User:Steve Smith/JL fact-checking

The following is a list of articles to which User:JeanLatore made substantial contributions before being discovered as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Given his suggestion that he was deliberately sabotaging the encyclopaedia with apparently good-faith edits, these contributions need to be either fact-checked or excised. Once you have gone through an article, please indicate on this page that you have done so. Note that if the circumstances are right, you are free to simply blindly revert all his work, as he was a banned user.

• Handlebars (song)
• Florida v. J.L.
• Illinois v. Gates
• Boumediene v. Bush
• United States v. Williams - as with the others I checked prior to this one, the edits appear to be correct, but this one is even more technical and would benefit from review by someone with knowledge of the legal issues. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Miranda v. Arizona - the user's eleven revisions expand the main description of Miranda rights, change the amendments that the case was based on, and add a detail of the case and some wikilinks. The changes appear correct to me, but this is technical legal text, so it might be a good idea to ask someone at the Law Wikiproject. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sports Monster - edits here are fine. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Aristoff - survived AfD mostly as it is today, so has probably received sufficient scrutiny. Kevin (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• G. Gordon Liddy - removed non-free image and tagged entire section (not all JL's work) as being unreferenced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Esurance - edits here were vandalistic, but are no longer in article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Skyler Stone - edits here look good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Davis v. Washington - JL's edits seem to be well supported by the source (the Supreme Court decision), even to a layman. Kevin (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Blues Explosion - poorly sourced section excised - Kevin (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• PROTECT Act of 2003 - One edit - appears to be correct --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Detention of suspects -One edit, unsourced but looks like common sense; should be checked by someone with knowledge of the law. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act - The four edits here appear to add one paragraph of accurate information, based on a judicial opinion as the source; I'm not a lawyer, but that's how it looks to me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The following articles have already been verified as being fine by other editors in good standing:

• List of concepts in constitutional law, verified by User:Celarnor
• Not sold in stores (marketing), Innosense (pov reverted), Monkey (advertising character), Platform shoe, Trina Michaels (unverifiable change reverted), Attila the Hun ("sex symbol" status revoked) verified by User:Skomorokh

I have already verified that Jean Latore's contributions to any articles not listed above are either innocuous or gone from the present version of the article.