732:
it is worth its resources to implement the community's desires. If the AfD decides to keep the article, and someone then makes a legal demand on
Wikimedia, they can make a unilateral decision to bow to the demand or to fight it in court. However, the community should not assume that just because other lawsuits have been filed in the past, that a lawsuit will be forthcoming here. Our task here is to reach a conclusion applying all of the normal Knowledge criteria in the normal course. Speculation about possible future legal threats should not enter into our deliberations here. Thanks,
784:
where another editor and I disagree and he or she insults me and after that editor is blocked a SPA appears and vandalizes the article about me. (All this wonderful concern about BLP, but no one's touched the libelous edit about me that's been sitting in mainspace for several days.) If I had a nickel every time someone made a false sock-puppet allegation against me on
Knowledge, I'd have at least 25 cents. And I'm especially offended by the accusation in this case, because it could get me sued by someone who has previously sued me because I linked to a website.
702:: Wolk has sued me. Twice. For the same 2007 blog post.) Because Wolk has accused me of "inciting" negative comments about him, I hereby request that no one on Knowledge write anything about Wolk that Wolk does not want them to write. Editors should only write true things about Wolk. Contrary to Lawrence Warwick's complaint, I have not edited and will not edit the Wolk article. My only edit was
690:. If Wolk wants the article deleted, as Jehochman states, I support its deletion. If Wolk wants the article kept, as Lawrencewarwick states, I support keeping it. I have serious concern that Wolk will sue Knowledge and Knowledge editors if his Knowledge presence is not to his liking. (Wolk might sue poor Lawrence Warwick and his marketing firm if Warwick didn't warn him about
427:, who is being paid by the article's subject. However, I spent some time doing independent research and have now balanced out the article by including his own plane crash and at least two different lawsuits in 2002 and 2009 against his on-line critics. (By the way, I have no role in the off-Wiki battles.) The subject of the article has gained coverage in a front page article in
748:
276:
731:
It seems to me that we should have a two-staged analysis. First, here, the community should apply normal community standards to determine if the article is worth inclusion. Second, if the AfD decides to keep the article, Wikimedia
Foundation management can make a cost-benefit analysis as to whether
783:
run the check-user so I can be exonerated. Again. It's ironic, because I've been regularly harassed by sock puppets since I started editing
Knowledge, but for some reason, I get accused of sock-puppeting every time another editor agrees with me. I'm Collect, I'm Cool Hand Luke, and so on. And here,
596:
On the contrary, those are definitely reasons to take into consideration for deletion, if the cost to
Knowledge's editors of maintaining the article (dealing with constant legal harassment, etc) is not worth the benefit (maintaining a neutral biography of a colorful local figure of minimal import).
657:
Agree; I will not lose sleep if the article is kept. :-) What we need to do is remove the partisans, and prune all the dubious content. My feeling is that once all the layers of bad content are peeled off, there won't be enough left to have an article.
440:
498:
by putting a link to me before yours makes it appear that I have voted to keep this article and of course I would like to keep it but I have not voted please correct by removing the link or placing yours before mine in the vote. Thank you
698:(page 9 forward) that (1) alleges that anyone who links to a website is a "co-partner" of everything that website and all of its commenters say and (2) shows what sort of statement about Wolk Wolk considers legally actionable. (
157:
707:
703:
777:
Why are you acting like you've discovered something sinister? I disclosed the conflict of interest in my comment, which you plainly didn't even read. With this edit I add emphasis to help guide your eye.
798:
violations, but I've sadly come to accept that the civility policies are never enforced when it comes to baseless personal insults against me, and I don't really have time or interest for
Wikidrama.
643:
So then he can be dealt with as well. Really, it's not difficult. I won't lose sleep if this article is deleted, but I'd rather it be done (or not done) for the right reasons.
852:
211:
113:
151:
377:
I'm not aware of any evidence indicating that the subject does not want to be covered -- instead I understand that he paid the creator of the article to create it.
915:
Could you address the quality of the references please? Simply asserting a conclusion is unlikely to carry any weight when an administrator closes the discussion.
569:
Subject of article is of minimal notability, and there is already a history of legal threats and COI issues connected with the article. We don't need the headache.
300:- An aviation tort lawyer who crashes his own plane and then sues the National Transportation Safety Board over the report of his crash is unique and very notable.
236:, there is sufficient sourcing on the article currently to establish notability and there are more sources available that aren't yet being used. The solution to
203:. Whilst not a reason in itself to delete, this, combined with the lack of notability, makes me think we are better off not having this BLP to deal with.
528:. Some of the cases are probably notable, and he deserves mention in those articles. Possibly a redirect if he is known for one case more than others.
612:
But the editors who were causing difficulties are no longer a problem: one is blocked, the other has undertaken not to edit the page anymore (see
391:
An IP posted something to that effect, though I can't find the diff at the moment, and it was an unverified IP, so I will concede the point.
196:. Sources are either unreliable, or make only passing comments about the subject and his legal cases, rather than directly addressing them.
86:
81:
949:
Sufficient sources for notability . If the subject thinks he has a case that there is libelous or unfair content, he should go to OTRS.
90:
73:
52:
172:
17:
139:
240:
is to remove those doing the battle and get on with editing the article -- and in fact this has already been accomplished.
993:. Clearly notable for multiple lawsuits covered in the press. He is also notable as an expert interviewed on such matters.
409:
Per
Nomoskedasticity. There are many times more reliable sources used discussin him that is needed to prove notability.♦
325:- Article is of little to nil informative or educational value and will be nothing but trouble. A clear net wiki - loss.
1015:
215:
648:
625:
382:
356:- This non-notable or marginally notable subject does not want to be covered. The article has become a magnet for
288:
245:
199:
Note that the article appears to have been created and edited as part of an off-wiki dispute, in contravention of
133:
1059:
863:
504:
36:
1058:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1046:
1027:
1002:
985:
960:
937:
919:
910:
889:
867:
842:
807:
770:
741:
719:
662:
652:
638:
629:
607:
591:
579:
557:
537:
508:
484:
415:
395:
386:
368:
346:
334:
309:
292:
270:
249:
227:
55:
129:
791:
and falsely accused me of violating, since it nowhere says I should not be commenting on a discussion page.
928:
article is of sufficient quality to establish notability. It even described the decoration of his house.
588:
554:
343:
694:
when he made that phone call.) American
Knowledge editors considering editing the article should review
708:
I have consistently (if unsuccessfully) argued that district-court cases do not merit their own articles
644:
621:
410:
378:
284:
241:
179:
77:
118:
1042:
933:
859:
838:
737:
533:
500:
480:
424:
330:
305:
49:
695:
165:
1023:
998:
981:
906:
880:
multiple times over. So it should be kept. People will however need to keep a careful eye on it.
605:
577:
706:, which Wolk's marketing representatives requested. Long-time Knowledge editors will know that
192:
since I cannot find any sources which directly discuss the subject, as is required to meet the
885:
585:
551:
340:
266:
223:
145:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
520:
Seriously. Almost all the refs are about the lawsuits (not about him), about his libel suit
1010:. Wolk's (presumable) legal representative did not request deletion of this page, they only
617:
237:
200:
69:
61:
1037:
We have already established that Wolk's "representatives" were web designers, not lawyers.
1038:
929:
834:
733:
547:
529:
495:
476:
361:
326:
301:
189:
584:
None of those (except "minimal notability") is even a potential reason for deletion. —
916:
767:
659:
635:
392:
365:
207:
460:
1019:
994:
977:
956:
902:
898:
877:
803:
795:
788:
755:
715:
691:
687:
683:
599:
571:
357:
193:
973:
969:
881:
525:
262:
219:
107:
968:. Regardless whether this is kept or not, the lawsuit should be mentioned at
951:
799:
711:
747:
261:
Which sources directly discuss the subject and which remain to be used?
758:. By his own admission, he's involved in a lawsuit with the subject.
634:
Oh really? THF is commenting below. The battle is still ongoing.
764:
and antagonists of the subject are competing to hang their coats!
1052:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
761:
The article seems to be some sort of coatrack, where PR agents
423:
I had serious problems with the article as it was created by
431:
and is something of a poster child for tort reform. Sources:
283:
article by Jacob Sullum used as a reference on the page.
825:
Why don't we stop commenting off topic and just stick to
461:"Pa. Jury Awards Nearly $ 89 Million in Plane Crash Case"
364:
violations. We will be better off without this article.
275:
In addition to the ones
Racepacket indicates below, see
1011:
765:
762:
759:
613:
550:, as more than one of the lawsuits appears notable. —
103:
99:
95:
164:
853:
704:
to nominate the forked lawsuit article for deletion
682:. Wolk meets Knowledge notability standards under
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1062:). No further edits should be made to this page.
522:(which is suspiciously absent from the article)
178:
8:
710:except in rare cases like the Scopes trial.
847:
851:: This debate has been included in the
1018:, which has already been accomplished.
616:). We have the means of dealing with
976:. There are enough sources for that.
7:
439:Morrison, Blake (January 5, 2000).
794:I'd like an apology for all these
700:Disclosure of conflict of interest
459:Passarella, Gina (April 7, 2010).
24:
787:You also plainly didn't read the
188:I do not think this person meets
1016:Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson
746:
216:Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson
201:Knowledge is not a battleground
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1047:11:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
1028:07:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
1003:07:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
986:06:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
961:19:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
938:17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
920:13:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
911:14:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
808:06:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
756:should not be commenting here
509:11:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
279:(not currently used) and the
56:11:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
890:04:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
868:02:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
843:18:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
771:11:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
742:00:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
720:22:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
663:12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
653:12:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
639:11:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
630:21:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
608:21:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
592:09:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
580:00:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
558:09:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
538:17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
485:17:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
416:16:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
396:12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
387:18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
369:14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
347:09:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
335:14:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
310:20:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
293:18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
271:14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
250:14:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
228:14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
194:general notability guideline
696:this recent lawsuit by Wolk
214:regarding this article and
1079:
620:, it has been dealt with.
339:Not a reason to delete. —
206:(There have been posts at
1055:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
465:The Legal Intelligencer
441:"Tragedy's bottom line"
218:which is also at AfD.)
425:User:Lawrencewarwick
789:guideline you cited
897:Notable and meets
604:
576:
44:The result was
924:I think that the
876:Seems to be meet
870:
856:
598:
570:
1070:
1057:
857:
750:
645:Nomoskedasticity
622:Nomoskedasticity
602:
574:
474:
472:
471:
455:
453:
452:
413:
379:Nomoskedasticity
285:Nomoskedasticity
242:Nomoskedasticity
183:
182:
168:
121:
111:
93:
70:Arthur Alan Wolk
62:Arthur Alan Wolk
34:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1060:deletion review
1053:
860:Jclemens-public
833:until closing?
600:
572:
523:
496:User:Racepacket
469:
467:
458:
450:
448:
438:
411:
125:
117:
84:
68:
65:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1076:
1074:
1065:
1064:
1049:
1031:
1030:
1005:
988:
963:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
892:
871:
845:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
792:
785:
778:
723:
722:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
563:
562:
561:
560:
546:No problem of
541:
540:
521:
514:
513:
512:
511:
488:
487:
456:
433:
432:
418:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
372:
371:
351:
350:
349:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
253:
252:
186:
185:
122:
119:Afd statistics
64:
59:
50:Black Kite (t)
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1075:
1063:
1061:
1056:
1050:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1006:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
989:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
964:
962:
958:
954:
953:
948:
945:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
922:
921:
918:
914:
913:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
893:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
872:
869:
865:
861:
854:
850:
846:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
821:
820:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
790:
786:
782:
779:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
769:
766:
763:
760:
757:
753:
749:
745:
744:
743:
739:
735:
730:
727:
726:
725:
724:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
678:
664:
661:
656:
655:
654:
650:
646:
642:
641:
640:
637:
633:
632:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:
609:
606:
603:
595:
594:
593:
590:
587:
583:
582:
581:
578:
575:
568:
565:
564:
559:
556:
553:
549:
545:
544:
543:
542:
539:
535:
531:
527:
519:
516:
515:
510:
506:
502:
497:
493:
490:
489:
486:
482:
478:
466:
462:
457:
446:
442:
437:
436:
435:
434:
430:
426:
422:
419:
417:
414:
408:
405:
404:
397:
394:
390:
389:
388:
384:
380:
376:
375:
374:
373:
370:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:Strong delete
352:
348:
345:
342:
338:
337:
336:
332:
328:
324:
323:Strong delete
321:
320:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
295:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
232:
231:
230:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
204:
202:
197:
195:
191:
181:
177:
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
131:
128:
127:Find sources:
123:
120:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1054:
1051:
1034:
1014:deletion of
1007:
990:
974:Walter Olson
970:Overlawyered
965:
950:
946:
925:
894:
873:
848:
830:
826:
822:
780:
751:
728:
699:
679:
586:Arthur Rubin
566:
552:Arthur Rubin
517:
491:
468:. Retrieved
464:
449:. Retrieved
444:
428:
420:
406:
353:
341:Arthur Rubin
322:
297:
280:
258:
233:
205:
198:
187:
175:
169:
161:
154:
148:
142:
136:
126:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
412:Dr. Blofeld
152:free images
1039:Racepacket
930:Racepacket
835:The Eskimo
734:Racepacket
530:The Eskimo
477:Racepacket
470:2010-11-05
451:2010-11-05
327:Off2riorob
302:Racepacket
1012:requested
926:USA Today
917:Jehochman
768:Jehochman
660:Jehochman
636:Jehochman
618:WP:BATTLE
524:, or not
445:USA Today
429:USA Today
393:Jehochman
366:Jehochman
238:WP:BATTLE
1020:Tijfo098
995:Tijfo098
978:Tijfo098
903:Ret.Prof
823:Comment:
548:WP:BLP1E
362:WP:UNDUE
190:WP:BASIC
114:View log
972:and/or
966:Comment
882:JoshuaZ
752:Redflag
729:Comment
680:Comment
492:Comment
447:. p. 1A
298:Comment
263:SmartSE
259:Comment
220:SmartSE
210:and at
158:WP refs
146:scholar
87:protect
82:history
899:WP:BIO
878:WP:BIO
831:delete
796:WP:AGF
781:Please
692:WP:LUC
688:WP:GNG
684:WP:BIO
589:(talk)
567:Delete
555:(talk)
518:Delete
358:WP:BLP
344:(talk)
281:Reason
130:Google
91:delete
1035:Reply
957:talk
895:Keep:
526:wp:rs
212:BLP/N
173:JSTOR
134:books
116:) •
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
1043:talk
1024:talk
1008:Note
999:talk
991:Keep
982:talk
947:Keep
934:talk
907:talk
901:. -
886:talk
874:keep
864:talk
849:Note
839:talk
827:keep
804:talk
754:THF
738:talk
716:talk
686:and
649:talk
626:talk
614:here
534:talk
505:talk
481:talk
421:Keep
407:Keep
383:talk
360:and
331:talk
306:talk
289:talk
277:this
267:talk
246:talk
234:Keep
224:talk
208:COIN
166:FENS
140:news
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
952:DGG
858:--
829:or
800:THF
712:THF
601:Ray
573:Ray
501:LEW
494:to
180:TWL
112:– (
53:(c)
1045:)
1026:)
1001:)
984:)
959:)
936:)
909:)
888:)
866:)
855:.
841:)
806:)
740:)
718:)
651:)
628:)
536:)
507:)
483:)
475:-
463:.
443:.
385:)
333:)
308:)
291:)
269:)
248:)
226:)
160:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
48:.
1041:(
1022:(
997:(
980:(
955:(
932:(
905:(
884:(
862:(
837:(
802:(
736:(
714:(
647:(
624:(
532:(
503:(
479:(
473:.
454:.
381:(
329:(
304:(
287:(
265:(
244:(
222:(
184:)
176:·
170:·
162:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
132:(
124:(
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.