User talk:Horologium/August 2009

Kundra
I agree with your edition on the discussion pages that inclusion of a misdemeanor thirteen years ago is trivia. This edition should be excluded from the BLP. A BLP should not be a litany of news that can be dredged up with the purpose of entertaining special interests.

Kundra has moved beyond this and gone on to dedicate his life to public service. This is more than what most people can claim… To punish him again (and all his family members) publicly thirteen years later when a Judge with material facts deemed it to be a misdemeanor is willfully malicious and unconscionable. This is in direct contradiction to the disposition that the judge (the law) intended.

I am not very experienced with wikipedia and am becoming sideswiped by cliques and mechanisms that I don't understand. (66.171.128.243 (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

As an attorney and objective observer, I would have to strongly agree about not including information on this incident. Legally, Kundra was never convicted of anything--in Maryland, probation before judgment (or PBJ) is not a conviction and can be expunged from a person's record within three years. A person receiving a PBJ could honestly and legally say that he/she was never convicted of anything and does not have a criminal record. In fact, the whole point of a PBJ is to prevent people from having the "black mark" of a misdemeanor follow them for life. While Kundra's information is now out there on some blogs and a few publications, that does not mean it SHOULD be out there. Moreover, given the tone and purpose of his Wikipedia page (i.e. to provide information on his professional background and responsibilities of the CIO), it seems completely inappropriate and almost partisan in nature. For example, why is the theft that President Bush committed as a twenty-year-old not on his wikipedia page when it was covered by publications such as the New York Times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you have put a temporary hold on Kundra's wiki page. You should remove the following sentences from the early life/education section because they are not supported by any source and are pure conjecture: "He earned a masters degree in Information Technology, from University of Maryland University College although it cannot be confirmed that he attended full time or day classes and may have attended night or correspondence classes. The University refuses to release his transcripts to confirm his credentials." In fact, the source cited is completely contrary to the author's baseless assertion. The source actually indicates that the University of Maryland unequivocally confirmed Kundra's credentials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.111.58 (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanchez article
Given the brouhaha that resulted from this reversion, and since AllStarEcho only indirectly raised the question (and got himself blocked in the process), I'm just curious to know who the "banned user" would be. Maybe that would be obvious to someone familiar with the article, which I'm not. If you could clarify that point, in the latest thread on the subject in WP:ANI, it might be helpful. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova noted that it seemed like . Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that was in a different section. I'll assume that's the answer unless Horologium states to the contrary. While I'm curious about it, I'm not curious enough to want to delve into it any further. A page about a former porn star who's apparently buddies with Ann Coulter is not necessarily in my top ten most-wanted articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's Pwok. It's a Comcast IP which geolocates to Seattle, just like 71.231.140.80, 24.18.130.89, and 24.143.225.74, all of which were confirmed to be Pwok editing under IP addresses. Take a look at the contribution history of those IP addresses, as well as those of Pwok, Truthjusticeamericanway, and Charles Wilson 4000. WP:DUCK applies here. Pwok's contribution history is interesting, because the vast majority of his edits are to Sanchez, and Pwok has an attack site set up just to smear him. Most of his non-Sanchez edits were to James Kim, another person Pwok set up an attack site to smear (I don't believe the site is active now). This is not someone who should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. As to being among your top ten wanted articles, it has been through AFD three times, and survived each time. The third AFD was particularly heavily trafficked, as there was an arbitration case running concurrently. Apparently the Wikipedia community's opinion of the article's worthiness differed from yours (and mine, since I argued for deletion as well).  Horologium  (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the good, detailed info. I'm generally an inclusionist, although I seldom vote in AfD's. That guy Sanchez seems like a pretty small fish from the notability standpoint. Presumably he's a lightning rod because of his duplicity. Doesn't seem like a very encyclopedic subject, but consensus apparently says otherwise. What I don't get is why ASE managed to hang himself on this one seemingly trivial matter. There's no figuring some things. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to speculate on ASE's motives (I'm not sure myself), but a topic ban was quite appropriate given the circumstances, and I think that is headed down that same path, despite having no involvement in the article. Whenever Sanchez is mentioned in AN/I, NH adds his sniping to the mix, and none of his comments have been helpful in any way. He and ASE are apparently friendly with each other, which would explain NH's behavior, but it doesn't excuse it. We have enough drama at AN/I already; we don't need uninvolved users stoking the fire.  Horologium  (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were in ASE's shoes, or I suppose NH's since you bring it up, I would simply take that page off my watch list for awhile and pretend it doesn't exist. I got into a major wrangle with one editor over the Obama articles, and I'm on a no-contact restriction; and it seems to have worked out. He's topic-banned from the Obama articles, and while I'm not, nonetheless I took them off my watch list months ago, seeing it as a no-win situation; and things seem peaceful now. There are plenty of topics and articles to work on, and the lightning-rod articles typically cause much more angst than they're worth. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After a couple of extremely negative interactions with on Talk:Matt Sanchez, some of which caused me to act intemperately, I removed it from my watchlist. I readded it when I learned that he had been indefinitely blocked. (The number of people indefinitely blocked over contributions to that page or related issues is almost as high as the number who wave been blocked for edits to Barack Obama, which is absolutely mind blowing.) Sometimes disengagement is the best action one can take.  Horologium  (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have observed that many editors either have not a clue what NPOV is about, or just plain don't care. That's the obvious downside of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" - users with an axe to grind will gravitate toward such articles. That's distinct from trolling, in which an editor will latch onto some particular article and treat it as a cat-and-mouse game. I've seen a few of those also. Both of these are children of the same policy of "anyone can edit". Once flagged revisions come in, theoretically that kind of thing should diminish. We'll see. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)