Misplaced Pages

Derek Smart Template:Blpwatch-links

• Derek Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Bill Huffman a long time detractor of video game developer Derek Smart continues to add libelous and poorly sourced material in the article which is protected by WP:BLP guidelines. Time and time again such material has been removed by myself and other editors, but they keep doing it. This is the same behavior they had on the Usenet and which led to a complete breakdown of serious discussions on various gaming threads. It was already established by other editors who created a small history of Huffman's actions, that his only reason for being on the page is to cause disruption, libel this person and prevent the article from being an npov one. The article was recently in ArbCom and the decision was clear as they pertain to following the rules. Yet, those rules are being adhered to by everyone but him. Here is today's episodes, as well as yesterday's and yet another. There are many more like that in which him and another editor User:Kerr Avon repeat these actions. Can someone here PLEASE stop by and set this straight? 208.60.251.161 12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The above IP address leads to host-208-60-251-161.fll.bellsouth.net in Florida which is Derek smart's own ISP. Hence the above statement is likely from Smart himself and has to be taken with a grain of Salt. Regarding Huffman, Huffman has never edited the article per se as his edits shows. Huffman has joined in the discussion page only which is perfectly permissable. Anonymous IP addresses like the above from bellsouth were banned by arbcom from any editing of the derek smart article due to edit warring.Kerr avon 13:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please stop ignoring the Wiki rules and doing the same that got an RFc filed against you before (by another editor). You and Huffman are attempting to taint not only the article but also the talk page. Which is one of the reasons why the article ended up in ArbCom. That ruling has been largely ignored by your and your friends. It is easy to accuse someone of being Derek Smart just because they oppose you. Fact is, the article history shows that I am not the first and only editor who has raised this issue about the behavior of you and your friends. Quite a few established Wiki editors have in fact done the same and the evidence is right there on the article's archives. 209.214.20.148 14:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The very first sentence of this complaint, claiming that User:Bill Huffman has edited the Derek Smart article, is completely in error. The rest of the complaint, it seems to me, suffers from similar truthiness issues. Anyone reviewing this case should be sure to note Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, where the arbitration committee held that both Derek Smart and his surrogates are banned from editing the article, although they are welcome to edit the talk page. Nandesuka 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the complaint is regarding posts where I have only attempted to respond to issues that the anonymous poster himself has raised. He falsely accused me of making a couple of false statements, I just addressed those items and the anonymous poster then makes the claim that defending myself is violating WP:BLP. I also responded to the anonymous poster's suggestion that Dr. Smart's Ph.D. should be referenced in the article even though there is no reliable source for the Ph.D. validity since Dr. Smart refuses to reveal the school that bestowed the degree. The anonymous poster has frequently deleted my comments and comments from others from the talk page. Whoever, looks at this might consider explaining to the anonymous poster that deleting discussion on the talk page is not a very constructive way of trying to convince other editors over to your views. Regards, Bill Huffman 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment that not only has Mr Huffman been editing appropriately - i.e. only to the talk page, but WP:BLP is being misapplied here. None of the material is prima facia libelious, and the talk page is the correct place to discuss its merits. The anon editor, who is presumably Derek Smart, is misguided in removing it from the talk page without discussion. --Haemo 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• 209.214.20.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 208.60.251.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

As noted by other editors, the COI SPA report was false. There have been no edits to the article since March 27. — Athænara ✉ 23:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Darius J Pearce Template:Blpwatch-links

• Darius J Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No evidence of claimed 'attributed legislative change'. No citations in support of numerous comments. No notable reason for page existence. Should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aim Here (talk • contribs) 14:44, April 3, 2007 (UTC)

John T. Reed

• John T. Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am a bit concerned as I have deleted some slanderous comments from this talk page twice but they've been reverted back in by an apparently serious editor. Also that User:Jscottccre who put the comments in has some personal score to settle. May be safest to delete the page or page history. --BozMo talk 17:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with deletion of the page. --PeterMarkSmith 06:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

T. Padmanabhan (Writer) Template:Blpwatch-links

T. Padmanabhan (Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This BLP swings from one end to another. At one place the subject is called a trend setter and at another place he is described as egoistic. No sources quoted // Weblogan 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed both the positive and negative opinions because they were just opinions, and uncited too. Steve Dufour 04:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Antony Flew Template:Blpwatch-links

• Antony Flew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article for Antony Flew is libelous. See the details at the discussion page under the title "This article is libelous". The article is not objective, gives a point of view (discrediting Antony Flew which is OK but Misplaced Pages is not the place to do this). Moreover, it is poorly written. This is a violation of the Misplaced Pages policy and I would like the article to be rewritten in a more impartial way. finsalscollons 83.53.126.58 09:52, April 8 2007 (UTC)

Some who have edited the article seem to have forgotten that it is a biography, not a philosophy article. The longest section, which needs ruthless pruning, gives undue weight to material which is itself excessive—e.g. that first introduced in August 2005 by and about Richard Carrier, one of those who are most determined to discredit the subject. — Athænara ✉ 04:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He seems to be 84 years old and 70% to 80% of the article is a discussion of one statement that he made when he was 80. Steve Dufour 10:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As per both the neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies, I pruned this bio of the philosophical hatchet jobbing, improved upon the references, added a 1984 book which hadn't been listed (though, strangely, one of its chapters had been), etc. — Athænara ✉ 06:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Purushottam Nagesh Oak Template:Blpwatch-links

• Purushottam Nagesh Oak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article presents P.N.Oak in a negative bias (associated with Hindutva, etc) and presents critics that only make personal attacks. Furthermore, all supporters are labeled as "Hindu" in a way that takes away from their credibility. Despite attempts to undo this on many occasions and present it in as neutral as possible manner, the changes are constantly undone by
• Paul Barlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who refuses to support those claims with WP:RS as per WP:BLP guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kkm5848 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC). This template must be substituted.

I made a few changes in the wording to make it more neutral. This guy really does stir up a lot of passions. Steve Dufour 10:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani

• Gwen Stefani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The entire Gwen Stefani entry is filled with offensive language and incorrect information. It needs to be changed ASAP! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.216.182 (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I think you must have seen the article in a temporarily vandalized state; the vandalism has been reverted. I see nothing obviously wrong with the article right now. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett Template:Blpwatch-links

→ See also: Talk:Stephen Barrett#Request for comment: Board certification

→ See also: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05 Stephen Barrett

• Stephen Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have removed a negative, unsourced statement from this article with the edit summary "Remove unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - in view of the latter, only reinsert if sourced in other than primary sources" (diff). User:Levine2112 then reverted my edit and added two sources. (diff) However, neither source supported the removed statement. I therefor reverted Levine2112 (diff) with the edit summary "rv: unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - these sources (1) do not support the assertion (2) do not show that this is in any way important. DO NOT REVERT without discussion on talk". A discussion on the talk page ensued, and Levine2112 became very argumentative and claimed that he did not understand my logic. Instead of waiting for a consensus to build, he inserted a slightly edited version of the disputed text elsewhere in the article without adding any sources showing why it is relevant and should be included. (diff). I have asked him to self-revert (diff) but so far he has not complied. I have waited some 40 minutes after that request to self-revert and am now requesting some guidance as to how to proceed. But I'm about to go to bed so perhaps an uninvolved admin can take a look. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not become argumentative. I only made an argument. There is a difference. I am still unclear of the point AvB is trying to make there and I have requested several times that he clarifies it. He has refused to. I have also provided as a source an entry on the Stephen Barrett talk page made by Stephen Barrett himself, user:Sbinfo. In this discussion, Barrett clearly states that he did in fact fail the neurological portion of his board certification exam in 1964 and never again re-took them. Thus he is not board certified. Furthermore, I have cited BLP#Using the Subject as a source to AvB to demonstrate that Barrett's comments on an article's talk page can be used as a source of information. I welcome anyone to come to the talk page to discuss my and AvB's points. Cheers! -- Levine2112 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation has worsened, but there's now a RFC. --Ronz 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Last post here was almost two weeks ago—is it over yet? — Æ. ✉ 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the originator of this report and quite involved in editing this article so this is a qualified opinion - but yes, I think it is over. I no longer need the requested assistance or guidance (got myself up to speed by e.g. looking over some of your work here). Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's close to being over, but we've mediation now: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05 Stephen Barrett. --Ronz 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter Dobbie Template:Blpwatch-links

• Peter Dobbie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I got a phone call on Sunday from Peter Dobbie. Note that he is User:Peter dobbie, who has edited the article. It needs going over with a fine-toothed comb for sourcing and so forth - he really wasn't happy with the version before his edits. He also uploaded a pile of photos, but Redvers properly deleted them as not free-content images (and I emailed Mr Dobbie to explain we can't use with-permission images - but if we have the proper paperwork, that'll be a different matter). I hope to have time to look at it later (though I haven't since yesterday morning), but if others could give it a severe quality check that'd be really good - David Gerard 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do, and I'll maybe get some other people who are good at dealing with this sort of stuff in as well. Moreschi 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he changed very little apart from adding those photos, two links and a brief new paragraph. Did he have any specific complaints? AvB ÷ talk 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing specific. He wasn't too happy to have an article at all, and he was quite unhappy that the photos he uploaded were deleted. I assume the harshest reasonable eye to BLP content should reduce its objectionability sufficiently - David Gerard 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My first impression is that the article is rather undersourced, although most or all of it is probably sourcable. Application of WP:BLP based on some general objectionability would prune the article quite severely until more sources are provided. I'm going off-line now, but will check in later to see what e.g. Moreschi et al. are thinking. AvB ÷ talk 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• User 200.171.98.161 added text verbatim in January 2006 from a speaker bureau website. Most of it had been in the article ever since. That webpage, not cited until today, is so far the only known reference, though user Wikiwoohoo (talk · contribs) (see article history) must have found something somewhere. — Athænara ✉ 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

AvB improved the situation an hour later. — Æ. ✉ 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article (after edits by you and others) now complies with our BLP standards. AvB ÷ talk 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah Template:Blpwatch-links

Muhammad al-Durrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is an unusual case on which it would be good to get some independent input. The subject has been extremely widely covered by the mainstream media. A cursory search of Google news archives suggests that the majority of mainstream sources agree that the subject is dead, though there is disagreement over who killed him. However, a limited number of mostly non-mainstream sources say that he is not dead, that his death was faked and that his continued existence has been covered up for the last 7 years by a wide-ranging international conspiracy. Consequently the article is listed in Category:Possibly living people.

Given the dispute over whether the subject is dead or alive, I've added the BLP template to the article talk page in order to err on the side of caution. However, if the BLP rules are followed, the sources that declare the subject to be alive - basically self-published sources and overtly partisan websites - will be problematic due to the WP:BLP#Reliable sources restrictions on the use of such sources.

I've not edited the article myself; I recall reading about the matter at the time, but that's about the limit of my knowledge. However, there's clearly a major issue about the sourcing. Some tendentious editing appears to be going on, with strong POV statements on the talk page and mainstream national newspapers being dismissed as non-reliable. The tone of the article is problematic and is dominated by the non-mainstream POV - undue weight is clearly an issue. Two thirds of the article is dedicated to the discussion of a conspiracy theory promoted (and self-published) by an professor of medieval history, a physicist and an engineer. The article would clearly benefit from the attention of some independent editors. -- ChrisO 19:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, it's not only self-published and partisan sources who are saying it; here's an article from the Los Angeles Times recounting the story. It's also not an international conspiracy theory, just a Pallywood suspicion. If you look at the Landes film, you can see the original footage, and I have to say it does look very like the boy is peeking out from under his hands at one point. There's also the strange business of the French court fining someone a tiny amount for allegedly having libeled the journalists who showed the original footage, by saying they had distorted it. The court accepted it was libel, strictly speaking, because the accuser didn't prove his case, but fined him something like a dollar to signal that the journalists didn't come out of the case well. I'm writing all this from memory so I'm sure I have some of the details wrong, but that's the gist of it. I'm not coming down on the side of the Pallywood allegation; I'm just saying it genuinely isn't a clear-cut case. SlimVirgin 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reference appears to be an opinion piece. I was under the impression that advocacy journalism was frowned upon as a source for BLP, but perhaps the noticeboard regulars can provide more advice on that.

I appreciate that you and the other editors of the article probably have your own POV on this subject, but let's not lose sight of the fact that biographies of any sort are supposed to "document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject." The article currently falls a long way short of that, as I've indicated above. -- ChrisO 20:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I have no POV on the issue. Second, advocacy journalism isn't frowned upon as a source for BLP. What counts is the reputation of the writer or publisher. If the LA Times considers it suitable for publication, then so do we, because they're a reliable third-party source. SlimVirgin 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear what others - without preconceptions - think on this issue. -- ChrisO 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying I have preconceptions? SlimVirgin 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

He probably was, though you obviously don't. I don't have any, either, and I agree with you. I have no idea why he's trying to delegitimise your neutral point of view of the situation. I decline to speculate about it, but it does offend me. — Athænara ✉ 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You've clearly gone through the sources and formed an opinion of the case, and you've edited the article. I'm simply looking for a view from someone who's not seen or edited the article before. That's all. -- ChrisO 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your view of my "preconception" is that I think the boy is alive. But if you look at my edits of the article and talk page, most of it has been to resist people who are trying to imply that e.g. Now that you've commented on my position, please take the trouble to go through my edits there, so that you can apologize. And in general, as several others have asked you to do, please stop commenting on what you think my views on various issues are, because you keep getting them wrong. SlimVirgin 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Gene R. Nichol Template:Blpwatch-links

• Gene R. Nichol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• College of William & Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A group of editors have been edit warring to add critical and misleading information to Gene R. Nichol and the leadership section of The College of William & Mary. These editors, who have only edited articles in this subject area, repeatedly add several accusations regarding Nichol. Probably their most libelous act is an attempted connection between Nichol and a campus sex show.

The editors insert wording implying that Nichol supported the show when he actually criticized it. The editors also claim that Nichol past presidency of the University of Colorado and UNC law schools resulted in ratings drops and the threat of losing ABA accreditation at Colorado.

None of the links used to cite these assertions support these claims. The ABA's threat regards an ongoing issue (even 10 years after Nichol left), and the cited article does not mention Nichol. The ratings drops are not shown in the citation reference, and another user says there was no drop. The possibly offending editors have ignored requests to discuss the issue on the talk page.--Bkwillwm 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Onestop53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Too late gn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hawaiibound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cka3n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These four three seem to be the main culprits—did I miss some? This has been going on for more than a month. — Athænara ✉ 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Three users (who identically blank warnings from their talk pages) have been adding the same or similar content to articles. User Cka3n has been reverting them. All four have been warned of 3RR. (This post is not a conclusion—far from it—but an update.) — Æ. ✉ 00:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Paris71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ← BLOCKED

A fourth has moved in since the other three were given 3RR warnings. I suspect that this a sock puppetry issue which needs someone with more experience than I dealing with it. None of them discuss on article talk pages as per BLP policy. — Athænara ✉ 04:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page. FCYTravis 04:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also reported all four on WP:AIV. — Athænara ✉ 04:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of pride (and hubris), I want to clarify that I am a culprit of overly eager reversions (since abated), but that I am not a culprit of ignoring requests to discuss the issue or of failing to discuss the changes on talk pages (although I put my concerns only on the William and Mary page, not on both the William and Mary page and the Nichol page). Indeed, some of those requests to discuss were my requests. Just trying to make sure my flaws are clear! Cka3n 05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Note: the Nichol article has been protected; the College article has not. — Athænara ✉ 06:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cat Porter (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

• Cat Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The infobox says she was born in Leeds, the text and categories say Pembury, Kent // Corvus cornix 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One issue has been resolved (Porter was born in Kent) but this section will need to remain active a bit longer. The article has been plagued with disruptive editing for weeks. — Athænara ✉ 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing ceased. — Æ. ✉ 03:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Kim (director) Template:Blpwatch-links

• Michael Kim (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I would like a review/removal of this entry for notable graduates of Palisades Charter High School and also as a notable biography. There is no evidence to show that this individual is a notable individual. Also, there is no evidence to show that he has attended and graduated YonSei University, or has worked in such positions as stated in his biography (eg. Music video director, talk show host). Palialumni 21:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. You want Articles for Deletion or even Proposed Deletion for reasons of notability. I'll PROD it for the time being on your behalf, and if anyone objects, then it can be sent to AfD. Fieari 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Also since there is no reference to those claims in the biography. Palialumni 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Irons Template:Blpwatch-links

• Jeremy Irons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -

His "private life" sections contains only text from some other article, nothing about him. As I do not have information to correct it myself, perhaps someone can do it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.35.252.194 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for letting us know. It was vandalism that had sat there for nearly two days, on a living person bio. Ugh. FCYTravis 08:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)