437:. Since the merits of the libel complaint were never ruled upon, calling attention to potentially defamatory material makes my BLP alarms go off. The only lingering concern I have is whether the actual ruling itself is important enough to warrant an article. That is, that Internet blogs are considered Mass Media for purposes of the Statute of Limitations. From reading the above links, it is settled law that mass-media publication dates start the clock, but the reliable sources imply that this ruling was a first to lump blogs into that definition. The case is under appeal it seems, so perhaps the ultimate final ruling would warrant an article solely on that matter of law.
459:. I understand that an article about a particular lawsuit covers both parties and the underlying legal principles at issue. However, here the topic would be best covered by a section in the plaintiff's existing biographical article. Should the case go further up to the Supreme Court, it could be forked off again. Having this be a part of the biography would avoid the need to repeat a lot of background information.
476:, agree with Racepacket that it is sufficient to include this in the Wolk article for now. Note that this requires an editor who has been deleting info on the case there to refrain from further deletion. I also disagree that POVFORK applies here -- the only issue is that the case itself might not be notable for a separate article at this stage (though this could change depending on further developments).
689:"Furthermore Boo the puppy says I am an associate of Arthur Wolk which is not true I wrote the article because I'm interested in air safety issues and from seaching the internet found he is an expert in air safety and aviation law I called him and asked if I could write an article for Knowledge (XXG)."
728:
No: In case you didn't notice, I was the one who nominated Boo's article for deletion, the one who warned Boo not to write about Wolk, and the one who agreed with you that this is well-settled law (which raises the question why your employer is appealing his loss, and why he brought a second lawsuit
641:
if this AfD closes as Merge, whatever administrator does the closing should lay down the law at the Wolk article that the material belongs there and the
Community consensus on the issue has been determined. Anyone who hires someone to create an autobiographical wikipedia article is just asking for
213:
under an accusation that I have "incited" others to defame Wolk whenever someone writes about this lawsuit. And I don't want to be accused of inciting if someone writes something in
Knowledge (XXG) that Wolk doesn't like, so I hereby announce that my position is that no one should ever write
743:
That's not exactly true, is it, Lawrencewarwick - you announced on Oct 15 that you were hired by the Wolk
Lawfirm, and you started this article on Oct 14. Do you really expect people to believe you? Are you being paid by an interested party to edit wikipedia? Please read
237:? If so, where was this article forked from? There appears to be an edit war currently on this page, but the first three references (staff blog on reason.com, law.com, and philadelphia biz journal) appear to bring the subject of this article above the bar of the
48:. Although a significant minority of users advocated a merge, in the case of BLP issues we should err on he side of caution. The waters are further muddied by the personal involvement of several users participating here, but in the end I believe the best thing
529:, and really wondered why this case had an article to itself. Spidey senses tingle when you have to source the word "notable" in the lead. If this case goes up to the SC, probably will make sense to split it back into it's own article, but for now, merge.
710:. That is how I came to know Arthur Wolk and I guess I did become an "associate" after he said yes to writing an article he has also hired my firm to represent him on the internet. I am sorry you are involved in a libel suit with him, are you Boo the puppy?
332:
that should be redirected back to the main article. There seems to be a dispute over whether or not the contents of this article belong on the page, but that's a discussion that must take place on the talk page. Either way, this does not merit a separate
901:(accurately, or not) reporting court proceedings, that it should be in his article. Suggest also, that all related articles be semi-protected, and the subject banned from editing the article, or from making threats about others editing the article. —
372:
violations. Whatever conflicts there are should be resolved on the talk page, a POV fork is unwarranted. I maintain my redirect, since a redirect is, by itself, not defamatory (or is it? I'm relatively new here, so could someone more familiar with BLP
663:
Please be fair
Christine DeGraff did not represent herself as a Lawyer but was asked by Arthur Wolk to represent him in this discussion and I have disclosed my relationship as a matter of courtesy when I made a request to delete this article.
1086:-- at this point, 5 people say merge, 1 for redirect (which is really the same as merge), 2 for keep (one of which a newbie/SPA), and 8 for delete -- one of which (LEW) is a COI/SPA, and another of which adds "or merge if feeling ballsy".
773:
In this context, the word "represent" implies "legal representation." In the future, could you please say "represent in a non-legal capacity" or "public relations representative" to avoid the deception about legal representation.
163:
263:
has deleted it. I don't know why there is a COI tag on the fork but not on the main article, but I'm not going to edit either article, because I do not have Arthur Wolk's permission to write about Arthur Wolk on
Knowledge (XXG).
497:, so POVFORK does apply. Whether or not this entry merits its own article, or whether this belongs in the main article, is up for debate, but the article was created out of an editing dispute between two users.--
1004:
Hrrm? I see how you can argue that the precedent isn't notable, but I'm a bit curious as to how you can argue that it is "bordeline insane to call this a notable case." Aside from the slight
157:
642:
trouble, because all of the negative viewpoints will eventually get included in the article. Apparently, Christine DeGraff is not a real lawyer, but just plays one on the internet.
972:
seems to be a notable case with a notable precedent that has been discussed in reliable sources as a noteworthy case. If there isn't enough about the case should then be merged to
119:
835:- district court cases are almost never notable until appealed, and I can't see how this one would be an exception. There are BLP violation, coatrack, and NPOV issues galore.
729:
on the same subject--and why you work for him if you think he's suing people contrary to well-settled law). But nice try at changing the subject of your meat-puppet violation.
92:
87:
96:
79:
811:
178:
580:
145:
604:
regarding "posting information not relevant to Mr. Wolk's area of expertise" and demanding that this article be deleted. Also interesting:
990:
I think it's bordeline insane to call this a notable case, let alone a precedent—even the sources suggest that precedent was followed.
584:
554:
because it is a minor issue and bloated coverage calling attention to potentially defamatory material, which is why it was removed by
17:
1069:- This article is a mess and hardly refers to the case in the title. It is very hard to follow and doesn't seem worth cleaning up.
1095:
1078:
1053:
1039:
1025:
999:
985:
964:
947:
926:
908:
889:
870:
844:
826:
783:
764:
738:
719:
698:
673:
651:
629:
567:
542:
511:
485:
468:
447:
425:
408:
404:
387:
347:
316:
299:
273:
250:
227:
61:
206:
202:
139:
52:
is deletion, with no prejudice against recreation as a redirect to a properly sourced, neutral section in the target article.
960:
135:
83:
185:
1110:
124:
36:
75:
67:
1091:
501:
481:
415:
377:
337:
1074:
715:
669:
576:
563:
1109:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1035:
995:
956:
943:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
151:
905:
1087:
921:
822:
498:
477:
412:
374:
334:
1012:
issues with that phrasing, this is a case that received coverage in multiple reliable sources. That's
1070:
779:
711:
665:
647:
609:
572:
559:
536:
464:
393:
361:
312:
57:
329:
286:
234:
210:
1031:
991:
939:
885:
857:
760:
171:
443:
365:
297:
1005:
1016:. Moreover, those sources aren't minor sources but major news sources such as Reason Magazine.
1049:
1021:
981:
902:
866:
840:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
752:
526:
194:
973:
818:
551:
522:
456:
325:
256:
246:
215:
1009:
748:
369:
260:
238:
775:
643:
530:
460:
357:
308:
205:
that the statute of limitations runs from the date of publication. (COI disclaimer: I am
53:
881:
756:
1013:
198:
734:
694:
625:
438:
291:
269:
223:
1045:
1017:
977:
862:
836:
398:
I am self employed, a partner in
Websketching.com which is a website developer and
605:
113:
242:
955:. Anything that makes neo-cons like Ted Frank uncomfortable has to be notable.
730:
690:
621:
265:
219:
209:
in this case. Also, I have been sued (along with twelve other parties) a
755:, both of which you, and your employees, are in flagrant violation of.
218:
on
Knowledge (XXG) ever unless they have Arthur Wolk's permission.)
1044:
I care more about addressing the substantive issue than any apology.
1103:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
897:. It is sufficiently unusual for a lawyer to sue for libel for
197:. District-court cases do not merit their own articles under
686:
617:
613:
601:
555:
494:
490:
241:. Thanks for the disclaimer; that's a significant COI.
109:
105:
101:
409:
Knowledge (XXG):Conflict_of_interest#Legal_antagonists
170:
184:
356:on the editing dispute currently going on between
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1113:). No further edits should be made to this page.
855:be kept, please move it to the correct title of
550:Article should not be merged with main article
405:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict_of_interest#Financial
495:User:Off2riorob removed it from the main page
8:
806:
812:list of Law-related deletion discussions
810:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
491:User:Boo the dog created the article
233:Do you mean that this article is a
24:
76:Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson
68:Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson
618:this earlier implausible claim
1:
1096:12:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
1079:02:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
1054:04:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
1040:02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
1030:I apologize for the wording.
62:00:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
1026:03:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
1000:01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
986:04:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
965:12:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
948:21:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
927:16:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
909:22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
890:21:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
871:19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
845:19:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
827:18:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
784:01:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
765:23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
739:20:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
720:19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
699:19:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
674:19:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
652:18:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
630:18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
568:18:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
543:17:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
512:17:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
486:17:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
469:16:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
448:16:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
426:18:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
392:"The diff provided below on
388:16:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
348:16:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
317:15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
300:15:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
274:15:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
251:15:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
228:14:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
411:immediately come to mind.--
1130:
938:if you're feeling ballsy.
403:", is extremely alarming.
1106:Please do not modify it.
1014:notability in a nutshell
600:Please be aware of this
289:and lack of notability.
255:Seems to be forked from
32:Please do not modify it.
307:- As per all of above.
606:Ms. deGraff's employer
201:. As LEW says, it is
585:few or no other edits
400:online marketing firm
957:Jeux sans frontieres
610:User:Lawrencewarwick
587:outside this topic.
558:in the first place.
362:User:Lawrencewarwick
525:. Saw the post on
50:for Knowledge (XXG)
366:User:Boo the puppy
296:
44:The result was
918:Arthur Alan Wolk.
829:
815:
687:previously stated
616:that contradicts
588:
445:
290:
1121:
1108:
1088:Nomoskedasticity
974:Arthur Alan Wolk
924:
816:
614:recent admission
570:
552:Arthur Alan Wolk
539:
523:Arthur Alan Wolk
509:
504:
478:Nomoskedasticity
457:Arthur Alan Wolk
444:
423:
418:
385:
380:
345:
340:
326:Arthur Alan Wolk
294:
257:Arthur Alan Wolk
216:Arthur Alan Wolk
203:well-settled law
189:
188:
174:
127:
117:
99:
34:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1111:deletion review
1104:
1071:Elmmapleoakpine
922:
573:Lawrencewarwick
556:User:Off2riorob
537:
505:
502:
419:
416:
381:
378:
358:User:Off2riorob
341:
338:
292:
214:anything about
131:
123:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1127:
1125:
1116:
1115:
1099:
1098:
1081:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
967:
950:
929:
911:
892:
874:
873:
848:
847:
830:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
768:
767:
741:
723:
722:
702:
701:
677:
676:
655:
654:
633:
632:
590:
589:
545:
516:
515:
514:
474:Merge/redirect
471:
450:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
368:over possible
319:
302:
279:
278:
277:
276:
192:
191:
128:
125:Afd statistics
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1126:
1114:
1112:
1107:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1082:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1001:
998:
997:
993:
989:
988:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
968:
966:
962:
958:
954:
951:
949:
946:
945:
941:
937:
933:
930:
928:
925:
919:
915:
912:
910:
907:
904:
900:
896:
893:
891:
887:
883:
879:
876:
875:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:
858:Wolk v. Olson
854:
850:
849:
846:
842:
838:
834:
831:
828:
824:
820:
813:
809:
805:
804:
785:
781:
777:
772:
771:
770:
769:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
747:
742:
740:
736:
732:
727:
726:
725:
724:
721:
717:
713:
709:
706:
705:
704:
703:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
671:
667:
662:
659:
658:
657:
656:
653:
649:
645:
640:
637:
636:
635:
634:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
586:
582:
578:
574:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
546:
544:
540:
534:
533:
528:
524:
520:
517:
513:
510:
508:
500:
496:
492:
489:
488:
487:
483:
479:
475:
472:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
451:
449:
446:
442:
441:
436:
433:
427:
424:
422:
414:
410:
406:
402:
401:
395:
391:
390:
389:
386:
384:
376:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
350:
349:
346:
344:
336:
331:
327:
323:
320:
318:
314:
310:
306:
303:
301:
298:
295:
288:
284:
281:
280:
275:
271:
267:
262:
258:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
231:
230:
229:
225:
221:
217:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
126:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1105:
1102:
1083:
1066:
1034:
994:
969:
952:
942:
935:
931:
917:
913:
903:Arthur Rubin
898:
894:
877:
856:
852:
832:
807:
745:
707:
682:
660:
638:
602:legal threat
597:
547:
531:
518:
506:
473:
452:
439:
434:
420:
399:
397:
382:
373:clarify?).--
353:
342:
321:
304:
282:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
923:Dr. Blofeld
851:P.S. If it
819:Jezhotwells
583:) has made
211:second time
207:a defendant
158:free images
899:accurately
776:Racepacket
746:and follow
644:Racepacket
532:Ravensfire
461:Racepacket
354:no comment
333:article.--
309:Off2riorob
287:WP:NOTNEWS
259:, where a
235:WP:POVFORK
54:Beeblebrox
1032:Cool Hand
992:Cool Hand
970:weak keep
940:Cool Hand
882:Hipocrite
757:Hipocrite
328:, it's a
1006:WP:CIVIL
581:contribs
440:Arakunem
394:User:LEW
330:POV fork
322:Redirect
120:View log
1084:comment
1046:JoshuaZ
1018:JoshuaZ
978:JoshuaZ
863:Bearian
837:Bearian
753:WP:PAID
708:Comment
683:Comment
661:Comment
639:Comment
598:Comment
527:WP:BLPN
195:WP:FORK
164:WP refs
152:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1067:Delete
1010:WP:NPA
932:Delete
906:(talk)
878:Delete
833:Delete
749:WP:COI
685:. You
548:Delete
493:after
435:Delete
370:WP:BLP
305:Delete
283:Delete
261:WP:SPA
243:VQuakr
239:WP:GNG
136:Google
97:delete
46:delete
936:merge
934:, or
914:Merge
895:Merge
880:JNN.
519:Merge
507:speak
503:Laozi
455:into
453:Merge
421:speak
417:Laozi
383:speak
379:Laozi
343:speak
339:Laozi
179:JSTOR
140:books
122:) •
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1092:talk
1075:talk
1050:talk
1036:Luke
1022:talk
996:Luke
982:talk
961:talk
953:Keep
944:Luke
886:talk
867:talk
853:must
841:talk
823:talk
808:Note
780:talk
761:talk
751:and
735:talk
716:talk
695:talk
670:talk
648:talk
626:talk
608:and
577:talk
564:talk
538:talk
482:talk
465:talk
407:and
364:and
352:And
313:talk
285:per
270:talk
247:talk
224:talk
199:WP:N
172:FENS
146:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
916:to
817:--
731:THF
712:LEW
691:THF
666:LEW
622:THF
612:'s
560:LEW
521:to
499:hkr
413:hkr
375:hkr
335:hkr
324:to
293:Ray
266:THF
220:THF
186:TWL
118:– (
1094:)
1077:)
1052:)
1024:)
984:)
976:.
963:)
920:♦
888:)
869:)
861:.
843:)
825:)
814:.
782:)
763:)
737:)
718:)
697:)
672:)
650:)
628:)
620:.
579:•
571:—
566:)
541:)
484:)
467:)
396::
360:,
315:)
272:)
249:)
226:)
166:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1090:(
1073:(
1048:(
1020:(
1008:/
980:(
959:(
884:(
865:(
839:(
821:(
778:(
759:(
733:(
714:(
693:(
668:(
646:(
624:(
575:(
562:(
535:(
480:(
463:(
311:(
268:(
245:(
222:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.