Talk:Don Murphy/Archive 2

Protected
Brief protection (10 hours) to stop the edit-warring. Lurker, do stop it, this is getting disruptive. You violated Three-revert rule (at least by my count) and could have been blocked. Over one link? That would have been...odd. Moreschi Talk 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about just one link, it's about the right of Wikipedians to edit articles without Wikipedia itself collaborating in their harrassment. I've given reasons above and on my talk page why I believe I have not violated 3RR. Anyway, I've sent an email asking for urgent intervention from the foundation, I'll leave it at that for now. I will say that protecting a page in order to retain a link to a site advocating the harrassment of Wikipedia users is an egregious abuse of admin powers. Lurker  (said · done) 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom Disagrees with you, Lurker. SirFozzie 15:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That page doiesnt out us nor does linking to it out us nor will removing it help any wikipedians who have been outed. Linking to any page on Murphy's site that outs any of us is not acceptabl;e but that doesnt happen here. I see no abuse of admin powers going on here and oppose Lurker's approach to this situation very strongly, SqueakBox 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Demonstrably wrong, the site does in fact out people. But see above, I think linking to the front page with disclaimers is what should be done, and edit warring isn't a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt say the site didnt out us (including 2 pages on me on June 20th) but that the front page of the site doesnt, SqueakBox 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right! Sorry for confusion. So you agree with my compromise idea then? ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that edit warring is the wrong approach (they say it damages the project, well here especially because of the public gaze). Can you give us an idea of what disclaimer you would want to put (I would eb concerned at mentioning the possibility of the site outing wikipedians int he article as all that would do is to encourage people to look for those threads), SqueakBox 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All I'll add is that I think acted appropriately here by protecting the page in whichever wrong version currently appears to stop the edit war.--Isotope23 talk 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times
I included information about Don Murphy's involvement with Transformers from The New York Times. I don't know if there is too much information extracted from the article or if there are WP:BLP concerns, so please review my addition. RTFA (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've revised the article significantly with details about his personal life and his professional career. I have to admit, I was curious about the notability of this topic with two AFDs in the past, hence my involvement.  I think that my contributions have shown abundant detail about his work so far.  I welcome others to review my heavy expansion and bring up any concerns they may have. RTFA (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock editing?
There's a slate of edits from two brand new accounts who are only editing this article and from one IP address (which may have been the person using these accounts logging out of one and forgetting to log into another). I can't tell what's going on with the content edits because these accounts are deleting, re-adding, and shifting text at a rapid pace. I know admins are watching this page because of past problems. Would a RFCU be appropriate here? I don't want to do anything rash because of past problems with past articles, but the edits in the last half-hour seem problematic.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reported this at AN/I.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protected
I've protected the page for one week to allow discussion to take place and a consensus reached on the appropriate version, or a compromised version, to be used in the article. If edit wars resume after the protection is lifted, the protection may be replaced and/or blocks may be issued. Regards,  Lara  ❤  Love  00:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Protection is probably good, but I think what we're dealing with here might be considerably more complicated given the history of the article (see also my comment in the previous section).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute
Considering that my expansion today has been completely verifiable with reliable sources, I do not see any reason to exclude the new information. The editor who reverted me wrote: Is there such an agreement? Even if there was one, I do not believe that it justifies the blanket exclusion of the content I've added. If you review my references, they are in-depth about the producer himself. He is even quoted in response to opinions of others, so there should not be a serious BLP concern. RTFA (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Page reverted back to the Wikipedia and Don Murphy approved version."
 * "Agreement was made with Wikipedia after repeated conflict with Don Murphy. Please check into this before changing."
 * In addition, I have to warn any editor that gets involved that Don Murphy is known for blacklisting editors he opposes on his forum.   So if you get involved, please understand that you will potentially be targeted for harassment by Murphy and his supporters. RTFA (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, no more comments about any of this kind of thing. This was a messy issue before and we need to proceed with caution. It has been posted to ANI where admins can came and take a look. If you don't know the background, please hold off on commenting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See the history of the page for details. This is, indeed, a complicated situation and editing the page with controversial material rather than plain facts has sparked off a dispute that appeared to have been settled.--runabrat 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The archive mentions nothing of any kind of agreement. Can you please point out the "controversial material" in my expansion?  While there may be some re-wording necessary, I doubt that all of my contributions required reverting.    Feel free to review my revision and pointed out what should not be included in the article.  All information is verifiable from reliable sources, and just because there are negative opinions of Mr. Murphy does not mean they should be excluded.  In fact, Mr. Murphy has responded to these opinions, having two quotes in my revision.  If you will, please provide the relevant diff that the revision prior to my involvement was an agreement to maintain perpetually. RTFA (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My wording was, perhaps, clumsy. When I said "approved" perhaps I should have said "acceptable". There seems to be a version that was settled as being acceptably informative to both Mr. Murphy and Wikipedia and the heavy edits to include both personal detail and controversial and non-factual elements have once more stirred up a hornet's nest after a number of months where the dispute seemed to be settled. Remember that just because something is reported doesn't make it accurate and the only real source of whether something is true or not is the people who were involved. Mr Murphy seems to have considered the article as it stood and now stands as a version that is not factually inaccurate and while he clearly would like the article deleted entirely, leaving the article as it is would seem to be sensible. I expect Mr. Murphy will correct me if I misspeak.--runabrat 09:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.216.191 (talk)


 * For the record, this is a long-standing dispute that's previously involved numerous admin actions, blocks, sockpuppets, on- and off-site harassment, and OTRS responses. It's true there's not strictly such a thing as an "approved version," but re-opening a can of worms and acting surprised when people get upset is just naive. Users not familiar with the history here should proceed with caution. – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is no actual "approved version", then is there any reason why runabrat's removal of verifiable content should not be reverted? From reviewing the page history of the article, my revision had the most content about this topic than any previous revision, including details about both his personal life and his professional career as reported independently by reliable sources. RTFA (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I really think some knowledgeable admins need to take a look at what is going on here. Perhaps it would be best to hold off on further discussion for a little while.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Details about his personal life" might be the rub. Emphasizing again: numerous admin actions, blocks, sockpuppets, on- and off-site harassment, and OTRS responses, you may wish to see BLP. It's easy to argue that we must include every tabloid detail we can find, yes, but please bear in mind that this could be the next Seigenthaler or Brandt, and that you do not have a complete picture of what's going on, here. – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The contentious aspect of his personal life may be his riff with Quentin Tarantino, which could be addressed. However, other details about his personal life were independently reported by reliable sources and do not seem as controversial.  I'm not sure what qualifies as "tabloid detail" because there are multiple Featured Articles about living persons that cover their interests.  I am also familiar with previous BLP situations -- Don Murphy believes himself to be a private figure, despite his visibility in the film industry as independently reported.  Both AFDs resulted in a keep.  Please understand that this is a SPA because Don Murphy has harassed other editors in the process of maintaining his article, so I am not new to any of this.  This should really be a content dispute in which the new information can be analyzed for addition.  There is abundant information available about Murphy's involvement in Hollywood; considering that this is his role, it seems unreasonable for coverage about it to be excluded. RTFA (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am reviewing the page history right now for admins to contact. Isotope23 is unavailable. The closing admins for the two AFDs, Can't sleep, clown will eat me and Sr13 appear available. HighInBC was originally involved in the ANI regarding Don Murphy, but has apparently left. Another admin originally involved, Philip Gronowski, is no longer active in Wikipedia. Admin JzG is no longer involved. Admins Newyorkbrad, Chairboy, and Zanimum are available. RTFA (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working on getting in touch with folks - normally an ANI post works but so far not much of a response there. I know one of the admins you mentioned is quite aware of the background here, but let's just give it some time. There are plenty of other articles to work on in the interim.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Approved version" concerns
Discussion above covered some kind of "approved version". From an outside viewpoint, some thoughts:

In terms of encyclopedic content, there isn't such a thing as "approved" or "agreed" versions, nor has there ever been. Articles are authored by users as part of the wider community in which all can participate, not by some central group who have the authority to make "agreements" that bind all editors. This is central to how Wikipedia works.

If there is a content dispute, it is resolved by the community, with a subject entitled to a voice. But normal policies and communal standards apply:
 * 1) NPOV is mandatory as always
 * 2) Notability, inclusion norms, and sufficient reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article are the factors that determine inclusion in the encyclopedia
 * 3) OR and V determine suitable facts for inclusion in the article, and
 * 4) BLP mandates (roughly) that a high standard of sourcing and especial care is needed, especially applying to any negative content from poor quality sources, and authorizes prompt removal of poor source negative content and attacks.

What we do not have is "approved versions" that some vague group of editors have agreed and which nobody else can easily edit. (Even protected articles can have a request made, and protection is not a desirable long term state for an article precisely since it prevents collaborative editing.) We have instead, norms about content, editorial conduct, and disputes, that address contentious topics. Again those are the same on all topics. In such circumstances one must edit carefully and be sure to edit in an appropriate manner, and discuss concerns that may arise.

Just an outside view on one aspect discussed above. Hope it helps. FT2 (Talk 09:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Content for inclusion
From what I gather, there is some content that User:RTFA would like included. My best recommendation would be for User:RTFA to list the content (and the sources, keeping WP:BLP in mind) he would like included and we can discuss is here, for those inclined to discuss. Then we will see if there is, and what are the objections. Perhaps a compromise or consensus can be reached? As an aside, I've not looked into this dispute deeply, and I did not intend too. I can view that OTRS ticket, but as of now, I've not done so. We can at least, in this section, identify the dispute. I think that would be a start. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonvocal, as Luna Santin said above the dispute involved "numerous admin actions, blocks, sockpuppets, on- and off-site harassment, and OTRS responses." I do not even know the full story, but if I recall there was at least one editor (perhaps more) who literally left Wikipedia over what happened (involving harassment). I appreciate your efforts to broker a discussion here, but this is not a simple situation and should not be treated as such (maybe looking at the OTRS ticket would shed some light on it, I have no idea). Also please note that all three accounts working recently on this page were created in the last couple of days and went straight to this article, which suggests that there may be some complicating factors.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we will be ok, if we take it slow. I did note the account creation dates, I'll assume nothing with the new accounts *if* they engage in useful discussion.  Anything else, would cause me to move on... quickly.  I hope we can at least talk here.  If you have some more information you don't feel comfortable posting here, that might help me understand better, my inbox is open.  Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has been completely uninvolved with editing this article, but has been in brief contact with Murphy in order to come up with ways of settling his dispute with Wikipedia, I can tell you now that there is no agreement with him and no "approved" version. He has stated, explicitly, that his only desired outcome is for this article's complete deletion. For that reason, I see no problem with incorporating User:RTFA's changes, which seem even-handed and verifiably true. To exclude these cited additions with the intent of mollifying Murphy won't work, as he has stated he would be unhappy with even a one-line "IMDB-style" entry. See the thread here for his latest statement to that effect, and where he accuses me of being RTFA (I'm happy to provide any evidence to the contrary, should it be required). All the best, Steve  T • C 08:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Professional information yes, personal information, no. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is "personal information" that we would normally have in a biography rather than anything invasive, and it is reliably sourced in secondary sources, and Murphy doesn't care one way or another about whether that information is in if we have any article at all why not? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious tag
If you look here, Murphy is one of eight producers for natural born killers. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the difference between a producer (Murphy) and "executive producers" and "associate producers"? (Film_producer is a reasonable overview) WjBscribe 03:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there are three producers for that film. Murphy is one of them. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't seem to claim that he was the sole producer - I'm not sure what you're disputing... WjBscribe 04:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The source says that Murphy "launched his career with a bang by producing Quentin Tarantino and Oliver Stone's controversial 1994 movie "Natural Born Killers,". Firstly, lauching your carreer with a bang and rising to prominence aren't the same thing. Secondly, the source seems to indicate that he was the sole producers hence it is dubious as to how much of a "bang" his career was launched. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I would point out that its only being used to source the statement that he rose to prominence due to Natural Born Killers - which is true. Also, the news source "Reuters/Hollywood Reporter" is rather more reliable than imbd (which, like Wikipedia, is user edited). If they view him as being the main producer, they're a reliable source for that... WjBscribe 04:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that prominence is a hard thing to judge. I wouldn't necessarily describe Murphy as being a prominent producer. He's not a public figure, which is why I question the inclusion of the sentence about how the movie made his name. That suggests a certain level of fame or public recognition that I don't personally believe he has. Battlecharged (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Birth place
Found some sources for the inclusion of this piece. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Big movie zone

IMDB

IGN


 * I don't think the real issue is whether or not he was born in New York but whether we should include it anyway now we can indeed source it. I would argue that we shouldn't include it on privacy grounds, I believe in this case we should try not to include any personal information and focus exclusively on his professional career, which this is not a part of. We already make clear he is American in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree; the way we judge if something should be included is if reliable sources see fit to mention it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is simply a partial and wikilawyering interpretation of how we work, and an extreme inclusionist approach. Notability is also important, BLP is also important, NPOV is also important (though the latter is not pasrticularly relevant here). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right all are important, but it isn't easy to make a claim about a piece of data that would a) normally be in a biography b) not usually considered a piece of private data c) is in multiple reliable sources that are easily googlable and d) is a data point about unanmbiguously notable individual like Murphy (and yes we have a community consensus for that) e) the individual has made it clear that he is just as unhappy if there is a biography of him at all regarldess of the information level f) he is acting in manifestly bad faith. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced of e and f but I won't be edit warring over this particular issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Squeak, Same, E and F has nothing to do with this encyclopedia IMHO, or at least, my content won't be influenced by negative actions of the subject. As for the rest of the points, I think the birthplace is a normality in a biography. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not too keen on E and F either so I won't make an issue about it. One further detail, he actually in this interview mentions that he would have been a "boring lawyer" in New York City if certain events hadn't occurred otherwise. See . JoshuaZ (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but from my point of view, Don Murphy is not a public figure. Rarely has his name ever been announced on a trailer, and I say rarely here because I'm not sure it never has.


 * Invariably, the person has professed a strong wish to remain out of the public view, if possible, to have his article deleted. He has taken many steps to have this done. I may not be asking for deletion, but I am asking that out of respect, segments that he considers harmful to his career are eliminated. Thank you at least for your time Cerberatron (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Unflattering"
This description of Hamsher's book was removed. The source appears to be offline, but judging from the title of the source it is an accurate description. Does someone with access with the source know whether the use of the word unflattering can be accurated attributed to the source? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of source, I would argue that we should not be using terms like "unflattering" (and its vs, "flattering") in a descriptive on a biography? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if the book is not flattering thats a possibly NPOV statement. If the book is negative or critical thats an NPOV statement also. There might be issues with sourcing it and there would be POV issues if we wrote "correctly critical". But right now, I'm just concerned about sourcing. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it, since my view was the same as NonvocalScream's. It was also a rather meaningless phrase. Who was it unflattering to? Every single person in the book? The subject of this biography? Having read the book in question (I suspect more than some editing this page have done) I would suggest that the book is not unflattering to the subject of this page, so the word's inclusion in this context is both inaccurate and lacks the neutrality Wikipedia should be striving for. Battlecharged (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that the only source applicable in this case is the autobiography itself since it is the subject of the adjective. Battlecharged (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Characterizing others work
Characterizing the book as critical would be ok, as long as we are restating the books judgment and not our own. I just want to be sure that we do not reinsert this this edit regardless of the sourcing. This is not aimed at any one editor, however, it is a general statement about the edit. The edit did not appear to adhere to Fainess of Tone or Characterizing opinions. We should be careful here and go slow. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it relevant to state the biography is critical, though? It's not critical of the subject of this entry to any degree. Is it relevant to discuss the tone of a book if it was neither written by the subject of the wikipedia entry, nor deals with him critically? It dealt with others in a critical fashion, but wouldn't such a description be better suited to the entry on the book's author than here? It would actually be more relevant to state the book gave a positive view of Don Murphy, if anything. Does it add anything to an entry on Don Murphy to say that Jane Hamsher was critical of Oliver Stone and others? Battlecharged (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on, is the book not critical of Murphy? Then agree that such languages is not a good idea. Such language would be at best misleading. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have assumed that before adding the adjective someone would have checked whether it was critical of Mr. Murphy or not. Personally, I would say it's not critical of him in any way there's relevant to this biography, certainly not to a degree that it's notable, so I certainly agree that a bare bones version is better without any judgement. As it is, the opposite is probably true and I believe Murphy is treated fairly in the book and it gives a positive overall impression of him. It's more relevant to state the book dealt with him positively in this context. Battlecharged (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)