[WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

Mon Dec 12 22:59:53 UTC 2005

On 12/12/05, Katefan0 <katefan0 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> All,
>
>     An anonymous user (IP 146.6.110.149, which tracks back to UT Austin) claiming to be Gary LaVergne, a UT employee and author of a book on Charles Whitman entitled "Sniper in the Tower" (http://www.garylavergne.com/book.htm), has posted a message on my talk page complaining about some content I about him, presumably at [[Charles Whitman]].
>
>     Here is the text of his message:
>
> Mr. Sigenthaler's recent experience has encouraged me to send you this note. As you know, I have been the subject of some discussion in one of the pages you administer. Some of those comments I consider libelous. I strongly suggest that you, as the party responsible for this article and discussion, and/or Wiki executives take immediate action to purge such false and irresponsible statements, and block such from occurring in the future.
>
> Please forward this to Wiki executives.
>
> I look forward to your speedy response.
>
> Gary M. Lavergne
>
>     I'm a relative newcomer to the Charles Whitman page, having been asked to review some rather disruptive behavior and inappropriate editing by [[User:Subwayjack]], who I blocked until this evening for 3RR, vandalism and disruption.  I can only guess, but I assume that this person is referring to Subwayjack's rather convoluted assertion that Lavergne's book was biased and that he published it in collusion with the University of Texas somehow to support their position on Whitman (it was published by UT Press).
>
>     The article doesn't contain this speculative information currently, although at one time Subwayjack did insert it and it was summarily deleted (Inserting edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Whitman&diff=30745179&oldid=30739441).  It does remain on the talk page, and I suppose in the article's page history. What's the general feeling about how to proceed?  I don't think a person's comments on the talk page can be considered libellous, but maybe it's advisable to delete that edit from the article itself's revision history.
>
> K.

Forward it to Jimbo.  He's the one who opened up the can of worms by
deleting the Seigenthaler references from the history (wasn't he?). 
Let him deal with this one too.

Anthony