Hey boyo -

why does SPA RTFA get to vote and do whatever he wants but SPA TOOMANYTOOLS does not?

what are you hiding and why?

I'll strike out his vote too. This is a discussion on the merits, not who can rally the most "soldiers" to his side.

Was that one of yours, btw? or just a soldier?

The Merits are simple

Outside of Hollywood ask 10,000 people who I am

NO ONE WILL KNOW.

He is determined to defame me- name ONE film producer on there (if you can) whose article has a "Professional Reputation" section. Go on.

Aww I should probably just wait till Wales calls back.

You didn't answer my question about what you have to hide so forgive me not answering yours.

Suffice to say the News will eat up the idea of prizes for editing my article.





I see your strike out lasted all of 1 minutes

It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about...

But it's the deletion review of the Don Murphy article here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...view/Don_Murphy

Might have to change that thread title so it's clear for everyone else.

Ok, working on that. I'm not going to get caught in an editwar, but I can certainly see what I can do to fix that.

FT2, an arbitrator, writes about this mysterious RFTA character:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=199013315

Really? How do we know that? How does FT2 know that? Maybe he's one of JoshuaZ's sockpuppets, maybe he's Jimbo Wales, maybe he's Rachel Marsden or Jossi Fresco or Gary Weiss? How do we know who this is?

If anyone mentions the F-ing "transparent ideals" of Wikipedia again, they deserve to be blackballed from any future discussion of any subject...

Re-struck it out. As I said, not going to get in an edit-war over it (it'd be a fucking stupid reason to be blocked), but as I said there, the important part is the argument with regards to Notability, and I'm happy to let that stand.

No you have not

Oh for the love of Pete...

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=199013305

Second: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=199017002

As I said, I'm not getting into a war over it. I've disengaged from the discussion.

War Snore
You said you would strike it out
Not because you like me
Because it was RIGHT
Now it is NOT struck out
Simple observation

Hmmm it's beginning to be clear who RTFA is- Joshua Z.

Since I cannot post, will you Fuppet please post to over there my following statement- or you Viridae?

"While it is charming to watch Joshua/RTFA try to make sure I stay in your clique, appearing in an article in the NY Times does not make you a public figure or notable for cult inclusion. If that were the case thousands of people each day from Firemen to school children would be added. Why are you being disingenuous to these people? The NY Times article is NOT about me it is about my site actually. It is NOT Biographical and I have never had a biographical article done. I wonder why Joshua you care so much?

I see that I am getting a lot of criticism for attacking Wikpedians. But as in any assault case, YOU started it and that matters. I didn't ask to be labeled a pedophile on your site. How dare you hate how I respond to your attacks. Next time you are mugged, god forbid, do you want to be told "well you didn't need to hit him with the pipe?" And yes it IS the same thing.

Even now this "editor" you are defending RTFA is dogmatic about including a huge "Professional Reputation" section. Have you made notice of how many film producers you have articles on? Precious few. And how many have a Reputation section? One that a fifteen year old can add to?

I was being mean to Viridae over at WR. I did not expect him to delete the article. But it is a bold and wonderful thing he did. It has been 17 months of constant stress and hell over this, which all started with a little boy from Toronto. Go ask 10000 people who I am. No one will know - or care.

Much is being said about the fact that I want no article. That is simple too- because no matter what you write in it, someone can come along tomorrow and start all over again.

Finally I point way up above to the comment by Benjboi who asks if deletion isn't very Big Brotherish. Well I studied 1984 by Orwell for a film project, and no sir, keeping files and reports on strangers and making them available to the public- that is what the Police State would do.

Please do the right thing. "

Who the hell is ColScott?

Well, his passionate defense of Mr. Murphy should give you a hint.

Don Murphy himself! I believe he's mentioned this before?

Given JoshuaZ's militant "Last Defender of the Wiki" mentality, I wouldn't put it past him to use socks to push his agenda. I think we speculated whether he was David Spart or DennyColt back in the day, but I don't think we came up with anything conclusive.

Ok, well whatever. This thread has almost no context (hence is not a legitimate thread for "general discussion"), and it appears to be a continuing argument between ColScott and SirFozzie. I think it should be thrown into the tarpit post haste.

EDIT: I don't know who he is because I try to avoid this crap.

And yes, JoshuaZ was desysopped for that, yes? Would explain how FT2 knew.

Others are reading and following along just fine.

Yeah, because they presumably followed it from another thread. To the uninitiated, this would be nigh meaningless:

Thank You Amarkov

Mods will generally change thread titles if it becomes too confusing for readers. As a courtesy to the thread starter, would you like a different name for this thread, ColScott?

I see WP administrator John Reaves may soon be joining us here perhaps to explain his actions throughout this affair. Then again, maybe not, who knows?

New Title


VOTE YES ON DELETION- Early and Often

Mod note: Done!

Mr. Reaves, who recreated the article, in his winsome tones writes over at SP

We're all capable of reading the Wikipedia Review, there's no need to have a direct pipe of the tripe here. John Reaves 06:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


So John- tell me- you want to mess with me, then silence me so I can't fight back then yell at others who state my case for me? God you're a four letter word for cat.

Thanks for the re-title.

Don: as a courtesy to you, tomorrow I'll vote to delete with any and all accounts I have on Wikipedia. I was frustrated by the poor context for this thread, but I agree with you on the article.

Goodnight.

thank you

Don Murphy, academy award wining producer of Transformers, who maintains a website about himself but objects to Wikipedia having an article about him.

Can I quietly suggest that people don't go and sockpuppet that DRV, I don't think it will help matters in the slightest. By all means if you have an account on WP that isn't blocked go and make your opinion heard if you have one, but remember its not a vote count so either way you are going to have to present an argument.

Hell, I have an admin account and several other accounts with weight. I haven't voted on the article deltion and don't plan to. Dan Murphy is an obnoxious bombast and a hypocrite. WR is carrying his water. I don't know why a guy that creates a website about himself objects to publicity, except that maybe he has his head crammed up his ass.

Gee, that makes him a perfect candidate for the job of Wikipedia administrator!
Let's nominate him!

It is ridiculous for WP to complain about BADSITES
in a discussion about whether they should host
an attack page against ColScott. Anyway, WR
isn't a website that sends violent thugs after
people: WP is.




Yes, ColScott is a jerk. This doesn't give WP
the right to smear and defame him, or even
have an article on him against his consent.

Remember, he wouldn't even be here if
they had not amorally kept that article. So,
if we want him to go away or at least calm
down, it is probably best for WP to delete
that article.

For lack of a better forum AB, what happened to those diffs you wanted dealing with?

There is this overwhelming knee-jerk mentality among Wikipedians that if someone doesn't want an article on them, then they must be evil or trying to hide something or "we must have everything," and thus the best response is to find every single tiny trivial thing about this person and put it in the article, regardless of anyone's wishes, "because we can."

I'm ashamed to admit that I used to have that mentality; but then came Seigenthaler, and then came OTRS, where it became clear to me that Wikipedia entirely failed living people - over and over again. What do you say to someone who's been libeled and slandered on one of the world's top-10 Web sites? Does "I've fixed it, and I apologize" really cut it?

Freedom of the press inevitably entails a heavy burden of responsibility, and includes not only the right to print, but also the right not to print.

On Wikipedia, the latter is exercised far too infrequently.

If I was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, I would object to their being one, even if I had a blog detailing every time I took a dump. Reason? I'd be in control of my blog. If some fan site, or movie trivia site, or whatever, were to libel him, there would be some person who was ultimately responsible who could be sued. Not so with WP.

The average person searching Google for information will often end up at a WP article, and most of them will (wrongly) trust what they find there. Given that reality, and given the freely editable nature of WP, imagine the potential damage that could be done to a notable person's career.

I think it makes perfect sense for Mr. Murphy to not want the 3rd result for his name on Google to be a WP article, and I think WP policy ought to be to delete the articles of living persons on request and prevent them from being recreated, as long as their identity can be established.

I would not go that far... those who are clearly and unambiguously public figures (Academy Award-winning actors, state-level politicians and above, best-selling authors, professional athletes at the major league level, etc.), Wikipedia needs articles on. And major figures such as those people - well, we really don't have too many BLP problems with, because enough people are generally watching those pages that anything truly awful gets reverted fast.

The problems are generally when you get even one layer below that, nobody pays any attention to those biographies and thus stuff can sit and fester for days, weeks, months.

Don Murphy fits in that category - someone might have written something about him in the trade papers once, but he's no Steven Spielberg, and hence probably it's on nobody's watchlist and awful tripe will sneak in because it's easy for a determined person (or group of people) with an axe to grind to do so unless everyone and his mother is paying attention to the article 24/7.

There is a thread over there, for some reason.
Why WP's refusal to Oversight outing that has
lead to threats of physical violence is 'off-topic'
to the subject of criticising WP, I have no idea,
but anyway.

The diffs are still there.

Hmm, problem. My mother has never edited WP that I know of.

I have a few thoughts/questions:

Why is Joshua Zelinsky permitted to !vote in a deletion review after being desysopped for abusing that process?

Why do people keep saying, "He can't expect Wikipedia to help if he keeps being so abusive." He doesn't want Wikipedia's help; he wants Wikipedia to quit harming him.

I don't want to speak for Mr. Murphy, but I doubt it's the publicity he objects to. It's Wikipedia's negligence when dealing with articles on living people. Wikipedia is not responsible enough to host articles on living people. Any arguments as to his "notability" are beside the point.

No. It's bad enough that it happens in the first place. What makes it worse is you can't even tell them, "It will never happen again." Seigenthaler's bio has been vandalized repeatedly, even after the widespread media attention it received. What chance does a lesser-known person stand?

Can someone coherently explain to me why someone who appears to have some pretty heady producing creidts to his name wouldn't belong in Wikipedia?

Because when his biography was vandalized calling him a gay paedophile etc, he was so un-notable he had to remove the slurs himself?

Can someone coherently explain why someone would publish an "encyclopedia biography" of someone that contained blatant defamatory statements , and somehow not expect to get sued?

Can someone coherently explain why a forum that disallows WP:Original Research and WP:SYNTH still allows someone to create a biography on a subject that has never before appeared in an encyclopedia, and whose bio is even absent from the otherwise exhaustive film almanac AllMovieGuide?

WP:OPT OUT
WP:NO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES
WP:WHY ARE THESE TWO NECESSARY PREMISES SO HARD FOR YOU PEOPLE TO ADOPT?

Because they like hurting people
who don't suck up to them?

Agreed...!

I am liking the new Durova. She is clearly a "re-defined" positive force to be respected, and quite articulate and precise in her knowledge of the project. A little humility works.

To be fair, Durova has long pushed this position as well.

But it is the only way to go for Wikipedia to survive. The longer it goes without implementing these kinds of basic practices, the more enemies it will make. And as we've seen, it only takes a handful of "disgruntled" former users, BLP victims or ex-WMF employees to punch massive holes in WP's credibility.

But WP also has the opportunity to set a moral example to the future of the internet. So far, WP's impact has been almost entirely negative, ushering in a chaotic nightmarish environment and a nasty Culture of Revenge that has swept the internet. Before it is too late, and before too many sites follow WP's dystopian example, Wikipedia has a chance to change and make amends.

Nobody expects WP to make any positive changes of course, it lacks the infrastructure and has no learning curve. Whatsmore, it is too easily led by extremist idiots who can't see the larger picture, and would rather goad one barely known backroom fixer in Hollywood. But we should bring this up each time as a matter of moral duty.

The Wikipedia culture seems to be obsessed with the practice of magnifying the disrepute of otherwise non-notable figures whose only claim to fame is a random note of disrepute.

The notable question is not what is at the heart of the problem. It is the fact that kids can come to an article and change it at will.

Protect artcles and secure them from mindless idiots. That is what a government is for...to serve and protect.

Unfortunately, WP is a hive of flies with no wisdom at the top end.




P.S.

In Re: articles about living people:

Let the living person or their representatives have a hand at trying to make the article real and accurate. Then secure it. Further, let the real person decide if they even want an article. Many people, for many different reasons, do not want the "exposure" that Wikipedia represents.

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a rag. Or is it?

Yes, quite right, I shouldn't post after coming home late on st patties day.

Pumpkin, you may be daft. Someone who creates a website about himself (or a Directory page on Wikipedia Review.com </shameless plug>) maintains control over what that website says about himself.

Wikipedia is the exact opposite. The person is not allowed to influence what the site says about him.

Your logic is stunningly faulty. But, we still love ya, Pumpkin.

Greg

P.S. Apologies to Likipenia, who made the same argument before I read further and responded redundantly.


<cough> Fuzzy Zoeller <cough>

While I say thank you, I have never won an Academy Award.

And there are a million plus websites that people maintain.




Dan Murphy is a real loser.


as for Don Murphy, he objects to publicity that any child can vandalize

Unless your name is Carolyn Doran, or Michael E. Davis. Then, you get the WMF employee "halo" of protection.

If you look at some of the old debates, folks were weighing in who had no idea what the role of a Movie Producer was -- and Don Murphy's particular role usually as part of a production team rather than a Robert Evans style Project God-King. And some arguments were made to keep the article on the basis that Don Murphy was a Movie Director for chrissake.

A guy I used to drink with is a Movie Producer, and he actually has won a major film award, a BAFTA for best British Film, even giving the acceptance speech at the awards ceremony. A closer friend of mine produced pop-promos for U2, REM and Paul McCartney. These are just normal blokes I'd get pissed with in the pub. Not public figures. And neither of them have articles on WP. That would be ridiculous.

Lets start counting the pro-inclusion SPAs:
1. RTFA
2. Bongout
3. Jeff Biggs
He's a fan of our own user Naerii

Pumpkin never said you "won" an Academy Award. Pumpkin said that you have "wined" an academy award. You've probably "dined" one, too, for all we know, Don.