Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:52, 3 February 2018

• 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

Hannah Holborn Gray

Hanna Holborn Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

J Roberto Trujillo

J. Roberto Trujillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Multiple articles

I have just discovered {{Undisclosed paid}}:

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Misplaced Pages's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really, James? An editor of your considerable experience should know what WP:FORUMSHOPPING is; and this is far from that. Furthermore, no-one, and certainly not me, has said that "raising content concerns is a BLP issue". Other types of cleanup tags do not insinuate wrong-doing by the article subject (or, in the rare case that they do, they require that the editor who places them leave a justification on the talk page). You need to stop such facile attempts at distraction, and for once address the core issue: unsubstantiated allegations on BLP articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Sexual misconduct allegations

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

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

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

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

bom bom bom --Jayron32 19:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naveen Jain

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jason Kessler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Christine Fair losing her temper at Frankfort airport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Audain

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

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

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

David Sams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lisa Staiano-Coico

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

RfC on sensationalism

Of possible interest:

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#RfC_about_a_new_sentence_in_WP:SENSATION

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

Peppermint (drag queen)

Peppermint is a trans woman who performs as a drag queen. There has been a long-running edit war about including her (male) birth name. This case is unusual, though. It is IPs removing the birth name and a Misplaced Pages editor (User:Tenebrae) replacing it. What's even more unusual is that Tenebrae has been claiming that removing the name is a violation of WP:BLP. To make matters worse, there appears to be only a single source for the birth name (a regional newspaper). The issue of adding birth names to the articles of trans people has been discussed in several places with no clear result, but I believe our BLP policy implies that we should err on the side on not including names unless they are well-known or used by the person in question. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• If the birth name is sourced, it should be included. It is legitimate and expected biographical information. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and if the information is sourced, removal on BLP grounds would be inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Rremoval of the birth name is not a violation of WP:BLP, which is waht is being claimed by Tenebrae. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Add the word 'reliably' to the above in front of sourced. Its not actually a BLP issue either way. If its a woman (male to female trans) then the only name of relevance is their non-drag name. Which in the case of a trans person, is unlikely to be their birth name. The problems with trans people and birth names are almost entirely where someone gains notability under one name, then changes it. In the cases of most drag queens, the notability is linked to the drag/stage name, not the person behind it. Of course if this trans woman's name is actually the same as their drag/stage name, then its rather a unique one. I cant believe she has 'Peppermint' on her driving license though does she? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As the article notes, her name is Agnes Moore. This is not her birth name. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I need to slap myself in the face with a large fish, I totally misread that. Its not a BLP violation to not include information that is able to be sourced from a biography. Its an editorial decision. BLP comes into play when including stuff that shouldn't be there. Not when excluding stuff that is allowed to be there. Which is a due weight issue. There is certainly no need to have it in the infobox as per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox is to summarise key information. For a drag queen this would be their non-stage name (Agnes). Not their birth name - the template is not designed with trans people in mind. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
      • BLP and UNDUE go hand in glove. If it's UNDUE then it's excluded under BLP, and vice versa for any other combination. MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
        • It is not UNDUE to have it in the biography so long as it is sourced to reliable sourcing. Someone's birth name is a significant part of their biography. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and should report on this. I think it is undue prominence, however, to put it in the infobox, and have removed it from there. It is sourced to reliable sourcing in the body, however, and should remain. I think removal from the infobox while keeping it in the body is a good middle ground that is in line with BLP principles. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Are you familiar with the concept of deadnaming? Agnes Moore is notable for her drag performances as Peppermint. She was not notable under her birth name and does not use it. We use discretion when dealing with the real names of porn actors, why would we not afford the same discretion to trans people? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
            • As a note, a quick google search tells me that while we can reliable connect her original name to her current, it is not connected to any degree of frequency to require us to include it (compared to the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner situation). --Masem (t) 04:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Yes, and we’ve rejected adding anything to the BLP policy about it. A birth name is an important biographical detail, and if it is reliably sourced (which this one is), we report it. The question of notability under the name is significant for article titles and the lead, but does not impact whether or not it should be included in the biography as a whole: that is based on reliable sourcing. We have that here. As it is public information published on the website of a major national newspaper network in the United States, we can reasonably assume that the presumption of privacy does not apply here as well. The BLP policy is not an instrument to censor legitimate and reliably sourced biographical information available in major newspapers. To Masem’s point, I’d agree it should not be included in the lead, but it most certainly should be included in the article as a whole: this detail would undoubtedly be included in any paper biography of her and is reported by the sources. Not including it when we have the sourcing would be the disservice to our reader, and would be censorship of encyclopedic information not mandated by the BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
              • "A birth name is an important biographical detail" not always. Its *important* if they were previously notable under that name (as some high profile trans people are, as are other people who are famous under one name then change it). Its a tidbit of information of no real value otherwise. I have no real issue with it being in the body of the text if it can be sourced as a biographical detail, I do have an issue with it being in the infobox *as opposed to their actual name* as given what google (and other search engines) scrape is either the infobox and/or wikidata for their biographical slices. Currently Google lists their 'real name' as Kevin, and I am pretty sure that's our fault. So body of article yes if necessary - infobox definately no *for this subject*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and I’ve taken it out of the infobox. I disagree in general on the name point: the fact that someone has transitioned is a major detail about their lives. Their previous name is a part of that. That is true regardless of whether they were notable under that name. A simple reporting of it in one sentence in the body in the past tense is not a BLP vio so long as it is reliably sourced. Again, my rule of thumb is that we should not be censoring something that would undoubtedly appear in a paper biography if it is reliably sourced. That is the case here. The question is how we present it with due weight, and I would agree that the lead and infobox would be UNDUE, but not a brief mention in the body. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It becomes a question of weight. There's a handful of questions I could see asking, such as if the person , since transiting, refer to their transition or former name, how much reliable sources refer to the transition or former name relative to all other factors, and of course if there was anything reasonable notable about the person attached to the former name prior to transition. If the person themselves rarely or never talks about that, that there's a few scattered mentioned of the transition in the media but they broadly ignore it, and the person had no notability until after the transition, then there's really no need to bring it up even though we could. This works on the default assumption that people that transition generally do not like to have their pre-transition identity brought up though I know that's not universally true; it is a reasonable conservative (safe) hedging to avoid any potential issues. Of course, if the person has talked about transitioning, or their former identity has clear notability, then that's a different situation, connecting the older name has to be done. --Masem (t) 14:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I think it comes down to sourcing: it the previous name is noted in secondary sources published by a national newspaper network, it is reasonable to include. If it is only primary sourcing or unreliable sourcing, then we should not include it. We have it here, and so a short mention in the body of the article is appropriate. Referring to Agnes as Kevin throughout the entire article would be an obvious issue unless there was a very strong reason to do so, but a brief mention of a birth name that is reliably sourced is pertinent biographical information, even if the subject was not notable under the name. It forms part of the story of their life, and a very significant part. We report on that when sources do, as they have here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that when I did searches for this person, I was not getting very many hits, and certainly not from national newspapers, but maybe I did the search poorly. I fully agree that if I did a search and had to do zero effort to find a handful of reasonably high-quality sources linking the old to new name, inclusion is appropriate. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, I could only find one, and that was a local paper. But again, that was a very quick google search just to get an idea where this was at. --Masem (t) 16:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The current source is a local paper, but it is published as a part of the USA Today Network, which means it does have a national reach (local papers sharing stories amongst themselves, publication on a nationally viewable website, etc.) It's part of their publishing model. I'm not getting much more either, but I think it is enough sourcing for a brief mention. This is also only after a quick search and nothing more in-depth. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one I saw, and I'm not a huge fan personally of the local USA Today variants, at least for sourcing like these. And even if it was one USA Today-authored article (national, not local), and nothing else, that still shows that it might not have the weight to justify inclusion, given all other sourcing about this person. --Masem (t) 16:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae:, I started the discussion here for two reasons. One was to discuss inclusion of the birth name, and the other was to draw attention to your false claims of WP:BLP violations. Any comments? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether deliberately whitewashing a pertinent biographical fact for partisan POV reasons is a WP:BLP vio. I believe it is. Regardless, as other editors are saying here, the birth name is a pertinent biographical fact, very reliably sourced, as the only argument not to include it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That said, I'm happy to go along with the compromise of not including it in the infobox. While I believe it belongs in a field marked "birth name," compromise is part of the Misplaced Pages process, and this seems to give something to each side of this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Since this is a Misplaced Pages policy that you're citing when reverting edits, can you elaborate on how removing contentious information (sourced or not) is violating that policy? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

How is it "partisan" to refer to someone the way they identify themselves? Methinks you may have your notions flipped around the wrong way, Tenebrae... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

ED SEEMAN

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCE

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

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

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

Steven Kunes

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Mirecki

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

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

Carmen Moore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles Dutoit

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

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

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

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

David L. Katz

David L. Katz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai

Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

Doug Ford (again)

Doug Ford Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noel Lee (executive)

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

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

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

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

Michael Adrian Peters

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

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

Andy Cohen (television personality)

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

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

Jonathan Dollimore

Hello, I'd appreciate some help in dealing with the article Jonathan Dollimore. I have found myself in disagreement with the article subject over whether he should be described as a philosopher. I will provide some background. The article once described Dollimore as a sociologist, but on 23 December, 2016, an IP altered it to describe him as a philosopher. See here. Because the change was made without any supporting evidence, I reverted it here. Some time later, an account that identified itself as being operated by Dollimore stated on my talk page that Dollimore is not a sociologist and considers himself a philosopher. I have no problem accepting the first part of that, and the description of Dollimore as a sociologist has now been removed from the article. The second part is a problem, however, as it is unsupported by real evidence as far as I can determine. I did search for sources identifying Dollimore as a philosopher, but I found very little indeed, as I have noted here on the article's talk page. On the one hand, I realize that Misplaced Pages needs to be sensitive to the concerns of living people and take them seriously, but on the other hand, it does not seem unreasonable to expect someone who claims to be a philosopher to support that claim with objective evidence. This is a very awkward situation, which I would much rather not be in, and I believe the article would benefit from attention from someone other than myself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually very little of the article content is supported by anything. I've added an "advert" template to it. On the other hand, I don't think it's very important whether he's described as a philosopher or not. If he thinks that's mostly what he does, then describe him as it. But at the same time, remove the reviews of his "most recent" book that sound like paid blurbs. And the similar material. MPS1992 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If a consensus develops in favor of describing Dollimore as a philosopher, despite the absence of strong sourcing for the claim that he is a philosopher, then I will have little choice but to accept that. It nevertheless seems unfortunate that Misplaced Pages will accept that someone is a philosopher simply on the basis of their say-so - do we take WP:VERIFY seriously or not? Dollimore has mentioned this article in support of the claim that he is a philosopher, but I suspect that this is a case of citogenesis, as the information in that article was presumably simply copied from past versions of his Misplaced Pages article, such as this one, since it uses exactly the same wording that the Misplaced Pages article has in the past ("philosopher and social theorist"). Per Template:Circular reporting, if a "source is quoting material first published in Misplaced Pages" ... "this is a situation of circular reporting or "citogenesis", and the cited sentence can not be verified from the source". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I gotta say, that article gave me headache just reading it. In some ways it was like trying to parse through some legal double-talk. I believe every one of those books could be summarized in clearer English and about half the words. I agree that nothing looks to be sourced. The article appears to be more of an autobiography, which I don't think we should encourage.

There are a lot of definitions of the word philosopher, but none of them are really recognized professions. Therefore, the title is really rather meaningless without context. A philosopher can be a student of philosophy, an alchemist or practitioner of the occult, someone who lives according to a certain philosophy, a cult leader, or someone who is just a calm and rational person. Which is it? The fact is anyone can claim to be a philosopher; the bar is not set very high. Therefore, I see no reason to label him as such (even as a "self-proclaimed philosopher) unless a source can verify not only the title but also how exactly it is defined. Zaereth (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me, though, that the most accurate description would be "author" because that appears to be his obvious claim to notability (obvious in that I can see it plainly from reading the article, but unfortunately not from secondary sources). Zaereth (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I've searched for sources on Google, and it seems obvious that Dollimore's background is in English literature, not philosophy. One would want good sourcing (multiple and high quality sources) to identify Dollimore as a philosopher, but what you can find is absolutely minimal. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to article without a subject's name when the subject is only known for one incident

Can some editors experienced with BLP please take a look at this redirect and the related deletion discussion? In brief, the subject is only known for one incident at a Canadian university. In the university's main article, some editors have elected to omit the subject's name from the article on BLP (and DUE) grounds. The subject was prominently mentioned in some national media stories, however, so other editors have previously included the subject's name in the university's article and created a redirect from the subject's name to the article. So now we're in a situation where we have a redirect to an article that doesn't specifically mention the subject of the redirect. Suggestions on how to resolve this situation would be much appreciated. ElKevbo (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There's absolutely no grounds to keep her name out of the main article: the incident has been reported in numerous reliable sources, and she has written and spoken extensively about it from her own point of view. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Simms

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution