Talk:Brian Chase (hoaxer)

Comment
Perhaps we should forget this ever happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.135.59 (talk • contribs) 08:19, December 11, 2005

This was the straw that broke the camel's back - or in Wikipedia's case, the straw that made anonymous creation of articles no longer possible. I think it is interesting historically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminhill (talk • contribs) 09:49, December 11, 2005

I thought he had resigned his job?

Birthday
this page is weakly written, it could stay as trivia but structure should be improved

... age 38 as of 2005 ... why not type born in 1967 instead it's not like he's going to be 12 or 81 next year ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.99.10 (talk • contribs) 09:21, December 11, 2005

If his birthday is after today but before New Year's, he would have been born in 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.59.209 (talk • contribs) 10:04, December 11, 2005


 * Since the birthday is unconfirmed it was removed, Once it is confirmed feel free to re-add it to the article in question! :) Thanks 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, his age of 38 is reported in the New York Times article. I don't think that the conclusion that he was therefore born in 1966 or 1967 qualifies as original research. AxelBoldt 18:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion
Why is this page scheduled for deletion? This is a small piece of Wikipedia history and outlines real consequences of the user-edit system and has resulted in tweaks to the editing rules. This page whould stand.

--Thomasdelbert 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You can vote to keep it here --RayaruB 16:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep --L1nX 17:20 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a keeper. Baltakatei 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, not here. Here. --Mr. Billion 23:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Definite keeper! --69.19.14.26 11:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is linked from outside, for example from one of the biggest German news magazines (Der Spiegel) in articles about the controversy. If Mr. Chase does not merit an article himself (and there are people with more interesting bios), it should at least be merged with the main page about the controversy and fitted with a redirect. However, as we all want to read about Mr. Chase's fate (is he getting back to work?) later, which will not be really a part of the controversy itself, the page should be kept. gbrandt 07:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if the pages are linked - we can make it into a redirect to the controversy article. So people coming thru those links will go to that page. And I feel everything related to Mr.Chase is realted to the controversy as well because that is the reason he has become so famous :-). Jam2k 07:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Categorization of this article
This article was previously listed under Category:Wikipedians. That category is a self-referential category; it is meant to help us organize our user pages, and does not contain encyclopedic content. I have moved it to Category:Wikipedia, which is a category for Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia in the main namespace. Thanks. -- Creidieki 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia history
People who've said this wikipedia history are right when they say this is a historical event in the life of this website and of this siegenthaler incident, As such this needs to be a part of the "Siegenthaler wikipedia controversy" article. Briaboru 20:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You can add your opinion to Articles for deletion/Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer). Canderson7 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union?
Was the claim that Seigenthaler had lived in the Soviet Union posted from the same IP? In the same edit? AxelBoldt 20:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. Canderson7 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong IP listed?
It seems to me like the IP listed is incorrect, because when I go to user contribs on Wikipedia for that IP I see nothing. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The edits were deleted. Deleted contributions aren't listed on contribs pages. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-11 21:53

The relevant portion of the history of deleted versions of John_Seigenthaler_Sr. is here: 12:22, 6 December 2005. . Brian0918 (moved John Seigenthaler Sr. to John Seigenthaler Sr./temp: copyediting) 15:52, 29 May 2005. . SNIyer12 08:29, 26 May 2005. . 65.81.97.208 13:53, 15 September 2004. . 65.170.144.130 AxelBoldt 18:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why Delete
Isn't it a bit hypocritical and revisionist to remove this? The fact that it is even a question supports much of the Wikipedia criticisms. In any case, it's part of important Wiki History. Do not delete.


 * Wikipedia doesn't exist to record its own history, so the question is whether Brian Chase matters to enough people that an encyclopedia should have an article about him. You can have your say here. Canderson7 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should. Wikipedia is too big and important now for it to be able to not consider itself part of the informational milieu in 2005.  Many sites mirror it or link to it, and when there's a problem with it, it ends up in (U.S.) national newspapers.  Nothing Wikipedia now says can be considered distinct or separate from the things it proposes to document.4.239.99.164 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but we have to make sure that articles relating to Wikipedia meet the same notability standards as our other articles. Canderson7 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And making national and local news doesn't fall under that category? --198.110.83.85 01:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a deletion criterion. So no, that is not the question. --  BRIAN  0918 13:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For the same reason that newscasters at sporting events do not show footage of fans that disrupt the games. By calling attention to this hoaxer (even though he may not have entirely realised what he was doing.) it gives others incentive to do the same. APL 03:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The article currently claims that "The source of the hoax was uncovered by Daniel Brandt, who used an IP Locator to track down Mr. Chase". However, the article on Brandt suggests that he found Chase due to his company's website being at the IP address he edited Wikipedia from.

I don't know the details of the case so I'm not going to edit anything, but one of the articles is wrong, and I think it's more likely to be this one.

166.111.43.152 03:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That sentence was removed from the article over six hours ago. Are you sure you are looking at the most recent version? Canderson7 (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This person has been the center of attention of several articles from major newspaper publishers such as USA Today and New York Times. Chase also qualifies for inclusion under WP:BIO, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". There is no doubt that this person is now notorious for what has become a widely reported hoax. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)   Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this page should absolutely not be deleted. For one, once all the news surrounding this has died down, it is still valuable information. Oftentimes, events and details will be forgotten with the passage of time. By keeping this article, keeping it up-to-date, and retaining the information, we will end up with an article that has more detail. This man deserves to have a wikipedia entry. In fact, I can think of quite a few articles that should end up on the chopping block before this one. It's historical, it's pertinant to any future talk about Wikipedia, and just because it's about some controversy occuring now doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Ten years from now, do you think people will care about this? I think so. The actions of this man may have far reaching implications in the future. Keeping track of this is important. 160.36.121.50 21:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My response to the issues raised above
Primarily my listing this article as an article for deletion was because this page specifically falls under What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

7. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.

News articles should posted on Wikinews not on the Wikipedia. Current events qualify as news even if they involve the Wikipedia. This controversy was majorly overblown as the publisher in question could have simply edited the article removing the vandalism and the matter would have been instantly resolved. Instead he used it as a tool to generate publicity for himself and to attempt to discredit the Wikipedia..

Then you have the following from the Deletion policy:


 * Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
 * Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)

While this achieved a minor notoriety the discovery of this person is best included as a section on the overall controversy page. Not as it's own page.

So it is a valid listing on AfD and I hope this may change a few people's opinions on the subject. Thank you 09:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This article does not relate first hand accounts, it lists references and the story is no longer breaking to boot. - RoyBoy 800 21:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this article no longer qualifies for deletion. What is now up for debate is whether this article should be merged or remain seperate.  Hall Monitor 21:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If this page isn't anymore scheduled for deletion plaese remove the "Scheduled for deletion" tag. Thanks.

Yeah, don't delete it, there are much more frivolous articles around, about which deletion is not being discussed Yoink23 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While I don't side completely with Seighetler, your (i.e. SusanLarson) post above suggests you have completely failed to follow the controversy. There are well publisised reasons why he did not edit the article himself. If you aren't aware of them, a little reading of wikipedia would help you to better understand the situation. Also your opinion that the issue was overblown is irrelevant. Whether or not the issue was overblown does not significantly effect it's notability. Personally, although Seighetler was not a good spokesperson, he raised a very relevant issue which many of use Wikipedians have been aware of for a long time and it's disapponting to me that so many wikipedians have apparently failed to understand the issue or why it matters Nil Einne 04:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment
According to MSNBC, this guy thought that Wikipedia was not a serious reference tool? I just have to say that all of the intelligent people I know use this religiously. It really burns me up that this incident could scar the reputation of Wikipedia. This really is a great tool, a resource of knowledgeable individuals sharing what they know with others.
 * Actually, this comment (about Chase thinking Wikipedia was a "gag site") came from Daniel Brandt, who was never a big fan of Wikipedia. Most likely, he is trying to paint Brian Chase as a "victim" of Wikipedia, a victim who lost his job at the hands of a site that he says appeared to be a gag. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2005-12-13 02:38

Proof that the new policy is wrong.
Is this not proof enough that the new restrictive policy adopted by Wikipedia, which forces contributors to register with wikipedia before they can create a new article, is wrong. Once you are registered there is no way that someone like Daniel Brandt can find out who wrote the article. Making a user name just creates a level of anonymity that does not exist for a non-registered user whose IP address is visible to everyone. I for example would not like to sign this because it is easer for someone to click on my IP address and leave a message on my IP page and that message is visible to everyone who is on the same IP address. But I'll sign it anyway. --08:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) errr.. I did sign it!!! --156.34.85.70 08:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this page
I will go over a list of reasons why I believe that this page should not exist. As follows:


 * 1) Brian Chase is a manager at some kind of delivery service.  Distinctly non-notable and doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO
 * 2) Whilst we could argue that he is notable for being the person who edited Seigenthaler's page and hence has had media attention, there is a great problem with meeting WP:NPOV with this article, since we are solely documenting negative aspects of him.  Is it possible to write this article as anything other than an attack page?  We should not be writing any article anywhere solely as an attack page.
 * 3) Brian Chase is not a libeller.  What he wrote was not libellous, according to my legal opinion, and according to the legal opinion of experts in defamation law, who have commented about this case.  At worst, his offence is in stating that Seigenthaler was born in the Soviet Union, but suggesting that that is somehow harmful is rather ridiculous.  As for him stating that Seigenthaler shot JFK - this is not true.  He didn't write that.  What he wrote was that Seigenthaler was once briefly thought to have done it.  This is TRUE.  Someone, somewhere, with certainty would have thought briefly that he had done it.  Considering the amount of conspiracy theories about JFK's murder, and his association with JFK, someone would have done it.  Besides which, Seigenthaler did not sue him.  In order for us to accurately call him a libeller, he must have been found guilty in a court of law of libel.
 * 4) Brian Chase is not a hoaxer.  What he wrote stayed up for 4 months.  A hoax is something that you write and then laugh about and remove immediately.  What he wrote is vandalism.  It is not BJAODN level vandalism and hence not a hoax.
 * 5) There are some question marks about whether he really did it.  Whilst he did confess, there is the chance that we got the wrong IP address, and he just chose to take the fall to end the drama.
 * 6) It is an invasion of privacy to list such an article about someone like this.
 * 7) What is written here could be cause for a libel suit filed by Brian Chase against Wikipedia.  With the media following this story, this is a very real risk, and it is ridiculously risky for Wikipedia to allow this article under these circumstances.
 * 8) What he did is nowhere near the worst act of vandalism on Wikipedia.  The GNAA regularly runs scripts to produce minor little edits everywhere on Wikipedia.  There are people like Willy on Wheels and the communist vandal that have done masses of vandalism to Wikipedia.  Yet do they have their own pages?  Oh yes, on the admin block logs where they belong.  Not in the public area like this.

I am extremely concerned about this article remaining. In my opinion, we should not even be stating his name when referring to him. It is legally extremely dangerous for Wikipedia to write something like this. And with a case like this, it wouldn't just be one person being sued for libel, it'd be Wikipedia in total. Its just too risky. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 09:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On the whole you raised some good points; however Wikipedia is as libel as an ISP; which essentially means they are not libel. I voted strong keep and that will remain the case until these issues crystalize and/or a good reason to remove the article is provided, and of course Willy on Wheels didn't get Wikipedia on CNN. A significant difference in my book. - RoyBoy 800 23:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Afd
Wow, the Afd is out of control. I say we ignore the Afd and merge this into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy where it belongs. Oh, it's already there. I've redirected. Friday (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW if someone disagrees strongly enough to revert, don't worry, I won't fight over it. It just seems clear to me that the Afd is unlikely to produce a useful result.  Friday (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What has been done by not giving this person his own article is to hide it into some article about a controversy. Brian chase caused the controversy. Either they both have articles or the controversy should be described under Brian Chase's article. By sweeping this person under the rug Wikipedia and people like you are trying to hide things. I'm sure today in fact there are many incorrect and wrong statements and facts in this encylopedia and by hiding the name of the person who added wrong info Wikipedia is covering things up. Dwain 15:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What hiding? His part in this mess is well documented in the article I redirected to.   If someone is newsworthy as part of a larger event but not so much on their own, it's entirely proper for them to be mentioned as part of the event, rather than having their own article.  Once people start making biographies of him and we have a wealth of sources about him, then maybe he ought to have his own article.  Friday (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but there are plenty of sources on him already all thes news articles about him all OVER THE WORLD! So let me get this straight Wikipedia has to be the last to post articles on people your are saying? We can't have articles unless the Encyclopedia Britannica has one? And it is hiding the person when the whole article has to be searched for who actually started the whole thing. Let the vote dictate what happens otherwise if some know-it-all can just ignore the vote and just do what he likes then why vote at all? Wait until the vote decides what should be done.Dwain 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Couple things: 1) it's not a vote. 2) Yes, Wikipedia is meant to rely on reliable sources.  We don't have to be last, but we cannot be first.  Friday (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

(ec) Hmm, alright. So we wait until the Afd is closed as "no consensus" and THEN we redirect? Does anyone have objections to that? Friday (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What is the rush? When the Afd is closed we will all have some perspective on this. --JWSchmidt 15:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. If there is no concensus to delete the article or to merge it then the article should be kept. I have seen a concensus reached about articles being merged or not so to merge an article when there is no consensus to do so is extreme arrogance. Dwain 15:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to be arrogant at all. I was hoping to save some unfortunate soul the effort of wading through the Afd mess and skip right to the result that will eventually come anyway.  But, JWSchmidt is probably right, there's no need to rush.  It sure seems to me like a talk page is more likely to produce fruitful discussion (resulting, if we're lucky, in a "consensus") than a sock-infested Afd.  I consider Afd a very poor indicator of consensus in cases like this, that's why I tried to skip over it and just go to straight to the result.  Friday (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it shows incredible arrogance that after more than 150 people have either edited or commented on this topic, a new person comes in and unilaterally effectively deletes it by redirecting it to another subject and when that is undone then somebody else redirects and renames the subject. Neither of these two people had previously been involved in the discussion and they probably did not even bother to read what others had already written about these questions. Therefore, I am changing it back to the way it was this morning. Sam Sloan 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish you'd assume good faith. I really was just trying to save time and effort and go directly to the end result. I'm well aware of the ridiculously-large Afd, and I don't see that additional time will improve it. This guy is already covered in the main article, so to me the redirect was a no-brainer. I'll admit it was bold, but I don't see how it's arrogant. I explained my reasoning and didn't edit war, what more do you want? Friday (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The AfD not coming to a clear result means the article stays. - RoyBoy 800 23:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Page move?
I don't know how the AFD is going to turn out, but in the meantime, it might be worthwhile to choose a better title for this article. "Hoaxer" doesn't seem very NPOV. Anyway, I wish to avoid any disputes by moving it myself, and am not really sure what a better title would be, so figured I'd toss this concern here. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Any... alternate suggestions? &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2005-12-14 01:33

Under the rules it is not supposed to be moved or redirected until the AFD is resolved. Therefore, the two people who moved it broke the rules. Therefore, it should be moved back to where it was.

I tried to move it back. The result was that Brian Chase (hoaxer) pointed to Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) and, at the same time, Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) pointed to Brian Chase (hoaxer). The result was a stalemate and nothing moved.

There are many possible alternate names, but with nearly 200 people so far participating in this, some sort of vote should be taken and nobody should take unilateral action. Sam Sloan 02:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This isn't exactly true. A page can be moved during an AFD, provided that the AFD link is updated accordingly, so as not to disrupt the discussion. The article should not be blanked, redirected (because this blanks it), or the AFD notice removed. Other actions are permissible. However, I don't wish to move the page without some agreement as to where it should be moved. And unfortunately, I don't currently have any suggestions. I simply feel that labelling a person as a "hoaxer" for creating a false article on wikipedia under a flawed presumption is, well, somewhat slanderous and PoV. There has to be a middle ground. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Any... alternate suggestions? :) Subramanian talk 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)