Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy
Reliable" sources whose accounts are wrong on almost every point. I know ... |verifiability, not truth ... That is all very well as long as the article is about someone else ;) Is it really compatible with  to have an article full of stuff which we ''know'' and can ''prove'' to be wrong, just by referring to our own archives? I have checked ''every edit'' Sam made to David Cameron going back to December 2007, when he became an arbitrator. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&diff=242271726&oldid=242266826 Here is the edit apparently mentioned in the ''Daily Mail'', where the Mail says he http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html "tried to remove a reference to the Tories having a 'consistent' lead in the polls.". This is the only time I found Sam actually added content, rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&diff=290584120&oldid=290579332 reverting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&diff=184084714&oldid=184084632 vandals, since December 2007. Now, if you look at this edit, you will find that what he took out was running commentary on '''2008''' opinion poll results, cited to a '''2007''' (!) Reuters article http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL1310900320071013?sp=true – material which he replaced with cited material which noted that Cameron had appeared on the cover of ''Time Magazine'', and was said by the ''Daily Mail'' to have been presented to the world as Britain's "Prime Minister in waiting". And Sam ''inserted'' the information that the Tories were "consistently" ahead. Some Labour activist! Sam actually '''put in''' the information these "reliable sources" accuse him of having taken out, just like he http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&diff=290192440&oldid=290191421 took ''out'' the unflattering attack picture these sources accuse him of having put in! Perhaps they don't know that if you look at a diff, it's the right side that has the new text, or that red text is text added, rather than deleted. What do I know. Our article here, citing the ''Daily Mail'', says that Sam was "trying to adjust the description of the Conservative Party's lead in opinion polls over the Labour Party." This stupid innuendo and twisting of facts is unworthy of an encyclopedia, and it is unworthy of our project
— User:Jayen466, 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:BLP (Wikipedia:Verifiability)