User talk:WAHudspeth

January 2008

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you add defamatory content once again, as you did to Sean Sherk, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gromlakh (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sean Sherk

I looked up Sherk's history with the Minnesota Department of Corrections. The convictions are public record, but there are two problems you need to address before you repost the material:

• Do not, under any circumstances, include any mention of the place he served being a housing for sex offenders unless you can prove (though reliable sources) that any of Sherk's crimes were sexual in nature. That's why I flagged it as defamatory, because the dates/times/whatnot of the convictions themselves are at least accurate. Even if it's accurate that the facility he served time in primarily houses sex offenders, putting that statement in implies that he is a sex offender. That's the kind of stuff that can get you (and the Wikimedia Foundation) sued real quick.
• Have they been discussed in the media, and if so, can you provide citations to reliable sources where they have come up? If not, two more problems:

• If the statement is "I went out and found these and I'm reporting on them", that violates Wikipedia's policy against original research. You'll need something more than just the DOC database, because you can't link directly to the page with Sherk's convictions.
• If the media isn't talking about it, what do you feel is the need for the convictions to appear on his page? What does it add to the article? I'd argue very little, and if that's true there's no real need to post it on the page.

Please be very careful in posting this. You're treading in dangerous territory whenever you add negative information to biographies of living persons. Even if the information you post is technically accurate, putting a particular spin on it that is not justified by the naked facts can still get you into trouble. Gromlakh (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this when I was leaving a message for User:Gromlakh on their talk page, and wish to reinforce this point. As an administrator of this site, I would - without hesitation - remove information that appears to be defamatory or gives undue weight to a particular aspect of a living subject's life. We are extremely careful of both original research and content that could be construed as a defamatory by a reasonable person. Please - if you're even concerned that you might be crossing the line - get a second opinion. I stand ready to help you at any time - just leave a message on my talk page. Gromlakh's advice to you is good. - Philippe | Talk 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)