Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87.208.192.123 (talk) at 21:11, 5 January 2013 (→Mart Laar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

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

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Michael Peter Ritter

Michael Peter Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A friend was wondering if this person is notable enough for a wikipedia article. On parole for a US$270 million ponzi/pyramid thing. Google search has details.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe create a draft at WP:AFC or in userspace? GiantSnowman 13:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am too busy trying to keep my other BLP creations alive. I couldn't be bothered creating one on this asshole.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

David Simpson (British politician)

David Simpson (British politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am not reporting a BLP violation but seeking views on a radical edit to an article on the basis of a supposed violation.

David Simpson is a Member of Parliament and a prominent Democratic Unionist Party politician in Northern Ireland. His long-serving election agent, speechwriter and chief aide, David McConaghie, is a minister in the Free Presbyterian Church and was the press officer of one of Northern Ireland's leading evangelical Christian creationist pressure groups, the Caleb Foundation - he was thus a public figure in his own right.

Simpson's bio article had the following paragraph added, all factually accurate, neutrally worded and double-sourced from reliable media:

====Constituency office incident====

On 25 September 2012 Simpson contacted police following the discovery of a hidden camera in the toilet of his constituency office in Portadown. Simpson's election agent and constituency assistant, David McConaghie, who had played a key role in Simpson's 2005 election victory, was arrested, and was released pending further inquiries. When the matter became public in November 2012, Simpson stated "The police are currently investigating issues pertaining to an individual brought to their attention by myself. I no longer employ this individual and he does not hold any office in the party."

One editor objected to the inclusion of this paragraph on the grounds that it was "not news", having earlier argued that it somehow implied guilt on the part of Simpson. I argued for its retention on the grounds that it most certainly was news and, in the final version quoted above, focused on Simpson without in any way defaming him. It does not defame McConaghie either, even in the peculiarly strict legal regimes applying in the four UK and Irish legal jurisdictions, in that it simply states the uncontested facts that he was arrested, released and is no longer employed by Simpson. These facts have been widely reported in the mass media - two sources were given in the article but many others can be added.

A third opinion was sought, whereupon User:TransporterMan intervened and immediately not only cut the entire passage from the Simpson article, but edited relevant details out of the talk page exchanges between me and the other editor. He alleged that the material "violate WP:BLPCRIME and cannot be included in Misplaced Pages until the criminal charges are resolved". He also indicated - contrary to normal protocol - that he was unwilling to discuss this directly and wanted any objection to his summary edit to be taken here. I request views on whether (a) the whole passage should stand, on the basis that McConaghie falls within the WP:WELLKNOWN category; or (b) the material does in fact violate WP:BLPCRIME so that the passage should be reworded without naming McConaghie until the matter is resolved in the courts. Brocach (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the passage in question as the sole purpose in including it seemed to be to introduce negativity into a politician's BLP through a bit of guilt by association. I can't think of any other politicians article in which a significant section of the article is devoted to alleged wrongdoing by a third party, who hasn't even been convicted, making the material questionable on WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP grounds. Additionally all the news stories on this event occurred the day after it happened, there doesn't seem to be any lasting impact to suggest it is an exception to WP:NOTNEWS. Brocach claims that McConaghie is a well known figure, yet if all the news stories about this one event are stripped away, there's hardly anything on him in reliable sources and certainly not enough to sustain an article on someone who would fail WP:GNG. Brocach is clearly quite determined to include this material regardless, ignoring WP:BRD and even violating the WP:1RR which applies to such articles under the Troubles arbitration case with 2 reverts to the Simpson article on 6 December. Brocach now appears to be attempting to circumvent this discussion, having created an article on David_McConaghie which may later be used to simply readd the BLP violations in some form. Valenciano (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the original edit to the Simpson article suggests guilt by association, especially since it starts with the statement that it was Simpson who called in the law. However I also fail to see what it adds to the article in question. As for the article on the alleged perp, I agree that he seems not truly notable. Btw, anybody familiar with the Flann O'Brien play Faustus Kelly?TheLongTone (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm just concerned by Brocach's near single minded focus on adding the McConaghie material. That campaign has so far seen him ignore WP:BRD, breach WP:1RR, ignore a third opinion and potentially circumvent a discussion by setting up a separate article. Then, when that article looks like it may be headed for deletion, he badgers editors who argued for delete to change their mind (here and here) in possible violation of WP:CANVASS. Yesterday he expressed concern for observing "baby Jesus' birthday", a fairly irrelevant and bizarre way to admonish an atheist who lives in a majority Islamic country where the Christian minority celebrate Christmas on 7 January. Since he raised that argument/concern, I really have to ask why he spent a good ten hours of a key holiday/family day in Ireland where he lives single mindedly adding stuff about McConaghie? Not content with all that, he has now set up yet another article of questionable notability, the Caleb_Foundation, to write about McConaghie and where the main/only sources used are the one event news stories about McConaghie. Maybe that article is because he has a new found interest in the Caleb Foundation, but given the background to all this, it seems more likely that it will be just another forum for him to link to one off news stories about McConaghies alleged participation in a crime. Valenciano (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A one sentence mention should be sufficient and there is no reason to mention the accused who probably does not meet BLP for having his own article. TFD (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Brief mention inserted, without naming the individual (who has only been arrested and released, rather than 'accused'. Brocach (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The material has now been readded there but I really don't see consensus above to ignore the third opinion by readding the material (albeit without mentioning the accused) and giving it such WP:UNDUE weight in the article. As an editor above notes, it is hard to see what the material adds to the article. Valenciano (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the article Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting should the name of the father of the alleged perpetrator be mentioned? There is discussion of this on that article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't find the thread. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry—it doesn't really have a thread of its own. This is it. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The thread's name is Nancy Lanza's maiden name. Like much of the rest of the content of the thread, Bus stop's concern is way off topic. If he is truly concerned about the matter of naming the father of the alleged perpetrator, he should start a thread on THAT topic on the article's Talk page, and stop wasting everyone's time here. This thread should be closed immediately. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed several times through several threads, as well as a Redirect for discussion that concluded that a redirect was even against BLP policy. Sorry , but Hilo48 is correct. This does appear to be a waste of time by refusing to accept community consensus on the matter.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the present thread, Nancy Lanza's maiden name, the inclusion or exclusion of the father's name was discussed in this archived thread. And the inclusion or exclusion of the mother's maiden name was discussed briefly in this archived thread. (The discussion there seemed to concern whether or not the maiden name belonged in the lead.) I'm not sure that consensus was entirely clear, so perhaps these questions are worth revisiting. Also, perhaps I am missing other places that these questions were discussed, so I hope someone else can link to other such discussions. The discussion on the present Talk page is the first time I am weighing in at any discussions on the father's name and maiden name issue. It was only in the midst of discussing the maiden name issue on the present (non-archived) Talk page, that I became aware that the father's name was also omitted from this article. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not a reason to mix up discussions on two independent issues. If you want to discuss the father's name, start a new section. Myself? I don't think it's all that important, so I won't be starting one. And from now on I'll be tempted to delete irrelevant stuff from the Maiden name thread. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why the reader should have to look elsewhere for the name of the father. Consensus is not entirely clear that the father's name should be omitted; arguments for the inclusion of the father's name are found here. Policy, namely WP:BLPNAME, is open to interpretation on the question of the inclusion/exclusion of the father's name. In the most general sense Misplaced Pages's default position should be in favor of the inclusion of information. This is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to be compiling reliably sourced information. I am fully aware that just because something is reliably sourced does not mean that it warrants inclusion, but I think the expectation should be that an argument can be presented supporting exclusion. It is not inconceivable that a reader could want to know the name of the father. Is there a reason the reader should not find the name of the father in our article? Bus stop (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate why it is important and how it fits within BLP policy, not ask others why it is not.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop - Your case seems to be that if the thing you want included is reliably sourced, then you can stick it in unless someone else demonstrates why it's undue. I disagree with that philosophy. If you want it there, YOU must demonstrate why it should be there. "It is not inconceivable that a reader could want to know the name of the father" is not a strong reason. There may be a good argument to be made, but you haven't made it in a coherent fashion. What I really don't understand is your scattergun approach, sticking bits and pieces of your case all over the place in threads on other topics. Why don't you just create a new section on the article's Talk page, solely and explicitly about including the father's name. Then it can be discussed properly. And it will stop wasting peoples' time here. But before you do, make sure you have a solid, coherent argument to present. Much better than that one above. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the two comments above mine. WP:BLP policy raises the stakes for including material beyond the justification that you have provided. I recommend that you look at similar articles, especially ones that are highly rated, and look at how they address issues like this one. And, yes, you should create a dedicated thread on the Talk page for further discussion. Andrew (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I started a section a few days ago on the "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article Talk page called "Father's name". Anyone wishing to provide input on the question of the inclusion/exclusion of the father's name in that article might want to weigh in there. Bus stop (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Tomin Thachankary

Tomin Thachankary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was brought to my attention via OTRS; upon review of the complaints it became apparent that there were several valid BLP concerns - namely that some of the sources were dead links and there were criminal allegations made with no convictions secured (which falls under WP:BLPCRIME). I stubbed the article in order to remove the problematic material, but was reverted by the article creator. The material was again removed citing BLP concerns and I left a note on the creator's talk page, only to again have the information restored with the dead links etc. To be honest, when you remove the allegations I'm not sure whether the BLP subject even meets notability requirements. I had requested that Pectore raise the issue here to gain consensus for restoring the material but will be away most of the day so I decided to make a note here myself requesting review of the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I read the archived article, no charges let alone a conviction. I would say delete or userfy. If he is ever charged we can bring up an undelete discussion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've protected. Edit waring BLP removals is unacceptable. Feel free to unprotect if there's agreement on what do to next.--Scott Mac 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Can admin slap a prod tag on it? Fully protected and not notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hm ,probably not. I'd need to unprotect it to allow that, because people are free to remove prod tags to indicate they want it kept. I suspect, in this case, that's quite likely.--Scott Mac 01:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we seek consensus on deletion while it is still protected through AfD?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no rule against it, although it's generally discouraged due to the Streisand effect and also the fact that the original BLP matters are likely to be brought up again during AFD. Lankiveil 08:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC).

Plan A: Rev-del the archive, unprotect as it stands, possibly rev-del the talk page as well. Both violate blp. After un-protection then AfD and be very careful about using poorly sourced statements. Plan B: Have an AfD discussion here or the talk page. Without good sources there is nothing notable. If things change then notablity requiremnts may be met. Plan C: A bold admin should just delete or userfy it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am the article creator. I attempted to discuss the content of said article on the talk page, only to have Ponyo revert my edits without justification from any policy (my apologies if you believe merely linking to a Wikipolicy ad nauseam is enough to claim someone else is violating it). I have no control over what random political chatter-bot anon editors write on the page. However I went straight to talk after making a bold content addition. As demonstrated on the talk page, I have made a good faith effort to discuss content issues, assuming incorrectly that I was dealing with an editor attempting to better the page. Those thoughts expired after my edits adding new and cited information were summarily reverted under dubious justification. Thachankary has been charged wrt "his unauthorised foreign visit and a Vigilance case relating to amassing of disproportionate wealth." and furthermore, he is not only notable for the charges against him, but also for the fact that this became a scandal that cost him a job, and heightened the rift between the two major political parties in Kerala. This scandal is quite notable in Indian news (as a simple Google search, or a look at the page before it was blanked would indicate).Pectore 06:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Pectore, the reason that the same policy was pointed out to you several times is because you were edit-warring to restore the inappropriate content that I had removed based as on a valid OTRS complaint. I was clear on both your talk page and on the article talk page as to what specific issues led to the removal of the contentious content. Two of the references were dead/404 links and, per WP:BLPCRIME we do not create articles on a BLP subject who is only alleged to have committed a crime. This does not mean that there can never be any negative material included in the Thachankary article, only that in order to meet BLP policy the sources must be iron-clad and the allegations should not be included unless a conviction is secured. --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I see the problem. Your sources may be accepted in India as reliable, but not to other en:wp editors. If a respected english source such as The a London Daily(?) or New York Times reported it, then it would be accepted here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Hindu and the Hindustan Times are no less English than The New York Times, not that Englishness matters anyway. And in over half a century living in and around London I have never heard of The London Daily. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Phil Bridger is correct; it was not the origin of the newspapers that resulted in the removal of the first sentence. The links used to support the first sentence did not support the content - one redirected to the current issue of the website edition and the was a 404. --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So is the issue that the contentious or 'notable' material comes bad sources and the good sources haven't reported it? I think I made my above statement a little more clear as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No Canoe, that is not the issue. As demonstrated on the talk page (and it is quite telling that Ponyo has not responded there, choosing instead to forum shop), the article text under my version was sourced to well-known and reliable sources, and furthermore was faithful (and in fact more conservative) than the text. Next, WP:BLPCRIME does not prevent an article being created on someone who is both accused and charged with crimes, and the center of a political scandal. Instead it states "refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information", which unsurprisingly is exactly what my conservative and well-sourced wording is doing. The point here is that Ponyo revert-warred on the page, and vandalized content based on a crude misunderstanding of WP:BLPCRIME, and is now wasting productive time by wikilawyering and refusing to discuss the actual content of the sources. Lastly, I do not see the point of discussing things on both the noticeboard and the talk page. This is an annoying diversion from my desire to build the page so that it is a well-sourced center of information on this obviously notable individual.Pectore 03:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You consider bringing an OTRS issue regarding a biography of a living person to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard for review forum shopping? As the creator of the article you are quite clearly not neutral regarding the subject - having uninvolved editors review and discuss the content with an eye to ensuring that our BLP policy is met is necessary to determine consensus. Calling me a vandal (which is a personal attack by the way) will get the community no closer to a balanced and fair article regarding Tomin Thachankary. As an OTRS volunteer I have no obligation to rewrite the content of the article; I have reviewed a ticket in relation to content and found it violated Misplaced Pages policy. I removed the violations and brought the article to the attention of this noticeboard when you restored the content. Now the community will decide what information, if any, should be included in the article and what sources should be used to support the material. --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape case

2012 Delhi gang rape case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although the article is legitimate and important, it could raise some BLP issues e.g. in relation to naming of suspects, particularly since it is likely to attract a lot of attention in the next few days. PatGallacher (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes protection has been activated and there are many people watching it, including me. Is there anything in particular that concerns you? Andrew (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

See: Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Teek_hain for a discussion about inclusion of a political gaffe by the PM after his speech. Some wish to include it in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

• Moshe Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moshe Friedman page on wikipedia - need help on the page. Friedman is regarded as a major extremist with no support and has personal problems, legal issues and has been excommunicated. Need help with the page. 65.88.89.32 (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what you think is currently wrong with the article. You've blanked large sections of it, and it's not obvious that there were good reasons for doing that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears that there have been some sock puppet involvement and other editors have been blocked; but it does appear there might be some dispute resolution requirements here, as well as some BLP policy violations which might arise again; but a quick review it looks good at the current rev. Also note that this IP editor has been WP:FORUMSHOPING. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

<redacted> Thought you were a sock or wp:weasel, sorry for not wp:agf --Canoe1967 (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ulrich Kortz

Ulrich Kortz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is of very low encyclopedic value and was created as a mean of promoting his own reasearch and research group. The so called "highlights" are written in a very biased way, overemphasizing on the importance of the polyoxometallates in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.116.117 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to determine if it is notable. I just added an expert attention requested tag to the BLP and I hope that someone else on the BLPN is a chemist. Andrew (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article does not meet the notability criteria of wikipedia. This person is a professor at a private university with a student body of 1450 students. Besides, he has not made any significant breakthrough in his area of research, his work was once characterized by his peer reviewers as "straightforward" and lacking novelty (it was mentioned in a personal correspondence). Furthermore, as you can see by the recent vandalism on his biography, he is not very warmly accepted in the polyoxometallate commmunity and his biography can stir unnecessary negative excitement and work as batllegrounds for scientific egos. Therefore, I think a deletion will be the best solution of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.116.117 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Massimino

Joseph Massimino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Brucewayneent (talk · contribs)

I just reverted this user on another page for copyvio, and when I went to his talk page found multiple warnings for copyvio. I'm considering an indefinite block until he shows an understanding of this problem and am looking at his contributions. He specialises in BLPs on crime family members, and I'd appreciate it if someone would check the sources here as they don't seem to confirm the statements where they are cited. In addition, "Massimino was indicted by a New Jersey State Grand Jury with several other defendants with various crimes including racketeering, loansharking, promoting gambling, and conspiracy" is not sourced from reference 1 but from the 3rd reference (and is copyvio from that). I'm not sure what's going on here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dominick Olivetto - all the sources here appear rubbish. And what's this? Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ron Previte - I was wondering about the unsourced stuff about the air force and his physique - it's copyvio from . What we seem to have is a bunch of articles possibly all about notable and unpleasant people, but both badly sourced and copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I did some investigation of the Joseph Massimino and finding minimal sourcing, per WP:CRIME I redirected it to Philadelphia crime family. It does appear that there are a whole lotta articles that are written in the "true crime" style rather than encyclopedia form and approach. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

for Dominick Olivetto i found no reliable sources supporting the claims and so removed them and then since the non controversial claims are that he is a citizen of Philly, PROD for non notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I also did some more work on the Previte article. He has both the 60 Minutes piece and a book about him so notability in this instance is not an issue, just copyright and tone of the article, and I think both are OK now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Philip Coppens

• Philip Coppens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Whoever wrote this only got his date of death right and the fact he died from a rare cancer, all the rest is about someone totally different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.3.200 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is more than one Philip Coppens. I have moved the original article to Philip Coppens (chemist). The original page can become a disambiguation page as soon as somebody writes a properly sourced article about the author who died today. Mathsci (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP posted about "Phillip Coppens". Since we didn't have an article with that spelling, I changed it above to Philip. Not sure how a disambiguation page would play given the difference in spellings, but it's a detail we should make sure is right if someone does start an article on Phillip. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Somebody changed this article by combining the BLP of the chemist (born in the 30s) with the biography of the author (born 1971) who died of a rare form of cancer today. His name is also spelt "Philip Coppens" and here is his home page. His death is reported here. After a short check, I could not find any independent sources with which to write a biography of the author. However, obituaries could appear in the near future, possibly in the Dutch press. Mathsci (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I found Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Philip Coppens (author) most of which was copyvio from his official webpage and which I deleted. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Doug! Somebody else has meanwhlle created a rudimentary stub bio Philip Coppens (author), without any of the copyvio problems. I have changed Philip Coppens to a dab. I am not sure of the author's notability outside alternative history circles. (Was he born in Belgium? Did he spend time in North Berwick? ) Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Roslyn Kind

• Roslyn Kind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just resolve this section if it has been beaten to death before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And the problem is? That Roslyn Kind doesn't have her own article? Seems like a challenge... but not really a BLP problem as such. There are lots of people who don't have their own article yet. --GRuban (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really a problem. I just found it curious that a re-direct goes to her sister. The talk page of the re-direct mentions that she isn't even in the article to place an anchor. It seems that the talk page is an impromptu article on her though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

She is mentioned in the article now. I added an anchor but it doesn't seem to work correctly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Princella Smith

• Princella Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs copy edit mostly. Possible UNDUE and RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Lynette Nusbacher

• Lynette Nusbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP covers a person who may have changed gender status and name. Two users seem intent on outing them by posting items on the article and talk page. Could someone take a look and see if we need to refactor some of this? I'm concerned we're using unreliable sources to out a living person. Insomesia (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there evidence that Nusbacher prefers this aspect of her history not to be discussed publicly? In the abstract, a sex change is nothing shameful. We ought to treat it as private if it hasn't been widely covered in secondary sources, and especially if the subject wants it to be treated as private. Where do things stand in those terms? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No reliable sources seem to mention it and the subject seems to want it to be private. Insomesia (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I can only find links between the two on internet forums and The Sun newspaper - nothing reliable. GiantSnowman 14:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This issue has already been dealt with: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive147#Lynette Nusbacher The private medical and personal aspects shouldn't be included for obvious reasons, but the subject's highly notable and widely covered previous identity is appropriate for inclusion. There is no rational, policy-based reason to exclude the former name when the person appeared on television and authored notable books under that name. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, there are no WP:RS which confirms the sex change. The Sun is definitely not reliable. GiantSnowman 14:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you google you will find countless references. The wikipedia article states that until 2006 her books were published under her former name. And her own website is tagged with "Aryeh Nusbacher". So this does not seem to be a secret. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There is robust sourcing for the former name. To the degree that disagreement is simply obstructionist and further discussion is absurd. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please share the most reliable "robust" sources for this so others may support your view. Insomesia (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing for your claim that "the subject seems to want it to be private". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem necessary to provide sources here when Insomesia is the only editor who is having trouble finding them. There are sources in the article now; there is the source he tendentiously reverted yesterday with a phony edit summary, and there is even a RS mentioned on the Talk page that covers the actual gender change. This is beginning to smell like WP:IDHT. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Nusbacher has verified with OTRS that she is User:NetNus. The evidence that she wants this to be private can be found at Special:Contributions/NetNus. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The redirect y'all are griping about was actually the article's original title. So if he doesn't want it redirected, he has to figure out a way to make wikipedia pretend that they are separate persons, one of whom disappeared without explanation in 2006, and the other suddenly appeared in 2007. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Nusbacher is "she", and secondly nobody has griped about any redirect. If you can't be bothered to look into this properly then your comments here simply amount to trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP griped about the redirect here, so spare me your lectures about "looking into this properly". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call that a "gripe", and your use of "he" is either gratuitously offensive or grossly ignorant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"He" refers to the one who filed the ANI complaint, so again you need to back off your lectures and start examining your own conclusions. For one, explain how wikipedia can pretend these are two different persons without rendering one or both of them as "not notable"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a plausible dodge only if there's good reason to think that Insomnia is male. Got anything? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I could say "It", if you prefer. Meanwhile, you need to figure out a way to draw a line between Aryeh's disappearance in 2006 and Lynette's emergence in 2007, and whether either one qualifies as being "notable". Got anything? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll make this as simple as possible. There are articles by/about 'Aryeh Nusbacher'. There are articles by/about 'Lynette Nusbacher'. There are no articles (that I can see) confirming they are the same person. Please read WP:BURDEN and then provide some WP:RS so we can WP:V this. If reliable sources cannot be found then any and all references to 'Aryeh' will be removed from the article on Lynette. GiantSnowman 14:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There is sourcing to connect the two identities. First compare this with this . And here is a mainstream news media source covering the "transition": ► Belchfire-TALK 15:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's WP:OR to compare the website past & present, and are IBL News 'mainstream' (or more importantly reliable?) GiantSnowman 15:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree strongly with GS on this, given the post from Phil Bridger about OTRS identification etc. It stays out unless there is a consensus to put it in, something obviously lacking now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you need two separate articles, with a dividing line between 2006 and 2007. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that Amazon lists a number of books under Aryeh, including some that are claimed in the Lynette article to be written by Lynette. If wikipedia is going to pretend these are two separate persons, then we can't claim authorship by Lynett when the published author was Aryeh. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Purely as a FYI Phil: Misplaced Pages:ANI#BLP redirect for delete and salt. KTC (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A further FYI is that the redirect was created over 2 years ago, with a rather matter-of-fact explanation for it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It baffles me that somebody would want to delete & salt the redirect from Aryeh Nusbacher, whilst there's been no attempt to remove the content about Aryeh Nusbacher's work from the target article. Lacking a connection between the two, there is very little content about Lynette Nusbacher, who would appear to fail the GNG. Meanwhile, there's lots of stuff about Aryeh Nusbacher - the name is repeatedly removed from our article but it's the name used by sources - so why on earth would we salt the notable one? Can somebody explain? bobrayner (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can explain: it's obstructionism. See WP:TENDENTIOUS, and perhaps WP:IPW. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just reading your IPW essay. No "perhaps" about it. This is definitely a conflict of interest situation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Insisting on strong sourcing for a BLP is simply following policy, please AGF. Insomesia (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)It baffled me too, until a user in this section confirmed that this Lynette is trying to mold the article based on a personal agenda rather than on observable facts. I thought that kind of thing was against the rules. So I'm still a bit baffled. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I've just nominated for deletion on notability grounds. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of sex-change/name w/o consensus

The fact of sex-change and previous name has been restored. It's fine that there's a better source for it, but the existence of a source is not sufficient. WP:BLP makes it clear that edits of this sort require consensus, which is manifestly lacking. Key passage: write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" -- something that obviously comes into play per Phil Bridger's posts above about OTRS identification and Nusbacher's own expressed preferences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Boldness is my method. Once people see a very good source such as Palgrave then consensus comes quickly. I think the new source is the final nail in this discussion; that it is indeed sufficient.

Regarding privacy of the individual; we are not talking about a reclusive scholar about whom any revelation is hurtful. Rather, we are talking about a person who sought the public light—who appeared repeatedly on television programs and taught the royal princes at Sandhurst, a very prominent school. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And you think her preference to treat the sex change as private is something we can/should ignore?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly something we can ignore if that's what we decide, and having the article repeat her surname over and over rather than use a pronoun is a bit ridiculous. Formerip (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to replace the surname with the correct pronoun, "she", where appropriate. I don't think that that's a matter under dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sure, we can -- but what about should? And what about the bit that says consensus is required for this sort of edit? I'm frankly pretty surprised at how this is going. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you are surprised—the Palgrave source came out of the blue. However, the new source was a game-changer; it was the sword that cut the Gordian knot. As such, any restoration of text based on the new source did not require consensus: at WP:BLP, the section called "Restoring deleted content" tells us that "if is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". Of course you can see we had "significant change" because of the new Palgrave tertiary source, based on work by scholarly editors led by William Rubinstein. The guideline says that the burden of proof is on the person who restores text. I think I supplied ample proof with the Palgrave book. Please forgive me for not pausing to form consensus. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's leave the royal princes out of this. Nusbacher chose to teach at Sandhurst, but I'm sure she didn't choose her students. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A little reading is also a dangerous thing.

So the problem is this:

• The subject, editing as NetNus, disputes almost everything published by British tabloid The Sun in 2007.
• The IBL News source, still being waved around five years later, on 2012-12-31 on the article's talk page even, is — as pointed out by NetNus all of the way back in 2007 — a pun-for-pun translation of the article in The Sun.
• A further source, Rubinstein, Jolles & Rubinstein 2011, p. 727 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRubinsteinJollesRubinstein2011 (help) is cited. "Hooray!", shouts everyone. "We can close up Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher, stop the BLP Noticeboard discussion, and go home. It's all good, now."
• Unfortunately, no-one apparently reads the new source very closely.

Rubinstein, Jolles & Rubinstein 2011, p. 727 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRubinsteinJollesRubinstein2011 (help) cites its sources, at the foot of the article. They are "JC", which denotes The Jewish Chronicle and "online sources". The datelines of the JC articles are given. Because the JC archives are on the WWW, it's simple to go and look them up.

The article in The Sun says that "it is believed" that the relevant event occurred "in the past few weeks", and is datelined 2007-10-04. The only 2007 article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2007-10-18. That's available directly from the Chronicle here. It doesn't say anything about medical operations. The latest prior article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2006-11-10 and is available directly from the Chronicle here. There's a different name, but no mention of medical operations there, either. The Sun says that "it is believed" that there was an operation, which is careful wording, especially in light of the subject's statement that Sun journalists never interviewed anyone who was in a position to actually know.

So where did Jolles and the Rubensteins get their information from? It wasn't "JC", given that we can see that the Chronicle didn't publish any such thing. So it must have been "online sources". This brings us back to the complaint from the subject on this very noticeboard in 2007, where NetNus writes that when entering xyr name into Google Web "the Misplaced Pages article comes up first, however, even before my official web page at work.". So what are these "online sources" that Jolles and the Rubensteins talk of? If they put Nusbacher's name into Google Web, those "online sources" would have been this Misplaced Pages article.

So what we have here is exactly what the subject didn't want: A public discussion of a sex change operation that has been reliability-laundered by way of a dictionary of Anglo-Jewish biography that consulted Misplaced Pages and its masses of on-line mirrors, The Sun, and all of the web logs and discussion fora that repeated the same, for its facts in the first place; where the only source that has come anywhere near actually interviewing people and checking facts was only willing to go as far as saying in print that "it is believed" that this happened.

The simple truth, people, is that the only people who know whether there has been an operation or not are quite determinedly not telling the world, on the fairly reasonable grounds that it's none of the world's business. There is nothing known, here.

Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's over-egging somewhat. It would be one thing to exclude the information on the grounds of BLP and privacy, but let's not do it by feigning stupidity. Everyone who has looked at the sourcing knows very well whether there was an operation or not (that is, by the ultimate acid-test, the sourcing is reliable and doesn't leave realistic room for doubt). It's certainly not true to say that the Sun article is unsure on the matter - that's just based on ignoring the syntax of the source.

There is a genuine issue about whether the material should, on balance, be excluded. But that's purely about the degree to which we should protect the privacy of the subject. Formerip (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Pure conjecture. Uncle G concludes that "online sources" means Misplaced Pages without actually knowing, well, anything at all. He makes that leap purely based on Nusbacher's complaint of Misplaced Pages being the top search result on Google, but there's no reason at all to believe that Jolle & the Rubinsteins relied on Google. The unfounded assumptions are stacked up at least three deep, and counting.

Meanwhile...

"WILLIAM D. RUBENSTEIN is Professor of Modern History at the University of Aberystwyth, UK and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society."

"MICHAEL JOLLES is a member of the Council of the Jewish Historical Society of England, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. "

"HILARY L. RUBENSTEIN is a former Research Fellow in History at the University of Melbourne, Australia. She is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and a member of the Council of the Navy Records Society. "

...which adds up to credibility. So, Uncle G... what are your credentials? ► Belchfire-TALK 16:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter to us exactly what sources were evaluated by the scholarly editors of Palgrave. Misplaced Pages may have been one of them, six issues of Jewish Chronicle were definitely checked, they might have seen the Sun article, they might have looked at Nusbacher's archived blog, they might have seen Nusbacher's 1998 registration with Adoption.com naming his wife, they might have looked at the Pope article Nusbacher wrote for the Society of Creative Anachronism, they might have seen Nusbacher's film review of A Stranger Among Us, they might have seen the paper written by Nusbacher's wife in 1997 where she thanks him for his love and support, they might have looked at various military history discussion groups. Whatever they looked at, they arrived at a firm conclusion. We put our complete trust in such an august body. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

...and proceed to ignore the privacy issue completely -- or, if that doesn't sound right, decide to ignore the subject's clear wishes. Why, exactly? I don't think anyone favoring inclusion has yet given a reason. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, it can also be said that no-one has made a very strong case for excluding it for privacy reasons, and that's really where the burden lies. Formerip (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The subject's expressed wishes do not amount to a strong case?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, not in themselves. Looking at it as objectively as I can, I think you should not be surprised at not having won many people over just by exclaiming "isn't it obvious". I doubt it will be obvious to everyone. Formerip (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've said "It's obvious". I've said, the fact that the subject wishes to treat this information as private is a good reason to treat it as private. *Not* providing a reason to override her wishes is surely the weak case here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Policy and precedent say we don't just blithely follow the subject's wishes. That's not to say we should never follow them, but what is it about this case in particular? Formerip (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When did this become Stalin-a-pedia? This is a public figure - a television personality - so there's a fairly limited range of potential privacy issues that could be legitimately raised. ► Belchfire-TALK 17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

FormerIP, why are you (by all appearances) so reluctant to give a reason for overriding the subject's wishes? I've asked for a reason several times now, without success. Once again: can you please say why we should do so? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You're assuming I have made up my mind about it, which I haven't. What I am trying to do is get you (or someone) to articulate their thinking about why it should be removed. I don't think "because it's what the subject wants" is enough on it's own. I do think there are other considerations. For instance, I think WP has a social responsibility to reflect the world reasonably accurately, and there's a tension between that and too readily pretending not to notice things about the world, even though there can sometimes be legitimate reasons for doing so. I would also wonder, in this case, whether there is any secret to be kept. I would guess this is something that the rats under the sink at Sandhurst know about. The subject may wish it were otherwise, but can we really help in any event? Formerip (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The subject was a publicity-seeking television show expert, a talking head for military history topics. The subject was also a prominent writer of books, articles and essays. The subject allowed interviews by news reporters, specifically for the Jewish Chronicle. This person blogs for Huffington Post. This person is not the shy and retiring type who hides from publicity and shuns the spotlight. This person is not the type who we try to protect from overexposure, following the guideline at WP:HARM. No, we cannot hide our collective heads in the sand and let a biography subject chop off more than half of their illustrious career, and a majority of their biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good argument as to why her article should not be deleted. But no-one gives up all aspects of their right to privacy just by appearing on TV. Formerip (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given Uncle G's work I think its painfully obvious that the august body of researchers used faulty sourcing including the then Misplaced Pages article. Per WP:RS we need to throw out these sources and likely post to the talk page why each is in turn quoting each other and they are all faulty. Per BLP we need strong sourcing to make exceptional claims. We don't have that sourcing and possibly the article could be deleted again. Insomesia (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The beliefs as to what "online sources" means is pure speculation. There's no other way to put it. If looking at two variations of the subject's own site constitutes original research, then applying any further definition to "online sources" certainly is.

The individual's wishes on the matter are also not an overriding factor. While I can see how these changes could be troubling to the individual/user, I can't claim that I do or should care. None of the subjects of wikipedia have a blanket right to dictate the content of their respective articles; this is down to sources. This is even more down to sources when there is clearly something being omitted from the article. Human.v2.0 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncle G's "research" is flawed in that he assumes right from the start that the three Palgrave academics used poor judgement in assessing the online sources in front of them, which Uncle G says must have included only Misplaced Pages, a ridiculous and artificial limitation. Insomesia's faith in Uncle G's argument is not compelling.

We place our highest trust in scholarly works, of which the Palgrave biographical dictionary is a fine example, written by three academics including William Rubinstein. There is no reason to "throw out" this very strong source. It is the linchpin for everything else that makes sense in the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC

I have started an RfC on this issue -- please see the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Montgomery High School

Richard Montgomery High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - besides the fact it has multiple problems and ignores Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines it's got quite a bit of contentious material about living people and could use a perusal. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the alumni list; if there are other specific issues they could be listed here or on the article talk page. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was also thinking of the bit about charges against a school principal that take up more space than the decision that they weren't and the bit about criticism of the County Schools superintendent, and also the bit about the student newspaper. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

British Waterways, Canal & River Trust

Hi. I am concerned about recent edits from 109.68.196.1 to British Waterways and Canal & River Trust. They allege wrongdoing and name an individual. Expert help please? At present I have just reverted them but of course they're still there in the edit histories. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I posted the IP at the rev-del IRC. They should deal with it soon as there were quite a few logged in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I have since added the IRC link to the top of this page. Just hit the little green connect button and follow instructions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, brilliant, thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Rawlings

Jerry Rawlings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MarkMysoe (talk · contribs)

Someone should carefully follow the contributions of Mark Mysoe to the biography of Jerry Rawlings and other articles. He uses Misplaced Pages to promote ethnic conflict between his Akan tribe and the other tribes of Ghana. This goes to the point that former Ghanaian president Jerry Rawlings is repeatedly called a Togolese, his (now governing) party NDC a "Togolese" party, etcetera. In other articles than biographies he replaces the name "Ghana" by "Akanland" and calls most other inhabitants of Ghana "illegal immigrants". DrMennoWolters (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Happy New Year BLPers, after Dr Menno pulled the alarm bell, I cleaned up the infoboxes and removed the libellous, defamatory cats and then rushed over to ANI to find that JohnCD had indeff blocked this user who was wreaking havoc on anything Ghana related (see bottom of next section).
• I have just attempted to clean the lede and personal life sections of MM's systemic bias, remove all the untruths and slanted terminology, whilst properly reffing the info. Off to deal with real life concerns, would anyone care to continue reviewing this article and pruning it back to a more reasonable, balanced bio? Cheers. CaptainScreebo 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nana Akufo-Addo

• Nana Akufo-Addo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biography is about a leading politician of Ghana. A contribution by Mark Mysoe makes him the leader of a fictitious country "Akanland". This is part of a strategy of Mark Mysoe to contribute nonsense about this fantasy-born country to many articles. As this may cause ethnic conflict in Ghana, Misplaced Pages should prevent him from doing so. DrMennoWolters (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Akanland is fictional?--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• - MarkMysoe (talk · contribs)

There does seem to be some issues there - poor sourcing - cites used that do not mention Arkland at all, worthy of investigating imo - Is Arkanland an historic area or a modern reality or what? Youreallycan 13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Akanland is a name for the southern region of Ghana. The Akan tribe makes up a majority of the population of that area. There seems to be a movement of unknown size within that area for either autonomy or independence. I'm looked through a large subset of User:MarkMysoe's recent contributions; he seems to be on a mission to bring about Akanland's autonomy or independence through the massive editing of Misplaced Pages articles. A couple of example edits :

-- breaking at least one URL, and making the University of Education, Winneba into a vanguard of Akanland advancement.

(two edits) -- removing any reference to Ghana from the article about the city of Bibiani (including the removal of references).

-- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the User:MarkMysoe about this thread on his userpage - Youreallycan 15:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you -- I had assumed that DrMennoWolters had, but as the old saying about "assume" goes... -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It soon becasme clear this this users contributions are the only thing at issue in regards to the multiple reports about Arkn - has is the creator (in sept 2012) and only contributor to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Akan - Youreallycan 16:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)This is a serious problem. It would appear that this report is the tip of the iceberg, and that there is an underlying campaign by Mark to re-write history by slowly converting mentions of Ghana into Akanland.

This is not the first time I've had trouble with this user. I must admit that I rolled my eyes when I read above about the use of poor sources which do not actually mention the subject - this is a hallmark of Mark's editing. The only other place I've interacted with him was at Kevin-Prince Boateng, which Mark has consistently tried to turn into a fanboy magazine article. There, he has often used simple bio pages which mention Boateng's name as carte blanche to write his own personal pundit-esque commentary about Boateng's playing style. A good example would be the commentary on his playing style in the "International career" section of the article in this edit. When I investigated, most of the claims made in that section turned out not to be in the sources he used. The same is true of this edit, where he adds superficially sourced trivia about Boateng's goal celebrations, which turn out not to be mentioned in the source. Or then there's this edit, which introduces a section on nicknames which is sourced, but when investigated the source doesn't contain any of the claimed nicknames. The list goes on and I could provide more examples.

This is serious abuse of process. It's difficult to peer into Mark's troubled past because he selectively archives his talk page, blanking criticism entirely in the name of cleaning up the page, whilst keeping a nominal "archive" page to make his talk page history appear continuous. This week, for example, he's removed several requests to stop this Akan nonsense from other editors within hours of them being placed (contrast this with the solitary barn star he's ever received, which has been kept on his talk page like a medal since June). Mark's had trouble with others over these sorts of issues before and, to be completely honest, I really don't think he's doing the project any good. Most of his editing contains serious problems requiring cleanup, if not complete removal. This particular report simply highlights the latest crusade of Mark's, on which he's happy to mislead others and rankly flaunt the rules in order to add his own original research to articles. The worst part is that all of this has been pointed out to him several times before, by a multitude of other editors at various venues, and yet he refuses to get the point. His editing attitude is particularly damaging because he's prolific and does an awful lot of editing in areas which are often poorly watched, and can end up causing a lot of issues before anyone even notices (this is particularly evident in this most recent example). I think the time has come to cut our losses, play damage control and indefinitely block Mark to stop this kind of disruption. If no one can bring themselves to do this, then I think an RfC/U is unavoidable. Basalisk ⁄_berate 16:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This substitution of Akanland for Ghana has been going on for some time - I raised it on MM's talk page in September 2012, and I thought I had taken it to ANI but can't find it in the ANI archives. There is also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Africa#User:_MarkMysoe. PamD 16:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just found the record of my previous attempt to raise this editor's disruptive editing at ANI (1 October 2012): Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive770#POV_editing_re_Akanland_.2F_Ghana_by_User:MarkMysoe. Just in case it's useful in any further discussion. I don't know why my previous archive search didn't find it. PamD 22:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think this needs to go to ANI so cleanup efforts can proceed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I am out of the house at the moment editing on my phone and so I can't really formulate a proper report at ANI, but I will do it when I'm back. Alternatively, someone else can do it and I'll add my thoughts when I can. Basalisk ⁄_berate 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

About to be done, wholeheartedly scandalized by the f*%ked-up mess this user is making, what's more it's not just trivial fanboy stuff but stuff to set off ethnic rioting - at Jerry Rawlings I have just removed the cats: Togolese mercenaries, Scottish mercenaries, Genocide perpetrators, 20th and 21st century criminals and Military dictatorships. Also fixed some stuff in the info box claiming his religion was Voodoo amongst other things.

The text is really fucked up though, he has systematically added Togolese, mercenary and Akan (instead of Ghana) wherever x/he can. Post the link to ANI as soon as I'm through, please check the user's contribs to help with the clean-up and weigh-in over at ANI if you have any experience of this "freedom fighter". CaptainScreebo 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Maunus beat me to it while I was partially reverting the Jerry Rawlings bio. For the diuscussion at ANI, click here! CaptainScreebo 19:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Akanland is a historic country of the Akan people, the Akan people ethnic nationalis agreed to a state treaty with the British, for the Akan people historic country Akanland (see here) to be part of colony and it was named Gold Coast. In 1957, a state union was agreed by the Akan people and Akanland government agreed with and lead by Akan politician Kwame Nkrumah to join their historic country Akanland (now divided as Ashanti, Brong-Ahafo, Central Region, Eastern Region and Western Region) as a state union with the Mossi people historic country known as the Kingdom of Mossi then named to Northern Territories (now named and divided to Northern Region, Upper West Region and Upper East Region) within Ghana (see here) and the Ewe people historic country Togoland then named British Togoland and French Togoland (now known as Togo and Volta Region) within Ghana (see here, here, here and here). These three countries governments (Akanland, Kingdom of Mossi, and Togoland) agreed to a state union in 1957 to create Ghana, and they decided to it after the ancient empire called Ghana Empire. The "Ghana" state union is a example of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, Montenegro decided to break their state union with Serbia in 2006 with a independence referendum and the country Serbia and Montenegro is now the countries Serbia and Montenegro.

A further look into the history of the lands and territories that created Ghana by a state union in 1957, before deleting Akan people and their land (Akanland) historic information and really informative information + a hard work of a small Wikiproject Akan, that a person has tried their best to do over four months. What good is Misplaced Pages if someone has taken a lot of their time and hardwork on a ethnic group and their historic Akan land and historic country (Akanland), Akan culture and Akan WikiProject, that nobody had even bothered to try and do. I have lost my passion for Misplaced Pages about now. I may just retire myself from Misplaced Pages since, a large, hardworked and wrightful information about the Akan people lands and Akan territory (Akanland), their Akan economy from their lands and territory (Akanland), their Akan culture and Akan society, Akan biodiversity has all been removed, and even their Akan WikiProject. What good is Misplaced Pages if somebody wants to find information about the Akan people and their land and historic country (Akanland), where the Akan people lived and currently live (Akanland), the history of the Akan lands (Akanland), their unique and independent Akan educational structure, the Akan people governance and Akan political structure, the Akan people and Akan lands (Akanland) sports history (Akan football history), the Akan people health status and independent Akan people health care, and the Akan people society and culture and social life, has all been removed. A large scope of Akan people history, Akan geography and Akan biodiversity of their land (Akanland), Akan demographics, Akan people health status, Akan peole life expectancy and Akan people health care structure, the Akan people independent educational structure, the Akan people and their land (Akanland) independent economical history, the Akan people land (Akanland) and their historic country (Akanland) infrastructure and transportation systems, the Akan peoples gold, Akan cocoa, Akan natural minerals, and Akan fossil fuels all from their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), the Akan people governance and Akan people political structure of the Akan people and their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), and the Akan people identity and historical anthem music, to just be removed and suppressed from being freely viewed on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is meant to be for freedom of information and where everybody can go to for as much helpful information of topics and subjects. It now looks like in the year 2013 (21st century) this is no longer the case.

In the Nana Akufo-Addo subject, Nana Akufo-Addo is an Akan and a ethnic national of Akanland and is from Eastern Akanland, for example it is exampled by Olusegun Obasanjo who is a Yoruba and ethnic national of Yorubaland where it can be mentioned that Olusegun Obasanjo is from Yorubaland in the article header. MarkMysoe (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This last post from Markymsoe repeats the word Akan over 50 times - Youreallycan 21:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have indef-blocked MarkMysoe on the evidence presented here and at WP:ANI#User:MarkMysoe making the Akanland region of Ghana independent overnight. Misplaced Pages is not the place to re-draw the map of Africa. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I think anyone writing such appallingly incomprehensible dross as that above deserves to be banned - for that reason alone!1812ahill (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden

• Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this article needs urgent attention. The person is definitely notable, but the current content appears to have been written almost entirely from a negative angle and it probably libelous. I am not personally able to assist with this review due to lack of knowledge of the person, the subject or time to get up to speed on it. PeterEastern (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the recent IP addition made in a single edit - and left him a link ot this discussion - his addition gets a lot of returns give it the appearance of cut and copy paste from the web - diff of the IPS single edit - Youreallycan 14:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Silly me. Apologies for possibly over-reacting - I didn't even check that it wasn't a recent single incidence of vandalism before posting here. Anyway, the article is now well sorted now, thanks. I have also added a couple of references for good measure. PeterEastern (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it wasn't an over reaction - apart from the mere mention of libel/ legal that can cause pricked ears here in regard avoidance of WP:NLT - thanks for the report. I have issues regarding the subjects WP:Notability but as he clearly is a real person and any violating content has been removed I will leave that to other users specialist in wiki notability - regards - Youreallycan 18:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nasser Zahedi

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

This person has no merits that would call for an article about him on WIKIPEDIA! That seems nevertheles to be a good reason for Misplaced Pages to allow this creature to celebrate his "profusely significant existance" in this selfcongratulatry fashion. WONDERFUL refernce for Misplaced Pages indeed, if every entirely banal Dick Tom and Harry can set himself a memorial here, what will come of this platform??? — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.142.48.157 (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This IP address had made three edits - the first to vandalize the Biography diff that cluebot removed - and one post the same rant on here on the BLP talkpage, I removed that rant - no comment on the alleged limited notability of the subject but we have WP:AFD process to nominate articles for deletion and if anyone would like my help with that please let me know - Youreallycan 16:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP has also been vandalizing the German article. 87.142.48.157, there are 4,133,462 other articles in English Misplaced Pages that you may prefer. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

David Dickens

References to post CSS acreer incorrect, mostly untrue and lack balance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.99.141 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed this content, since it was unsourced. Formerip (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mohammed Nizamul Huq

I was asked on my talk page to look at the article, and the article looked like a hit piece to me. So I stubbed it I would appreciate input if this was the correct course of action? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel that in the light of which was one of the main sources for the article, Nasim's notability arises from being a Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice who was involved with a major political and judicial scandal. Hence I feel the contents of the article was quite legitimate. I don't think it went out of its way to criticise the subject. It just relayed information that was found in reputable journals like the Washington Post, the Economist, and the Huffington Post. If anyone would like to add other noteworthy information about the judge that has been published in reputable journals, I think they should add to what was already there, and the stub should be reverted to the previous article prior this. Aminul802 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghulam Azam

This is another article which is a bit of a mess, This section was sourced tp this primary source which is hosted on a ICS forums.I removed it per WP:PRIMARY & BLP. Again is this the correct course of action? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

lara baldesarra

Lara Baldesarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) she is Scottish Canadian, not Italian Canadian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.76 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In this interview cited in the article she says "I`m Italian...". Sean.hoyland - talk 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the Scottish or Canadian parts sourced? Perhaps put she says she is of Italian ancestory? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Kamal Warsi

• Kamal Warsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs attention. Yworo (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've redirected it. Formerip (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And the target article is itself of poor quality, but that's not an issue for this noticeboard.--ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Brahmarshi Subhash Patri

Brahmarshi Subhash Patri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He is being critisized for his behavior. But the criticism is only from one news channel and that too exactly on 1st jan 2013 the day after the spiritual event(a 10 day event) where the tv 9 news channel recorded details. The man has been working on spiritual movement for more than 15 years . The news doesn't has any proof but gossip, please check the link provided for reference. Unless the stuff is proved and documented in more than one source this needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palurugururaja (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you have blanked the section - this seems entirely appropriate, given the complete lack of neutrality in the material, lack of proper sourcing etc. I'll keep an eye on the article, and if this material is restored, remove it again as a violation of WP:BLP policy. It may be helpful for other contributors to watchlist it too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to wiki. apologies for any mistakes of mine. Please see "http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/State-Human-Rights-Commission-urged-to-take-action-against-godman/articleshow/17864868.cms", "http://www.teluguone.com/news/content/%E0%B0%AA%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%AE%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%A1%E0%B1%8D-%E0%B0%AC%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%AC%E0%B0%BE-%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%B8%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%80%E0%B0%B2%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%81--43-20176.html" imho, This isn't gossip. -Ecenafri

THe Times of India article seems merely to say that 'a lawyer' has made a complaint to the police. It gives little indication of the substance of the complaint, beyond what looks like gossip regarding Subhash Patri's behaviour with female devotees. Per Misplaced Pages policy, we'd need better sourcing and evidence of lasting significance before including anything relating to this in the article. Having said that though, the article is in serious need of attention, lacking any third-party sourcing whatsoever for its multiple assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/probe-ordered-against-spiritual-society/103461/. I guess, since the incident is new, it will be a while, before things are proven, espl since investigation is quite slow in India.

on a side note, i feel the article itself is poorly written, for being a biography of wiki standards. for instance, "Patriji became enlightened in 1979 ... after some serious experiments with meditation. Since then, Patriji began striving hard to awaken and enlighten each and every individual. " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVZIGAJMtx4 check the above video. looks like pyramid is being used as a scientologist's E-meter to me. i feel the man's a fraud (but my opinion shouldn't reflect on wiki- i don't think wiki is for opinions..). Cheers, Ecenafri

Jodi Arias trial

Jodi Arias trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article does not seem to meet any of the speedy criteria, but I am very uncomfortable with it. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Me too. I think you'd have some chance at deletion at AfD via WP:BLPCRIME, but I wouldn't want to put any real money on an outcome. Additionally, it's more typical to frame those articles as "murder of X" rather than "trial of Y" unless Y is really famous. I'm sure you're about eight steps ahead of me on all this, DGG, anything you're thinking might be the next right step (above and beyond extra eyes on it?) --j⚛e decker 03:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't title the article "Murder of Travis Alexander" because it's Jodi Arias who is getting most of the attention. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Halo, The article should probably be rewritten not to focus on her inconsistent statements, or say they are inconsistent, but just report them. The analogy with the Casey Alexander case seems far-fetched. The quote I see in print is "“This is something that grabs the attention and certainly grabs the imagination of the viewing public" -- which is a pretty weak basis for the analogy. As usual, the article will be easier to handle once the trial concludes. (I agree, btw, that our practice of wording it murder of... is altogether the wrong emphasis unless that is how the even is commonly known). DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

DGG, the article is a stub at this point. So it is summarizing the details. Arias having changed her story three times is a substantial part of the details. It's one of the things sources list early on. Maybe the phrasing shouldn't say "Arias changed her alibi three times," since this is obvious from the rest of the information, and especially since "alibi," if defining it only as " was in some other place at the time the alleged offense was committed" (which is the only way it's legally defined), doesn't fit for her third story, but I don't think that it's a WP:BLP issue to mention that she changed her story three times. Even Death of Caylee Anthony mentions that "Casey told various stories." Regarding the Casey Anthony comparison, the videos in the sources in the article say more. Sources, print and video sources, are calling the Arias case "the second Casey Anthony case" or "the Casey Anthony case of 2013" because of what they see as the similarities between Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias and because of the media attention the Arias case is receiving. See this for an example. I wouldn't say that this case is yet as famous as the Casey Anthony case, though. It's obviously not. Maybe you would be willing to help me build this article? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

At AfD. GiantSnowman 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jodi Arias trial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreallycan 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Zhou Jun

Zhou Jun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been hijacked. It now contains information regarding two different people - an Olympian and an unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109j (talk • contribs) 06:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zhou Jun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreallycan 09:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Gérard Depardieu

Help, need backup, although the page has been PP'ed, some like-minded souls are trying to turn Depardieu into a "French-born Russian" and change the IPA of his name to Russian pronunciation and so on. Ridiculous but repetitive, needs more eyes (nobody doing this has access to a decent source to corroborate this, mind). Appreciated. CaptainScreebo 18:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to those who already got over there (Ukexpat, FormerIP, maunus), getting a lot of traffic and I don't think all the hoo-ha will die down too soon so probably worth watchlisting fellow BLPers. CaptainScreebo 19:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've stepped the protection up to full so that discussion and sourcing can take its due course over the next couple of days.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a good move (I proposed a change I was working on to better reflect the sources on the TP), okay so maybe this weekend he'll be riding in a troika (probably safer than his moped), drinking vodka by the gallon and generally freezing his nuts off somewhere in Russia, but this was getting a bit too much, so-and-so said so it must be true, fine, fine, but we're in BLP territory here and you know, as I do, that this shit gets a lot more media attention than before, btw good catch on the Akanian revolutionary, that got sorted, it was well overdue apparently. CaptainScreebo 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So, instead of actually reading the sources, you come here to ask for people just to "fight off the like-minded souls"...

Here, read this:

"In a letter to Russia’s Channel One television station, Mr. Depardieu confirmed that he applied for Russian citizenship and said he was “happy” the request was granted. (Source: The New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/world/europe/putin-makes-gerard-depardieu-a-citizen-of-russia.html?hp&_r=1&)"

You should work to make the article better and as close to the truth as possible, not just to enforce your opinion over the others.

-R.Arden (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You are so full of it, great, a source dated the 4th of January 2013, hey that's tomorrow where I live, but your shitty sources were from the 20/12/2012 and *did not* corroborate the points you were making. You are a huckster a sham and a fraud, and as to your BE BOLD bullshit that you posted elsewhere, well let's just say that edit warring,10-12 reverts in 4 hours reverting vandalism that isn't and generally not assuming good faith are all very Misplaced Pages:Bold. CaptainScreebo 21:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't fully grasp the concept of Time Zones. Perhaps READING the wikipedia article about it would help you.

And by calling me "full of shit", a huckster a sham and a fraud, you´ve just got yourself extra text to your note on ANI.

Also, aren't you the one huckstering in this noticeboard? ;) -R.Arden (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You are so intent on insisting that I read the sources correctly that you incorrectly read you're so full of it as you're so full of shit, although you did correctly read huckster, sham and fraud, unfortunately you didn't grasp the meaning of the first word, "huckster", as a person who takes things of little value and dilutes them down so as to make them appear more voluminous (what could I be referring to?) Your sarcasm about time zones and dictionaries is not lost on me as "Everyone's got to learn sometimes", so I thank you deeply for your profound knowledge and your philanthropy. CaptainScreebo 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is basic high school grammar. Particle "it" here reffers to Shit/Shitty. Also, a huckster goes door to door trying to sell something. You coming here to ask for help is equivalent in the sense that you are tryin to sell something too (your side of the story). About the time zones, i was not being sarcastic. Perhaps you really should start reading things and not just writing. -R.Arden (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that you both drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass at least for enough time to cool out. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to do that, by declaring i was no longer editing said page (just the talk page). Result was this thread to gush down his opinion on others and a large pack of badgery behaviour against me. -R.Arden (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"your shitty sources were from the 20/12/2012 and *did not* corroborate the points you were making": I'm afraid this is true. Please make further inquiry about R.Arden's doubtful methodology. Having read the full story from all the talk pages mentioned, I think this is purely bad faith. If not worse, because all his pleas do not show any self-understanding of his errors. 146.185.28.178 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebephilia

We could use some eyes at hebephilia. There is a blogger who is starting an otherwise unfounded rumor about what some psychiatrists have allegedly said about some psychologists. Specifically, the page says "The AMA board of trustees apparently had to step in due to a small group of psychologists digging their heals in and not accepting the opinions of the wider community of mental health professionals" There is no evidence of the AMA expressing any such opinion, which is sourced solely to a blogger with a long-term POV on the issue . I am of the opinion that bloggers putting words into the mouths of the AMA are inappropriate to include in WP due to WP:BLP, WP:GOSSIP, and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Other input could be used. Thanks.— James Cantor (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually -- it's sourced just as MrADHD says it is. Yes, it's a blog, but it's a blog within Psychology Today, and it's written by a professional. I also don't belive it violated BLP as it doesn't mention any names, just describes the event.

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution