User talk:Jmh123/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Editor 216.57.17.234 and the Michael Lucas (porn star) article

Editor 216.57.17.234 is at it again, this time manipulating information found in the source cited and adding it to recently added material, thereby distorting the content of a properly sourced and quoted passage, something s/he has done before. Please review the history and see talk page for details. The passage has been re-worded accurately. Is there any way that 216.57.17.234 can be blocked from editing? 72.76.10.162 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We didn't get a lot of response from the notices (like, none), so not much chance, unless he starts edit warring or siccing his minions on us again. The reason we didn't get any response, I'm sure, is that he did go on his best behavior once he saw the page could be locked over the games he was engaging in, so there's some comfort in that. I'll keep watch, as always. He's being watched for sockpuppetry also. He can get blocked for that. Sometimes I'm busy with some other issue and don't have time to investigate fully as to content issue (which was the case yesterday) and I'll be going out of town shortly, so just hang in there and leave a note any time. -Jmh123 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Jmh. I know you've been busy, so thanks for your help. Safe trip and talk to you soon. 71.127.227.238 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply at Michael Lucas (porn star)

Please see my reply to your post at the Michael Lucas (porn star) talkpage. 71.127.229.169 19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Once you lose your temper and start expressing your anger, you lose the moral high ground and you lose support. Simple as that. I sympathize, but there's a constructive way to do things, and today's approach isn't it. Sorry. -Jmh123 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Akebono

If I read your talk page right, you have become an admin. Congratulations. Could you check up on Akebono Taro when you can. I think we are having some trouble. I have reported it everywhere, but I don't want to re-revert, because the other editor just went through and reverted everything to his last edit about post retirement career without regard to any other edits that were made by others -- not only me but others, as the article was moved up to a b status for pro wrestling because of the sources added but those sources where removed. also, i had the article up for good article review status but i guess with this kind of edit war it won't occur :(. thanks for any help you can give. XinJeisan 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just reread where it said congratualations on becoming an admin, but that was you telling someone else that! sorry. anyways, thanks for any help with akebono, hopefully someone who has not edited it before will come for an outside opinion, because I think neoyamaneko is just going to come back and revert again. he seems to be the one with the POV problem. i don't think that what akebono does in MMA is all that notable compared to being yokozuna. yamaneko's edit is not well written, uses japanese characters needlessly, not particularly in order (talking about how akebono needs to lose weight, however he participated in a k-1 bout after that article was written), etc. I looked for a reference to makebono in both english and japanese that wasn't a blog and there was none, so, i don't think it can be said to be widely used. If NHK was calling him Makebono everyday it would be notable, but a translation of a tabloid weekly in the Mainichi WaiWai section does not equate to widely called, in my opinion. XinJeisan 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The bout against Tenzan was in pro wrestling, so it doesn't really count. That is one of the problems of that article is that it quotes from pro wrestlers and pro wrestling and doesn't seem to take into account the differences between a competitive sport and "sports entertainment." Anyways, the good article comment came back, and it mentioned POV being a problem, but, I am not sure how that measures up to the policy of BLP. I should ask. XinJeisan 15:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Perez Hilton

I just wanted to thank you more personally for all your recent contributions to the Perez Hilton page! It is definitely more NPOV now.--Agnaramasi 01:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Articles

From what I have been reading, I think you might be interested in the following two articles:

A Zone to Stay Out Of by David Ignatius.

The Right to Privacy by Warren and Brandeis, that Ignatius references but didn't provide a link to in his article, for some reason.

XinJeisan 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hikari Hayashibara

No problem, happy to help out. I did see the name Hikari mentioned somewhere, so I suspected the redirect might have been proper. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  02:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I just restored the talk page, which would have saved us some time tonight. -- But|seriously|folks  02:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The troublesome article

They're at it again. I've made the necessary corrections and notations. We'll see how long it holds up and whether further action is necessitated. Hope all is well during your time away. 72.76.80.106 11:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the big-butt tag which I see you've moved to the talk page; I honestly did not know that it belonged there. It was so official-looking (and large) that I chose to insert it in the hope that it would forestall any further edits from "those editors" but I see that they've done no further edits even after you moved it. Perhaps they're on vacation? -- I guess even sleazes take time off from sleazing, or perhaps they're still sleazing but not making any money off of it. I want you to know that the observations you made over at COIN on 11 July were 100% accurate: one editor whose system changes his IP address.

I don't know how much longer I can hang out editing, but hopefully long enough to see a reply from you here. I wanted to write and say that I appreciate your support with this article. Two things I hate are opportunism and lying; the subject of this article is a lying opportunist, hence my interest in preserving accuracy and balance in the article. I did not feel like I was fighting alone with you on the scene. I think of you as a kindred spirit. Thank you. Even in my absence I trust the article will be kept in balance under your stewardship and watchful eye.

(P.S., Check out his blog site for 11 July, you'll laugh: could the topic have been prompted by some caustic comments made in talk about his appearance??)

Happy trails! 72.68.119.234 18:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you'll still watch the article when you can. You've done a lot of good work there. Thankfully there are systems in place now which make it easier to deal with efforts like the ones on the Lucas page. It'll stay on my watch list for sure. I wish there was more interest on the COIN page in this situation, especially now that he's editing as Lucasent again, but at least he can't control the content like he used to. Take care!! -Jmh123 03:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I thought I'd pop by and say hello. Thanks for the compliment. I already said this on the talk page of the article but I'd like to repeat it: my compliments on your work on the article back in May. From that point on I knew that I had an ally. And I wanted to say this in my last post: sorry that I let anger take over that one time. It doesn't happen often but none of us is perfect. Your gentle admonition set me on the right path. Thanks. As for your hope that I can keep watch: I'd like to say that I'll try, but I can't make any promises. I have some things coming up, and in the meantime the (New) Jersey shore awaits. I'd like to focus my mind elsewhere, or not at all, if you know what I mean.

I have tweaked a recent addition by the disreputable one. I have seen your recent work there.

Have a happy "rest a' da summah" and hope to talk again soon. Be well. 71.127.226.10 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I saw a reference on another's talk page to your caring for your mother -- I empathize with you. Regarding the work here: I'm sure you've seen the edits that have been made at the Lucas article; some are rather bizarre, like tagging referenced work with OR tags. I've been unable to revert anything as the article is protected until the 14th. A pair of editors (Roz Lipschitz and Robin Redford, maybe one and the same) and others have been going thru porn articles tagging for deficiencies but also making strange edits and taggings as decribed above. It's getting rather out of hand. Another group of editors is coalescing to battle what they see as substandard content in porn articles, but so far their activity has consisted mainly of editing articles -- no serious attempts at deletions or AfD's have been made, as far as I see. I've tried to tell them that simple prod's or speedy's won't happen as they'll be easily challenged; perhaps in time they'll grasp this as they progress in their "cause." Their comments can be found on the talk pages for Will Clark (porn star) and Nathan Hamilton. I could only accomplish a limited amount of work on the Lucas article last month (the beach was more important) and as before I'm not sure how much attention I can give in the coming weeks. I'll at least pop on to see how things are going and to say hello. Pls drop a note here to let me know you've read this, thanks. --71.127.235.102 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Good to hear from you. I did drop by the Lucas page since I got called in on another issue, but it was such a mess I sort of threw up my hands. I did check to see that there were no violations in content and I don't think there are. I'll check out those talk pages you mention when I get a chance. I'm glad someone noticed the issue with the porn star bios, but, as you say, it won't be an easy sell. Promoting porn on Wikipedia is an old game and some folks are really good at it, as we both know. I'm still on break, theoretically, anyway, hoping to return to being absent soon. -Jmh123 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Good to read your reply. I re-checked the talk pages I mentioned above, and most of the editors posting there are seemingly aligned with RL and RR, also mentioned above. Their edits are unconstructive and unproductive, and I don't think they're truly well-intentioned. The coalescing group I described are honorable and well-intentioned and are lead by editor Junebug52; check out his talk page and you'll see the others posting encouragement and offers of help. Also, if you have a chance, check out the recent addition to Valid Criteria under WP:PORNBIO, #6; it seems to say that if a porn actor is not notable as a porn actor, but is notable outside of porn, then he warrants an article as a porn actor -- I think it's absurd. Enjoy the rest of your break. Talk to you soon. --71.127.235.102 01:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft version of article in progress

Hey, I'm not sure if you're back from your break from Wikipedia yet, but I thought I would go ahead and refer you to the discussed draft version of the article I've been working on. I think the organization is an improvement, but the article still needs a bit of trimming. I have added some references that I think are relevant and that create a more comprehensive description of some of the arguments, but it might be that some less-relevant sources need to be made more concise or removed. I also plan to ask for Homologeo's help in improving this draft; both of you seem to be fairly level-headed in approaching this topic, and I would appreciate it if we could improve the quality of the draft before we consider implementing the reorganization. I will be without access to the Internet myself from Thursday until Sunday, so I will be unable to offer imput during that time. But I hope you guys can help me in improving this draft before any major changes are made to the article itself. Thanks! Mike D78 13:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, got your response. I'm still working on whittling the draft down. The idea was to gather various sources together, then pick the best ones or shorten the longer quotes. I plan on continuing to work on the draft as I get the time, but feel free to come in and make some edits whenever you get a chance. Mike D78 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Working together

Thanks for taking the time to post you note on my talk page. Disputes are easier to resolve when everyone can talk together calmly. You made several points and I'll try to address them individually.

  • I had asked Maria202 on the article talk page to support a couple of her claims. But due to the nature of a busy discussion other editors chimed in with new points and the questions got lost. So I went to her talk page to re-ask the question, indicating that the information would help the discussion. I'd presumed she'd answer on the article talk page. The discussion was relevant to the discussion of the article so I moved both of our postings there. My user talk page isn't private, and I wouldn't expect anyone who posts there to think that their message would be kept confidential. It's not like an email for example. For her to say she was furious, etc, seemed to me to be an over-reaction. But I understand that folks are emotionally invested in this topic.
  • I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Clay Aiken article. I did take the lead on deleting the JP article, but since then haven't paid much attention. I saw someone post a note on the talk page asking why there was no mention of Aiken's orientation. That surprised me since I had spent all that time with you and others negotiating the text on that topic. I checked the talk page for any discussion and found none. So I dug through the article history to find when it had been deleted and restored the material. Then I initiated a discussion asking why it had been deleted. Maria202 reverted my addition first and then joined the discussion. She pointed out that some of the material had been distributed around the article and I acknowledged that but asked her to explain the deletion of the other material. So I think I did exactly what you say I should have done.
  • I haven't set any pace for the discussion. I haven't demanded that anyone respond. I haven't reverted my own edit to the article. I haven't threatened to act unilaterally on a deadline (unlike some other people in the discussion). I have said that there's no rush, that we can discuss and compromise. I think I've been calm and patient.
  • I didn't denounce your efforts on the draft version you were editing, but I did say that we should work together on it. I put your draft forward as a starting point, which I thought was a good faith effort. Please assume good faith on my part. I'm just trying to bring us back to consensus on this issue.

I understand what it's like to care for a sick parent and I know how frustrating it can be to get called away from the keyboard in the middle of a lively exchange. We've worked together on many topics over the past couple of years and I hope we can continue to work together to improve the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply. I wasn't a party to the comments by user:Diego Gravez. If you found them insulting you should tell him so. If you found them inappropriate you should file a complaint. The only thing I noticed when I initially skimmed his comments was that he said there was not mention of the sexual orientation issue, and that's what I acted upon. The reason I created the RfC was not to rush things, but to meet the demands by another editor who threatened to delete the talk page discussion. I had no way of knowing that you were away from your computer, or how long your break would be. All of us take breaks to eat, sleep, or work, and multi-party discussion don't normally grind to a halt because of the temporary, unannounced absence of one editor. There is a "wikibreak" template you can use on your user page if you expect to be away for extended periods and you can also just leave a quick note on a talk page. Regarding your points on "starting anew":

1. You seem to be alleging that I made the edit in pursuit of some larger agenda that involves gossip columnists. Or maybe I don't understand your point.
2. The BLP policy has changed, but there's nothing in it, IMO, that prohibits quoting a subject about himself. Aiken does talk freely about matters that most of us would consider personal and private, such as his mental health problem and the medication he takes for it. If he hadn't commented on that I don't think we'd be comfortable mentioning it, but he has and we quote what he's said.
3. We agree about that. In my extensive experience on Wikipedia I've found that if there is a popular meme on some subject, such as an urban legend, and if we exclude any mention of it, then helpful readers will fill in their view of the material. It's better to include some explanation of the issue rather than leave a blank.
4. See above
5. I don't know why people care about what they care about. I do know that people care about this issue because it is is obvious. Search "clay aiken gay" in Google and see how many hits you get. See the reported closure of the official webforum because of a huge dispute over the topic among fans. Regarding other celebrities, I think we try to walk the middle ground with each of them. I can't tell you how many times I've reverted "he's gay" additions to the article on Anderson Cooper, or how many times I've reverted deletions of all mention of the issue, but I've done lots of both. Editors of that article negotiated a compromise consensus and I enforce it (actually it's been a series of compromises - Wikipedia is complicated and ever-changing). I've done the same for the Clay Aiken article, reverting deletions of the entire topic and additions of crude or unsourced comments.

Again, I think we can work together to find a solution that will be acceptable to most editors while meeting the goals and policies of Wikipedia. I encourage you, as your time permits, to particpate in that process. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Page Six as a source for an article, but I think it's sufficient for the article talk page to give an indication of the interest level among fans about this topic. Likewise I wouldn't use "Ghits" as a source in an article, but I would use them to support a point on a talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It isn't sufficient if it is full of lies, and that article is. I'm surprised that you would be so gullible. Longer response on your page. -Jmh123 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried to access the forum and couldn't get in. Is it still up? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless you are a member, you can't get in. Yes, it is still up. It was down for a day and a half several months ago. -Jmh123 02:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Do they allow discussion of the topic on that forum? Is it a contentious topic, as the reports allege? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Regarding your "additional point"[1] I don't understand what JP has to do with this material. He's not mentioned in the proposed text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have anything to do with my additional point, nor did I say he did. -Jmh123 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same text?
  • By giving a platform to an individual who made false allegations[2], and linking this entry to those allegations, Wikipedia bears responsibility as a high traffic internet site for the spreading of those allegations, thus making the subject more "newsworthy". -Jmh123 15:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I assumed that "JP" was the individual to whom you were referring. Who did you mean? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


You left a note on my talk page that I can't figure out. Was it directed to me or to BCST2001? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Aiken non-event

Hi Jmh123, If you insist on including the low-grade tabloid material (however many newspapers it was reported in, it is still tabloid material, and utterly trivial) concerning an onboard "incident" during a flight, I will not continue deleting the material. However, I would like to make one point. Not only is it the case that the material is utterly unworthy of inclusion, it is also the case that treating the Aiken article as a mindless compendium of trivia about its subject is what makes possible the kind of arguments that we are now witnessing regarding Aiken's "comments" about his sexuality. The attitude that anything reported on television or in a newspaper is necessarily notable and worthy of inclusion is what makes it difficult to get across why the material in question violates WP:BLP (which it most certainly does). People cannot understand how a non-event such as the onboard incident can be included, while Aiken's comments cannot be included. Not everything which is reported is notable or encyclopaedic. Your attitude toward this convinces me that representing the interests of Aiken's fans is not the same as representing Aiken's interest, nor is it the same as representing Wikipedia's interest. BCST2001 03:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion about the inclusion of this incident is exactly the same as yours. I think it's crap. I am not "representing the interests of Aiken's fans"; I am simply doing what I believe to be the right thing at this particular moment. Obviously you disagree. I think you are completely wrong in your interpretation of what "people" are thinking here. This whole debate over the sexual orientation material began Thursday when Diego Gravez wrote a comment entitled, "Are you serious?" stating that the article was a "whitewash", "hogwash" and the obvious work of "claymates". He accused the editors of "omitting any negative references/press on Clay Aiken." To start removing negative references in response is lousy timing. Once you removed that bit, then Maria decided it would be a good idea to remove another little pointless little bit of controversy, and that's when I felt that I should revert both removals. Personally I hate the PETA bit, and it's ancient history to boot, so if I were going to delete something I think is ridiculous and trivial, that's what I would remove. And the lawsuit--that was frivolous to begin with, and it has been dismissed, but it was so uninteresting that the dismissal hasn't been reported in any newspaper, so we can't state that. If it were up to me, the lawsuit would therefore be deleted. All of these things are present in the first place because others claim that a good article must represent a full and complete account of an individual's life, good and bad, and each of these items was originally introduced by random Wikipedia editors who felt these things were important. In one case an admin demanded that we include specific things, and listed them all--all things he'd probably gotten from a google search five minutes before. Now, I did state the second time that I returned the paragraph about the airline incident to the article that it presents Aiken's response, and that is true. Someone who had seen any of these multiple media reports could go to Wikipedia and see a fuller account of the story than they might previously have heard. It is equally true that, as Will argues, if we included his responses about his sexual orientation, people could come to Wikipedia and see more than they might previously have known about those reponses. I see his point, and I have said so, but for me, the overriding points are those that you and Maria are making, and I have said this as well. I have no objection to deleting the account of the airline incident after a reasonable period of time, when, as a trivial event, it has been forgotten, or at a time when the editors don't stand accused of whitewashing.
As for fans editing the entry, I would prefer not to be doing so, but the only alternative up until this point would be to let it be written by editors who think that absolutely the only thing in this world that is important about Clay is the question of his sexual orientation, or exactly these sorts of trivial controversies like the airline incident. Read the archives sometime. Please see the "Controversies and Media Focus" section that Will restored with this edit [3] to get an idea what others think is the best way to write this article. I'd be happy to get the hell out if others would become involved who sincerely wanted to write a better article. -Jmh123 04:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If I have misrepresented your position or your motives, I apologize. But if your position is what you say it is (I'm not trying to dispute that your position is what you say it is, just beginning a conditional statement), then I think your strategy is poor. Allowing some crap in on the grounds it will help keep other crap out is not true in theory or practice. The more you permit poor arguments to yield results, the more you open the door to other poor arguments yielding worse results. It is my strong opinion that the best strategy is to be both ruthless and relentless in the upholding of policy. Obviously this is first of all a matter of upholding WP:BLP, but it is also a matter of upholding policy on, for example," "Wikipedia is not a tabloid," and "Undue weight," etc. If these problems have been going on for so long, I urge you to consider the possible gains of a change in strategy: I have seen this approach succeed very quickly after long-term failures in other cases. Don't be sucked in by the supposed "good will" or "let's negotiate" type of approach. Such approaches are fine for articles where editors are not determined to violate WP:BLP. But where several editors are determined to violate WP:BLP, my strategy is the only strategy. Thanks for taking the time to read my comment and reply. BCST2001 05:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That isn't my strategy at all--I've never really had a strategy except to argue that whatever it is this time is not right, then compromise sometimes and put my foot down at other times when people take it too far. I'm willing to let you give it a shot. It can't hurt. We now have a record of my concerns and your responses. Go for it. Delete whatever you wish. I won't revert you again. -Jmh123 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you much. Maria202 22:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to post on ArglebargleIV's talk page

Hmm, isn't that gossip and speculation about the OC and its members? I just would like to say that, although I am DEFINITELY not a member of the OC (nor would I join), I do know some people who are members, and they would dispute some of the story about 'Cake', especially the part about 'ringleaders' posting on the 'DataLounge' (which I have never seen myself either, I refuse to participate in any kind of fan or forum activities on principle) -- the OC people I know consider those who hang on the DataLounge as pariahs and troublemakers. Most of the OC people I know just want to be left alone, and leaving them out of Aiken's article is a good step towards that. (And yeah, this is a change from my position on OC inclusion from a year or so ago.)

Anyway, if you are on a Wikibreak now, enjoy it! -- ArglebargleIV 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

I wasn't aware that the tags had been placed on the pages, but they seem correct. After reviewing the contributions of both accounts there is no question in my mind that FNMF (talk · contribs) and BCST2001 (talk · contribs) are the same editor. Multiple accounts are allowed in certain circumstances. Violations of the policy include editing the same article or participating in discussions with more than one account in such a way as to skew the appearance of consensus. Since one account stopped editing before the other started it's unlikely that there were any instances in which they violated that aspect of the sock puppet policy. However another clause of the policy warns of using multiple accounts to hide one's editing history. "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors". I don't see any other reason why FNMF, who had previously been blocked for personal attacks and disruption, would have dropped one account and started another. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who User:Odd nature is, and I don't know why he involved himself. Regarding marking accounts pages, it's better if all the account pages are tagged, so that an editor looking up an editor will know they're controlled by the same person. Since BCST2001 erases everything from his pages immediately it doesn't seem likely that he'd place or even tolerate the tags. Anyway, it's mostly an issue only if BCST2001 keeps acting in such a hostile manner. If he's nicer, no one will care what stage he is in the dispute resolution or account blocking progressions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How much more do we want to make of this? I'm more concerned about future behavior than past behavior. Past behavior is mostly useful in showing us how much trouble (or productivity) there's been in the past. An initial concern was that FNMF had previously used an account that had prohibitions placed on in by the ArbCom. That looks less likely to be the case, so now we're just concerned with the edits under FNMF/BCST2001. Again, if future actions don't provoke other editors then this whole thing may fade away. That's the best outcome and the one I'm hoping for. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A comment on the Clay Aiken article

  • Sorry to trouble you again, but could you take care of this little bit of incivility for me [link to comment on User:Diego Gravez: “An editor who expresses his point with capital letters, pointed sarcasm, and emotionality.” –Jmh123, Self-Appointed Czar of the Clay Aiken Article.] (top of page). I think it's better if I don't engage. Or if you think it's better to ignore it, that's fine. Thanks. -Jmh123 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123,

I’m sorry if I offended you with my incivility. However, many of your comments haven’t exactly been the model of civil discourse. I would like to respond to some of the points you have posted on the Talk:Clay Aiken page and elsewhere, because you seem to have the wrong idea about my intentions. My actions were only intended to help make Wikipedia a more accurate source of information for readers.

  • Diego Gravez wrote a comment entitled, "Are you serious?" stating that the article was a "whitewash", "hogwash" and the obvious work of "claymates". He accused the editors of "omitting any negative references/press on Clay Aiken.” –Jmh123

This is not an accurate characterization of my comment. I do think that the article was a whitewash, but other than the omissions in question (references to controversy surrounding Aiken’s sexuality), the article is factually accurate, impeccably researched, and very well-written; certainly not “hogwash”. The “hogwash” to which I was referring was an assertion on the Talk:ClayAiken page stating that the inclusion of sourced statements regarding Aiken’s sexuality “borders on libel”. While clearly a controversial topic and a potential WP:BLP violation, this clearly does not border on libel (as a legal construct). In the U.S., A person who published, and presented as fact, the statement “Clay Aiken is gay” could possibly have committed libel, if the publisher knew the statement to be untrue and printed it with malicious intent. This is hardly the case with Wikipedia, which is purely a secondary source.

Also, in my initial comment “Are you serious?”, I did not imply that the article was written by “claymates”, I simply stated that Clay Aiken’s and his fans’ (i.e., the Claymates) desire to actively suppress any mention of controversy surrounding his sexuality was not adequate grounds for excluding it from the article. At the time, I simply assumed that the contributing editors had bowed to pressure (and fear of recrimination from “libelous” statements) and chosen to exclude the material. I have since changed my mind, because it has become increasingly obvious to me that the article was indeed written by “Claymates”.

  • An individual posted some comments on the talk page on Thursday that were insulting towards the editors of the article ("hogwash" "claymates" "whitewash"). –Jmh123

I already mentioned that I had not intended to insult anyone, and if you found my comments insulting, I apologize. My post was a gut reaction to my disbelief at the lack of mention regarding Aiken’s sexuality, and if you really felt personally insulted, perhaps you were stung by an element of truth that hit too close to home.

  • You have acceded to the complaints of an editor who expresses his point with capital letters, pointed sarcasm, and emotionality, without any discussion beforehand –Jmh123 (to Will Beback)

What do capital letters have to do with the validity of my complaint? Somehow, in your self-righteous adherence to prescriptivist “netiquette”, the entire point I was making was negated by my use of: 7 capitalized words (out of 382), one obviously sarcastic statement, and the use of emotional language (to the extent that “hogwash” is an emotionally charged word). Are you serious? I understand the sarcasm thing (some people don’t find sarcasm to be humorous), but your capital letter barb was pure snobbery. If using italics was as simple in Wikipedia as it is in MS Word, I would not have used capitals. However, capitalization is not inherently less valid than the use of italics as a form of emphasis in written expression. To insist otherwise is ridiculous and petty. To imply that capitalization renders the underlying message invalid is just elitist.

  • We will always have some individual come along and complain –Jmh123

But that is exactly what you did: you attributed my valid comment to “some individual” who was obviously not worth the time of day. Your language was clearly intended to inspire some sort of in-group solidarity (not exactly the Wikipedia way) and reject outright any comment –valid or not- that does not originate from within the small editorial oligarchy, whose members seem to have decided that they alone control the Clay Aiken article.

Then you reprimanded me for questioning your (and Maria202’s) ability to be neutral on this topic since it was becoming clear to me that you were both fans of Clay Aiken. Maria202’s actions in response to my initial comments and Will Beback’s subsequent edit made it quite clear to me that a) she was not willing to compromise, and b) she was emotionally invested in the subject matter. As I read through the Talk page, I saw comment after comment trying to justify the exclusion of negative information on shaky policy grounds, only to be wholeheartedly supported by the other 2 regular editors. It seemed that you had all convinced yourselves that consensus = neutrality. I don’t think I crossed a line by suggesting that someone who is an obvious fan and is unwilling to compromise should not be given cart blanche to make unilateral decisions regarding the inclusion/omission of relevant and sourced biographical information. In fact, I assumed good faith; I believed you were probably unaware of you biases. I only suggested that you both search your own motivations and ask yourselves: "Do I feel so strongly about excluding this information because the article will be better without it?" (the right reason), or "do I want to do my part to protect Clay Aiken from the perceived “harm” that could be done to him?" (the wrong reason). Nonetheless, you made the following comment and I took it seriously:

  • And please do not speculate about your fellow editors' motivations--you are crossing a line. -Jmh123

I thought maybe I had crossed a line. Perhaps you two weren’t actually fans, but simply worked on the article (and vigorously defended your point of view) for some less-obvious reason. Or, more likely, perhaps you were able to be Clay Aiken fans and neutral biographers at the same time. I gave you the benefit of the doubt until I read the comment below, in which you don’t seem to heed your own advice/admonishment. The statement, which has some paranoid overtones, not only crosses a line by speculating about the motivation behind my comments (that they were posted to further an agenda), but makes it perfectly clear that you are incredibly biased (and aware of your bias, no less) and your “agenda” does not serve the best interest of a neutral and accurate encyclopedia article:

  • [A]s usual, there is an agenda behind this particular change happening at this particular moment. The only reason I've ever edited at Wikipedia is because I hate the way people are able to use it so easily to promote an agenda, and sometimes I try to stop them. In the case of Aiken, because I'm a fan, I'm often aware of these agendas and they do shape my responses to proposals.(italics and bold mine) –Jmh123

Can you really not see that you are using Wikipedia to promote an agenda. Wikipedia has incredible potential and a growing number of truly great articles, but it frustrates me when I stumble upon articles that were obviously written by a non-neutral source (i.e., someone in the marketing department, a fan-club member, the subject himself, etc.). These articles are generally easy to spot (the subject is usually a corporation or one of various “new age” topics) and there has been a considerable amount of press lately regarding Wikipedia edits that were traced to corporate/government networks (i.e., biased sources editing articles in their favor), or edits that were clearly written by company/government representatives. My point is, when I went to the Clay Aiken page to settle a bet with my wife (I thought he was in his early 20s - she won), the article just screamed POV and pro-Aiken bias.

I am not a Clay Aiken fan. I have never listened to one of his songs (although I have possibly heard one or two as incidental background music), and I have never watched American Idol. Before reading the article, my entire perception of Clay Aiken consisted of: “the nerdy American Idol winner (I didn’t know he placed second) with a fan base of adoring middle-aged and elderly women, who is frequently made fun of on television for being a perceived closet homosexual, and got angry at Diane Sawyer for asking him about it. And the Kelly Ripa thing”. I know I am not alone: there are millions of people like me, who are not fans, have only a passing interest in pop culture, and are much more familiar with “Clay Aiken, the butt of junior high gay jokes” than “Clay Aiken the multi-platinum-selling recording artist.”

Is that fair? No. In a perfect world, his sexuality would not be an issue (or, depending on one's religious persuasion, homosexuality is a huge issue, but Aiken is definitely NOT gay), and he could be judged purely on the merits of his music. But this is not a perfect world and the “gay issue” is a big part of his fame. Perhaps, as a fan, you cannot see that. I did not propose that half the Clay Aiken article be devoted to the rampant speculation about his sexuality, but it should be mentioned because it is central to his popularity (i.e., the reason someone would want to look him up on Wikipedia). Excluding the information gives the impression that the editors are trying to hide something, and can make casual readers (like me) question their (the editors’) motivation and neutrality.

Again, I do not have an agenda. I do not care whether Clay Aiken is gay, straight, asexual, or somewhere in-between. I am not a celebrity blogger. I am not gay. I am not anti-gay. I have no interest in “outing” people who are either a) not gay, or b) do not choose to be out. I am not familiar with Clay Aiken’s music. I don’t think Aiken’s sexuality should be comic and blogger fodder unless his actions overtly encourage it (which they decidedly do not). And I do not think Wikipedia has any business spreading tabloid gossip or perpetuating false allegations.

However, after the buzz reaches a sort of critical threshold (and the subject publicly discusses it), acknowledging that that gossip does exist is valid and encyclopedic, especially if accompanied by Aiken’s comments on the matter so readers can know that the tabloid accusations are without merit and hurtful to the subject. Printing Aiken’s words will leave no doubt how he stands on the issue, that he is not seeking the limelight, and that he is a very private individual (a rarity among celebrities).

I am extremely busy and I do not have the time or energy to immerse myself in what is largely an inconsequential debate, but I felt the need to let you know where I stood, and my hope is that I have conveyed to you that the comments of an average Wikipedia user (me) regarding a biased, unrepresentative article do not constitute an “agenda” aligned against you and the rest of Clay Aiken’s fans. I think you are too close to the subject to accurately reflect on the merits of this debate, and in the interest of improving Wikipedia and helping to mitigate the impact of special interests on its content, you (along with Maria202) should recuse yourselves from any further edits to the Clay Aiken article. Leave it in the hands of disinterested editors who, not blinded the insidious bias induced by adoration and devotion, can more accurately judge the worth of proposed edits. Thank you. -Diego Gravez 20:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.