Misplaced Pages

BDORT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Please take a thorough and careful look at this, as I believe it is clearly defamatory and anti BLP when inspected closely: and . I am representing Dr Yoshiaki Omura on wikipedia with his permission. There have already been malicious defamatory statments about him removed by an Admin. I believe the editor, Crum375, left as the sole editor of this entry is biased against Dr Omura/BDORT as I have outlined here . I requested the Arbitration that has just closed and which decided I am banned from editing the article. Be that as is, it has been confirmed and remedied that the version that was edit warred over for months, including by 'Crum375', against my repeated reversions of it and my support of the stub by the last Mediator in order to end the protracted edit war - contained BLP defamatory information. I know that the remaining BLP information I refer to in the article is presented in a not obvious way, but this subtlety does not lessen the BLP issues one bit, nor the lack of basic accuracy; protracted discussions by me about the points raised with this editor are fruitless. I am trying to prevent further real life damage (which has already happened and which the ArbCom has acknowledged privately to me due to privacy issues) and continuing BLP problems remaining. Thanks.Richardmalter 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Richardmalter has just been banned by ArbCom from the BDORT article, Talk page and related pages. The issues he refers to are described in detail in the Arb case (which he brought), and the case was decided against him, as he clearly has a conflict of interest and has edited the article tendentiously and disruptively for months, and was blocked for 3RR several times. As far as the specific issues, since the Arb case, we have modified the BDORT entry to focus on the actual diagnostic procedure and not its inventor. We have a well sourced article, with careful regard for WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP as well as due weight. I welcome a review of this article and comments, and would be happy to improve it while adhering to WP's rules. Thanks, Crum375 22:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, is there a WP policy about you tracking my every comment on WP or the like? I find it like stalking.

To others here, Please note the ArbCom as it does ruled on 'behaviour' as they saw it not content, which was not addressed. An admin unrelated to the ArbCom case deleted the defamotory material championed by Crum375 et at. I have three times set out the problem I refer to here above, and three times Crum375 has replied in a generalized way that has not addressed the actual problem whatsoever. There is a continued resistance to any cooperation without Admin intervention, andthis editor has also edit warred with the last Mediator. Please also note that this is due to the supra-WP bias of this editor as documented by me with diffs in the Arb case and confirmed in his view by the last Mediator. Crum375's bias was revealed here: "Be also aware . . potential WP readers . .will rely on BDORT . . with possible dire consequences" ]. And as CheNuevara (last Mediator) commented on this: "What you say . . . does express your opinion of the matter pretty clearly". There is much more to this than seems. Thanks.Richardmalter 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, 'stalking' would be if I followed you around to different unrelated articles. AFAIK, following your posted comments and responding to them on an Admin's Talk page, or on a noticeboard, where you are addressing the same topic and the same article, is the proper and expected behavior of a good wikipedian.

ArbCom has reviewed everything you mention above - you presented it all during that case. They ruled that you edit tendentiously and have a conflict of interest, and unanimously banned you from the article, its Talk page, and all related pages. I suggest we focus on the actual issues. The BDORT article is available to all for review and comments. Again, I would be happy to have neutral editors review it and suggest improvements, if any. Thanks, Crum375 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you do not focus on issues raised. You respond in generalized ways that do not actually address points made. And to reiterate, you are the ONLY editor I have been involved with - amongst numerous Admins/Mediators etc who NEVER accepts any of my suggestions - and only accepts changes with outside 'pressure' or Admin ruling. You have also as a matter of documented fact been directly party to real world harm to a living person by your actions of defending and editwarring and reverting pro the defamatory version for many months against me, an Admin, and a mediator - all who are completely neutral, that the Admin SlimVirgin deleted straightaway as as soon as I pointed out the WP:OR defamatory statements in it, that you advocated for repeatedly. You were 'deaf' to all my requests in this regard. That means your record in terms of WP:BLP is extremely poor regardless of your intentions ... Outside help is therefore certainly needed because of this, and your very poor WP:BLP record, with this entry. I may have a conflict of interest technically, but this does not change any actual event, or fact noted here. Richardmalter 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, the statements you make about me above, that "as a matter of documented fact been directly party to real world harm to a living person by your actions" can easily be seen as personal attack on me. If you have such documented proof, please present it. Otherwise, please focus on the issues at hand. As far as the more substantive points you make, you have presented all of them to ArbCom during the case you initiated, that was just closed. They reviewed all your points, and decided that your edits are tendentious and that you have a conflict of interest, and unanimously decided to ban you from BDORT and related pages. Since the case was closed, we have revised the article to focus on the procedure and not its inventor. It is well sourced and meets all of WP's requirements, including WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP as well as due weight. If any neutral editor would like to review this article and suggest improvements, s/he would be more than welcome. Thanks, Crum375 04:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest, as has Crum375, above, that anyone concerned with Richardmalter's assertions consult the record of ArbCom re Yoshiaki Omura, of whom Richard Malter is a proponent, as well as the entry itself. These, I would think, speak with startling clarity for themselves, as does the persistent disposition to personal attack, innuendo, and threat, of Yoshiaki Omura's advocates. GenghizRat 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GhengizRat, the defamatory statements on Omura that you wrote and edited and tried to support with many references and arguments have been Admin deleted. Crum375, again you do not actually' address the actual' points raised. You defended a version tenaciously that you championed with many arguments over many months that contained the clear defamatory statements on Omura that clearly violated WP:BLP, that have been Admin deleted, at my request. That's the factual record.Richardmalter 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum. GenghizRat 05:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think the article is improving (re WP:BLP). But there are still serious (BLP) issues remaining. The first is as follows. If WP is representing the work of a living person, then the representation of their work has to be accurate. I realize all the WP editors here are non-experts but basic journalist/encyclopedic standards need to be maintained - especially since Dr Omura is a living person. Dr Omura's devloped technique, the BDORT, is currently described and explained almost totally inaccurately throughout the article. I have gone through many other WP articles on science and other technical subjects and there seems to be no problem giving accurate information in WP, so I am insisting that this article describing the work of a living person also has the same basic level of accuracy in description of the BDORT. Please see for a correct description: especially the section: '3. Finding the right fingers for the Test' NB. "A correct match of fingers is able to give a reliable Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, if it satisfies all three conditions." - ie this is the so-callled 'three conditions for reproducibility'. Without this, the technique is NOT BDORT BY DEFINITION (because BDORT is said to be reproducible, repeatable). WPedians have to be reasonable reporters as well. Currently the article contains correct information but which is fragmented. If you ask why did the Patent Office initially refuse the application (which they did - as correctly noted in the article), it was because they said it was subjective. So Omura got the Affidavits (uploaded to WP and public docs available from the Patent Office for $25) to show that it was objective. Currently the 'threads' of the report are not linked narratively or accurately. But again, most of all, and please focus on this point, regardless of the poor 'narrative' currently, the actual description of the BDORT given is totally inaccurate. You will see also then if you read the correct description I point to above, the idea that the "forefinger" is used by the testee - as currently reported repeatedly in the article, is also completely inaccurate. Can we just get a basic accurate description please.Richardmalter 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, this is clearly a non-BLP issue, and hence this is the wrong page and forum. But addressing your point about the BDORT technique nonetheless, I did use the language from Omura's patent abstract. Although it's not as detailed as the one you describe, I think it's sufficiently detailed for our readers. They can always follow the links to Omura's writings and get more detail if they wish, about the exact finger selection, decision criteria, etc. Crum375 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Crum, this is a very BLP issue - VERY misdescribing the technique developed by a living person (for which by re-adjusting the page to focus on this very technique even more so makes this a big problem) is clearly a BLP issue. I cannot see why your resistance to a simple accurate description!. I do not see what problem you have with this. As usual you are for whatever reason "resistant" to any change, I propose - even though many other Admins/mediators/Editors have found ways to easily justify and incorporate those necessary edits I have asked for. It needs to be done in this instance, straightaway. Your record is that of defending and edit warring for many months a blatant BLP violation version which was eventually Admin deleted. I ask you now again not to continue in this vein.Richardmalter 10:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because a technique was developed by someone who is living does not make a description of that technique, accurate or not, a BLP issue. That's making a mockery of BLP. Additionally, merely because affidavits were made to the USPTO that something is "repeatable" or "objective" -- that does not make that a fact either, even if those arguments were accepted by USPTO and a patent granted. Patent filings are primary documents, and any claim stated in them is simply that: a CLAIM. Quatloo 10:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo, hello; I follow what you are saying, and generally I would say the same as you. However in this specific case Dr Omura and colleagues are saying that the BDORT is repeatable and objective - and that that is a key characteristic feature of it. Right up front (even for a minute ignoring the current technical misrepresentation), the article says "subjective". This is immediately an editorial POV, and moreso a POV comment on the work of a living person that is contradictory to the statements that living person makes about his specific work described in this article. That makes this instance a very BLP issue. To repeat, a WP editor is saying something contradictory regarding a technique to what the living person says about this, their technique! Even if, as I know, some non-expert third-party citations use the word "subjective", to include that and not to include even as claims, the statements of Dr Omura and colleagues about the reproducibility and objectivity of the technique, is also clear POV editing, ie selectively patching together an article that has a definite bias/opinion. But even beginning from a correct technical description (which no reasonable WPedian/person could argue against having in the article), the three conditions for reproducibility must be included otherwise what is described is not BDORT - and no one can argue with Omura about what BDORT is or isn't (though value assigned to it is another thing). And so even with this approach, we end up back at the same point. Thanks.Richardmalter 11:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements about a technique are just that, statements about the technique, and not about the individual who invented it. To say otherwise would mean reporting a criticism of a book, film, TV show, etc. would be also bring BLP into play and thus stifle almost all discussion of any contemporary creation. BLP was not intended for such cases, and cannot be reasonably applied. Quatloo 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

One other point, and I don't mean this to apply specifically about BDORT, since I am ignorant of it and have no opinion regarding its validity. If a topic is overwhelmingly acknowledged as quackery by the scientific community at large, it is not POV to report it being quackery while devoting no time to the opposing viewpoint. Fringe views need not be presented at all. POV would be presenting the fringe as anything except the fringe. Quatloo 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo, I do follow and agree with what you are saying re techniques etc. The problem here is I think though different: there is a discursive 'statement', or description, that is not citated, written by an editor that is completely contradictory to and summarily and conclusively dismissive of the claims made for the technique by its developer and colleagues (that can be citated). So it is not a question of reporting a negative criticism here that you comment on. It is an editorial expression/POV that contradicts the citatable material and which completely dismisses the key aspect of the work - described by his descriptions - of the developer of the technique. Richardmalter 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No argument you have raised brings BLP into play. If a technique's description (accurate or not, that is not important here) impacts BLP then we are dealing with a subject that is outside the realm of science and very much inside the realm of personality cult. *If* BLP applies, the subject is pseudoscience. Quatloo 09:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz Template:Blpwatch-links

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this but I think someone should take a look at this edit  YDAM TALK 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is really a problem here of hostile reverts and implied legal threats. Admin action requested - DGG 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• I added a proposed deletion template to the article. -- Jreferee 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• I deleted the tag and worked to improve the article. It seems to be pretty much NPOV right now and satisfy BLP policy. But everyone is very welcome to improve it further. Biophys 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephanie McIntosh Template:Blpwatch-links

Someone should read this while it is probably right also very offensive

• I removed the section that seemed improperly sourced, per WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Crum375 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• I removed a sentence for BLP violation and added one fact template. The article now seems to read OK as far as BLP issues go. -- Jreferee 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Neil Warnock Template:Blpwatch-links

Neil Warnock#Disputes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Regarding the "Disputes" section of the above article. Sub-sectioned "Players", "Managers", "Referees" and "Fans". Whilst it could be said to be entertaining, most of the information contained within these headings, and in some cases relating directly to other living persons who are themselves the subject of biographical Misplaced Pages articles, is typical 'I heard it somewhere', although qualified(?) with a range of pre-cursors such as (quote): "he is said to have commented", "involved claims that", "apparently", "is said to have", and "many Forest fans have accused him of". It remains spectacularly unsourced.

Quoting Jimmy Wales: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Quoting Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, and user pages."

Removing any of this information 'aggressively' is not an option for me, as I have already tried to edit the page in a sensible manner, and got reverted immediately. A hard-core of editors appears to exist in watching this article.

If you are happy with the nature of the prose in the Neil Warnock article, then I apologise for wasting your time. Refsworldlee(eds) 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Overall it is a rather stupid article. But then Warnock seems hard-headed enough so that his feelings will not be hurt. :-) Steve Dufour 13:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I probably would agree; however, we don't make assumptions as such in Misplaced Pages do we? Citations have been asked for. Refsworldlee(eds) 11:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Georgie Thompson Template:Blpwatch-links

Georgie Thompson- User davesmith33 is repeatedly entering information which does not have a reliable source. // Bladeofgrass 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil Dowd‎ Template:Blpwatch-links

This is another soccer-related biography which says much under a section called "Criticisms", but is told in a prosaic, non-NPOV style, obviously based on hearsay, and citing no sources. IMO, It paints a dubious picture of the subject of the biography.

Again, if you disagree, please disregard. I have presented on the Talk page for this article. Refsworldlee(eds) 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This can be closed, as the Criticisms section has been removed by a bold editor. Refsworldlee(eds) 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Then re-instated! Ho-hum. Refsworldlee(eds) 22:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre Template:Blpwatch-links

• Srebrenica massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - In the article (and on its talk page), editors Opbeith, Bosniak, Emir_Arven and potentially others are repeatedly reinserting allegations or innuendo that the head of the UN peace keeping force, Canadian General Lewis Mackenzie visited Serbian "rape camps" where he was delivered with Bosnian women and raped them. This is an absolutely absurd charge that is rooted in propaganda rather than reality; Mackenzie has very publicly questioned much of the reporting surrounding the Srebrenica Massacre and calling or suggesting that he's a rapist is a way to discredit him. To me, this looks like ad hominem at its worst and potentially libelous to boot. -- Mgunn 19:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, among its editors, the article has a number of Serbian revisionists and siege mentality Bosnians that have made rational discussion and rational editting extraordinarly difficult. It feels a little bit like an online version of the Yugoslav wars... make the other side look as bad as possible without getting banned by Misplaced Pages editors. -- Mgunn

Will Young

There have been several attempts to vandalise Will Young's biography with homophobic remarks. Luckily another member has reverted to the original material Gill P 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again there have been attempts to vandalism this biography with homophobic remarks. Again they have been removed. There has also been some editing removing some perfectly legitmate reviews of his theatre debut. They have been restored. Gill P 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

George Voinovich Template:Blpwatch-links

A lot of unsourced and speculative claims in this article. Crockspot 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Langan Template:Blpwatch-links

There are several people sitting on this article reverting to a contentious version relying on irresponsible sources (sourcing a contentious crackpot without credentials or credibility). I've removed that source, and so have several others during the last few weeks, but these edits have been are reverted. Looking at the recent edits, some of the editors seems to have a personal investment. One is so off the wall ("Felonious Monk") that he may even be the crackpot in question as he seems overly involved in the article and obsessed or preoccupied with the Langan fellow. I've heard about the feud these two have had for the last 10 years or so. Seems like wikipedia is being used in a personal vendetta. It would probably be best to err on the side of caution here and warn the editors to be more careful. Denn Blake

What we seem to have here is several editors working in tandem to blackwash an article. This isn't the first time I've seen something like this in a bio here. Denn

David Cash, Jr. Template:Blpwatch-links

This has been changed a few times to libel another person with a similar name. The claims about a positive photo ID and attending Berkeley are false. Can we fix this more permanently? 76.17.126.213 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Shane MacGowan

Full of technically potentially libellous comment. I ve commented in more detail on the comments talk page through the tag but not sure if anyone goes there. Thank you High Heels on Wet Pavement 00:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Prechter

I've added documented material (from the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, etc.) to the article on Robert Prechter. Prechter's employee, User:Rgfolsom keeps on reverting the material. Please note that this article is currently involved in a lengthy request for arbitration involving both Rgfolsom and myself. Smallbones 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Prechter Template:Blpwatch-links

Article is at issue in a current Arbitration case. User:Smallbones is posting non-factual and defamatory remarks about the subject, including ridicule and name calling ("voodoo," "looniness"). This is not in keeping with a biography written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, is potentially libelous, and violates WP:BLP, a policy that the Arbitration committee has strongly reaffirmed in a recent ruling. Have twice removed the offending material in the past 30 minutes. Requesting administrator intervention. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Careful with your facts! That's 3 times you've reverted this article in about an hour. Smallbones 15:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Oaten Template:Blpwatch-links

Mark Oaten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been a battleground of sorts for an allegation of coprophilia only sourced to a satire mag. It appears a reliable source may have also picked up on it now, but I already got burned once on British sources and don't want to get burned again, so if a few people could review it so I'm not the only one watching it, that'd be great. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Wretström Template:Blpwatch-links

This article is a violation of the Swedish personal data law since the killers name has not been published in Swedish journalistic media and I don't think it has been published in media outside Sweden. Therefore the article of the supposed killer has been deleted from Swedish Misplaced Pages (sv:Misplaced Pages:Sidor föreslagna för radering/Khaled Odeh). His name should therefore be deleted from all versions of this article that mention it. //StefanB sv 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you know it's in violation of any Law, remove it immediately, don't post here! Ask Jimbo. Refsworldlee(eds) 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't violating any laws. Only US jurisdiction applies on en.wikipedia.org -- not Swedish. To say otherwise means the extreme -- you consent to enforce Islamic law (as specified by Iran), etc. an all US wikipedia servers, and so forth. Quatloo 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If the killer's name hasn't been published anywhere, isn't it a violation of BLP, not because it's illegal in Sweden, but simply because it contains unsourced negative statements? If you're going to state that someone is a killer, BLP requires a source. Ken Arromdee 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the Odeh sentence as it violated BLP. -- Jreferee 02:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike Honda Template:Blpwatch-links

Can someone please take a look at this article? One (or more?) Japanese anonymous editor keeps adding some obscure conspiracy theory and subtle racism, flatly contradicted by reputable English article. ThreesCompany 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Coburn Template:Blpwatch-links

A small section of this article, "Sterilization controversy," is, in my POV unnecessary because it contains an unsubstantiated charge; a legal case was filed, but then dismissed with no further action. Several users have attempted to delete this section, but it keeps getting restored. We would appreciate your looking into this matter. Thank you. ProfessorPaul 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff Template:Blpwatch-links

• Carlos Latuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Some editors keep insering unsourced comments his cartoons are "antilocution cartoons that demonize". It's obviously unsourced, but I don't know if it's controversial enough to risk a 3RR violation. Comments would be welcome. // Liftarn 11:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: New inserts are that he is called a hollocause denier (appears to be a mixup between the conference and the cartoon contest). A flickr.com page is used as source (is that reliable?). Also some cartoons are described as "monsters and as nazis" (the source would be the images themselves, no other source given). // Liftarn 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz Template:Blpwatch-links

• Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)A sizable amount of this biography is currently sourced to usenet postings. The artcile subject is mildly notable for having filed a possibly record number of FOIA requests related to Scientology, whcih are generally seen as groundless and obsessive. Beyond that info, which can be sourced to a minor news artcile, a group of editors, at least one of whom is involved in a rather nasty and abusive flame war with the article's subject, have been aggressively blocking attempts to removed the non WP:RS usenet sourcing, which seems to be included only to cast the article subject in a negative light by highlighting her personal troubles. The page has been locked by an admnin who himself is a public critic of Scientology outside of Misplaced Pages (as are the editors blocking removal and discussion of the non WP:RS usenet sources. The basics are on the Talk page for the artcile. BabyDweezil 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly an attack page. When it was nominated for deletion before a call was put out on Usenet to bring in votes for its retention, and still it just barely survived. Steve Dufour 06:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. What is ironic is that they think by attacking Barbara, who left the Church of Scientology but didn't join their group, they are somehow scoring points against Scientology. Steve Dufour 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion as an attack page but that was taken off right away. Steve Dufour 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• BabyDweezil and Justanother appear to me to be editing this article's Talk page to disrupt discussions and to attack editors who contributed to the re-creation of the article, after it was blanked by Fred Bauder lat year. At that time, the aticle was entirely rewritten to include sources meeting WP:RS and the article's re-creation was watched carefully by Fred and others to ensure the article followed WP:BLP policy. BabyDweezil's statements "A sizable amount of this biography is currently sourced to usenet postings" and similar allegations are false; the article's sources include newspaper articles and court documents published by the United States government, which meet WP:RS. Likewise, the statement that one editior " is involved in a rather nasty and abusive flame war with the article's subject" is extremely misleading, since the article's subject is well known for her libelous and abusive postings to the Usenet where she attacks anyone and everyone who refuses to accept her delusions as factual accounts, and therefore the subject of the article is involved in "a nasty and abusive flame war" with nearly everyone she encounters on the entire Usenet. BabyDweezil and Justanother have stated an intent to "cut down to what notable parts it may have and then perhaps AfD" this article, as the subject was the former president of scientology in Germany, and the well documented and well sourced antics of this former scientology leader are, without doubt, an embarressment for the scientology organization. Both editors have claimed an affinity for the scientology organization (and one editor admits being part of it), thus making it difficult to presume they are keeping a NPOV with their interest in the article. The scientology organization is well known for harassing those who do not support it and for attempting to conceal its beliefs and practices from public scrutiny which may be an embarressment to it. Nevertheless, the subject is notable for other reasons besides that involving scientology, and the subject's notability has been discussed at length and on repeated occasions as an examination of the article's Talk page archives will attest. However, I see the actions of these editors as being disruptive and a pro-scientology POV push by removing information from Misplaced Pages which is factual, well-sourced, and accurate, but embarressing to the scientology organization, and request that editors not involved with this article examine the article's Talk page, and examine the nature of the edits and behavior of BabyDweezil and Justanother on it. Orsini 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "and one editor admits being part of it". OH MY GOD. Susie, did you hear that? What, Nancy? There is a SCIENTOLOGIST editing here! You are kidding! No, really, one slipped in somehow. Well, get him out. We're working on it, dearie. He's a tough one. --Justanother 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I genuinely feel sorry for her on a personal level, sadly she has by her own actions made herself noteworthy for several reasons.

• 1. Ms. Schwarz has filed a very large amount of FOIA litigation regarding information she believes the government has concerning her life. I wish the circumstances were different, but what sets her apart is the unique reality she accepts as her motivation to litigate. Even more remarkable is that she has done this pro se (representing herself) without a law degree or even full command of written English. I don't mean the latter point to be an insult, it is actually a setback she overcame to make her case anyway. In a society where many citizens question the government's good faith in sharing information, Ms. Schwarz is historical. In my opinion it shows that the government does take FOIA seriously and that it can be abused. The specific circumstances I wish the article didn't have to discuss are her "delusions". It is for that reason I feel the article should be limited to discussing them as the relate to her motivation.
  2. Ms. Schwarz was subjected to a forced deprogramming session. The concept of such practices seems to be a source for debate, and to those interested I think Ms. Schwarz is a relevant topic.
  3. Ms. Schwarz has gained attention due to her posts to several online forums, including a self published autobiographical series on USENET and her hostile behavior to other users. Some editors on the Barbara Schwarz page seem to equate this as the only evidence citied for her strange beliefs in regards to the first point. That is not accurate, the main source of information is actually available directly from various government sources. The biography corroborates and expands her legal claims.

I believe that much of the debate about this article comes wholly from either WP:POV or COI concerns.

• Steve Dufour is trying to have the article removed because he made a commitment to Ms. Schwarz to do so to spare her embarrassment. This seems to violate some aspects of WP:COI.
• Justanother seems to believe the article is an indirect attack on the CoS due to Ms. Schwarz's previous association with the church.
• BabyDweezil appears to have followed User:Tilman to the article in an attempt at harassment with accusations of COI violations. When this failed, BabyDweezil has lingered to support his/her friend Justanother as friends often do.

I do not mean to offend you all, but I seriously think you are letting emotion get the better of your judgment in this case. Anynobody 04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that friendship and concern for another person should not be involved in the WP editing process? Steve Dufour 12:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. Can we not just discuss the article without trying to divine the motives of people that we do not know and have only the barest of interactions with. Orsini is clearly in WP:NPA land and, Anynobody, my friend, you are not far off. --Justanother 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And you are both definitely in ad hominem land. Let's stick to the issues, shall we? --Justanother 05:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that we are attacking you Justanother, I can assure you that is not my intent. Honestly, since User:BabyDweezil and yourself began editing here the points you've both raised have been addressed before. Judging from the size of the archives, I'd guess the same argument has played out in them over and over with different editors. The points I am making come from a genuine good faith attempt to explain that your feelings are perhaps getting in the way.

• User:Steve Dufour Admitted his reasons.

Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Deletion discussions and deleted archives Continuing to push for AfD given the above link, seems personal to me. Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 9#Notability? I've never claimed to be neutral. I know Barbara and the only reason I have had anything to do with her article is because she mentioned it to me and I told her I would try to get it removed. I think I said that on my first post, or if not soon after. The only thing I have done* is try to bring it to the attention of people so they can judge if it should be here according to Misplaced Pages policy. That's for them to decide, not me. There do seem to be wide differences of opinion here about what Misplaced Pages should or shouldn't be. Steve Dufour 01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• User:BabyDweezil Appears to have had it in for User:Tilman from the start, and has supported you ever since attempts to get User:Tilman blocked for COI violations failed.

Talk:Barbara Schwarz#What's the point of this ridiculous, gratuitous article? The appearance of BabyDweezil is my fault. I mentioned Barbara Schwarz in another discussion which he probably read, as an example for administrator intervention due to (apparently) a complaint, and how the article was forcibly deleted, but then rewritten from scratch, resulting in a similar article (differently written, but same contents).

Sorry. --Tilman 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Tilman--conflict of interest editing this article?? Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Tilman, time to recuse yourself per WP:COI

• User:Justanother Your edits and discussion appear to focus on the Scientology aspects of the article and other's agendas for editing (which I take to mean either you think there is an agenda against Ms. Schwarz as a person or an agenda against Scientology). (Please understand I know that isn't all you discuss, but it is a very common topic).

Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Re: "president of Scientology" claim But there is no source shown that says she was the president of CoS. Just that someone with the same not uncommon name was. --Justanother 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Clean up needed I think I see material in the article that seems to be pushing an agenda by utilizing non-RS sources (usenet) or primary sources. She is not that notable and some "notability" seems to be being manufactured here. --Justanother 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC) An ad hominem attack doesn't include concern for one's ability to speak about a subject related to their spiritual belief without those beliefs possibly getting in the way. After all you are a Scientologist, therefore in a subject with a possible negative connotation for Scientology (negative in the sense that it isn't positive) you may be running into some COI issues. Anynobody 06:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Like I said over at Tilman's, this analyzing of motives to see whose are holier is really starting to weird me out. Don't anyone worry though, I'll clench up and get through it, I'm not leaving you! Just don't expect me to address that crap in any seriousness. BTW, guys. You don't really think that anyone that has a life is going to slog through all of this to see if there is some question here that this board can address, do you? If anyone really has a question for this board, I recommend that they close this topic and start a new one without all the amateur (or professional, who knows) psychobabble and attacks on other editors and just ask the damn question. Assuming there is some question. Is there a question? --Justanother 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BabyDweezil did indeed appear with a disruptive attitude. I had mentioned Barbara Schwarz in the ICSA discussion, as an example of an "extreme" admin intervention due to (possibly) OTRS. He then appeared and questioned everything, including matters that had been settled and discussed long ago - when pointed to this, he wrote "Yes, but the arguments haven't been made with my silver tongued eloquence!". He then accused me of having a conflict of interest. The basis of this were usenet posts where Barbara had attacked me. (She has attacked about every scientology critic on the usenet) Anyway, all that User:BabyDweezil has accomplished is other people wasting enormous amounts of time, energy and braincells so that HE gets attention :-( --Tilman 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And we are still going round on this and he is not even here. This was his item. Let's close it and he can open a new one when he gets back and we will see if we can pose a question for this board that they might actually be interested in addressing 'cause I gar-n-ass-tee-u that no non-involved editor in his right mind will jump in now. So what is the point? --Justanother 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

An easy solution would be to delete the whole Barbara Schwarz article. Then you would not have to waste your time and energy there. You are not scoring any points against Scientology by attacking Barbara. Steve Dufour 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to Steve Dufour's proposal on the draft page. I've reset it in case anyone else wants to create an example. Thanks again, Steve Dufour. Anynobody 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Anynobody. I tried to improve the article by taking out all the trivial and uncited material. It is perhaps no longer an attack article with this done, but that doesn't make Barbara notable enough for an article however. Steve Dufour 12:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about article moved from Tilamn's talk page

Analyzing motives, again, Anynobody? Why don't we just discuss the issues in the article in reference to the policies instead of trying to make some case that your motives are holier than mine or Dweezil's? That is kinda weirding me out. --Justanother 06:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really much to discuss in the article. It was all settled before User:BabyDweezil started to disrupt an article he knew nothing about. --Tilman 06:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe. But it ain't like there is a lot to learn. It ain't string theory. ps If I occasionally use slang (like gar-n-ass-tee-u) that you are not familiar with, I apologize. --Justanother 07:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to take matters off the Barbar Schwarz talk page, User:BabyDweezil forced my hand so to speak by setting up a complaint on WP:BLPN. The observations I've made on the BLPN are observations I've held to myself and would have continued to do so until matters went to a WP board. Again sorry, this wasn't my idea. Anynobody 08:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Tilman. Unless Justanother has more to say feel free to nix this section.Anynobody 08:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Anynobody, one final thought. Just remember that "assume good faith" means "expend effort to do so", IMO. If you need to, if it is not coming easily. It means take all those niggling doubts about people's motives and make the effort to set them aside and make the effort to assume good faith. Make the effort to assume that when someone says they will help another with seeing that if the article can go away, they mean that they will put it up for the community to decide if it belongs here, not interfere with the process, and abide by the decision of the community. Make the effort to assume that when someone says Tilman has a conflict of interest, that they believe that Tilman's fighting and ridiculing this person for years on usenet means that he should leave it to neutral editors since he clearly is not neutral on her. And when I say we don't have any proof she was the president of the Church, please make the effort to assume I simply mean that we do this encyclopedia a disservice to rely on usenet rumor that someone with the same common name is the person that filed those FOIA requests. If you read WP:BLP, that is what we are supposed to do, insist on good sources! High quality sources and we have none. Yet some would put in the encyclopedia that the FOIA person was past president, just based on usenet. Maybe she was, I don't know and I don't care (really), it is just we don't have a source. Assume good faith takes work, sometimes, my friend. But it is work worth doing. Otherwise you find yourself going out on limbs attacking people's motives (see WP:NAM, really, read that one all the way through) and avoiding that is the least of the benefits of AGF. The real benefit is a spiritual one but that is a matter of personal belief. I even AGF Tilman that his activities, that I feel are repressive of religious freedom in his own country, are based on his heartfelt beliefs of the "dangers" of these groups and while I think he is as misguided as he no doubt thinks I am, I think we each AGF on the part of the other (though he doesn't like me ribbing him, smile). If we can, I imagine that you should be able to. --Justanother 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanother I appreciate that you feel my observations about your behavior are incorrect and lack good faith. I I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, as I have proven when I misunderstood the talk you and User:BabyDweezil had regarding AfD after parring down the article. To that point I'm willing to look at any citations you are willing to show me from your comments and discussions in case I am wrong. Honestly I still AGF on your part in the sense that I don't think you are intentionally giving into the "bias" (for lack of a better term) of feelings for your spirituality. I urge you to take some time and read through your posts. In doing so count how many times you accuse editors of having an agenda with vague comments like this:

Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Clean up needed I think I see material in the article that seems to be pushing an agenda by utilizing non-RS sources (usenet) or primary sources. She is not that notable and some "notability" seems to be being manufactured here. --Justanother 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Justanother I think this is a similar mistake to when you forgot that WP:BLP applies to articles just the same as sections of an article. You genuinely don't seem to realize that you have let your feelings get in the way, which is why I still AGF on your part. Anynobody 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Ratner Template:Blpwatch-links

Michael Ratner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A new editor has a remarkable interest in the real estate dealings of the subject of this article's brother, and wants to source claims of some kind of questionable financial dealings to their research into government records. Jkelly 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Walsh (rugby)

The entire article is being used to paint Steve Walsh in a poor light. This article should be removed and/or locked.

Bardcom 10:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He is a referee. I don't see what purpose the article could have. Steve Dufour 12:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I just checked out the article's discussion page and some people think he is important. Steve Dufour 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope this can be 'put to bed' now, as I have been in and added sources for the information contained in the article. Cheers. Refsworldlee(eds) 12:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun

This is not really an article but a missing person notice. Steve Dufour 12:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi Template:Blpwatch-links

In the article about Naeim Giladi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), some editors are inserting direct links to white supremacists, neo-nazis web-sites, such as Kevin Alfred Strom of National Vanguard and the Adelaide Institute. I beleive this violates both WP:RS and it is Poisoning the well. Comments? Regards, Huldra 13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson Template:Blpwatch-links

• Template:Pauline Hanson - the subject is a controversial Australian politician who has recently announced her candidacy in the upcoming federal election. A media organisation conducted a DNA test of dubious validity (a Torres Strait Islander was supposedly of European and Asian but not Melanesian ancestry) and presented the results to the subject, as reported in a newspaper story. In this story she is quoted as saying "All I can think of is that probably down the track it eventuated from some war.", but we are not given the precise context of these remarks. Some editors have inserted this material into the biographical article, along with various attempts to ascribe racist views to the subject - see here for discussion. My main problem with this material is that it is of transitory notability - it belongs in a news article but not a biographical article, unless it develops "legs", which a search for follow-up articles shows none. But for BLP purposes, the quote is not well sourced in that we are not given any dialogue or record of conversation, so we cannot tell what, precisely, the subject was responding to. We must depend on the media organisation's own interpretation, and this has been reinterpreted in the attempts to summarise it for the biographical article. --Pete 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how it has been reinterpreted as you claim. A simple mention of the story is there. Current version of quote: "All I can think of is that probably down the track it eventuated from some war" "rape and pillage" - "But I'm not going to knock it. It has made me who I am." - on discovering the results of a media-sponsored DNA test which claim Ms. Hanson's genetic makeup has 9 per cent originating in the Middle East, 32 per cent from Italy, Greece or Turkey and 59 per cent from northern Europe"Merbabu 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For a start, your quote above is confected. Even taking the article at face value she didn't use those words in that order. All the paper tells us is that her words eventually followed "When told of the results, the former fish and chip shop owner appeared flustered...". We are not told of any intervening conversation, and therefore we cannot say to what statement or question, precisely, she was responding. The paper gives one interpretation, and when summarising it for the article you neccessarily reinterpret it. But I am not satisfied that the newspaper, in setting up what is clearly a stunt, has told us the full story. You appear to take the whole thing at face value, but it might be that Ms Hanson was responding to something quite different, perhaps the results of another person, or possibly the methodology of the test. You note that we are not told explicitly that it was her results to which she gave the response. We should be skeptical of media outlets which set up stunts of this nature, because they can misdirect the reader to make for a better story in order to sell more papers. Using such sources without corroboration in a biographical article is unwise or gullible, particularly when the subject is controversial. --Pete 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not "my" quote. It is (was) how the article sat when you posted here. And if the order bothers you, then change it - it won't change the meaning of the article. I'm sure if it was something you wanted to hear you woudln't be playing games about "interpretations" and "context". I thought our role was NOT to intepret. Furthermore, are you accusing "me" of "reinterpreting" or "taking it at face value". Which one? Furthermore, if sources cannot be summarised for inclusion in WP, then we are in big trouble - any sourced info on WP is likely to be summarised (or paraphrasing?) - do you mean you've never done it? hmm. If the interpretation is the issue then i suggest you offer an alternative.Merbabu 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The single source for the quote is too vague as to context for us to use it without making our own interpretation. --Pete 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that Pauline Hanson built her political career on views that have often been described as racist, so her own race, and her response to apparently being only mostly white, is notable. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking notability here, but quality of source. Do you have any input on this? --Pete 09:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Quality of source? It happened - no one is pretending it didn't. Yes, it was a media stunt, no is suggesting otherwise, but it got a reaction that is notable - ie, hanson's apparent discomfort with it. The WP article doesn't add any interpretation to it. Merbabu 10:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the source . I invite 3rd parties to check it for themselves. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Lamborn Wilson Template:Blpwatch-links

Peter Lamborn Wilson is not a widely known author---his areas of interest run from pirates to Islamic heresy to anarchism---but he is a source of controversy. Much of the controversy in the Misplaced Pages article, though, relates to a pseudonym (Hakim Bey) he has used over the years for some of the books and essays he has written. In the article, in the opening paragraph, we find the following sentence: "He sometimes writes under the name Hakim Bey. The pseudonym may or may not have been a name-of-convenience or collective pseudonym used by other radical writers since the 1970s." I submit that this pseudonym has been used by other writers, and that it is impossible to prove that everything written and published under that pseudonym was in fact the product of Peter Lamborn Wilson. Given this, and given the controversial nature of a small percentage of those writings (dealing with pederasty/pedophilia), I submit that the criticisms within the article (i.e., that Peter Lamborn Wilson advocates pedophilia) are unjustified, unsubstantiated, and may qualify as libel. I have stated a number of times in the article talk page that verifiable evidence, per Misplaced Pages policy, must be submitted that proves all of the articles were written by the same person, and that person is, in fact, Peter Lamborn Wilson. All of these statements on my part have been rebuffed. So, I bring this issue here, I ask for an examination of the article, and a discussion of its content. Thank you. ---Charles 22:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun Template:Blpwatch-links

Non WP:RS that violate WP:BLP are being reverted back into the artcile. See recent history and Talk page.BabyDweezil 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This article really should be deleted. He is only noted as the object of conspiracy theories, which may very well be true but still are not WP material. Steve Dufour 04:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

you are looking only at that section. His work for Scientology is N in its own right. But is this notice about fairness to him, or to B.Schwartz?DGG

I happen to be an (online) friend of Barbara. I feel sorry for her because of the attacks against her; which mainly take place on Usenet but also here where she is the subject of an attack article, Barbara Schwarz. Having said that, I would like to see the section about her views removed from Mark's article. I will not nominate his article for deletion; however he is really not notable. Just holding a job, however important that job may be in the little world of Scientology, is not enough to be the subject of a WP bio. Steve Dufour 01:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to nominate Barbara Schwarz for deletion but was not able to figure out the process since it has been nominated 3 times before. Steve Dufour 07:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added a notability tag to Mark's article. Steve Dufour 18:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

More sources have been added and in general the article has been improved. If anyone knows about Mark's whereabouts please let the FBI know. Steve Dufour 20:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Regnery Publishing

A big part of the article is about an employee who was fired for plagiarism done in his college days. The Wonkette is cited as a source for certain rumors about him. Steve Dufour 04:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I read this section and examined the sources used. I don't have a problem with the sources. Wonkette in this case is probably acceptable as this regards an event that occurred in the Blogosphere and the Wonkette writer has knowledge due to previous employment. That being said, the section almost certainly does not belong in the Regnery article at all, since it is too tangential, and adds nothing to our understanding of Regnery. It looks more like part of a vendetta against either Ben Domenech or more likely, Regnery. Quatloo 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help. The section has been put back in with the reason given being basically that Regnery is an evil, right-wing publisher and anything that can be found that might be negative about it should be included in the article. I don't feel like getting into a fight over it, however. Steve Dufour 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It reads like just trivial gossip to me. I bet that most publishers have fired editors and other employees for more serious offensives. It would make more sense to just say that Regnery is hated for derailing John Kerry's career. Roger 05:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What it really does is make the anti-Regnery people look a bit out of touch. Steve Dufour 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Inayat Bunglawala Template:Blpwatch-links

• Inayat Bunglawala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - What takes precedence; WP:RS or WP:BLP? A blog accused Mr. Bunbglawala of sending them threatening e-mail, but ultimately found it could not prove it. Several users wish to add this accusation in since it was mentioned in an Israeli tabloid. I have taken the "Presumption in favor of privacy" guideline in BLP, others disagree. Whether YNet is even an RS at all is also another issue. // Tarc 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Given that the site is a blog, it makes my decision easier to say that WP:BLP takes precedence. The source doesn't really seem that reliable. But even then, I think that BLP should take precedence because if there's something that a person doesn't want others to know, or that others don't deem pertinent to the encyclopedia at all, it should be able to be disregarded. There's always that factor of "is this important/relevant enough to be included?" So in short, I say remove the information if it is deemed inappropriate in context. _└┘talk  00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to drop a line when I read this yesterday. Just wanted to say thanks for the input. :) Tarc 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

TARC mis the issue. ynetnews is a source that fits WP:RS. This site is used extensivly in wkipedia. this is the web site of Israel's leading news paper. This is not an issue of blog Vs Misplaced Pages policy but an issue of wikipedia llowed to publish what was already published by WP:RS source. Zeq 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, you are now completely misrepresenting and distorting the dispute. The primary issue was exactly as I noted above, regarding what takes precedence. I mentioned Ynet as an RS as aside to the primary issue. I did not and have not edited the article due to a question of Ynet being a reliable source; I edited it due to the policy on WP:BLP. Tarc 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Kate Mulgrew Template:Blpwatch-links

• Kate Mulgrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Acting on a ANI report, I've indefblocked a user, Taylor364 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who did almost nothing but blank Talk:Kate Mulgrew repeatedly. That user has now issued a legal threat. On further investigation, it appears that Timfhagan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – who may be Mulgrew's (ex-?)husband, U.S. politician Tim Hagan – had tried, earlier, to have information removed from the article and/or talk page, apparently pertaining to Mulgrew's stance on abortion or about an adoption of hers. Given this, we can speculate that Taylor364 is a sockpuppet of Timfhagan, and that if this is so, the legal threat would come from Tim Hagan. I'm unsure on how to proceed in such a situation – does this need Office attention of any sort? – and if yes, whom to contact. Guidance by those versed in WP:BLP matters would be appreciated. See also this explanation of the issue by an involved user on my talk page. // Sandstein 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, I don't think we should jump to conclusions. For all we know, she could be telling the truth. I would suggest that you possibly run checkuser on both of the people, to get a better sense of whether they're sock puppets. Given those are sockpuppets, you can rule out any possibility of it being either one of those who they say they are. If not, though, then I think the person has a right to take off whatever they don't want on the page about them. It's only right. But I doubt that that is actually Kate Mulgrew. But again, don't just assume. _└┘talk  00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I don't quite understand what you are saying. I've no reason to assume that Kate Mulgrew herself is involved in editing her article. My question was whether the legal threat by someone who may be her husband warrants any further action. Sandstein 06:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Well, again, checkuser all of the usernames in question and if they're all coming from the same place, it's probably just some vandal trying to find a hole in the system is all. Then, just revert the comment as vandalism. _└┘talk  13:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Erwin Raphael McManus Template:Blpwatch-links

• Erwin Raphael McManus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Appears to be a church figure who has supporters and enemies. The enemies (either one person or with sock-puppets) are persistently reverting to an unwikified critical version that mainly links to a bunch of anti-this-guy blogs. One or two of his supporters occasionally revert to a hagiographic version, which isn't a good article either but at least isn't potentially libelous. Both sides seem to like to keep removing my cleanup tags. --Delirium 07:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Garth Turner Template:Blpwatch-links

• Garth Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A new editor, using the username Dorothy turner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the IP 65.95.112.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been altering information on Canadian politician Garth Turner. (The article lists Dorothy Turner as the spouse of Garth Turner.) Moogle10000 (talk · contribs) interpreted this as a violation of NPOV and COI, and warned the Dorothy Turner account heavily. I'm concerned that the Dorothy Turner edits were an attempt to establish better balance in the article, and that the NPOV warnings were a bit close to WP:BITE. I don't know enough about the situation to judge which side is closer to NPOV, but I'm worried that the editors on that article don't have a solid enough grasp of WP:BLP. Editors who understand BLP and Canadian politics are invited to examine the situation. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Robbie Keane

I cleared up some of the mess which has been left, but someone is obsessed with "Snuff FC" and I don't know all the correct detaila about his playing statistics to be able to fix them all. (Jim901 20:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

I have been in and supplied a whole load of sources, contained in References section; also cut out some false redlink cats at the bottom. Perhaps other editors would like to go in and help further? By the way, this isn't really the correct place to put this report is it? It seems to be merely a 'talk page' subject. I can see no biographical controversy in the Robbie Keane article. Refsworldlee(eds) 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete Townshend

The article on Pete Townshend is being hi-jacked by two people (or possibly one person with a sock-puppet account). There was an edit war of considerable intensity that was waged on the article about one year ago. It was then settled with a consensus. But only after the text had grown wildy disproportionate in length and with inflammatory language. The calm prevailed for approx. a year. It has flared up badly again.

The story in a nutshell is that in 2003 Townshend was briefly under suspicion of having downloaded child pornography. The UK police investigated thoroughly, Took away 14 computers from Townshend. Spent 4 months on forensic investigation. Then elected NOT to charge Townshend with any crime. It issued a statement declaring that they had found no images. Townshend had vountarily acknowledged that he had ACCESSED a site on a single occasion - which was certainly a technical breach of the law. The police elected to caution him and Townshend accepted the caution. End of story. Receiving a caution in England is not the same as if you have done nothing wrong. But neither is it a legal conviction or judgement of guilt as that is construed by other countries or by lay persons.

There has been a concerted effort to insert inflammatory (and possibly defamatory) language into the article that will brand Townshend as though he had been charged and found guilty in a court of law. And the sheer quantity of data about an incident that covered 5 months duration in a 43 year career is wildly disproportionate. You can see the excessive exchanges on the Talk page - and the endless edit war of the past 2-3 days prior to an administrator locking the page (which I think was a prudent decision)

Anyway - I believe that this is a serious situation - with a possible sock-puppet account being used as part of a systematic and relentless attempt to demean the subect of the article. It seems to be a vendetta. Assistance and wise counsel much appreciated. Davidpatrick 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Burt Reynolds

burt reynolds page vandalised again by unregistered user 172.189.14.186 he removed the entire reference section of which he had nothing to do with thus taking away all the citation of reference for most of the articles please stop these vandals, i have asked a few times if you could do the same thing other pages have and block edits by unregistered users, please help~~ Rogue_Gremlin 10:25pm (EST) Feb 18, 2007

Please use edit summaries and use the preview button rather than making repeated edits in succession. Most of the last 100 edits are from you, so it's kinda hard to follow what is going on. One IP user removed a hoard of external links ... probably excessively many unless there's some important reason to have them there. But that's likely a content dispute - we don't protect pages simply because there is a disagreement - we only protect them because of persistent vandalism. --BigDT 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been persistent vandalism, the externals links removed was the (entire Reference section), that helped to validate the entire page, including the proper citations for almost everything on the page. This is not disagreement stuff, it is straight out vandalism when others work is completely removed. Rogue_Gremlin 11:05pm (est) feb 2007

Colin Angus

A contributor is repeatedly adding the same libelous and unsubstantiated information to the biography of expeditioner Colin Angus. A warning has been issued, and changes made, however, the offender continues posting the same negative messages from different IP addresses. There is no information on or off the internet that supports these allegations."Kingfisher2"

Shawn Hornbeck Template:Blpwatch-links

The article has once again been protected. The current dispute is over whether or not we should call him a "kidnapping victim" or "an alleged kidnapping victim." Outside opinions are needed and necessary. AniMate 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If the case has still not been decided in court I think you have to say "alleged". In general, as I said a couple times above, I don't think the victim of a crime, especially a child, should be the subject of a WP article at all. Steve Dufour 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir on that one, but there are some people very invested in keeping the article. It's been protected several times, and I'm more than likely going to nominate it for deletion once the media attention dies down. Hopefully we can get it merged into the Michael Devlin article in the future. AniMate 03:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. I would think that 99% of everyone would think that there is something wrong with an article that details the sexual abuse of a child. Why doesn't WP have a policy to remove it right away? Steve Dufour 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 110%. However, these AFDs show that people really think these are valid articles. They've been arguing for the inclusion of their birth dates and want as much info as possible. I absolutely think we need policy that states explicitly what should and shouldn't be included in these articles... and whether or not any of these articles should exist. As it stands, I'm appalled that these kids privacy is being abused after everything they've (allegedly) been through. AniMate 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to recomend WP to other people, as much as I generally like it myself, if the WP community seems to have such a blind spot about this issue. Steve Dufour 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam Keller

The article claims he is a supporter of Hezbollah. Two links are given. One in Dutch and one in Hebrew. I managed to get a babelfish translation of the Dutch article and the article says no such thing. // Liftarn

Yevgenia_Albats

Repeated violations by User:Vlad fedorov who is trying to defame all critics of Putin's administration. See my arguments here Talk:Yevgenia_Albats#Violation_of_BLP_rules. This issue has been resolved by User:Alex Bakharev who wrote a compromise NPOV version (me and everyone else except Vlad Fedorov agree with this version), but User:Vlad fedorov continue inserting POV, and poorly supported "exceptional claims" in the article. Biophys 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Vlad repeatedly inserts defamatory and not supported by any independent sources claims about Yevgenia Albats made by Arutunyan who is a side of a controversy (see Talk:Yevgenia_Albats#Violation_of_BLP_rules). Then, he uses defamatory statements made by Arutunyan to discredit another journalist Anna Politkovskaya (see his edits of her article and also Putin's Russia. Actually, Yevgenia Albats struggled to protect reputation of murdered Anna Politkovskaya from defamation by Arutunyan allegedly ordered by Putin's administration (see Yevgenia Albats article).Biophys 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Alex Bakharev edited the article from which talk show scandal was deleted by User:Ilgiz. Moreover, Alex Bakharev has reintroduced the information according to which father of Albats was a GRU spy, which was repeatedly deleted by users Biophys and Colchicum. Alex Bakharev version doesn't endorses personal opinion of Biophys and Alex Bakharev doesn't endorsed you empty accusations.Vlad fedorov 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no any evidence that anyone except users Biophys, Colchicum and Ilgiz agree with the version of Biophys. Two other users are collegues of Biophys.

I would like to respond the following to the accusation of Biophys:

• First, users Biophys and Colchicum never contacted me on a Talk page and tried to resolve the dispute. In fact they just demanded me to stop the editing of the articles. They also never tried to resolve the dispute. They also haven't presented evidence of trying to resolve the dispute with me. Complains to the Administrators noticeboards and false, unsupported accusations of my violations of Misplaced Pages policies are not a method of resolving the dispute.

• Second, they violate 'good faith' obligatory assumption in cliaming that I stalk them. I am a newcomer to the Misplaced Pages. I was brought to the Misplaced Pages, because the article on Boris Stomakhin created by Biophys was completely outrageous since it turned everything uspide down. Convicted criminal Stomakhin was presented as a hero, besides his calls to exterminate all Russians, to destroy Russian with atomic explosion, to commit terrorist attacks on Russian civilians.

• Third, accusations presented here were already taken up at vurtually every Administrators, incident, 3RR, BLP noticeboards and administrators talk pages. So they just mainly repeat their accusations. I have never received any warnings from administrators, because otherwise they would have gladly published these warnings already here. I was just arbitrarily blocked by non-Russian, English speaking admin William Connolley. This admin, however, later helped me to clarify the points of dispute which I had with Biophys over Boris Stomakhin article, but unfortunately he left the discussion on the talk page of Boris Stomakhin article, when the critical decision on the validity of Biophys accusations was needed.

• Fourth, these accusations pursue the goal to harass me and to stop me from contributing another POV into the articles dedicated to Russia.

• Fifth, I also would like to bring all these issues to the arbitration, because the allegations of Biophys and Colchicum that I violate Misplaced Pages policy by citing reliable sources defame me and are directed not on the sources, but on my person. I would like to have finally a decision of an arbitrator/mediator/administrator that my sources are valid and reliable, the are not contradictory and do not violate anything. The problem is that Biophys claims that every my contribution violates Misplaced Pages policies. This is a strategy taken by him in order to discredit every introduced material presenting other point of view.

The underlying problem, in my opinion, is the personal dislike of me and revenge of user Biophys against me for the following:

1)Dispute over Boris Stomakhin article.

In this dispute Biophys has created this article in order to present the evidence for human rights violations in Russia and to make the point in the article Human rights in Russia. However, the initial version of this article was totaly one-sided and presented just allegations of human rights activists and other defenders of Boris Stomakhin. In order to make the article NPOV and to add other POV I have added the official text of the Court sentence and Investigation conclusion on Boris Stomakhin. Also I have added Boris Stomakhin citation taken from the official website of his organization. These contributions made Biophys personal opinion on Stomakhin and his initial version of the article to look controversial. The edit war resulted because Biophys claimed that all my sources violate biography of living person policy. He was deleting opinions of the journalists from such respectable Russian newspapers as Komsomolskaya Pravda, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Izvestia. See the respective version of my edit of Boris Stomakhin article here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boris_Stomakhin&oldid=105173635

In order to delete my contributions from the article, Biophys had employed a strategy of accusing me of violations of Misplaced Pages policies. Namely, he declared that all my contributions are taken from the contradictory sources which violate Misplaced Pages BLP policy. Namely he claimed that the article of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov who also was a talk show showman and is very respectable and famous journalist in Russia contradicts to the website of Boris Stomakhin. It was established that from the citated passage two citations of Boris Stomakhin are found in his articles on his website, and the third citation is not found here. Therefore it was established that Biophys claims about contradictions are false. See the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22.

As Biophys failed to present the evidence of contradictions he chose to accuse me of other violations http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy. He claimed after that the source (Izvestia newspaper article) is unreliable, it is not neutral, and it is "non-encyclopedic". As you see these accusations are not supported by any facts and resent just empty accusations. It is laughable to claim that the source is not neutral, sine the neutrality may be restored by presenting other POV and it is easy enough. However, Biophys pursued the goal of complete deletion of sources presenting POV which contradicts to his personal opinion. He failed to support his accusations here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy.

Following the edit warring between me and User:Biophys, Boris Stomakhinarticle was protected by administrator User:Cbrown1023 who told that he would unprotect that page till I reach an agreement with User:Biophys. The underlying problem for edit warring is that Biophys holds strognly Russophobic views and maintains that criminal Boris Stomakhin, who got 5 years of prison in Russia for public calls to extremism and terrorism against Russians including me, is actually innocent dissident and there is conspiracy against him by Russian government

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22 here wrote the following:

I am not talking about Izvestia at all. I am talking about this citation by Sokolov. It was taken from another unreliable and not identified by Sokolov source (probably RKO site). He also made a composition from three different articles/sources but misrepresented this as a single continuous citation. We do not want such citations in Misplaced Pages. Sokolov discloses his "source": Stomakhin (this is not a case with protecting an anonymous witness). Of course, he does it! The entire article by Sokolov is clearly a defamation of a dissident ordered by government (there are numerous cases like that in Soviet history). But this is not my argument at the moment. The argument is poor source - RKO site. Biophys 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Biophys himself took his text material inserted into the article Boris Stomakhin from blog . As you could see phrases in the current article Boris Stomakhin match those found in Blog La Russophobe. It is evident that this Blog La Russophobe is inciting ethnic hatred at least. The page of that blog http://russophobe.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-is-lr-russophobe-why-arent-you.html says that you should hate russians. User:Biophys insists that we should agree on exclusion from the article of citations taken from Russian respectable newspapers which hints that Stomakhin is not really innocent peaceful dissident, but actually almost a fascist. My question for Misplaced Pages administrators: If Misplaced Pages is a proper place for publishing Russophobic statements (anti-semitic statements), inciting ethnic hatred against Russians? I understand the position of User:Cbrown1023 who doesn't want to verifiy reliability of Russian texts, but a simple search in Google on Boris Stomakhin would lead to all Russophobe sources which are published by User:Biophys in current protected version of the article on Boris Stomakhin. I am astonished that Misplaced Pages administrators allow to paint people like Osama bin Laden like peaceful dissidents.

Biophys refused to negotiate, he demanded to scrap all sources which may prove that Stomakhin is a fascist. Here is his message and respective diffs , :

Sorry, but I insist to exclude this paragraph for the reasons explained above. This is my last word. There is nothing to discuss here. Biophys 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, I have filed petition for Cabal Mediation on Boris Stomakhin article here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin

Biophys is a very interesting user, who contributes only to two topics: either anti-Russian propaganda, such as Putin (Putin phallus, Putin's citations), involvement of Russian in world terrorism, Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Mitrokhin archieve and etc.) where he advances only one POV - Russophobic, or Biophysics (hence that's why he had chosen his nick). He never contributes to NPOV materials and holds extreme Anti-Russian position. Initially article about Boris Stomakhin was designed by Biophys to claim violations of freedom of speech in Russia (article 'Human rights in Russia'). However after I edited this article to present another POV, he began his personal vendetta on me by reverting and deleting all other materials, because my edits had compromised his edits at the article 'Human rights in Russia'. Incidentaly, the article was edited by two Russian admins - Alex Bakharev and Mikka, but Biophys was reverting and deleting even their versions, without any hesitation.

2)Accusations of Stalking.

As could be seen from the complaint, applicants do not show the real evidence of me stalking them, they just provide links to the history pages of some articles. It could be seen from these pages, that my edits, contributed to these articles, are deleted by users Biophys and Colchicum in no more than 24 hours period.

Moreover, the fact that some pages were created by Biophys and Colchicum doesn't grant them any authority or powers to publish false information in them. And certainly doesn't forbid other users from editing their one-sided stories by adding relevant and sourced material.

Users Biophys and Colchicum never tried to resovle any disputes with me. Empty and false accusations on Administrators noticeboards are not a method of peaceful dispute resolution. Personal attacks and unsupported deletions of my contributions, intimidation and threats are certainly not the way a man could resolve a dispute.

Users Colchicum and Biophys claim that I currently 'stalk' them. However, it could be easily ascertained form the Colchicum contributions page that he is editing the following articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Colchicum

14:39, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Anatoliy Serdyukov 14:24, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Dzhokhar Dudaev (→Assassination) 03:39, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Democratic Union (Russia) (top) 03:36, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Viktor Cherkesov (top) 03:21, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Kondopoga (→2006 ethnic tensions) 03:19, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Kondopoga (→2006 ethnic tensions) 03:18, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Kondopoga (→2006 ethnic tensions) 02:48, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Petri Krohn (Reiman) (top) 02:35, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergey Naryshkin (top) 02:24, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Anatoliy Serdyukov 02:20, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Anatoliy Serdyukov 02:06, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Anatoliy Serdyukov (→External links) 02:00, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Eduard Limonov (→Early life) 01:58, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Eduard Limonov 01:57, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Eduard Limonov 01:57, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Eduard Limonov 01:56, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Vladimir Pribylovsky (→External links) (top) 01:52, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Akhmed Zakayev (→Exile) (top) 01:50, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Akhmed Zakayev (→Exile) 01:44, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Template:Russian Government Cabinets (top) 01:42, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Mikhail Fradkov's Second Cabinet (→External links) 01:41, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgeny Primakov's Cabinet 01:40, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet (top) 01:38, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet 01:37, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m User:Colchicum 01:34, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet 01:31, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet 01:31, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet

It is evident from my contributions page

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Vlad_fedorov

04:25, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (→External links - Do not force you POV on Stomakhin.) 04:24, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (Boris Stomakhin is not a dissident, he is a criminal) 04:20, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (Irrelevant phrase deleted. Claims that mafia is ruling some country are ridiculous, then Clinton met russian mafia boss Eltsin? It is absurdity.) (top) 04:18, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (Absurd - is what you write here. Aleegations are not real facts and you should correctly edit the article containing unconfirmed allegations.) (top) 04:16, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (This is completly sourced and neutral text supported with references and good sources. Stop stalking me.) (top) 06:17, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (→Miscellanea - Source says they are not GRU. They are under control of GRU - which is a deifferent thing. You have falsified infornation) 06:14, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (As far as I see there are only allegations without any reliable sources) 06:11, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 06:11, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 05:40, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 05:40, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 05:39, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 05:25, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (Unsourced defamatory statement presenting original research removed. Biophys stop stalking me.) 05:24, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (There are no any references. Enforcing Misplaced Pages policy on sources.)

That I do not follow edits of the user Colchicum and his claims that I disrupt his edits and Misplaced Pages activities are false. Moreover the articles which he refers to in his support were not created by him, but by user Biophys. Therefore, user Colchicum allegations are not supported by the real facts and are fraudulent. He just tries to help his fellow Biophys there. Moreover, Colchicum invites other users who presented POV identical with him to harass me, in particular user Ilgiz - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ilgiz&diff=prev&oldid=109309046. They also try to intimidate users who are supporting me and it's going on right here on discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov. Here Colchicum writes false accusations that I personally pursue him by stalking his edits which is clear lies that could be easily ascertained.

User Biophys also openly acknowledged his personal stalking of me (user Vlad fedorov) here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Colchicum#Thank_you:

I cite Biophys confession published on the talk page of Colchicum:

Please note that it perfectly appropriate to follow logs of other users. We can do it. WP:STALK policy says: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." Obviously, it was Vlad who disrupted our work in Misplaced Pages. Biophys 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be easily seen that users Biophys and Colchicum conspired against me not because of stalking, but because my edits and contributions present other point of view, which they do not tolerate and make everything possible in order to harass and intimidate me.

Biophys also confessed in his message to me, that his articles indeed have mistakes , but he demanded that I should not correct his mistakes which is outrageus.

As could be seen from the following history pages, my edits are reverted or deleted by user Biophys in less than 24 hours after my edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Active_measures&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 16:56, 17 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (everything was supported by refereces; this is personal attack by two partisan users) .... (cur) (last) 08:37, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Promotion of terrorism worldwide - You haver to prove the 'worldwide' character) (cur) (last) 08:15, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Promotion of terrorism worldwide - This statement is a blog entry and violates Misplaced Pages policy. The statement is also unsourced and not supported by where the citations were taken from.) <cut end>

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=David_Satter&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 15:07, 9 February 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (this is description of his books (read them!) - supported by references) (cur) (last) 07:59, 9 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (This is unsupported defamatory statement against ethnic Russians) <cut end>

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Glasnost_Defence_Foundation&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 17:33, 18 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (cur) (last) 08:15, 18 January 2007 Khatru2 (Talk | contribs) m (→Funding - disambig) (cur) (last) 12:45, 17 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk) (→See also) (cur) (last) 12:45, 17 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk) (cur) (last) 08:12, 17 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→Funding - see talk) (cur) (last) 07:52, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Funding) <cut end>

It is therefore evident, that it's not me, but Biophys traces my contributions, for it is always Biophys who reverts my edits in no more than 24 hours often without any explanations.

I would like to discuss here just the typical case. In the article dedicated to Russian security agency GRU, it was written that terrorist Shamil Basaev and Said-Magomed Kakiev, Said-Magomed Kakiev are 'Chechen GRU agents'. I have deleted these phrases, because there are no any evidence and sources that support these statements. Moreover, there are just allegations that Shamil Basaev was trained by some Intelleigence service long before the Chechen Conflict arised. Biophys however wrote a list of Chechen GRU agents, thereby presenting these pure allegations as established facts.

In less than 30 minutes my edits were reversed by Biophys,

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 05:18, 19 February 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - this is supported by refrences 4,5,6, and the content of Misplaced Pages articles that are provided as links) (cur) (last) 04:48, 19 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Chechen GRU agents - False unsupported statements removed) <cut end>

who has cited the following source: Land of the warlords, by Nick Paton Walsh, Guardian Unlimited as evidencing that Said-Magomed Kakiev and Said-Magomed Kakiev are Chechen GRU agents. However, in the article the following is written about these individuals:

"Alkhanov rang for the help of Said Magomed Kakiev", the powerful head of the "West" battalion of 900 Chechen fighters under the control of Russian military intelligence, the GRU.

Zair said Alkhanov has gained the support of not only Kakiev but Sulim Yamadayev, the head of the "East" battalion, 800 hardened special forces Chechens also under the control of the GRU.
It could be clearly seen that newspaper article doesn't say these individuals are GRU agents. It says just their battalions were under control of GRU which is a different thing at all. It follows therefore, that Biophys has repeatedly and intentionally reintroduced false disinformation by these edits into the article , and . And as such violated repeatedly Misplaced Pages policy.

This is just fresh typical example of Biophys anti-Russian activities in the Misplaced Pages.

Other case include:

Deletion of pertinent information from the article dedicated to Yevgenia Albats. And specifically deletion of the information that her father has been GRU spy during the WW II. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yevgenia_Albats&diff=108373818&oldid=108344491 Please note that Biophys has never actually presented his arguments on deletion of this information on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Yevgenia_Albats. According to the Misplaced Pages policy deletion of sources material is vandalism. This information about Albats father was later reintroduced by the administrator Alex Bakharev here cur http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yevgenia_Albats&diff=109477667&oldid=108836686. However, it was evident that the information about Albats father compromises her neutrality as a researcher appointed on Parlament commission for the investigation of KGB activitites and compromises reliability of Albats claims. That's why Biophys initiated campaign for the deletion of such material.

Biophys also claimed on the talk page that the following sources: Boorishness as a World View by Yelena Kalashnikova (in Russian) Full Albats by Oleg Kashin, business newspaper Vzgliad, October 26, 2006 (in Russian)

violate BLP policy, because they are: 1) not neutral 2) controversial 3) Allegations of crude and extremely uncivil behavior 4) Unsubstantiated accusations of fraud

However Biophys failed to show how these materials violate Misplaced Pages policies. There are no facts, evidence, whereabouts and so on. Again Biophys undertook the same false accusations campaign against sources and information he personaly dislikes and the same false flag campaign he was waging on the Boris Stomakhin. Just empty and unsubstantiated accusations.

I have reverted deletions by Biophys of well-sourced materials published by another author on the article Mitrokhin archive. This deletion could be seen here cur http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitrokhin_Archive&diff=107010834&oldid=106018891 I have reinserted these well-sourced statements, since they are reliable and definitely should be mentioned in the article. I have deleted Biophys's unsourced defamatory statements on Russians as ethnicity which incite ethnic hatred in the article David Satter. Please note that Biophys reinserts unsourced statements inciting ethnic hatred by following edits cur http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=David_Satter&diff=prev&oldid=107021411. I think he should be blocked for violation of LP policies, since these statements describe David Satter as inciting ethnic hatred at least.

I would like to notice that Biophys deletes well-sourced materials not for the first time. For example Biophys has deleted good source in the article State sponsored terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=State-sponsored_terrorism&diff=102543018&oldid=102542124 Revision as of 23:23, 22 January 2007 (edit) (undo) Biophys (Talk | contribs) /* United States - reference to blog removed, non-working reference corrected) deleted the working link to . I ask you to read his comments with attention, first Biophys claims that it is a blog, and second he claims the link is broken. But how he could say it is a blog if the link is actually broken? By the way, the source is not a blog and the link always works.

Every edit is explained and supported with specific arguments. FSB cannot be described as a secret police, since this term according to the respective Misplaced Pages article refers to the totalitarian states. I have corrected Biophys POV to NPOV, since CIA is not described as a secret police. As to the Human Rights article, I have employed the same approach which Biophys has taken in regard to the Izvestia article in Boris Stomakhin case. Biophys uses unconfirmed allegations of Anna Politkovskaya which is said was publishing her materials without verifications and presents them as facts and not as unconfirmed allegations.Parfitt, Tom (2006-10-08). "Assassin's Bullet Kills Fiery Critic of Putin". The Observer. Retrieved 2006-10-09. Moreover, in the cited sources on Russian there are no allegations of Politkovskaya that people were detained because of their religion, while Biophys inserted these claims into the passage dedicated to the freedom of religion, which is evidently is not appropriate.

I would like to bring your attention, that I have never deleted the information which was contributed by users Biophys and Colchicum. And their claims about Stalking are actually turn everything upside down, since I do not follow tremendous number of their articles. And claims about me pursuing Colchicum are absurd, since actually he first began harassing me (Mediation case page on Boris Stomakhin) by writing everywhere about my two acknowledged mistakes, thereby violating the Misplaced Pages rule that editors do not discuss personalities and discuss the articles and sources.

3)Allegations of uncivil behaviour.

I would like to notice that in http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#La_Russophob, Biophys behaved himself incivil, and I never wished him to die actually. Biophys wrote 'Just imagine that Putin suddenly dies. What will change in Russia?'. Considering that Biophys wrote offensively in regard of Putin, I have responded the following way: 'The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too'. I don't find such exchange to be offensive, since Biophys first began 'death' assumptions.

This situation also concerns attepmts of Biophys to introduce defamatory claims of Russian journalist who was sentenced for his libelous and defamatory claims in regard of Putin into the article on cur . Moreover, in order to abuse Putin he published this material deleted from the articles on Vladimir Putin and Phallus on his personal talk page, as well as his deleted article on the blog La Russophobe.

Later in order to hide information compromising him he deleted this material http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Biophys&diff=prev&oldid=107095030 the edit which he called clean-up.

Moreover, Biophys openly hinted on me as an agent of KGB working in the internet here . He called me a troll on my talk page and therefore personaly attacked me too.

Even now User Biophys maintains speculatory article about FSB brigades working in the internet on his talk page in order to send the message to and to harass everyone who has POV different from his. http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Biophys.

Summary

User Biophys and user Colchicum wage false accusations camapaign against me in order to punish me for presenting my POV in the articles which they feel are important for them. In order to disrupt my work, intimidate and harrass me, they accuse me of violating virtually everything in the Misplaced Pages and persistently publish their accusations on Administrators Incident Noticeboard, 3RR noticeboard, BPL noticeboard. They persistently complain to the administrators urging them to punish me. All this is done with one goal - to silence individuals having other opinion, to punish those who correct their intentional mistakes and malicious disinformation.

I would like to bring to the attention that all of the disputes cited in the accusations of Biophys and Colchicum were published on the respective noticeboards and administrators pages. The problem is that no one has directly ruled that Biophys and Colchicum accuse me falsely. The issues which they complain here were taken by the administrator Alex Bakharev on his talk page.

Users Biophys and Colchicum actual reason for my public prosection is that I present the point of view they personally dislike and do not tolerate. There is no any evidence that I disrupt their work by creating annoyance or distress. It is my POV that creates 'annoyance or distress' for Biophys and Colchicum.

As could also be seen, users Biophys and Colchicum never tried to resolve any disputes with me. All they have done is false accusations and deletions of my contributions to the respective articles.

I would like to ask anyone here in Misplaced Pages to review all the pertinent materials to this dispute in detail, and not to consider surface accusations of the users who brought the complain against me. I could be contacted any time on my talk page and could provide any information that is needed to handle this case or others in which I am involved.

I would also like anyone here to ask the administrators User:Alex Bakharev and User:Mikkalai, about these disputes, since they were observing this dispute from its very beginning and were themselves editing the articles on which this duo complains.

Desired outcome

I beg anyone competent to take measures in order to stop users Biophys and Colchicum from persistent and continued campaign waged by them against me. I am not a witch and Misplaced Pages is not a witch trial place. If they couldn't tolerate opinion of other users and if they can't held disputes over the edits by means other than Complaints, then should create their own ecyclopedia where they could do whatever they want without other users disturbing them by other point of views.Vlad fedorov 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Near the top of the page, in large bold type in the instructions for how to use the noticeboard, is the line: "Please make your comments as concise as possible. Fellow editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." Did you not see that? — Athænara ✉ 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Burt Reynolds

This is at least the 5th time I have reported this, PLEASE block unregistered users from editing this page, ip address 172.201.90.27 who keeps hoping ip address' in Reston, Virginia, this is not a dispute issue, he erases pertinent links that provide the citations for almost the whole page and since you can block his ip since he uses an anonimyzer or dial-up can you atleast block unregistered users, which would help stop the vandalism. TY ~~ Rogue_Gremlin Feb 20, 2007 9:07pm est

Some of the references you are adding to the article aren't helpful. I'm looking at this edit . Just linking to http://www.britannica.com or http://encarta.msn.com/Default.aspx doesn't help. If you used the Burt Reynolds article as a reference, link to that article. The best practice is to link everything inline using {{cite web}}. So you would write something like this:

This is the line I want to cite. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://whatever|date=whatever|etc...}}</ref>

That will appear in the article like this:

This is the line I want to cite.

And then if you add a <references /> tag to the bottom of the article, everywhere that you have a <ref> link in the article will show up at the bottom. As it is, the IP user is right. Several of the links you have in there just say the same thing. Does that help at all? As it is, the references section just isn't that useful. If you would like an example of an article where inline citations are properly being used, see Misplaced Pages. If I can help you further, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Thanks. --BigDT 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The 2 you mentioned are very helpful you just can't view them for free. Rogue_Gremlin Feb 2007

Mike Huckabee (pt. 2) Template:Blpwatch-links

Two editors repeatedly adding an undersourced, biased text of dubious notability, with extensive incivility.

Maybe more editors coming in can add some sanity. A.J.A. 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Derek Bell (baseball player) Template:Blpwatch-links

• Derek Bell (baseball player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Derek Bell is a former baseball player who lost his job with his team after threatening to go into what he termed "Operation Shutdown" before the 2002 season. He hasn't played professionally since, and has gone downhill rapidly and been arrested for drug use. Various anonymous IPs in the 192.88.124 range have been attempting to insert a mocking reference to Mr. Bell's unfortunate circumstances into the article ("Operation Shutdown is currently in its Xth month."). I think this is unencyclopedic and needlessly cruel, and have been reverting. Most recently, a "new" user has showed up to add the identical piece of information. Anyway, if y'all could help keep an eye on things, I'd appreciate it. -Hit bull, win steak 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As one of the several users to edit the Derek Bell article, I feel that it is worth noting that the status of Operation Shutdown has been a part of Mr. Bell's entry for almost two years, and was the reason for starting an article on this particular baseball player. As a fan of not only Mr. Bell, but of the Pittsburgh Pirates, I do not find this information to be a mockery, but rather a way to follow a campaign on which he embarked. Furthermore, myself and the other IPs involved have not been adding useless information, but rather replacing information that I've known many people to enjoy seeing, and that has been there for, as previously stated, almost two years now. We have not been vandalizing the article, but restoring it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtcupps (talk • contribs)

Jim Nobles

Editors at this article are asserting, based on some occult organisation's websites, that a politician in Seattle Washington is an occultist. The websites fail our reliable sources guidelines, and it seems likely that there are two different individuals, both interested in politics, actually involved here. Jkelly 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the offending material, and have left a note at the talk page of the article and of the user who was inserting the claim. Musical Linguist 00:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard Am I not getting it?

• Talk:L. Ron Hubbard - Hi. There was a posting to the talk page here that I considered gross misuse of the talk page so I deleted it here. Now I know that my deletion there may not be supported in policy and that is not what I am asking about. One editor let my deletion slide but another reverted it. I then removed only the part that I thought was an ultra-clear BLP vio, here and again, here. Figured that would be the end of it but one came back with lawyerly stuff and the other that I am just wacked to think that (my words, not his). Am I wacked? On just this point, I mean! Please (laff). I thought that sort of unsupported and wildly derogatory material could not stand, no matter where it appeared. I thought that is what BLP says. Thanks Justanother 04:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Answer - Technically, BLP applies to article space, not the talk page. The comments you cite were not in line with Misplaced Pages norms in that the talk pages are specifically for the purpose of discussing ways to improve the article, not a blog or forum to voice opinions on celebrities. Feldspar's warning to that effect was an appropriate response to the comments. The comments could be seen as vandalism and removed as not constructive or trolling. But in that case, IMHO, it's better just to ingore them and not encourage the trolls.--William Thweatt | 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi. Thanks for your input. How do you then reconcile this prominent line in BLP

    Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, and user pages. (emphasis added)

    --Justanother 05:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Answer - I think the difference is that it is obvious that the comments in question are not presented as biographical information officially sanctioned by Misplaced Pages and no reasonable person would construe them as such. (That's not a shot at you, I just mean that there's no possibility of litigation as the comments are clearly presented as one editor's opinion and not given as "fact". Nevertheless, I have left a warning on the user's talk page.--William Thweatt | 05:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. That is an interesting take. I can see the logic of it but, I guess that my problem is that it introduces "gray area" into something that should probably have as little gray area as possible. We agree that the comment is inappropriate and it is certainly about a living person but now we have to apply some subjective test as to whether litigation is a factor (IAMNOTALAWYER). This one may have been clear but why add the gray area? WP:BLP does not seem to. And is it only about litigation? Wasn't there something in BLP about feelings? Why would we allow that comment to stand anywhere here? The other problem with leaving such trollish remarks in is that it leads to subtle (or not-so-subtle) enabling of the abusers. Please notice Feldspar's use of the word "our" rather than "your" when describing the trolls claims and opinions. That is a little subtle (and if I misinterpreted from that that Feldspar agrees with the troll then I apologize) but I have seen it much more obvious. My feeling is that such trolls should just be removed and that the BLP aspect just seals the deal. What do you think? --Justanother 15:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Answer - All good points...and I don't disagree. However, we're now getting into other issues that are better dealt with on more germane pages. I don't feel that this is a WP:BLP issue for reasons outlined above. You're right, however, about the "grey area" and that should be discussed on the WP:BLP policy talk page to get more consise language in the policy regarding article talk pages. This is a clear case of trolling and could legitimately be removed as such. However, that's not always the most productive was to handle trolls. As for how to best deal with trolls, see WP:NOFEEDING under the subsections "Not feeding the Trolls" and "the value of slow reverts". I am going to remove the comments as trolling and see what happens.--William Thweatt | 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you once again and very much this time. It is quite a pleasure and a distinct change to have my ideas and concerns addressed with respect and not as "fantastical, bizarre". I am not even saying that my idea of the application of BLP was correct, simply that, IMO, it is not really that much of a stretch from the words and intent of BLP, though perhaps going a bit into "uncharted territory". I will look forward to any discussion of this on the policy talk page and may well start one myself at a later time. Thank you again for your help. --Justanother 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Backmasking Template:Blpwatch-links

Poorly sourced claims are being made in this article about backmasking artists. The statement reads:

Other artists accused of backmasking include The Eagles, Queen, Black Oak Arkansas, Britney Spears, and Rush.

I asked for citations to this article and they were provided. However, the analysis of them is not reliable sources (please see the talkpage discussion). Could someone please clear this up? Ronbo76 05:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Toensing

This looks to have an NPOV problem. I'll revert, but could someone keep an eye on this?

Thanks.

Eddieuny 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman Hausherr Template:Blpwatch-links

• Tilman Hausherr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A number of editors are working together to continually reinsert some poorly sourced information which it seems would inevitably cause a very POV guilt-by-association effect. An entire paragraph is devoted to explaining what a persecutory person a "Lutheran Sect Commissioner" is, not because the article subject is a "Lutheran Sect Commissioner", but because he allegedly "worked for years" with one, and "wrote for" that "Lutheran Sect Commissioner"'s magazine. Only problem is, the single citation that claims to show that they "worked for years" together only shows that they were at a single picket together, and the pieces that were supposedly "written for" the Lutheran Sect Commissioner's magazine are nothing but weekly digests giving capsule summaries of news stories that are of interest in a particular field. Just because someone reprints such a list of capsule descriptions does not in any way show that the list was written for them.

Moreover, the people who are working together to repeatedly reinsert this poorly sourced and POV information appear to be taking a far different approach to this article than they do to any of the articles whose subjects they prefer. As I write this, the report exactly three above mine on this noticeboard is Justanother (talk · contribs) arguing repeatedly that not editing out of another editor's words a personal opinion that Tom Cruise may be "crazy and bad" is a violation of WP:BLP. (And incidentally, also taking the opportunity to smear me with innuendoes such as "Please notice Feldspar's use of the word "our" rather than "your" when describing the trolls claims and opinions" when what I told the new editor, the one Justanother refers to as "the troll", was that "Our own personal value judgements ... our personal opinions ... don't really belong here unless they lead to improvements in the article". I am not happy that Justanother is now trying to insinuate that I am somehow expressing support for the troll's views by not phrasing it as "Your opinions are not welcome here".) But who took it upon himself to restore the paragraph-long description of Lutheran Sect Commissioners() and specifically add material about how Lutheran Sect Commissioners allegedly "contributed to persistent negative public attitudes toward members of minority religions", calling it "The net effect of Tilman's (and friend's) work"?() Who else but Justanother?

Fossa (talk · contribs) seems to be trying to take this opportunity to completely decimate the article of even its best-sourced information() as the second-best thing, perhaps, to deleting it entirely (, edit summary "This version contains all WP:RS-sorced information and it odes neither embellish nor put down User:tilman. Keep it that way or simply delete." -- in fact, all sourced information, including that sourced to Marburg Journal of Religion and the journal Nova Religio has been removed.) And Misou (talk · contribs), who has added unsourced personal information about the article's subject() and information sourced to Renate Hartwig() who has apparently lost a number of libel suits (including to the article's subject) actually left me an inappropriate vandalism warning() for removing the unsourced, poorly sourced, or irrelevant material from the article and explaining in each case why I was doing so. // Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not working with anyone at all (don't worry though, I put "cabal" on my Christmas list). The funny thing is I came to it because Misou posted a warning on Antaeus' talk page about vantalizing Tilman (warning since by removed Antaeus here, not that I care). I thought it meant User:Tilman and I could not figure out why Antaeus would vandalize Tilman as Antaeus and Tilman are "cult-fighting" buddies. So I clicked and saw it was Tilman's (non-notable - editorial comment, laff) article, not his user space that was being referred to. So I took a look to see why Tilman was "notable" today and saw these refs to the "Lutheran Sect Commissioner". "What is that", methought, so I looked it up. (I was not aware of Misou's similar reference to what I then found as Misou's had been deleted by then.) Found some (cough) poorly-sourced material in a US State Department Report and posted it. After all, if Tilman wrote for the organization and such writing speaks to his notabilty (god knows, little else does) then does it not make sense to add some extremely well-sourced info about what that organization is and how it fits in to the overall subject of "cult-fighting" which is, again, Tilman's "claim" to notabillity. I mean, we are not running out of paper, are we? PS, Antaeus. I see that you posted this an hour ago and have moved on to other work. Don't you think it might have been worth a mention in the talk page or a notice to mine and Misou's user talk? --Justanother 04:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Justanother, let me see if I can sum up the first part of what you are claiming. You claim that you only came to Tilman Hausherr because you saw Misou's false vandalism allegation on my talk page, but you did not investigate Misou's claim: you did not examine my edits to see what information I had added or removed, or whether I had presented sound reasons for those additions/removals (such as WP:BLP violations, which you clearly care deeply about -- sometimes). But somehow, without taking any sort of time to look at the very thing that brought you to the page, the allegedly-vandalistic removal of text from the article, you somehow managed by pure coincidence to reintroduce into the article almost exactly the very same text that had been removed.() That is your story so far and it already strains credulity. But all right, let us suppose that you restored -- coincidentally -- almost exactly the same quote about what a "Lutheran Sect Commissioner" because you didn't bother to take a look at the recent history of the article. What is your excuse for restoring the same material after you were made aware that the stated relevance does not exist? When I removed the poorly-sourced claim that Tilman "has been writing in" Berliner Dialog, I did so with the edit summary "As before -- Tilman writes a piece that summarizes news stories of interest; to say he is "working with" anyone who prints that piece is your OR."() Removing once again the irrelevant digression about the "Lutheran Sect Commissioners", I used the edit summary "remove again irrelevant digression about the pursuits of a man who has no shown connection to Tilman besides reprinting a piece that ANYONE CAN REPRINT".() You ignored both of those and restored that poorly sourced claim that he "writes for" Berliner Dialog with the edit summary "Antaeus, what are you talking about? All I do is clarify the group that the article aleady said he writes for - not the first bit of OR. Show me the OR on talk please".() But this is clearly false. The article did not 'already say he writes for' Berliner Dialog because that original research had been removed. You attempted to justify the very edit in which you restored that original research by falsely claiming it was already there. Now you attempt to again in this very space promote the same claim which has already been debunked -- that because "Berliner Dialog" reprints a freely available digest of news stories of which Tilman Hausherr was the compiler, it means that Tilman "wrote for the organization" (oh, it's graduated from a publication into an entire organization now) and that anything which pertains to "the organization" is therefore relevant to Tilman Hausherr. Under a similar theory I suppose that if the Ku Klux Klan were to carry the "Dear Abby" column in their newsletters then anything about the Ku Klux Klan would suddenly be extremely relevant to "Dear Abby"? The material you repeatedly reinserted was poorly-sourced material that violated WP:BLP; your claim that even now you have still not realized this absolutely astonishes me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry to hear that that you are strained and astonished. That does not sound comfortable. Hey, I have no reason to lie about how I got there. I watch your page, I don't watch Tilman's article. I won't bother but I imagine the edit history will prove my lack of interest there. When I arrived there the article looked like this. See the ref to the Lutheran Sect Commissioner? And the "Beliner Dialog". Well that is what I saw. So I clicks on 'em and I sees "net.update - 1. 12. 1999 - 29. 6. 2000 - von Tilman Hausherr" and "net.update von Tilman Hausherr 5.9.2002 - 29.5.2004". Now my German is bad but it looks like Tilman is the author there. So I figure those articles must be there to establish Tilman's notability since, IMO, little else does. Here we have Tilman writing for a Lutheran Church publication. OK, there is some notability, right? So I do a bit of searching and, guess what, I find the State report (it was not very hard). I am already familiar with those and I think I quoted one some time ago in the main Scientology article, if I am not mistaken. So it only makes sense to me to add that well-sourced material about the organization that published the paper that Tilman seemed to be writing for. And you know, Antaeus, I looked in the article talk page and I completely missed where you discussed this and where you justified edit-warring with Misou over it. Would you mind pointing me at it? Please. But wait, what does Tilman say over there:

      For example, that I wrote for Berliner Dialog could be properly sourced . . . Tilman 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

      Antaeus, it is amazing what you find if you ever actually look at a talk page while you are edit-warring. --Justanother 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Suppose that we take it as stipulated that Tilman wrote for Berliner Dialog. Oh hell! I'll even bend over backwards for you and pretend for the sake of argument that we have some reason to believe Tilman "wrote for" Berliner Dialog something more substantive than "Net Update", the previously-referenced digest of stories of interest from the news. Berliner Dialog is still a publication, not an organization (contrary to your earlier muddy references to them as if they were the same thing). Your argument is still "Tilman writes for the publication, therefore he supports the organization that publishes the publication, therefore anything which can be said about the organization can be brought up in reference to him" and as a result your argument is still shoddy and still no justification for your blatant attempt at guilt-by-association. If I were to insert into Kirstie Alley a paragraph of well-sourced material entirely about and unflattering to Narconon, I guarantee you would be screaming about how it was a clear attempt by "the POV-editors" to bias the article -- despite Alley being the International Spokesperson for Narconon for ten years or more, far more of a connection between the person and the organization than you have to justify your repeated insertions of anti-Lutheran Church material into Tilman Hausherr. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, a coherent argument (not the part where you try to back away from your error as in "that poorly sourced claim that he "writes for" Berliner Dialog" but that is OK, we all make errors - I mean the other part about Kirstie). Couched in the usual invective, of course, but a coherent argument none-the-less. Now, had I found such an argument on the talk page from your edit-war with Misou or had you presented any such argument on self-same talk page when I posted to it about my edits under the "ambiguous" heading of "Lutheran Sect Commissioner"; had you responded there instead of using up all your 3RR and having none left for Fossa and then running over here to attack me instead of simply asking a question (an abuse of this board that I will likely report on AN/I so there is your heads-up though I could likely be forestalled with a simple apology); had you done any of that you may have found that I agreed with your argument. I think we have seen time and again, Antaeus, that we two can edit together in the Scientology articles and really have no big problem about it but when you attack me and I defend myself it gets ugly and while it may be "fun" for both of us it is boring for others, and when you bring it somewhere like this, it is disruptive (and please let's not get into the bit with "our" and "your" - trust me, you don't want to bring that up either; please use my talk page if you really must). So, in response to your coherent argument. Fair enough. I think it would be most appropriate for me to make an article on the "Sect Commissioner" and put the US State data there (I also think there is UN data, and did see a bit). Then Tilman et al can help us with balancing the view. Finally, if we then want to put the Berliner Dialog in Tilman (and if we are to have anything at all there then it belongs), we can do the "publication of the sometimes controversial Lutheran ]" as we would if this were Kirstie's article. Does that sound fair? And again, as I have said before, but maybe you missed, "I do not have any double-standard" which also happens also to be a concise statement of who I am here. Cheers. --Justanother 14:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh, please, by all means, Justanother, do bring your complaints about me to AN/I. I will be tickled pink if you do that. I am sure that AN/I will have an extremely delightful time evaluating your statement that I came here to "attack you" in the context of "the bit with 'our' and 'your'" which yesterday you thought was completely all right to share with everyone here and now you think should be discussed in some more private venue. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I am at your command. --Justanother 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen (and/or ladies), I have taken a look at the article and its talk page as well as the extremely long explanations here (in the future please note the text in bold at the top of this page about being consise). It seems this dispute is rather complex, involving AfD, deleting sourced matertial, BLP, arguments over which version is better, and some obvious POV issues. After reading the comments and histories, I believe this issue is not going to be settled here. I suggest that somebody take the issue here RFC or here Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies. A fresh set of outside eyes not involved in the issue is needed to help establish consensus and sort out WP policies. I would also suggest that everybody take a look at this essay before continuing, it contains some good advice.--William Thweatt | 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A thinly veiled effort to promote the ideas of Hausherr via Misplaced Pages, Tilman and his supporters insert link to a a black list of actors ("faq-you/celeb.txt"!) compiled by Hausherr directly into the article. If this was a page of a politician or a businessperson, such shameless link spamming as well as the violations of WP:RS would be removed w/i minutes, if not seconds. Instead, here the crowd of anti-cult activists is given free reign, simply thanks to their sheer size. Fossa_?! 14:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the only people who will ever look at Tilman's article are he and his friends and people who don't like him. In all cases they are people who have made up their minds on the issue of Scientology, so no effective "promotion" will take place because of this article. Steve Dufour 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinda like the only people that will look at this noticboard item (smile). BTW, Steve, I had some words about your motives on Tilman's talk page. --Justanother 21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My feelings towards Tilman are friendly. I voted against the deletion of his article when it was nominated last year and I would do so again. the real Steve Dufour 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Gelb

Another user has reinserted a number of times what seem to me to be libelous allegations that Mr. Gelb used unfair influence to gain coverage for his clients in the New York Times. Also unecessarily inflammatory statements (my opinion) ascribed to the subject, Mr Gelb have been reinserted into the article. Editors, please evaluate appropriateness of these items. Thanks for your help. Markhh 23:25 25 February 2007

I'm the user who readded the sentences in dispute. The allegations at issue have all been previously published in print by a reliable source, and are clearly and accurately referenced and ascribed to the appropriate source per WP:V and WP:NPOV. I don't see the problem. Grover cleveland 07:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I also didn't see a problem. BTW there is freedom of the press in this country and the New York Times has the right to cover whatever they like for whatever reason. Other people have the right to comment and complain about this as much as they like too. Steve Dufour 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Umer Sharif Template:Blpwatch-links

An anon vandal whose IP address's initials are always 210.56. is adding same paragraph again and again to Umer Sharif without any refernce. This paragraph is serious violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:LIVING. I am not sure what ypu can do but I think you can easily figure out the solution. This anon vandal appears to repeat the addition of this paragraph every two three days. ( Szhaider 06:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer Template:Blpwatch-links

There is a major movie opening this week about this case, and I expect there will be a lot of material added to this article. I have just deleted a lot of info about suspects, since most was unsourced and about living people. I expect the editors (who seem to own the article) will object and try to reinsert it. Thanks. Jeffpw 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby Template:Blpwatch-links

Two editors insist on including the information that Libby was "born to a Jewish family." Libby himself has not publicly identified himself as Jewish, nor have there been any credible articles showing that his ethnicity or religion (or his parent's for that matter) has in any way impacted his professional work. This seems to me to be a violation of 's privacy provision. Certain editors seem rather adament that this information be included. Some outside intervention would be greately appreciated. Notmyrealname 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Libby is Jewish . This took me 30 seconds to find. Quatloo 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also troubling is your use of the term "has not publicly identified himself as Jewish." An individual at the highest levels of government (and Libby was one of a handful of the most powerful men in Washington) does not have to publicly acknowledge something in order for it to be reported. You can make that argument with minor celebrities, but not with Libby. Quatloo 18:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep up what you are doing here Quatloo. I am a Republican I would welcome more Jewish people in our party. :-) Steve Dufour 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is his religion relevant? Also, the page currently reads "was born into a Jewish family." Perhaps he converted? My point was that there is no evidence that he has made his religion/ethnicity part of his work, as opposed to a politician that is courting a religious constituency, for instance (in that case, it would be appropriate, of course). His being Jewish or not is not part of his public persona or notoriety. The fact that the source you cited is the Tulsa Jewish News (is this generally considered a reliable source?) adds to the argument that this is not noteworthy to the general public.Notmyrealname 04:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Tulsa Jewish News is a perfectly reliable and acceptable source. It has a long history of print publication -- more than 75 years -- and isn't some sham publication created for partisan purposes. There is no requirement that a reliable source be a national publication. Quatloo 13:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversion is extremely unlikely, and actually his being Jewish has come up as somewhat relevant. See for example. . Whether he was born in or not is an interesting point and it mgiht be good to find a source that explicitly says that he was born Jewish. But given how rare converts to Judaism are, if he were a convert, we can be pretty sure it would have come up. (technically this is WP:OR but hopefully sourcing can be found) At minimum, this isn't a BLP concern because being born Jewish is not potentially negative info (especially if he is Jewish no matter what)). I would suggest however, given that the above sources mention it explicitly and that they show that his Jewishness matters, that it should be mentioned in some form in the article. JoshuaZ 04:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• The policy is clear: The subject must publicly self-identify with the belief in question, AND the belief must be relevant to the subject's notability or public life. If both criteria are not met, then privacy concerns override, and it cannot be included. Clear enough? - Crockspot 05:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not clear enough. BLP says that category tags should not be used unless those condtions are met. I don't see anywhere where it says we can't include such information when well sourced to reliable sources and it is relevant (which is the case here). JoshuaZ 08:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe both criteria are met. For the first criterion, attending public religious services would certainly count as public self-identification. The second criterion, as to whether it is relevant -- the individual in question is involved in making policy towards Israel. I don't think anyone can make a serious contention that criterion #2 does not apply. Quatloo 13:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have shown on the Libby talk page, source 1 is not reliable. The bio for Libby cites its source as "Misplaced Pages." For all the people it identifies, it cites "News Sources" and another website that does not indicate Libby's ethnicity. This is a bogus list. Source number 2 claims that some White Supremacist groups affiliated with KKK member David Duke thought Libby's ethnicity was relevant, however everything in the actual article says that it was not. I think it is kind of twisting logic to say that a responsible news story saying that his being Jewish is not relevant somehow makes it relevant. Read the full story. I very much disagree with Quatloo that his being involved with policy towards Israel automatically makes his being Jewish relevant. Jews have diverse opinions about Israel. There is no evidence that Libby's input (whatever it was) was influenced by his being Jewish or not. His family membership in a synagogue does not constitute PUBLIC self identification. If that were the standard, then every person of any faith who attends church/synagogue/mosque, etc. would automatically lose their right to privacy on Misplaced Pages. If he had written an op-ed saying "as a Jew, I believe..." than it would be a different story. Notmyrealname 16:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Jewish matters but isn't it possible for a person to be "born into a Jewish family" (as the article says -- is this WP jargon BTW? I have seen it elsewhere).... as I was asking, can't a person be "born into a Jewish family" without being, strictly speaking, a Jew? Steve Dufour 17:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Notmy, I think you are confusing the BLP category policy with the general policy, and the second one is still a reliable source. Relevancy by a notable source saying something is not relevant is still relevant for our purposes because it was relevant enough to talk about. JoshuaZ 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the source itself is somewhat obscure. But, I wonder, relevant to what? I could see it if we want to include a section saying that some hate groups have mentioned him in their blogs, but then what are we doing beyond giving them more exposure? I just don't think that a single mention by a rather obscure publication (who has heard of the JTA?) is enough to justify relevancy, especially when the article is about it not being relevant. If the end result is that we just note that he is Jewish based on all of this, we have, in effect, just supported the efforts of fringe hate groups. If we are to take the role of editors seriously, we have to have some sounder rationale for relevance. According to WP:BLP we should "ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject." Just because it is published and true, does not make it relevant. Notmyrealname 20:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Libby's attendance at a public synagogue is so well known among the Jewish community that it is noted by Jewish publications outside of his region. That's certainly sufficient. It isn't necessary for someone to shout "I'M A JEW" to meet this requirement. This is also no privacy violation, it's published in an established newspaper. Also the language "born into a Jewish family" is not necessary and should probably be changed to be less weasel-worded. Libby himself attends synagogue. Quatloo 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo, I think that there are several questions here. Has Libby publicly self-identified his religious affiliation? Is it relevant? I don't think he has taken any action to indicate that this is part of his public persona. Does joining a religious institution automatically mean that your religion should be included on a Misplaced Pages biography? The fact that the Tulsa Jewish News included this (hardly a representative sample of "the Jewish community" (sic)), without sourcing in a minor news item isn't a sufficient case of relevance. If you look at the Google results and read the links, you will see that anti-semitic groups, including those run by KKK leader David Duke wrote some pieces under the headings "Lewis Libby: One more Jewish Traitor Neocon Exposed." One writer for JTA, Ron Kampeas, wrote a story about it that a bunch of blogs reprinted. The story was about the hate groups writing about Libby being Jewish. In his interviews, he found that most people who worked with him in the White House had no idea he was Jewish, and in fact were adamant that he was not. I have never heard of the JTA before, and I doubt anyone would consider it mainstream. There has been no discussion of it in the broader media. The article itself goes to great lengths to explain that his being Jewish is NOT relevant. The only point of including this in his bio would be to echo the blog rants of hate groups. Notmyrealname 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. His religious affiliation (whatever it is) seems to be irrelevant. He is not seen as a religious activist or specifically Jewish activist. ←Humus sapiens 23:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The JTA is certainly a reliable source, but I'm not seeing the relevance either. Far from being a prominent facet of the man's identity, it seems to be contentious information that was unknown by close acquaintances. Let's not yellow badge the man. Jayjg 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He is not a religious activist, that is true. But the religious affiliations at the highest levels of US Government are extremely important, particularly when the play a role in formulation of policy with respect to Israel. If Israel were not a major component of policy, your argument would have merit. But such is not the case. Quatloo 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is find a published source that says his Jewish identity has influenced American-Israeli policy. Otherwise it is original research. Steve Dufour 12:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hamas members Template:Blpwatch-links

Some debate over at Category:Hamas members if the category should be a subcat of Category:Anti-Semitic people. // Liftarn

The debate is at Category talk:Hamas members. Plenty of RS were provided. ←Humus sapiens 11:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If RS were provided we wouldn't have this debate. // Liftarn

Eric S. Raymond Template:Blpwatch-links

A user insists on putting in an accusation that Eric Raymond inserted pro-Iraq-war terms into the Jargon File. The "source" is an Internet newsletter. Raymond has stated on Misplaced Pages that the accusation is false and that the person who made it has apologized. Talk:Eric_S._Raymond/Archive_1#More On the subject of Criticism.

I can't keep reverting this without violating 3RR (well, I can, since it's a BLP issue, but doing so puts me at risk if the user can get an admin to disagree with me).

Using Eric's denial is also a problem because of inconsistencies in WP:RS which state that Misplaced Pages is not a source, period, even though it would count as a self-published source in an article about the author. Ken Arromdee 14:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary Radnich Template:Blpwatch-links

Gary Radnich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several users (including multiple IPs as well as CharlotteWebb) have repeatedly re-added multiple unsourced or poorly-sourced negative assertions about this Bay Area television/radio personality. Most pernicious is the accusation of racism, for which the only listed source is an article noting that Radnich has been the target of some racist remarks due to his interracial marriage.

There are two other poorly-sourced assertions; one a negative description of his show using weasel words ("By some accounts"), and the other an assertion of "constant criticism of baseball superstar Barry Bonds" sourced only by a single video clip. JavaTenor 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Kenny (sportscaster) Template:Blpwatch-links

I noticed this article while on RC Patrol. It is totally unsourced. What concerns me is that it contains alleged information about his children which probably should not be in his article. It too is unsourced. Morenooso 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sensitive info about minors removed. Some sources supplied, citations requested where not. Hope this helps. Refsworldlee(eds) 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch Template:Blpwatch-links

Involving the website of Stephen Barrett.

The following IP has been misused (other IPs are also involved....)

• 4.233.98.20 (talk · contribs) -- Used on March 1, 2007 to make gross violations of BLP at Quackwatch. Signed as Tim Bolen.

Tim Bolen is in legal dispute with Stephen Barrett, the webmaster of Quackwatch. Everything written by this user is exactly in Tim Bolen's style. His team (including lawyer) is awaiting trial for libel and malicious prosecution.

Upon discovering this misuse of Misplaced Pages to make a long list of accusations, misrepresentations, and even some totally false statements made against better knowledge (he has been informed, is being sued, and yet repeats them), I immediately deleted the entry per BLP. Misplaced Pages should not be used for an extension of his off-wiki war against Barrett.

Was it proper of me to delete it?

I also began tracking down other possibilities and found other IPs (same IP range) from the same location (he does live there), making violations showing the same level of personal involvement:

• 4.232.90.102 (talk · contribs) -- Used on August 22, 2006 to vandalize a revert at the now deleted Quackpot Watch article (about Bolen himself) and to vandalize the Stephen Barrett article.

• 4.233.98.128 (talk · contribs) -- Used on August 24, 2006 to vandalize the Quackwatch article three times.

There may be other IPs that can be identified later.

Another matter of directly related interest:

• Ilena Rosenthal (User:Ilena) has just been indef banned because of actions here related to her bringing the same battle to Misplaced Pages. She has also been sued for republishing Bolen's original statements, but got off because she was not the originator of the statements. See: Barrett v. Rosenthal

If anyone needs more information, just use my email link or use my talk page. Please notify me of any comments here by posting to my talk page. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett Template:Blpwatch-links

Identical situation as above, but involving the biographical article itself.

The following IP has been misused (other IPs are also involved....)

• 4.233.98.20 (talk · contribs) -- Used on March 1, 2007 to make gross violations of BLP at Quackwatch. Signed as Tim Bolen.

Tim Bolen is in legal dispute with Stephen Barrett, the webmaster of Quackwatch. Everything written by this user is exactly in Tim Bolen's style. His team (including lawyer) is awaiting trial for libel and malicious prosecution.

Upon discovering this misuse of Misplaced Pages to make a long list of accusations, misrepresentations, and even some totally false statements made against better knowledge (he has been informed, is being sued, and yet repeats them), I immediately deleted the entry per BLP. Misplaced Pages should not be used for an extension of his off-wiki war against Barrett.

Was it proper of me to delete it?

I also began tracking down other possibilities and found other IPs (same IP range) from the same location (he does live there), making violations showing the same level of personal involvement:

• 4.232.90.102 (talk · contribs) -- Used on August 22, 2006 to vandalize a revert at the now deleted Quackpot Watch article (about Bolen himself) and to vandalize the Stephen Barrett article.

• 4.233.98.128 (talk · contribs) -- Used on August 24, 2006 to vandalize the Quackwatch article three times.

There may be other IPs that can be identified later.

Another matter of directly related interest:

• Ilena Rosenthal (User:Ilena) has just been indef banned because of actions here related to her bringing the same battle to Misplaced Pages. She has also been sued for republishing Bolen's original statements, but got off because she was not the originator of the statements. See: Barrett v. Rosenthal

If anyone needs more information, just use my email link or use my talk page. Please notify me of any comments here by posting to my talk page. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Jimbo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
3. . whatever http://whatever. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "etc..." ignored (help)