Talk:Marshall Sylver/Archives/2015

Inappropriate sections
Recent changes by Examining life on Chapter 11 filing appear to be original research, which is unusual, especially for a new Wikipedia user. See Files for Bankruptcy: "A search through a database of legal documents reveals that Sylver filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on June 24th 2013." This section should probably be deleted.

Referring to earlier sections in this Talk page under "Proposed Revisions," I'm wondering if anyone has followed up on the PACER discussion, since it's not a source accessible by Wikipedians. Also concerned that user LongLiveReagan, who has been very active on this page, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LongLiveReagan. If not, maybe that section should be deleted, too.

Cmlloyd1969 (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to agree with Cmlloyd1969. While it seems that ExaminingLife, a relative new user, has added some detailed information, without publicly accessible, third-party sources, not WP:OR, it can be questionable and the information can't be a reliable source for the general public. The intent seems good but I'd suggest ExaminingLife explore the Talk Pages more and discuss with other Wikipedia editors. Miked918 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I just responded to Cmlloyd69's message to me on my page and he told me to come here. I can't say that I know the policies here all that well, and I'm inclined to defer to your judgement, but the WP:BLP page that Cm linked in his message seems directly applicable to biographies of this kind. I didn't add that information by the way, just reworded it, but an article about Sylver's life and career would probably be better than a list of bad things he's allegedly done. It is kind of weird to see a search of his finances.

I tried getting into PACER as you mention above but was told: "Availability of these records is restricted to court personnel, the minor, parents or guardian, attorneys involved in the case, and other persons designated by statute. Authorized persons may inspect the juvenile court record by completing a Declaration in Support of Request to Inspect and/or Copy Juvenile Court Records Without a Court Order (L-0673)." Etc. There may be no easy way for us to verify this one way or another. I guess just make whatever changes you think should be made.Examining life (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. Based on feedback from Miked918 and Examining Life, I'm going to blank those sections as violations to BLP. Cmlloyd1969 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've reverted the sourced legal info about Sylver's history, and have provided a link to his bankruptcy info.  As Sylver's criminal history was sourced to reputable third-party sources, there was no need or justification to delete them.  Indeed, the lack of any available "Pacer" info indicates that retaining the info is justified.  Comments such as "I guess just make whatever changes you think should be made" are humorous, but unhelpful. --Donegallian (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet vandalism
A recent series of changes by user Donegallian has essentially reverted this page to its previous form, in contradiction to ongoing discussion here on the Talk page. I note that these are the first and only contributions the user has made on Wikipedia. I highly suspect this is a sockpuppet for malicious user LongLiveReagan, who has been very active on this page and been blocked. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LongLiveReagan.

So I'll just ask: Donegallian, are you LongLiveReagan? Because your contributions sure make it look like your are. https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Donegallian

Either way, the changes appear to be clear violation of Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view. (WP:NPOV) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Even the user's own editing notes show strong evidence of bias/opinion, e.g., "Remove vanity claims. The "radio show' is an online get-rich-quick advertisement. The "movie" was never released, and may never have been made."

Seems the page should be reverted, but I would like more feedback from other editors first. Cmlloyd1969 (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Gone for a couple weeks and come back to this? I wasn't familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LongLiveReagan but after checking the backstory, I'd agree that there's a lot of similarity between LLR and Donegallian. Besides, is every BLP entry with with a bankruptcy included? In addition to the sockpuppetry, the changes didn't add value. Miked918 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope, not a sockpuppet. I've responded further below. P.S.  You're not fooling anyone.  --Donegallian (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, no sockpuppetry here. Though it seems Sylver and/or his associates are trying to whitewash the page
By no means am I "LongLiveReagan" or any sort of sockpuppet. However, Cmlloyd1969's contentious tone suggests he's not editing neutrally, and has a rooting interest in deleting sourced, pertinent info from the page. I could just as easily suggest he's working with, or for, Marshall Sylver. But that would be bad faith.

Sylver's criminal history is sourced to The New York Times and The Las Vegas Review-Journal, among other reputable sources. Deleting it without consensus -- which is what Cmlloyd1969 did -- was POV, and highly suspect. As for my edit summaries, they were written that way to show neutral moderators what Cmlloyd1969 did to the page. Cmlloyd1969 deleted sourced, verifiable proof of Sylver's criminal history, and replaced it with vanity claims, including a "radio show" that is actually a get-rich-quick advertisement, a "movie" that was never released, etc.

I also find it interesting that Miked918, who appears to be working in concert with Cmlloyd1969, works in public relations, according to his user page. Wikipedia has a long history of PR reps trying to whitewash the pages of article subjects. Interestingly, Miked918 has re-emerged onto Wikipedia after several years, and now focuses primarily on edits regarding Las Vegas and performers who work at Las Vegas casinos, like Marshall Sylver. Moderators, please take note of this potential glaring conflict of interest for Miked918.

I'm happy to discuss whether Sylver's recent bankruptcy belongs on the page. But it's not unreasonable to suggest that Sylver's business failure has sent him and/or his associates here in order to turn this page into an advertisement. The tone of editors trying to rid the page of anything adverse in Sylver's past suggests that. --Donegallian (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to keep personalities and any personal comments out of my reply. So, I'll just say that I think I've been pretty clear on what I've edited. The point about my focused edits echoes what I've done before: If something interests, that's what I tend to work on, time to time. What I do find suspicious is that someone new to Wikipedia makes so many drastic, focused changes. For now, my distraction time is over and it's back to work. Miked918 (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I was hoping to have had a chance to write more on this article, but looking at this mess I'm glad that I didn't.

I was thinking of maybe writing more here but looking at all this I'm sort of glad I didn't. Cmlloyd1969 asked me on my page if I am Donegallian. 1) I am NOT Donegallian and have NOTHING to do with him. I guess I can see why you think this but it's not true. Is there somewhere on Wikipedia I can go to prove this? 2) A search through past conversations on this page shows the person you call LongLiveReagan who again is NOT me or anyone I know to have been an alter ego of another fellow calling himself Eleemosynary. This is the name of a play by Lee Blessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleemosynary_(play). According to Wikipedia this person is running multiple accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eleemosynary 3) A search on google reveals that this Eleemosynary person fabricated the fake Wikipedia quotes from Rush Limbaugh that stopped his attempt to purchase the St. Louis Rams in 2009. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=%22eleemosynary%22+%22rush+limbaugh%22 I remember seeing that in the news. Criticising Rush Limbaugh is one thing but making up quotes is completely vile. An example is “You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.” Another one endorses slavery. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/16/793990/-Limbaugh-s-Fake-Outrage-at-Fake-Quotes

I apologize for having repeated any of his/her claims and do not think ANYTHING he/she writes can be trusted. I am probably going to delete everything he says here in a second because I don't think he deserves to speak at all.Examining life (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Examining Life" appears to be a sockpuppet of "Cmlloyd1969," and possibly "Miked918." Examining life appears to be an account created to suggest a false consensus.  Mods:  Please run an IP check.  Also, feel free to run an IP check on me, as I have no idea who these other characters referred to above are. I'll be reverting the edits from the Examining life sockpuppet. --Donegallian (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the history, I restored Donegallian's comments. As others can clearly see, I'm no Wikipedia expert but enjoy contributing. IF what Examining Life writes is true about Donegallian's connection to the banned Eleemosynary, and there seems to be good rationale, then I would suggest something be done about Donegallian (banned?) or Wikipedia's credibility may be knocked. Miked918 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no connection to any user you've mentioned, but you appear to be working in concert with sockpuppet accounts to delete sourced info from the page. Your stated job in public relations also suggests you're a hired gun, and tactics such as creating sockpuppets to create false consensus are part and parcel of the PR game, as you well know. --Donegallian (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Miked918. Even though it seems highly likely Donegallian is a sockpuppet, we shouldn't be blanking Talk pages to obscure the trail of the discussion here. I do appreciate Examining life digging in further to the Eleemosynary tale, however -- apparently this goes much deeper than I suspected. He just shouldn't have blanked the Talk.


 * I didn't "blank" anything on the Talk page. What are you talking about?  UPDATE:  Oh, I see now.  "Miked918" is trying to mask his sockpuppetry by restoring text he deleted under one of his sock accounts, which is "Examining Life."  Thank goodness Wiki mods are familiar with such lame tricks!   --Donegallian (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is why being on Wikipedia can be so tiresome. I am just one person. Feel free to do a Google search of my handle (an early Internet handle I used before switching to my real name) and you'll see who I am. Donegallian has made some strong accusations which are ironic since the only work that person has done is on Sylver: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Donegallian. Miked918 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I admit I'm rather puzzled at this point, since I had assumed (perhaps presumptuously on my part) that Examining life was yet another malicious user or sockpuppet. He seems just new and confused now.

It appears like this page has just turned into a classic edit war. Given the brazen WP:NPOV violations and Eleemosynary/LongLiveReagan shenanigans -- not to mention the nasty tone here on the Talk page, which I apologize if I've contributed to -- it seems this page is going to have to be handed off to Wiki admins. I've never referred to the noticeboards before, so I'll need to look into that more before doing so. Cmlloyd1969 (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to mods: Please run an IP check on Cmlloyd1969 and Examining life, as well as Miked918. Cmlloyd1969 has an edit history consisting of miniscule revisions (a comma here, a bracket there), until coming to the Marshall Sylver page, where he's now very, very concerned with removing sourced NPOV info on Sylver's criminal history.  Examining life appears to be an account created to only edit the Marshall Sylver page, and to create false consensus with Cmlloyd1969. --Donegallian (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been paging through the history button and I found a bunch of stuff including this. StephanLaurie was account blocked as a sock puppet user of Eleemosynary.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StephenLaurie


 * StephanLaurie: “remove advertising. it's not clear this "movie" was ever released.”https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Sylver&diff=prev&oldid=298238800
 * Donegallian: “The "radio show' is an online get-rich-quick advertisement. The "movie" was never released”https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Sylver&diff=prev&oldid=669154390

Looks like the same words and phrases echoing in his head for years now. Please include this in any report you file. Five minutes of looking it's totally obvious.Examining life (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've also used "the" and "is." :-)


 * Seriously, though: several users have called the page an "advert," "PR," and "advertising." And it's true that the "movie" in question was never released, and may not even exist.  That's why I used the scare quotes.


 * I'm looking forward to the IP check on Examining life (talk), who is clearly a sockpuppet created by Marshall Sylver, or his associates, to turn "this" "page" into "an" "advertisement." :-) --Donegallian (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * All your usernames say the same things about everyone including what you've just written above. This is very easy to check. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Eleemosynary I look forward to you opening an investigation since it will save me the trouble of figuring out how to do this. You may just be the most unpleasant person I've ever met on or off the internet. No kidding. Please stop.Examining life (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop reverting the page to a POV advert. Stop deleting sourced material from the page.  Stop accusing others of your own sockpuppetry.  Face it: you tried to present yourself as a neutral editor, and you got caught.  Own that. --Donegallian (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I will avoid the temptation to respond to all the personal attacks, as it's the exact opposite of what the Wikipedia editing process should be about. But I'll just point out two things before exiting stage left: 1) I have not actually made any edits to the article in nearly four weeks. All my contributions to this page since then have been aimed at finding consensus on Talk. 2) It is a classic ploy for mischief makers, when exposed, to accuse everyone else of doing exactly what they're doing. Cmlloyd1969 (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're a sockpuppet, and likely a representative of Marshall Sylver. End of story. --Donegallian (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick note: Donegallian has been blocked/banned for being a Sockpuppet_(Internet) of Eleemosynary. Case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eleemosynary/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miked918 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)