This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Golbez, I see no consensus for inclusion here yet, so I had enforced WP:ONUS for now. Possible concerns include those described at WP:BLPCRIME, perhaps at least about undue weight; the unregistered editor complains about alleged inaccuracy and calls the material "slanderous". Re-instating it without discussion doesn't seem to be the best option. I have considered re-reverting and protecting the page until this is properly resolved, but I'll accept that one IP-hopping editor being reverted again and again is some form of "consensus" acceptable enough to let the material stay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Consensus is not required for inclusion. Consensus only comes into play when there is a dispute, and I don't see a dispute yet - I see flyby IPs removing sourced info with false edit summaries. --Golbez (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
And maybe it is undue weight - only one way to find out, and blocking the only party who was actually using full sentences to describe the situation doesn't seem the best way of doing that. --Golbez (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, ToBeFree and Golbez. My goal is to keep properly sourced information intact. If the anonymous editor would like to make an account and discuss why it should be removed I'm all ears of course. Syntax74 (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
(posted after edit conflict)
Well, the removals with no explanation at all (almost all of them), or "false information" and "slander" (inaccurate in themselves), certainly indicate an argument of "I don't like it". Not persuasive. The material is adequately sourced. I can see an argument for undue weight, though. While the Denver Post is reputable as a secondary source, does it confer notability in this case? Perhaps the Denver Post reported on it because of its local noteworthyness. To warrant inclusion, maybe more widespread coverage (at least among sports-releated news sources) should be there, or at least coverage where this would support a noted habitual or dominant facet of his character. My two cents. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
