Talk:Stephen Moorer

Wikipedia editing section – BLP/UNDUE question

Disclosure - I am the subject of this article. I’d like to raise a separate BLP/UNDUE question about the “Wikipedia editing” section of the article.

This section describes an internal Wikipedia content dispute and a time-limited editing restriction from over a decade ago, sourced to a single magazine article. I’m wondering whether this material gives appropriate biographical weight, or whether internal Wikipedia governance issues like this meet current BLP and due-weight standards for inclusion in a biography of a living person. I’d welcome other editors’ views.

More generally, I’m also interested in whether internal Wikipedia editing disputes or sanctions are commonly treated as biographical content in articles about living people, or whether there is established precedent on this. Thank you. smatprt (talk)

When starting a new talk section, please use the + tab at the top of a talk page (just to the right of "edit"). That puts the comment in the right place (at the bottom). Also, you must have accidentally used three tildes to sign—that gives just the user links. It's four tildes for the normal signature with a time/date. I guess the issue is the Stephen Moorer#Wikipedia editing section. My personal view is that stuff like that is excessive but people love searching for factoids and including whatever is found. There are a few articles on Wikipedians with negative stuff. It's only there because reliable sources have commented on the matter. You could try WP:BLPN to get other opinions if there is not much response here. It boils down to WP:DUE—the quantity and quality of the sources, and the degree to which they covered the material. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Agreed. I removed it since it is a brief mention in passing about the outcome of a dispute, Moorer is not the primary focus of the citation, and it doesn't seem to meet the bar of WP:PUBLICFIGURE of a notable incident in terms of notable incidents for a biography.

Awshort (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Johnuniq and Awshort:, I find the removal far too overreaching and excessive to the point of whitewashing. I understand that thing about anonymous allegation should be removed, but the entirety of issue should not be. Johnuniq, please review the current version and see if this is safe within BLP policies. I believe that things that could potentially BLP vio issue has been removed. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, while BLP policy is conservatively written to prevent unsubstantiated matter from damaging the reputation of living people, it does not prohibit something that is reliably published. It does not encourage whitewashing or easing up on the burden of inclusion for flattering contents. Doing so would lead to selective amplification of flattering contents and selective dampening of unflattering contents. We should make sure to not include gossipy contents but at the same time, not cause an arbitrary emphasis of flattering contents and deemphasis of unflattering contents that do not properly represent the proportion of information as covered in reliable journalism based mainstream corporate media sources. Graywalls (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Graywalls Biographies don't have to include every minor aspect of a subjects life, especially trivial ones. The material seems UNDUE, and is literally a brief mention of 'Moorer received a year ban from a topic on Wikipedia' in an online article. If it is something he is well known for, then by all means add it back with better references but devoting a subsection to something that got a passing mention in a single section is a little much.

I removed it again under WP:BLPRESTORE since it was added back with no change, and was removed under good faith BLP grounds. I'm not 'whitewashing' the article - I'm simply stating how the material was being presented gave it more emphasis than seemingly necessary from passing mention in an article.Awshort (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It's far beyond a passing mention in highly reliable IEEE Spectrum journal and I don't know why you find this undue while you do not object to chronicling his four month stint that cites some sort of Theatre Alliance's website due inclusion. It leans towards whitewashing since its not a passing by editor, but it's the subject that asked for removal. Graywalls (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I hate that Wikipedians use articles to pour muck on other editors regardless of the background. You made a major "Wikipedia editing" heading as if it were a significant part of the subject's life with the side effect of alerting even the most the casual reader that there was juicy gossip about Moorer. There was no crime and no one was assaulted. There was an ugly wiki-war with an ugly Arbcom case (WP:ARBSAQ) and I was one of those who strongly opposed the subject of this article. But it was just wikidrama that someone reported on as a space-filler. The IEEE Spectrum reference disqualifies itself as reliable by writing that Shakespearean authorship question (a featured article) "has as much claim to evenhandedness as does an entry on Libya's history written by Muammar Gaddafi". Further, the reference is clearly a complaint about Wikipedia with a mention of Moorer for background padding. If other sources have similar statements about Moorer, an argument could be made to include mention of the issue but, please, not in a look at me section. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be addressed in a different article then. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with the edits made by Graywalls today and have restored the article to its status quo ante. I do not think that the edits improve the aritcle and, in fact, I think they are destructive. There is certainly no consensus to make any of these changes. If Graywalls thinks that any of them are improvements, they can make their arguments here. I also note that Graywalls has made similar edits to our aticle on Pacific Repertory Theatre that seem to me to be destructive to that article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:. I'm getting the impression that you seem to consider adding contents as constructive and removing as destructive without any regard to WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. First of all, the lawsuit thing was removed, because Smatprt asked for removal that anonymous allegation isn't WP:DUE, although you inserted that back too. As for the award/accolades Moorer received as Moorer, not as the PRT shouldn't be in PRT unless it was specifically received by Moorer, on behalf of PRT. Graywalls (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:, WP:BLPRESTORE that Awshort referenced earlier applies to you as well. Retaining "one reviewer mentioned that..." citing flimsy source while removing the other concern is unsupportable. Where is the consensus to restore this information you added back in? Please resolve it to the satisfation of BLPRESTORE individually before forcefully defaulting to inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• I think the Wikipedia info is nothing more than navel-gazing that isn't encyclopaedic in any way, shape or form. It's not whitewashing: it's trivial fluff and nonsense. I certainly support its removal. - SchroCat (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  ^ This. The only thing I would use from the IEEE source in this article is the fact that he holds the minority Oxfordian view on the Shakespeare authorship question. The tendency for Wikipedia editors to overvalue descriptions of notable people editing Wikipedia is common but deplorable. It's easy to see how we fall into this trap (editing is important to me; therefore, it's important to everyone), but we should avoid it and set a very high bar for saying that a notable subject edited Wikipedia. IMO it should rarely be mentioned at all, unless that's the reason for the person's notability (e.g., Steven Pruitt). I would definitely not mention it at all in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Minutiae citing self-published source

WP:BLPSPS

Never use self-published sources (including books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, or social network posts) as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.

Not only that, since Moorer is still alive, it's subject to WP:BLPRESTORE. https://web.archive.org/web/20080905072047/http://www.mctaweb.org/spotlight/02/Jan02_StephenMoorer/stephen.html looks like self-published under that context to me. The fact that things cited to that source are minutiae is probably why these details haven't been covered in reliably published sources. @Ssilvers:, do you find that source to be not self-published or a group blog? Graywalls (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It was published by Monterey County Theatre Alliance, an organization independent of Moorer. Also, you seem not to understand BLPRESTORE, which is intended to prevent poorly sourced hate and attacks upon living persons that would violate WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Self-published does not just mean published by the author himself. It's not about the relationship to the article's subject but more about one person that is controlling the publication. Read WP:SPS. Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It appears to be published by an organisation, rather than an individual. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Its website identifies it as: "Monterey County Theatre Alliance (MCTA) a 501(c)(3) Tax ID #94-6163002, supporting live theatre since 1985 is funded by grants, membership dues, sponsorships, and private donations."

That is what group blog means. Graywalls (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It really isn’t. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a gray area. Yes: organizations can and do self-publish lots of things, most importantly their own corporate website. Organizations can also publish magazines. This particular source is probably a little closer to the magazine side than to the blog post side of things. I believe this particularly because of they way they discuss it, e.g., "Every month there is an article in Back Stage called "Spotlight On ..."" They describe it as their "monthly newsletter", and the point is to get accurate information to paying customers. So I lean towards this publication (but not the rest of their website) being at least possibly non-self-published.

The next question is whether it's really a "third-party" source. Here again we have a gray area, but I suggest that the answer is probably closer to the 'no' side. In particular, Moorer was almost certainly a dues-paying member of the organization at the time, which makes it potentially WP:ABOUTSELF. Additionally, Wikipedia:Interviews#Independence is relevant: Anything Moorer says about himself in an interview is non-independent of himself.

Therefore I conclude that this is probably an acceptable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Probably no reason to doubt that he did In 1982, he trained in a 16-week summer season at the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco. but I would also not doubt it if there was a source about a person that said something like he sold a case of Oreos and the proceeds benefited the charity. With a highly flimsy .org source saying that, I say that such minutiae isn't justifiable and still subject to ONUS even if it isn't BLPSPS. Graywalls (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

If the sentence was instead "He studied drama at Big University for one semester", would you be calling that "minutiae"? I ask this because education doesn't look the same in every field, and ACT's program was accredited by Western Association of Schools and Colleges back in the day, which meant that students earned college credit for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely yes, per WP:VNOT. If some flimsy source says someone took a class, or attended school for a term/semeter but did not earn their degree their, I argue that its inclusionworthiness fail. Graywalls (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

So... getting more education than the average person, and education that is obviously relevant to the BLP's reason for notability, is unworthy of being mentioned – in your personal opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. By that analogy, you'll include things like receiving spelling bee ribbon, receiving art medal in high school, citing some school club, etc, etc. etc. Not absolutely everything ought to be included. Graywalls (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You are right that not everything should be included but, unlike the straw men of spelling bees, etc, an education directly linked to the profession for which a BLP is notable is relevant. - SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Establishment of "direct relevant" would tend to be supported by a mention in stronger source. Not some ultra hyper local alliance group blog. Graywalls (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The source is fine, the content is fine. I'm not sure why this continues to be a problem, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus to remove relevant sourced information. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure why you're saying "doesn't seem to be any consensus to remove" but do not say "there is clear consensus to retain", which is the requirement by WP:ONUS in this kind of situation. Graywalls (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I said it that way because I'm not needlessly wiki-lawyering. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not just semantics. It's extremely important to remember that when it is uncertain and consensus is not clear, it defaults to non-inclusion, per WP:ONUS, a policy. Having an established "default" side is essential to prevent edit-warring. Graywalls (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You can carry on trying to be disruptive by pulling these threads, but the consensus is clear and the reliably sourced and relevant information is fine to stay. BTW, there are 7 million other articles on WP in need of attention. This one doesn't need any more hair-splitting disruption. - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You're free to disengage from it rather than suggesting others to go elsewhere. WP:ILIKEIT WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not reasons to label others with dissenting perspectives as "disruptive". Graywalls (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing about liking or not liking anything. People wiki-lawyering past all reasonable points is disruptive, which is why I referred to it, and it's not the first time this has happened on this particular article. - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Making a policy based argument is not Wikilawyering. Accusing others of doing so is not a good faith assumption. Graywalls (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Throwing some tangential PAGS around isn't constructive. Petty and pointless wiki-lawyering is, by definition, disruptive, and that's what we're seeing on display here. - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You're dismissing things you, SchroCat, personally find "tangential" as "petty". Graywalls (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

[left]There is a consensus above not to make the changes that Graywalls is suggesting. No amount of bludgeoning this conversation will change that fact. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Update photo

The photo of the subject is from 29 years ago. I believe it would be a good idea to something that shows more recent portrayal of the subject. Since the article subject is participating, perhaps he could provide a selfie ? Graywalls (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Related BLPN discussion

For editors following these discussions: there is a related thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Board dispute paragraph in Pacific Repertory Theatre (BLP/DUE) concerning similar BLP/DUE questions in the Pacific Repertory Theatre article. You may wish to review that discussion as well for context. Smatprt (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)