Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:11, 17 February 2016

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

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

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

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Nicholas Schorsch

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

The wikipedia article seems to include everything up to June 2014, when in October 29, 2014, his company American Realty Capital, reported accounting errors that had been previously covered up in q2 2014 10-q. His company has since fractured, he has been rumored to be investigated by the FBI, the SEC and the State of Massachusetts for everything regarding the accounting scandal to allegations concerning proxy voter manipulation. He had a lot of his other non work related positions tarnished, and has had to close down his business. This article only shows the Nick Schorsch everyone in the industry knew of before the bombshells dropped. Its a less extreme example of only writing a wikipedia article on Bernie Madoff that only goes up to June 2008.

Janae Marie Kroc

@Flyer22 Reborn: suggested I should bring some stuff up here. (As a disclaimer to pre-empt sock accusals, I've edited this before while logged in but I'm using a shared tablet during the day that I don't log in on -privacy mode- to avoid cluttering it with cookies). Apparently we do not normally rely upon Facebook or Instagram for BLP stuff. But in this case I have 2 sources which identify a person's Facebook and Instagram as topics of note since they were used to come out as genderfluid:

• "World champion bodybuilder and former Marine reveals on Instagram that she's transgender". DailyMail.co.uk.
  • https://www.instagram.com/janaemariekroc
• "Matt Kroczaleski: World champion powerlifter reveals gender change in heartfelt Facebook post". Mirror.co.uk.
  • https://www.facebook.com/MattKroc

I figure if I am going to cite Daily Mail's article about Janae's Instagram I should also cite the Instagram accout, and if I'm going to cite Mirror's article about Matt's Facebook that I should cite the Facebook account.

Above and beyond that though, I want to know if this would qualify as verifying the accounts to use as references for other stuff.

Like, what first comes to mind, is that when someone asked on Facebook about the name Janae, the above-cited account MattKroc replies and says it was a name chosen by Kroc's mother, so I thought that was informative to include on the article since people might be curious when someone changes from presenting male to presenting female what influenced their name choice. Was probably some other stuff too.

Due to the problems of imposters (Kroc actually reports a problem with this on all accounts, and I found an imposter on Twitter) I completely understand the problem with citing stuff like Facebook/Instagram wrecklessly, but in this case since we have secondary sources affirming the two accounts I want to know if it's okay. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've got a layer of problem here that you do not see yet. You're relying on the Daily Mail as a reliable source, which discussions like this one should show you is at the least controversial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That's just one I chose at random, they're not the only ones supporting it. Do you have any objections to Mirror? They refer to the FB and the FB refers to the Instagram. The MattKroc account on Facebook has been around longer than the JanaeMarieKroc account on Instagram so there would be more sources pointing to it, so if the Facebook is verified then a post from that Facebook verifying the Instagram should work.

Another verification chain: http://www.mattkroc.com links to https://twitter.com/mattkroc which in https://twitter.com/MattKroc/status/647281858548531200 links to https://www.instagram.com/p/8Crkw4lZVs/ which also supports the Instagram being run by the article subject and as a source for statements from them. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on Christina Hoff Sommers has been subjected to biased editing by Binksternet. See here, where he alters the lead, changing the statement that "some feminist scholars have called her works and positions anti-feminist" to "most feminist scholars have called her works and positions anti-feminist", thus changing the article from being reasonably neutral to being strongly slanted against Sommers. I have attempted to engage with Binksternet on the talk page, asking him what the source for "most" is; he has not only failed to provide one but is now asserting that such a source is not necessary. He asserts that his change, "summarize what is generally true, in fact quite well known in the field, thus being a sky-is-blue statement, a statement not needing a reference." In my judgement, the "not needing a reference" claim is blatantly contradicted by the spirit and letter of WP:BLP, and Binksternet's edits should be reverted. Outside opinions or comments would be welcome. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We should not whitewash the Sommers biography. Rather, we are obligated to tell the reader that many feminist scholars describe her in terms of working against feminism. One sentence in the lead section stating that fact is not a violation of our BLP guideline, nor is one sentence in the article body. We can take the list I compiled (see the above link) and say that 33 or more feminist scholars say that Sommers is antifeminist, contrasted by some number of feminist scholars who think she is a proponent of feminism. There are very few of the latter. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that a previous ANI complaint by the same person ended without any of the desired changes being implemented. Nobody in this discussion thought that it was any sort of violation to represent Sommers as antifeminist, since so many reliable sources do so. This new complaint is the same thing; it should be closed as inactionable. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You asserted that "most" feminist scholars see Sommers as anti-feminist, not "many", as you now claim. Why misrepresent the text that anyone can see that you added to the article? You failed to provide any source for the "most" claim, and when challenged you effectively admitted that you did not have one. You could be right that most feminist scholars see Sommers as anti-feminist, but the claim is hardly "fact" in the absence of a source. Your suggestion that discussion here should be ended immediately because of an ANI discussion more than a year ago is ludicrous. If you consider your position well-supported, why so anxious to stop further discussion? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• While I agree that we should not whitewash any article, we must ensure compliance with our core policies; including WP:NOR & WP:NPOV. In this instance, I concur that there are issues including this information without a verifying reliable source for that exact information. The claim is clearly contentious; not least in that it is contested by the article subject, and therefore covered by WP:BLP, which requires sourcing. WP:OR & WP:SYNTH require that we do not perform our own research or use multiple sources to reach a conclusion not included in any of those sources. I am also unable to read WP:BLP and find support for the use of "sky is blue" reasoning to include information. (cf. essay WP:BLUE). Phrasing including "some" or "many" may be permissible, but "most" is not reasonably within the realms of the "simple arithmetic" permitted by WP:OR or WP:BLP. - Ryk72 02:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for commenting. My view of the issue is similar. "Some" is acceptable, "many" perhaps acceptable, but "most" seems like original research at present. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You are not following WP:NPOV by saying "some" when the scholarly literature runs at least 16 to 1 against Sommers. Representing that ratio as "some" is false. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

All you need per policy now is a source stating the "16 to 1" ratio - simple. Misplaced Pages editors are not supposed to make such value statements on our own without a reliable source actually stating it as a fact, alas. Collect (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Your argument works just as well for the word "some", which wrongly implies a minority. I am perfectly willing to cite three dozen sources to say that Sommers is antifeminist. By citing three dozen scholars, we would actually define her as antifeminist, despite her personal view that she is a feminist. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It would still be original research to say 36 experts equates to "most". You need a reliable source that makes the claim that "most" academics consider Sommers as anti-feminist. It's certainly not UNDUE to mention that some academics consider her such, but it would violate BLP to make the claim "most" without reliable sourcing. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Dorothy Reitman Wiki

The following allegations should be either cited properly or removed. They are currently unverified anywhere with the exception of one source. That source does not appear to have verified that information since at least one of the claims is provably wrong (see below).

These claims were re-added (twice) after removal on the grounds that since the sites no longer included the names of the founders the claims couldn't be disputed.

Other biographies about this person do NOT contain the following claims:

1 She was a founding member of the Match International Centre

2 She was a founding member of the Council of Canadian Unity

3 Honorary chair of the McGill University Centre for Research and Teaching for Women

4 Educated at McGill

In my opinion, the claims that can't be demonstrated to be wrong (like the following) can be disputed on the grounds that they have not been verified properly at the source.

Match International clearly states that there were two founders and names them:

"The organization that created The MATCH International Women’s Fund is called MATCH International. In 1976, two Canadian women created Canada’s first international organization to place the issue of women’s rights and empowerment as central to successful and sustained development in the global South. Inspired by the women they met at the United Nation’s First World Conference on Women in Mexico City the year before, Dr. Norma E. Walmsley and Ms. Suzanne Johnson-Harvor created MATCH International to MATCH the needs and resources of Canadian women with the needs and resources of women in the global South."

http://matchinternational.org/history/

Dorothy Reitman is NOT one of the founders.

I have removed all 4 of the above claims (again) and ask that page be considered disputed unless the above claims can be verified and proper citations attached, if it is re-added a third time.

Tobeme free (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

Common practice of adding arrests and minor legal infractions: "legal controversies"

I think it's long past time that we have a serious discussion about how we are handling the routine insertion of DUIs, traffic offenses, misdemeanor convictions, and other minor legal scrapes in our BLP articles, especially for relatively low-profile BLP subjects. When we have a four- or five-sentence BLP article, and someone inserts a three- or four-sentence description of a DUI and related proceeding, the DUI instantly becomes the dominant focus of a relatively brief bio, with obvious WP:WEIGHT issues. Frankly, more often than not, we would probably do well to simply omit such matters all together, except when they become a significant public proceeding and/or have a significant impact on the subject's career. We need to do a better job of striking the right balance in handling these matters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The tendency of people to follow the conceits found in confessions of a chronic violator of the policy which I collected is still far too high - DUIs are, in general, not felonies. Using an impolite word is not a felony. The use of trivia in order to deride any person is, in my opinion, evil. As is the use of "guilt by association" argumentation to make sure folks know a person is evil. Collect (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. Felony convictions should be mentioned. Dropped charges, minor infractions and pending charges are rarely worthy of mention, unless such matters have had a major and indisputable impact on a person's life and career, as in the case of Bill Cosby. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That comment points in the right direction: it depends on what sort of coverage the incident has had. A blanket rule of this sort isn't going to work, in light of our other policies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree on all counts. Unfortunately, the way the news and journalism business works, these things get major airplay, often in multiple venues, so people who have never even edited Misplaced Pages before will often show up and add them, and often fight to retain them. Silly and sad. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree. As with anything, this requires individual editorial judgment (the very thing which separates a human-edited encyclopedia from a computer algorithm) but there are far too many examples of biographies overly dominated with trivial negative material that happened to make the newspapers once or twice, which has the tendency of giving significant undue weight to minor incidents which, in reality, have had very little impact in either the biographical subject's life or in the broader world. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Madelon Finkel

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

There are no citations to back up the information in this article. The only citation listed is an academic publication written by the subject of this Misplaced Pages entry and contains no information on the actual subject (Madelon Finkel). Therefore, none of this information can be corroborated and could potentially be libelous or incorrect. It is not verifiable.

This article seems like inappropriate self-promotion/promotion due to lack of citations and low visibility of the subject in the public or academic arena.

Adonai Rocha

This page looks like an ad and is basically ureferenced (the magazine has a short bio, but presumably penned by Mr Rocha, who guest edited). I searched for Ghits for this chap and found these book references (nothing in news). We can address the promotional tone, but is he actually notable? --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Janae Marie Kroc

Janae Marie Kroc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP, recently revealed to be Ranze (talk · contribs), has been making extensive, sometimes questionable, edits to the Janae Marie Kroc article, which concerns a bodybuilder who is genderfluid. Ranze (while editing as the IP) added Facebook and Instagram sources to the article, and I removed them per WP:Reliable sources (though official Twitter, Facebook or Instagram accounts that have been confirmed are occasionally used as sources here at Misplaced Pages). I also removed some wording that I felt was a violation of WP:Claim and/or WP:Editorializing. From what I can see, Ranze has added other sources that probably don't pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. I'm not very familiar with what bodybuilding sources qualify as reliable. At Talk:Janae Marie Kroc#Flyer response (WP:Permalink here), Ranze has been in an extensive discussion with me about what pronouns Kroc prefers. I have repeatedly made it clear to him that we can only go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and are not to engage in WP:Synthesis. He keeps pointing to MOS:IDENTITY, citing his interpretation of it, and talking about how Kroc is genderfluid and that her quotes indicate to him that we should treat Kroc as two different people when it comes to Kroc's life as a man as opposed to Kroc's life as a woman. In other words, we should only use feminine pronouns when referring to Kroc's womanly side. Much help is needed to sort all of this out. Ranze has made other arguments at the talk page, and has recently started a WP:Requested moves discussion there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see that he brought the matter here above on the page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"recently revealed" makes it sound like I haven't been forthright about editing sometimes without logging in, I've been open about that when the history overlaps to avoid people thinking I have weight of numbers. Like Special:Diff/704775189.

added Facebook and Instagram sources to the article, and I removed them per WP:Reliable sources (though official Twitter, Facebook or Instagram accounts that have been confirmed are occasionally used as sources here at Misplaced Pages).

As I brought up both above (shouldn't you merge this section into the above one?) and on the talk page, the Facebook and Instagram accounts were supported as being owned by the article subject in reliable sources. The use of Facebook and Instagram to come out was even in article subjects.

I also removed some wording that I felt was a violation of WP:Claim and/or WP:Editorializing.

I understand you feel that way but I thought I was simply reporting what the sources stated, and have been attempting to talk that out with you.

Ranze has added other sources that probably don't pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline.

Which ones are you talking about? The publiciation/date/author you're referring to would be nice to know so it can be discussed in further detail. If you dispute one source or a claim a source supports, I am comfortable checking the sources you don't object to to see if they could be used to support the information instead.

I have repeatedly made it clear to him that we can only go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and are not to engage in WP:Synthesis.

I have been perfectly clear with you that it is not synthesis to identify Janae referring to Matt as "he" as an expressed gender self-identification is not synthesis. Conversely, I believe that referring to Nichols' describing Janae's feelings as an "expressed gender self-identification" is synthesis and misrepresentation of the source. An expression is an actual statement which uses pronouns, not someone else talking about your feelings.

He keeps pointing to MOS:IDENTITY, citing his interpretation of it

Aren't you also guilty of "interpreting" MOS:ID ? We all interpret what we read, if we get different meanings form it I think it's useful to talk that out.

talking about how Kroc is genderfluid and that her quotes indicate to him that we should treat Kroc as two different people when it comes to Kroc's life as a man as opposed to Kroc's life as a woman

I agree with this summary, yes. This is how Janae is doing it. For example if you skip to 12:50 in this interview http://www.roverradio.com/watch/interviews/item/2734-transgender-champion-bodybuilder-janae-marie-kroc-full-interview Janae replies to the interviewer "I'm still living my life in both genders. Some days I dress and appear completely masculine, and some days completely feminine, and that includes work and anywhere else I may go." then at 13:23 "it depends on however I feel that day, how I dress and how I present". Other sources "I often feel like two completely different people trying to share one body with both fighting over who gets to be in control" and "this really isn’t about me being a boy or a girl". Glaringly Janae uses male pronouns to refer to her own past as Matt, so why should we use female ones when she doesn't? Ranze (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Bahar Mustafa race row incident

Bahar Mustafa race row incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trash magnet of an article that perhaps shouldn't even exist. WP:BLPCRIME issues, and citations to student newspapers abound before I found it. I'm too busy being on the cusp of failing my degree to keep a good eye on it though, so can other people please watchlist? Bosstopher2 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Will go through the article in the next day or so, and remove anything which clearly doesn't meet BLP and/or send to AfD if appropriate. Other eyes are, of course, appreciated. - Ryk72 02:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Eva Klotz - English version

Dear Sirs, I have to report that the English version of the article regarding Eva Klotz fully omits to cite the most important fact which we can call "the battle of her life": that she's profoundly anti-Italian and her political goal has always been to separate so called "Suedtirol" (in Italian "Alto Adige")from the Republic of Italy. Above all, it is noticeable that in the English version the same word "Italy" is never represented. (While at least in the German version it is written that Suedtirol is in Italy). An important recent source I can add to all the versions is that, despite being politically anti-Italian, thanks to the Italian law she has received a lump sum of € 946,000 from Italian State Pension Fund (INPS) for standing in the Provincial and Regional Councils for three decades, besides obviously earning a high salary for her position. Source: .Digitaldante (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Digitaldante

Cesar Conde (artist)

This appears to have been pretty much a spamicle from the beginning, and requires a lot of pruning of editorial and promotional content. Before that, a consensus as to whether notability is satisfied will be appreciated--I'm not sure that a few newspaper reviews are sufficient, but perhaps. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Upon further reading, I'm also concerned that there's a WP:COI account who's creating articles, apparently with assistance from related editors, to promote artists with whom they're acquainted. There's a backload of drafts that begin as links to the artists' websites, and my suspicion is that once started, the artists or connected accounts expand the articles. See Laura Kina (talk · contribs). 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ryan Mackenzie

It appears multiple instances of vandalism have occurred. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ryan_Mackenzie&diff=prev&oldid=705106323

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ryan_Mackenzie&diff=prev&oldid=705106709 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderburgh (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism was reverted. Meatsgains (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

More vandalism was reverted here. Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Kennedy

Your article on Justice Anthony Kennedy starts out like this:

"Anthony McLeod Kennedy (born July 23, 1936) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan on November 11, 1987 and took the oath of office on February 18, 1988."

The US Constitution says "...he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..."

So it would seem that on November 11, 1987, President Reagan NOMINATED him, and after his nomination was confirmed with the advice and consent of the senate, he was then appointed. The senate approved his nomination on February 3, 1988. Therefore his appointment took place on or after that date.

Your own article says as much. In the section titled "Appointment to the Supreme Court" the text reads

"On November 11, 1987, Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court seat that had been vacated by Lewis F. Powell, Jr.. "

Later in the same section it reads

"The United States Senate confirmed him on February 3, 1988, by a vote of 97 to 0."

And according to the US Constitution, that's when the nomination becomes an appointment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.155.255.94 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't actually an issue involving a BLP violation; it's simply an issue about semantics and wording. Reagan, like other presidents, both nominated and appointed the justices they put on the Supreme Court. That's why we have Category:Lists of United States judicial appointments by president, which includes List of federal judges appointed by Ronald Reagan. Also, keep in mind that there were nine SCOTUS justices who never even went through the Senate process because they were recess appointments by the president; Eisenhower alone had three recess appointments. In any case, it looks like appointed was changed to nominated in the lede. Rowssusan (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Jim Brown

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

An editor added this very contentious "Controvery" section (with an unneccesary sub-heading), which includes content relating to four separate incidents involving sexual assualt and/or domestic violence incidents. It appears that Brown was only convicted in one of the four cases, was found not guilty in another, and the charges were dropped in the other two. In the one case where he was found guilty, the source says the only thing he was convicted of was "hitting his wife's car with a shovel", which the edtior failed to even mention. I hope that editors more skilled in BLP articles will review this content and make whatever edits are appropriate. Rowssusan (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I just reviewed the revision history of the article and found this edit from June 2015, which removed a large amount of similar contentious content from the article. No other editor ever added it back. Rowssusan (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I was the editor that made the revision in June to Brown. Just reverted it again. Same editor made a similar addition to Julian Edelman, which I have also reverted. His edit History deserves some scrutiny. John from Idegon (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like the only noteworthy incident worth mentioning would be the case in which he was found guilty but given the he was only charged was "hitting his wife's car with a shovel", it would fall under WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would a conviction be pertinent in deciding whether the information should stay? As I noted in the edit summaries, if including that information is a violation, then so are the allegations on Peyton Manning's page. He hasn't been convicted of sexual assault, nor HGH, but those remain. Thus, if you remove the content on the pages of Jim Brown and Julian Edelman, then you must do so for Manning as well. Also, going by your logic @John from Idegon:, your edit history deserves scrutiny, too. If anything, I believe all of the information in that edit which @Rowssusan: provided should be added back. Also, Rowssusan, I did say that Brown smashed the window of his wife's car, which was mentioned in another one of the given sources, so you failed to read that part of the edit. Dsaun100 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said you didn't say he smashed the car's window. What I said is that you failed to mention that it was the "the only thing he was convicted of". Instead, the content you added falsely implied that he was convicted of domestic violence and threatening to kill his wife. Rowssusan (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While BLPCRIME suggests that such material can be included, you have nowhere near the level of sourcing required. More importantly, there are multiple editors opposing its inclusion on both articles in question, yet you continue to reinsert the information against consensus. That, as you should know since you were blocked for it less than a week ago, is edit warring. If other editors disagree with you, you still cannot use it even if policy says you can. Misplaced Pages 101. Further, no editor is required to do anything to any other article. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. John from Idegon (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rowssusan:, nevermind, I see what you're saying. I should've worded that differently. Feel free to do so yourself, if you want, as I don't want to violate 3RR (even though I'm not sure if it applies in this case, but I don't want to risk it). @John from Idegon:, "nowhere near the level of sourcing required," according to who? You? Also, consensus hasn't been reached in removing all of the content, especially what you did in another edit back in June, which Rowssusan pointed out. You've also engaged in edit warring, so don't try to place this only on me. You still haven't addressed the point regarding Peyton Manning, as it's very much applicable in this case. You're applying two different standards, so, your reasoning in this matter is flawed. Dsaun100 (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rowssusan:Let me get this straight: I'm edit warring, but @John from Idegon: isn't? No consensus has been reached. You seem to be making this personal, stalking my page, given what occurred over Super Bowl 50 edits. Do we need admin intervention, since you're clearly holding a grudge? Dsaun100 (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dsaun100, yes, you are edit-warring because you were aware of this discussion and what other editors were saying, yet still chose to restore the contentious content afterwards. And, no, John and Calidum are not edit-warring because this involved BLP violations. BLP articles have extremely high standards when it comes to adding contentious content, which requires it to be immediately removed if it doesn't follow the rules. One other observation about the contentious content you added to the Brown article. You used wording that wasn't even in the source. You used the term "smashing the window" when in fact the source doesn't even use the word smashing (or smash), nor does it even mention a window. All it says is that he was convicted of hitting the car ("A jury found Brown guilty of hitting his wife's car with a shovel during the incident"). If he in fact smashed the window, then you should've included a source that actually said that in some form or fashion. But the point is moot now that it's been explained that your content is a BLP violation. Rowssusan (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there hasn't been any specific rule cited that the content given was a clear BLP violation. Also, just because this involved supposed BLP violations does not mean those two users were not edit warring. That's a misinterpretation of what the term means. I have no doubt an admin will agree, so ask one, if you don't believe me. I stated another source mentioned "smashing the window" here: . The content was sourced, yet, you decided to remove everything. Seem familiar (i.e. those Super Bowl 50 edits)? Funny how the tables have turned, and you can't grasp the hypocritical logic you're using now. Dsaun100 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Admin help

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

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

As Dsaun100 continues to edit war over this, reverting warning templates and showing a general lack of CLUE, in the face of a 31 hour edit warring block a week ago, I'm asking for an immediate block so experienced editors can work this out without disruption. Pinging Calidum, another editor who has been trying to rein this in and may be unaware of this discussion, John from Idegon (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Going by that logic, @John from Idegon: should be blocked, too, as he's edit warring on the same topic. The condescending attitude of this individual, thinking only "experienced editors" are worthy of discussion on a topic, shows his lack of respect for the editing process on Misplaced Pages. Also, John from Idegon and @Calidum: reverted warning templates on their pages before I did so on mine, thus, they're engaging in blatant hypocrisy here. Dsaun100 (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dsaun100, the rules for articles about living people (BLPs) are very strict, which requires improper content to be removed immediately. I wasn't certain about the propriety of the content, which is why I came here to inquire about it. The other editors made clear that the content isn't appropriate. Yet you chose to edit war with those editors in both Jim Brown and Julian Edelman, even though John and Calidum were doing the right thing by protecting those BLPs. In any case, you knew this BLP discussion was taking place and what was being said, yet you still inexplicably chose to edit war. Rowssusan (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Except I added those sections, initially, and they decided to revert multiple times. That's edit warring. Period. They removed content without discussion. It goes both ways, not just the way you see fit. Just because one or two editors disagree (by the way, it's been noted that John from Idegon removed a large portion of similar content before) doesn't mean their opinion is suddenly above mine. That's far from a consensus, and they have yet to cite any specific BLP violation. Also, let's be real why you posted Jim Brown and Julian Edelman here: You're still holding a grudge over the Super Bowl 50 edits. Is it any coincidence that the two pages I edited recently are mentioned here? You're stalking my page and holding a grudge. Dsaun100 (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT3RR, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" is exempt from the edit-warring rules. The other editors explained that your content had violations that fell within this exemption. Therefore, you should've continued discussing it here, rather than restoring the contentious content. Rowssusan (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, they didn't explain that. The sources are credible and from respected publications, like USA Today and the Los Angeles Times. After all, that's the logic you used for those Super Bowl 50 edits, which you continue to brush aside. So, the exemption doesn't apply in this case. They were engaging in edit warring. Dsaun100 (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This situation is pretty straightfoward. You added (contentious) content to an article - a BLP, no less - and mutliple editors objected to the content. Therefore, it cannot be restored without consensus. So far, no editors have supported your position. For the record, the issues involved here go well beyond the sourcing. Rowssusan (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again. Only one editor, other than the one who removed a large portion of similar content a while ago, questioned its inclusion. That's far from a consensus, and thus, the information can be restored. You, and others, have yet to provide any valid BLP violation. What are the issues that go "well beyond the sourcing"? Dsaun100 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

the content is controversial and I support its exclusion without wp:consensus in regards to wp:blp policy being of primary importance in regards to wikipedia articles about living people Govindaharihari (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Going by that logic then, the "Controversy" section on Peyton Manning's page should be removed. It's controversial and involves allegations, none of which he's received a conviction. Dsaun100 (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Administrator note The WP:3RR has not been breached yet by any one party and WP:1RR restrictions were not imposed about Dsaun100. No block will be imposed but I caution parties involved here to not allow this escalate further. The fact that there is a discussion going on should continue to do so either by expanding it to include other editors for a stronger consensus or the parties involved resolve the issue themselves. Dsaun100, you're on a very thin WP:ROPE considering you were recently blocked so regardless of the number of sources you find, I strongly suggest you establish a consensus first, before adding in any controversial material. Mkdw 07:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Why am I being singled out here? @Rowssusan: was also recently blocked, and the person who asked for admin help, @John from Idegon:, engaged in edit warring and accused me of the same exact thing he's guilty of (i.e. reverting warning templates on his page). Why is he not on a thin WP:ROPE? Furthermore, why isn't there consensus on the exclusion of the content BEFORE it's removed? Dsaun100 (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change the rules, then do that first. The primary argument is so that contentious material doesn't stay up while it's debated. Editorial oversight works the same way whether it's one person or community consensus. Content isn't posted and then reviewed afterwards for balance, appropriateness, accuracy, etc. And if it is, Misplaced Pages has no intention of being one of those types of places. Changing a pillar policy like that would likely take months and almost the entire active community consensus to reverse. You're being singled out because unlike Rowssusan, you have returned to adding contentious material and reverting. Mkdw 08:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw:So, adding contentious material is now not allowed? I see that all over the place on Misplaced Pages, so why is that suddenly an issue with Jim Brown and Julian Edelman? The only reason those two were even brought up here is because Rowssusan is still holding a grudge from Super Bowl 50 edits last week. Is it any coincidence that the two pages I recently edited are now suddenly an issue for Rowssusan? As I said before, that user was blocked not too long ago, and it was due to edit warring over that Super Bowl 50 page. If serious allegations can't be added to the pages of Brown and Edelman, then why are they allowed for Peyton Manning? There seems to be a double standard here that nobody has addressed yet. Maybe since you're an admin, you can tell me what the BLP violation is because I don't see it. Again, if there's a BLP violation for Brown and Edelman, then it also applies to Manning, thus, his "Controversy" section should be removed. Dsaun100 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should participate in one of the many conversations going on at Talk:Peyton Manning about it. Or maybe you haven't noticed that there are edit wars and blocks occurring there too. Also, you might want to read WP:OTHERCRAP if you want to compare articles to articles. There are a lot of problems that need fixing. The solution isn't to introduce more problems because other problems exist elsewhere. Mkdw 08:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: I'm not trying to introduce another problem; I'm merely contesting the double standard logic used in these cases. It makes no sense, and I don't appreciate Rowssusan stalking me. I feel like I'm being unfairly targeted here, but whatever. Dsaun100 (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And that's a valid feeling to have. Working with other editors will invariably be an aspect of Misplaced Pages, especially those who share the same interests. At the same time, Misplaced Pages is a big place and you can do things to simply stay away from each other. Likewise, there are harassment policies but I don't believe it's escalated to that level yet. There's nothing wrong about expressing concerns you have and to ask how to go about addressing them. In both the Jim Brown and Julian Edelman articles, you weren't reverted initially or in the majority of times by Rowssusan. If your goals were to add this coverage, your problem doesn't start with Rowssusan. Seeking a consensus to add this material is the way to go about it. If the consensus is against you, there's almost nothing that can overturn consensus aside from the fact that consensus can change. Despite there being much disagreement on the Peyton Manning article, the editors there have formulated a consensus to have the information in there, which is clearly not satisfying everyone. I'm sure if you go back far enough into the archives and article history the controversy section was likely removed and re-add multiple times before being engaged in lengthy discussions on the talk page. Ultimately, what's being enforced here is the need for everyone (not just you) to talk about it and come to a consensus and right now it's not to have it in there. Again, consensus can change, but it cannot be replaced by circular reverting. Mkdw 08:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Yeah, but those reversions only happened after Rowssusan mentioned both pages here. That user has been holding a grudge toward me since edits on Super Bowl 50. Jim Brown and Julian Edelman were the only two pages I edited recently, then all of a sudden, Rowssusan feels the need to mention them here. I didn't provoke that user, and you can clearly see that by viewing my edit history. Rowssusan is stalking me. I came back to editing Misplaced Pages following a long hiatus, and now, I'm wondering why I ever did after being treated this way. I'm not saying everybody has to agree with each other, but there should be some civility and common sense. Dsaun100 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I definitely support civility and common sense. WP:ANI is the appropriate venue for any accusations about stalking but right now (to me) it seems limited although understandably frustrating. Regardless of who has brought the subject up, there are still problems with how the entire situation is being handled. Reverting is not the solution. In the meantime, in regards to the original point of this section about edit warring, I'm closing it as no action. Mkdw 09:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Stalking? Oh, brother. Instead of the editor making ludicrous allegations, perhaps he should focus on the content issue at hand. For the record, there were multiple stories in the news today about Jim Brown, which is actually what prompted me to go to his article. The editor is free to check Google News if he doesn't believe it; the stories were published long before my original post here. I didn't even know about his edits to the Edelman article until John the Idegone mentioned it above. Read above and you'll see he was the first one to say anything about Edelman. If my intention was to upset the editor, I would have simply removed the content myself from the Brown article rather than coming here to seek opinions on whether the content was appropriate or not. Hopefully, the editor will realize that it's totally unproductive to argue with everyone and to repeatedly imply that editors are being unfair and plotting against him. Dsaun, Mkdw is a very experienced editor (and administrator) and has been more than respectful and patient with you. Rowssusan (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution