome of the trial in 2016 appears to be shrouded in mystery and hints of an injunction ([5]); the removal of the OBE appears well sourced. See-also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Swingland William M. Connolley (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I edited this to reinstate the reliably sourced award and withdrawal of the OBE, but without linking that to the trial as we have no source that says why the OBE was withdrawn. I see that the content linking the OBE withdrawal with the trial has been reinstated. Although the content is strictly speaking true (post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy) readers will still infer from this wording that the OBE was withdrawn because of the trial. If the trial is mentioned it shouldn't be in the context of the OBE withdrawal unless we have a source linking them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Due to the lack of explanation here I have again removed the link between the OBE withdrawal and other matters. It's a clear violation of WP:BLP to imply that we know why the OBE was withdrawn when we have no reliable source saying why. I have, as I did before, left the fact of the withdrawal of the OBE because we have an impeccable source for that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The material on the trial is well-sourced, there's no reason to remove it. How it's presented can be discussed on the talk page. Smartyllama (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And that material obviously falls foul of WP:BLPCRIME. We have a source saying that Swingland went on trial, but not for the result of that trial. To say one without the other gives readers the impression that he must be guilty, which is unsupported by any sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope, we can say there was a trial in which he was involved, I've edited the article to ensure that it says tax avoidance, which is legal, rather than tax dodging which us not, big difference between the two. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:BLPCRIME? And the subject went on trial under criminal charges - tax avoidance in itself is not criminal but running a tax avoidance scheme without reporting it to HMRC is. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I have read it yes, Swingland is not "relatively unknown" unless I'm missing something? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME links to WP:WELLKNOWN which in turn links to public figure. Swingland is undoubtedly notable, but doesn't meet the much higher standard of being a public figure. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark Hyman (doctor)

There is a blatant bias in this article insofar as it refers to functional medicine as "pseudoscientific." There is no basis for this statement. The originator of this field is Jeffrey Bland, Ph.D., who is a scientist. The bias likely originates in the fact that functional medicine is not favored by the pharmaceutical industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.210.107 (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

See Functional medicine - if you can get that article to state it is not alternative pseudo-medicine, then you might have a point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ursula von der Leyen

Hello,

the English (and French) version of the article are wrong/outdated with regard to the Standford allegations. It still says that Stanford accuses Ursula von der Leyen of a misusage of the university name in her CV and thus doubting her academic qualifications. However, Stanford has withdrawn all their accusations and cleared Ms von der Leyen completely from any wrongdoing... Should be corrected from a more experienced Wikipedian in my opinion ;)

http://www.dw.com/en/stanford-dismisses-accusations-against-von-der-leyen/a-18777135

http://www.spiegel.de/lebenundlernen/uni/stanford-aufenthalt-universitaet-nimmt-von-der-leyen-in-schutz-a-1057329.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:68A:2E00:94DE:A810:32EA:246A (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia is a separate entity, and articles there are not under the jurisdiction of this page.

The situation with regard to Stanford is more complex than you suggest: their most recent statements indicate that, as the positions which von der Leyen claims to have held at Stanford are not official positions, the university does not consider her claims about these positions to be formal misrepresentations. Similarly with regard to the allegations regarding her thesis, this was found to contain substantial plagiarism, but this was not found to reach a level of academic misconduct sufficient to justify withdrawal of her degree. The relevant section of her page should indeed be written slightly more carefully, but the suggestion that "Stanford has withdrawn all their accusations and cleared Ms von der Leyen completely from any wrongdoing" is at least as wrong as the current text. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

William Whitfield

Is anyone able to have a quick look at William Whitfield? This and this don't seem quite up to the standards for BLPs. I'd sort it myself, but don't have time right now. Carcharoth (talk)

I have removed the unsourced content now. Carcharoth (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Daily Express, Brexit Central and BuzzFeed

Hello, I'm posting a link to this discussion at RSN as it concerns the use of the above sources in BLPs. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There are absolutely zero "celebrity gossip sites" which are worth placing in a birdcage. And most "reliable sources" now rely heavily on press releases, run with minimal editing, and with zero independent fact-checking at all. Collect (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ram Kadam

The article about Ram Kadam, a living person, has been target for unsourced or poorly sourced with potentially libellous and different accusations, from among other users, User:ExposeCorruption. The article may need extra attention for some time, and even protecton. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Trimmed of useless charges about other people, and "controversy". I am unsure he meets notability standards if anyone puts it up for AfD. Collect (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Morgan Beck

Several IP addresses have updated Morgan Beck with an unsourced statement that a third party has had to file a report against the subject. With e.g [edit]

Although I thought that it was an obvious examption to three reverts. Policy suggests considering reporting here instead.

Icarusgeek (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely unacceptable to add this type of thing without a source. I've watchlisted the article and will ask for page protection if the unsourced additions continue (but feel free to do so yourself, if you wish). It's already gone on long enough. Neiltonks (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Neiltonks. I shall keep it on my watch list. Icarusgeek (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The temporary protection expired yesterday and it has started again, with a new IP editor.Icarusgeek (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Simon Rex

So this person is an model/actor/singer who apparently did their first modelling in porn.

The content that a series of SPA account editors have removed is:

In 1993, at age 19, Rex responded to a modeling advertisement in a Los Angeles magazine and agreed to be photographed nude for photographer Brad Posey and his Club 1821 studio. The following year, under the alias Sebastian, he appeared in solo masturbation scenes for three Club 1821 pornographic films: Young, Hard & Solo #2, Young, Hard & Solo #3, and Hot Sessions III. Archive footage was used in the 2000 films Hot Sessions 11 and Hot Sessions 12.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ Ferguson, Michael (2003). Idol Worship: A Shameless Celebration of Male Beauty in the Movies. Sarasota: STARbooks Press. p. 296. ISBN 0-786-40983-5. Retrieved December 10, 2014.
^ Lopez, Rich (July 12, 2010). "Concert notice: Gay-porn-star-turned-comedy-music-act Simon Rex, aka Dirt Nasty, comes to the Loft in October". Dallas Voice. Retrieved February 7, 2013.
^ Lester, Shallon (October 29, 2008). "Former MTV VJ/porn star Simon Rex is trying his hand at rap music". NY Daily News. Retrieved December 10, 2014.

Should this be in the article? Jytdog (talk)

Nope. Collect (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug Wardlow

The first sentence is fact, everything after is libellous and an attempt to discredit the person:

Wardlow currently serves as legal counsel[1] for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal non-profit in Scottsdale, Arizona.[2] Alliance Defending Freedom has supported the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S. and criminalization abroad, has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of transgender people abroad, has linked homosexuality to pedophilia and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society.[3] ADF also works to develop religious liberty legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBT people on the basis of religion.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applebit (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

None of it appears to be libelous, in that none of it appears to be a defamatory falsehood - on the contrary, all of it appears to be true. While it needed to be rewritten, your wholesale removal of it, while in good faith, was unwarranted. I have reinserted an edited statement which discusses Wardlow's controversial involvement in these issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dan Skuta BLP vio?

On Dan Skuta an IP added details regarding a possible crime committed by Dan, without any sources to back it up. It may also be a copyvio. I'm not sure if it is a BLP vio that needs admin attention, else I would of just used Primefac's script. Thanks, L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's a copyvio of the Daily Mail... and the Daily Mail is barred from being used as a source in BLP matters. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Revdel filed. Thanks, L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

List of impostors

Seems dodgy, at least for the people listed who are still alive. Includes Rachel Dolezal. And there are sections on "women who lived as men", and vice-versa -- trans people are "imposters", according to Wikipedia? There is surely a problem with sources for at least some of them -- I doubt we'd find sources (for some) that use the word "imposter" (at best, it's WP:OR to use that label). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh krikey. man i hate list articles and how people feel free to add stuff without sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I went through and removed a bunch of stuff and added sources for others. nice catch.Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

None of these "women who lived as men" seem to be actual trans people. "Many women in history have presented themselves as men in order to advance in typically male-dominated fields. In most cases their exact relationship to their male presentation was never recorded unambiguously or at all; if or how they would fit into modern Western transgender categories can never be certain."--Auric talk 14:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue troubles me in a more general way: if "women who presented as men" are impostors, then perhaps that's what Wikipedia thinks about people who are trans. I know my own concerns in that regard don't have any policy weight, though. But never mind: unless a source describe someone as an impostor, we can't describe someone as an impostor (e.g. by including them in a list of impostors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This list is way too vague to be of any use. First, the definition of "imposter" is a person who pretends to be someone else. Not somewhere else or something else. Not a person using an alias. A transgender male is not an imposter of a female. (That doesn't even make sense.) Now, if a transgender person was pretending to be, say ... Dolly Parton, then that could be an imposter. However, "imposter" has a negative connotation, insinuating this pretense is for malicious purposes. For example, a Dolly Parton impersonator is not an imposter. Someone disguised as Dolly Parton to gain access to her bank account, that would be an imposter.

The problem with categories and lists is they are all one-sided. The title of the list defines everything underneath it, so whatever appears on that list must adhere to the extremely narrow parameters set by the title. (This is exactly the opposite of how an encyclopedia article is written, where the article defines the title.) Therefore, there is no balance or context in such a list; it's "black and white". And since the title of the list is using the words incorrectly, the entire list is just patent nonsense. Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I was going to recommend merging notable examples into the Imposter article, but found out that it simply links to the list... Zaereth (talk)

ryan wiik

I have tried to generically update content regarding a person Ryan Wiik and a user Danlig55 continuously and immediately changes the content. He has monopolized the content of this page and stating matters not as they are. They are damaging to Ryan and those who are working with him. This information is extremely misleading and his relentless agenda is apparent with his continuously manipulation of information regarding Ryan Wiik. I am very close to what is going on with Ryan and the information that Danlig55 is posting is inaccurate and damaging to Ryan and those that are working with him. I am requesting that he be blocked from these attempts. He has assumed authority over this content and this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. He refuses to allow anyone to make any adjustments to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmExec (talk • contribs) 09:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

User FilmExec Point 1: I am not refusing anything, but when you delete 37 referenced material and almost 90% of the article I have to protect. I have followed moderator NeilN's advise about having a discussion. Point 2: You are using the same changes as Grassroot76 has done before and he got blocked. Point 3: You are admitting you are close to Wiik, so that in it self says it all. You are to biased to write on this article. Point 4: You opened you user account today and have gone mental on Ryan Wiik's article. Please discuss on TALK page. Don't delete everything. We can discuss point by point. But you have to have some arguments. Danlig55 (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This is absolutely not the case at all. And not at all trying to exclude anything that is validly stated by not just any source. Are you telling me that tabloid information regarding a person can be considered facts in a place like Wikipedia? We can discuss this absolutely point by point and the original updates left all absolute sources in place. But they were continuously reverted. Therefore in an effort to be fair, I removed it down to the basics in hopes that it would appease this person. But it seems that only his version is acceptable? This is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmExec (talk • contribs) 09:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@FilmExec: You have now admitted that you are close to Wiik. I saw your chat with moderator Cahk. While tabloid articles may not necessarily be the best source, the fact that information is reported meant it is in the public domain (it's another question/debate as to whatever extent it is). It's one thing to say there are inaccuracies to the article, but it's a completely different matter when you remove voluminous number of sources to the article.

Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 11:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Re. "...close to Wiik": if that is the case, can a {{Connected contributor}} box be placed at Talk:Ryan Wiik, with proper parameter values that elucidate the situation? Tx.

BLP-sensitive information that can *only* be referenced to IMDb and other sources of a less-than-top-notch reliability (IMDb falls under WP:USERGENERATED and would not be usable for BLP-sensitive information) should of course better not be included in a BLP article. "Tabloid" is an ambiguous term: does this refer to Tabloid (newspaper format) or Tabloid journalism? Sources that fall in the latter category should not be used, not under any circumstance, for BLP-sensitive material in Wikipedia, nor would they prove notability of a living person in WP:GNG context. So, please try to get that sorted ASAP: it seems best to remove all BLP material that is referenced to what are called Tabloids from the article until such distinctions between "reliable" and "less than reliable" sources have been properly operated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Below you can see what moderator Cahk answered to FilmExec in his latest reply. User FilmExec is just trying to make English moderators confused by calling everything tabloid since most of his articles are in Norwegian. I read Norwegian and every article is from Norway's largest newspapers. From financial press to VG, Norway's largest newspaper. If you or a moderator take a look at Ryan Wiik's talk page you will see that this behavior from FilmExec aka Grassroot76 and MariaSky has been going on for a while. Perhaps best to remove IMDb as a source as it's user generated?. All other sources are credible news sources.

@FilmExec: I have no vested interest in the article, or the subject himself so your frustration directed at me is misguided. You have now made it clear you are editing on behalf of "your client", which means you have a Conflict of Interest for which you did not declare in accordance to Wikipedia guidance. Further, please refrain from making claims/reference for legal action, as you will most definitely be permanently blocked. --Cahk (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 12:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I still didn't see a {{Connected contributor}} box with proper parameter values appear at Talk:Ryan Wiik? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I put it in now, but my knowledge to do it correctly I'm not sure. If they can't pinpoint the same IP they have to look at entries. I know several moderators are following the talk page, so if I have not done it right, they would. Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 13:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the box has not been placed yet: please see the instructions at Template:Connected contributor for how to place it, and how the parameters should be added (all you did is place a link to the template, like I did here: no box needs to be placed on this noticeboard, so I only linked to it – at the article talk page the actual box, with proper parameter values, needs to be placed). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added the template, with the relevant parameters.--Auric talk 14:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, which might mean that page protection is no longer needed (or at least can be modified to semiprotection), provided that FilmExec does not return to editing the Ryan Wiik article, but instead posts improvement suggestions at an appropriate talk page such as Talk:Ryan Wiik. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops, while I was writing the previous comment FilmExec was being indeffed for undisclosed paid editing... --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And plenty of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, as well.--Auric talk 00:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Turpin case

It seems we now have an article Turpin case. If you've heard about this at all, you'll probably know there are strong BLP issues raised. Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, I wish people would read BLPNAME before doing this sort of shit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how the article can be written without including the name of the people involved. We should seriously try to avoid the ugliness of tabloid loquaciousness. But we can't both lavish attention on something and remain aloof from it. A preferable title might be "Perris, California alleged child abuse case". Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to all the non-notable third parties (grandparents, various aunts, a previous bankruptcy lawyer etc). Not the subjects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply - What would y'all like to see accomplished/changed? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Only in Death took care of most of it. For further info see WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY, (and maybe WP:AVOIDVICTIM ... heck, just see WP:BLP). An article like this needs to be treated very carefully and adhere to these policies. (Not accusing you of anything, as I don't know the history, just FYI.)Zaereth (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think there are enough BLP conscious editors keeping an eye on it now that it should be fine. FWIW, this [6] is how the article looked when I posted. Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Top 25 Report

I came across this page today and noticed it is a report of the Top 25 most viewed articles on Wikipedia. Really handy, and also what I was looking for recently. However, the page is an opinion piece of sorts giving descriptions of those 25 articles. This is fine, but some of the material appears to violate BLP, specifically:

Donald Trump: The imbecile-in-chief had a particularly busy week, even by his own frantic and frenzied standards. After insulting approximately half of the world, he proceeded to trigger a cessation of government services by refusing to relent on his desire for a wall. So, because the monument to Mexican sins will not be funded, the US has decided to stop the whole government lark altogether. Not that it matters, because seemingly nothing does, but one has to wonder why anyone would live in that shithole.

As you may know, BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia. I asked the Top 25's primary author on the talk page and they said they didn't feel like this violated BLP in any way. Do you agree or disagree? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Revised and rescinded. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Was this genuinely intended to go out as part of the SIGNPOST? Did someone deliberately commission a tone-deaf 14-year-old to write it in order to cause maximum offense and maximum problems with BLP? Could someone also please check if the numerous bare Youtube external links are copyvios or not. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you really want to be approaching a BLP violation yourself even as you complain about a BLP violation? sheesh. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not realise they were actually 14, if that is what you are suggesting. MPS1992 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

NPA - also, no one commissioned me to do anything. It is a volunteer role, which anyone can take on. If you think that you can strike a superior tone with your presumed 25 years of experience on this fine earth, put yourself down to write next week's iteration here. Moreover, the report is adapted for the Signpost - I don't write for it, and the authors there can edit it as they please. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time the Signpost has played fast and loose with BLP rules. If you want to write a gossip sheet, there is a tabloid waiting out there. The section on Prince Phil is particularly bad, containing allegations of infidelity (spelled badly, unless you were making a pun on martial and he actually invaded NZ while he was down there) and the labeling of his sister as 'Nazi sister'. I'm sure as a woman at that time she had a great deal of control over the political party she joined (which was generally, join or else) - that's not a BLP issue however, just tasteless. Here is a rule of thumb for you, if its not in a living person's biography with a source, and its contentious, don't do it unless you are going to provide an inline citation. Since the signpost is not anything to do with improving articles directly, most of the BLP exceptions for discussing contentious BLP issues on talkpages will not apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: - With specific reference to Philip - the onus for this one is on me for not adequately framing the description, which I have rectified here. The source of the popularity for Philip is The Crown, where he is portrayed by Matt Smith - hence, I focused upon the events of the show which have caused swells of viewers to his page. None of the content is addressed at Philip directly, but rather at his depiction in the show. The pun was deliberate, but I opted to remove it as in hindsight it made little sense. With reference to the show, his sister is an explicit Nazi, so I refute your claims regarding tastelessness on my behalf. In the show, it is insinuated that he has other dalliances repeatedly also. I have added external links to reviews of the relevant episodes. Thanks for your assistance and advice - it was not my intent to generate gossip and controversy, and I hope the reframing of the entry has resolved these issues for you in some way. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ignatius Aphrem II (Syriac Patriarch of All the East)

The inserted photo contains gibberish, and is probably meant to say "visited" not "revived". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.123.216.61 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to "reviewed".--Auric talk 00:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have changed it again to "received", which I think more likely to be what was intended. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Frederico Caballero

Hey guys, so one of your admins, I suppose, in the name of HickoryOughtShirt?4 messaged me and told me that my editing was right to change "Frederico Caballero" to "Federico Caballero". He/she told me to bring it up to WP:BLPN and notify you of this matter. Hoping for a quick rectification so we can avoid further misleading information. MY REGARDS AND KUDOS TO WIKIPEDIA'S MANAGEMENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.84.205 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The first name ‘Federico’ is supported by the sources in the article so I have moved the page to the correct name and edited the article accordingly too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nolan Crouse again again

I would appreciate some input on this article where a WP:SPA is edit-warring to keep in material like this. Some of this seems to be WP:UNDUE, some does not seem accurately to reflect the sources given. There has been extensive discussion on the article talk page over the last year or so, this has also been brought to this noticeboard twice before -- there have been several SPAs including the rather disturbingly named User:Nolanwatcher who have been adding similar content which previously has been against consensus on the talk page. MPS1992 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2018

AlbertaGal (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC) I would appreciate some guidance as well. As a member of the community of St.Albert it is disturbing to find that significant issues are continually omitted from the Wikipedia page. Many people (including myself) have done a lot of research and due diligence to properly source material within the confines of the Wikipedia policy only to find that someone else will come along and delete the entire section. The argument that "seems to be WP:UNDUE" is not accurate as all of the material is sourced and cited from multiple credible news organizations such as The Edmonton Sun, The Edmonton Journal, Global News and the St. Albert Gazette. To argue that this biography should not include very notable controversies such as the being the first mayor in 50 years in the province of Alberta to have been found to violate the municipal government act by the Alberta court of Queens bench is akin to arguing that Richard Nixons Wikipedia page should not include any mention of Watergate.

The term "undue" is not about how many sources you can find, but about balance of the entire article. In the scope of the subject's entire life and career, how significant is this particular event? The goal is not to hide it, but put it into balance with the other information in the article. If we give too much "weight" to any one event, it may give the reader a disproportionate view of the subject. This seems like notable information, but given the size of the article does it require a whole paragraph, or would a sentence be enough?

I would suggest looking up the word "controversy" in the dictionary to see if you're really using it correctly.

When I see multiple references for a single sentence it makes me suspicious. That's usually an indicator of synthesis. Sometime two or three concurring sources may be necessary (such as in the case where an urban myth dominates over a scientific explanation), but any more than that raises a red flag. While most look like legitimate news outlets, any source named so-and-so-lawsuit.com is not a reliable source. What I do start to see in your addition, however, is a lot of WP:Cherrypicking. For example, the last source is globalnews.ca, which gives a perfectly neutral story. It is used to support a line in our article that says (basically) the people in St. Albert want him to step down due to convictions. What is not included is those "people" are mainly his opponent in the next election, nor that the judge noted his convictions were "technicalities" of which the judge didn't think he meant to do. That is also off balance, because what we should do is summarize the source in the same, neutral way, not cherry pick the parts which may or may not fit our own opinion of the subject. Too much of that and it starts to look like WP:SYNTHESIS and maybe just a little bit of a personal agenda. Zaereth (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Stefan Michnik

There are (IMHO) many issues at this article that fall under under WP:BLP, WP:MOS , WP:NPOV and/or WP:CSB.

I raised one particular matter at Talk:Stefan Michnik a few years ago, but didn't I was outnumbered then by other editors. And on reflection the problem seems far more serious, due in particular to BLP, than the relatively minor changes I was then proposing.

Given my past experience with this article and in the interests of civility, I am also loathe to directly address more obvious errors under WP:BLPREMOVE, and more minor issues to do with grammar/syntax, punctuation and encyclopedic style (e.g. errors under MOS:SEASON.

In particular, there are statements that are prima facie defamation in jurisdictions in which truth is not an absolute defence and/or where all publications on the internet are deemed to be "local".

For apparent violations of WP:LABEL, WP:WEASEL , WP:BIASED and/or WP:SUBSTANTIATE see:

phrases ised in the article such as "Stalinist judge", "judicial murder", "staged trial" etc;

sources from popular news media that use inflammatory/highly tendentious language, see e.g. this translation of an article cited, by Piotr Gontarczyk, and;

overstatements that do not appear in the source cited and are (logically) unlikely to be verifiable, e.g. an insistence by some editors on the wording "Most ... were officers of the Polish Army who fought against Nazi Germany in World War II" (a matter that I have raised previously on the talk page).

Thanks, Grant | Talk 08:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that was a mess. I've tidied it up and made the writing more neutral. fish&karate 15:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Kate Aldrich

How would you address the multiple issues with this BLP article: Kate Aldrich? I am debating on how to tackle approaching it. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I only see one issue and that is lack of sources. Tackle it by finding sources. None of it appears negative, we have a special template for an award she won so I don't think notability is an issue. --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, DHeyward. I knew notability wouldn't be an issue. I'll tag the article for now while I search for the sources. Will do! Maineartists (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Cynbe ru Taren

There's a thorny issue with the article on Cynbe ru Taren. The subject's friends and family claim on the talk page that he died in 2016. There is no apparent reason not to believe this is true, and that the article has a very important fact wrong (i.e., that he's alive). But there are no secondary sources anywhere that corroborate it. What's the right thing to do in this situation?

It's not necessarily a reliable source, but it was announced on this FB page: https://www.facebook.com/ConvergentMedia/posts/1271623859566621 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that any secondary source should keep citation cops from resurrecting him. I've fixed the article. rebrane (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Quickly before I have to go to work: Someone edited Rosemarie Aquilina using public birth/death records and shipping passenger lists published by Ancestry,.com. Is this acceptable in a BLP? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This came up for me today at John Browning but in that case I think it was user-submitted content in question - I wasn't quite sure at first, it was in a search for "records". Ancestry.com is listed at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites as rarely reliable. What I think would be reliable from there, as a primary source, are things like scanned census documents. If the birth/death records and passenger lists are in the form of scans and are clearly legible I would think that might be ok to use with attribution. There is still a question of how reliable the original document is though. That said, I'm no RS expert. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course with the possibility of identical names, etc. maybe it would require some OR assumptions to apply them. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; that's more or less what I figured. No links were given, so after I get home I'll see whether I can find the referenced documents. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ... Registration required, probably with credit card, and shows me privacy-violating information as a teaser. No. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You can get quite a lot of that information including some passenger lists now, for free from familysearch.org, the LDS site. Edwardx (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The original records held by Ancestry are primary sources but can be used to cite factual information (far better to quote the original source rather than ancestry) the problem is without a load of original research it is very difficult to prove the John Doe in the records is actually the John Doe the subject which is why it is frowned upon for BLPs. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Contrary to the above, under almost no circumstances can public primary documents such as birth certificates etc be used unless they have been discussed by a secondary source. See WP:BLPPRIMARY full text included with my highlights:

"Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. 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."

Ancestry like other geneology websites is just a link/host of public documents. Birth/death/marriage/census etc. The primary problem is that unless it has been verified by a secondary source, it cannot be guranteed it is the same person as the subject, not usually without original research. There is not a legal privacy issue as such, because ancestry only index's documents that are legal (and public) in their jurisdiction. WP:BLPPRIVACY however states that unless widely published, we should not be including DOB in the article. This in combination with the above means that if the only sources are primary documents, we would not include them at all without a secondary source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Edward Hallowell (psychiatrist)

The subject of this biography seems to be a the center of a controversy regarding ADHD. The article has a long history of being the target of highly non-WP:NPOV (and potentially WP:BLP-violating) edits from single-purpose accounts. Another one has showed up recently. Additional eyes on the article would be helpful. Deli nk (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page and will keep my eyes on it for SPA activity. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Brown

Biography

Article reads:

"On January 24, 2018, Brown was accused by two women of engaging in sexual misconduct, which dated back to the time he was a federal MP. Brown denied the allegations profusely and refused to resign as party leader. However, Brown resigned as party leader hours later."

First of all this should read " by two women of engaging in alleged sexual misconduct " unless Wikipedia has decided that individuals are guilty before proven innocent in a court of law.

Ledicarus (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Er, no. He (Patrick Brown (politician)) wasn't accused of "alleged sexual misconduct", he was accused of sexual misconduct. Or, put another way, the women alleged that he had engaged in sexual misconduct. The article correctly states that's what he was accused of; it doesn't state that he committed the acts of which he's accused. As long as the statement is sourced to reliable sources that describe the accusations, the current text is fine. General Ization ^Talk 04:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I will, however, revise the sentence to state "Brown was accused of engaging in sexual misconduct by two women, who alleged that the acts occurred when he was a federal MP" so as to avoid the implication that dates can be ascertained for acts which may or may not have occurred. General Ization ^Talk 05:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

William Saito

This biography is a mess at the moment. It could use some loving attention by a solid BLP editor. There is a genuine scandal here, which must be covered appropriately. But there are claims which are not in the sources. I will give one example, but a thorough check of all the sources should be made.

"Saito also falsely claimed to have "attended Harvard Kennedy School"." - this is sourced to this archive of somewhere that he did apparently claim to attend Harvard Kennedy School. But he actually did attend Harvard Kennedy School.

I am not editing the article personally because of a potential that some might perceive a conflict of interest (incorrectly, but still I prefer to avoid even the appearance). I have met him and we were both YGLs of the WEF.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up by stripping almost all the content out. there was almost nothing keepable. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Saito. Lorstaking (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I find the fact that Jimbo is asking En Wikipedia editors to fix his friend's page hugely problematic. Actually just totally unacceptable.
And then the fact that JYTDAWg thinks deleting everything is a helpful way to deal with a BLP in distress. Gads. The worst in deletionism and lazy editing.
I regularly do BLP rescues, but I won't touch this with a 10-foot pole. Very badly done on all levels. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

How else do you think the BLP subject and Jimbo should have handled the situation? Jimbo wasn't directing editors to make specific changes and he (properly) wasn't editing the article himself. Jytdog properly removed text that was unsourced or sourced to non-RS. That is the most helpful thing he could have done to a BLP in distress. Verifiability is extremely important, especially when it comes to BLPs. Ca2james (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What Ca2james said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What Gråbergs Gråa Sång said. --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What GRuban said. E Eng 20:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What Katy did. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 03:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Coming from Ca2james who is a probable sockpuppets who is creepily fixated on whittling away at two pages I did BLP rescues for, this is actually hilarious. It’s pretty clear Ca2James and Everyone’s favorite Jytjytdawg don’t do this on a regular basis. I do. With either or both involved I won’t edit the page. The amount of harrasmemt and bullying and flaccidly hiding behind WIKI:Rulez vs. doing the hard work of adding content makes this whole thing not worth the free digital labor.

Jimbo should not have posted this request. He has too much (perceived) power for this to be a neutral thing. Tag the page for its issues and maybe loop in interested WikiProjects and stakeholders.

Deleting this amount of content is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. I would work through the page cleaning up or resourcing existing citations then build from Wikidata/basic public facts and go through at least 5 to 10 google page results. It isn’t that hard. It just takes time and energy. — Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe Floquenbeam told you that accusing me of being a sock was not acceptable behaviour. If you have evidence, file an SPI. Otherwise, stop casting aspersions.

Also, I'm "creepily fixated" on those two articles because I found a bunch of content in them with references that didn't support the text (content and references you added, in fact). You didn't fix the issues I flagged so I fixed them.

Note that deleting unacceptable material before rebuilding it is a perfectly valid strategy, especially when it comes to BLPs. Ca2james (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You know what, whatever fantasyland you are operating in where you pick and pick and pick at a page rescue that is absolutely fine, where you don't add content except for an insanely overly detailed and bizarely fixated Talk page, until that changes, and until you learn how to stop following other editors and harass them and their edits, crawling so far up that it's a proctological experience, until then, I will listen to what you have to say. You're a deletionist, you don't help, you hurt by picking at edits. I just can't imagine on any planet that your efforts are in any way helpful. You can't seem to stop what you are doing, but don't you dare tell me how to edit or how to cite content. It's an embarrassment, the way you edit. Your behavior is a menace.

And NO, denuding an article of almost 90% of the content, even if it's fluffery, is not an acceptable approach to a notable BLP. It's just a reflection of the level of editing skillset. This is why people are afraid to edit BLPs. If there was less fixation and deletionism and more pedagogic kind assistance, that would be the answer. It's just that hostile En Wiki editors make editing THIS experience I describe above. Hope you and Jtydawg feel proud of how destructive you are. I'm too stubborn to leave but you have pushed the boundaries. That's probably what your goal is. It's pretty clear, actually. I'm sick of it. I'm not alone, but most editors stop editing, so you are all winning. And Wikipedia has less and less people willing to put up with this bulltwaddle. So well done for hurting Wikipedia. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Vincenzo DeMaria

Input is requested at Talk:Vincenzo DeMaria#Libellous Statements, Improperly Sourced Material, and Original Research. We have an IP editor objecting to the fact that the Vincenzo DeMaria article describes him as belonging to the Mafia, amongst other things. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Tennys Sandgren

Tennys Sandgren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) American tennis player whose Twitter history has recently come under scrutiny (he has followed and retweeted various disagreeable alt-right & white supremacist types). In my opinion article features this recent Twitterstorm controversy far too prominently. 222.153.250.135 (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. An article about a professional sportsman notable because of their profession should start with the information about their profession, and the ancillary stuff about controversy should be placed after that, to avoid undue weight etc. I've swapped the sections round, not made any amendments to the content. fish&karate 09:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

My view is that the length of the section and the "he-said she-said" level of detail is also undue weight. It's just gossip which will probably be forgotten in a few weeks. 222.153.250.135 (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed most of this detail as it was only referenced to Twitter itself or to a blog, not reliable sources. In any case, I think it's WP:UNDUE coverage. Neiltonks (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Description as "organized crime figures"

A recent article in the Washington Times quotes the testimony of Glenn R. Simpson (of Fusion GPS) to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Adam Schiff asks Simpson to clarify his statement about Michael Cohen's "associations with organized crime figures in New York and Florida, Russian organized crime figures". Simpson answers "I was afraid you were going to ask me that. I can’t remember a lot of the names. There was Simon Garber, the taxi king. And I guess another guy’s name is Evgeny Freidman, who are people he was in the taxi business with". Simpson testified that Simon Garber and Gene Freidman are Russian organized crime figures. Here is the full context for reference. Given the nature of the testimony, are such characterizations permissable in biographical articles? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You can say that "Glenn R. Simpson from the Fusion GPS think tank described them as Russian organized crime figures". You cannot say that they are Russian organized crime figures, we can't provide second-hand assertions as facts. fish&karate 09:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was assumed that we would attribute the characterization to Simpson. I was concerned that some editors might still consider it problematic. Our article on Michael D. Cohen (lawyer) is curiously short and our article on Simon Garber was largely written by a PR firm. Gene Freidman was been discussed here before. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Ross

I'm writing to indicate violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policies on the Dennis Ross page.

1. The source cited in footnote 27 accuses Ross of being a member of the "'Israel lobby' in the United States." I read the source, and it makes this case in a way that violates the prohibition on "claims that rely on guilt by association" as detailed in the "Balance" section of the page "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons." This source, also cited in footnote 28, cannot be implicated in this Wikipedia page in this way because it breaks Wikipedia's rules.

2. It is not clear to me why the subsection "Controversies" exists on this page. Apart from the source cited in footnote 27, which is defamatory and in violation of Wikipedia's policies, none of the other information under the "Controversies" heading refers specifically to controversies about Ross. Some of the sources explain times when Ross disagreed with certain politicians or academics, but a disagreement is not a controversy. This information could be included in the "Career" subsection.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by E8QLx4L (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Audain

I came across the article on Michael Audain last night and removed perhaps 30 inline URLS. I'm curious to hear what poeple think of the 800-word "ancestors" section at the beginning. This person is a very wealthy businessman, rather than a member of royalty or noted historical figure, so I wonder if that much details is necessary. The article seems to be perfectly composed, and I also wonder where so much carefully composed detail came from... 198.58.168.40 (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, last I checked. Collect (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in there. 198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Staiano-Coico

More eyes needed on the "Controversy" section of this article. Some of the material is well-sourced and biographically important, but I just removed a lot of recently-added irrelevant or duplicative material, poor citations, and text not supported by sources. Some rigorous watching and further pruning is needed. Neutrality^talk 22:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on sensationalism

Of possible interest:

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#RfC_about_a_new_sentence_in_WP:SENSATION

jps (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Sexual misconduct allegations

Dropping a note here in case there needs to be more discussion. User:Mwinog2777 appears to be having a go at adding this to a few dozen BLPs. I'm reverting directly, but I'm fairly sure it's uncontroversial that people are people and not allegations, as compared with an article like United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal, which rightly deserves to be in this category. GMG ^talk 18:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If "people are people", as you claim, then why should it be that you and I should get along so awfully? Drmies (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Because hes punching and Hes kicking and shouting at thee Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is apparently a pop culture reference. And here I'm thinking now what did I do to Drmies? GMG ^talk 18:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

bom bom bom --Jayron 32 19:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

All listings were on people with Wikipedia discussions of sexual abuse allegations; if you feel strongly, why don't we take out the entire Category of "sexual abuse allegations." It was there before I added any names; what I wondered is why there were so few in the category, yet, so many wiki discussions of these. And, while we are at it, why not remove all mention of the allegations from the encyclopedia? I don't think it is as uncontroversial as you make out. And, why stop at my additions; how about Bill Clinton, Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby, Bill O'Reilly, Roy Moore, etc. who were there before I started my additions. With your reasoning, we should take them all out, and find another category for sexual predators. How about Harvey Weinstein? Where does he fit? You took out Harvewy Weinstein, but left all the old ones in; makes no sense to me, and I hope to have more discussants. Yes, there needs to be more discussion. Also, good faith edits should not be summarily reverted without PRIOR discussion.Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In the case that it treads on thin ice re: WP:BLP, then yes, it should generally be reverted first and discussed second. No, I did not stop at your additions, but also removed them from the remaining biographies. If you will look now, the pages in the cat are all articles about allegations, and not about people against whom allegations have been made. GMG ^talk 19:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you GMG for your diligence. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the actions to remove all biography pages from that cat. And to preemptive catch the next question WP:BLPCAT would strongly discourage a category like "People accused of sexual misconduct". --Masem (t) 19:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Drmies and Masem that this category is inappropriate for biographies per WP:BLPCAT. Well-sourced allegations can be discussed in a neutral way in these biographies, subject to WP:BLP, but categories are blunt tools and lack nuance, and so would be inappropriate in this setting. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I read same WP:BLPCAT and came to a different conclusion. I await further comments on the issue. A judgment call regarding nuance and appropriateness. Why are Hoffman, Packckwood, Rose, Dutoit and Spacey still there? Matt Lauer still there but does not have allegation page; we need to be consistent, I believe.Mwinog2777 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The key passage is Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. Clearly, being alleged to have sexual misconduct is leading to poor reputation, and for most of these cases, we have yet to have an open admission or a legal challenge to confirm that the allegations are true. Thus, we should not be doing that for straight-up biographical articles. But where there's enough information on allegations to separate a new article on the allegations, then that can go into the forementioned category. However, I do expect editors to be extremely judicious in pulling out the separate article on the allegations known that itself can be a BLP problem if they are yet proven or admitted to. --Masem (t) 00:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Many have apologized for or acknowledged sexual abuse; we have a picture of Al Franken putting his over a sleeping woman's breasts, for instance; shouldn't we list them as their reputations won't be further harmed. And, if we use these as criteria we must withdraw the page on Weinstein who has never been convicted, nor has he ever confessed. Also, for those who have lost positions because of the accusations, their notability has been altered already, so the incidents are relevant to the person's notability. For instance Edelstein has been put on leave because of accusation; the accusations are relevant to his notability. Why is Weinstein in and others out? Others have admitted guilt; others have had their notability altered. I have carefully reviewed WP:BLP and feel most if not all of my addition should be in, or get rid of the Category.Mwinog2777 (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I second the latter. Shall we put the motion to a vote? Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we should keep the page and use the following criteria: 1. Wikipedia discussions of sexual abuse allegations; and, 2. notability altered by the accusations (note cases of Edelstein and Weinstein) or verification of accusation (note admission of behavior by Louis C.K.). This is absolutely in accordance with WP:BLPCAT. We are not suggesting a person has a poor reputation, we're simply describing the real world we live in. Isn't that what an ecyclopedia is for. Wikipedia cannot exist in a total bubble. The allegations are relevant to the person's notability; the incidents have been published by reliable third-party sources.Mwinog2777 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Eh, vote? No, we're not going to "vote" though we may !vote. Zaereth, Mwinog, I hope you realize that there's four of us admins in this conversation, all of whom had to get a WP:BLP tattoo somewhere on their body to remind them of their duties. Mine is visible really to Mrs. Drmies and the guys at the Y, but it's important. "Describing the real world we live in" is a laudable goal for, I don't know, Facebook or our memoirs, but on Wikipedia we describe carefully and only based on reliable sources, and if it concerns a living person we are extra-careful (we learned that from the Mrs. Jones case). Drmies (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I was attempting to be funny, but there's a reason I'm not a comedian. I guess I should've sub-sized it or maybe tossed in a :-). Zaereth (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha, no worries--thanks for the note. Yes, I know very well it doesn't always come across, haha. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jburlinson has also done this on a number of pages. I've reverted. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No people should be in the category. An ugly side effect isn't a new "People..." category, it will be content forks to have an abuse allegations article. For the reasons listed for removing people from the category, the content forks should also be deleted. --DHeyward (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. As I said above, if admins feel so strongly about People and allegations, remove content forks. Matt Lauer among others will be removed from the content fork page. I see you are retired from Wikipedia. Would you or others think it is a good idea to use the above agruments to remove content forks which have an abuse allegation?Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I added "Category: Sexual misconduct allegations" to Blake Farenthold and Ed Murray (Wyoming politician)'s pages. The allegations don't have separate articles. Should the category be deleted from their pages? User:Mwinog2777 says delete them, per this discussion. Thanks Fishlandia (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple articles

I have just discovered {{Undisclosed paid}}:

which appears on 673 articles, many of which (like Ruhama Avraham (where it has been in place for over four months); Bert Hölldobler; Simon Rex (five months); Terry Nelson (political consultant); Vince Ratti) are BLPs; and on none of those I've randomly checked (including all the given example) has a talk page discussion offering any evidence to support its use been opened.

Disclosure: discussion of a related issue with the {{COI}} template is ongoing, in all three current sections of Template talk:COI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You continue to confuse issues with the creation/development of an article, with issues about content in the article about the person. Silly. That said, yes people should add notes to talk pages when they tag. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I assure you I'm not in the least confused. But I'm glad that you're now coming round to the view that "people should add notes to talk pages when they tag". It is to be hoped that such notices will be better than the vague boilerplate one you have just added to the talk pages of some of the examples I gave, in edits such as this, which does nothing to offer any evidence to support the allegation made in the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If only so that people who are trying to thwart our COI management processes don't have wikilawyering bullshit reasons to waste our time. It takes seconds to figure out why the tags are there. With regard to the diff, if you had a modicum of clue or desire to actually help things, you would have lifted your eyes up that page and seen the tags on the talk page showing the now-banned socks who worked on the article. I will add that a note about that to the existing note, again to head off more of this wikilawyering bullshit. A helpful response here from you would be to add some of these notes yourself. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised that, on this of all pages, you describe steps to uphold our BLP policy as "wikilawyering bullshit". I did indeed "lift my eyes up that page", and found only two unsubstantiated claims that "[a named editor] has been paid by unknown. Their editing has included contributions to this article." but, as I said, nothing to support the allegation made in the template. Once again, I also ask you to cease your ad hominem attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Andy please STOP forum shopping. You already raised this here (which is also not really the correct spot by the way). Your claim that raising content concerns is a BLP issue is silly. Our rules allow paid editing yes, but that does not mean people can buy the exact article they wish without any evidence of their efforts at covert marketing of themselves or their company. Our readers and fellow editors deserve to know when concerns exist. Other types of clean up tags persist for many many years. Not sure what you are getting at that this one has remained on some articles for a few months? It is not really surprising that people are not flocking to write neutral articles on often barely notable businesses and people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Really, James? An editor of your considerable experience should know what WP:FORUMSHOPPING is; and this is far from that. Furthermore, no-one, and certainly not me, has said that "raising content concerns is a BLP issue". Other types of cleanup tags do not insinuate wrong-doing by the article subject (or, in the rare case that they do, they require that the editor who places them leave a justification on the talk page). You need to stop such facile attempts at distraction, and for once address the core issue: unsubstantiated allegations on BLP articles. [I also note with disappointment that as not just an admin, but also a WMF board member, you have yet again failed to comment on an ad hominem attack in a thread which you have joined.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few more BLP's tagged with this template, yet with no relevant discussion on their talk pages: John Mendlein, Liesje Sadonius, Matthew Crosby, DJ Skee, Liesje Sadonius, Pan Shiyi, Isaac Berzin, Zohar Zisapel.

And that's just from the first page of fifty results in "what link here".

And still not one single BLP where such a discussion has been started. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And in each of those cases it is fairly easy to figure out who the paid editors are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No, James, it is not; and especially so for the ordinary reader rather than an experienced Wikipedia editor. The allegations remain unsubstantiated. And I note you still fail to comment on the ad hominem attack here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been watching this, and have no idea what the logic is behind your reasoning. Are you trying to say that the template amounts to some sort of allegation of malice? Unless I'm missing something, you argument appears to be the equivalent of: the tag says an editor thinks something about this article is fishy, but no one has showed me any fish, and this is an unjust accusation of ... who? (The subject? The editors? Jimbo? Remind me again, who are we trying to protect?) It seems to be something between a modal fallacy and argumentum ad ignorantiam, but I just can't put any logic to it (fallacy or not). If something about an article smell's fishy, our reader's have a need to know.

Also, although it may be justified in many cases, no one is required to comment on attacks, whether real or perceived. (Commenting on the logic of someone's position does not rise to the level of an attack in my opinion.) Zaereth (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The ad hominem attack was not "a comment on the logic of my position". HTH Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The key word in that tag is 'may'. And after a brief look at the history of some of those articles, it could say 'almost certainly' and it would be correct. What is the violation of BLP here? Stating that an article may have been edited by a paid editor? Implying that a living person may have paid for their article? Outside Wikipedia this would be standard practice in PR. So I am not buying any negative association here. Once it has been reviewed any editor can remove it like any other maintenance tag. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"What is the violation of BLP here... Implying that a living person may have paid for their article? ". No, making such an insinuation without substantiating it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

See article history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Here are some more BLPs, which carry this tag, but have no relevant discussion on the talk page: W. Mark Lanier, Joseba Sarrionandia, Pier Paolo Pandolfi, Ralph J. Lamberti, Monty Beisel. What is to be done, to protect the subjects of these articles from such unsubstantiated smears? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hannah Holborn Gray

In the body of the article about Hannah you mention that she was at Northwestern University, Evanston campus, however in the chronological listing you don't mention Northwestern Unversity!!!!!She was also Dean of Woman at NU. Please contact her office or Northwestern University and correct this omission. Much appreciated.......Quecumquae sunt veritas!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b02b:848e:f936:e48c:c029:4e95 (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017‎

J Roberto Trujillo

Self published inaccurate sources and information (verification?). No citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.81.183 (talk) 19:09, December 24, 2017‎

ED SEEMAN

WHY WON'T THIS BE ACCEPTED SINCE I DEFINITELY CITE THE BOOK REFERENCE AS THE SOURCE THAT VALIDATES THIS ADDITION TO MY PAGE.

FABULOUS FRACTALS Unlike Other Fractal Art Works Ed created a RORSCHACH TYPE MULTICOLORED ABSTRACT ART that allows the viewer to become interactive with the art. The art will look differently with each viewing and to different people as new hidden Images like faces and creatures appear based on the viewers imagination.

The works are mostly symmetrical which achieves a perfect balance and allows for many images to appear in the center. The work is created by gathering a wide variety of Fractal art elements from a Fractal Art program and then composing all the found fractal images into a cohesive symmetrical whole in PHOTOSHOP.

(17) A book “FABULOUS FRACTALS” has been published with over 200 of SEEMAN’S works of art and is currently being sold on Amazon and other internet book facilities as well as a multimedia version that can be seen on Kindle and other computer devices.Seemancemano (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

REFERENCE

 17. FABULOUS FRACTALS (Deluxe Edition by Robert Cettl  copyright MMXIV Adelaide, South Australia 978-0-9872425-4-9 ISBN:

PUBLISHED September 29, 2014 Seemancemano (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Seemancemano: can any of these devices that you mention, be powered solely by a nuclear reactor as found as an independent source of energy on some space probes? Some such devices are also "mostly symmetrical" as you mention. MPS1992 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Paul Mirecki

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

I created this horrible article a dozen years ago using my original account. It's been marginally improved but it is still horrible. have AfD'd it following a comment by the subject at the teahouse, in the mean time, can anyone find any sources to make it less horrible? Guy (Help!) 12:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Charles Dutoit

I have been warned by Mr Freshacconci that my edits are disruptive. I do not agree. I am only bringing some information substantiated by references. Can you please intervene? This seems malicious to me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.220.95 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This editor has been asked multiple times with this IP address and his main account User:Petrov2017 to discuss this issue on the article talk page which he has refused. At least two editors have asked him to refrain from edit warring. He has refused. He uses deceptive edit summaries (claiming to be adding "honours" while including the disputed content as well) and is now using an IP address to appear to be a different editor (note that the edits are identical as are the edit summaries in style and content). The IP has been reported and I've requested the page be protected. This editor is free to discuss the issue on the talk page with one account. freshacconci (✉) 17:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

For what its worth, Freshacconci is correct: Edit warring is always disruptive and edit-warring to remove negative but well-sourced information in the guise of "adding honors" is both deceptive and disruptive. You'll generally receive a negative response when you start your conversation here with misrepresenting the situation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

David Sams

This isn't really a problem, per se, but more of a question in approach. I recently opened an AfD on David Sams. Another editor has made a GF effort to rescue it from deletion, however, has done so by adding sources to blogspot.com, press releases, wordpress.com blog posts, a defunct (what I think may be) conspiracy website called constantinereport.com, etc. I'm concerned these may not meet the high standards for the biography of a living person, however, I also think that removing them in the middle of an AfD would be disruptive to the process. Is it generally okay to just let these "slide" in a BLP for a week or two while the AfD discussion is going on? Chetsford (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others think as well on cleaning an article under AfD.

I routinely remove such sources regardless. They don't belong.

I also routinely trim back articles under AfD to whatever content appears encyclopedic and properly sourced. I try to use clear edit summaries and make a comment at the AfD. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I recently came under criticism from an article creator for editing an article that I myself had placed under AFD. While there is some care that should be taken during particularly subtractive editing during AFD, things that actually improve an article under our standards of accuracy and verifiability should serve to make the AFD outcome both more likely to be a "keep" (sloppy articles are easily dismissed) and make the AFD considerations be based more on what the article is likely to end up being. With the sort of BLP matters where inaccuracy may be harmful to the subject, such editing becomes even more important... particularly since a new AFD is often a new article, generated at a time when the subject may be getting the most attention that they will ever get, and thus the article may be being referenced by more viewers. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The BLP is a mess -- full of cites which do not support the claims made, puffery, youtube videos as "sources", PRNewswire (press releases) used as "reliable sources" and more. I fear my edits might be a tad more drastic than Sams would like. Collect (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

So much for removing bad sources - a new editor seems a tad insistent on the laudatory stuff from youtube etc. Collect (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP are we? I'm the editor trying to rescue this article from the onslaught of thoughtless deletionists. Thank you for notifying me of this discussion (I wasn't notified). I had to discover this by accident.

To the article: Certainly there is puffery. The subject of the article has gotten involved and is using it to pad his CV. The subject is essentially a salesman by profession. The article certainly can be improved through editing, probably with some security until WP:COI issues are settled. That does not in any way mean the entire article should be erased, which is the intent of the NOM by placing it in AfD. I added a lot of sources, each with their own details of various events in this guy's life. To base the article on those sources is inappropriate. BUT ITS NOT. I enumerated in the AfD, we have LA Times and New York Times articles as sources. I don't hear anybody claiming those as unreliable sources. But somehow those major newspapers were duped into repeating this guy's self-puffery, so they can be ignored. One of his initial claims to fame, generating the NY Times to quote him on the subject, was that he sold the Oprah Winfrey Show into national syndication. So the subject presented the show reel used to sell the show from 1986 on a youtube video, with him on camera doing the sales pitch 32 years ago. In a court of law, I believe that would be called evidence but here it is just considered an unreliable source because everything on youtube is unreliable. I think you can use your eyes. Two other youtube videos show him selling another TV show and on camera hosting said show, a show the LA Times wrote an article about.

WP:BLP1E was claimed and repeated as a justification for a delete ivote because he did something recently. Sams has at least a 3 decade long history.

Sams claims 9 Emmy awards. I doubt any have his name on them. The Oprah Winfrey Show has won 46 awards, and other shows he sold have won more. If he had not successfully sold those shows into front line prominence, theoretically they would have won zero awards. I can see the salesman's logic for taking credit. That can be removed or better, explained through editing.

So I am frustrated by the repeat of so many AfDs, where the zeal to destroy content overrides logic. Yet another railroad job. A nuclear bomb, when a keyboard will do the job. This article just needs editing. To continue to push for deletion, to not withdraw the nomination immediately, is just spite. Trackinfo (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have no dog in this fight. I took a look for myself. The first source is Youtube, which does not bode well. (It's never a good sign when the first source is unreliable.) The second source is about Roger King and only mentions Sams' name once (using him for a quote) saying he was the "vice-president of creative affairs and now an independent producer". It does not mention he was responsible for the shows his boss was. (That also doesn't look good.) 3.) Roger King's obituary. Mentions him once as he gives a quote (all about himself, which is surprising for someone else' obit.) 4.) Mentions him once, on page 68, and does credit him with marketing these shows. (This is the only source which correctly attributes the sentence.) 5.) A site selling tickets to a seminar. (Not at all reliable.) 6.) Washington Times promotional article (note it's in the "advocacy" section, which is more-or-less a paid advertisement). It mentions him in passing a couple of times, but is not at all about him. It does say he was the produce of Keep the faith, but that is all. 7.) PRnewsline! A promotional release blogsite (where anyone can pay to promote their own business with news-like blogs). 8.) A government Division of Business services site, where I can apparently look up official government records about his businesses. (OR and possibly in violation of BLPPRIMARY.)

Do you see a pattern developing? Major amounts of synthesis, sources misrepresented or completely useless, and nothing about him in specific. And that is just the lede. Imagine the condition of the rest of the article. The article looks to me like complete PR trash without a complete overhaul. If you're willing to take on the task, then please do, but lacking that I say delete. Zaereth (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, just FYI in the hope it will help. Someone once said, "You make your own position seem worse than it actually is when you mischaracterize the position of your opponents" and this is incredibly true. In other words if you want others to take your position seriously then try to avoid statements like "where the zeal to destroy content overrides logic" or "This user says delete to everything. Please ignore." Just saying. Zaereth (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

David L. Katz

An edit to this article by Natureium in which he reverted a previous edit because of its non-neutral wording [7] has since been reverted by another editor, who claims that the version to which Natureium reverted contained "apparent malicious revisions". [8] I have since reverted this editor's revert to restore the less promotional version of the article, because, in addition to being more neutrally worded, it contains more, better-sourced references. I would like other editors to look at this to determine the best way to address any BLP concerns regarding this article. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 21:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The editor doing this (WorthMedia) has been indeffed for being WP:NOTHERE, so hopefully things will now settle down. Neiltonks (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai

Long term removal of content by subject of article using his own name as online handle. Large scale removal of information and insertion of unsourced prose (full diff of multiple edits). I've reverted for now, but I suggest long term monitoring in case he returns, and notification of WP:COI/WP:BLP violations by sysops on his talk page.47.11.186.145 (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reservations about the current article, which presents him in an entirely negative light and doesn't seem very neutral in tone. For example it says "During his childhood he was friends with the Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist leader, Muhammad Yusuf Shah" without mentioning that Shah was also a child at the time and therefore not a terrorist leader. The vast majority of the article is a record of his arrest and imprisonment and I wonder if this detail should go into the Pakistani lobby in the United States article (which already mentions him but is out of date) and the BLP be reduced to a stub. Neiltonks (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've at least clarified that one example. fish&karate 13:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Carmen Moore

Yesterday, I reverted the addition of details about Carmen Moore's child to the article. This material had been added by TheCarmenMoore, who has been confirmed as the subject of the article (see User talk:TheCarmenMoore#April 2017). She has added the material back again. While TheCarmenMoore is the article subject, this still makes me uneasy and is a violation of WP:BLPNAME due to the lack of a reliable source. Even if we did have a source, though I'm not sure this material should be included. What do others think? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

When writing BLPs I would not normally include the full names of non-notable living minors except in cases where there was significant mention of them in reliable sources. If the BLP subject (the parent) were inserting the exact birth date of the non-notable minor, I would tend towards not allowing them to do so. In this case where, as I understand it, the notable parent themselves is insisting on adding the full name but not exact birth date, I would tend towards allowing that. MPS1992 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a bit of a WP:COI issue here; Moore is the producer on an upcoming film in which Shackelly appears. That gives this a slightly different tint than the normal proud parent who just wants their kids included. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to see that just as a good reason to find a reliable source which says so, thus making the inclusion of the child's identity directly pertinent to the article about the parent, rather than being a mere detail as it is at present. MPS1992 (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

BLPNAME is largely irrelevant. Without a reliable and verifiable source it can be removed from the BLP. 'I'm the mother of X' actually wouldn't be acceptable. But Shackelly stating in an interview 'Carmen is my mother' would be. Otherwise a secondary source is needed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the identity of User:TheCarmenMoore has been confirmed by OTRS, I would consider her a reliable and verified source for who her children are. MPS1992 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You might consider it so, but the editing community does not per WP:VERIFY. Information must be published in a reliable source to be verifiable. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed: OTRS is not intended to be a replacement for published sources, because readers don't have access to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I assume that the child in question is a minor. My particular feeling is that when it comes to children we should use extra care and caution. It's nice to think that the parents know what's best for them, but I doubt as many really think about the consequences that having fame forced upon a developing mind can have. There are a lot of people who don't want that burden, but unfortunately a young child is not capable of making that choice. Being the family of a notable person does not automatically make them notable. Unless the minor's name has not only been reported in reliable, secondary sources, but also widely reported, then I say we should err on the side of caution and leave it out. Zaereth (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a valid viewpoint, but the reality here -- according to above comments -- is that actually the child is now an actor in a (mainstream) movie produced by the parent. The minor is still not yet independently notable, but we are increasingly on the unsupportable side of trying to suppress something that is already public. Quite apart from the ridiculous hoops that we appear to be trying to force the (BLP) parent to jump through. MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I also presumed the child is a minor. Knowing that the child is an actor too makes me more inclined to support inclusion, but only if a source can be found (which is hardly a ridiculous hoop). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed -- I was not referring to your comments, but to the totality of what occurred at User talk:TheCarmenMoore and how that would be perceived by an ordinary person who understands none of this and was genuinely repentent at "I didn't know I wasn't allowed to talk about myself in this forum". And said so more than once! The reception that this living person received, as a whole, was disgraceful. MPS1992 (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I seemed to have missed that point. It seems like inclusion is inevitable, yet I think these hoops were created for a reason. I started here working on a political article (a topic I despise). The only reason I stuck with that article was due to people --who purport to be respectable journalists and pundits-- using the subject's children as pawns for some political gain. (A tactic more suited to gangs and mobsters.) These hoops exist for a reason, and it's difficult to have one set of rules for one and a different set for everyone else. I hope the subject of this article can understand that. From your description it seems like just a matter of time, but only time will tell. Zaereth (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Steven Kunes

This article can do with some TLC. Note: COI underneath. No need to tag, but article does need improvement. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Editors should be careful to check sources to verify any claims made by Kunes. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Just checked the article history and -- wow. This should be listed as the canonical example at WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing (nonetheless it would be a bit cruel to single the fellow out like that). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

yes wow. and a great example of why we should never use imdb as a ref his bio there (It was used as a "ref" in the WP page when it was created.. although there is no way to know what it looked like back then) Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The only archived version I can find is from 2006.[9]--Auric talk 14:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Noel Lee (executive)

I represent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Recently Noel Lee (executive) received press attention for his efforts to promote a Super Bowl commercial. That media report relies on background information listed in Wikipedia that is inaccurate. Mr. Lee claims he received toxic doses of radiation at the Lab, which led to a degenerative disease. Mr. Lee has filed no such claim against the Lab and his reports show deminimus exposure to radiation at best. These are not toxic levels of radiation -- they are in keeping with the radiation dose anyone naturally receives going about his/her life (e.g., medical diagnostic procedures, airline flight). We do not wish to engage in a war of words but we do want this false statement addressed.

I am looking to guidance on the best way of achieving that. Thank you for time 128.115.190.44 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Lynda Seaver, Director of Public Affairs, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Comment - I'll let others with more experience on this board deal with the crux of the issue, but if that article is not a product of WP:UPE, I'll eat my hat. John from Idegon (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- The article was started by User:CorporateM. So not undisclosed paid editing, but still. We'll let you get by with just eating your hatband. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed - the article previously suggested that it was proven fact that Lee's illness stemmed from radiation exposure, and I've changed it to represent the fact that this is only Lee's claim. If anyone thinks we should go further and remove it completely, feel free. Black Kite (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

While we're at it -- that last paragraph ("Lee enjoys this and that") could get nuked, in my view... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Naveen Jain

I just want to flag something here... The editor Ronz appears to be unfairly reverting any positive changes to this article. I follow Jain’s career as an academic and this page is not an accurate biography. Does this editor have a WP:COI? For example, an article's introduction is not an appropriate place to add negative info about the subject's ex-company. It's suspicious that this user doesn't make any genuine contributions to Wikipedia. I want this article to be truthful and would like an administrator to please take a look. I've only just come back to Wikipedia after a six year break and looking at the way this editor deals with 'new' people I'm concerned about directly editing the page (I wish to add more info about Moon Express and move some of the biased focus on InfoSpace to where it belongs on the Blucora page). Please Help! Trufflegoblin (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You could try to discuss it with the other editor at the articles talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ronz makes plenty of genuine contributions to Wikipedia. There, now I have pinged him to this discussion for you, Trufflegoblin. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. Sorry I've been absent for a few days, my frustrating wifi! I'm understanding the situation a little more now. Also, Ronz, thanks for tweaking the article to be a marginally less critical since last time I saw it, I think it bothered me that other tech entrepreneurs' pages were allowed to focus more on their important scientific achievements without unnecessarily dwelling on less important business faux pas (engineers I speak to tend to be only interested in Jain for what he's done post 2003). I sincerely apologise for my tone at the start of this discussion, there's nothing more disheartening than accusations of WP:COI when we're all just trying to spread reliably sourced knowledge neutrally and transparently. Please forgive this transgression, I was very frustrated looking at the history of the page. Your edits are professional and considered and you clearly know what you're doing. I intend to make additions soon, I'm getting used to using Wikipedia again, so when I'm feeling confident.Trufflegoblin (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trufflegoblin. It would be very helpful if you used <s></s> to strikeout (eg ~~example~~) portions of your initial comments that no longer apply so we know what your concerns are now. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Adrian Peters

Several months ago I stubified this BLP for copyright, referencing, tone and style issues. The subject recently contacted me by email raising what they see as a number of ethical issues with my edits and asking me to justify the removal of particular facts from the article. It is true that I have connections to their institution, so I'm going to recuse myself, unfollow the article and step away. Fresh eyes/edits welcome. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe you did the right thing. That article was a classic example of a resume disguised as an article, written in a haphazard, pseudo third-person. The subject seems notable in that he has written several books. Unfortunately the lack of any reliable, secondary sources is troubling. I checked google, google news, and books and was not able to find a single one. Since the article has not a single secondary-source itself, and gives no indication of importance, I think it likely may qualify for deletion. Zaereth (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Andy Cohen (television personality)

Hello! I would like to request help, if possible, editing Andy Cohen's Wikipedia page. Full disclosure: I work on his show "Watch What Happens Live!" and understand that Wikipedia encourages people close to their subjects to ask for help from more experienced editors who can be more neutral toward the subject. I'm hoping to, within the important guidelines of Wikipedia, reorganize the page a bit & broaden the information about his career as a TV executive & an on-camera personality. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissie (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Caissie. Thank you very much for disclosing your conflict of interest and working to improve the article using the proper channels. Please remember that Wikipedia gets its information from reliable sources. To get the changes you want, what I suggest is finding sources that have the information you want added to the article, and bringing them to the talk page of the article. (You'll find a link that says "talk" at the top of the page.) Post your sources there and ask people who watch that article to make the changes for you. Please be very specific as to what you think should be added/removed/changed. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Doug Ford (again)

Need more opinions on a BLP dispute on this article, regarding the section removed here. A number of editors have suggested that this well-referenced, neutrally presented discussion of a significant (albeit wholly negative) investigative report should be removed, for reasons varying from it being out of date, to irrelevant, to being part of an organized smear campaign, to just vaguely citing BLP. The page is already semiprotected because of this. As far as I can reckon there's nothing wrong with it as far as policy is concerned, these editors are just trying to bury negative info, but I'm getting kinda tired of the edit warring. Can some neutral editors please have a look at the section, and tell me if I'm totally off-base with this? The last time I posted this request it was archived with no response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

based on interviews with anonymous sources and noting that the newspaper could find no record of drug-related criminal charges against Ford .... uh... MPS1992 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The usual test for "accusations of criminal activity that lack both charges and convictions", is the question of whether the alleged incident was significant in the specific named person's future career, one way or another. MPS1992 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, and yes that's the section I'm referring to. I'm familiar with that aspect of the policy, but how do we usually measure that significance? The report described was published by Canada's largest newspaper and corroborated by its second-largest, and was covered in many other reliable sources both nationally and internationally. It came out around the same time as the scandal surrounding the Ford brothers' alleged (at the time; later partially admitted in Rob's case) connections to criminal drug activity. And as the Fords have become something of a political dynasty in Toronto over the past decade and three of the four siblings have proven drug connections (two have records and the third is Rob) it seems that the fourth sibling's alleged drug activity is also notable. And it is equally important to note that the report is untested and unproven. And regarding the report being partially based on interviews with anonymous sources, the Globe and Mail and the Star were both called to a tribunal of the Ontario Press Council over the report, which found that the papers' reliance on anonymous sources was reasonable and justified. But, to get at your question I think, Doug Ford is not a drug dealer if that's what you mean by "in their future career".

I look at it this way: the event (the report) is significant enough that readers are likely to look for information on it. We can neutrally present the facts that there was a report and its allegations were not proven, or we can give them nothing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this is an ideal BLP for applying the usual test that MPS1992 (talk refers to and that the mere age of the alleged conduct adds another reason not to include it. There was so much sensational and disturbing commotion back in the day it was written which centred on this Subject's brother and I think this "report" was definitely a part of that. I think to bring back this content at such a crucial point in time, when the Subject is running in the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018, which will go toward determining the next political leader of a population of 13 million, is not appropriate. The inclusion also has already perhaps led to more obvious BLP concerns as in this editing mistake, which I was fortunate to catch. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"Bringing it back" is not an accurate description of the situation at all. The article was more or less stable with this material included since it was last discussed four years ago (discussion), coinciding with the last time Ford was running for something. It's been in the article in some form since May 27, 2014. That diff is admittedly by a very likely biased user "Respect4citizens" and non-neutral; I tried to clean it up here (same day) and that version was left more or less untouched for years. It's a steady stream of CU-confirmed sockpuppeteers, brand new accounts, and IPs that have turned up to try to remove the section every time Ford makes some kind of political announcement, such as that he was running for mayor in September 2017 ([10]) or running instead for the OPC leadership last week ([11]) . Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The report by the Globe and Mail was added in May 2014 and has existed pretty much intact for nearly four years. It is only recently that this was removed from the article along with other negative items in Ford's past. It is no accident that these edits coincide with Ford's recent announcement that he is seeking a major provincial party leadership. It is apparent that supporters of Ford want to remove some of the blemishes on Ford's past. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes both good and bad aspects of a person's life. It is not meant to be an advert. If readers want the "good parts" version, they should read his personal website. The story in question here is well referenced from reliable sources and it meets Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criteria. The story is relevant and accurate so it should stay. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

All I want is for the Subject's bio be consistent with BLP policy and protocols. Its true that more attention to the BLP is happening now because of the current campaign and the upcoming Province wide election, but I think the suitability of this content at this point in time should not be determined by either the current events nor how long it was in the article. There are more than enough good editors involved to prevent the article from becoming too flattering or an advertising vehicle. As the article stands right now it seems fine with me, I would stand against any fluff being added. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You mean fluff like this? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

C. Christine Fair losing her temper at Frankfort airport

C. Christine Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Two new editors have added information to this article about an incident at Hamburg Airport. Not only does this not seem to have attracted much media attention, the addition states in Wikipedia's voice that she said things that she denies having said. She's been charged with defamation but there's no outcome yet. This seems at worst an intemperate outburst at an airport - hardly unusual. I've removed it again. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there's one secondary source about it, [12], which chooses not to name her. Dr. Fair herself vigorously denies that account of her actions. [13] So unless more sources publish on the story and name her (e.g. maybe if a conviction happens), I think it should stay out. At the very least, if it's included, it should be careful not to use Wikipedia's voice for now. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not Hamburg, it was at the Fankfurt Airport (which is why the Frankfurt police wrote a press statement [14]. Why are people that don't even read what both sides agree on meddling with the article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tontag (talk • contribs) 19:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

And that press statement, which would be a primary source anyway, also doesn't name her. Another reason not to have it in the article unless it develops further. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I made the first edit in the wiki page about her. Sorry that it was not up to the standard Wikipedia seeks to uphold. But the strict privacy rules for the German police should be taken into account before the lack of her name in the press statement is considered as an argument against including the event in her wikipedia page. Haage42 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User:Patar knight points out that editors are probably adding this after reading Reddit.[15] Some clearly defamatory material was also removed by me and rev/del'd by Patar a little while ago. No idea why I wrote Hamburg, I knew it was Frankfurt.Doug Weller talk 19:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

And another inexperienced editor arrives who has never edit this article. The Reddit thread itself is very active right now. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a rather harsh way to put things. From a normal user perspective, what they're doing is adding some sourced material which is seems important to the article. I think it's clear that *something* happened during an incident at Hamburg airport, and there is likely enough source material at this point to at least mention that an incident happened which is generating controversy in the article without being defamatory. SodaAnt ^Talk 21:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Further adding to normal user perspective: All of this debate was set into motion by an article from USA Today. The public's exposure to the topic resulting from the USA Today article makes it noteworthy event, regardless of what outcome a court finds. A normal user can see no reason for a Wikipedia article with a neutral point-of-view to treat USA Today as equal to "my cousin's mother's hairdresser read a blog that said..." 172.220.16.4 (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I came here just because I read about it in the news and saw the police paperwork showing she paid a US$260 fine. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The title of this section references "Hamburg", even though an "inexperienced editor" pointed out that it should be "Frankfurt" and still no correction has been made. I considered editing it, but at this point I'm sure the changes would be reverted. 172.220.16.4 (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that she is a tenured professor in a presitigious position who is spending her time writing articles about how a couple of airport guards violated her civil liberties, I think (Redacted). Who gets obsessed about this kind of stuff and lets it escalate? Usually people in (Redacted). Accordingly I don;t think it belongs in the article. 198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

- everybody who reads her HuffPost article would accept she is an (Redacted). But that doesn't mean her (Redacted) behaviour at Frankfurt is worth including here beyond mentioning briefly the charge she faces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.201 (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2018‎ (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that says she is facing any charges? The sources that were added are either not reliable or don't mention her. ~ GB fan 14:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This [16] from The Independent is probably the best out there at the moment. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The public prosecutors office (Staatsanwaltschaft) is investigating the charges against her. The money taken from her is just a security to cover cost of proceedings ordered by the PPO. According to the pictured paper the posted, the security (Sicherheitsleistung) was ordered by Amtsanwaeltin Eisfeld. Official Press Release from the federal police in english and german here: https://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/74262/3844730 https://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/74262/3844731 . While her name is not mentioned in them, she identified herself as the person in question. So if you want to have something about that incident in the article it is that she is "under investigation" for crimes allegedly commited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.86.222.59 (talk)

- not sure why you have redacted my comments. But for the record (which I am sure you will not wish to censor), I said she is an (Redacted) woman with an appalling (Redacted). However, I didn't point out her use of the language in her articles is (Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.201 (talk)

The latest problem is an editor stating as fact that she used defamatory language (for which she could get a jail sentence) which she denies using. Doug Weller talk 22:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Where an alleged offense is contested and it is not regarded as of earth-shaking importance, I think it can be safely omitted in the first place. I have seen too many BLPs trashed with such "celebrity gossip" and worse. Collect (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Added (to article on Fair) a ref to 2018-01-29 Washington Post article describing this incident, including direct quotes from Fair herself, based on a telephone interview the Post had with her.KHarbaugh (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Martin Sonneborn

A lot of unsourced modifications of an article relating to a member of the European Parliament from the IP address range of the European Parliament User talk:136.173.162.129. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.238.125 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Taeyang

He got married on Feburary 3, 2018 to Min Hyorin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana5102 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Then he should have our congratulations. But, can you tell us about a reliable source that mentions this? MPS1992 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Sims

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

Some very negative material was added by an IP to this article in October. It's sourced to a primary source, the union who sued Simms. A user, who was subsequently indefinitely blocked, for their username and edits, removed the material. There was then a mini edit-war between the user and an experienced editor. A new account came along and also removed the material, which was restored again. An SPI was filed, and I blocked the new account.

However, unless a secondary reliable source can be found, the material should be removed, despite the socking. In normal circumstances, I'd remove it without even coming here because the BLP violation is so clear, but it's not my usual habit to restore sock edits. Depending on how quickly this is resolved, I may still remove it anyway.

As an aside, it's not a very good article and could use some work if anyone is interested.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest using Court Requests to confirm the validity. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I have now removed this material twice, as it's clearly covered by WP:BLPREMOVE. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

We can't use court documents to "confirm" anything unless there's a reliable secondary source which covers the issue. The material needs to stay out until and unless one is found. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. I won't restore it again. Agree that the quality of the article is poor, and I suspect that there have been several COI editors involved with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Murry Salby

Much of the addition was argumentative, but complete excision seems an overreach. Ought you not seek to retain some of that material, as much is reasonably strongly sourced, while not re-adding the bits which make specific arguments otherwise? That ought not be too onerous a task, I would hope. Collect (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right--I just wanted to make sure none of the obviously biased, poorly sourced stuff was out of there. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 14:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The large edit added masses of material sourced to court documents. We won't be using that... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't use the court documents, then. As I said, likely 30%+ is usable though, and we ought not toss the baby out with the bathwater, ought we? Collect (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

If you think there's usable material there go ahead and whittle it down, then re-add (or propose on the talk page) and others will comment. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor" applies. Collect (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Translation would be helpful-I'm not even sure what language that's supposed to be in. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 00:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's Hebrew. I think it translates to "Almost nobody is going to bother sifting through more than 50 kB of stuff about 'NSF bureaucrats' to see if there's anything worth salvaging." But I might have gotten a couple of words wrong. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Dina Wein Reis

I noticed a WP:SPA reverting content at Dina Wein Reis. However, the content they are removing (of this person should be referred to as an "admitted con artist" in the lead), seems to plausibly be a BLP violation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If over half of someone's article is about a (fairly minor, in the scheme of things) conviction, it raises the issue of how notable they actually are. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Jason Kessler

I'm writing to you requesting help with a biased and defamatory article which has been created about me on Wikipedia. The first problem I notice is that the page refers to me as a "white nationalist". I don't identify as a white nationalist nor have I ever described myself as such. However, since the publication of this defamatory Wikipedia article more news articles have started using this term to describe me.

Second, the article refers to my Unite the Right rally as, "result(ing) in one death after a car was driven into the crowd." This happened hours after the the rally was over. Besides that, its undue emphasis to put this in the headline of my biography and implicates guilt at a time when civil court proceedings are ongoing.

In fact, there was an independent investigation which showed that I had nothing to do with it and that the police had abandoned their posts blocking that street. So if anything it was police who allowed that situation to get out of control.

Third, it contains false hearsay information about how I was supposedly "involved with Occupy Wall Street". The article it links to only presents insinuations from liberal activists. The claim that, "many on white nationalist forums have questioned " this is not sufficient for inclusion nor is my voting record.

It also contains outdated information about how I, "deleted my Twitter account".

Anytime corrections are made to this page a vindictive administrator named Muboshgu changes it back. Even basic information like the status of my Twitter account. Muboshgu was the one who controversially created the page and has been described in the talk page by user Spam Reduxit as using a "hostile and aggressive tone" to strong-arm his agenda onto the page.

In Muboshgu's talk page he can be seen again and again being abusive to conservative editors. At one point user WhatsUpWorld asks Muboshgu, "Please stop threatening me." Muboshgu responds, " It wasn't a threat. It was a promise."

Muboshgu has also hoarded editing privileges over associated pages including the page of Wes Bellamy and Unite the Right itself. Anytime someone makes factual changes he disagrees with he undoes them.

Please give me some relief by correcting the inaccurate and slanderous information, banning Muboshgu from the pages, or deleting the article altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominance Hierarchy (talk • contribs) 17:22, January 25, 2018 (UTC)

So, not only did you not heed good advice about forum shopping, now you're claiming that you are Jason Kessler, the subject of the article? That's a clear WP:COI. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Second, the article refers to my Unite the Right rally as, "result(ing) in one death after a car was driven into the crowd." This happened hours after the the rally was over."

Agree, use of the word "result" implies causality. Holding an event where thousands of people are packed into a confined space does not necessarily "result" in a car-related fatality. If the article wants to say that the death of Heather Heyer was the "result" of anything, it should be the result of the poor manner in which the Police handled event, which "resulted" in the Charlottesville Chief of Police resigning from his job.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/charlottesville-police-chief-resigns-in-wake-of-report-on-white-supremacist-rally/2017/12/18/536ac8a2-e42c-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.07c582ff46a5

Wikipedia cherry-picking out-dated sources for it's articles while ignoring better, more recent, and more accurate sources results in a politically biased Article, which seems to attempt to blame Kessler for a tragedy that may have been totally outside of his control. The unstated implication is: "If those White Supremacists hadn't held that rally, Heather Heyer would be alive today.", which is a consistent with the Leftist narrative that "Nazis" do not have the right to speak, or assemble, in the United States, and if they do, and if someone dies as a "result" of such an event, it is the "White Supremacists" that should be blamed for it.", which is why the use of the word "result" in this context is important. I think phrasing the event by simply saying "it occurred" during (or after) the event is more objective.2605:6000:6947:AB00:D5ED:4928:F92E:8AE5 (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say I was editing my own page. I was editing the Wes Bellamy page. I literally put Wes Bellamy's own words up and Muboshgu deleted them. I have however looked over the history of my own page and seen you arguing in a hostile and disrespectful way with neutral parties. I need another administrator to come in and take a look at this issue. Muboshgu clearly has a vindictive agenda in this thing. He's flagrantly violating Wikipedia rules about defamatory content in the biographies of living persons and content involving pending court cases.

Whether or not Muboshgu is an admin is irrelevant. The rules say that, "Vandalism includes the addition, removal, or modification of the text". This is exactly the case when the info is correct but Muboshgu uses a minor formatting issue like POV on one word to delete entire paragraphs.

Then instead of bringing in another admin to mediate Mugoshbu threatens to ban me for something I didn't even do. He couldn't possibly be any more of a petty tyrant about this.

Dominance Hierarchy (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. If you really are Jason Kessler, you should use WP:OTRS to address your concerns. Otherwise, I expect you will be blocked for sock-puppetry in the very near future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I sent an email to [email protected] if that's the right address for complaints. Besides that I have the other issue of abuse by Mugoshbu. Every single edit I make he goes and unedits with some bs political commentary. He even stalks me to edits on pages of rock bands.Dominance Hierarchy (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the term "white supremacist" is used in sources, we could use that instead... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Dominance Hierarchy. A few things to maybe get you more oriented and hopefully get this back on the right foot a little bit:

First, Wikipedia is run by volunteers, each of whom have more or less time they're able to commit to the project. This often means that things happen slowly and piecemeal in a way that you may not expect from a professionally run private business. That can be frustrating, but becoming frustrated over it usually only makes things worse. The watchword here is often patience, especially when involved in a heated dispute.

Second, no one has any special standing here or a privileged voice, even though it may sometimes seem that way. That includes whether someone is an administrator (as Muboshgu is), whether they are a recognized expert in their field (e.g., we do have editors who are confirmably recipients of Nobel and Pulitzer prizes), or whether someone is, or is closely connected to the subject of an article. One way or another, we are all editors, plain and simple, and members of an editing community that makes decisions through consensus. This often means that the end-product is a compromise, that doesn't fully satisfy either party, but usually helps to build a better encyclopedia for readers overall.

Third, we take biographies of living pesons very seriously. But having said that, Wikipedia is a project that is fundamentally built on sources, and our slow-moving piecemeal consensus building is a process of making decisions about the nature and content of sources, and not the nature of facts. Those sources should ideally be judged based on their level of reliability (meaning whether they have an established reputation for fact checking and responsible professional editorial oversight), and not based on their political leanings. So whatever discussion happens going forward, it needs to be a sourced-based one, and not a fact-based one, because sources are what Wikipedia uses to approximate the truth.

So, if you've managed to wade through all that lengthy explanation, the way forward that's going to be the most productive, is to start with one particular issue (not broad sweeping changes or assertions), and present the best sources available to address it. That discussion should occur on the article's talk page, and if editors cannot reach a local consensus, then they should engage in the dispute resolution process, which can help to bring in uninvolved opinions and work to reach a resolution. Hopefully this helps. If you have questions, feel free to reply here to at my talk page. GMG ^talk 13:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(Comment from otherwise uninvolved editor) Wait, we have editors who have won Nobel Prizes? Who? Seriously, I had no idea any Nobel laureates edited here. The rest of these matters should be discussed on Talk:Jason Kessler. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 20:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Thank you for giving me a reasonable response. Unfortunately I don't think my problem is an issue of a slow or piecemeal system (although that may play a role) but outright maliciousness from an admin who is abusing their privileges. I hope that someone will step in because this person is using Wikipedia to drive an agenda against me. I emailed the listed address over a week ago to complain about the article and the admin who created it but I haven't yet received a response. Is there anyone you could refer me to?Dominance Hierarchy (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Dominance Hierarchy. Just to be clear, the email only serves to verify your identity, and can prevent someone from blocking you for impersonation. We do this to prevent editors from impersonating public individuals in some way that might besmirch their reputation. As an example, this account, named "Actuallyjimmykimmel" was recently blocked for exactly this reason, and then unblocked when it was determined that yes, it was actually Jimmy Kimmel. But being identified in this manner doesn't give Mr. Kimmel any special authority over what his article says. This, like most everything else, is determined by sources and consensus.

This is a little technical, so apologies if I don't clearly explain it at first go, but administrators don't actually speak for Wikipedia in any official capacity. They are just volunteers, just like the people who answer the types of email you sent (I'm one of them) are also volunteers, and not official representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the nonprofit that oversees Wikipedia and other similar projects. The WMF in turn, plays largely a behind-the-scenes administrative role, "keeping the lights on" and keeping the software updated for example, and doesn't get involved in arbitrating content disputes between editors.

The only thing that makes administrators different is that they have technical access to certain software functions (such as deleting content, and blocking editors) that aren't available to the general community, because they could do considerable damage if misused, whether through malice or incompetence. The only way that someone "abuses" their administrator privileges is if they misuse one of those functions that they have special access to, for example, if they had blocked you from editing because they were involved with you in a content dispute. Simply reverting an edit, which is a function that anyone has access to, even those who choose not to register an account, isn't an abuse of administrator privileges in the sense that any actions can be taken to sanction the user for.

Because of that, the fact that the user was an administrator is incidental, and the real issue is that you are involved in a content dispute which, as I said previously, should be taken through the steps of the dispute resolution process to resolve. I realize that's probably not the answer you are looking for, which can be frustrating, but hopefully it's less frustrating than simply not understanding how things work and why. GMG ^talk 13:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. That article appears, at first, to be a bit excessive in its coverage of the rally, but on closer inspection it is clear that every one of the five paragraphs actually discusses Kessler. That rather revolting tweet, the coverage on it is entirely from the LA Times; if that source is misrepresented one way or another, that can be discussed on the article talk page (same for the Occupy material) but I don't see any obvious BLP violations there (does "repudiate" also entail "apologize for"?). The rally, yeah, that's in the lead--but let's face it, it's the reason for the subject's notability, and that someone died--it is such a huge thing that of course it should be mentioned. I suppose editors might argue that the tweet should actually be in the lead (I wouldn't, but there could be good arguments for it). Finally, claims of "strong-arming" and selective removal of material, they are as old as Methusalem, and I don't see any evidence of it. That one other user doesn't like that editor's work, that means little, and that editor's work on that and other pages doesn't strike me as very impartial to begin with (I suppose Acroterion could confirm that). Drmies (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Flint McGlaughlin

Flint McGlaughlin This article has already been flagged as "written like an advertisement" and a "major contributor appears to have close connection with its subject". Looking further, the references were a) misleading, b) non-existent (404), or c) linking to his own web properties. Additionally, broad, overreaching, and absolute statements were made throughout the article, ex: He is the founder of ... the largest independent research institution on value proposition optimization.), "he was invited to enter Oxford University to obtain his PhD. He passed on the invitation and instead elected to accept an academic position as the Direct" without reference. Several other of the citations were linked to purchased press releases (PRweb.com), to backup unverified claims. This article is clearly in violation of the Living Persons Policy for Wikipedia. I believe this article and the talk page should be removed as soon as possible, as it is clearly poorly sourced riddled with false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.104.45.59 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for very recently wielding the editorial machete, IP. Before you did so, this article included such fascinating nuggets as "McGlaughlin is the current Director of Enterprise Research for Transforming Business at the University of Cambridge (UK)." Oddly enough, Google hasn't heard of the string "Enterprise Research for Transforming Business" other than in dodgy-seeming web pages about McGlaughlin. After you sheathed your machete, another IP arrived and added this nugget: "McGlaughlin received an M.A. in Philosophy and Theology from the University of London’s Jesuit Specialist College in Philosophy". Oddly enough, Google hasn't heard of the string "Jesuit Specialist College in Philosophy" other than in dodgy-seeming web pages about McGlaughlin. The aroma of horseshit is overwhelming; this article amply merits an AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Shritwod (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The 'Jesuit specialist college in philosophy' bit could be a poor description of Heythrop College, which is in London, was founded by Jesuits and offers the type of qualification described. However I agree, he's not notable so I'll say so on the afd discussion. Neiltonks (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

[ferguson-1] Ferguson, Michael (2003). Idol Worship: A Shameless Celebration of Male Beauty in the Movies. Sarasota: STARbooks Press. p. 296. ISBN 0-786-40983-5. Retrieved December 10, 2014.

[2] Lopez, Rich (July 12, 2010). "Concert notice: Gay-porn-star-turned-comedy-music-act Simon Rex, aka Dirt Nasty, comes to the Loft in October". Dallas Voice. Retrieved February 7, 2013.

[3] Lester, Shallon (October 29, 2008). "Former MTV VJ/porn star Simon Rex is trying his hand at rap music". NY Daily News. Retrieved December 10, 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]