→ See also: Crystal Gail Mangum section in BLP/N Archive 16 - section #14.

• Crystal Gail Mangum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this one looks seriously unbalanced. It's sourced OK, but most of the content is not relevant to her, and while it's sourced, the article is almost entirely derogatory in tone and balance. Wikipedia is not here to destroy her legal case. The article on her should not be used to allege, without any address, that she's a liar. Needs some attention. // Moreschi ^Talk 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: I've been boldish and cut the very worst bit - check the page history - but this still needs more eyes. I'd appreciate some extra feedback. Moreschi ^Talk 11:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the criminal history section, I think most of the information should stay. She is notable for the rape accusations. This makes information about other accusations and about her credibility much more relevant to her notability than it is for, say, a musician.

And it's derogatory in the sense that it makes her look bad, but merely being factual about her makes her look bad. Ken Arromdee 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, there shouldn't be any unsourced claims. Sounds obvious but I already took one out.-- Wizardman 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course there should be no unsourced claims, but the original complaint above is that "while it's sourced," the article is derogatory. Ken Arromdee 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, its that its irrelevant and makes her look bad. It appears that the question is which aspects of the case are notable enough to be on her article, rather than on the case article. I support stubbing that section and writing it again from scratch. Hornplease 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the whole thing is a blatant coatrack. Moreschi ^Talk 14:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is. Good definition on User:Weregerbil/Coatrack. — Athaenara ✉ 18:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Coatrack accusations (or the non-neologistic equivalent) can be improperly used. Sometimes most of the material is negative because the subject is noteworthy for a lot of negative things, rather than because someone's biasing the article. Ken Arromdee 20:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

They can be but were not "improperly used" here. — Athaenara ✉ 23:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This article was turned into a redirect by me the other day because all relevant information about Ms Mangum appeared to be already in the target article. the one about the Duke lacrosse team rape scandal. After that David Gerard turned it into a salted deletion. This went to a rather ugly deletion review which seems to be being used as a battering ram by people opposed to administrator discretion in BLP cases, and a fair number of POV pushers (that whole case should go to arbitration soon, I think). Somebody tried a close, but it didn't take. The history is now back.

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23#Crystal Gail Mangum.

We can but hope to get a closing admin who is BLP-competent. -- Tony Sidaway 04:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh it was closed as a redirect and promptly protected citing "BLP and DRV closure". Result! -- Tony Sidaway 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Jeff Jarrett (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Might wind up being nothing, and stands as quite minor right now, but this might become an issue. This revision of the article contains a meager 'Personal Life' section that details nothing but his wife who passed away last night. It should also be noted that that section didn't exist until edits made today, specifically this revision. I feel it contributes nothing to the article, so I was a little bold and took it out. Any comment will be helpful. Nosleep1234 05:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

An anon re-added the section with no explanation other than "yes, it's notable." I re-removed it. Nosleep1234 10:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The notion that a biographical article should omit the highly-publicised passing of the article subject's spouse is farcical. McPhail 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Sholars

• Mike Sholars (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I removed the speedy tag from this article, as notability was asserted. The main author, however appears to be the article subject (registered as Golddiggers ( talk · contribs) but apparently editing as a variety of IPs). Discerning whether or not the coach of the Svendborg Admirals is notable is beyond my powers, and the article is entirely unsourced. Perhaps some European sports fan could take a look and set things right? Thanks, William Pietri 12:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick survey of "Mike Sholars" (about 300 results) and "Michael Sholars" (one single result) on Google seems to indicate there is insufficient public discussion of this person to merit an entry. In fact I could not find any non-trivial results. Quatloo 13:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any independent sources after a (brief) look. If the author cannot provide some, take it to AfD, I think. Trebor 13:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged it as a prod. After Mr. Sholars removes the tag, it will go on AfD. Quatloo 13:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that Doc has speedy-deleted this as an A7. Was I too cautious in removing the speedy notice before? I figured that his claim of winning N gold medals with his team was an assertion of notability, which seemed to put it out of bounds. But I've only just started doing speedies, so advice is appreciated. Thanks, William Pietri 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it should be speedied either but meh, would've surely been deleted at AfD anyway. Trebor 19:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

All three comments on the AfD (including my own) suggested speedy deletion, and the article was particularly poorly written. Anybody can apply at deletion review for the content. It would have been deleted anyway. So we just saved ourselves five days. Good call. -- Tony Sidaway 21:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, didn't realise it had already been nominated at AfD. That's fine then. Trebor 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Note re deletion of content from this archive

→ See also: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mike Sholars

• 87.49.149.76 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - deleted archived content & substituted a version of Mike Sholars article. — Athaenara ✉ 00:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Charles Bennison (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Barbaraalton has expressed the concern ( [1], [2]) that this section is potentially libellous. It looks adequately sourced as far as I can tell. Additionally, it appears User:Barbaraalton may have a conflict of interest: she describes herself in an edit summary as "Exec Asst to Bishop Bennison". I tagged the article BLPC and would appreciate guidance from those more familiar with WP:BLP -- Rrburke^{( talk)} 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• This article has been targeted [3] for "cleansing" (my words) and under attack by mutliple WP:SPA accounts [4]. A careful review of this material for liable by a few experienced editors without conflicts of interest would greatly benefit Wikipedia. Rklawton 22:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Michael Snow has done a dramatic rewrite that resolves any BLP issues that may have been present. Chris Croy 06:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wayne Geokjian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a blatant attack. I've speedy tagged it under A10. It includes personal information include residence area, addresses and the name of the school his children attend. I am posting here to make sure the information is deleted ASAP. I should additionally note I edited out that information, but it is still in the history. // Vassyana 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Images and names of persons alleged to have participated in this crime are being added into the article with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I hope the BLP concerns here are obvious. -- ElKevbo 00:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Mohammed Asif Mohseni (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across a completely unsourced stub of a (possibly?) living person. I don't have any time to research this as the moment so I just removed the problem info. diff Someone else might want to look into this more closely-- BirgitteSB 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• 70.29.3.153 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - 19:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Anas Salloum ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - 15:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Fareedmojab ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The stub was tagged as unreferenced the day it was created. Now, nearly two years later, it still has neither references nor meaningful categories. — Athaenara ✉ 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Muhammad Asif Muhsini (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is nearly identical and has more content, so I've redirected Mohammed Asif Mohseni to it. — Athaenara ✉ 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rob Lunan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BLP complaint by a single purpose account in an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Lunan with a clear delete consensus that has already gone 5 days. Take whatever action you feel is appropriate, but closing the AfD would solve all problems. - Aagtbdfoua 01:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Richard Steinheimer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What in this page is controversial, unsourced, poorly sourced or potentially libelous? It source is a book by Jeff Brouws who also wrote the books on Winston Link's 'Steam Steel & Stars' and 'Starlight on the Rails'. Along with other books on his own. Here is a list of some of his books. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/102-5282791-9552962?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Jeff%20Brouws

The source is A Passion for Trains: The Railroad Photography of Richard Steinheimer (Hardcover) by Richard Steinheimer (Author), Jeff Brouws (Author) It is not a self published but the is Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company (November 30, 2004). It is a photo book, pics by Steinheimer, with a large set of text by Jeff Brouws. http://www.signaturepress.com/rs.html http://silicongenesis.stanford.edu/transcripts/allenbendersteinheimer.htm http://www.trains.com/ctr/default.aspx?c=a&id=21 Lazarus-long 03:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see any BLP complaints about the page. The warning on the talk page is simply standard boilerplate attached to all living person biographies. FCYTravis 03:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Project for the New American Century (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this article while checking the through the contributions of user Boscobiscotti whom I had met on the Harvey Mansfield talk page. I found numerous problems (weasel words, unsourced or poorly sourced comments, original research) in the controversies section and moved most of them to the talk page. A disagreement ensued between me and Boscobiscotti after he restored most of the content. I admit that I may have been a little harsh with him initially, and to his credit, he has made substantial improvements to the article since that time. I am asking that someone not directly involved in the content dispute review the article for neutrality and conformity with biographies of living persons due to the notability and high profile of the subjects of the article in question. Best, MoodyGroove 20:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

The first 2/3 or so is OK but there are problems with the "Controversy" and "Criticisms..." sections. The former, in particular, needs to be better sourced. In its present form it reads too much like soapboxing. The relevance of the latter section to PNAC is not clear. Raymond Arritt 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the Criticism section seems irrelevant? and how exactly is BLPC involved? Discuss please?-- Boscobiscotti 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The narrative in the "Criticisms" section doesn't mention PNAC explicitly. To this outsider it reads like a general critique of U.S. policy, with mentions of various individuals. The connection to PNAC presumably was obvious to the writer but it is not obvious to the reader. Raymond Arritt 14:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I added {{ BLPC}} to the article to put it in Category:BLP Check and added {{ Blp}} to the talk page. There is a little bit of friction on the article talk page about this because it's not immediately obvious to all editors why there are WP:BLP policy concerns. — Athaenara 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

yes. how is discussion of how to characterize the theories of a think-tank a biography question?? Also I want to note that MoodyGrove mentions coming upon the article in question by looking at my contributions. The implication is that the content was produced by me. In fact my contribtions to this article prior to Moodys deletion of the entire controversy section were minimal. When I stumbled upon the deletion, I reverted it because I felt it deleted much material which was well sourced along with some questionable items. I felt it was not done in good faith, because the entire Controversy section was removed, including sourced material. I have put alot of effort into sourcing as much as I can, and removing any POV. I have agreed with some of MoodyGroves criticisms and asked him/her to help by countering controversies with alternate POV.-- Boscobiscotti 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• A couple of points here. First, I did not mean to imply that you originated the content, although I did find the article while looking through your contributions. In fact, I may have found the article by clicking on a wikilink in an article that you edited. I only mentioned that I found it while looking through your contributions in the interest of full disclosure, because I have nothing to hide, including the fact that we had a disagreement on the Harvey Mansfield talk page. It was an attempt to be transparent, and I regret any confusion. Second, I don't appreciate your comment that my edits were not in good faith, and I ask you to retract that comment. I didn't just delete material, which I had every right to do (and perhaps should have done). Rather, I moved the questionable content to the talk page, with bullet points for each. The "sourced material" you're referring to was part of a connect-the-dots narrative that was original research, in my opinion (a fact that I explained where appropriate). That's hardly a bad faith edit. Finally, it's clear that all material on the Wikipedia needs to be well sourced and accurate. Considering the notability and high profile of the members of PNAC, and the fact that the article lists them by name, I believe that the intent of biographies of living persons applies. Arguing that this article is somehow exempt from Wikipedia policy on the grounds that it's not, strictly speaking, a biography, borders on WikiLawyering. We are currently discussing on the talk page whether or not to include an alleged controversy that implies PNAC members somehow condone genocide, based on a book review in a Texas newspaper. Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Cheyney, Dan Quayle, et al. That is reason enough for the article to be seriously reviewed for compliance with all Wikipedia guidelines, including biographies of living persons (for obvious reasons). MoodyGroove 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

• Although this was a huge improvement, based on this line of reasoning, user Boscobiscotti now acknowledges that the genocide controversy is not notable and was most likely added to the article to spread misinformation about the PNAC. As such, I am asking that all traces of it be removed from the talk page in compliance with biographies of living persons. I would be bold and do it myself, but I have been directly involved in the content dispute, so I'm looking for support from the community first. Best, MoodyGroove 12:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

• I don't acknowledge that it was "most likely added to the article to spread misinformation about the PNAC" - That is a mischaracterization of my view. I simply agreed to the logic that it was a minority opinion, and therefore not of great enough note to be included in the article. The PNAC themselves have a letter published on their website on the subject, and the article with the inital concern is available via the Austin-American Statesman - without a retraction. In additon there are well documented sources http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/03/02_400.html which point to an uptick in secret bioweapons research in the US. This is not to say I support the Austin-American Statesman view, I am agnostic on this. I think it is not sufficiently sourced to be currently credible. I think that my proposed NPOV analysis should be left in the talk page as a neutral note on this controversy - to be available as counter-evidence to people seeking to promote this theory.

"Kip Keller in a book review of an article on a historical book on eugenics in America. [5] quoted the following line from the 2000 PNAC report: "Advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." ^[1] as evidence that PNAC supported a "gene bomb", which horrified him. He continued

That anyone could support the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice -- is unthinkably appalling; that Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol or any other Jew could do so is an irony too tragic for comment.

The Austin-American Statesman refused to issue a correction stating that the quoted sentance was "ambiguous." PNAC responded with a letter > refuting the claim, and explaining that the context of the quote was "methods of warfare U. S. forces may face, not ... actions we recommend." and that indeed no recommendation for use of biological weapons was made in the report. The letter went on to state:

Keller's outlandish accusation ... is both disgusting and utterly false.... [to] selectively use a quotation from the report without providing appropriate context but also then accuse people of supporting "genocide" is truly appalling.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boscobiscotti ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

• To clarify my statement above: 1) It is very unlikely that PNAC supports genocide -2) I do find a more likely reading that PNAC supports US research on "gene-targeted bioweapons" for defense reasons. . 3) I think my NPOV statement does a decent job of presenting the PNAC defense against 1) and it, or something similar should be left on the talk page to point to for people who come along promoting 1) .-- Boscobiscotti 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Take another look at how the genocide "controversy" was portrayed in the article, and tell me with a straight face that it was not intended to spread misinformation about the PNAC. Regards, MoodyGroove 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

• Looks more like WP:SYN than "misinformation" per se; of course, SYN is not permissible either. Raymond Arritt 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Critics will often quote..." is a weasel phrase, and "as evidence of a violently racist lean" is not only unsourced and unsubstantiated (hence pseudo-information), but intends to stigmatize or injure (in my opinion). I agree that the second half is a snythesis to advance a position. Regards, MoodyGroove 20:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Much of the offending material has now been removed, but there's a lot still to come out. Blog posts of the sort referenced on this page are generally inadmissible even under WP:RS; few of those linked are written by avowed experts on anything. That said, there's a deeper point here: can the strict rules of BLP be taken to apply to articles about thinktanks? I don't think they should be; it's a slippery slope from there, to companies, to political parties, to entire countries, which are, after all, collections of living people. Hornplease 02:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this situation is being resolved, but I'm concerned about extending BLP to organizations too. Not that we should insert unsourced material anywhere, but the special enforcement mechanisms of BLP need to stay restricted in order to remain practical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The only real difference between BLP and non-BLP articles is that in BLP articles, we enforce all the normal rules strictly, with less discussion required. The normal rules are still the normal rules. No group, organization, or person, living or dead should be slandered with poor sources. Blogs shouldn't be sourcing anything except information about the blog itself, provided certain criteria are met. There was some discussion recently about a modified version of BLP for organizations. I'm not sure what came of it. - Crockspot 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A slight caveat: blog posts - self-published sources more generally - are permissible under WP:SPS if written by a generally agreed 'expert'. (Not sure why Melanie Phillips, for example, is considered an expert on anything.) Hornplease 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the question about whether we should extend BLP to political parties or countries, it depends on context. A claim that America supports genocide probably isn't an attempt to suggest that each individual American does so, let alone each of a list of Americans named in the article. Ken Arromdee 13:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: Are credited blog or web-magazine sources generally allowed as sources for that persons own views, opinions or analysis? -- Boscobiscotti 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• He's referring to the sources that are currently being used in the controversy section, including CounterPunch, the New Statesman, the American Free Press, Democracy Now!, Scoop, Antiwar.com, Truthout.org, and other similiar political newsletters and web magazines. I have done my best to identify them in the main text of the article (because I am trying to avoid an edit war) but I don't think that a Wikipedia article about a think tank should be a podium for conspiracy theories that aren't taken seriously by the mainstream news media. Are these to be considered reliable sources that contribute to a neutral point of view? Best, MoodyGroove 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I would say that when discussing political views, Counterpunch and Scoop and Truthout are definitely sources. They are most certainly not blogs. Antiwar.com is no longer a source at the article. Democracy Now stands separately, it is a true news source. Like Fox News it is a news source with a viewpoint, but I daresay it does more original honest-to-god reporting. These sources can most certainly can be sourced in an NPOV way. When you are discussing political debate on ideas, it is most reasonable to include these RS sources. . Democracy Now mainly does interviews, so the opinions expressed and cited in its transcripts, such as those cited in this article, are those of the interviewees. -- Boscobiscotti 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a \{\{BLP\}\} tag on the talk page of this article now? Is the consensus of this page that all organizations which contain living persons are to be tagged BLP now? -- Boscobiscotti 01:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Is this section active, or should it be archived? — Athaenara ✉ 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be archived. Boscobiscotti and I have both moved on and the really serious BLP concerns have been addressed. MoodyGroove 20:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

→ See also: Arbuthnot family section in the Conflict of interest noticeboard archive 10

I am sure some of you have been following the sad tales of the notable and non-notable members of Category:Arbuthnot family. While looking through them, I have found a worrying amount of those that are referenced are linked to references which have also been written by the primary author User: Kittybrewster (Kittybrewster infers on his talk page that he is in fact "Sir William Arbuthnot Bart" and it is Sir William Arbuthnot Bart who is listed as a contributor to many of the references concerned. What is the policy if any on this, and what action should be taken? Giano 11:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is another relation of Kittybrewsters Michael Broadbent again the only ref a family tree is on a site of which Kittybrewster is the webmaster. Giano 13:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with citing oneself as long as you knew what you were talking about when you wrote it. See Citing oneself and Vanity guidelines. Have you considered programming a bot to automatically delete all of his articles? I'm really worried you might miss one and leave a single spec of worthwhile information somewhere on Wikipedia. Chris Croy 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Giano, I apologize for being overly aggressive. After spending more time perusing his articles(I checked out about a half-dozen before I posted and all appeared to be fine in a C-class sort of way), they would seem to be generally undercited and sometimes read very...listyish. Chris Croy 00:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem Chris, but I do object to my edits being removed by others [6] Giano 11:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if one were searching for editors who have caused Wikipedia to lack worthwhile information, User:Giano II with his collection of Featured articles would be a rather poor place to start. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a strangely aggresssive attack against an editor trying to keep Wikipedia articles encyclopedic and properly referenced. Even if you do know "what you were talking about when you wrote it," that's got nothing to do with proper referencing, since it's not something a reader has a chance to check. Basing an article on knowing about your own relatives is something that militates against Wikipedia's credibility; as Jimbo has stated, the time has come to go for quality, not quantity. Clicking on Chris's links, I find that Citing oneself reads in full: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." That's not what User:Kittybrewster's Arbuthnot stubs do, unfortunately, please see the discussion here. As for Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, also invoked by Chris, it's a redirect to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a long page. Not sure which part of it is meant to apply here. Is it "Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article"? Bishonen | talk 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I think Bishonen has summed up the situation well. I've asked Kittybrewster to stop editing the articles about himself and his immediate family, and to stop adding his website as a source or external link. I don't think that deleting the bulk of the material he's already contributed would be helpful, though particular articles may be dispute or AfDed ( List of Provosts of Peterhead, for example). - Will Beback ·:· 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How is the WP:BLP policy implicated here? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Independence of third party sources? LessHeard vanU 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the articles brought to AfD so far are about living people. DGG 01:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one was: the article on Kittybrewster himself. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus, BLP concerns derogatory or controversial information about those people and there is no indication above that such information is present in the articles. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't looked at any of the articles before making my suggestion. However, BPL does have guidelines regarding the use of ones own publications as references (as it is indicated is used by the author) which might be applied to biographies generally. Also, and I realise that this is stretching it a bit, it appears that the family is still extant and the series of articles is about them. Knowing a little bit about British family tree culture it could be argued that the family is a living entity and could fall under the scope of BPL.

I should think that Giano is the appropriate person to ask, although he hasn't yet responded to ObiterDicta's initial enquiry. LessHeard vanU 20:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I share the belief that WP:BLP/N need not worry very much about the Arbuthnot articles. Even if all the concerns (above) are well taken, the most that could be said is that too many articles are being kept, and the info is too genealogical. There is still an Arbuthnot issue open at WP:COI/N and it's not so clear what to do there. The genealogy site kittybrewster.com is sometimes actually helpful, so asking for all those links to be removed might not be the best plan. Individual Arbuthnot articles can certainly be nominated for deletion, if you have concerns. The propriety of adding the link to kittybrewster.com without an individual Talk page consensus can be questioned. EdJohnston 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, kittybrewster.com is owned by User:Kittybrewster, who is Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet, so you can understand why this is beginning to look like spam to some. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be irrelevant, but I live under a mile away from the area of Kittybrewster in Aberdeen, Scotland, which I have no doubt that this is connected to. Very coincidental.- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Equerry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am wondering how notable half these living people are in Category:Equerries, the majority of Equerries are unreferenced, and is the position notable? - It is usually a short term draft from one of the Armed Forces to be basically a male Lady-in-waiting to the British sovereign - the appointement usually lasts two years and is appointed on affability rather than any military honour. What is the feeling on this? Obviously some qualify as heros of baronets but the others. Giano 13:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Per se - perhaps not. But take each on a case by case basis. If the information is verifiable, and otherwise unproblematic, then there is no pressing reason to delete.-- Doc^g 13:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be a reward, and most certainly a personal honour, meted out to senior (but not the most senior) military officers. It may be viewed as an "honorary chairman/vice president" type of recognition, although the post does carry some responsibilities. It is what the British refer to as "jobs for the boys". As suggested by Doc, treat it on a case by case basis. If it is the only matter of note for an individual then I would be inclined to delete it, but would try a quick Google search to check if there were any other (marginal?) claims to notability. LessHeard vanU 21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Historically, equerries have achieved notability either because the position was traditionally a stepping-stone to higher things, or because they have leveraged their positions of extreme closeness to the sovereign. (George III's equerry wrote a tell-all memoir.) Not really the case any more. In any case, why is a BLP issue? Hornplease 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Itcan can be thought of as a notification though not proof of potential notability, because it now typically goes to those who are prominent from social position, military notability, or more usually both. DGG 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hockey stick controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editor RonCram has alleged that Michael Mann, a prominent climate researcher, knowingly made false claims in an article published in Nature (one of the most prestigious journals in the sciences). Note that the editor is not merely stating that Mann's claims were false, but that he knowingly made false claims. This is the most serious charge one can make against a scientific researcher. So far, the allegations have appeared only in edit summaries [7] and the article's Talk page [8], but given the seriousness of the allegation it is still a concern. I'd appreciate guidance from those more experienced in these issues. Raymond Arritt 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the talk page discussion; there does not appear to be an RS for this allegation. Unless one can be provided, Ron Cram should obviously cease making accusations in edit summaries. -- C S (Talk) 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hockey stick controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - It just came to my attention that Raymond Arritt posted a notice here regarding my posts on Hockey stick controversy about the unethical behavior of Michael Mann. The notice was posted on May 13 and archived as inactive on June 5. [9] The only comment was by a user who is on a wiki break. Raymond claims there is no reliable source for the information I posted. This is not accurate. The reliable source is the English translation of the Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, which is also listed in the "External Links" portion of the article. See Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics by Marcel Croc, translation by Angela den Tex, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, February, 2005. Here's the quote from page 28 (9 of 12):

The “Censored” Folder As the story unraveled, more intrigue came to the surface. McIntyre:“On Mann’s FTP site, the directory for the North American network contains a subdirectory with the striking name BACKTO_1400-CENSORED. The folder contains PCs that looked like the ones we produced, but it was not clear how they had been calculated. We wondered if the folder had anything to do with the bristlecone pine series: this was a bulls eye. We were able to show that the fourteen bristlecone pine series that effectively made up Mann’s PC1 (and six others) had been excluded from the PC calculations in the censored folder. Without the bristlecones sites, there were no hockey sticks for Mann’s method to mine for, and the results came out like ours. The calculations used in Mann’s paper included the controversial bristlecone pine series, which dominate the PC1 and impart the characteristic hockey stick shape to the PC1 and thereafter to the final temperature reconstruction. Mann and his colleagues never reported the results obtained from excluding the bristlecone pines, which were adverse to their claims.”

The fact Mann knowingly withheld results that were contrary to his claims is a significant violation of scientific ethics. The facts around this issue have never been disputed. I would like to have this issue cleared up so this information is available to Wikipedia readers. RonCram 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that with format as per WP:CITE this should be a reference in the article rather than isolated in the external links section. — Athaenara ✉ 02:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. It is obviously an open and shut case. It is shocking to me that anyone would even claim this well-respected science magazine is not a reliable source. RonCram 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron, you are aware that N&T is a popular science mag. right? [10] -- Kim D. Petersen 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (bad online translation) -- Kim D. Petersen 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientific American, also a "popular science" magazine, is respected and is often a reliable source. Is the Dutch magazine very different in this respect? — Athaenara ✉ 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, SA is pretty much the same. Neither is peer-reviewed. -- Kim D. Petersen 07:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Good think wikipedia doesn't allow non-peer-reviewed information to be added, Eh, Kim? oh snap, no, thats just the opinions of a few editors, when they want to censor what information can be added to an article, which seams to be a popular thing in the Global Warming articles...-- Zeeboid 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooohh, snappity snap snap. When presenting a NPOV of a subject, and peer-reviewed literature (or the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community) is contradicted by editorialized uninformed opinion (thing Wall Stret journal) and/or wishful thinking (thing Sen. Inhofe) many editors here (not just 'a few') know which carries more weight. The wheels of science often turn slowly, but they do turn, so if the teensy amount of naysayers (wrt to AGW) eventually turn out to be right, then it will be published, a new consensus would develop, and finally, it would be reflected here, in an encyclopedia (not a platform). And we won't have to rely on the random editorial, newspaper, or that one contrarian scientist somewhere to support ideas we don't like. My 2 cents. . .carry on then. R. Baley 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: According to the masthead and a cover image on its website, it's actually Natuur Wetenschap & Techniek (NWT). — Athaenara ✉ 06:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to climateaudit.org, the February 2005 NWT cover story is based on two peer-reviewed papers published in Geophysical Research Letters and Environment and Energy (see Greenwire for more on the latter.) See also " Breaking the hockey stick" and " Revisiting the 'stick'," both for the Financial Post, the business section of the National Post. — Athaenara ✉ 07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are extremely serious WP:BLP implications here. RonCram wants to state that "Mann knowingly withheld results that were contrary to his claims" in a published article. This is the most serious accusation that one can make against a scientific researcher. IANAL, but if it cannot be proven true that Mann knowingly withheld contradictory results, it seems Mann would be well within his rights to seek damages from Wikipedia (and perhaps RonCram as an individual). Raymond Arritt 14:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm here because Raymond asked me to comment. In my opinion, RonCram has done us a disservice by not giving us the background to this problem. Ron apparently feels very strongly that Wikipedia must contain the claim that Michael Mann knowingly violated scientific ethics. Discussion at Talk:Hockey stick controversy has been solidly against this idea, so Ron has turned to other tactics:

• he created Scientific data withholding as a POV fork of Scientific data archiving, for the sole purpose of attacking Mann (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific data withholding).
• he alleged that because User:William M. Connolley is associated with Mann, Connolley should not edit Hockey stick controversy (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 6#William M. Connolley .28talk .C2.B7 contribs .C2.B7 logs .C2.B7 block user .C2.B7 block log.29). No conflict of interest was found.
• Ron posted for a second time on the conflict of interest noticeboard, making essentially the same argument that Connolley should not edit Hockey stick controversy (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 10#William M. Connolley .28talk .C2.B7 contribs .C2.B7 logs .C2.B7 block user .C2.B7 block log.29 .282.29). Several people in the dicussion felt that Ron was abusing the noticeboard, and I speedy closed the discussion.

Essentially, Ron is not getting his way in the content dispute, and is trying to use noticeboards to get the upper hand. Ron's behavior is long past the point of being disruptive. If there's a BLP problem here, it's Ron's persistence in attacking Mann. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I gave the background I felt was important. The issue was brought to this noticeboard by Raymond and archived as "inactive." I did not initiate this action and it is wrong of you to pretend I did. Since Raymond raised the issue, I thought it best to seek a resolution. In addition, your reconstruction of the events is wrong. Scientific data withholding was created prior to my editing of Hockey stick controversy. It was not a POV fork. Connolley nominated the article for deletion. Some of the editors who voted for its deletion did so on the basis they believed the paragraph on Mann belonged in Hockey stick controversy. I wrote a new article, Data sharing, with much of the same information but minus the information on Mann. Data sharing was honored by fellow editors by making the Wikipedia Main Page "Did you know?" section. I added the information about Mann to the Hockey stick controversy article as requested and Connolley deleted it repeatedly without reason. I then filed the first COI noticeboard incident. Durova ruled in my favor because Connolley is a colleague of Michael Mann's and they had co-authored a paper together. Durova asked Connolley to keep appearances in mind when making controversial edits. Connolley continued to delete this information without a valid reason. I filed a second COI Noticeboard incident on Connolley. It was at this point Raymond claimed my wording exceeded the text cited. You then ruled in Connolley's favor without Durova's input and without any reflection on her reasoning in her previous ruling. You invited me to file some sort of Wiki action against you as an Administrator. I have not had the time to research such an action even though such an action probably has merit. RonCram 05:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I think my wording accurately reflects the citation. If you think my wording exceeded the citation, you could have modified my entry rather than deleting it or bringing the issue to this noticeboard. I do think it is preposterous for you to claim this Dutch science magazine is not a reliable source. RonCram 05:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed any such thing. Raymond Arritt 05:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I apologize for remembering incorrectly. I just re-read the entry. It was user Chan-Ho who made the claim, who is now on a wiki-break. However, the issue you raise about the entry possibly being actionable is just as preposterous. The claim has been published repeatedly in various magazines and online. In fact, Nature's blog published my comment on this issue on May 14. [11] RonCram 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you're unaware, Wikipedia holds itself to higher standards than blogs. Raymond Arritt 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you know full well the issue was published in NWT, a well-respected journal on the same level as Scientific American. Regarding my blog posting, this is not just any blog. It is published by Nature. There was a significant delay between when I posted on Nature and when it was finally published, which I believe indicates they did some fact checking. Did you happen to read the link I provided? RonCram 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) The link in your Nature "publication" is dead. (2) In any event it was from the personal web site of one of Mann's antagonists. Raymond Arritt 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, the link is not dead and it is not an antagonist of Mann but Nature. Try it again. [12] RonCram 17:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I wrote the link in your Nature "publication", not to your Nature "publication." Raymond Arritt 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, what link "in" the Nature publication? What is it linking to? Whatever it is, it is not relevant to this conversation. My comment regarding Mann's unethical behavior is in the page itself. The comment is dated May 14. It should be easy for you to find. You need not link outside the page provided. RonCram 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron, making a comment on a blog is not the same thing as being published. Your assertion that Nature fact-checked your post is highly optimistic, to put it politely. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, Nature has a choice on whether or not to publish comments on their own blog. If they felt the comment was actionable, they would not have published it. Neither would NWT have published if it was considered actionable. That is the point. RonCram 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Going a bit too far here Ron, NWT and SA are in the same category as each other: Popular science magazines. Claiming that NWT is as well-respected, or as reliable as SA is a claim without basis - it might be correct - but we don't know it. In Denmark we have a magazine much like NWT (and SA (pop-sci)) called 'Illustreret Videnskab', and i can assure you that its neither well-respected, nor reliable. -- Kim D. Petersen 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Kim, you have not demonstrated that I have gone too far. Your opinion is only that I might have gone too far but you do not have any evidence to support that. All of the information I have is that NWT is a highly respected science magazine. If you have evidence to the contrary, you can bring it forward. RonCram 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron, on wikipedia its the originating editor, that has to prove it. Not the other way around. Otherwise we'd end up knee-deep in strange claims. (but a good indicator is that NWT doesn't have an article on the dutch wikipedia - while both SA and New scientist have). -- Kim D. Petersen 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

From Akhilleus' comments, I get the feeling that this is a GordonWatts-style single-issue POV pushing user. An RfC may be appropriate here. -- ChrisO 08:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris, have you visited my User Page to see what articles I have written and contributed to? Did you read my response to and correction of Akhilleus' comments? Your opinion holds no relation to the facts. RonCram 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This thread seems to have once again gone beyond the immediate BLP concerns into a dispute over content. My inclination is to end it and not respond further; however, if others feel the discussion still is useful, I'll continue. Raymond Arritt 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is just more of the same, a politically motivated effort by the usual suspects to spin Wikipedia's Global warming articles. That content dispute should be isolated in one place. The editor who opened this case here User:RonCram should be warned not to disrupt Wikipedia by abusing process to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a dispute about content, as much as Akhilleus or others may wish it to be. The only "spinning" being done here is by Raymond who placed the notice on this Noticeboard and those who wish to turn it into a content dispute. I agree with Raymond that this should end. As has been demonstrated, the information regarding Mann is published in a reliable source and therefore is not actionable. RonCram 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

General remarks

As with the Stephen Barrett certification dispute, the substance here involves pertinent facts which either can or cannot be referenced with reliable sources.

Endless wrangling about the pertinence of the information and the reliability of the references is disruptive. Both quarrels have been ongoing for months and now account for over one third of the content on this noticeboard.

As the participants in these two disputes may or may not have noticed, BLP/N is rather busy: there are currently over three dozen other articles needing its attention. — Athaenara ✉ 09:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Note

Subsequent bickering drowned out the fact that the February 2005 NWT cover story was based on two peer reviewed papers (one published in Geophysical Research Letters, the other in Environment and Energy), as noted last week in 07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC) post above. — Athaenara ✉ 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jim Gilchrist (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I. The first paragraph refers to his separation from the Minuteman Project only from the point of view of those who seized control, without reference to Gilchrist’s counter-allegations of criminal conduct on the part of the board members that engineered it. I corrected this to give an objective account, listing both sides of the dispute, but it was reverted.

II. Under the section “Minuteman Project” Gilchrist’s role while he was head of the Project, is referred to as “former head of the Minuteman Project.” This is obviously a factual error. Gilchrist was obviously not acting, at that time, as the “former head” but as the “head.” It would be the same to say, “Abraham Lincoln led the Union Armies as the assassinated Commander-in-Chief” The fact that it was phrased that way, drawing attention to the one-sided coverage of the controversy noted in (I.) above, is a clear indication that the intent of this article’s author was to give a negative spin to Gilchrist. I corrected this to read “as head of the…” but it was reverted.

III. Gilchrist’s lawsuit against the MP board of directors is noted and its legal status. But while all of the board member’s allegations against Gilchrist are detailed, no part of Gilchrist’s side of the story is told. This is biased coverage. I corrected this, including reference to Gilchrist’s side, and not removing the defendants’ side, to regain some objectivity, but it was reverted.

IV. Under the section “2005 Election Bid” Gilchrist’s ballot results are negatively spun by the very deceptive phrase: “He was the only one running under his party, and therefore automatically advanced into the run-off.” It gives the impression that the only reason he made the general election ballot, was that he was the single candidate in the primary from his party (a common occurrence in all political parties). That impression is absolute fiction. Gilchrist would have been on the ballot in every system in the country that files candidates by Party. That Primary not only reduced the number of candidates from each Party to one, it established that among that group Gilchrist finished SECOND. I corrected the article to reflect the reality but the correction was reverted.

V. Although the section entitled “Religious Views” was designed to stereotype Gilchrist, it is offensive, on its face, to every social conservative, as well as the pro-life and marriage movements. Referring to the conservative postitions on abortion, homosexual civil unions and same sex marriage as “Religious Views” is a propaganda tactic of the Left. It would be comparable to calling support for Abortion Rights or Gay Marriage “Atheist views.” Gilchrist’s Roman Catholicism is “Religious.” His political positions on human rights and marriage are “Political.” This is another blatant example that this is not an encyclopedia article but a liberal propaganda piece. I corrected it, including all the existing information and wording, adding nothing, but the corrections were reverted.

VI. The section entitled “Criticism” is no more valid as an entry than would be a section entitled “Praise.” It is also unquestionably biased. It falsely implies racism against Gilchrist. It gives undocumented and one-sided allegations by a radical left-wing organization (that supports illegal immigration) quoting only an unnamed person as the source. This alleged person is quoted at length but no quotation (by an actual person) refuting him is allowed. The opposition organization was also allowed to question Gilchrist’s sincerity, but their own sincerity was held above suspicion. This is a hit piece. I corrected it, leaving in the SPLC allegations, but the correction was reverted.

VII. The section “Criticism” includes the inflammatory sentence “In a March, 2006 interview with the Orange County Register, Gilchrist stopped just short of calling for his followers to pick up their guns.” This incredible sentence floats a statement Gilchrist literally DID NOT MAKE to engineer slanderous implications about him. Let me give you a similarly constructed sentence that is equally true: The Wikipedia article about Jim Gilchrist stops just short of saying he is a Nazi who plans to incinerate Jews. // 76.22.9.247 06:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I. You'll need to cough up a citation for this.

II. This would appear to be a good change. Chances are the reverter simply looked at some of the changes, noticed a few key words, and reverted the lot of it.

III. Again, you'll need to add a citation, especially if you/we are accusing them of criminal acts.

IV. I'm having some trouble understanding you, but I think you're right. I'd throw a few related citations in there and see if the changes stick then.

V. Generally speaking, abortion views do cleave sharply along denominational lines. If you believe God puts a human soul into every single little embryo the moment it's conceived and all human life is equal in value, it's pretty clearly murder. If you don't agree with the logic every step of the way, it's not. I'd look for an infobox like what Rudy Giuliani has and put the religion part there, then move the stuff from religion to politics like you did.

VI. Criticism sections are standard in most articles. For example, look at the article on the SPLC. It's criticism section is called 'controversy' but it amounts to the same thing.

VII. Yeah, that one's a little inflamatory. I'd suggest replacing it with a quote or two from his interview with John Lofton. "If I have to say yes or no, then I would say, yes, [homosexuality] should be outlawed." or "Oh, yes. [The government's] organized, it's legalized, organized crime."

Chris Croy 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Our policy says:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Are the critics who criticize this person a minority or a majority? That is, are there a lot of critics who say he works with neo-Nazis, or just a few? Moreover, the views of critics must be based on reliable secondary sources. These critics use an anonymous source as the secondary source; that is not reliable.

It's true that the SPLC has what is in effect a criticism section, but the SPLC is not a living person. Ken Arromdee 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Anna Schmidt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been carrying on an ongoing discussion with a man who says he is Anna Schmidt's stepfather and would like to add information about her current custody arrangements -- specifically that her mother has custody of her and she has not seen her father since March 2006. The stepfather wants to know the correct way to submit a personal statement that can be used a reference for this article. The information is currently included in it, but I added a citation needed tag. Who does he send his personal statement to, what can he include in it, what's the proper procedure, etc.? Can sealed court records be used as a reference?-- Bookworm857158367 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Under the guidelines and caveats at WP:SELFPUB we could consider including material published by that person in his blog, or personal website. But it needs to be published somewhere outside Wikipedia first. Sealed court records cannot be used as these are not verifiable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

An article called Ryan St. Anne Scott references a personal statement submitted to Wikipedia by the subject of the article. That personal statement was vetted by someone on the living persons noticeboard. There's also a statement in your guidelines that people are allowed to correct facts or improve upon their own articles. It seems that this man should be able to submit a personal statement like Ryan St. Anne Scott did, as his stepdaughter is a minor and he is one of her legal guardians. Who should he send it to and how can it be added as a reference? -- Bookworm857158367 01:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the editor who did some work on the Ryan St. Anne Scott article after a report on this board. I'm not entirely sure that the same approach would apply to information from someone claiming to be Cara's new husband and Anna Schmidt's legal guardian. Scott was the subject of the article and wanted to correct information about himself. That was only possible to a very limited extent; the editors who had worked on that article had done a good job. The stepfather is not the subject of the article and the information (have not been in contact with their father since March 2006) is not about himself but about the biological mother and father (as well as the daughters).

Jossi is obviously right about the necessity of an independent secondary source in a general sense. However, common sense indicates that this specific information could be used if provided by the biological parents or the subject (who is now 16 years old) without any secondary sources reporting on it if we're reasonably sure of the identity of the person(s) providing the information. I'm not sure however about Anna's current stepfather.

Having said that, someone claiming to be Anna's current stepfather, like anybody else, is allowed to comment anything on the Anna Schmidt talk page. There are also other ways such as mailing a request to the Foundation. Once the information is made available to Wikipedia editors, they are free to use, ignore or (if it violates policies) remove it. (In Scott's case I started by removing a lot of unacceptable material and integrated what remained into the article, using common sense and BLP in equal proportions.) AvB ÷  talk 10:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I'm inclined to leave his statement in the article with a citation needed tag. I advised him on the article's talk page to write or fax a statement to the owner of Wikipedia and to provide some proof of his identity. Whatever he's doing is apparently with the input and at the request of his wife and stepdaughter. -- Bookworm857158367 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "designated agent" User:Jimbo's response should be interesting. It should be noted though that unsourced info has to be removed if another party (especially Dan Schmidt) were to dispute it. If in doubt, don't include. AvB ÷  talk 02:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I did send an email to info-en@wikipedia.org <info-en@wikipedia.org> but have not heard back as of yet. It was sent 5-17-07. I sent along a copy of our marriage certificate, which i don't think just anyone can get....so that should help to move things in the right direction. I suppose i could include a driver's license or something of that nature as well....if needed...but we'll see what happens for now. crocodyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocodyle ( talk • contribs) 06:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Is this section active, or should it be archived? — Athaenara ✉ 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As things stand now, I'd say it can be archived. The article has been pared back by Bookworm, and Crocodyle seems to be satisfied with the result even though the single item added by him was removed by Doc Glasgow and Uncle G (correctly so I should add). The response to Crocodyle's e-mail should be interesting. I have the article on my watchlist to keep an eye on any new developments. AvB ÷  talk 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• A.J. Pierzynski (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a tireless, unreferenced rant about controversial incidents that this professional baseball player has been involved in, how much of this can be confirmed is unknown, but it is badly POV the way its topic is presented, the language of the text is irrelevant, it is the content that sways this article. I didn't know where else to go because comments as such in the past have been roundly dismissed or unacted upon. I stumbled on it because I added an image replacing a blatant copyvio I tagged for speedy deletion. Thanks and if you can let me know what happens with this on talk page too. IvoShandor 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that this article clearly violates the undue weight section of NPOV. As it currently stands, it consists of about 15% discussion on Pierzynski's life and professional career, and 85% discussion of various "incidents," many of them relatively minor. The section "Pierzynski and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" should be removed; there are no sources, and the incidents described (fielding errors and intentional beanings) are not at all unusual by MLB standards; these kinds of things happen quite often and shouldn't be specifically noted here unless there was significant news coverage of that particular event. As for "Pierzynski and the Chicago Cubs": Pierzynski was fined two thousand bucks by the league for relatively minor misconduct. Is there any evidence that this was widely reported on? Again, no sources are given. Any unsourced information should be removed, and, if reliable sources can be found for the above, they should be summarized in one sentence apiece (giving the proper weight; i.e. very little) rather than droning on for paragraphs. *** Crotalus *** 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just from memory most of the reporting revolved around Barrett's conduct. But the other stuff, I have no idea whether or not it can be confirmed. I haven't really looked, as I said I just kind of stumbled on the page, so I tagged it and commented on the talk page, but I don't edit it or anything, I hadn't even seen it until today actually. : ) IvoShandor 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Shane Ruttle Martinez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 72.143.225.236 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I received a complaint from the subject of this article, which indicates that libelous info is being added by IP address 72.143.225.236. This is information I won't repeat here, but this is the link.

The subject's complaint to me continues as follows:

"This is serious slander, completely untrue, and I demand that this claim be deleted from the history of the article, and that the user who posted it be disciplined. Additionally, he and Dogmatic and Swatjester have violated my privacy by adding a reference to my having been arrested. This is very misleading, since while I was arrested, all charges were dropped and I have never been convicted of anything. Moreover, there are legal proceedings underway in which I am suing the police.

My understanding of accepted norms and practices within the media is that old arrests which never resulted in convictions, are not usually mentioned, because they are prejudicial. Furthermore it is a violation of my privacy, as I was found innocent of all charges, and the grounds of arrest were called into serious question before the court (hence the lawsuit against the police). Also, the source of information is a tabloid newspaper which is not considered credible by any reputable researchers.

Lastly, these editors keep adding references and a link to a libelous DVD about me, produced by a neo-Nazi group which has sent me repeated death threats, and has attempted to engage in witness intimidation during my participation in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Adding references to this DVD in the article is a form of personal harassment, and since the DVD is also libelous and will soon be the subject of a libel lawsuit, it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to include a reference to it, let alone make it easier for people to find it and order it from this neo-Nazi group."

Frank Pais 13:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A BLP violation warning was placed on that anon user's page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP template added to talk. I will add this page to my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Shane Ruttle Martinez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Too many links that don't deal directly with the subject at hand, and no sources to provide proof that he attended, worked, or anything else to have him as involved with the subjects provided in the links SanchiTachi 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Frank Pais ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - refuses to find proper sources, refuses to allow deletions of sources that violate WP:SOAP, refuses to allow information that he didn't put in personally, is violating WP:OWN, is possibly Shane Ruttle Martinez/claims to know him personally, see above article by Frank on this issue SanchiTachi 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• CmrdMariategui ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Newly created name that did the exact same thing as Frank Pais via reverting, yet has no previous edits to his credit, and has put a message on my talk page ("Stop editing this page you are in the wrong. --CmrdMariategui 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)") SanchiTachi 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• An addition: The article in question, along with Canadian Marxist Candidate Page and the Paul Fromm (neo-Nazi) were edited/created by the same people, lack properly sourced information, contain lots of POV and other descriptives that are unsourced/unncessary, and don't seem to follow notability requirements of "the person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (the independent aspects). SanchiTachi 03:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – article in AfD process

• Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Libertycookies ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This recently created article contains a lot of OR and is basically an essay expressing one contributor's opinion. Serendipodous 12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

article in AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_and_influences_of_J.K._Rowling ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted after short AfD discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Richard Huggett (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A multitude of very stark statements about the actions, motivations and consequences of behaviour of this man. But not a single source is given. Mais oui! 13:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A ghastly mess. I have stubbified and would appreciate help in rebuilding with sources. Sam Blacketer 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Having just read the un-stubbified version, I believe it was largely accurate - Huggett was a notorious "byelection troll" and I recall reading about him at the time. I might have an opportunity to trawl Lexis-Nexis in a few days' time to verify the old version's statements. -- ChrisO 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy may be helpful but what we really need is sourcing. He seems to have had it in for Liberal Democrats in particular (I have heard rumours as to why which are broadly what was in the article) but we really need some good sources for them. Sam Blacketer 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Adam Kline (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 67.183.128.133 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.168.61.55 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 63.168.67.183 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just made major revisions to Adam Kline (mostly removals). It was a lengthy, more or less plagiarized (unless the contributor was columnist David Postman) diatribe about Kline's opposition to off-road vehicles. I have reduced that part of the article enormously, and cited to Postman for what remains. I suggest that people concerned with BLP keep an eye on the article, because in my experience it is likely that whoever added the diatribe in the first place will be back to restore it, plagiarism issues (and non-encyclopedic character) notwithstanding. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed it more. The still rather large blockquote, in a section of its own, was in my opinion giving too much weight to that aspect of his politics, so I took an axe to it. -- Tony Sidaway 06:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

• Jeffrey Vernon Merkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• David Cornsilk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mostly unsourced article that appears to be a hit-piece on a non-notable individual. Thick skins required. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith nomination of sourced article. Subject is notable and mentioned in several articles including Cherokee and Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This one has been fixed by a rewrite by Uncle G that left everyone happy! SqueakBox 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

While sourced, this is a very long article on an unimportant individual. Quatloo 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest keeping an eye on this article. I just deleted 2 over-the-top political cartoons drawn by the subject of this article (Cornsilk) depicting Cherokee Chief Chad "Corntassel" Smith in KKK regalia. I'm not sure the cartoons are needed in an article on Cornsilk, even if he did draw them. Here is the earlier version of the article with the cartoons.

This article is apparently controversial and wrapped up in much older disputes going beyond Cherokees to involve Linux, etc.; see:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cornsilk
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2 (see some of the diffs cited)

I don't know who's right and who's wrong in these disputes, but BLP concerns must be monitored in the meantime. -- A. B. ^(talk) 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll tag the images for deletion. In afterthought, they may not be appropriate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Jeffrey Gold (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Wikipedia bio of this guy is dubious. It is not clear whether it is libelous or just sophomoric. It needs attention. Greg Kuperberg 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Isopoda ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Circuspeanuts ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.199.62.160 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I added {{ BLPC}} to this article and restored the version which existed prior to complex serial vandalism by three userIPs (userlinks above) in early April. — Athaenara ✉ 23:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's another issue here: the content is in many ways identical to the IMDB bio which gives as its source indivisiblePR.com which in turn links to JeffreyGold.com where much of the same content is on subpages. It is a {{ primarysources}} problem. — Athaenara ✉ 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I found five news articles relating to this person, and posted them to the talk page. (Links go to abstracts.) - Crockspot 05:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Tucker Max (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently, edits have been made to the Tucker Max entry which violate the Wikipedia standards against slander and libel and are entirely unsourced, unverifiable information. These have mainly been made by the user Antiscian and anonymous editors.

Generally speaking, the whole article has devolved into a slander-fest with little or no NPOV content. Most NPOV immediately information is removed and the focus remains on making unsourced, or marginally verifiable negative comments about the subject. At one time, the article had a fairly decent mix of neutral, balanced information, but over the past few months, that has been shaved away. It's best summed up on the talk page.

In the interest of full disclosure: I am the IT Director for Rudius Media, Tucker Max's company. However, I think that it can be objectively said that the article as it is written (especially with the recent edits) is decidedly non-NPOV and definitely violates the BLP policies. It's certainly not encyclopedic. If this article is ever to resemble a quality entry, it's going to require some monitoring and perhaps even some protection. -- ljheidel 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Antiscian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.8.237.121 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.237.35.200 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.214.101.208 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 66.205.148.171 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Added userlinks. I don't know whether or not this issue has been resolved. — Athaenara ✉ 12:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The content regarding Max's appearance on the Opie and Anthony show and his engagement at South by Southwest that editors keep entering into the article is also severely POV and non-encyclopedic. In both cases, editors have taken statements out of context, combined them with opinion and personal slant, then stated the amalgam as fact. (i.e. Opie and Anthony did not throw a book at Max, Max did not admit at SXSW to "spamming" anything, etc.) Thus the issue hasn't been resolved. -- ljheidel 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely and will remove it. This is totally defamatory and has no place in the article.-- Samiharris 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Add GeorgeMichael69 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. -- ljheidel 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: {{ Gibraltarian}} and Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Blocked User:Gibraltarian

• Gibraltarian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juan Carlos I of Spain (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unfortunately it seems that this article and now this noticeboard are being attacked by the former User:Gibraltarian. He has an appalling record of sustained abuse, edit-warring, sockpuppeting and vandalism (he even repeatedly vandalised his own request for arbitration, which I've never seen happen before or since). He was banned by the Arbitration Committee in January 2006 - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian - and has now been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. However, he's continuing to use 212.120.*.* IP addresses to edit/vandalise articles and talk pages. He is essentially an obsessive xenophobic crank whose M.O. is to delete anything (even if sourced) that doesn't fit his POV and add anything (which he never sources) that supports his POV. He's now taken his campaign to Juan Carlos I of Spain where he's repeatedly deleting Juan Carlos' title of King of Gibraltar, which is verifiably part of the Spanish royal titles. He's also deleting this message from the noticeboard.

I would be grateful if BLP watchers could add this article to their watchlist and revert any edits coming from 212.120.*.*. Please don't block an individual IP for more than a few hours - he's using Gibraltar's largest ISP and indiscriminate blocks cause too much collateral damage for our saner Gibraltarian editors. -- ChrisO 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In this edit (which was rightly reverted within minutes) he also (as 212.120.239.37) removed quite a lot of material from other sections of this noticeboard. — Athaenara 02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He's doing this repeatedly now. I just reverted his latest attack. He's simply rolling back to the rant that he posted at 14:43, 5 May 2007, and wiping out everything that everyone's posted since then. It's completely typical of the egocentric vandalism which he's inflicted on Gibraltar and Spain-related articles for nearly two years now, unfortunately. -- ChrisO 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• 212.120.239.34 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit Talk:Juan Carlos I of Spain here and this noticeboard's talk page here. — Athaenara ✉ 13:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• 212.120.231.139 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit both COI & BLP noticeboards today. ChrisO is all over that, I'm just reporting here. — Athaenara ✉ 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• 212.120.238.105 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit five pages today. — Athaenara ✉ 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• 212.120.231.240 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit four pages today. — Athaenara ✉ 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• 212.120.239.54 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit four pages today. — Athaenara ✉ 16:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, what makes this all the more insane is that the material Gibraltarian is complaining about isn't even in this article. It was split out into a separate article weeks ago. -- ChrisO 18:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He is equalled by other editors adding silly 'Gibraltar Espanol' comments and Spanish flags etc to pages about Gibraltar, like this one -- Gibnews 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly - that's just hit-and-run vandalism. Gibraltarian is unusual, in that he's a remarkably persistent vandal - he's been at it for nearly two years now. -- ChrisO 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• John Sweeney (journalist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Dispute at the moment over some information that some are calling a "smear campaign", against a living person, and others are calling... not. However, notability of the information is also not necessarily relevant in article about living person. This article is becoming more heavily trafficked, related to the recent " Scientology and Me", program, that aired on BBC One's Panorama program, on May 14, 2007. // Smee 11:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• What is the objectionable information? I just looked at the article and didn't see anything untoward there. -- Really Spooky 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume the objectionable information is the section removed in this edit. However, that information is both well-sourced and neutral, meaning that it is an editorial issue about whether to include it, and not one relating to WP:BLP. Trebor 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The BLP policy has a section about private figures which specifically says that material must be relevant to the figure's notability, something which we don't do for articles in general. By your reasoning, all the allegations that had to be removed from Richard Gere would also not be BLP, and I don't think that's correct. Ken Arromdee 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Being sued for libel strikes me a highly relevant to a person who is notable as a journalist. What was the nature of the information removed from Richard Gere? It's difficult to see what point you are making about without at least a diff link, and I can't be arsed to go fishing around the archives to try to understand something you haven't bothered to explain yourself. -- Really Spooky 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Spooky here. The libel trial got major press coverage and he is a journalist. JoshuaZ 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What they said. I presume the Gere information is related to this RfC (which appears fairly widely debated anyway). In which case, I'd say there's a difference between including an allegation about someone's personal life, and an actual event which relates to someone's career (as libel relates to journalism). Trebor 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole "Controversy" section could be removed as it just talks about this libel suit and a tiff he had with a Scientologist the other day. As it is these two minor incidents take up about half of the article. He seems to be well respected and accomplished as a journalist. Steve Dufour 06:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I'd say his notability has stemmed primarily from the recent controversy. But either way, I still feel this is an editorial issue - the information is neutral and sourced. Trebor 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of him, but I don't live in the UK. The article says he has had a 20 year career as a journalist and has won several awards for his work. Steve Dufour 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the Church of Scientology is using the libel case as a way of indicting Sweeney's credibility, per its long-standing policy of " dead agenting" its critics. This isn't to say that the libel case shouldn't be mentioned in the article, but editors should be aware of undue weight considerations. -- ChrisO 18:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggested removing the material on both minor incidents. Steve Dufour 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The libel verdict is still there and in my view is far overweighted. Shouldn't this be reduced to one line? -- Samiharris 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the balance as of yesterday. — Athaenara ✉ 09:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Hewitt

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt

• Carl Hewitt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ruud Koot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheHoover ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.75.137.250 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.235.115.241 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ruud Koot has placed an unflattering photograph of of Professor Hewitt on the article about him. Did Professor Hewitt give permission for this photograph to be taken?-- TheHoover 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The photo was taken at a conference and then loaded to Flickr. He's wearing a Wikipedia T-shirt, and this is the only appropriately licensed image of the Professor I can find in a Google image search. Take a look at the full size image. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it's free, it's entirely inappropriate for this purpose and I've removed it. If we can't find a good photograph of Mr. Hewitt, no photograph at all is preferable to that one. FCYTravis 23:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, FCYTravis. Could you please leave valued project member User:Ruud Koot a friendly message explaining what you've done. Perhaps he could email Prof Hewitt to ask for a more appropriate image. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is no requirement for Carl Hewitt to have authorized the photo. However, as a poor representation, it's arguably no better than no image. I see no evidence to back up TheHoover's implicit assertion that this was done maliciously rather than in an attempt to improve the article.

Also note that this is TheHoover's sole topic of contribution in his four Wikipedia edits; I suspect that he is either Carl Hewitt himself (yet again) or an associate - in which case he should make himself aware of our policies on conflict of interest. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 11:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A point which is worthy of consideration: "Unflattering" is a subjective assessment, one which I (and perhaps many others) do not share. — Athaenara ✉ 23:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the picture is not particularly unflattering - it's not a glamour shot, but neither is he puking into the rosebushes - it's a fairly normal looking shot of him laughing. Makes him look like a fun guy, if anything. WilyD 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree the image looks quite bad when thumbnailed (he seems to be yawning, while it is quite clear that he is laughing on the full size image.) It certainly isn't the best picture we could wish for, but I personally don't find it "unflattering". However, if Carl himself objects to this image that wish should probably be respected. — Ruud 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in biography of Prof. Hewitt

Repeated reverts by Arthur Rubin and Ruud Koot have introduced inacurracies in biography of Prof. Hewitt by depriving researchers of proper credit for their work. -- 64.75.137.250 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The above IP address resolves to Honolulu, HI. Prof. Hewitt coincidentally was scheduled to be at a workshop in Honolulu on May 14. [13] How odd is that? If I went to a conference in Hawaii after the end of scheduled classes, I certainly would extend my trip for a week or two. There's an ArbCom decisions (see link above) banning Prof. Hewitt from autobiographic editing. He's used a bunch of sock puppets in the past to circumvent this ruling. User:TheHoover appeared on May 10, and has only edited the Carl Hewitt article, and shows uncanny knowledge for a new Wikipedia user. I think blocks are in order. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 13:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection Hewitt has here. My best interpretation would be that by only listing selected papers in his bibliography, instead of each paper and conference presentation he has ever written or given, we are not giving enough credit to the co-authors of the papers not listed. — Ruud 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at article on Prof. Hewitt

Supporters and detractors of Prof. Hewitt are having an edit war. Each side says that the other is acting unethically. The detractors claim that the supporters are acting unethically because of conflict of interest. The advocates claim that the detractors are acting unethically because academic standards should prevail.-- 72.235.115.241 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The above post is likely a sock puppet of a user banned from editing this topic. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CarlHewitt. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

• Tony Zappone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:k72ndst has expressed the concern ([ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tony_Zappone) that this entire long biography of a photographer with a tie to the assassination of President Kennedy has zero sources or references. I tagged the article BLPC and would appreciate guidance from those more familiar with WP:BLP. -- K72ndst 11:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I also question whether this person is significant enough to warrant an article.-- Samiharris 18:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is sourced. If there are concerns about notability (which I doubt), the process is to place the article in WP:AFD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – article speedy deleted

• Elizabeth Kammer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not sure that I handled this right. The article is completely unsourced, and a quick google shows me nothing useful (at least not in English). Removing the accusations that concerned me left only her birthdate. I also removed some categories. Please someone check this out as it is an equally sensitive topic to have this info removed if it is true. diff-- BirgitteSB 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it - a quick Google search turned up nothing conclusive to source it, only a few passing mentions. FCYTravis 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)