Talk:Don Murphy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bribery?

The link saying Murphy promotes bribery of Wikipedia administrators. is a dead link. Apparently that particular message thread was removed. http://www.d13satellite.com/donmurphy/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17058 was the original thread, but I don't believe it is currently archived. --Kynn 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Links

Murphy himself CONFIRMS his upcoming films on this link http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?p=864912#post864912

Why does anyone feel it is okay to delete one of them and leave the other three? Also, since the film is about this guy Gronowski, why is he allowed to edit the item at all? PhilPhague 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The other 3 should be removed until a reliable source is provided. Also, since the article is about this guy Don Murphy, why is he allowed to make up things to talk about on his forums and post them here at all? --Onorem 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well first off, Murphy is not allowed to edit his own page. Nor do I believe he is. Secondly, and more importantly, Gronowski needs to be banned. Are you on that? PhilPhague 03:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Even more importantly, you need to stop vandalising pages. That includes creating new attack pages. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well please cite these alleged attack pages correctly. The reality is that you are editing subject matter that involves you.PhilPhague 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You should know what I am talking about, seeing as you created the page. For reference, this is the (soon to be deleted) attack page: Phil Gronowski, Portrait of a Sad Young Man. I am allowed to edit vandalism about myself, seeing as it is vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Gronowski (talk • contribs) 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Son, this is not the correct talk page for that, and also it is not an attack page- it is a well cited mention of a documentary film in the works.PhilPhague 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if it is a documentary about me, I sure haven't been contacted. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well what makes you think you HAVE to be? I have seen many docs about douchebags and the douches are not expected to cooperatePhilPhague

As much as Mr. Murphy annoys me, I am sure he has the common decency to tell me he is making a documentary about me. Enough about this on here, If you wish to further this discussion, contact me by email. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

This article is inaccurate, Murphy disputes the information on his site, and that must be valid since they use a citation of the site, already and anyway - violated BLP —Preceding unsigned comment added by PanFordThunder (talk • contribs) 02:07, March 20 2007 (UTC)

Can you discuss specific inaccuracies? --BigDT 02:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yessir- Murphy on his own website disputes the accuracy of the Tarantino story. User Gronowski hypocritically uses the Biskind letter from Murphy's website to support the story, yet on the Jane Hamsher entry user proclaimed that Murphy's personal site carries no validity. In looking at the history of this entry, you as well seem to deny what Murphy claims about his upcoming films. Yet Murphy SPECIFICALLY denies the information herein. Thus the Tarantino incident, clearly being added by User Gronowski as part of his personal animus/feud with Murphy, is in violation of strict BLP. PanFordThunder 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no position on anything in the article - my role has simply been to block sockpuppets of a banned user. As for the issue at hand, can you give a link to Murphy's version of the incident? If there is a legitimate dispute as to the facts of the situation, the preferable way to report it is, "Magazine XYZ says _________. Murphy disputes that, saying ________." That way, we take a neutral point of view. --BigDT 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept your neutrality sir. I also believe that User Gronowski is using the forum for his own disputes. That's wrong isn't it? I mean if you look at the history, this had been on here back in December (the Tarantino stuff) when under strict BLP it was removed. User Gronowski knows that and added it anyway. PanFordThunder 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not using the incident to further a personal feud with Mr. Murphy, a feud which I wish would blow over. I merely find the incident fascinating, and decided to document it. It was removed "under strict BLP" by a user who offered no explanation of how it violated BLP. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole article needs expansion. If this is a minor incident in Murphy's life (I'm assuming it is), it probably shouldn't be the most prominent section of the article. --BigDT 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

ColScott, one of Murphy's other socks, liked to use legalistic intensifiers for Wikipedia policies once he was told enough times that they existed. "Strict BLP" was one of his favorites. The absolute ne plus ultra was that ColScott himself was the first to add the story to Wikipedia, which he later reverted as vandalism, either obfuscating or unaware that he himself had added it to the article. Murphy was particularly upset with certain stories on E! Online (I think the bit where the judge awarded him $1 in damages galls him to this day), and from what I can tell, lawyer-lettered that site to get them to remove the articles. It's been entertaining, to say the least, but I wish he'd go back to making movies, all the same. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's more important to focus on the desired outcome, rather than who made the edit. I've looked at the passage and reviewed the sources. Is there a specific fact that Mr. Murphy disputes? It looks like everything in the article matches up with the sources given. --BigDT 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Dt- again I assure you this guy Gronowski has been obsessed with Murphy for Months. Here is Murphy complaining about him in NOVEMBER---http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?t=15553 Fact is this is not a major event- is not listed on his IMDB profile, is denied by him personally but Gronowski continues to make his life hell. LOOK at all the malicious edits. PanFordThunder 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

...What the shloo? None of the other comments in the thread are about me "harassing" Mr. Murphy. It seems that that was a recently added post to an old archived thread. I also never edited this page until the 18 of February. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

...Please in all honesty answer the following.... 1- Have you been fighting with Murphy since 2006 ( the evidence is posted)? 2- why the replies should matter- someone derailed his thread 3- You acknoeldge above that there IS a feud (you wish would stop) so why are you editing his page against Wiki standards? 4- Do you deny telling NextOFKynn that you have monitored Murphy's website for months? 5- Do you deny posting claims about him bribing officials etc?

WHAT HAS HE DONE TO DESERVE THIS BEHAVIOR?

bIGdt PLEASE HELP. PanFordThunder 02:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1. No, not to my knowledge. If he is ColScott, then I have been in conflict with him, yes.
2. The replies matter because nobody seems to flock to the bait of agreeing with Mr. Murphy, as most of his stooges do.
3. Yes, there is a feud. I am not against Mr. Murphy in general, but some edits that may or may not be him are rather offensive and don't make me exactly happy. I don't try to do anything to escalate the feud. I am editing his page because I feel like, against no Wiki standards that I know of.
4. No, I have monitored Mr. Murphy's website for various reasons. One of them being I like Transformers and the other being that he often announces his attempts to buy a Wikipedia admin or vandalise Wikipedia on his message boards.
5. Yes, I deny that I have posted claims that he has bribed officials. I have posted claims that he attempted to bribe officials based on posts on his message board and personal screenshots of those posts. These were posted on the Administrator's noticeboard. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PanFordThunder, what Murphy has done is act like a spoiled child with ownership of his Wikipedia article. I can hardly believe it possible that a 40+ professional with a successful career would trouble himself to make up sockpuppets with puerile twists on the names of Wikipedia editors, but I am left with no other logical conclusion. ("The politics of the university are so intense because the stakes are so low", indeed.) Murphy claims "strict BLP" for his own entry to keep out a neutral description of a fight which is detailed in an article on his own website. (I assume he keeps it there because it makes Hamsher look bad, but I just don't know.) Meanwhile, Murphy/ColScott posts ridiculous claims against other people[1] that haven't even been reported anywhere once, and acts paranoid that other editors have some sort of personal reason for editing his article[2], made legal threats against another editor[3]. There's something about this whole thing he can't stand. I had to drop it for a while due to the simple fact that, like other editors, I have a real life -- something that doesn't seem to apply to Murphy. Really, the man's completely obsessed, and probably jealous that Hamsher is getting lionized by the New York Times and all, while he's stuck making movies out of cartoon characters. But I can only speculate. It's getting him rich, but apparently that's not enough. Given other high-profile attempts to game Wikipedia in recent months, it's a shame that this activity hasn't been exposed in the press. Ultimately, such activity must be watched closely, and Murphy doesn't seem to realize that the more he steps up the behavior, the more eyes are brought to bear on his edits and this article. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

BigDT- you have to be the bigger man here- Gronowski ADMITS to not being neutral and is obsessed with Murphy. The article violates BLP which JIMMY holds up as the most important guideline we have. As far as Dhartung is concerned, I don't know what to say- does he think the press takes Wikipedia seriously? All I see is an annoyed person (Murphy) mocking the system for taking itself too seriously, and people like Gronowski and Dhartung proving him correct. Come on DT, respect BLP. PanFordThunder 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... if you or Mr. Murphy have a dispute with Phil, please see dispute resolution. Regardless of who made the edits, is there a specific problem with the passage itself? In other words, pretend that it was added by some other user - how should it be changed? --BigDT 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. What's he annoyed about, anyway? The fight with QT was years ago, he says they've made up. Nothing has been reported in this article that was not sourced to major media including TIME, EW, or E!. It's appeared in biographies of Tarantino. Why shouldn't we say any of that? I really want to know. Considering that his sock ColScott thought that his ex-partner's article should be as full of negative material as possible, it's very amusing to hear protests such as "respect BLP". -- Dhartung | Talk 05:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

TO BigDt- the point is clear. He says clearly that the fight didn't happen. IT IS NOT referenced under Tarantino's entry the guy who hit him supposedly nor Hamsher's, whose book supposedly was responsible. It is not, clearly, even a minor event much less a major event in the guy's life. Yet here it is PUT THERE by a guy who admits to being in a feud with Murphy. That is NOT what Wales would have us do. WE MUST err on the side of protecting the rights of BLP. The guy himself says it didn't happen - personally, on the very website that Gronowski cites, donmurphy.net. Therefore if we take one thing as evidence we should take all things.

To Dhartung- unless you have evidence, you should not allege things you know nothing about. Was ColScott Murphy or am I Murphy? Maybe I am Gronowski?The E reference was removed at Murphy's request- they took it down because it was untrue. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL DHARTUNG- instead you are being a laughingstock alleging things you cannot prove and acting as if the BLP does not apply here. {I notice in a complete reread that whoever was fighting with Gronowski and Kynn on the Hamsher page WAS NOT ALLOWED TO USE DONMURPHY.NET AS SUPPORT- YET HERE IT IS} To: Gronowski- to be clear- you have cited that the www.donmurphy.net board is a VIABLE and acceptable source. Therefore, if anything of relevance that can be found there can therefore be used as part of the article. It is ITSELF a source as per your usage. PanFordThunder 06:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, for a recent arrival to Wikipedia, PanFordThunder (last 24 hrs), you show an exceptionally detailed knowledge of this situation. I wonder why that might be? Again there is the all caps, again with the namecalling, again there is the one-way interpretation of BLP. It's pretty clear where you get your talking points. Shall we play Checkuser again? In any case, BLP doesn't mean "check with the guy and see what he says", it means source all assertions. The assertions are sourced. If you -- whoops, I mean your pal -- disputes what happened, we can source a counterclaim. (Here I thought you were going to play this out a bit longer, but I guess you don't have the patience.) By the way, in Talk pages, I can bring up whatever the hell I want; it's not a "source" when it's on a Talk page. (Nice feint.) -- Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

--DarkTounge- it is easy to read (at least for those educated) and catch up. All caps are used for emphasis in the english language which is what version of Wikipedia this is. There is NO INTERPRETATION of BLP- it is strict and unforgiving. No one said you had to check- but in this case KNOWING THE GUY says it is untrue how dare you assert otherwise? And no, in talk pages you can get sured for libel just like you can anywhere in the internet and Jimmy will not protect you. {and I checked- if calling you a laughingstock means calling you a name, I can only be sure that it is NOT the worst name anyone has called you today} Seriously, man, don't speak without evidence- you sound insane. PanFordThunder 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ruh roh. I'm being sured for sure. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I make a typo and you laugh. Christ how sad. Anyway, I fixed all elements of the alleged attack and still you deleted? Why?PanFordThunder 09:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No. First you deleted the entire account of the contretemps. Then you added a personal attack. Then you added it back. What exactly are you trying to do by posting Talk comments blatantly contradicted by your edit history? -- Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see why that startup did so well for you- you cannot follow a discussion. I am not referring to Tarantino. I added a discussion about Murphy and Wikipedia based on YOUR and Gronowski's written statements. The part where you say I added them back is actually and edit because you say that there were attacks. I maintain that the second section is valid and I intend to add it back unless you determine otherwise based on FACTS, Dan. Furthermore- if you think Murphy is a public figure then you would have to conclude by law that a large percentage of a group of people would know who he is. That is NOT the case and the defamation laws are stringent as hell for private persons. Just FYI . PanFordThunder 09:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original topic ...

If Murphy says that the incident never happened, do you have a link to any news media source quoting him as saying it never happened? Everything in the article needs to be cited. --BigDT 11:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting his own side of the story in isn't the issue. He just wants the whole thing buried for some reason. I don't think that having a statement from Murphy in the article will placate him; I put together this version, quoting him as saying QT "sucker-punched" him, and he still apparently lawyer-lettered E![4]. I wonder if he had the chutzpah to lawyer-letter TIME? Didn't work, if he did. Anyway, it turned out not to be the lawsuit that got under his skin, but the whole incident. Who really knows what's motivating him at this point. -- Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Article correctly and legally revised

Okay- first of all, I made the Tarantino incident much less important, and I linked to Murphy's denial about the event and his claim that it is part of the Gronowski Vendetta. This is completely allowable. Then I deleted the reference to the Biskind letter since that link is dead as dishwater. Then, since all you moderators alloed Gronowski to use a reference to Murphy's site (the Biskind letter) yesterday as legal, I have expnded the entry correctly using a link from the very same url notng future feature films. Everything here has been done correctly and honestly and any alterations will confirm a desire by whichever user to libel Mr. Murphy, ie, any change from these corrections will prima facie be seen as an attempt to attack him and not be neutral. I will also add the Tarantino events to Hamsher and Tarantino entries. Sweet day to all. PanFordThunder 23:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... no. Seeing as the Biskind letter was removed (I wonder why?) and Mr. Murphy seems to change the pages to suit his needs I have removed the reference to it. It is now apparent to me that Mr. Murphy's webpage is unreliable and can no longer be used as a source. Good show though. Cheers, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tarantino Vs. Murphy at the Ago

What's the deal? That's probably the only thing this guy is notable for: his fight with Tarantino at Ago. And it's not in here. Evan1975 05:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's back in; it was removed when Don was using scare tactics on some editors. -- Zanimum 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[troll comment removed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.228.23 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

How does it fail BLP? It was cited in the mainstream press, and thus -- even if baseless rumor -- should be accounted for. If Don denies this ever happened, please link to this denial, so I can write about the denial in the article. -- Zanimum 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP is definitely a concern. Regardless of his or his fans' unfortunate current choice of methods, it's clear that this particular content is upsetting to Mr Murphy. If we are to proceed at all, it should be done as carefully and neutrally as possible -- my impression is that all or most of the accusations of vendettas against Murphy are crying wolf, but if I find out any of them are true, suffice to say I may be "upset." But moving right along, what sourcing do we have to describe to incident and/or the controversy surrounding it? I've seen mention of Time and E!, do we have some links or other source to document that directly? Or the legal matters I've heard alluded to? Is it better if we wait awhile for tempers to fade on all sides? Do we absolutely need this, do we need it now? Part of me figures, if I'm going to go through this much trouble, I'd much rather have be over an article like Martin Luther King, Jr.. But that could just be me. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding troll posts in this thread, I'll be more than happy to talk to anybody who doesn't resort to trolling. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Luna, here's what I assembled in 2006 for my attempt at an NPOV summary, in which I made sure that his point of view was represented. Alas, that obviously failed to placate him.

• First, the links to E! Online no longer work, as Murphy apparently appealed to that site to remove the information, but it concerns the lawsuit rather than the fight. The link to Murphy's "Open Letter to Peter Biskind" where Murphy claimed that Tarantino "sucker-punched" him also no longer works, as Murphy eventually got the hint that having corroboration of the incident on his own site hurt his case that it was untrue gossip. (It also was hard to take seriously that it was upsetting to him, since he was the first to add any mention of it to Wikipedia. But given his continued hijinks it is clearly important to him for some reason that we have no mention of it.)
• Second, the best recounting of the fight itself is in the book by Peter Biskind which Murphy was rebutting, Down and Dirty Pictures (about a full page of text) and the LA Weekly profile of Murphy.
• Third, additional places that mention the fight include these books:

• Disney: The Mouse Betrayed by Peter Schweizer (four paragraphs);
• Celebrity Diss and Tell: Stars Talk About Each Other by Boze Hadleigh (a QT quote);
• Los Angeles & Disneyland For Dummies by Mary Herczog (in the Ago restaurant listing).

• Contemporary news accounts include two contemporary Variety articles; two from Entertainment Weekly; and The Independent (UK). That's just what's still online ten years later (in fact, the Variety stories used to be behind a paywall but are now free).
• Later references include The New Republic; The Observer (UK -- original was in The New Yorker); Yahoo! Movies QT bio; and a BBC QT precis (right column).

Sourcing, then, may not be the problem here. Do we "need" this? Not desperately. The NBK backstory has plenty of other material to tell. But I can't see excluding it forever, given how well-known the incident already is, as Evan1975 noted. As to your last comment, that was one reason I never bothered working on his article further. --Dhartung | Talk 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Miyazaki

I see that I did misread that source. Sorry about that -- I knew that certain Studio Ghibli works never had a (legal) US DVD release until they made a deal with Disney[5] (it even says here that Kiki's was the first DVD under that deal, which matches my recall), and I got confused. --Dhartung | Talk 05:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117917408.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1ColScott 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Official site

Its standard to include the official site of an individual or organisation and I dont believe this is an exception. before anyone removes it again pklease can they justify themselves here, SqueakBox 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the link does harass and out several Wikipedian editors, I dunno, I still think it shouldn't be included, but I'll leave it and wait for a 3rd party tomorrow. Saturday ^Contribs 02:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I went to the website and didn't find any attacks or outings by looking/poking around. But I did see some "attack" or "outing" info when googling (no idea if any of it was correct). From what I've seen of late concerning attack sites being blocked, the link would need to go directly to an "attack" page (my impression was that message boards didn't count). But even if something is there (not sure if the google results were historical in nature, or current), it would have to be pretty egregious to warrant a block, imo. Personally, I think the "black listing" of sites should pretty much be limited to websites that devote themselves primarily to attacking WP or WP-editors (caveat: when the link is the subject of the article and there are exceptions, I'm sure). R. Baley 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC) changing my mind in this case. Probably shouldn't be linked. R. Baley 04:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My position is that if we are to have an article on somebody / something then to not link to their acknowledged 'official' site oversteps the mark of neutrality (ie. we're qualitatively analysing the link as unacceptable which fundamentally means taking a point of view) - it's also a bit embarrassing! - so I'd support restoring the link (i've also posted a note to this effect at Isotope's talk page) - Purples 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Purples. If Wikipedia is not censored we have no business passing moral judgement on external links that are obviously relevant-- which is exactly what's going on here. Mangoe 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The site used to contain attacks on Wikipedia editors. Does it still? I could not find any, please point them out (by email if you wish). Not linking to the official site of a biography subject is a failure to follow NPOV and does a disservice to our readers; removing active ongoing attacks is probably a good idea but when the attack is gone the link should go back. We don't do revenge. Thatcher131 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it still does, Thatcher. I'll email you. And I don't think it's ever revenge, unless we continue to refuse to link after all attacks have been removed and after we're quite sure they won't go back. Brandt took down his website on at least two occasions, but put it back up. I also don't consider it an NPOV issue. If a site contains outings, that's a fact. It's not a judgment as to whether the site is of high quality or not. It's like not linking to copyright violations — nothing to do with punishment or revenge, and nothing to do with POV. I would say it shouldn't be linked to until we're comfortable that attacks have been removed. ElinorD (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We actually are linking to Daniel Brandt's site, Wikipedia Watch, on the page about that site. Pretty much without exception, attempts to apply the pseudo-policy on linking to so-called "attack sites" have been rebuffed where it concerns links to official sites on articles about the thing they're the official site of. *Dan T.* 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23 removed the link, and asked in the summary that he be contacted before it was added back.[6] It seems like emailing him before adding it back would be a good idea. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. R. Baley 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Purples contacted me on my talkpage and you can see my reply there. My request has nothing at all to do with a moral judgment or any type of revenge. I think there are some legitimate concerns about some of the content on that site and how it relates to editors here and Wikipedia as a whole... enough that I'm erring on the side of caution. If that is too vague a statement, I'd be willing to elaborate via email to respect the privacy of those concerned. In the mean time, a WP:RFC might be useful here.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The attacks on wikipedia editors continue to this day (I have been shown the relevant thread). I think it is unlikely that someone looking for more information on Don Murphy the producer who clicks the external link will easily find this stuff (its not linked on the main page). For this reason I'm not confident in the removal but I do not oppose it. Thatcher131 16:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, I'm more than happy to let consensus rule here. I took the link out as a precaution, pending a discussion here.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This essay explains in greater detail my position on the general issue. A discussion has also broken out on WP:VPP. *Dan T.* 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you ever going to make available print copies of your essay? I expect many of us are keen to have a few for stocking-stuffers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What policy or guideline supports exclusion of this official site? I note that WP:BADSITES was rejected. The link should be replaced per WP:EL. ←Ben^B4 01:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The site outs people, and openly encourages bad behaviour and ban evasion. It's an attack site all right, there is concrete evidence of that right in [refactored link] this thread. I personally would prefer it not be included, but my personal opinion is irrelevant. That said, I'll continue to look for and block any socks I can find that result from Don's calls for additional IDs to be given to him in evasion of his ban. OTRS has always been open to him if there are real problems with his article, and the argument that he's not notable enough to merit a page doesn't wash with me. ++Lar: t/c 10:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the operator of the site (Don Murphy) is asking people to publish personal info on wikipedia editors. I think that makes his site an attack site and I will remove the link any time I see it. I strongly believe in consensus and discussion, but combatting harrassment must surely come first. I see no option other than to remove the link as soon as it appears- to do otherwise is to collaborate in harrassment of wikipedia editors. Protecting people comes above any policy, essay or discussion Lurker (said · done) 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Err we have linked to an attack page here but refuse to let his official site, page which contains no attacks or obvious ways to find any, be on the main space. I think we have things backwards here, we should link to the official site on the main space of this article and remove the attack page from the talk. I have removed the attack page from your copmment and oppose your removal of the official site, SqueakBox 18:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no link to an attack page in my comment. Lurker (said · done) 11:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just how is breaking a general link to his site "combatting harassment"? He could just as well interpret that as harassment, and anyway, except for all the people pointing at his site and saying "it's an attack site!" there's nothing from the front page of his site to suggest that there is any "outing" to be found. We're just going to have to live with him being a jackass. And have I mentioned that Wikipedia is not censored? Mangoe 19:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All I'll add here is that edit warring over the link is wholly unhelpful. Take it our or leave it in, but vacillating back and forth during the discussion isn't very good practice.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I decided to risk one revert (the first time I have touched the link) but will not revert again. There is an arbcom case re BADSITES in which this particular case has been mentioned[7]. Trying to be impartial I see 2 sides here and if we continue to have the article then i believe we should at least respect Murphy to the point of linking to his site (as its standard wikipedia procedure to do for any person with a website). If I had easily been able to find the attack pages I would have supported the deletion but I tried and failed ()and then found it here on the link I removed), SqueakBox 19:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I also can see both sides of the argument here. I've been "outed" at that site (poorly I might add; they didn't get one piece of personal information about me right... and I thank them for that) and I've seen the calls for sockpuppets as well as targeting against anyone who takes those rather obvious socks down... and I have a hard time not seeing that as a pretty obvious attempt to intimidate editors into not getting involved here. At the same time, I can see the argument for keeping an official site in the article (though personally I disagree with doing so as a WP:EL practice in all articles), the guideline probably should be uniformly applied unless there is good reason not to apply it in a specific situation. That is really the crux of the matter; is that thread enough of a reason not to link the site?--Isotope23 ^talk 19:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that delinking isn't going to do anything about that thread. I get the sense that Murphy is collecting info for his own purposes, perhaps to sue editors. If that's what he is up to, then delinking isn't going to help. Mangoe 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Having sniffed around I see I am also talked about on that site, and what a lot of crass bullshit but I still say we should keep the official site, and delete the article! SqueakBox 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that the outing takes place outside of his site's main page to be relevant- it is on his site. He has chosen to have that material on his site, and this is more important than the standard Wikipedia practice of linking to official sites. And the quotation of the Wikipedia is not censored guideline in this debate frankly turns my stomach. I dislike censorship but putting an ideological opinion above people's right to privacy and safety (disclaimer so I am not sued- Murphy has not, to the best of my knowledge, advocated any harming of Wikipedia editors or any harassament other than being outed) is disgusting, wrong and negligent. There is a place for guidelines, a place for talk page debates, a place for standing by ones principles no matter what but this is about people- real people who are being subjected to harrassment and, potentially the risk of physical harm. People who contribute to this project deserve better than to be treated as pawns in an idelogical struggle between editors and I will not stop erring on the side of caution and removing links to attack sites when I see them. I am aware that removing the link does not make the site cease to exist, but Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the net and linking to a site from here could greatly increase the number of visitors. If we are to stop edit warring we will stop on the side of caution. P.S It may seem like giving in to extortion, but I am changing my vote in the deletion debate to "delete". Lurker (said · done) 11:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I will also like to draw people's attention to the following ArbCom ruling: "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR.", in case I have to revert this more than 3 times today. Lurker (said · done) 12:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've requested at WP:ANI that an uninvolved admin step in here to review the edit warring situation.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that, if there is doubt over whether or not this is an attack site, we leave the link out until Arbcom or whoever can make a decision. Surely the right to freedom from harrasment must come first. Lurker (said · done) 12:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A possible compromise?

I am not uninvolved, as I have identified and blocked ColScott socks, and will continue to do so, and I have been "outed" at the site for my trouble, but in my view the edit warring must stop. A few points:

• Mr. Murphy is notable enough to warrant an article here, that's really not debatable in my view. We have a duty, as we do to every living person under WP:BLP, to ensure that the article is factual, well sourced, and not slanted. Issues can be raised on this talk page by editors in good standing, or can be raised via WP:OTRS, and will be dealt with as they are identified.
• Mr. Murphy is subject to the rules of participation here just like any other editor, famous or not, and he has chosen, by his actions, to forfeit the right to participate here directly at this time. That was his choice, not ours, based on his behaviour, as no one gets a free pass to act in disruptive ways. Certainly, if he undertook to behave himself here. perhaps he could be reinstated. To ME personally, that would include discontinuing bad behaviour such as asking for socks, or insulting editors and calling for others to out them, regardless of where. But that is not a view that is universally held, it's just my view... the world is a connected place and what you do in one place has bearing on how you are perceived in other places. In my view at this time, he has forfeited the right to raise issues about his page on this talk page, and has to use OTRS. But OTRS is a good, robust system, with tracable accountability and can work well to correct issues. He should use it and stop complaining.
• The front page of the official site does offer some information about Mr. Murphy. But other pages on the site, notably but not limited to the discussion forum, are very clearly pages that attack WP and WP editors, I don't see how anyone can debate that point.
• I don't think that adding/removing links is exempt from 3RR until there has been a consensus, or an enforcable and clear determination by ArbCom, that the site itself is an attack site. Neither of those have happened yet, so inserting/removing, in my view, is subject to normal revert guidelines. So don't revert war!

I would suggest a compromise... that we give a link to the front page, stating that it does have official information, but also disclaiming that there is material in it that is considered objectionable, and material in it that is considered privacy violating, and material in it that is considered to be attacks on people or institutions, including ourselves. That is in direct contravention to our no disclaimers policy, to be sure, but perhaps it would be a compromise that would satisfy many? ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• • It won't satisfy me. Seriously, when Wikipedia admins are taking a less than zero-tolerance attitude to someone who has caused people to leave Wikipedia because his family was threatened, we have a major problem. Lurker (said · done) 15:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do you personally feel harassed by the inclusion of the link? If so, why? Bear in mind that I've had my phone number and home address on there before now, so this is not an academic issue for me. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration and the official site

Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BADSITES_.2F_NPA_in_articles as well as the Arbitrators' votes to accept or decline the case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BADSITES. They are trending toward offering a clarification of the MONGO case rather than opening a new case. Please note that WP:NPA governs interactions between editors only, and that two Arbitrators have said that it is "absurd" and "beyond merely absurd" to apply NPA to article space. It is not an attack on any Wikipedia editor by another editor to put someone's official web site as an external link in his own article no matter what the content of the site is. Policies like WP:RS and WP:EL govern article space, and the link is acceptable per those policies. Thatcher131 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Even a fairly conservative interpretation of the MONGO arbitration would not cover this; the problem exists in a subset of a subset of the site (part of the message boards) and in my experience Don Murphy will, if asked nicely, remove the most egregious trolling. Murphy is not evil, he just doesn't like this article existing and he has a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of what constitutes fair game - he considers we are "stalking" him and publishing personal information on a non-public person (him), and sees no reason why he should not prove a point by doing the same. It's wrong on several levels, but from his perspective it is at least understandable. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I have never so much as mentioned NPA. I am removing the link because Wikipedia editors should expect the community to protect them from harassment, and giving the MONGO ruling as my reason. They have not yet decided on clarifying the ruling, so I will continue to apply it until that happens. I don't care about Murphy's character- it's the content of his site that applies here. His justifications and view of "fair game" are utterly irrelevant. I can't be bothered reverting any longer- I've sent an email to Cary Bass asking for an office intervention in order to protect our users. Lurker (said · done) 15:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • Hah. Cary unblocked Murphy, you know, prompting HighinBC to retire. In any case, you are blending article space and project space in a way it was never meant to be blended. Certainly if someone posts on a talk, user talk, or project page, "Hey thatcher131, guess what Murphy said about you today? [link]" that would be actionable harassment by one editor against another editor. But to remove donmurphy.com, his official web site, from his own article is more than absurd; it is a failure to provide Murphy the same basic courtesy we apply to every business and shitty local band that has an article, and it also disservices our readers, most of whom aren't part of the "community" and don't give a crap about our inside politics, by denying them complete information about the subject. Thatcher131 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Even there, context is pretty important; if thatcher131 is a good friend of mine and I know he finds outside attacks on him to be amusing rather than troubling, then calling his attention to one, like "Hey, thatcher131, here [link] is another laff-riot of an attack on you... pretty silly, huh?" might not be an attack at all. Though it might better be done by private e-mail so it isn't misunderstood by outsiders. *Dan T.* 16:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Hopefully common sense does occasionally prevail. Thatcher131 16:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Common sense is not very common, and not always sensible. *Dan T.* 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
            • And somebody had indeed left a link to an attack page from the site on the talk page. Now that is what shoul;d be removed (and I did remove it), SqueakBox 17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)