Talk:Dennis Toeppen/Archive 1

Delete
I think this page should be deleted. There is no reason to highlight this individual for running a bus company and buying domains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illini1234 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi!
 * Wikipedia currently judges on whether or not a person has an article here on if they're notable according to our standards, and a person who receives coverage in multiple sources is considered notable
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Protecting Article
I think that this article needs to be protected to prevent edits by unregistered users because Suburban Express has a history of using sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia. I looked up the IP address of the user who made the recent edits to this page and I found out that the address is from a location in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. :Attn. TheOriginalSoni, Orangemike, AlmostGrad. Gulugawa (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

COI Editor(s)
User Gulugawa recently admitted on Suburban Express talk page that he has a major COI. See below. Suburban Express is owned by the subject of this article. I suggest that Gulugawa end his involvement in this article immediately.

"Gulugawa has a strong COI, as evidenced by his numerous anti-suburban express posts on reddit. His edits are unprofessional and unconstructive. I propose that he be asked to cease editing this article at once. 195.50.135.211 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal to stop me from editing this article should be disregarded because it comes from an unknown IP address. If you have a legitimate reason for me to stop editing this article, make it from a real account so that it is clear that you are not a Suburban Express sockpuppet. I have frequently criticized Suburban Express on Reddit, but they deserve the criticism due to their unethical business practices. Gulugawa (talk) 7:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)"

2602:306:36FB:2029:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Constructive Edits Reverted
There is little discussion of this article here. Constructive edits were made and reverted. They appear to have been supported well. I suggest that the editor who did the mass revert evaluate edits before reverting changes. You may feel that this article belongs to you because you created it, but it actually belongs to the community and the community is free to edit it. I am restoring some of the constructive changes which you reverted for no good reason. 166.147.104.171 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I have no intention of WP:OWNing this article, and I am well aware that everyone is free to edit it. However, I have restored nearly three paragraphs of sourced information that was removed without discussion from the article. Per WP:BRD, any bold edits made can be reverted (as I did) and the best way out is to discuss it. So can you please say why you think the three paragraphs should be removed from the article?
 * Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 166.147.104.171, this article and the Suburban Express article have a history of disruptive editing by sockpuppets working for Dennis Toeppen. Your changes over the past week have followed a typical sockpuppet pattern of trying to edit negative sounding parts of the article. I have stopped making edits to this article because of my COI and you should do the same to limit the amount of bias in the article. Gulugawa (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Arrest
I have reverted mention of Toeppen's recent arrest. The relevant policy is WP:BLPCRIME: "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." There is no indication the arrest is related to the causes for Toeppen's notability, nor is there significant coverage of the arrest itself. Huon (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There actually is starting to be some coverage on it: Ars Technica. I'd say it relates to his notability considering the activities of him and his company, but perhaps we should wait for further info about the arrest? 192.17.144.103 (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I readded it, as there's decent coverage (see IP above). I believe that given the coverage, footnote 6 in BLPCRIME is key, combined with the first part of your quote: "For people who are relatively unknown". I'm happy to discuss it further, but given the additional coverage I request that you don't revert. tedder (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the mugshot gallery source, as it does not add any significant information to the article that is not in the reliable secondary source coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally fair. tedder (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the problematic statement regarding subject. The source does not, in fact, state that subject was charged. BLP policies suggest that this should not be added unless subject is convicted of the misdemeanor which appears on warrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.169 jin (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, "charged" needs to be removed (his arraignment is 8/1, if I remember correctly). However, please note the above, as BLPCRIME is much more nuanced, especially when dealing with someone who is notable primarily for the charges at hand. As well, please also read the talk archive of this page- you'll note there are concerns about IP editors. tedder (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The concern about IP editors came from the fact that sockpuppets of Dennis Toeppen have been regularly making disruptive edits to this page. I don't see a problem with other IPs such as the one that recently commented on the talk page. Also, while I believe that Toeppen is guilty of cyberharassment, there doesn't appear to be hard evidence that supports this.

Gulugawa (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

To quote a wise man: "If this article should not be edited by IPs, it would be semi protected. If you think it should be semiprotected make a request. An edit being made by an IP is NOT a valid reason for reversion." WP:IPHUMAN Also, I see no evidence that his notability arises from "electronic harrassment." Maybe you can take a moment to re-read the BLP policies. I'll let others sort this out since you seem to be itching for a fight.

Also, why would this belong under "Bus Transportation" heading. This simply does not seem well thought out. Later


 * Unproven allegations have no place in a BLP. You'll need to wait for a verdict in this matter. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, it is an encyclopedia. Eh,, ? 162.220.89.246 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Tribune is a reliable source, and the arrest obviously was related to one of the prime reasons for Toeppen's notability - his bus company and its response to criticism. That said, the source was misrepresented by referring to the alleged victims as "plaintiffs", which they are not. I have reworded that. Huon (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Its repeated in secondary sources, and due to Toeppen's putting himself in the limelight with his various suits and public actions, he may qualify for WP:WELLKNOWN but its certainly borderline. I don't think WP:BLPCRIME is an absolute bar in this case though. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In reviewing sources, I found that trib article does not support this sentence: "He was charged with harassing two persons critical of Suburban Express by posting lewd comments about them.[18]". It does say: "Toeppen was arrested last month on a warrant charging him with two counts of criminal misdemeanor harassment." I am therefore correcting the article. 174.146.20.167 (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Gulugawa - Your recent reverts of edits directed towards the goal of ensuring that the language of this BLP is supported by the cited sources were not appreciated. Please take note of WP:IPHUMAN, as discussed above. Pinging on this, as s/he seems to have been involved in this article for awhile. 174.153.178.143 (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I see that Gulugawa has an admitted Conflict Of Interest with the subject of this article. Under the circumstances, I believe s/he should not be editing the article IN ANY WAY. Thoughts? 174.153.178.143 (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not making edits, I am just undoing the edits that 174.153.178.143 made, since he is a sockpuppet of Dennis Toeppen. Also,  I have traced the following list of sockpuppet IPs back to the same location as 174.146.20.167 using traceroute.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.146.29.31
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.146.117.235
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.146.157.248
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.152.111.131
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.152.185.161
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.152.192.82
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.153.41.80
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.153.107.33
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/184.234.38.52
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.153.178.143


 * 174.153.178.143, and the IPs listed above have a history of making questionable edits to the Dennis Toeppen, Suburban Express, and Peoria Charter pages in order to improve the public image of Suburban Express and attack people who criticize the company.
 * Gulugawa (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I rather disagree with some of the actions by in the article space. As noted above, this user has an admitted COI with the article's subject and should probably minimize involvement with editing. Three edits which Gulugawa recently reverted seem reasonable and justified. I reviewed the discussion at the Suburban Express talk page and tend to agree that overlap between the two articles should be minimized. What do other editors think? I believe that putting back all three reverted edits is warranted. 67.223.120.212 (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Only to reinstate many of them"
With that edit, I do not see how it is supported by the source. I only gave it a quick read, but it appears the source was written before any lawsuits were reinstated. Also, "many" is unspecific, if we could get a number that would be better. (I have a potential conflict of interest with the subject of the article.) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your conflict of interest? Last year, you were directly talking with Dennis Toeppen, and I wonder if you are still doing so.
 * Nevertheless, I agree that a specific number would be useful.

Gulugawa (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest Lawsuits
I noticd that his company filed a bunch of lawsuits in Champaign County over the passed year. Does anyone have any sources for that other than the court database?64.134.165.204 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have any sources but anyone who wants to see the recent suits can see them by googling "champaign county circuit clerk" and searching on Suburban Express there. But why is this discussion taking place on *this* talk page exactly? Please remind me. Cheers. 208.54.80.136 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 64.134.165.204 (talk) is Dennis Toeppen trying to stir up controversy when he clearly knows about the lawsuits. Gulugawa (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Arrest
In this diff one can see where I stated that we should seriously consider using WP:BLPCRIME to not mention Toeppen's arrest. Huon's counterargument to excluding this info was that the arrest arose out of Toeppen's business behavior. I think that's a reasonable counterargument. Yet, I think the current structure of the article is a WP:BLP concern by giving an arrest an entire section—along with an associated section heading in the Table of Contents. To me, it makes much more sense to subsume this information about the arrest into the Bus section itself, as it was business related, and to make that clear. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 00:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Arrest was newsworthy as reported in Chicago Tribune and Ars Technica . This was specific to Dennis Toeppen himself vs. the bus service he operates. Biosthmors, you waited just about a week after this was unlocked (due to your previous posts) to whitewash the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.92.145.34 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose I am being accused of violating the Terms of Use in bad faith by User:23.118.4.235. I am not. (However, perhaps I should ask for payment from Dennis Toeppen, given that I feel the need to waste my time here to point out flawed claims. Or, if the IPs would like to support my work here, then perhaps we could set something up.) As per my above talk page comment, I made this edit on Sep 1. I did not remove any information, so of course I disagree with the claims being made by IPs that I am somehow whitewashing the article. No information was removed. wp:blpcrime states that "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Given this, combined with Huon's argument above, it seems most prudent to subsume the information into a relevant section. I am not a fan of two sentence paragraphs, let alone two sentence sections. I hope the IPs are here to build an encyclopedia, but I can't help but think they might be around to hurl bad-faith accusations; I had no editing restrictions on the page that were somehow removed in the last week. Given my concern over the "Arrest" section, and some recent slow-motion edit warring by IPs, I'd like to ping another editor that comes to mind who has edited this page. User:N2e, any opinion? Feel free to ping others as well if you feel the need. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 16:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In October 2013, you accepted an offer to make paid edits on behalf of Dennis Toeppen. If you are not a paid editor, then why did you accept the offer?


 * For anyone else reading this, here is the post where Biosthmors accepted the paid editing offer. Gulugawa (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the article, and it does appear that the misdemeanor arrest, even for a business-related activity, does not warrant its own separate section in a BLP on this guy in an encyclopedia. Especially given this is in the Chicago area, after all. I was going to just be WP:BOLD and copyedit, but saw that the topic is under discussion here, so thought I'd just make a comment first. Anyone have a rationale why this focus is not WP:UNDUE? N2e (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME seems perfectly applicable (subject is relatively unknown): For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Burden is on proponents to show a "seriouser" reason for leaving it in, and should do so quickly.KevinCuddeback (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, 168.92.145.34 (talk) has suggested that the arrest be included because it was "newsworthy", which is not sufficient for notability and in general "[w]hile news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." As you think about what qualifies, I'd say "arrest" is 'disqualified' without a conviction under WP:BLPCRIME, and while as a human I get the need for WP:Advocacy and feel the Shadenfreude, neither POV is permitted in Wikipedia. It was removed long ago from the Suburban Express article and should be removed here. (I came back hoping N2e (talk) or somebody else neutral had removed it. Next time it nags at me, I will be bold and remove it) KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * IP and SPA Gulugawa seem to have similar goals. Just sayin'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.191.18 (talk) ) 04:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have an issue with removing the section about the arrest as long as it is done by KevinCuddeback (talk) or another legitimate Wikipedia user. However, 12.145.191.18 is probably a Dennis Toeppen sockpuppet and should be ignored. The IP comes from the same person who was making questionable edits last year with the following IP: 162.220.89.246 (talk).


 * Gulugawa (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gulugawa, for pinging me from this Talk. I understand the tension/frustration with IP edits, but it feels right to see it gone, which for me (anyway) makes assuming good faith easier, and if the IP gets reverted and comes back as it was, I'd be just bold enough to re-blank it ask to keep talking/drafting here.  BLPs are hard. If you want to propose a re-insertion of it, we're doing the right thing in talking it out here, and let's draft it in a Sandbox somewhere, but I don't see it being workable or appropriate until there's a court conviction.KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears that someone has slipped a BLP violation into this article. I'm going to be bold and correct. 12.145.191.18 (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You are probably Dennis Toeppen, and a sockpuppet of Arri_at_Suburban_Express who was permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. If the BLP violation is to be corrected, it needs to be done by KevinCuddeback or another legitimate user. Gulugawa (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not everyone who edits without logging in is your archenemy, GuluGawa. Is there a hobby shop near where you live? 12.145.191.18 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I normally don't have an issue with people making edits without logging in because they are generally unbiased. However, I am against you editing this article because you are a sockpuppet of the blocked user Arri_at_Suburban_Express. Gulugawa (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with BLP arrests is that they seem to have a meaning greater than "news" but they end up being a way to amplify the POV of the Police/Prosecutors. So I went with reporting the news. I'm going to make one more change because it is clear that Mr. Laval did accuse Mr. Toeppen personally and by name, not just the company's agents (as I initially wrote), and that's better in a biography anywayKevinCuddeback (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup
Spent a few minutes looking at source materials and deleting redundant links. Tightened up one sentence. Cheers 64.134.165.176 (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion pasted from Winklevi's talk page so that other editors are aware of that discussion away from this talk page:

"Dennis Toeppen Page[edit] Pardon me, but I did not remove any content and I would appreciate you backing out your revert. Perhaps you would like to discuss on the talk page of the article? 64.134.165.176 (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Your edits appeared to be WP:POV in nature, hence the reversion and warning on your talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC) I would ask that you view the talk page for Suburban Express. The source list is very heavily weighted towards blogs and online-only sources. That is why I made the one editorial change that I made. I see that you are biased against IP editors. Keep in mind that not everyone wants to set up a username and devote lots of time to Wikipedia. IPs are people too. 64.134.165.176 (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)"

64.134.165.176 (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Made further edits to address POV concern raised by Winklevi. 64.134.165.176 (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

news article, paxtonrecord, 2/26/2016
url: http://www.paxtonrecord.net/news/courts-police-and-fire/2016-02-26/judge-issue-opinion-online-harassment-case-filed-against-bus-

"The public won’t know a judge’s verdict for a Champaign bus company owner accused of online harassment until May.... The trial wrapped up Wednesday, but the judge is not expected to issue a written opinion until May 2.... People in Ford County might remember when Toeppen drew criticism from University of Illinois students a few years ago after he filed a series of small-claims cases against Suburban Express bus riders in Ford County Circuit Court." tedder (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Net66
I remember that Toeppen ran an ISP called Net66 when I lived in Monticello IL from 1997-2001. The company was in many nearby towns. I'm suprised that there isn't anything about Net66 here. There is a link on his website about it, but it is broken. I attempted to find any articles about the company, but online searches were not fruitful. I did notice this, however: www.toeppenfilm.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.212 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP and court explicitly stopped short of calling it "Cybersquatting"
Am I the only one who thinks that use of the word "Cybersquatter" on this BLP is unnecessarily pejorative and POVy? This ruling, from Toeppen's website, sort of speaks to the issues of intent and propriety: http://toeppen.com/intermatic Also on Toeppen's website, this link http://www.library.cornell.edu/Reps/DOCS/landrush.htm  The question is, if you're out ahead of the pack, doing what entrepreneurs do, is that per se bad? 172.56.27.249 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that BLP requires respect for what the court actually said. I found and read the decision of the court in Intermatic vs Toeppen at Archive.org. The judge in that case agreed that Intermatic should get its domain back, but the magistrate judge ruled that he found no willful infringement, no unfair competition, and ultimately the judge calls it "alleged cybersquatting" and rules against what plaintiff Intermatic on the tests that would have made it Cybersquatting. (the legal standards were lowered by the law in 1999 after this case started) KevinCuddeback (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Toeppen's alleged cybersquatting occurred before the ACPA's date of enactment. Nor do we find willful mess. It is apparent that defendant neither damaged nor intended to damage plaintiffs reputation. It is also apparent that he did not in any way deceive or intend to deceive the purchasing public. He did no more than what entrepreneurs and businessmen do or try to do every day. He used his particular legitimately gained knowledge, in this case of a new technology, to position himself, before others did so, so as to attempt to make a profit with very little work. At the time he did this there was a vacuum in both statutory and case-law regarding the degree to which, if any, the law of trademarks and unfair competition protected trademarks from being used in this manner. In addition, when plaintiff objected the defendant immediately did all he could do to ensure that he was not damaging plaintiffs reputation in any way. He professed a willingness not to use the domain name in question to sell any product or service. Thus eliminating any potential for product confusion. In short, he did everything but give up his right to the use of the domain name. This he did not have to do as it was not at all clear that he was legally bound to do so.
 * CONCLUSION
 * This Court hereby enters final judgment for defendant, and against plaintiff as to plaintiffs willfulness allegations in Count III; plaintiffs trademark infringement allegations (Count I); plaintiffs federal unfair competition claims (Count II); plaintiffs common law unfair competition claims (Count V); plaintiffs Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices claim (Count VI); and plaintiffs Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim (Count VII). Judge Williams previously entered judgments of permanent injunctive relief on Counts III and IV. All parties are to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. This case is hereby terminated."


 * I hope I'm not stepping on any toes. I modified the language in the last paragraph to slightly to align with the language of the acpa. I'm impressed by the work of Mr Cuddeback. 172.56.11.55 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Not Guilty
It seems as if the claims asserted by Mr Toeppen's tormentor were rejected by the Lake County Court. I would suggest that all references - tangential or direct - to the bogus criminal matter be removed. 172.56.20.20 (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. BLP is very clear on such matters:

People accused of crime See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime victims and perpetrators Shortcut: WP:BLPCRIME A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other,[6] include all the explanatory information.

I am therefore removing. Please discuss here before reverting. 208.54.80.211 (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP Violations
In the last month, BLP violations have been added to article. Attempt to remove them was immediately reverted. Someone should fix. 218.30.160.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Contrary to assertion by TornadoChaser, a properly sourced arrest is actually a BLP violation under circumstances relevant to this article. Please carefully review arrest section of BLP. 218.30.160.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor Typo
Sorry for the bother. I'd do it myself, but the page seems to be protected. In the section "Early Life and Education" the last sentence "th University of Illinois" should have "the" as its first word. (Irrelevant pedantry: some IPs are just gnomes too lazy to log in.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.94.22 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)