User talk:Orbit58

October 2012
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Adam Kidan, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Meters (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The page of Adam Kidan has sections that are libelous in nature, whether factual or not, and should be removed as they negatively affect Kidan's personal life. The sections I removed were libelous and keeping them public violates Wikipedia's TOS.


 * It makes a very big difference if the sections are true. As Defamation says, "Truth is always a defense." If there are factual errors then by all means point them out so that they may be removed, but don't try to whitewash the article by deleting everything you consider negative. The article seems balanced to me (if anything it gives more emphasis to the non-controversial side). I was easily able to verify much of what you removed. Possibly your last removal could be justified since the attempt to purchase Sun Cruz was based on a fraud. He's better-known for the fraud, so that sentence should be rewritten. Meters (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well you pointed out one error yourself - Kidan was never the owner of SunCruz based on the fact that the company was never actually bought since the allegation was centered around a fraudulent money transfer. That should be removed, not re-written, as SunCruz already has a section on this page for now.


 * I don't agree that all mention of Santa Cruz should be dropped from the lede. Since a reasonable portion of his notability is a result of the fraud, it deserves some mention in the lede. As it stands the lede is misleading since it seems to imply that he went to jail for his involvement in the lobbying affair, rather than for the Santa Cruz fraud. Meters (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Kidan was never involved in any of Abramoff's "lobbying affairs". This is inaccurate information. Look at what the sentence is referring to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_lobbying_scandal) and you'll notice Mr. Kidan isn't even mentioned on the page. This section should be removed as it is not backed by any factual information. I'll agree that the "SunCruz" section can stay based on cited facts, but the majority of the lede should be removed, e.g.: "He was one of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's business partners, and became a national figure when his involvement in one of Abramoff's illegal lobbying ventures came to light, and he served a term in federal prison.". This sentence is misleading and partly redundant as the factual information is cited in the SunCruz section.


 * If the lobbying info is incorrect, then by all means yank it immediately. Thanks for explaining. I won't revert that, but I will check sources to verify. You tried to whitewash the article the first time around and I was able to verify everything I checked, so I reverted it all.


 * Redundancy in the lede is not an issue since the lede is supposed to be a summary of the main body, not new information. A simple mention of the fraud and jail sentence is probably warranted. Meters (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I did go a bit far with editing the first time around, and for that I do apologize. I'm trying to look out for the best interests of Mr. Kidan and you must understand that the man has been trying to put his life back together after the incident that happened many years ago, and since the Wikipedia page is the first search result that comes up for his name and he is a businessman, it definitely has a serious impact on his personal life as well as his career. I am asking that we leave the lede as is, as it is less "damaging" to Mr. Kidan's character, but still remains completely factual.

I've made more edits per Mr. Kidan's request, backed by citations. The page is now completely factual. Hopefully there won't be any issues with the edit's I've made.


 * You whitewashed the article again. Of course I have a problem with that. And since you are editing at Mr. Kidan's request you have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI and consider reverting your edits. The material on the Santa Cruz fraud was factual and well sourced. Kindan is notable for it, and it deserves to be in the article. Your removal of it again, after being warned for it and our dicussion, is vandalism. Meters (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not whitewash the article; Whitewashing is covering up or removing... It was re-written in a way that is less libelous but still addresses all the points that were originally mentioned and with the same cited references (along with a couple new references). The mention of the SunCruz fraud is still there and cited. I also already read about WP:COI, e.g.: "Certain editor interests present a high risk of creating a COI. Editors with such interests are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested." Hence my approach, telling you I've made changes at Mr. Kidan's request.


 * Your edits have been contested. Please declare your interest in this topic on the Talk page of the article so that other editors will understand that you are "trying to look out for the best interests of Mr. Kidan" and that you are making "edits per Mr. Kidan's request". That's a very clear COI. Your edits are clearly not NPOV since you are slanting the article to remove or downplay mention of Kindan's involment in the Santa Cruz affair. As the article now stands {"During that transaction, one of the members of the acquisition team provided documents that were later learned were falsified. The key members of the team plead guilty to fraud emanating from the transaction.") it no longer even mentions that Kindan was a participant in the fraud and was jailed for it. And yet you claim that you are not whitewashing this article?
 * Your continued use of terms such as "defamatory" (4 edit summaries) and "libelous" (3 times on this talk page) is a problem. Please read WP:NLT. particularly the section Perceived legal threats. Meters (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

From WP:NLT states: "A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly." The first thing I wrote was: "The page of Adam Kidan has sections that are xxxxxxx in nature, whether factual or not, and should be removed as they negatively affect Kidan's personal life. The sections I removed were xxxxxx and keeping them public violates Wikipedia's TOS." I believe what I said was factual, direct and to the point; absolutely not threatening. I don't believe this situation has been handled properly from the get-go. How can we resolve the issue at hand?

It seems punitive and unfair that you added "being jailed" to the lede when there are so many highlights in Mr. Kidan's career. It should be mentioned in the professional activities section.


 * (Edit conflict) Really? You have an interesting view of defamation. Please explain how this {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Kidan&diff=next&oldid=516184857] edit removed "information that is detrimental as well as defamatory in nature". How is mentioning that he was fictionally portrayed by Jon Lovitz in the 2010 film Casino Jack even remotely defamatory? As for some of your other edits, as I already pointed out, the truth is not defamation. You removed referenced statements that he was charged and convicted of fraud, and that he was subpoenaed as a witness in another matter. How is that defamatory?


 * Here's how I'm going to resolve the issue. I'm going to revert the article to its original state. If you intend to edit it again I strongly suggest that you declare your conflict of interest on the article's Talk page first to show that you are editing in good faith. Meters (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Defamatory: injurious to someone's name or reputation. Any mention of fraud, jail, etc. is "injurious to someone's name or reputation." Clearly you are treating this as one-sided and as if you're being vengeful. All of this is clearly against Wikipedia's TOS. The re-written page was completely acceptable if written the first time. Clearly you don't understand that the people who wrote and edited this page were doing so with one thing in mind... defamation.


 * Again, "truth is always a defense" against defamation. My Oxford dictionary defines the legal term "defamation" as, "The offence of bringing into undeserved disrepute by making false statements." Note the use of "undeserved" and "false". Wikipedia has numerous articles that mention crimes and the people known for them. Indeed, we have articles about people who are notable for nothing but their crimes. An example is Paul Bernardo which I noticed being edited today. A living serial murderer and rapist who is notable for nothing but his crimes, and whose article has nothing positive to say about him at all. Writing from a neutral point of view does not mean that nothing negatice can be mentioned. The Kindan article seemed reasonable balanced until you started to edit it. I have no problem with you declaring your interest and then making reasonable changes, but sweeping a 23 million dollar fraud under the rug is not reasonable. Meters (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is from Mr. Kidan to you: Dear Editor: For some time now I have been seeing the Wikipedia page about me change. At first the page was created by the Jack Abramoff team who sought to embellish my role in his activities and shift blame. They did it to others as well. It was the old fashioned conservative political machine. I was not part of that so I was the easy target. Recently, I took the time to look at other pages to try to model a more informative and fair page. Now I see the entire page was reverted back with some new changes that are unfair. I clearly understand that there is no libel, but at this point the bias does seem to be an intentional act to harm me. There was no reason to not accept the recent changes. If you feel it is important to include my prison sentence, I fully understand but it should be in the related section. Why would it be on the first line. Why the word “jailed” be used. Why is being jailed more important in defining me that another notable event in my life. I am simply trying to have my entire life be shown and in balance. I am not seeking to hide anything or to ignore something. When my young child eventually looks at this, why should it be so bias and leaning towards illustrating one part of my life. This is what I do not understand. I signed a false document, I always took blame for my actions and willingly accepted my sentence. You can have no idea what that ordeal involves and the toll it takes beyond the mere sentence. I appeal to your sense of fairness to finally complete my page with the most recent submission prior to it being reverted, adding in the full and accurate detail of my sentence and finally letting this issue rest. Thank you for taking the time to read this note. Thank you, Adam Kidan