Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:02, 13 January 2016

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

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

Ariel Fernandez

From the Talk page on the article Ariel Fernandez of which I am the subject, I became aware of continuous efforts by editor Molevol1234 to include mentioning of questioned papers that I have authored. The questioned papers have not been retracted and no wrongdoing on my behalf has been determined. As I learned from the Talk page, in such a case, according to Wikipedia policy, reputable secondary sources justifying notability for inclusion would need to be included. The blog Retraction Watch does not constitute such a reputable secondary source because it is a self-published blog, as several editors have noted in the archived discussions (BLP:SPS). As I understand, Wikipedia policy forbids SPS for BLPs. Thank you for your attention.Ariel Fernandez Ph D (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of obvious relevance: long SPI archive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And, of course, WP:BLP then no longer applies to living persons who annoyed an editor? sorry -- that sort of claim is totally uncalled for. Collect (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh dear -- yes, indeed, that sort of claim is totally uncalled for!!!!!!!!! Who made that claim?? They should be reported!! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: who said it??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: this is surely a serious matter and I'm puzzled that you haven't pursued it. Who made that claim? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: is it possible that in fact no one made the claim you identified? If so, perhaps you could clarify so that this topic can be archived properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we'll have to conclude that Collect made some sort of error here -- was perhaps confused about something or other. Or perhaps ping wasn't working... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock. I have a social security number, a driver license and a passport. I have not reported invalid data in any of my 350 papers. There is no notability in mentioning the papers questioned by (Redacted). The papers have not been retracted. Thanks for your kind attention.Ariel Fernandez Ph D (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collect is of course, correct, you are allowed to protest the content of your article. WP:BLPSPS says: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. You focus on the use of Retraction Watch, a self-published blog. You may notice that RW is never used in the article as the single source for any single fact, there is always another reference. RW is not being used as a 'as source[s] of material about a living person' but as an additional reference with supporting contextual material. Is there a particular statement in the article that you contend is untrue? Are there secondary sources with in depth coverage which we are overlooking? (Non english-language sources are welcome but will take longer for us to deal with). Do you contend that the overall balance of coverage in the article is drastically unrepresentative of the coverage of you in secondary sources? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand, a secondary source needs to be cited to justify that the mention of papers merely questioned by a third party has enough notability to be included in the Wikipedia article of a living person. I doubt that there is any reputable secondary source that would justify such a thing. May I remind you these are not papers retracted or papers proven to contain invalid data. The papers have been merely questioned by (Redacted). Also, WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person". Thus, as far as I can tell, it is immaterial whether RW is the only source used or not, RW is a source used, and that is strictly forbidden. Ariel Fernandez Ph D (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed WP:OUTING and indef'ed this latest sock. He's been indef'ed multiple times over the years, has brought nothing new to this discussion here, and has even been warned for outing before. DMacks (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction Watch is self pusblished indiscriminate source, not allowed in BLP as per BLP SPS. There are millions of challenged papers, different from retracted or invalid. That is not important stuff.190.176.243.185 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales

Does [1] violate WP:BLP with regard to the living person Jimbo Wales? Collect (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this was coming. Sadly most of that is factually accurate, if overly POV-laden. However certain parts would fail BLP. Suggesting Jimbo accepted money in a "PR exercise designed to whitewash its public" certainly does, as does "Conspired in co-opting WMF servers as tools of the regimes propaganda". Both are unsourced negative opinions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is in the main factually inaccurate, starting with the first sentence.

When I awarded the Wikipedian of the Year award, Rauan was not a government employee. So saying that I awarded a "government operative" is false.

In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly and privately condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes.

Writegeist is spreading lies about me, and should be permanently blocked.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2011 Rauan became president of Wikibilim, in August 2011 he was given the Wikipedian of the Year award. So he was a government operative, as WG says, though not a paid employee. I will check the other statements Peter Damian (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the truth have any place here? Eric Corbett 21:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement needs to be removed due to WP:NPA. That is what we do with blatant personal attacks on other users. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why weren't the various accusations of X or Y being a "toxic personality" etc removed? I've no idea whether the linked item is accurate or not but I sense a bit of pot and kettle going on. - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that was unsourced statement had to removed as per WP:NPA more so as it in a userpage and this would have been the case with any editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wales says that in "all these occasions - all of them" that he publicly condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes. He's talking primarily about Kazakhstan. In an address at the 2012 Wikimania, this is what Wales said about Kazakhstan: "So, now it's time for Jimbo's Awards. Yay! <applause> Um, so I started this, uh, last year, and I hope to make it an ongoing, uh, tradition. Uh, and, uh, last year, uh, for the first time I gave, uh, the Wikipedian of the Award -- of the Year Award, uh, to, uh, Rauan, who is here somewhere. Can he stand up? Here? <applause> From Kazakh Wikipedia. Uh, and um, I also, uh, a donation to the Kazakh Wikipedia community, and to visit, uh, Kazakhstan. Neither of those things have actually happened yet. <mild laughter> Um, but the offer still stands, and actually I met with the, uh, ambassador from Kazakhstan this morning. And, uh, we're planning a trip there as soon as possible so that I can, uh, give him an award in the presence of the President or Prime Minister, whoever we can wrangle to come to that. Um, and so now, uh, for this year, uh, I'm gonna do again, uh..." There is no sign of any public condemnation there, is there? - 2001:558:1400:10:45C7:22D3:7A26:A52 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly cant see any, but Jimbo Wales says all sorts of things thst either make no sense or he doesn't follow through on. Eric Corbett 22:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wales is the one, how shall I put it, that is truthfully challenged here. The guy Wales gave the "Wikipedian of the year award" to is a career Kazakh government propagandist/official and was in the pay of the Kazakh government at the time of the award (and prior to the award, and since). Wikibilim was at the time and still is funded by the Kazakh government to run and monitor the Kazakh Wikipedia. These are those stubborn things called "facts." Mr. Wales has untruthfully called "Writegeist" a liar here, in a matter where the truth is not flattering to him, and is seeking to use his highly privileged position to have him blocked and silenced. So much for "NPA" and a "community" that is "built on love and respect."Dan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the video recording of the previous year's Wikimania (2011): [2] Please, watch it for yourselves.

There is certainly a mention of "something amazing" happening in Kazakhstan, of the Kazakh government and the Kazakh Prime Minister there, who Wales said he'd been talking to. There is no condemnation whatsoever, only the announcement of an award and a $5,000 donation, an undertaking to give that award in the presence of that Prime Minister, and a mention of "happy puppies and kittens" (!). Andreas JN466 19:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, you are being completely unfair to Mr. Wales, as he also clearly mentioned a certain set of "sad puppies and sad kittens" which I think was, to date, his firmest condemnation of the ruthless aspects of the autocratic regime in Kazakhstan, even if it was only allegorical. Please try to understand that for the warm, gentle, and loving audiences assembled at Wikimania conferences, anything more blunt and direct to chastise the Kazakh government and its "amazing" takeover of the Kazakh-language Wikipedia would have thrown most audience members into a fit of the vapors. - 2001:558:1400:10:3087:E3EF:39CE:BEB5 (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The audio recording of the equally condemnation-free 2012 speech transcribed above, about the Kazakh award, ambassador, president and prime minister, is here on Wikinews: [3]. Time code 23:45 onward. Andreas JN466 19:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales: "In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly . . . condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes." Then please back up the assertion with links to the text, audio or video or your public condemnations in all these occasions, starting with a public condemnation in your Wikimania announcement of the Wikipedian of the Year award, and I'll happily (very happily, in fact) refactor and apologize. Writegeist (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Incidentally, re. the OP here: might this be the same Collect who displayed a notice at the top of his own talk page that included the observations that “Mr. Wales, who assured us that he took his role in the appeals process seriously, does not do so” and “Mr. Wales does not even believe in common courtesy, much less in following process”? [4] Writegeist (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Collect doesn't play favorites or care what side ones on. If he sees a BLP violation, he'll call it. --Malerooster (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, totally. So he reported his BLP violations here? Writegeist (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? There is a difference between discussion about one person's "courtesy" , and alleging that a person is complicit in "whitewashing" war crimes or the like. I think you had gotten so used to posing snide comments abut me that the distinction eluded you. (Also a big shout out to the creepy, deceitful stalker who so regularly rummages around in here, and in my talk page, while I'm out that I have to lock up the silver. Visitors please note: I have an aversion to bloviating, lying, and self-righteous denial when called out; deliberate misrepresentation of policies and other users' comments; hypocrisy (e.g. acting as a self-appointed BLP enforcer yet also flouting the policy when it suits a personal agenda); tendentious arguing long after the argument has been lost; and to the tedious, repeated, and irrelevant trumpeting of claimed personal credentials in a pathetic, narcissistic effort to impress, From Collect 24 (the Book of Common Prayer), for vocation in daily work: Deliver us . . . in our various occupations from the service of self alone, that we may do the work  . . . in truth and beauty and for the common good. , and many many more - including posts on noticeboards etc. Simple snark. Accusing a person of complicity or agreement with being at a ceremony where he relieved the regime of half a million dollars in a PR exercise designed to whitewash its public image. (the most mild-mannered claim in the post at issue) is a league away from routinely simply attacking another editor over, and over, and over ... Collect (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Wales, who assured us that he took his role in the appeals process seriously, does not do so” calls Jimmy “Jimbo” a liar. “Mr. Wales does not even believe in common courtesy, much less in following process” attacks Jimmy “Jimbo’s” character. Both are also BLP violations. As apparently you’ve noticed, I have an aversion to bloviating, lying, and self-righteous denial when called out; also to the hypocrisy of acting as a self-appointed BLP enforcer yet flouting the policy when it suits a personal agenda—which, in this instance, couldn't be more obviously the case. Writegeist (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. You've made your point. Now take it to your blog or somewhere, because here, it is an inappropriate attack on another editor and a problem per WP:BLP as well. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point should be accepted (not just made). What we've had instead is the opposite. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or rebutted. Oh, wait, it has been. As you were then. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebutted, yes. Very forcefully, and entirely unpersuasively. Andreas JN466 00:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it differently, there's an important difference between rebutted and refuted. Guy did choose the right word -- no criticism there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you can read much the same in the media: [5][6][7] Are we now in Kazakhstan here, where repeating in public what the (exiled) opposition press says lands you in jail? Andreas JN466 19:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems. Of course by March 2015 Wales's opinion of the Kazakh regime was sufficiently low for him to berate Tony Blair for taking money from them [8], yet on the other hand, in the UAE, Wales took money from another regime that's also notorious for abusing human rights. [9] [10]. It's all very confusing. Writegeist (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is due to return to the UAE to deliver a keynote speech in Dubai in a few days' time. The event is held under the patronage of another member of the Al Maktoum family. I would be interested to know if, as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he is charging a speaking fee at the upcoming event, and whether he will loudly and publicly condemn its human rights abuses on this occasion. A year ago, he told a journalist he took the UAE rulers' $500,000 cash award to – quote – "f*** with them":

Wales explanation to me of why he accepted money from the UAE beggars belief. "I showed up there for a speech at an education conference," Wales narrated, "and they informed me that I would be given a prize the next day. I was caught completely off-guard and made a quick decision that I think was completely genius." Consulting with Israeli human rights lawyer Orit Kopel, with whom Wales had collaborated in the past, he asked her "If she would help me use the money to f*** with them." "Yes, I could have declined the money," Wales explained, "but why give money back to horrible people? So they can use it to pay for more jails?" Andreas JN466 00:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get back to the topic posted by Collect. Is the message at the top of @Writegeist:'s user page a violation of WP:BLP? Related questions are: has he done this at other places? Is he continuing to do so? I personally have looked at Writegeist's posts as trolling, personal attacks, and harassment, but his comments about Jimbo are also clearly violations of BLP.

This is *not* about Writegeist's freedom of speech. The WMF and the en Wikipedia community are not required to host Writegeist's personal attacks. Writegeist's attacks are his own personal opinions. Start with the first sentence "Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales bestowed a personal honor on a Kazakh government operative whose job is to oversee the use of WMF servers as tools of the regime’s propaganda." Opinion, assuming bad faith, putting Jimbo in the worst possible light, no references => BLP violation. That goes for every sentence in the passage given by Collect.

Of course these matters have been brought up before - perhaps a couple of dozen times on Wikipedia. People do have the right to ask Jimbo questions, but when you get the answers, call him a liar, and just won't stop, then it is harassment. See the first 6,000 words at [11]. At that point that Writegeist was just yelling that Jimbo was a liar, I warned Writegeist and the next week moderated him right off the page.

I don't see what Writegeist expected to achieve on Jimbo's talk page. He could have said that he would agree to disagree with Jimbo. He could take any evidence he's gathered to the police (but of course he doesn't have any evidence that would let the police take this seriously). He could try to convince public opinion makers, e.g. the New York Times, or similar papers, that Jimbo is an evil man who needs to be publicly shamed (but of course they'd just laugh at Writegeist). So instead he goes on a long troll on Jimbo's talk page, in effect just trying to yell down Jimbo's answers. Sorry but that's not what talk pages are for, it has nothing to do with the goals of Wikipedia. It is a violation of WP:BLP.

Is he still doing it? Sure, see User talk:Writegeist#Jim Beau's talk, where he posted this picture;

If that isn't harassment I don't know what is.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you clearly have no clue what harassment is. Wales was proven to be telling lies - or at best being mistaken. His response? Certainly not to put his hand up. Instead he doubled down and called the person telling the truth a liar. Wales' false claim there is the real personal attack. Then he seeks to use his "Godking" position to get some anonymous minion to permanently silence the truth teller ("Writegeist is spreading lies about me, and should be permanently blocked.") This is a real problem of governance at Wikipedia - and of course comes at a time when the lack of transparency and accountability at board level is under enhanced scrutiny. You frankly have the whole situation completely upside down. At any rate, there is no "harassment" (you really don't understand the meaning of this word "Smallbones"), or "personal attacks" (aside from the ones on this page and elsewhere by Wales), or "BLP vios" going on.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding - ah, what a sleazy insinuation that "Writegeist" is threatening violence from you, Smallbones. The picture is in reference to the ongoing effort by you and others to railroad Writegeist so the likes of you can get your bannination fix. You're trying to get rid of him (a sort of wiki execution) double quick - "number one with a bullet" (a reference I suspect, ballistically at least, will soar right over your head.)Dan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the answers have been contradictory. Jimbo ends up having to say he "mis-spoke" etc, or he simply doesn't respond (generally, a common tactic used by him along with asking that the discussion be conducted via email). When acolytes such as yourself then start acting as policemen (oops, policewomen, policepeople ... erm, let's say policers), removing stuff seemingly to protect him from further questions, it tends to reinforce whatever the conspiracy theory of the day might be. Jimbo sets himself up to the public, media etc as the founder of WP and he trades on that image and on being able to make public pronouncements etc because of it. He should not be able to have his cake and eat it. If he is a public figure and has chosen to be such then he has to expect uncomfortable questions and, alas, he has failed to answer them in a consistent manner or indeed in a manner that accords with the known facts. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, are you truly unable to see any contradictions in the things Wales says? Have you watched the video, listened to the audio (linked above), and compared the recorded facts of Wales' actual conduct to the claims about his conduct he made above in this thread ("In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly and privately condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes")? If you haven't, then please kindly do so now. Andreas JN466 02:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to keep on attacking Jimmy Wales. You've put together a series of "interpreted facts", and it's a very complicated story that few if any people can follow. You and others have tried to push this story all over the internet. As far as I can tell, almost nobody is buying it. I think a better interpretation of the facts is that Jimmy has, in good faith, made great efforts to spread free knowledge all over the world, and has not been successful in all cases. Nobody is always successful in all their endeavors. Yet folks like Writegeist insist on saying that he is acting in bad faith, that he is lying, etc. He's given his answers, repeated questioning without taking his answers seriously amounts to harassment. The 6,000+ word inquisition on his talk page was 90% harassment and trolling. The post that Writegeist put at the top of his user page was a clear violation of WP:BLP. Posting the photo of a shooting gun on his talk page only confirms the obvious. Everybody who has used *this page* to attack Jimmy should be ashamed of themselves. If you have any actual evidence of misbehavior on Jimmy's part, I suggest you take it to the FBI, or to the NY Times, or perhaps some international criminal tribunal. But of course you've got nothing of the sort, people will just laugh at you if you try that. So multiple postings of this questionable material on Wikipedia, inquisitions on his talk page, and accusations of lying, just are not acceptable at this point. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you like and respect Jimmy Wales, and would like him to like you, but these are not "interpreted facts". Statements like "I've spoken to the Prime Minister there"/"I never spoke to the Prime Minister", "I've never spoken to anyone at the Kazakh embassy"/"I met with the Kazakh ambassador this morning", "In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly and privately condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes" etc. are absolute statements not open to interpretation. They are mutually exclusive, and/or objectively falsifiable. Moreover, no one has insinuated that any crime has been committed here. Andreas JN466 04:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I get that you like and respect Jimmy Wales, and would like him to like you" - the purpose of WP:BLPN is not to insult me, or to insult Jimmy Wales. If you don't understand why your statement is insulting, consider if I said the following to you "I get that you like and respect User:Kohser, and would like him to like you" Your opinion of my motivations has nothing to do with this page. "no one has insinuated that any crime has been committed here." what are you saying then and what is the reason for the gang-trolling on Jimbo's talk page? What do you intend to do with the "facts" that you've gathered - posting 6,000 word sections on Jimbo's talk page while accusing him of being a liar - is not something our rules allow (e.g. NPA, Trolling, WP:Harass). You've used thousands of words to put forward your case - as far as I can tell you haven't convinced anybody other than a few trolls, and you don't know what you want to do with your case. A suggestion - if you don't think there are any criminal actions, but only unethical ones then take it to the NY Times (but you have nothing to take to them), if you think that Jimbo has brought Wikipedia into disrepute, take it to the WMF (but you have nothing to take to them), if you think Jimbo or the WMF are abusing the foundation's non-profit status, take it to the IRS (but you have nothing to take to them). What is not allowable on Wikipedia is multiple repetitions of smears against living people.

So back to the purpose of this page: did Writegeist violate WP:BLP by posting smears against Jimbo on his user page? Yes, it is obvious that he did. He should be banned. Your opinions of me or of Jimbo are not relevant. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree with you. There are inconsistencies in Wales' statements about what happened, and Writegeist pointed them out. When Wales described his contacts with the Kazakh government, he verifiably – see the video and audio recordings linked above – did not voice any criticism of them, but on the contrary announced his intention to participate in an awards ceremony with the Prime Minister or President of one of the most abusive regimes on earth.

This is not illegal – lots of Western PR companies work for the Kazakh regime, because they pay well, and lots of Western politicians associate with the Kazakh government, because they have been supportive of US military efforts in the region, or because of their stance on nuclear disarmament, or because of their vast oil wealth. However, these people are rightly criticised, as Tony Blair has been for example, when they help the regime polish its media image.

Jimmy Wales' actions – the creation and announcement of a special award, the announcement of his intention to attend an award ceremony with the regime's leaders in Kazakhstan – had the unfortunate effect of bolstering the PR efforts of that regime. His award is, for example, mentioned on the Kazakh Prime Minister's website, as well as various Kazakh embassy websites and news outlets reporting that Wales lauded a project run with government money (a fact that was well known before the award was given) under the auspices of Karim Massimov, the country's prime minister (and for a while president's chief of staff). ([12][13][14][15][16] and many others.) Moreover, the Wikipedia effort that Wales praised had the effect of turning large parts of the Kazakh Wikipedia into a mirror of the government-censored, state-published Kazakh National Encyclopedia, a matter that has not just concerned "trolls" [17][18]. You can view Wales' actions as you like, but you should respect the right of your fellow Wikipedians to feel uncomfortable with them, given that the Kazakh regime's values are diametrically opposed to those of the Wikipedia movement. Andreas JN466 20:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now "smears" is an "interpreted fact," smart guy. You're doing it deliberately to try to railroad the guy. "He violated BLP!!! and should be BANNINATED!" you write. No he didn't. He simply wrote the truth and has been lied about and insulted, first by Wales and now by you (whoever "you" are). Pointing out the fact of Wales' mutually exclusive statements and flimflam about it is the furthest thing I could imagine from a "smear." As for "BLP?" What bleeding nonsense. Your attempt to rally a little mob isn't working, however. I'm sure this must be frustrating for you. So why not drop the stick before you embarrass yourself further?Dan Murphy (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional Response Good grief, it's one thing to kick a nuisance off of Mr. Wales talk page so he won't be repeatedly bothered, quite another to ban someone for something a little prickly on their own talk page. The video doesn't match Mr. Wales claim above about bringing up human rights on "all these occasions". I don't interpret that as a lie or deception because Mr. Wales must speak at a ton of different events and the memory can be faulty. (There's a saying here that goes "Always remember, never say 'always' or 'never'!") Being able to show a statement is provably wrong is not WP:BLP violation; at most what's going on here is WP:OR. I'll defer to admins on whether some sanction is appropriate here, but it is certainly less than a lifetime ban. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. It's perhaps worth stating though that the two talks captured on video and audio that were mentioned above took place at Wikimania 2011 and Wikimania 2012. They easily represent the most high-profile events at which Jimmy Wales addressed the community about Kazakhstan, and are not occasions that are all that easy to forget. Andreas JN466 17:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Raschke

Carl Raschke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Carlraschke (talk · contribs)
70.212.5.251 (talk · contribs)

An account purporting to be the article's subject has deleted a criticism section, claiming libel. Also deleted are all associated references from critical scholars. Some attention and objective assistance would be welcome. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the material, which was properly sourced, and placed a note at Carlraschke (talk · contribs)'s talk page. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can understand if WP:UNDUE is a concern--if the majority of an article is criticism, then a red flag is justifiably raised. But it usually doesn't work when a COI account registers just to delete material they don't like. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just doing a quick Google search, I suspect WP:UNDUE is the right guideline to cite here; all the reception appears to deal with a rather narrow topic of Raschke's writing, Satanism; elsewhere he's described as a postmodern evangelical, who has written on more extensive themes. It isn't libel, but it does seem a bit unbalanced. If anyone is more familiar with his publications and can flesh the bio out, it would probably make a difference. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new, apparently affiliated IP has been added. If not resolved here, this may be a persistent enough problem to bring to ANI. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still going on, now with a new user, LH Chicago (talk · contribs). This user also popped up put of nowhere. There may be some WP:SOCK going on.

For the record, Raschke is primarily notable because of the material he published in the early 90s, as well as his apparent appearance as an "expert witness" during that period in cases involving Satanic ritual abuse. He also appeared on, for example, the Geraldo show during this time making similar claims. His work was used for the notorious conviction of the West Memphis Three as well. Raschke's work in this area has been pretty strongly damned by fellow scholars (in some of the strongest language in scholarship I've seen in a long time, actually). There's a lot to say about this on his article. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levan Songulashvili

The Levan Songulashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article has one WSJ link but the article where it leads doesn't discuss the artist only the event. The other resources look like they came from press releases. The article is an orphan. I'm sorry but I do not know the special tags to put on these pages and come instead to request assistance here. While the artist may be notable (I do not feel qualified to judge that), the page has multiple issues and reads like a promotional attempt. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate for deletion.--Jahaza (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have prodded it for failing WP:ARTIST--Jahaza (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levan Songulashvili is one of the most important and significant artists of Georgia. Even several days ago he was nominated for the Georgian Public Broadcaster's grand award The Best Artist of The Year. The article's links are from various Georgian and Russian magazines and newspapers, some of them are in English, Georgian and Russian languages, some Georgian language sources are translated into English. He deserves and it is important to be an English article about the artist on Wikipedia. It should not be deleted. I improved the article and please, check it out and let me know if there is anything else to do or modify itself. Sincerely, -- GeorgianArtCenter (talk)

I have removed the proposed deletion as you attempted to do it yourself, but apparently incompletely and another user restored it. I have instead nominated the article for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levan Songulashvili‎ instead.--Jahaza (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the user who restored it? I have seen a lots of articles on Wikipedia with no much sources but they are still exists and the article about Levan has many sources from online magazines, press releases, newspapers. He is one of the most well-known artist in Georgia, he got prize by President of Georgia, had received several major awards... On December 31, 2015, he was nominated for The Best Artist of The Year next to Niko Pirosmani, which was great XX century artist. He has exhibitions in and out of Georgia... Levan is a member of Artists Union of Georgia, there are many interviews with the artist in a lots of broadcasting companies and you can find various articles about him in popular magazines and newspapers nationwide. In 2010, there was an article about him in Georgia's Public Encyclopedia...There are lots of papers in Georgian and Russian languages, as well as in English. It is important for Georgian society to have an article about the Georgian artist on Wikipedia and it is already a strange fact that we are doubting on it. You can delete it but remember, it will be a big mistake. I expect more from you before you make a final decision. -- GeorgianArtCenter (talk)

GeorgianArtCenter, you need to make your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levan Songulashvili‎ now, if you want to prevent the deletion.--Jahaza (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jahaza, Thanks for telling but how, can you give me an instructions for it? GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

GeorgianArtCenter, the instructions for participating in Articles for Deletion are here WP:AFDEQ and here WP:AFDFORMAT

Jahaza I Guess I did it already, didn't I? GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

Jahaza, * Do not delete Theroadislong did a good job in improving the article. GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)GeorgianArtCenter[reply]

I don't think I have done enough to save it. The article still doesn't appear to pass WP:ARTIST I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope The article will appear to pass WP:ARTIST as soon as Jahaza will see your corrections. I really do not understand the problem anymore. There should be a notable artist in Wikipedia, right? So, he is one of the most notable artists from Georgia. If you need notarized statements and translated articles from Georgian into English I can provide. I can send all the papers by E-Mail. I have seen lots of articles with a very few sources but they still exist without any problems. It is really strange that you bring it into the question. If you once go to Georgia you can ask them about the artist. Anyway, I did not expected such problems from the Wikipedia community. If the article needed improvement you already shortened it, if you are not sure in something I can provide notarized documents, too. Have a happy new year! GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)GeorgianArtCenter[reply]

I would suggest adding sources from Georgian media. Many wikipedia editors think notability is established only through English language sources, but that is incorrect. If you can produce georgian language sources for the articles claims, and for Songulashvilis notability that supports notability as well. Unfortunately most other editors will be unlikely to help you with this task.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

·maunusThanks for the information! There are lots of sources in Georgian language, also in Russian. Sure I can add many of those sources. GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)GeorgianArtCenter[reply]

Jahaza, ·maunus, I did some changes, the article is improved and I am sure it is ready without doubts! Besides of other sources of articles in press (magazines,newspapers, online press releases in Georgian, English and Russian languages), I used the article of Georgian Encyclopedia, 9th edition, volume I, Publication - 2010. GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)GeorgianArtCenter[reply]

Category:Deep Throat

Category:Deep Throat, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion based partially on BLP concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy C... Hunt

Jeremy Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) does not contain any mention of the fact that he has been accidentally referred to as Jeremy Cunt on air by James Naughtie, Evan Davies, Jon Craig, Mark Longhurst and others, with deliberate "mistakes" from Ricky Gervaise and even Roger Mellie. I'd like some advice on how to cover this properly. It's clearly notable, it keeps happening and is a recurring theme in British political satire, but as a WP:BLP we need to be careful. Some have said it's a Freudian slip rather than a Spoonerism. I don't know so much. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is a good analogy, but does this compare to the whole Santorum neologism thingy. If "material" is widely covered and related to a BLP, then it may be included if its done in a NPOV and weighted fashion. Iam not saying this is the case here since I have ZERO knowledge about this matter. I mostly stick to MOS type editing cause I suck at "tricky" content matters like this :) --Malerooster (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "cunt" articles are relevant to the speaker, not Jeremy Hunt. For example, The view from a broad is about James Naughtie not Jeremy Hunt. However, Jim Naughtie wasn't the first presenter ... is about the Jeremy Hunt subtopic of "the hunt/cunt trap" faced by broadcasters over the years. It takes it out of BLP. In this case, something outside Hunt's control causing his name to be altered seems a very minor life event relative to Jeremy Hunt's life so it may not make it into the Jeremy Hunt article itself. If you really are intent on getting "cunt" into the Jeremy Hunt article, one way might be through the See Also subsection. I recall a case of politician Anthony Weiner sending pictures of his weiner as part of sexting scandals. There's probably enough source material for an article on something like 'List of journalists deliberate play on words in politician names,' which could be added to an article such as Jeremy Hunt in the 'See also' subsection where the word "cunt" could be place to describe the see also link. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking that I would prefer it included, if it HAD to be, in the other folks bios. For gods sake, do NOT put it in a See also section, that is bad (see my contribution history :) ). --Malerooster (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But when people keep doing it, it becomes attached to the person, not the other people. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manasvi Mamgai is not a contestant on Bigg Boss 9 as mentioned in this article.

Manasvi Mamgai is not a contestant on Bigg Boss 9 as mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18c:c501:3d5:f8af:be1e:dc3f:57bf (talk • contribs)

Joe DiRosa

-It looks like he wrote it himself

-Self-promotion everywhere

-Dead links

-"citations" from his own sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.132.5 (talk • contribs)

Assuming this request is about Joe DiRosa, I mostly agree with the IP and have removed some of the invalid references. But this isn't really a WP:BLP-problem. If the article's topic isn't notable, you can nominate it for deletion (WP:AFD), or remove/rephrase some of the more promotional or unsourced sections (done partially). GermanJoe (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He did write it himself. I userfied it. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Lindley

Add to his discography with other persons:m 1990 Under The Red Sky, on which he contributed slide guitar for a Bob Dylan album...

Carwyn Jones

Hi All,

I wanted to flag the section Relationship with Westminster in the Carwyn Jones article. I have made a minor edit to the section heading which was originally titled "Blame London for everything".

As the oriinal title suggests, I found the entirety of this section to be overtly political, it seems to me a relatively minor aspect of Mr Jones tenure as First Minister, yet it is the first of only two subheadings for his entire premiership. As the original title suggests, I think this only exists to make a political point and, as such, should be removed.

As with any living politicians biography this is open to interpretation or outright bias. As such, I would like to flag this for deletion rather than delete it myself and start a editing war with some politico. It is not overtly attacking, just adds nothing to a biographical entry to any encyclopaedia and as such I would like to see it removed.

[[19]]

Poppy Drayton

Hi. I'd appreciate some more eyes on Poppy Drayton – various IP's keep adding her birthdate based on a Twitter post which to my mind verifies no such thing. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I would appreciate it if some people knowledgeable about BLP's and BLP policies would take a look at Talk:Poppy Drayton#Poppy Drayton Birthday – I suspect we're almost to a resolution here, but I'd like some knowledgeable "third opinions" before proceeding... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rapert

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

Manitonquat (which is a BLP)

I am concerned that a number of editors are persistently trying to add contentious and negative information to this article without adequate sourcing.

There is a concerted effort to include claims about his race in the article, referenced to self-published sources
There have been attempts to source these claims from a site with the word "fraud" prominently in the URL and title. The site does not appear to be a reliable source -certainly not reliable enough for the contentious claims it is being used to source - but my main concern is that the word "fraud" is being casually associated with a BLP by using the link.
There is an issue around his name, with reliable sources using "Manitonquat" or "Medicine Story", which also appears to be his preferred way of identifying himself. Some editors would rather remove references to these names and only use his birth name.

I have been involved in the DRV and AfD on this article, as well as trying to improve it and remove what I believe are BLP violations, but I feel I'm getting too involved in this and starting to question my own judgment. I would appreciate it if others would watchlist the page and keep an eye out for BLP issues. I have no personal involvement with the subject and I believe I have remained neutral in my editing. Thparkth (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am troubled by Montana's description of a living person as a plastic shaman, using non reliable sourcing, and reverting in someone's family racial history (his father was white, his grandfather was white etc) - this stinks of inter-ethnic politics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a closer look at newagefraud.org, that particular section is pretty much an attack site. Not a chance it passes as a RS for contentious material in a BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are deep issues here which a number of editors are glossing over: (a) passing (racial identity) is a real thing and means that genealogical records can't be taken at face value (b) many of the sources involved are interview-based sources without critical evaluation, making them primary sources (c) as described in the Ethnic group article, ethnicity is not simply a matter of descent (d) there are all sorts of blogs and message boards making all sorts of accusations and (e) there are sources arguing that group X is a cult (in the negative sense). Stuartyeates (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say, I would *not* trust a 19th/early 20th century US government census to determine ethnicity. Hell my government thinks my religion is Jedi... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who have posted in this discussion. On 7 Jan I attempted to create a report of Vandalism WP:SVT on this board. Very likely I made some error. I've never created such a report before; nor had previous experience with this level of discussion concerning advanced fine points of Wikipedia policy. FYI, this is the Vandalism report I attempted to post here on Jan 7:

Vandalism to Manitonquat article has been alleged on its Talk page since November 24, 2015;

along with previous entry to the same Talk 6 April 2012 page noting suspiciously inaccurate additions, & advising correction.

As of December 18, the page was corrected by myself. (See screenshot https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_REVISION_Manitonquat.png#globalusage)

Upon presentation of new material, it was subsequently swiftly deleted, without reference thereto. This was also alleged as possible subtle vandalism in the DRV discussion:

See DRV discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_29 In this DRV, newly-available material establishes notability. Article was cleared for re-creation.

Re-created article (basically the same as my previous edit of Dec 18 (see screenshot on Commons, link above). Within a day, it had also been subject to an edit which I must allege to be subtle vandalism; whether due to malicious intent, or to such flagrant disregard for accuracy as to be effectively just as bad.

I am in the process of organizing citations included in the DRV, to comply with request for references which is now posted on this article.

However, it seems not in interests of accuracy that an editor (possibly User:CorbieVreccan ..? ) has deleted all references to Manitonquat's recognition as an official tribal elder of the Wampanoag Nation of Massachusetts; which is well-documented in the DRV. The editor also claimed that Manitonquat "lives primarily in Germany". A patently false misrepresentation, without citation, and contradicting widely-available documentaion that he has had the same address in New Hampshire for the last 30 years. The editor likewise re-inserted a link to the article Grey Owl: an Englishman who posed as a Native American spokesman. Documentation cited in the DRV confirms that such subtle efforts to cast aspersions on Manitonquat's integrity are subtle vandalism; which likewise impact the integrity of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia wisely has policy in place regarding topics of a particularly contentious nature: "Troubles-related topics" are an excellent example. That is, topics which concern violent, passionate conflict, with a long history of profound controversy. Where pages are likely to be subject to editing wars, etc.

Native American people/culture have been decimated by centuries of aggressive genocidal warfare of various colors: official and unofficial, military and para-military. Since the cessation of armed warfare between the Indian nations and the US Government, they have suffered incalculable damage from institutionalized racism, undeclared clandestine para-military violence, and a host of other ills connected with their race/cultural identity.

It seems advisable that special expertise, scrutiny, & vigilance could with justice be applied to articles concerning Native Americans.

Manitonquat's work has an added dimension of controversy; in that he is associated with the Rainbow Gathering Rainbow Family and New Age philosophy.

I reiterate for the Administrators' Notice Board my allegation that the Manitonquat page has been subject to on-going subtle vandalism; and request assistance from administrators / Subtle Vandalism Taskforce.

Please note further that the user who received a vandalism warning from me on the same date (7 Jan) and has been criticized for extraordinary conduct in the current AfD2 User:CorbieVreccan has issued what I hold to be a retaliatory & vexatious complaint of COI against me. (Please see my response on my Talk page.)

I also apologize for errors of procedure which I've made in the course of this process, due to inexperience.

As regarding alleged COI in myself, as explained on my Talk page, my acquaintance with Manitonquat's work does not fall within COI criteria. Horse Dancing (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Hoser

The entire page is false and libelous. It should be removed. by way of example it refers adversely to court proceedings Mr Hoser won and yet this page reports the opposite. The Wikipedia page in a defamatory comment asserts Hoser "claims" the name "snake man" when in fact he's owned the registered trademarks for the words across the English speaking world, USA, UK and Australia for decades and is known under this name and could only get the trademarks on that basis. You wouldn't assert Microsoft "claims this title", so why do this for Hoser? It is a hate page by Hoser's business competitors and others with an axe to grind and Wikipedia is not the place for businesses to attack one another.

114.77.110.195 - you were advised, correctly so | here that what you were trying to add in was unreferenced. You were also told this here as well on the talk page . You were also told | here as well and | here too and | here as well . The bulk of your edits are on this article. I would suggest you listen to what your being told, and that is, that you need to have a reliable reference for anything you want to put on the article. KoshVorlon 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Raschke

Please evaluate Carlraschke entries by editorbloodofox who consistently violates WP policy on biographies of living persons. Check talk page. I would like a response.

bloodofox cites an article claiming I accused Asatru of fomenting a biological terrorism attack based on an attribution in an SPLC article from 1998 which is not a quote but a statement. I have denied making that statement. It is part of what is clearly a smear campaign by Bloodofox to cite only negative sources and to disallow anything favorable. Consider how many edits to the page he has already deleted on specious grounds. Many of these edits disallowed cite very credible academic sources.

Revision as of 04:55, 13 January 2016 edit LH Chicago (talk \| contribs) 68 edits →‎Carl Raschke: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:02, 13 January 2016 edit undo Carlraschke (talk \| contribs) 25 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 294:		Line 294:

	Please evaluate [[Carlraschke]] entries by editor[[bloodofox]] who consistently violates WP policy on biographies of living persons. Check talk page. I would like a response.		Please evaluate [[Carlraschke]] entries by editor[[bloodofox]] who consistently violates WP policy on biographies of living persons. Check talk page. I would like a response.

			[[:bloodofox]] cites an article claiming I accused Asatru of fomenting a biological terrorism attack based on an attribution in an SPLC article from 1998 which is not a quote but a statement. I have denied making that statement. It is part of what is clearly a smear campaign by Bloodofox to cite only negative sources and to disallow anything favorable. Consider how many edits to the page he has already deleted on specious grounds. Many of these edits disallowed cite very credible academic sources.

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards