Talk:Duke of Cleveland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

[edit] hoax

This article has been mentioned in an article by ABC News. Note that ABC makes a mistake in stating, "The entry was written by Joshua Gardner". The edits mentioned, such as this one, were done by anonymous IP addresses and not by the user who started the article, as might be implied by news reports. - BanyanTree 16:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this article is about a real peerage title. The hoax mentioned was the attempted insertion of a "Third Creation" into the preexisting article on at least two occasions. Both attempts were promptly reverted. - BanyanTree 17:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Darn straight! --Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

How long did it takes us to revert?--Jimbo Wales 23:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

First time, under a minute. Second time, nine minutes. Third time, twenty-five minutes. Fourth time, thirty-two minutes. Fifth time, one hour. This is why I'd like to see an auto-watchlist for rollbacks. [[Sam Korn]] 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict, don't know why Sam and I disagree on times] There were multiple attempts in May. First attempt on 10 May by 24.118.246.52 (talk · contribs), 9 minutes. 2nd attempt on 10 May, 9 minutes. 3rd attempt on 10 May, 5 minutes. 4th attempt on 10 May mixing Earlofscooby (talk · contribs) and .52 edits, 22 minutes (Wikipedians were probably temporarily confused by the use of a sockpuppet). Fifth attempt on 22 May by 70.92.147.158  (talk · contribs), 32 minutes. Later on the 22nd there was an interesting interaction where what appears to be a separate vandal (69.180.181.40 (talk · contribs) dropped in, then .158 came to partially revert and add his hoax back in (sixth time), and the entire thing was reverted to a good edit 3 hours and 58 minutes after the initial vandalism.

Also on 22 May, there were three separate creations of Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland. It was put up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland, and apparently speedied as an obvious hoax as were the rest. - BanyanTree 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I had slight "next 50" problems... [[Sam Korn]] 00:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness. I thought my mind had finally gone. I've given this some thought and find it incredibly unlikely that a reporter dug through the edit history here. I think that they got it off the archived VfD page, which lists both the hoax name, real name and hoax title. This would make statements like, "Under Caspian's" entry on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia written by the public, they found the name "Joshua A. Gardner" in parentheses after the entry name. (St. Paul Pioneer Press) much more believable. It would be nice if they would point out that the page in question is not an article but a vote to delete the article as a hoax, which was cut short by a speedy deletion. Thoughts? - BanyanTree 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong. Someone pointed out this mirror of Duke of Cleveland that contains the hoax, still. They still had the actual hoax article from May 22nd as well, but it looks like they blanked it 20 hours ago. I don't know how many mirrors there are, but that seems like sheer dumb bad luck that it would pick it up and never be updated. - BanyanTree 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This should be pursued a la Seigenthaler (ie. to the bitter end, out of principle). Not sure if its unethical of us to throw salt into the wound, but since he's a sexual offender anyway, I propose we sue whoever this Joshua Gardner is, as a principle of retaliation. We could probably find it very easy to obtain damages from him, while reclaiming some of our priniciples, demonstrating such forgeries like this (in order to perform acts of fraud) would not be tolerable. We could easily file criminal lawsuits for this. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new article created

Minnesota Sex Offender Scandal - transferred main material to separate article, since it had little to do with the factual Duke of Cleveland, the topic of this article (though I recognize the irony, his attempts at his own Wikipedia entry are now part of a newsworthy story warranting his own entry, though not as he intended it) - Reaverdrop 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have further reduced the section, making into a "See also" link. I think the story of that guy is only related to this article, not a part of it at all. I have also removed the references as they are already in the other article. As as side note: shouldn't the sex offender article go to wikinews? - Liberatore(T) 13:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duke of Cleveland

Some more bad news involving Wikipedia, huh! Here it is, apparently a registered sex offender calling himself the "Duke of Cleveland" edited the article with the same title under the name "Earl of Scooby." This, was his masterpeice. Wow. As if the Seigenthaler controversy wasn't bad enough. I just hope this doesn't create another problem. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw that just now, I've spoke about news involving Wikipedia when I went to the conference. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we get it. Wikipedia is evil because nasty people on the Internet can edit it. We apologize for existing. Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the true facts (mirrors, lags and so forth) ABC news reported they found his bogus claim on Wikipedia.