Talk:Troy King/Archive 1

Archive 1 To July 31/2008

Fastest admin revert in Wiki history

... or close. I wonder ... While it's always flattering to have an admin restore my last edit ... The statements added by this Frap aren't inaccurate. Their tone may raise NPOV issues, but I am not sure from which side. Could tags for style and sources be in order, rather than revert? Whatever you think ... Audemus Defendere (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Gay?

I'm striking this about Troy King being gay, kicked out of the house, etc. until there's some media confirmation from the B'ham News, the Montgomery Advertiser, or the Press-Register (Mobile). It all seems a bit too well-timed in light of the NYT article today about King pursuing voter fraud claims. I think this falls under WP:REDFLAG:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

* surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interestthey had previously defended; * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources...

Kingnavland (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Gay?

Wow. For now, I have to concur with the action by Kingnavland. I think the first guiding principle is from WP:CITE, which states:

Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All contentious material about living persons must cite a reliable source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article while you request a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article.

In addition, there is the principle, alluded to by Kingnavland, that "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." (WP:SOURCES)(emphasis added). Locust Fork Journal is a locally known political blog, which has a decided liberal slant. Citing it raises both WP:SOURCES and potentially WP:NPOV issues. A review of my edit history on the article will show that I am not shy about adding well sourced, unflattering material, but the current matter needs better documentation. see generally, the principles at WP:BLP. Audemus Defendere (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very experienced with standard procedure, but I think that this article should be protected; its going to receive a lot of edit/revisions if that doesn't happen. And perhaps we should add a note about this, with caveats as to the reliability of the source. Seleucus (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, guys, I don't think this article needs protecting ... yet. But let's have some common sense here. If there is anything to the rumors (and a Google search indicates the rumors are widely circulating), there will probably be some mention of it in a media source that no one can argue with at some point in the near future. In the meantime, when and if it is properly sourced and the gist of the content restored, extreme care must be taken to accurately reflect the sources. Unless he admits the rumor, and especially if he denies it, it must be referred to as "alleged." I confess to reading the Locust Fork Journal now and again. It's provocative, it's interesting, and it is indeed sometimes more informative than the "mainstream media." It is not, however, within Wiki standards as a source, especially for something of this magnitude. And to be fair to the subject, even the article cited does not say the event occurred; it refers to it as "The word is, according to multiple sources in Montgomery and elsewhere ..." Please review the links to the Wiki policies in my previous comment before re-posting this material. (And to note, I am flattered that the Locust Fork Journal extensively quotes this article, including my own edits.) Audemus Defendere (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should include it if and only if some mainstream media source reports it first, and then attribute the report to them. --Delirium (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(Glynn Wilson, here, editor and publisher of the Locust Fork News and Journal. Since y'all are discussing me as a source, perhaps you want to check with me. I've been a Web publisher for 12 years and published several blogs for three, but previously reported for the New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor and the Dallas Morning News, and hold three degrees in journalism. Taught it for nine years.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/glynnwilson

I have tried to edit in Wikipedia on other stories before, but find your interface too time consuming to fix sometimes. Just thought I would toss that out for consideration. The story cited was a blog post, not a major investigative report, but it was well sourced and did seem to get the ball rolling on getting the press in Alabama more interested in checking out the allegations. I think we will get to the bottom of them soon.

Now, I wish y'all would stop deleted my stores in Jill Simpson in the case of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. The Birmingham News story saying she changed her story is highly inaccurate, and filed by a Republican reporter who is going to work for AP in DC for one of Karl Rove's best friends in the media. Thanks and let me know if I can help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.44.50 (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Wilson: If we do get to the bottom of this and the rumors are true, at that point, Wikipedia will include the verified facts. Until then, we have to wait. Audemus Defendere has listed several Wikipedia policies below that including the material would violate. As far as Jill Simpson, I know nothing about that. Kingnavland (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Gay.

What if confirmation from newspapers never comes? The publishers down here are notoriously conservative and even if all of the allegations are true, they may report his resignation without any acknowledgment of the "gay" issue. Sad, but true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.107.94 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I lived in Alabama for 18 years, I know. But if it's true, it will come out at some point. Until that point, Wikipedia can only consist of known fact.Kingnavland (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fair to call most of them "conservative," but the cites in the main aritcle show they don't hesitate to print something because it's detrimental to King's image. In the meantime, if Wikipedia accepted blogs as sources, we'd have "sourced" articles saying that Barack Obama is an al Qaeda operative, that John McCain is the real "Manchurian candidate," and that Britney Spears is the representative among us of an advanced alien civilization. Oh, wait; she is. But since there are actually blogs espousing the first two ideas, Wikipedia is a better, and better regarded, resource for having the "newspaper" threshold. Bloggers frequently lack the assets to make a defamation suit worthwhile, so they can speak with a certain impunity. Newspapers have brick-and-mortar buildings that can be sold to satisfy a libel judgment, so it's more likely that when they print something, there's at least evidence in hand to back it up. Audemus Defendere (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

When is it news enough to edit this page?

Ok, I barely know how to use Wikipedia, so here goes: The McCain camp apparently found this "rumor" noteworthy enough to remove a press release that merely mentioned Troy King's name as McCain Campaign Alabama State Chair. McCain Campaign Quickly Scrubs Outed Alabama Campaign Chair from Website Yes, this is news found on a blog rather than newspaper. A simple google search reveals the press release was once there, but try to visit the page on the McCain for President site and you get a HTTP 404 Error. I don't think many newspapers would report this, but I find it compelling. So, if a presidential campaign seeks to distance itself from this "rumor" by abruptly removing an otherwise innocuous press release from it's site, at what point does it become newsworthy enough to those who edit the Troy King Wikipedia page? Or is this page controlled by conservatives seeking damage control? Thanks for reading. Jkalani Wikipedia Rookie —Preceding comment was added at 09:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Jkalani, I am someone who has contributed material to this article that Mr. King probably wishes wasn't in it, so I hope you won't call me a "conservative seeking damage control." I think you may be confusing two Wiki principles here: (a) notablility and (b) verifiability/sourcing. I don't think you'll get a lot of argument saying the topic is not "notable." It's just that there's a strong Wiki policy requiring certain kinds of cited sources, especially for a controversial allegation like this one. Generally, daily newspapers are acceptable; blogs are not. Consider this from WP:SPS:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. (emphasis added)

I think if you take a minute to look at some of the Wiki policies on sourcing, like WP:SOURCE, WP:SPS, WP:QS and WP:BLP, you will have a better idea what is bothering - at least me. Also, if and when a suitable source emerges, we will have to be careful to word our coverage of the issue so as not to violate WP:NPOV. This is a reference source, not a blog for victory dances. see WP:NOT

And one last thing, when you post a comment, don't forget to put the "~~~~" four virgules at the end, to "sign" it. Otherwise, you get an autosign like the one on your previous comment. Audemus Defendere (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right of course, but now a month has elapsed.... And there's lots of local mainstream press coverage of the salary scandal. Birmingham News: [1]. Gadsten Times: [2] --Eeblet (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons)

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"." I find your evidence compelling too. However, it is no substitute for a hard column by the B'ham News (which endorsed the Democrat in 2006, so it can't be all that conservative), the Montgomery Advertiser, or the Press-Register (Mobile, AL) stating the facts of this case. If it is true, it will come out. Until then, the article should be written "with regard for [King's] privacy." Now just to stir the pot further and keep us all entertained until this is resolved one way or the other, back in the antebellum days, there was another Alabama politician named William Rufus King. King was actually elected Vice President under Franklin Pierce. He was close friends with future President James Buchanan, who was our only bachelor President and rumored to be gay - with Alabama's Senator King. I have no idea if Senator King and AG King are distantly related, but maybe it runs in the family? Kingnavland (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Kingnavland?

That's an odd name to have on the very subject the article is being written about. An attempt to censor from a family member, campaign person, or the manager himself? Just a major, unlikely coincidence in names?

This story could just be reported as it is "a blog reference or allegations have been made in some sources..."; but, it doesn't need to be censored. Wiki should start making those who remove stories clearly identify themselves!

In the meantime "rumor has it" that he slept with an assistant, which is highly relevant given his anti-gay history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.181.100.219 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My name is Samuel Gilleran, I am 19 and a rising sophomore at Washington and Lee University, and, on my honor, I pledge that I have no connection to Troy King. Feel better now?Kingnavland (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

re: "support from death penalty advocates" on Shelby case

Hey, I am just glad to be talking about something other than ... you know ...

I added that sentence to show that the condemnation of King wasn't quite unanimous. Other news stories indicate other support he got in the matter. My problem with the most recent edit is that it makes it look like the letter to the editor was the only support King got. This is not only inaccurate, it kind of tilts the paragraph dangerously close to an WP:NPOV problem - which I mainly added the sentence to prevent in the first place. The citation to the letter to the editor was intended to point to a specific instance of support he got in the controversy, not to delimit it.

Having said that, looking at the sentence with fresh eyes, I see it does have a problem, the way I originally wrote it. It looks like all death penalty supporters backed King. Since most, if not all, of the DAs who were attacking him are pro death penalty (and made that clear in the cited sources), the sentence does need a tweak. I'm going to rework the sentence so that it reflects this, but does not make it look like the only support King got was from the letter writer. I will also clarify the citation so it's unambiguous as to its letter-to-the-editor status, hopefully making everyone happy. Audemus Defendere (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on rumors

Until a credible witness (such as his wife) reports having seen Troy King engaged in gay sex or he comes out of the closet, it's not going to be appropriate to put it into his biography on Wikipedia. However, the Birmingham News did print an interesting story (AG King boosts top aides salaries) on 07/27/2008 concerning a certain 24 year old male from Troy University who over the course of the past year has been promoted from the post of unpaid intern to King's executive assis­tant, a job paying $57,504 annually. His executive assistant duties include working as a liaison between the attorney general and staff and also traveling with King as part of his duties, such as ac­companying him to this years National Association of Attorneys General Conference. Cheers Altairisfar_talk 03:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, interesting. Although it looks like this was an across-the-board increase, it's definitely sketchy in my opinion. Just more fuel to the fire. Kingnavland (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, the salary thing is a scandal unto itself, and - unlike the gay thing - is substantiated. We ought to add it to the article. --Eeblet (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sex Toy Ban

(Although I was surprised to see them not mentioned on the page.) What I came here wondering about was what Troy King's role in the Alabama sex toy ban is - does anyone know? This went up to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case... and it's a new law, only 10 years old. It seems a pretty distinctive part of Alabama's recent legal history, and it should probably be on the page of Alabama's attorney general. I'd love to hear others' thoughts! Eeblet (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done some research, and it seems like the historic nature of the sex toy stuff certainly warrants inclusion. It seems that Williams vs Pryor ([3]) found the sex toy ban to be unlawful, but that Troy Kind appealed and won to reverse the decision in Williams v Attorney General of Alabama [4]. Here's a shorter more human-readable summary: [5]. --Eeblet (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A fundamental duty of an Attorney General, of any State, is to fight for his or her State's law. No Attorney General wants a Federal court to strike down a State law which was written by State legislators. It has to do with federalism. Therefore, whether or not Troy King agreed with the issue in this particular case, it is not surprising that he appealed it until he secured a victory for his State. Eeblet (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.201.14 (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Williams vs. Pryor was not a very visible case. However, Troy King's fight against it was, hence making our state a joke across the US. I understand as a member of the 1st Baptist Church he was morally obligated to make a point of winning the case more so than he was obligated to the state, but this is a senseless law that invades the bedrooms of many and actually can be argued that it crosses the line of separation from church and state. The only reason this ban was ever initiated into law was the moral reasoning of a bunch of men who were afraid of them. It would have been a lot better to lift a ban and merely restrict the sales much as alcohol sales are done if you were afraid for the children, as many used that argument as support for the ban.208.78.167.10 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Salary discussion

I reverted the IP edits to the discussion of salary as the changes seemed to violate NPOV, there was no edit summary to explain the changes, and phrases such as "attacked by a left-leaning editorial writer" were inserted. This section may need rewriting but it needs more careful, thoughtful revision with explanation for any edits. - Dravecky (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I put this page on watch after all the unsourced rumor stuff started getting edited in last spring and summer. It appears this time, the text is under persistent attack from the subject's sympathizers, rather than his opponents. When I added the short paragraph about the gas price investigation, I added a sentence to the salary discussion, setting forth King's POV on his own salary. I thought I'd put that in the original edit, and maybe I did and it got removed (I am too lazy at this point to look), but it improves the NPOV. From the timing, I suspect the salary items in the newspapers resulted from them poking around the rumors that kept getting edited in the article here. Whatever the source, they're sourced and relevant. I can't find a sourced rebuttal to the papers' criticism, other than the one King spokesman quote I included, but I'd be open to any properly sourced and phrased "counter" points. The subject's press over the last year or so has been largely controversial, so it's hard to update the article without it seeming to be "all negative." In the meantime, the repeated mass deletions of text by apparent single-purpose users and other issues, make me wonder if the article shouldn't again be protected. It's as bad when (apparently) done by the subject's supporters as when done by people inserting as-yet unsourced blog rumors about his personal life.Audemus Defendere (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Template cites

I am not necessarily a big opponent of citation templates, such as those applied in the reverted edit. But, this article has drawn a lot of attention from inexperienced editors in the past (and I am not referring to its vandalism history; those people can go soak), and may do so again. I know when I saw templated citations on one of my first edits, it was a little offputting. On balance, I think it may be better to keep citations in plain form, so as to make it easier if some first time editor wants to chip in. Audemus Defendere (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I've always found the {{cite news}} news template to be clearer for new editors since it lays out exactly what each field is for and automatically handles what can be complex formatting decisions as to italics, punctuation, and placement on the reference line. Given that consensus is for all such citations to eventually be formatted with an appropriate template, I'm going to revert your reversion just this once and suggest we find some third-party for advice going forward here. - Dravecky (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal. It's just that the "beginner" instructions for new editors focus on the simpler<ref></ref> method. The rather protracted archived talk on this page here includes at least one complaint about the difficulty of mastering Wiki formatting. And, as the cites indicate, the subject is likely to be running for governor in two years, so the page will start to get more edit traffic. Not that I'm an éminence grise on Wiki, but I like to keep it simple for those even newer. Audemus Defendere (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming of Employee

The name of the staffer implicated in the excessive salaries scheme has been reported in all three of Alabama's largest newspapers. It is referenced to The Birmingham News. I see no reason to delete this, as he is a public employee and one of the governor's top aides. However, someone keeps attempting to do so without justification or explanation.

I have deleted it as I don't see any reason to include it. I don't think it adds any value except to harm him in a smear. I believe that the public employee is entitled to a degree higher privacy than the elected official but that is not MY point. My point is that this is a page about Troy King. The story was completely explained and there really is no added value in naming the individuals included in the stories except to tie the name to unproven rumors around the internet (said rumors have been posted here and removed by moderators numerous times). If one wants to start a Wikipedia page about this person then I think such would be appropriate to post there, but the accuracy is focused on the Attorney General. I don't really care if his name is included but as the one who posted this section I specifically choose to leave out the names of the employees discussed because I didn't see any added value in telling the story as it relates to Troy King. I also felt the need to keep a NPOV (in light of the rumors which have been posted and removed before as well as the upcoming election) outweighed any need to include specific individuals names). The articles you cite were written about a situation, this page however is written about Troy King. The inclusion of information in the article does not automatically make it relevant or necessary as an encyclopedic entry. Clearly you see a need to include the person's name. I can only wonder if you have a personal agenda as you have suggested no other changes, and have been very focused on this one change as opposed to the complete picture that I and others have worked to provide in the most neutral perspective. I will ask moderators to get involved and let them resolve the matter. I will live with what ever they decide, I just don't see the benefit nor the value of posting another persons name, who is entitled to more privacy than an elected official, on the elected official's page.72.151.166.209 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been removed and should not be reposted unless there is an agreement here under the policy of Biography of Living Persons Policy. As an editor and contributor to this page in the past I understand the frequency with which people show up and make changes. We should embrace these changes and be open as this is how we expand our knowledge here. I agree that the addition of the individuals name adds nothing to the article. Under the Biography of Living Persons Policy the editors should err on the side of privacy, they should only post with verifiable sources and the items posted should not be in hopes of inflaming or sensationalizing. From the Biography of Living Persons Policy "Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media." A specific example in that policy would also apply here. " Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough criminal sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers have reported that his adult son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation the son is not notable in his own right, and his privacy should still be protected. " This article Troy_king (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is about the Attorney General of Alabama for whom there are fans and haters. Our job is not to be either but provide details about him, which can be documented and reviewed. It is NOT our job to provide details about other third parties unless their information adds to the knowledge about the subject article. I have read the entries both WITH the employee's name in print and without the employee's name in print and I do not see any value or for that matter any difference in knowledge from including the employee's specific name. This is the basic test for value and since there is no additional value as specified under the Biography of Living Persons Policy I would think that the second post in this discussion is right and therefore this should not be reposted, nor his name mentioned here in this discussion and if any editor should add such back it should be removed and that editor recommended for action or blockage.Spellxer (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with that assessment. This is not a "smear" as the aide in question has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing and Attorney General King describes this individual as his closest aide. The absence of the information, however, is a hinderance for those who wish to know the details of this matter. I agree that mentioning someone's drug conviction would be inappropriate, but this is clearly not that sort of case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.247.103 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor. Including the name of the employee involved in the questionable salary reports is not controversial in this instance, it has been reported in multiple, reliable, statewide newspapers. The statement is referenced, as it should be. The section, however, should not include any of the additional speculation coming from certain online resources, which have very questionable reliability. I'll watch the page for POV issues now that it has been brought to my attention. Altairisfar_talk 02:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Altairisar I would ask you to reconcile this with the policies listed in Biography of Living Persons Policy specifically stating that JUST because something has been reported in reliable sources does not infact require or demand it's inclusion. It is one thing to write about the subject of the article, but to include names of private individuals, employees of the state or not, appears to me to be an absolute violation of the Biography of Living Persons Policy. I think you should reconsider as this issue will be esclated. I do not know the gentleman, but as a former state employee I believe that a level of privacy should be afforded those who do nothing wrong but accept a job. Spellxer (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The name of this individual is irrelevant to the context of the article and therefore, referenced or not, it is a BLP violation and should be removed. Potential BLP violations should be dealt with immediately so the default position is to leave it out pending discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how this is a BLP violation. It is entirely possible that the entire episode is trivial and should be removed from the article. However, if the episode is not trivial for deletion, then I don't see how naming the name of this official crosses the BLP violation line because the matter 1) isn't particularly controversial and 2) while all government employees are certainly not public figures, such as your average postal worker or teacher, the top staffer to a state attorney general seems well on the other side of that line. Just my opinion. I am not going to add the name, to avoid controversy and an edit war, but as a matter of principle, I don't think doing so would violate Biography of Living Persons Policy because I don't see this as even a remotely close call. We wouldn't remove the names of Sherman Adams or Bebe Rebozo from articles about Eisenhower or Nixon, yet this seems the same phenomenon on the state level. I do think we should solicit other input here....96.246.119.193 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the controversy here is that the the very same staffer that is reported as receiving the large salary is also reported by more than a few sources to be King's best friend forever. See Outrage for an idea as to why. More whitewash anyone? Altairisfar_talk 04:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed name of chief of staff who discussed this with media. I cannot fathom the logic of not mentioning the aide by name but mentioning the chief of staff by name. Either both or neither are BLP violations under "incidental mention" principle. If I have missed something here, please explain. - 141.155.59.176 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Altairisfar as an admin it disturbs me to read your comments which certainly suggest you have a significant bias towards this person. I too have a bias towards this person because I think some forces of the political world have attempted to smear him with untruths during a time of media negativity. I don't know him and have never met him but I think he deserves the truth to be written about him and preserved free from rumors here. I think everyone is entitled to a bias, you and me included, but not when editing a controversial political figure for which everyone is focused on reaching a NPOV and certainly not when you hold the role of an admin and others respect your experience. You should recognize that you have a bias and refrain from taking any admin actions on this page. Specifically my problems come from reading this interaction. In a previous comment on this discussion you wrote that the statement was not controversial and that "The statement is referenced, as it should be. The section, however, should not include any of the additional speculation coming from certain online resources, which have very questionable reliability." But yet here you mention these exact same speculations and refer to any attempt to keep them out as whitewash. Your colorful inclusion of a movie reference is also pitiful. You claim these sources are not reliable and yet you attempt to assist in spreading the rumors from the unreliable sources. You also correct IP editor in the preceeding comment by identifying the controversy to his point number 1. This indicates that you knew all along that there was a controversy and yet you still advocated posting such information even though it would have been a violation of Biography of Living Persons Policy. I am sure I will see you here again as you are a resident of Alabama and you clearly have significant bias regarding this political figure. I would only ask that you not include your bias in your postings or in any admin actions.69.254.216.215 (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been out but came back in to notice that someone vandalized the page adding in references to alleged activity by the Attorney General. These edits took place during the same time span that his opponent's wiki was edited to be much more favorable. One has to assume that the ip editor was doing both. This violates so many WP policies regarding bias, NPOV, Sourcing, Vandalism, Warring and others that it is incredible to believe that this was anything other than an attempt to vandalize. This matter has been discussed in great length in the discussion pages and there is a consensus among nearly all editors that such information cannot be accurately sourced and is believed to be untrue even by his staunchest opponents here, including me. Changes like this, obviously controversial should not be included after a consensus is met and certainly not without first posting to discussion and gathering input. The items have been removed and will contiue to be removed until such consensus and approval from the Alabama project team has been met. The page is now on my watch list and the vandalism watch as apparently there is an uptick in attempts to rewrite this article without consensus.Spellxer (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Total Re-edit of page

The recent edits since the first of the year have removed entire sections and added entire sections without any discussion. Certain sections have been accepted content for years. This completely inappropriate and will be reverted unless said content is first posted to discussion for community review. The subject of this article is currently running for election. Because of this and because of continued attempts to smear the subject, discussions above, community admins and Alabama Group members has called for discussion before content additions or removals. Any suggested content removal or additions should be posted here and should solicit input from members of the Alabama group. Our goal as a community is to provide information, not only positive, not only negative and only in a neutral point of view. Anyone who does not comply with this request will have any revisions other than minor removed. Discussion in advance of content change has been standing principle for this type of subject and for which is clearly documented here in the discussion.--Spellxer (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)