Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:33, 8 September 2015

• 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.

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Orangemoody

At Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles we say:

In this specific case, however, in order to prevent article subjects from continued shakedowns by bad actors who are causing significant harm to the reputation of this project, the articles are all being deleted.

This text is being reproduced off-wiki by various parties, and the sense of it by many more, including generally reputable journals.

Clearly a shakedown is an act of extortion, illegal in most countries, and unethical everywhere. It is claimed that simply becasue we are not naming those involved, this does not constitute a BLP infraction (or libel).

I respectfully disagree for the following reasons.

1. A significant number of those blocked, if they are different people, operated under named accounts, and therefore can be considered named, notably Orangemoody, the eponymous account of the case.
2. It is quite possible that either the IP addresses, or the named accounts are easy to associate with natural people. It is not uncommon for people to use the same account on many services, to build an on-line reputation.
3. As far as WP:BLP is concerned it is material about a living person there is no requirement that the "real world identity" be linked.

It is certainly worth while blocking these accounts, and I would have no issue with them being prosecuted for violating WP:TOS. However we need to curb this extravagant use of language.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

Shakedown is probably too strong a word. Coercion may be more appropriate. - MrX 00:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not mentioning any specific accounts. We are making clear the motives for deletion based on information we have had that these shakedowns have been occurring, at no point is it suggested that every single account is doing this. It is not extravagant language, it is very accurate language. When you tell someone "pay us or else" that is a shakedown pure and simple. I suppose we could use less colourful language like "extortion", but that is hardly a distinction relevant to BLP. Coercion as MrX suggests is accurate, however extortion means the same thing except refers to "obtaining something, especially money" which in this case is more accurate. Chillum 00:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My concerns are not abated. Firstly if we were saying ""bad actors, who are some of the people who run the accounts, the others are all perfectly nice" then there would perhaps be some wriggle room, but the obvious reading is the group as a whole (assuming there is more than one). Secondly we require that such claims be verifiable, which at present, as far as I can see, they are not.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

Oh and by the way, being, presumably, not public persons, the mens rea requirement is much lower if it ever does come to liability (in the US), so extreme caution, rather than merely caution is advised. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

My reading is that we are deleting to avoid shakedowns being done by bad actors. At no point do we call anyone a bad actor or suggest that all articles were made by bad actors.

We are saying that bad actors are engaging in shakedowns, "prevent article subjects from continued shakedowns by bad actors". We are not saying that any account or person is a bad actor or engaging in shakedowns. We are saying that this has happened and that deleting these articles will prevent that. It is like if we say "We delete harmful statements about living people" we are not saying "If we delete your stuff it means you are being harmful". Chillum 01:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, there is a conflict here between what[REDACTED] should say to alert AfC-queue-workers, admins, and other long-haul wikipedians ... and what[REDACTED] should say *about* the specific accounts being blocked, and *about* the specific articles being deleted (and the topics of said articles which are typically corporation-articles or BLP-articles or product-articles). The distinction is important, albeit somewhat artificial. For instance:

we are blocking a bunch of accounts, a lot of them are bad actors, there was some undislosed paid editing, there were shakedowns/extortions being used, thus we are deleting all the articles in scorched-earth policy, as a warning to future bad actors, all good apples please be aware that this situation could recur and may not be over yet

Phrasing such as my somewhat-contrived example above, as Rich pointed out, is pretty easy to misconstrue, especially if one is a lawyer, that actually know what mens rea even means. Compare with the phrasing below, functionally equivalent but somewhat-artificially segmented, that is a longer-winded description of the exact same situation:

we are blocking a bunch of accounts for socking and for meatpuppetry, since this is not permitted per wiki-policy, in some cases the ToU policy against undisclosed paid editing was violated, and there were allegations that some of these blocked accounts (but not all of them) were off-wiki-contacting some of the corporations and humans -- usually the subject-matter of the corporation-articles and BLP-articles in question -- then allegedly demanding payment and/or allegedly threatening article-deletion, if financial compensation was not forthcoming. Because of the troubling circumstances, we are mass-deleting the articles involved; this is not because the articles themselves are necessarily poor, nor the article-topics are necessarily non-encyclopedic ... indeed a small percentage do appear to pass WP:42 once the puffery is cleaned out. Most importantly, this mass-deletion is certainly not because the off-wiki victims of the bad-apple-socks, which is to say, the corporations and the biographical-subjects, were in any way at fault: quite often, in fact, some innocent good-faith COI-encumbered wikipedian would be diligently following wiki-policies, working in the AfC queue on their autobiography for example, or working in the AfC queue on a corporation-article about their employer, and in the course of receiving a (proper&correct) AfC decline, with instructions for improvement, these good-apple-COI-wikipedians would (allegedly) be approched off-wiki with cash demands and (allegedly) threats of draft-deletion, by some of the bad apples involved in this socking-ring. The topics of these articles, who are often themselves wikipedians, should be treated kindly; they are the victims here, not the perpetrators of the alleged bad-apple-actions. GOING FORWARD: all admins and wikipedians are advised that any sort of shakedown, coercion, or similar tactics -- which might theoretically be attempted by any bad apples in the future -- any such tactic being used against good-faith COI-encumbered wikipedian editors, or being used in real life against the corporations and biographical-subjects of[REDACTED] articles, will be treated most harshly.

Probably my overly-verbose rewrite could be cut down, trimmed for brevity, made as simple as possible but no simpler, but the point is, we need to clearly separate the allegations about what happened in the past, aka the accusations of shakedowns/extortions/etc (I personally witnessed one specific case where such allegations did occur), and keep them firmly in the alleged-category. Hypothetical *future* shakedowns/extortions/whatever, by hypothetical *future* bad apples, should be the main target of harsh expressions and intransigence.

    To be clear, I don't think the blocking was done poorly, and don't think (most of) the mass-article-deletions were an incorrect strategy, either. I thank those involved for their hard work, and offer kudos for a job well done. This language-suggestion is "merely" a question of phrasing-in-the-aftermath, and of PR-for-wikipedia, and of making clear whom is whom -- with precision. Such phrasing-things are not as important as the actual sock-investigations, and the actual sock-blocking, and the preparations for preventing (or at least mitigating) future such attacks on wikipedia's very core tenets. But phrasing does matter, and in particular, I have a hunch that at least one of the meatpuppets involved with the 381 blocks, got roped into the socking-ring without understanding what they were getting into. More crucially, it is *very* likely that if future attacks of this nature occur, they will be more sophisticated about it, and attempt to entangle good-faith editors into the hypothetical future scheme, so as to better obscure their wiki-illicit activities, and so as to make harsh responses less feasible. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as the deletion goes I don't think IAR is applicable since they were generally created from unattributed copy-paste plagiarism, even if someone had improved it then it was an improvement on a copyright violation and is not something we can include under our sites copyright license. I agree there is a difference between what we should say about those who engaged in this activity and what we should say about our reasons for internal actions. In this particular case we are not talking about the account involved, we are describing the basis for deletion of articles. These reasons include that some of them have been used for shakedowns, as well as copyright concerns. Chillum 22:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We have no RS that they were used for shakedowns. (Apart from a lot of media that was fed by the very text I am objecting to.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC).

Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Orangemoody

• We assign the crimes of blackmail and extortion to a specific person, without RS.
• We also repeat the word "blackmail" that is derived from an article informed only by what "we" i.e. unnamed Misplaced Pages editors, and possibly unnamed WMF staff or board members told them. It's clear that the Independent and most if not all of the other coverage has done little or no fact checking, their article revels a substantial lack of knowledge about how Misplaced Pages works, and should be treated with extreme caution, though it could be used carefully.
• The distinction between a "scam", "extortion", a "shakedown" and "blackmail" is not, as has been remarked "a lexical choice". We need to use these terms with care.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

Sheena Bora murder case

This article needs urgent attention from participants at this board. It is written by an experienced editor acting in good faith, but I think the salacious details and speculation in the media have crept into the article. For some particular issues, see my comment at the India noticeboard although those are likely just the tip of the iceberg. Related article, Indrani Mukerjea, Peter Mukerjea etc will also need to be reviewed. Abecedare (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Abecedare, thanks for your attention in this regard. Whilst others look into this page, I too will start cleaning this page up and bring it to shape. Since I have followed this case, it will be quicker for me to clean it. You may also want to keep this page in your watchlist for sometime (just in case I overlook something). Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Abecedare, the link you were talking about has been fixed. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I attempted to trim the article with edit summaries for each removal. These were promptly reverted. It's upto the community to decide if such egregious violations of the BLP policy, most of which is unsourced and/or presented as statements of fact without attribution to the tabloid journals quoted, should stay in the article. I won't be reverting again. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article to hopefully cut down on some of the rubbish that's washing into it. Just so everyone is clear, sticking the word "speculated" in front of potentially defamatory hearsay is not a quick route around the BLP policy. Lankiveil 10:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, TMMoMM. Your and User:Dharmadhyaksha's edits are certainly a big improvement. There are still quite a few BLP violations in the article including the mention of several names of non-public individuals who are AFAIK only tangentially involved (or linked only by gossip and speculation), such as the various relatives. Also there are statements made in wikipedia's voice (eg Upon his arrest, Rai narrated the entire murder incident to the Mumbai police including the fact that he was paid ₹1 lakh (equivalent to ₹1.0 lakh or US$1,509.70 in 2015) for the job.), which are not even supported by the cited sources! Can you take another look? Abecedare (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: The article was obviously created in good faith, but even in its present form reads more like a First Information Report and not encyclopedic by any standards. Normally my advice would be WP:TNT and a rewrite but I understand this case is quite complicated and rather difficult to get the facts straight unless someone spends significant time on research. I tried but it's exhausting. At this point, my only hope is to keep out the potentially libelous BLP violations. - The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have the time, could you just read through the article and remove any sentence (or part) that is (a) a BLP violation in your opinion, or (2) not supported by the cited source? If there are objections to any such removal they can be discussed on the article talk-page and correct sources provided. I realize that such an exercise would make the article coverage incomplete/disjointed, but that would be preferable to having BLP violations in it. Abecedare (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross new account

See https://en.wikipedia.org/Rick_Alan_Ross

I am Rick Alan Ross and am concerned about my bio at Misplaced Pages. One Misplaced Pages user has insisted that I can only post under an account. At one time I did have an account, but I have not used it for some time and am not sure that I have the password. I have now created a new account and am willing to verify my identify by phone (call me at the office) or fax (from my office agreed upon ID). It seems to me that I should bse allowed to discuss what is wrong with my bio on the Talk page per the process at Misplaced Pages. Please help me to continue that process. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickAlanRoss1952 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Per this, you will need to contact the Arbitration Committee. This link explains how to contact them: User:Arbitration_Committee. - MrX 14:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ma Anand Sheela mugshot

At present this mugshot appears in the info box for the Ma Anand Sheela BLP. I can find no other photo to replace it. It appears to give undue weight to her criminal activities. Should it be kept or removed? Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Keithbob I made a version which crops out the booking placard so it is not obviously a mugshot. I can upload it but I am unsure whether a modified non-free-use image is OK from copyright perspective since I have never worked with images. Please ping in reply. Jbh 22:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:MUG suggests that mugshots probably shouldn't be used in BLP articles. I suspect a cropped version of the non-free image would be okay as a replacement of the current image. Lankiveil 10:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

• Would someone please take a look at the file page. I uploaded a cropped version as a replacement however what is showing up in the article is some combination of the old picture with the new picture's aspect ratio. Adding pictures is new to me and it looks like I have bungled it somehow. Help... Jbh 12:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  It looks fine to me. You probably need to clear your browser cache and possible purge the WP cache. - MrX 12:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the check. It looks OK if I switch browsers but even purging the original cache does not work... wierd... I am also going to change the file name to something that does not include "mug shot". Jbh 14:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  Ooppss.. no "file mover" permission. Would someone who can move files please move the file to just Ma_Anand_Sheela.jpg or some such. Thank you. Jbh 14:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the image, as Commons lists its license as copyrighted/fair use only. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can we hold off on the image name change/deletion since it is possible that the image is in public domain and can/should be moved to Commons? I have asked at the commons OTRS noticeboard. To be clear, I have no objections to changing the filename in general, and whether/how it should be used in the article is a separate question from the public-domain/fair-use concern I raise. Abecedare (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No objection to holding off. Also no objection to removal. Jbh 14:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No objection on my part either.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, for your continued attention to this issue. Have a great weekend!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn "association with alleged anti-semites"

Re: this diff and this discussion.

I was bot summoned by an RfC to comment on Jeremy Corbyn's page, where there is now a section, Association with alleged anti-Semites, that uses all kinds of allegations against other people with whom Corbyn has associated to link Corbyn's name to "antisemitism" a bunch of times. This for a leftwing labour politician who's probably as far from anti-semitism as they come. My efforts to improve the page were promptly reverted. I'm no fan of Labour or any of its politicians, but I view this as a blatant BLP vio; comment or help would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've weighed in and made some changes to the article. This sort of thing is likely to continue/reappear... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ruby McGregor-Smith, Mitie, Kingston in either Jamaica or elsewhere, and the Daily Mail

My judgment has been questioned for removing this addition to an article about a living person who is a CEO of a company one of whose sub-divisions has a branch that has likely been breaking some rules. The company in question employs large numbers of people who are paid the minimum wage in demanding circumstances.

My removal... which happened twice now... has been discussed a little on the talk page at Talk:Ruby McGregor-Smith#Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:UNDUE - National Minimum Wage. In particular I was surprised that the supposed controversy had not been mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article about the company itself, nor in any Misplaced Pages article about the sub-division, and that even the CEO herself is not mentioned in the body of the Misplaced Pages article about the company. I think the Daily Mail is one of the sources used.

Anyway, I ask for opinions or suggestions here or there about whether some or any of this material should be in the article about the living person. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Should not really be in her article as it makes an implied connection of wrongdoing between her and the reports, if it is that notable it should be in the company article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ben Garrison

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor has (re)created an article about Ben Garrison, a recurring target of trolling and harassment.The article was previously deleted as an unambiguous attack page. I have to leave right now, but this could use some prompt attention. I think there might be usable sources out there, but most of what's in the article isn't going to fly, and the article, as created, was citing Stormfront and similar. It's already getting vandalized, and if the article is kept, it's going to need many watchers and probably permanent protection. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've brought this to AfD. He's clearly not notable. Brustopher (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've semi-protected the page indefinitely. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 22:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich

I suggest that Wiki moderators and editors become more sensitive to and aware of the insertion of age prejudice into the content of articles. For example, the bio of Newt Gingrich offers a discussion of each of his marriages and characterizes each wife in relation to Mr. Gingrich's age. Why? The point is not stated.

I believe it is inappropriate to characterize the age of a spouse or any other third party in a Wiki article unless the relevance is stated. For about 40 years the standard of journalism has been to exclude discussions of race, religion, culture, and other personal characteristics unless the information is otherwise relevant to the article.

Thanks guys and keep up the great work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8A9:B060:9506:137B:3BFF:877C (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have no true opinion on this, but I did want to separate this into its own section. Offhand, I think that if this is frequently brought up in news articles then it could merit being added to the article, otherwise I do have to question its relevance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Noel Biderman

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

Ameteurdemographer (talk · contribs) introduced a highly contentious statement about the subject of the article. After I removed the content, Ameteurdemographer restored it, and after the material was removed again by Haminoon (talk · contribs), Ameteurdemographer introduced the material a third time. I believe the sourcing of the highly contentious statement relies on questionable, gossipy sources and therefore violates WP:BLP. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ameteurdemographer: RJaguar3 | u | t 03:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sammy Sosa Comment Suggestion

There is a remaining, BLP violation that has not been removed. Several late ones have but I think the earliest edit by User:2600:100d:b12e:a480:143:eba1:9008:52fa should also be hidden. Red Jay (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 12:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Swami_Nithyananda

"Both Nithyananda and the actress had insisted that the video was morphed, a claim that was later proven by a confession by the ex-COO of Sun TV. Sun TV had released the fake video on YouTube."

The cited article contains nothing that suggests this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.80.120 (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

While not elegant, the links in the two adjacent sentences, when put together, do mention these essential facts. However, this article could do with very thorough BLP scrubbing. Notable religious figure with a major sexual scandal always makes for a challenge. It's from 2010, so not new. No time to do any other than raise it here at the moment, sorry. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 12:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

BirthNamesAreGarbage

We have a new editor, BirthNamesAreGarbage (talk · contribs), whose user name and edits so far suggest that they have a mission. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I gave the user a level 2 warning. I suggest that if they continue to remove birth names that they fast-tracked for a block. - MrX 14:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

See FuckYourBirthNameBullshit (talk · contribs) -- zzuuzz 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously disruptive, and I see someone has already reported it to WP:UAA. The other user name is a borderline case, I suppose. - MrX 14:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This user appears to be abusively using socks to carry out these WP:POINTY edits. Here is another account: DeletingDeadNamesForWhatAreUnequivocallyPoliticalReasons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edgeweyes (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Indef'ed that third one and also the first. Would have blocked "just one account" for a short time, or maybe even just a strong warning, but combined with socking and obvious intent by username, WP:NOTHERE. Anyone know the genesis of this? DMacks (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is one more: TakingDownDeadNamesForWhatAreUnequivocallyPoliticalReasons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have started a SPI report at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/BirthNamesAreGarbage. (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

One relates note another user (who I don't believe is connected to the socks above) removed the birth name from Rose Venkatesan citing that they were removin a non famous name per MOS:IDENTITY. It's that an accurate assessment since unless I missed something I did not see anything in that section against mentioning birth names at all unless famous.--65.94.253.185 (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably the user referred to as the 'another user'. I'm not related to the sockpuppet owner, and don't know anything about them. I'd suggest that there are two issues here - dealing with a sockpuppeteer, which is straightforward, and dealing with editors putting in dead names for transsexual people, a common enough way of harassing us. So the other task here is to work towards a policy that restricts the practice. Anniepoo (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Just it be clear If I was being misinterpreted I did not believe that you were related to the sock otherwise I would have not stated that I did not believe that you were related.--65.94.253.185 (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Grant Farred

This article could use some love. I tagged two sections as UNDUE and commented out large swaths of text a year ago, but I never got back to clean it up as intended. Gamaliel (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Zoie Palmer

Hello

My understanding is WIKI is all about presenting facts right? AS a long time user I rely on the honesty of those inputting to the page.

I seem to be bullied out by more "experienced" editors.

My issue is this. Zoie Palmer in no legal way etc is a parent to her partner's child. He has a mother and father. She is not an adoptive mother, step mother etc... This is legal FACT. She may be awesome motherly figure etc but he is not her son. I implore you to show me tertiary evidence that he is her child.

Anyways your "editors" who have soo much experience etc have resorted to name calling (I screenshotted it(. The point is what I am saying is truthful.

Again show me tertiary evidence that it's not true what I said. I know it cannot be disproved as what I am saying is true. What I am saying is objective not subjective.

So please hold accountable those that resort to name calling and prevent the same from being repeated.

It's also in poor taste to publish a minors name.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctfact (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide sources to back up your claim rather than removing information without any indication as to why. Your snide edit comment aimed towards User:AussieLegend wasn't needed either. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I am a little stunned about the lack of quality editors here.... and amused at you warning her I have reported this... Which part was snide by the way? And once again you are wrong... YOU HAVE TO put truthful facts on WIKI. I don't have to disprove lies? I cannot provide evidence she is the parent BECAUSE she isn't. I am not sure how much clearer you need it explained. The lack of reasonableness here drops Wiki into the gutter. I offered up early on find a label that fits, but her son, does not fit. The fact you can't step back and go well that actually is correct she is not his mother defies logic. Here you go. That kid has a mother and father, neither of which are Zoie. Zoie is not married to Alex so she isn't the step mother. I assume you know Alex was previously married and the son is a product of that marriage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctfact (talk • contribs) 12:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And the sources which back up what you say are.... where? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Some background: Correctfact has been edit-warring at Zoie Palmer, persistently removing sourced content despite being reverted by more than one editor. Eventually Bearcat fully protected the article and warned Correctfact that he would be blocked if he persisted. I left a message on his talk page suggesting he discuss the matter at the article's talk page. His response was to remove the content again and leave a message on the article's talk page, not to discuss. He has now been reported to WP:AIV and is one edit away from breaching 3RR. --12:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I took a look at the relevant messages on your talk page. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Was that before or after you called me a jerk? You clearly ignored earlier (and missed stating it for your own benefit) where I stated I had not seen the messages. I know the parties involved first hand, I recall the day he was born. Zoie who? If you are so invested in a lie... ask her if what I a saying is correct. I am fine to accept an appropriate label, but not this. The problem with well known people in this situation is those that don't have a voice (ie the other parent) don't get a say into the domain their kid gets thrown into.

I would hope those that print lies get sued... You are basically claiming the father doesn't exist and someone else is his son's parent. You have printed it, it is false and harms his reputation.

Reported at ANI per WP:NLT --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies it would appear it was someone else who does the name calling...

The same vandal, User:Correctfact, vandalized the article again with the same edits. User:Bearcat has put an Admin-only protection level on it. This will not stop User:Correctfact from wanting to distort biographical information about Zoie Palmer and he will return to do it all over again when the protection expires. What has really happened now, however, is that every editor has been punished for the actions of one jerk. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctfact (talk • contribs)

PS: I did not say I was suing.. I said I hope the other person does. You may want to look up the definition of what constitutes a threat #brightspark. If what you say is true... then there would be nothing to worry about in regards to your actions would there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctfact (talk • contribs) 13:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Bring it up at the ANI page. It's not relevant here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Reality check

The sources for this issue suck. One is "Hello". I checked "Gay Star News", . It clearly says that the son Luca is from a previous relationship. So if there's another kid involved, it's not at all obvious that it's Zoie's. I'm removing the "son" claim until this is sorted out properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard Sherman

Richard Sherman (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone edited the page for Richard Sherman, the All-Pro cornerback for the Seattle Seahawks, to say that he now plays for the Green Bay Packers, even though no such news of this player leaving the Seahawks can be found anywhere. I live in Wisconsin and am surrounded by dipshit insane Packers fans. I have since edited the page back to full accuracy, but please ensure no more idiots in the state of Wisconsin, or anywhere else for that matter, make asinine other claims like this about a living NFL player in order to make their team look better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.43.26 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Standard vandalism, reverted fairly quickly after being added. That user vandalized another article as well which was corrected. Thanks for noticing this, OP and quickly correcting it. Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Trans-national murder trials

There are a class of articles related to the apparently deliberate deaths of people where the apparent culprit fled across an international border to China. These include Amanda Zhao, Murder of Shao Tong, Trial of Xiao Zhen and Zhang Hongjie. One of them (Trial of Xiao Zhen) is largely my work, but I now see that other editors have taken very different approaches to the articles. Could I get someone to take a look and give me some feedback on the relative approaches? Does anyone know of similar articles that have got to GA status I can crib from? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

George Ella Lyon

The article says she has 30 children. Is this true? No other web source says so. Thank you. Anne C. Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.136.224 (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems unlikely, and unsourced. Removed, together with some other minor vandalism by the same IP. Thanks for pointing this out. Eagleash (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Frank Ching

I came across the biography of a writer and former professor Frank Ching from a page awaiting review, https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Analytical_drawing. Despite a long book list the article has no references. The only biographical information I could find on the web either came from his social media or the brief mention at http://www.amazon.com/Francis-D.K.-Ching/e/B001H6NK1W. I'd assume they must exist, but I was unable to find reliable secondary sources. Would it be possible for someone more experienced to have a go at it? Please always ping @ Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on Michael Fassbender Personal life section

The personal life section is often edited and filled with lies to discredit Mr. Fassbender and his work. The sources of these lies are unreliable gossip articles so I deleted all the lies about his personal life, leaving the true facts. I hope you will do something about that next time it happens because it is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.169.227 (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not all of the information was content that would discredit him. The information of an ex-girlfriend petitioning for a restraining order could fall under that, but the information about his ex-girlfriends wouldn't really be seen as all that harmful so I wouldn't classify that as lies unless you can show articles saying that he wasn't in a relationship with them. However that said, there's no real reason to include either of those things in his articles, since we only include legal issues that have gone through court or have least been covered by an exhaustive amount of sourcing. To an extent this would also extend to his girlfriends since Misplaced Pages will typically only cover relationships that have lasted over a period of years or were exceedingly notable news-wise, partially because the average person will go through a good number of significant others to where it'd be a bit too WP:INDISCRIMINATE for the site's purposes. If you see this happening again, feel free to remove the data as you have here or let us know about it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I really don't think there's a problem with including information on his relationships as long as it's referenced and unbiased. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis in absolutely dreadful state.

Kim Davis trivially falls under WP:BIO1E, but a handful of editors are maintaining the article as if she's notable for something else. I think the goal for including all the extraneous information is to attack her character and undermine her position. The article currently reads as if she had a WP:BLP before the last couple weeks, but it was created on September 1st, in response to her actions protesting the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

The article currently has sources that do not mention the recent controversy at all, and that seems to be clear WP:OR, as editors are deciding which scraps of information dug up from 2011 or before to include in the article, rather than allowing the sources relating to the current event to decide what information needs to be included.

Aside from this, the excessive detail into her election, including a colored table and 3 sections completely unrelated to the controversy seem trivially inappropriate and do not conform to the standards set by other articles about people notable only for one event. Furthermore, the section on her personal life is listed out of chronological order, in order to make her seem more like a hypocrite.

If editors could please take a read and contribute to the discussing there or here, it would be most appreciated. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution