libelous comments on Michael Robertson (businessman)
"Information given by disgruntled person who site his own blog a source", Leslieaudra
Leslia, where's the source for this?
In 2005, Robertson stepped down as CEO in favor of Kevin Carmony who in turn stole several hundred thousand dollars from the company..'
Quit it Leslia, before your account gets suspended ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Robertson_(businessman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emacsuser (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Michael Robertson (businessman). However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
What do I do about a person that has a grudge against my husband that has posted completely slanderous information about him on his page using his own personal blog entries as his sources? This guy has posted youtube video's trashing my husband and his companies. Is there any way to protect ourselves from this type of harassment?
- Please visit this page, which will help guide you through how to handle this sort of thing. I'll go take a look at the article. //roux 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please also see the policy on edit-warring, which you have been doing. With that said, protecting a biography of a living person from slanderous or otherwise defamatory content is largely an exception to the rule about not being allowed to revert content more than three times. That being said, you also have an obvious conflict of interest here, and you should be very careful to keep your nose clean. And all of that being said, we take the policy on biographies of living persons extremely seriously. //roux 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me. I guess the answer is no there is no protection for peoples rights. I do have a conflict, there is a man that has a grudge against my husband and an unhealthy interest in posting negative and inaccurate information about his companies. Unfortunately, there is no way to resolve a dispute with someone that is so unhealthily intent on someone else. I know you are all volunteers monitoring this place and I appreciate the jobs you do. I'm very sorry and saddened that this form of cyber stalking occurs and we are not allowed to try and defend ourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslieaudra (talk • contribs)
- Hi Leslie. That is not in fact the case. I have warned Emacsuser (talk · contribs) about his edits to the article and he will be dealt with. Can you please answer the questions about the other two usernames above? I want to assume good faith, but it would somewhat stretch credulity to think that another username making the exact same edits is unrelated, and that the IP geolocates to the city you live in is also unrelated. For reasons why this is a serious problem--quite separate from the legitimate issues you are having--please read our policy on using multiple accounts, which we call 'sockpuppetry'. //roux 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sure I'll tell you about the other edits. I'm not sure why you are taking the aggressive stance here, I am honestly concerned and looking for help. One is my son who is also concerned about the content posted about his father and the IP address is me before I had registered. I don't feel the need to hide my identity. I use my real name unlike Emacuser who also likes to post negative things about my husband under the name of Tina, but that's another long tedious story. I will get the police report number for the theft of the money to post and when the trial is over I will post the link to the outcome. Until then I give up. The Kevin's of the world win. thanks for the help
- I'm not being aggressive, I'm just trying to make it clear that that sort of behaviour isn't allowed around here. We value as much transparency and openness as possible while still permitting people to retain their privacy and anonymity. As for Emachsuser, don't worry about him, he will be dealt with, and I have the article on my watchlist so I will see if anything else defamatory is added. Please do note, though, that if negative information comes with a reliable source backing it up, it may well be added. But also note that negative information about a living person must be fairly impeccably sourced; the New York Times, sure, The Daily Podunk Bugle, not so much. If problems persist with the article I will request permission, but I suspect that Emacsuser will take heed of the extremely stern warning I gave him. If he doesn't, admins will become involved. As you well know, millions of eyeballs look at Wikipedia every day and we need to be much more vigilant than we are about this sort of thing. //roux 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You do seem to be confused, Leslieaudra is the one pseudonymous posting libelous comments. This is the one that got my attention "stole several hundred thousand dollars". The Carmony quotes are from his blog (among other links) so I assume he stands by those claims. Unless you (or anyone else here) knows different, in which case post some citations.emacsuser (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)