Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 10

message: Mixvio and the anon are rather prolific.  They are having an interesting debate between themselves about what should or shouldn't go into the article, but others have opinions too.  So I'd like to use this section to assess what others think, since Mixvio seems to feel that there's no consensus on the issue.  Please make your opinions known -- no debating here leading to enormous threaded discussions, strictly a place to express your personal opinion please. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (The page has been protected for several days.  Please read this page for more info.   Your one and only edit I notice.) 66.82.9.73 20:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: NB: 67.183.15.135 was blocked for 24 hours on a 3RR violation after refusing to discuss his edit in "talk".  -Jmh123 02:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can see that ourselves from the user's talk page. Kate asked that this be used solely to post opinions, and the continual actions by you and 66/69 etc at pointing this or users' first edits just looks catty and reactionary. - mixvio 02:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And your comments don't??  This is an anon opinion anyway - so it won't carry much weight.  Michigan user 13:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, they don't. And this person should carry as much weight at Maria202 does. I'll point out that this person's at least been editing for longer than she has. - mixvio 16:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah - right. Dooder and Maria about balance each other.  If this anon counts then the other anon should not have to abstain.  Just saying.  Michigan user 17:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never suggested 66 abstain, I'm more inclined to include her vote since she's been involved in the debate all this time. But regardless of what "counts" or not, Kate did this to see whether there was a consensus or not. Consensus does not equal majority. Clearly there IS no consensus because just as many people agree with me that this article's been hijacked by fangirls and fanboys as people agree with you that the story's irrelevent. So I don't care how many "votes" you have. That's irrelevent. What's relevent is my point has been proven, there is no consensus. - mixvio 17:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well typically they wait a week or so to arrive at a conclusion to allow users time to discover the question.  Then if indeed there is no consensus - we will just go back to wordsmithing.  Michigan user 17:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, we won't, the matter will go to formal mediation or arbitration. My interest in dealing with a protracted debate with Claymates has unfortunately grown thin. - mixvio 18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a consensus is reached, there's no need for mediation. The arbitration committee would reject this faster than you can say boo. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant if a consensus isn't reached. And to me it doesn't look like a few more days of polling is going to change that. - mixvio 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The controversy and story were discussed during the "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" show on NPR this past Saturday. Can we agree that it is mainstream yet? --Rabinid 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would argue that, since the story broke in January and it's now mid-March and it's still being discussed, the story clearly continues to generate media interest. However I'm not unreasonable, and given a guarantee by the opposition that as long as the story-buzz is at the same level as it is now, I'd be open to waiting until April to insert this. Though I will be honest, I feel that they would try to invalidate the story then as well by saying it's not in enough places. - mixvio 20:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absolutely how it should be -- revisiting the issue, I mean.  The great thing about Wikipedia is that it's organic and always evolving.  And Hamiltonian is right -- there's no shame in an encyclopedia not being ahead of (or even "even with") the news curve.  · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I fully agree, but I have significant doubts that they'd really agree to it being revisited. I think they want to sit on this until it goes away or becomes so huge that there's no ignoring it. Both of these approaches are wrong in my opinion. - mixvio 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the entire purpose of waiting until the middle of April to re-visit the question of whether to add the sentences about the Paulus claim, is to give it time to find out if it is truely notable or not.  So it does not make sense to say that the story "going away" from lack of notoriety is wrong.  That is one of the possible outcomes.    69.19.14.28 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  And, you know, that's all I want too. My edit was three sentences saying the story, it was Paulus' allegations, it hasn't been proven, Aiken hasn't responded. I didn't want a three paragraph essay, I didn't want list of evidence supporting the story, I didn't want a pro-Paulus slant in the least. I wanted it presented. I think it's unreasonable that his fangirls and fanboys are fighting this minute change. - mixvio 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with Hermione. I will continue my reasoning below, so as to respect Katefan0's request.  Michigan user 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paulus info -- quick check 

message: Moving debate off the quick vote section, as originally requested by Katefan.
*Mixvio, adding a section heading at any point is not moving a post.  I did not move your post at all.  Katefan asked us not to debate in that section--simply to express our votes. As the previous section of debate was getting too long, setting up a new subsection outside of the "quick check" within which to continue is not unusual practice at all.  Re-sectioning "talk" can be done by anyone, for a number of different reasons.  If you wish your post to remain on the other side of any new section, so be it.  I'll start again here. 
*Mixvio's first edit . Six paragraphs.  -Jmh123 23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said before Jmh deleted it, this was the first edit of several revisions as myself and Arglebargle discussed what should be included. The last edit I made before asking the page be protected was significantly less than that. - mixvio 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Furthermore, what you deleted and moved was not part of the debate. It was a specific reply to what Whoby said. It didn't need to be moved because it wasn't "continuing" anything. I was replying to him. - mixvio 07:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted nothing, I moved nothing; I followed standard procedures in adding a section heading. I had no intention of undermining your argument, and thought the continuity was obvious.  You registered your displeasure, and I did not object to your reversion, so it is not clear why you are still arguing about this. -Jmh123 08:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I didn't delete anything. You must be confusing Jmh's edits with mine. - mixvio 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not confused. My edit -  - your delete . I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider it accidental.  Maria202 17:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, yes, I did remove that, because it wasn't an edit, it was reverting back to what Jhm had done with my post. You didn't contribute anything else and since it was redoing the vandalism to my comments that Jhm had done I removed it as well. - mixvio 17:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: resuming the debate

message: The question is how would you feel about a moritorium on this decision until the middle of April, and then if the story has the same level of "buzz" as it does now - we will add the reference, if the it does not, we will have consensus to leave the reference out.  Michigan user 18:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently Mixvio cares how much "buzz" there is - because we modified the statement to use his wording.  And I am all for leaving the reference out now once and for all without revisiting the topic, if you don't want to revisit the issue in April.  66.82.9.80 14:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick Check

message: *Please don't shoot me for spliting the FTC complaint from the Paulus discussion.  They are two separate issues.  Maria202 16:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that neither the LKL mention nor Canadian ET is relevant to Paulus.  If we were to include a mention of the recent media attention to the "lawsuit/s", we would need to also say that these outlets are reporting the story incorrectly.  There was a press release about an FTC complaint which may or may not have actually been filed.  In the press release the "9 fans" said they were considering a lawsuit. No one is actually suing anyone. If the "mainstream" media has the facts all wrong, then what? -Jmh123 04:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I think that we should wait to see if the "Lawsuit" thing, which is really an "FTC Complaint" thing will end up in SNOPES as a hoax.  The whole thing only happend because of a problem with Google Press Releases being compromised .  So I think that the topic would be more related to the Google article than here. All of which is "breaking news" anyway. -- Michigan user 13:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC}
* The press release on the FTC complaint came from a site in the UK called Pressbox  where anyone can create their own press release. A second press release taking issue with Simon Cowell for his "it's crazy" remarks on LKL was created yesterday 3/22/06.  Google did not pick this one up in their news search.  Maria202 16:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  The second "press release" is unsigned and has no contact information.  -Jmh123 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  There was no contact information in the first "press release" either.  Maria202 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually, there is a generic hotmail address at the end of the first release.  This is the release in which they announce that they are "considering" a class action suit and a "possible" FTC complaint. -Jmh123 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FTC Complaint

message: Hello, mediation has begun at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12_Clay_Aiken_page_dispute_regarding_the_John_Paulus_allegations. Tufflaw 04:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guy who requested mediation announced his departure from Wikipedia about a week ago.  See his comments on this "talk" page, and at the end of this page: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-07_Netoholic_%26_Locke_Cole. -Jmh123 13:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are we supposed to be moving the discussion over here?  All of the history of this is on the Clay Aiken discussion page.  Over there we basically agreed to wait a month (to mid-April) and see if the Paulus allegations still appeared notable.  At that point it would have been not quite 3 months since the National Enquirer first published the gossip.  Frankly Paulus has barely been mentioned by anyone in the last several weeks - so I think that this is a non-issue.  Just some guy trying to use the tabloids to jump start his gay porn movie career.  Totally non-notable.  Since Mixvio decided not to continue the conversation, the only person left that is really pushing for the Paulus blurb to be added to the Aiken article is Rabinid - and that is because he is the author of the Paulus article.  -- Michigan user 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Following WikiGuidelines does not make us bigots, thank you.  Larry never said a single word about Paulus.  The FTC complaint is a hoax that would never have been noticed except for the fact that Google Press Releases got compromised so that any Joe Blow on the street could push through a press release about any topic that they wanted.  -- 66.82.9.59 10:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Browned, calling people who disagree with you offensive names is an ineffective form of persuasion.  There's nothing tasteful about Paulus' claims, and they are dead in the water anyway.  We already have a general reference to speculation about Aiken's sexuality.  -Jmh123 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally mediation will only be attempted if all parties agree to the mediation. Since the "other side's" main protagonist has left, I'm not sure there's much to mediate for now. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the mediator now has work to do. I'm interested to see how he handles it.  -Jmh123 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it helps, I'm all for it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope he's got plenty of asprin.  - Maria202 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  One can only hope common sense prevails. I hope the mediator's a Neil Young fan or something, personally. - mixvio 02:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anon, if you wish to argue this issue, the discussion is now taking place on the mediation page. -Jmh123 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anon, the conversation is indeed over on the mediation page - but please do not mix the FTC complaint hoax with the Paulus incident.  They are unrelated.  There is nothing in that complaint that mentions Paulus, and gay topic that it does address has been around for a long time before Paulus came along.  See the conversation above about the breech in Google Press Releases. -- 66.82.9.84 17:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation