Well, for all of you people who still think that there are still articles on WP which can be edited without WWIII taking place, I present for your examination : Menudo (band).

On the talk page, it seems that the nexus of conflict is an alleged "Menudo drugs and gay sex" scandal which was covered in tabloids about seventeen years ago. The usual argument about WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:POINT has raged for the past few days and yesterday, the GodKing took the bull by the horns and issued an edict of article banning to the two editors who seem to be at the center of this, alleging that one of them owned a pseudo-"official" fansite which was pushing a certain POV agenda, but said POV agenda includes sources in reputable newspapers (NYTimes, Miami Herald, the NY Daily News), Police reports, official bankruptcy reports, Department of justice letters. This person certainly seems to have documented all of this and it certainly doesn't look like original research.

Now, what I find interesting is this:



Now, it would seem to me that WP:RS has more than been covered here and this just amounts to censorship to avoid legal problems for WP, since probably there's a record co. exec. who is threatening to sue them even if it's all true (that's SOP in the Pop music biz...).

But given current events, don't you think that it would be more...um....cost-effective to solve others large-scale site issues rather than putting out these small fires by spouting policy issues which are not enforced elsewhere?

I guess that Jimbo can't just send in the Durova/SV Bucket brigade anymore to clean things up....

What I don't understand is why the Menudo "offficial" site brings up Lou Pearlman, as the connection does not seem evident. Am I missing something?

The Lou Pearlman article, which lists quite a few "living persons" who may or may not be at the center of this man's actions but who are in his article none-the-less, seems to have a definite POV slant, even refering to Pearlman's actions as a "Ponzi scheme" which seems an awfully non-neutral expression. It seems from the talk page that some of these people are being banned from editing because they're trying to clean up the article. I have no idea who's right or wrong here, but this article definitely does not belong in an encyclopedia, especially given the general tone.

Jimbo's been pushing the "Wikipedia is not a free speech zone" meme pretty heavily lately.

Wikipedia... the free encyclopedia where one can't speak freely.

Hmmm....

The thing is that people saying controversial things, no matter how many sources they have, are being banned. This is what happened to PriivateMusings.

If reliable sources are ignored, how can a truly encyclopedic portrayal of a subject ever be made? It's not about free speech, it's about making an encyclopedia.

Personally what I hate is the rhetoric/memes used by Jimbo and chums. Their arguments and claims are so weak, but there's probably no point arguing with them about it.

Wikipedia gives whatever truth that Jimbo and his friends prefer. A reliable source indeed.

Damn. I thought menudo was tripe soup. Shows ya what I know.

It's that "Wikipedia is not censored" line; it makes people think that Wikipedia is not censored!

This article has no sources whatsoever and isn't at all comprehensive. If I was Jimbo, and was trying to solve the problem productively, I'd tell both sides that the controversy about drugs/gay sex must be put on hold until the entire article (every single fact) is referenced and significantly expanded. After that is done, they may resume discussion on the controversy. That way, not only do you stop the conflict, but you can potentially get a lot of great work out of these people who obviously know a lot about Menudo, instead of barring their contributions altogether.

I'm about to start an "Everyking for Sole Founder" campaign. You're making too much sense, Everyking -- that can't possibly bode well for your tenure on Wikipedia.

Greg

Yes, but Jimbo didn't do that. Instead, he focuses on the "Drugs/Gay sex" business. Even if they fix that part of the article, the rest of the article still sucks (figuratively, of course....).

I agree with you, but how can we persuade Jimbo that this is the way to go?

That's pretty hilarious.

Presumably this buttresses his "use this for teaching" argument.

Or.....


I dont have time to read this case, but I find an allegation that Jimbo, Bomis/porn-scraping king extraordinaire, "focuses on the 'Drugs/Gay sex' business", to be a foot stomping hilarous thing.

You know, "stick you your knitting" "Do what you are good at" and all that.




Sort of like the press articles where he said students should cite Wikipedia which he now (3 days later) denies ever saying? Wow!

www.menudo.biz

I wouldn't count on admins helping you with this one. but it would be useful if you could give us a bit more background about what this is all about, since we don't have the background that you do.

Obviously, things like this, this,, this , this and this all seem to indicate that this is part of a legal confrontation between people in the recording industry.

Here's the Record Exec. saying that he's going to sue WP.



And here is background on the case.



Darrin McGillis...hmm, Darrin McGillis, where have I heard that name before??? Oh, now I remember! It seems that this issue has come up before....



Of course, inspite of all of this evidence that this is indeed what is taking place, Jimbo makes the remark that this is only a silly comment and that this is a "normal" dispute...

Well, I for one would like to hear the other side of the story here. Mr. Menudo.biz, we're all ears.

In the truth is stranger than fiction department, my comments, including a link to this article on WR, are currently posted right on Jimbo's talk page.

It looks like we're not such a BAD SITE after all...

Now, Dmitri, one of our Generals has gone and done a silly thing...


I love self-referential sentences as much as the next Hofstadter fan, but I also observe a pattern here, of transforming sullenness into silliness.

www.menudo.biz

ricky martin, is that you?

livin la wiki loco?

Yes, you did. I'll be checking all of this stuff out and will post what I find. However, it does look at first glance that quite a bit of what you're saying is indeed documented.

One question: I'm assuming that you have some connection to Mcgillis Music. It would seem from the Wikitruth article that Jimbo has deleted your client's material before, on your request. It would also seem that this time, he seems to be siding with the other side. Can you comment on this and why this might be?

"Maria" is that you

Could this story be converted into a blues ballad?

www.menudo.biz

No, I'm not "Maria". I think that's what they call the wind, way out west....

nah

I understand your care in framing your comments. The pop music biz plays for keeps and it's terribly easy to get sued.

Understand that our interest here is going to be limited to the Wikipedia issues, but it is telling that one side of the story which is sourced in reliable sources is getting cut in favor of commercial interests.

Of course, the case could also be made that someone who is connected to the former management team of Menudo would also have a conflict of interest in editing this article. Some of us here (myself included) feel that this "conflict of interest" clause should not be used, since WP already has a conflict of interest with their profit making sister organization WIKIA, but there are also people here who feel that those who do have an interest in the article should not be editing it.

Regardless of that aspect, it would seem that your case is very strong and that this material should be used in an article, since it is sourced.

Wait a minute, isn't that the woman who takes a letter, and addresses it to your wife? You know, the one that says you won't be coming home, because you gotta start a new life?

I think there was also a Blondie song not too long ago that pointed out that you've got to see her, and then go insane and out of your mind, but that one probably didn't sell quite as many records.

Suddenly that name will never be the same to me.

Okay, you guys just keep humming those tunez there, but I'd like to bring this back to the topic at hand, which is the latest Wiki-atrocity:

Here is the other party's legal threats.

Christopher R's talkpage does indeed prove that he has COI issues here, but he's still allowed to edit.

However, his edit summary proves that this is clearly a single-purpose account, and therefore should be banned.

He even gets a BARNSTAR for removing "unsourced" materials from WP for all of this, never mind the COI issues.

The other party protests

But gets reverted because the comment is "unnecessary"...

When is pointing out COI unnecessary? Oh, right, I forgot about Wikia...

The problem is everything that was stated about this "sex scandal" business was sourced.

Now, why this double-standard?

www.menudo.biz

www.menudo.biz

Well, if you consider the fact that, until recently, Wikipedia's checkbook was being balanced by a convicted felon, it's not surprising that Jimbo is taking the side of the Sony people...

Jimbo blocks Christopher R for 24 hours...

Christopher R bows down to the GodKing



Jimbo replies graciously...

In the meantime, the other party remains blocked indefinitely....

www.menudo.biz

Well, it looks like somebody's filing a Section 230 lawsuit and is naming editors in their suit...

WR is being called a "chesspiece" in ON-WP discussion...

Hmpff! chess piece, indeed!

Watch this space: this could get interesting...

And Jimbo called the blocking and locking "Excellent work." So, now he's probably diminished the ability of the Foundation to use Section 230. This could be very good, in Menudo Man is really serious.

Greg