"
Removed the following which had no place and no reason to be in an ENCYCLOPEDIA article and which could be taken as a personal attack:

Account of kinky sexual liaison in 1962
In 1978 Harlan Ellison recounted as if telling a factual story how in 1962 he had ended a consensual sexual encounter, after tying his partner in the living-room of her parents' house so that she was naked and unable to move or release herself, by leaving her there to be discovered by her parents. The veracity of his own account cannot be determined; it resembles a common urban legend.

Also changed subtitle that may have been legally actionable and was undoubtedly a personal attack. It was put up 22 November 2006, reverted 28 November 2006, and has been there until now. Look for this abuse to return soon.
 
 Facts are stubborn. Comments? 
 The US Federal government's definition of sexual assault includes ""inappropriate touching"" (see ) Ellison's sexual assault on Willis at the Hugo Awards is thoroughly documented to an unusual extent for any encyclopedia: to use correct terminology for an event that is completely verifiable is certainly not actionable.
The first of the 'Three Most Important Things' anecdote was retitled by an anon editor who objected to having Ellison's self-described behavior referred to as 'sexual assault'. I put it back in because it is sourced as well as any of the other controversies and is certainly notable: Ellison not only published the anecdote he told, but is reported to have recounted it several times at conventions.  

Provided it is from a reliable sourced (it is) and we make it clear it's veracity is uncertain (we do) there are only two other issues. Is it sufficiently noteable (appears to be but can't say for sure) and is it documented as controversial (no clear info on this)? The fact that you and I may think it is controversial is irrelevant if it isn't documented as controversial. Given it's noteability, there might be merit to include it somewhere else if it isn't documented as controversial but not in the controversies section  
 Will try to find documentation of controversy: what controversy I'm aware of occurred exclusively in fandom, which tends not to be documented up to Wikipedia standards.  
deleted portion had nothing to do with Connie Willis incident. It was the quoted section from his essay. Pointless, with a title that amounts to a personal attack. It came back. It has been removed again. Please do not turn this into an edit war, but consider why you feel the need to hate Mr. Ellison and to continual find ways to attack him in an encyclopedia. Facts are stubborn. Comments? 
 Please remember: assume good faith. Accusations that wiki editors include information in biographies based on personal animosity towards the subject, is hardly an assumption of good faith. This anecdote is directly sourced to Ellison: it may or may not to be true, but not only did he repeat it at several conventions, he also published it under his own name as something he had done. It is therefore quite literally a self-incriminating account of a sexual assault Ellison carried out, or said he did, in 1962. The argument has been made that this is ""not controversial"", and therefore ought to be under a different section: I cannot, however, see any good reason to remove it altogether: though as you will see other anecdotes that are not sourced have been removed.  
I can still see no reason that this incident should even be in an ""encyclopedia"", even a self-labeled one. Use of the inflammatory label ""sexual assault"" appears to meet standard of personal attack, and if it cannot be supported in its legal meaning, it is actionable.
I also do not see why that particular terminology is so important when there are other terms that would not look like personal attack could easily be substituted. The insistance on the use of the term assult is my reason for not being able to assume good faith. ''(Aside: ""as