User talk:NYScholar/Archive 15

Hi--

I would like to respectfully protest the inclusion of the article by Erik Wemple and Jason Cherkis in this biography. Casey Brown, an administrator of the Wikipedia Foundation, has already concluded that this article very likely violates the standards for articles about living persons.

Wikipedia Guidelines state: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourcd or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, if potentially libelous." Jimmy Wales has also repeatedly stated that articles should not contain tabloid information or be about subject's private life. The article in question, by a source not considered credible in the mainstream, is about the subject' divorce, his health, and purported disagreements with neighbors and a long running feud the editors of the article had with the subject. It relies on much third hand innuendo, off-the-record comments that could not be independently verified, and did not even include the subject's comments about most of the article's allegations.

I suggest that the article not be placed on the site again until a formal opinion by the Wikipedia Foundation, whose administrators have preliminarily at least concluded that it violates Wikipedia standards on biographies of living persons.

It should also be noted that the person who added this article in the first place was added, put up again when taken down, and then then formally protest its removal authors of the article, Mike Lenehan. Mr. Lenehan sould have made the change and protest under his own name.

Instead, he did so as a "sock pocket"-- purposely concealing his interest and identity. Such posting under a false identity, or sock pocketry,is considered a serious violation of journalistic ethics, ordinarily ending up in the formal disciplining or firing of the journalist who engaged in this conduct.

At the Los Angeles Times, a columnist was suspended from work and then demoted for posting comments under a pseudonym. At the New Republic, a columnist had his column discontinued after admitted to posting under an assumed name.

In short, the posting under a pseudonym by Leneahn would be a firing offense at most news organizations. From now on, he should fully identify his personal interest in having his very own article included in this or any other Wikipedia entry. It should be noted that Lenehan has also posted, as he did up here, under the pseudonym "Ovid Plastering", and others, comments in his own publication-- once again conduct that would lead to most professional journalists being immediately fired.

Finally, Jimmy Wales has also stated that editors should "think twice" about reverting a subject of an article who is trying to remove unsourced or poorly sourced or potentially libelous material, which is what I have tried to do in this instance.

I believe that the editors of this page should ask Mr. Lenehan to make whatever suggestions in Wikipedia entries about himself and others under his own name.

And I hope to ask Wikipedia to post a comment here publicly that they believe that the article might violate the standards of biographies of living people.

While making this protest, I would like to thank the various editors and contributors for their devotion to fairness, accuracy, scholarship and debate-- but most of all sensitivity to those of us people who are subjects of living persons biographies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Hi--

Sorry, because of typos, I wanted to say that the person who placed the Wemple/Cherkis/Lenehan article on the Waas biography page was Mike Lenehan, an author and editor of one of the articles. He also put the article back up after it was taken down. And he also lodged a formal protest to put it back up when it was taken down. He has also changed other Wikipedia entries under a pseudonym to portray himself in a more favorable light.

He did all of these activities under the psudonym "Ovid Plastering." In the profession of journalism, this is considered to be sock pocketry, and is ordinarily a firing offense. Lenehan has posted under the name Ovid Plastering anonymously in the comments section of his own newspaper. Once again, this is sock pockety, and when caught, as two columnists for the Los Angeles Times and the New Republic found out, led to their either demotion of firing.

I think Lenehan the contributors and editors might consider asking that Lenehan post any comments under his own name in the future.

I think we should also await a formal opinion by Wikipedia administrators whether or not this article violates Wikipedia standards for articles about living people.

Once again, as a subject of one of these Wikipedia entries, I want to thank you and everyone for the great care and fairness and precision that goes into writing and editing one of those. Like many people, I was surprised in the first place that I warranted an entry at all. But one having been done, thanks for the thoughtfullness, thoroughness, and regard for accuracy that goes into the production of one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * In reply to the above messages:
 * It appears that the above messages are written about the article Murray Waas. If so: might I suggest that at this point perhaps it would be useful to create a log in identity in your own real name, so that all readers of Wikipedia will understand that these concerns come from the subject of the article.  The anon IP address that you have been using is perhaps confusing other editors of the article.  (See the first comment in the talk page of that IP user address, where it appears that the user who posted it was making that assumption to begin with before striking it out.)


 * I was not aware that there was a "sockpuppet" [I think you mean] being used by another user, though I have had my suspicions that others editing the article were in some way involved personally in its subject matter. [I myself am not in any way personally acquainted with the subject or the sources listed in that article.  I am just attempting to be a neutral editor of it.]  When I can, I will try to understand that situation better [later].  See: WP:Sockpuppetry.  It is not appropriate to reveal the real-name identities of anonymous users of Wikipedia [connect their otherwise anonymous screen names  [or anon IP adds.] with their real names] [as it violates their privacy and is a no-no in Wikipedia.  [I can't find where it says this right now, but it is part of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; try Etiquette and Policies and guidelines. --NYScholar 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]
 * I have just tried to find the connection between Washington City Paper and Lenehan, as mentioned in the anon IP user's comments; I see that Lenehan's publishing group publishes it, while Wemple is its editor. See Chicago Reader, Inc. (Company profile for publisher of three "newsweeklies", one of which is the Washington City Paper.  Wemple recently accepted and then declined the editorship of The Village Voice, as discussed in Erik Wemple.  I had checked out those connections some time ago, before citing the eleven-page account of Waas's work in the article on him (it is still there as note citation #6).  Given the content of the article, and the repeated deletions of it from Murray Waas by the anon IP user (who had not posted any messages to me until the ones above), I had wanted to determine where the article was published and that it was published by a reliable and verifiable source.  According to Wikipedia "reliable and verifiable" would pertain to an "alternative newsweekly" in Washington, D.C., though I will wait to see what happens through the anon IP user's appeals through Wikipedia.  It is now cited in four notes as a source of previously- or otherwise- unsourced information in the article, but the anon IP user removed it from its previous listing in "References".   --NYScholar 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, I will respect your wishes however possible in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you have placed the same messages on anyone else's talk page, I may see if I can find their comments in response to it as well for some further perspective. [Came back to say--I haven't found them posted elsewhere. --NYScholar 21:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]


 * In my own perception of the situation re: the article by Wemple et al., I think that one of the facts that makes it possibly listable as a source in the Wikipedia article about you is that you yourself discuss the article in some detail in your own blog post in The Huffington Post, which makes it a source to identify (authors, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed) for understanding the context of your article (post) there. [See: WP:BLP for how that relates to WP:POV.]
 * [added later:] ... i.e., as a "controversy" that is to be defined; [added later:] by virtue of his publications, it may be that Murray Waas is a public figure in Wikipedia terminology and perhaps also (due to the blogosphere, other coverage in the mass media, and the recently-published book on the high-profile United States v. Libby a "well known public figure", with regard to Neutral point of view and WP:POV, which intersect. --NYScholar 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]
 * According to WP:BLP and WP:V, your own blog is a permissible source or external link to include in a biography about you. That blog post leads to the article by Wemple et al. In my own edits of Murray Waas, I have tried to present the relationship between the blog post written by you and the article by Wemple et al. that you discuss in it in a fair and neutral manner.  Acting as if the article does not exist by deleting it from mention in "References" deletes the context for your blog post that discusses it.  To me that was (and may still be) the reason for including it.  It is also a lengthy (eleven pages) "point of view" on your work written in a source that has an article on it in Wikipedia, which indicates that the newspaper is "notable"; so exclusion on the grounds of "obscurity" of the newspaper has less of an argument. [...]


 * [... The connection between the publisher/editor(s) of the newspaper (Washington City Paper) and the allegation of WP:Sockpuppetry is a matter for administrative action, I think. I had wondered about who was creating and editing those articles pertaining to the newspaper in which Wemple et al. is published and Murray Waas and whether there were conflicts of interest involved.  [revised this part after re-checking names provided in the comments posted by the anon IP user above.  Not something that I wish to discuss as I believe it treads on WP:CIVIL and particularly WP:NPA. --NYScholar 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]


 * As I am in the midst of a non-Wikipedia project and have deadlines to meet relating to it, I have not yet looked at the article Murray Waas, having a "new messages" alert appear when I logged on (for what I had hoped would be a moment. But I will do so before turning back to my other work.  If I have further replies to your comments above, I will return here to make them when I can (later tonight).


 * Eventually, as is my practice on this talk page, I will archive this discussion. I'm leaving it in this current page, because it is still ongoing.  But after that, you will find it in the next archive page that I create, which may include just the discussion about this particular article.


 * In any case, thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I appreciate your concerns and I understand them.  I am not sure what to do about them, but for the meantime will heed your request and do nothing to re-insert the article by Wemple et al. if it is currently deleted and watch the situation when I can in terms of its outcome through your appeals to "The Powers That Be" (TPTB) in Wikipedia.  (Please note that I have no desire to become engaged in an Edit war over that or any other article.)


 * In the meantime, as it might be relevant to your own BLP article (if you are as you appear to be the subject of it), you might want to take a look at what has been happening lately in WP:BLP (See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and WP:EL (See Wikipedia talk:External links) re: recent changes made to that policy page and that guideline page that are being disputed by various Wikipedia editors, including some administrators. I am not sure what the outcome of that will be.  Right now, in my view, there are some significant inconsistencies and discrepancies relating to some of these project pages in Wikipedia and they are not entirely in sync: cf. WP:Reliable sources and WP:BLP and the related talk page discussions re: WP:EL.  I have been concerned about these contradictions during the past week but have run out of time to do anything else relating to them.


 * Best wishes. --NYScholar 21:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just visited Murray Waas and see that Excessinfo has made some more recent edits; in the past I have wondered and am not sure whether or not that user is related in any way to the subject of the article (it is the only Wikipedia article that that user name has contributed to, beginning with July 11, 2007 until the present). (One should really use just one log-in identity in editing Wikipedia; WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Sockpuppetry: if one uses more than one log in identity in Wikipedia, one is supposed to disclose that oneself and to disclose oneself what these identities used by the same individual user are.)
 * Right now, the Wemple et al. article is still being listed and the content remains as it was the last time I edited the article.
 * I'm not making any [substantive] edits [other than minor typographical corrections] to the article while this situation is in some form of dispute resolution (do not want to become involved in a Edit war in it; doing so could lead to blocking by administrators): this is a "content dispute" between the above anon IP user and Wikipedia itself it appears now. [Subsequently, I did make some minor typographical corrections (see below). --NYScholar 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)] [Clarified. --NYScholar 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)]
 * I have noticed that [both] Excessinfo [and the anon IP user (who posted the above comments)] have been adding a lot of references to the article lately, and I have asked that they do so following the prevailing format. There are some punctuation errors (requiring typographical corrections ["tc (format)"] again in the most recent references that have been added: see Talk:Murray Waas for my requests there.  Thanks. [I'm leaving the correction of their own typographical errors to other editors.  It is actually their responsibility to make such corrections to material that they themselves are inserting.] --NYScholar 21:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC) [Updated in brackets. --NYScholar 23:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)] [tc. --NYScholar 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)][I made some minor typographical corrs.; I hope that those inserting material will be more careful about the format and punctuation in the future.  Thanks.  --NYScholar 02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)][tc! --NYScholar 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)]

Wikipedia really "discourages" people from editing articles about themselves. (See WP:BLP.) Their doing so puts a core Wikipedia policy Neutral point of view into doubt. If these living persons are public figures and/or well-known public figures, please see WP:BLP, WP:POV, and WP:BLP for further guidance. One keeps in mind, however, WP:BLP. It still seems to me that by writing about such information included in the article on the internet in a personal blog that everyone all over the world has access to, one reduces a claim of "privacy" of the information thus posted so publicly. That is perhaps one of the dangers of blogging about one's own personal life. It makes public what otherwise might be considered private information and it becomes a subject of discussion and debate in the public media, where it can easily move from the blogosphere to what bloggers call the "Mainstream media" (e.g., The Washington Post), or to a smaller, more local Washington, D.C. publication, such as the Washington City Paper, where the article by Wemple et al. appears, in this case). --NYScholar 23:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC) [P, tc.  --NYScholar 03:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)]

[Since posting most of the above:]I made some minor typographical corrections to the article; no substantive changes, however. There was an error in a sentence that I had originally written due to wrong preposition added by another editor, leading to a different sense from what I had intended, and I corrected the preposition. --NYScholar 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 03:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)]

[.... see current talk page.]

Hi:

Casey Brown and Wikimedia have concluded that they believe that the Wemple article should be removed or reverted because it is does not meet Wikipedia standards for biographies of living persons. (I can send to a private email address their email to me; I don't think they wanted it privately posted.) The standards, if I have read them right or if they have been explained right, say that "potentially libelous" material should be "removed immediately." In this case, however, that was not done until they decided that was the case. I am not sure if there are appeals, but pending appeals, I assume the material is taken done, until the burden of proof is proved by the person or persons or editor challenging the Wikipedia standard.

Jimmy Wales has also said and written on the living persons home page that "subjects of articles remain welcome" to remove or revert potentially libelous claims, and that "reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." In this case, the reverting or removal was only done after the Wikipedia decision in any case.

As to any further appeal by the person calling themselves "Ovid Plastering", from their IP address and other information, it is obvious that they are an author of the removed article-- and it was them that added it to the page in the first place. I think that if they attempt to put it back in, they should be banned from doing so-- but more importantly that they identify themselves openly and their authorship of the article and any other personal interest. They have placed the article on the page in the first place as a sock pocket, and I believe that they should not be able to do so in the future.

I was not sure to put this on an open discussion page, or even if this is one, not being very familiar with Wikipedia, but I am not sure if the correspondence with Wikimedia or Casey is supposed to be publicly posted.

I hope that I have done everything right here. You have been a very diligent and fair editor of this page, and do not want to do anything incorrect out of inexperience, or seem unappreciative of your fairness and hard work.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excessinfo (talk • contribs) 11:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. But wasn't sure what to do with the correspondence to and from Casey Brown and Wikimedia, and whether it could be posted on an open page. I can send it to anyone on a private email address, or ask them to post it publicly on the page' discussion. I am again sorry I am unfamiliar with the correct procedures. But I believe absent any successful appeal that that particular article be put up, reversing themselves, it should be kept down for now.

As to the sock pocket, Ovid Plastering, I assume he can appeal, but I do not believe that he has a right to continuously put the article back up pending an appeal of the Wikimedia decision and reversal of their possession. And moreover, as a sock pocket, I would hope that you would press him regarding any personal role in the matter. (I know Ovid Plastering is a sock pocket who is one of the authors of the article.)

Sorry again for my lack of knowledge of all things Wikipedia, and for your patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excessinfo (talk • contribs) 11:15, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I will email Casey to find out if I can publicly post his email; I know it takes several days or longer to get a response because of all the correspondence they receive. And I believe that *Ovid Plastering* should be banned for vandalism if he continues to put the article up again trying to override Wikipedia's decision-- an article he wrote, and which he originally placed and reinstated as a sock pocket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excessinfo (talk • contribs) 11:34, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Here is at least part of the reason I believe for their decision in sayign that the article in question should be removed: A'''n important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excessinfo (talk • contribs) 12:24, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

And this was apparently part of their thinking as well" '''In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.

Jimmy Wales has warned editors to think twice when encountering such attempts: "... reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do."[3]

Anonymous edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully. When the subject is of ambiguous notability, such edits should not be regarded as vandalism in the first instance, and RC patrollers should bear in mind that they may be dealing with the subject. The use of inflammatory edit summaries or vandalism-related talk-page templates should be avoided.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excessinfo (talk • contribs) 12:29, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Murray Waas
Please see previous discussion (and questions) in archive 15 of this talk page [this archive page]; see box [in current talk page] for link.

Query: are anon IP user "68.33.206.74" and "Excessinfo" the same user? (If so, "Excessinfo" is a "sockpuppet" of the anon IP user? Or is one of them or both of them a "meatpuppet"? (Cf. WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Sockpuppetry). Please clarify if the user(s) posting comments to me about Murray Waas are the subject of the article in question Murray Waas or representatives of him.  Thanks.
 * Please see also Autobiography. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: the article [by Wemple et al.] that is being queried [by user posting above]: It is listed as a source for other information in Murray Waas that was previously missing citations (unsourced). If that article is removed as a reliable and verifiable source of information for those statements (which it seems to be), then other source citations will need to replace it. Otherwise (as unsourced) the resulting unsourced statements will also need to be deleted from the article, following WP:BLP. Please consult such policy project pages for further information about editing policies in Wikipedia or seek assistance from an administrator. Thanks very much. (I would appreciate your reading my previous responses to posts from anon IP user "68.33.206.74" now in my talk page archive (15). Thanks again.  --NYScholar 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have stated in comments now archived, due to privacy concerns, I do not use an email account in conjunction with Wikipedia. --NYScholar 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As previously requested, Please indicate when you have read it by signing with four tildes. Thank you.  (Please scroll way up to top of page [or click on WP:TPG in template placed in current talk page] for guidelines for talk pages.) --NYScholar 23:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --20:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)]
 * I replaced the citations of the deleted source w/ citations to another source; for related discussion, see Talk:Murray Waas as well as User talk:NYScholar/Archive 15. Thank you.  --NYScholar 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * [NOTE: I'm adding the following information here: Cf. Associated Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN), "Subject of Forthcoming Profile Accuses Alt-Weekly of Unethical Reporting", aan.org (News Archive), December 22, 2006, accessed August 28, 2007. It concerns Waas's complaints about eleven-page profile of him published by Erik Wemple et al. in the Washington City Paper.  Due to objections by an anon IP user, who appears to be the subject of this Wikipedia article, all direct citations to that profile by Wemple et al., which he claims to be "unethical", have been deleted from this Wikipedia article until the matter is resolved by Wikipedia.  Since derogatory personal accusations are being leveled back and forth among all of those involved (Waas, Wemple, Lenehan, Cherkis et al.) in their online publications (Washington City Paper, Waas's blog posts at The Huffington Post and Whatever Already!, editorial comments in the newspaper by Lenehan, etc.), it really seems that none of this material is directly citable as sources of material about living persons (any of them) in Wikipedia--all these people are living persons and WP:BLP pertains to all of them in Wikipedia space, including this talk page.  Therefore, I have not linked direct to the article by Wemple et al. here (It's in the editing history--from which it may need to be excised as well). Waas's blog posts are, however, being linked in Murray Waas.  That may need to be reviewed.  It may be that the whole article on Murray Waas will need to be deleted if this matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily in keeping with all Wikipedia policies and procedures pertaining to the subject(s) involved. --NYScholar 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)]