The Charlie Manson defense!, BLPs worst argument Options

[Kato]

I was just finishing my bedtime reading - which in this case was the now closed Don Murphy afd- when I came across a familiar argument at the foot of the page.

It was the old Charlie Manson defense again! Dusted off and given another airing by a certain Carlossuarez46, only months after its trumpeted premiere on Seth Finkelstein's afd, followed by a critically acclaimed performance at Daniel Brandt's deletion review.

For those less familiar with this wonderful work, here is the original, slightly hammy version of the Charlie Manson also featuring Bill Clinton and er.. Oliver North.

Keep: meets WP:N and requesting deletion is not an encyclopedic reason to delete; if Oliver North or Bill Clinton or Charles Manson wanted their articles deleted or have the unfortunate material removed from them would any self-respecting encyclopedia comply? Carlossuarez46 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"I DEMAND to speak with Jimbo! This will ruin my reputation."

Only days later, Carlossuarez46 was live at the Daniel Brandt afd. This time with a more polished act. Clinton was out, but Sharon Tate was in - presumably to add a bit of glamour.

'''Overturn''' The guy meets all notability guidelines; if this is an encyclopedia then it should not allow the subjects of its articles to dictate the content of the articles. Perhaps Oliver North will give us a call and tell us to remove all that Iran-Contra stuff; or we'll get the call from Charlie Manson to remove the references to the unfortunate happenings with Sharon Tate; etc. And we'll apply this precedent - perhaps after 14 go-rounds - to do just that. I also object to the blanking of the Afd debate; if something violated [[WP:BLP]] delete it & from the history, but to erase the entire debate seems like someone may be hiding something. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And now... fresh from a 3 month tour of the Far East, the Charlie Manson defense was back! For one night only, at the Don Murphy afd. Special guest stars: George W. Bush and Larry Craig. Once more, with feeling....

*'''Keep''' a BLP-compliant article can be written (indeed, the current version seems to be so), the fact that it has been and may continue to be a target of vandals is not a reason to delete, otherwise we'd better axe the article about [[George W. Bush]] which has no end of vandalism directed at it. I cannot give much credence that the subject wants it gone: 1) are we sure that it's the subject who is telling us that, and 2) is this the ''authorized'' biography Wikipedia? Wait till we get Charlie Manson's or Larry Craig's little missive that he doesn't want to be listed here. It'll be the Obitupedia only. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] 03:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Damn right, Somey.... I am non-un-notable."

Anyway. Here's the simple thing. Real encyclopedias have articles on George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even little Charlie Manson. Look 'em up. I can't find Don Murphy in mine. But this is his entry on AMG * cue tumbleweed *

Has it not crossed this fella's mind that if someone isn't notable enough to warrant more than a line in what is an otherwise exhaustive film guide, they're not quite yet on the same level of public consciousness as George Bush or little Charlie? Has it not occurred to this fella that Daniel, Don and Seth are not only hardly the most famous people in the world, they're barely the most famous people posting to this forum! Has it not also occurred to this fella that comparing our comrades to Charlie Manson is preposterous period?

If AMG hasn't got an article on Don, and he wants to OPT-OUT, then let him. And then deal with Charlie Manson's persistent pestering afterwards. WP:NO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES

[everyking]

You've got to be a really extreme deletionist to think Murphy isn't notable. I'm all in favor of letting Murphy edit (provided he's halfway reasonable about it), trying to accommodate him on the talk page, and protecting the article to prevent vandalism, but the guy is absolutely notable by Wikipedia's standards. I honestly don't understand why he objects to his article, anyway. The information in the article is all very much public information (and in any case, it's just a list of his accomplishments, with nothing critical or negative), and if we eliminate the possibility of vandalism and give him a say on what goes into the article, what's there to complain about?

[alienus]

Don Murphy is no Charles Manson, admittedly, but he's a public enough figure that a short, accurate and neutral biography would be a reasonable addition to WP. Unfortunately, WP can't seem to manage to keep its biographies accurate or neutral, which is why Murphy got into these various conflicts over content. The complete lack of a working conflict resolution mechanism not only turns controversial articles into battlefields, but it leaves biographies wide open to slander. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before Wikia gets sued into oblivion by people who are used to using lawyers to protect their reputation.

Al

If WP could keep the content reasonable, perhaps he wouldn't object to it. As it stands, this is merely a hypotethical scenario. Biographies on WP should have a bullseye icon, given how obvious they are as targets for the insertion of libel.

Al

[everyking]

Don Murphy is no Charles Manson, admittedly, but he's a public enough figure that a short, accurate and neutral biography would be a reasonable addition to WP. Unfortunately, WP can't seem to manage to keep its biographies accurate or neutral, which is why Murphy got into these various conflicts over content. The complete lack of a working conflict resolution mechanism not only turns controversial articles into battlefields, but it leaves biographies wide open to slander. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before Wikia gets sued into oblivion by people who are used to using lawyers to protect their reputation.

Al

If WP could keep the content reasonable, perhaps he wouldn't object to it. As it stands, this is merely a hypotethical scenario. Biographies on WP should have a bullseye icon, given how obvious they are as targets for the insertion of libel.

Al

What I've proposed is that the article be protected and that nothing be added to it without discussing it with Murphy (additions would have to be done by an admin, who could not act independently but only based on talk page agreement). Murphy could perhaps be vetoed by an overwhelming majority, but this would eliminate any possibility that anything would be added that he could reasonably object to.

[Daniel Brandt]

...but the guy is absolutely notable by Wikipedia's standards.

Then the problem is Wikipedia's standards. One could forgive Wikipedia for adopting non-encyclopedic standards if there was a no-questions-asked opt-out for victims of those standards. Until that day, Wikipedia has no right to adopt standards that have never been adopted by other encyclopedias.

Just because Wikipedia doesn't have to pay for printing, binding, and distribution, doesn't mean that Wikipedia has the right to change accepted practice when it comes to biographies of living people.

Also, the Google Factor makes this issue orders of magnitude more serious than it would be otherwise, because many more people will end up reading the bio, as opposed to a bio in a printed encyclopedia.

[Kato]

You've got to be a really extreme deletionist to think Murphy isn't notable.

What does he look like? What does he sound like? What public statements has he made? Half of the first page on my google search for Don Murphy refers to an estate agent of the same name. Oh... and a Don Murphy who makes copper weathervanes. Don Murphy ain't no Don Simpson who gets full coverage in amg, Murphy's a backroom fixer, by no means a public figure.

Anyway, that isn't the big picture. Which is:

These descisions are being made by people who are comparing the "notability" of Murphy and others to Charles Manson and George W. Bush.

If that doesn't instill fear about the process, then I don't know what.

[alienus]

What I've proposed is that the article be protected and that nothing be added to it without discussing it with Murphy (additions would have to be done by an admin, who could not act independently but only based on talk page agreement). Murphy could perhaps be vetoed by an overwhelming majority, but this would eliminate any possibility that anything would be added that he could reasonably object to.

I'm not sure that's a perfect solution, but it at least looks like a reasonable approximation of a working conflict resolution system. In particular, giving Murphy a chance to complain on the talk page about potentially libelous content before it enters the article is a courtesy that avoids problems before they happen. In the real world, it's normal for reporters to confirm quotes, for example, and this is much the same sort of thing.

In short, this would be a big step forward for WP, which is why they'll never go for it.

Al

[Daniel Brandt]

... potentially libelous content ...

Don't forget Florida's laws about invasion of privacy. That would involve the entire article, and whether he should have a bio at all if he doesn't want one. If Section 230 wasn't such an inconvenient obstacle, Wikipedia would already be walking on eggshells with BLP articles. There are a lot of people interested in getting 230 clarified with respect to Wikipedia's BLP hooliganism, starting with John Seigenthaler. He's not the suing type, but his Rolodex is full of Congressmen.

It's only a matter of time.

[alienus]

Yes, I've read that page on your site, including the Reporter's Handbook excerpt, and I think it points at an opportunity for legal recourse, at least for some of the people libeled by WP. I'm not qualified to say whether Murphy's claims would be actionable. However, I think that he would need to be considered a public individual. For example, he has an entry on IMDB, which not only mentions his producing credits but also his height and place of birth.

It's only a matter of time.

Yes, this is increasingly clear. Whether or not Murphy prevails in this case, there's no way this house of cards can withstand future assaults. WP is guilty of libel and will eventually be forced to pay for it.

Al

[Jonny Cache]

You Bustards !!!

POTUS Dubya is not a serial kilter !!!

He had to dress up in that skirt on account of State Protocol in the UK !!!

This is all just one moore vicious wikiprevaricosation ⊥etrated by Thomas More !!!

Now cut it out !!!

I mean it !!!

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 12th September 2007, 5:46am

[Jonny Cache]

I was just finishing my bedtime reading — which in this case was the now closed Don Murphy afd …

For a real dozie, er, doozie, be sure to √ out the Non-Das-Besterized UnCensored UnXXXWikiPurgerated Version, before JustZitGuy bowdlerized what was supposed to be a non-edible closed AfD.

You see, in WikiPatois —

Closed is the new Open &
Open is the new Closed √

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 12th September 2007, 9:40am

[Kato]

For a real dozie, er, doozie, be sure to √ out the Non-Das-Besterized UnCensored UnXXXWikiPurgerated Version, before JustZitGuy bowdlerized what was supposed to be a non-edible closed AfD.

You see, in WikiPatois —

Closed is the new Open &
Open is the new Closed √

Jonny

I see JzG removed the arguments of the improbably named Randolph Stetson, who'd been entertaining the troops as the afd flagged. I knew that Stetson looked familiar, but JzG's obviously better than me at putting names to faces.


‎

[Jonny Cache]

For a real dozie, er, doozie, be sure to √ out the Non-Das-Besterized UnCensored UnXXXWikiPurgerated Version, before JustZitGuy bowdlerized what was supposed to be a non-edible closed AfD.

You see, in WikiPatois —

Closed is the new Open &
Open is the new Closed √

Jonny

I see JzG removed the arguments of the improbably named Randolph Stetson, who'd been entertaining the troops as the afd flagged. I knew that Stetson looked familiar, but JzG's obviously better than me at putting names to faces.


‎

Well.

I'm sure Randolph Stetson doesn't find anything improbable about the name his mother gave him. And I know that the whole gang down at Houlihan's in χtown would know him on sight hanging around the local bars with his constant sidekick, Dearborn Wacker — now that, that's an improbable name!

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 12th September 2007, 2:24pm

[LamontStormstar]

Damn, George Bush looks like he's never used a computer before.

[Kato]

Damn, George Bush looks like he's never used a computer before.

Probably not.

Manson on the other hand has been on WP for years. He set up Esperanza.

[Kato]

New spin-offs more ridiculous than the Charlie Manson defense have been spotted.

The Star Wars kid is an article detailing an unfortunate boy whose homemade video of himself pretending to do light sabre moves became an unwanted internet sensation. The kid made all kinds of legal challenges to remove his name from the incident, and WP duly obliged. With good reason. Some are unhappy though...

...including BlueLotas:

Don't remove his name.. I'm sure Hitler doesn't want his name up there saying he killed 6 million Jews but that doesn't mean we omit it. User:BlueLotas۝15 September 2007 (UTC)

Having failed to pursuade others that the Star Wars kid was akin to Hitler, BlueLotas tries a different approach:

Clinton probably wishes his article doesn't talk about him being sucked by Monica Lewinsky but that doesn't we omit that either. Nixon probably wants his article to reflect how he was a hero who commanded a heroic army in Vietnam but we don't add that either. User:BlueLotas۝15 September 2007 (UTC)

These simply mind-boggling talk page comments were removed by FCYTravis, who found himself at the centre of a storm regarding "censorship maaaan". Y|yukichigai restores the comments and blubbers:

FCYTravis and Iamunknown, what part of "don't edit others' comments" do you not understand? BlueLotas is making a comparison, and regardless of how much you like the comparison it is not acceptable to remove it. FCYTravis, you in particular should know better, particularly because this kind of craptastic behavior can get you banned. Leave the comments alone.

FCYTravis was then hauled off to some Wiki-Etiquette committee to answer questions about his conduct. Orange Mike, yes that guy, announced that Travis's actions "constitute a violation of Wikipedia procedures". Others piled in on Travis to stress the point that the Star Wars kid should be compared on the talk page to Hitler, Nixon and Clinton receiving a blow job, and Travis had no business taking offence.

At this point , I would like to urge FCYTravis to simply join us here, and retire from that place for his own sanity. As Kelly Martin rightly states, how can anyone make sense of the "seething idiocy that increasingly pervades Wikipedia?"