Talk:Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

message: I suggest the note to be removed. The link now points to a login page as the article is not freely available 83.145.67.139 14:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: this page is weakly written, it could stay as trivia but structure should be improved
... age 38 as of 2005 ... why not type born in 1967 instead it's not like he's going to be 12 or 81 next year ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.113.99.10 (talk • contribs) 09:21, December 11, 2005  (UTC)
If his birthday is after today but before New Year's, he would have been born in 1966. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.247.59.209 (talk • contribs) 10:04, December 11, 2005  (UTC)
:Since the birthday is unconfirmed it was removed, Once it is confirmed feel free to re-add it to the article in question! :) Thanks -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, his age of 38 is reported in the New York Times article. I don't think that the conclusion that he was therefore born in 1966 or 1967 qualifies as original research. AxelBoldt 18:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthday

message: Why is this page scheduled for deletion?  This is a small piece of Wikipedia history and outlines real consequences of the user-edit system and has resulted in tweaks to the editing rules.  This page whould stand.
--Thomasdelbert 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can vote to keep it here --RayaruB 16:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It does not matter if the pages are linked - we can make it into a redirect to the controversy article. So people coming thru those links will go to that page. And I feel everything related to Mr.Chase is realted to the controversy as well because that is the reason he has become so famous :-). Jam2k 07:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: This article was previously listed under :Category:Wikipedians.  That category is a self-referential category; it is meant to help us organize our user pages, and does not contain encyclopedic content.  I have moved it to :Category:Wikipedia, which is a category for Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia in the main namespace.  Thanks.  -- Creidieki 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of this article 

message: People who've said this wikipedia history are right when they say this is a historical event in the life of this website and of this siegenthaler incident, As such this needs to be a part of the "Siegenthaler wikipedia controversy" article. Briaboru 20:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add your opinion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer). Canderson7 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia history 

message: Was the claim that Seigenthaler had lived in the Soviet Union posted from the same IP? In the same edit? AxelBoldt 20:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Canderson7 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Union? 

message: It seems to me like the IP listed is incorrect, because when I go to user contribs on Wikipedia for that IP I see nothing.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong IP listed? 

message: Primarily my listing this article as an article for deletion was because this page specifically falls under What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information 
7. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project 
Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that 
are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate 
new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples. 
News articles should posted on Wikinews not on the Wikipedia. Current events qualify as news even if they involve the Wikipedia. This controversy was majorly overblown as the publisher in question could have simply edited the article removing the vandalism and the matter would have been instantly resolved. Instead he used it as a tool to generate publicity for himself and to attempt to discredit the Wikipedia.. 
Then you have the following from the Deletion policy:
:* Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
:* Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT) 
While this achieved a minor notoriety the discovery of this person is best included as a section on the overall controversy page. Not as it's own page.
So it is a valid listing on AfD and I hope this may change a few people's opinions on the subject. Thank you -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 09:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not relate first hand accounts, it lists references and the story is no longer breaking to boot. - RoyBoy 800 21:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed, this article no longer qualifies for deletion.  What is now up for debate is whether this article should be merged or remain seperate.  Hall Monitor 21:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: While I don't side completely with Seighetler, your (i.e. SusanLarson) post above suggests you have completely failed to follow the controversy. There are well publisised reasons why he did not edit the article himself. If you aren't aware of them, a little reading of wikipedia would help you to better understand the situation. Also your opinion that the issue was overblown is irrelevant. Whether or not the issue was overblown does not significantly effect it's notability. Personally, although Seighetler was not a good spokesperson, he raised a very relevant issue which many of use Wikipedians have been aware of for a long time and it's disapponting to me that so many wikipedians have apparently failed to understand the issue or why it matters Nil Einne 04:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My response to the issues raised above 

message: According to MSNBC, this guy thought that Wikipedia was not a serious reference tool?  I just have to say that all of the intelligent people I know use this religiously.  It really burns me up that this incident could scar the reputation of Wikipedia.  This really is a great tool, a resource of knowledgeable individuals sharing what they know with others.
*Actually, this comment (about Chase thinking Wikipedia was a "gag site") came from Daniel Brandt, who was never a big fan of Wikipedia. Most likely, he is trying to paint Brian Chase as a "victim" of Wikipedia, a victim who lost his job at the hands of a site that he says appeared to be a gag. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-13 02:38
**Good point.  I have not heard Chase interviewed at all, and hence I don't think that we can quote him at all.  He may have thought that Wikipedia was a joke site, he might not.  Who knows.  Until we hear him say it, I don't think we can say either way. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Is this not proof enough that the new restrictive policy adopted by Wikipedia, which forces contributors to register with wikipedia before they can create a new article, is wrong. Once you are registered there is no way that someone like Daniel Brandt can find out who wrote the article. Making a user name just creates a level of anonymity that does not exist for a non-registered user whose IP address is visible to everyone. I for example would not like to sign this because it is easer for someone to click on my IP address and leave a message on my IP page and that message is visible to everyone who is on the same IP address. But I'll sign it anyway. --08:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof that the new policy is wrong. 

message: I will go over a list of reasons why I believe that this page should not exist.  As follows:
# Brian Chase is a manager at some kind of delivery service.  Distinctly non-notable and doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO
# Whilst we could argue that he is notable for being the person who edited Seigenthaler's page and hence has had media attention, there is a great problem with meeting WP:NPOV with this article, since we are solely documenting negative aspects of him.  Is it possible to write this article as anything other than an attack page?  We should not be writing any article anywhere solely as an attack page.
# Brian Chase is not a libeller.  What he wrote was not libellous, according to my legal opinion, and according to the legal opinion of experts in defamation law, who have commented about this case.  At worst, his offence is in stating that Seigenthaler was born in the Soviet Union, but suggesting that that is somehow harmful is rather ridiculous.  As for him stating that Seigenthaler shot JFK - this is not true.  He didn't write that.  What he wrote was that Seigenthaler was once briefly thought to have done it.  This is TRUE.  Someone, somewhere, with certainty would have thought briefly that he had done it.  Considering the amount of conspiracy theories about JFK's murder, and his association with JFK, someone would have done it.  Besides which, Seigenthaler did not sue him.  In order for us to accurately call him a libeller, he must have been found guilty in a court of law of libel.
# Brian Chase is not a hoaxer.  What he wrote stayed up for 4 months.  A hoax is something that you write and then laugh about and remove immediately.  What he wrote is vandalism.  It is not Wikipedia:BJAODN level vandalism and hence not a hoax.
# There are some question marks about whether he really did it.  Whilst he did confess, there is the chance that we got the wrong IP address, and he just chose to take the fall to end the drama.
# It is an invasion of privacy to list such an article about someone like this.
# What is written here could be cause for a libel suit filed by Brian Chase against Wikipedia.  With the media following this story, this is a very real risk, and it is ridiculously risky for Wikipedia to allow this article under these circumstances.
# What he did is nowhere near the worst act of vandalism on Wikipedia.  The GNAA regularly runs scripts to produce minor little edits everywhere on Wikipedia.  There are people like Willy on Wheels and the communist vandal that have done masses of vandalism to Wikipedia.  Yet do they have their own pages?  Oh yes, on the admin block logs where they belong.  Not in the public area like this.
I am extremely concerned about this article remaining.  In my opinion, we should not even be stating his name when referring to him.  It is legally extremely dangerous for Wikipedia to write something like this.  And with a case like this, it wouldn't just be one person being sued for libel, it'd be Wikipedia in total.  Its just too risky. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 09:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the whole you raised some good points; however Wikipedia is as libel as an ISP; which essentially means they are not libel. I voted strong keep and that will remain the case until these issues crystalize and/or a good reason to remove the article is provided, and of course Willy on Wheels didn't get Wikipedia on CNN. A significant difference in my book. - RoyBoy 800 23:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean "liable".  Please don't get confused.  "Libel" means that someone lies about you, while "liable" means that you are responsible.  You can of course be "liable for libel" lol.  Anyway its a typo. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this page 

message: The result of the debate was The decision appears to be keep. with a total of 146 votes to keep. 
After processing 293 total votes
Total Keep: 146
:129 Keep 
:17 Keep/Merge 
Total Delete: 46
:40 delete
:6 delete/merge
Total Merge: 124
:101 merge
:17 Keep/Merge 
:6 delete/merge
While this does not provide an overwhelming keep vs. merge consensus it does provide that this article should not be deleted.  ALKIVAR™ 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed anonymous votes, Unsigned votes both  and  Unregistered users counted provided they signed with ~~~~. removed votes from very low edit users which were noted by others. removed one vote due to uncivil. Just so no one doubts the fairness of this count I would like to note that the position I voted for lost. The decision appears to be keep. with a total of 146 votes total.
I also made the following personal comment on my first AfD. "Good discussion everyone. Thanks for an informative insight into the consensus process :) Could someone more familer with the process close out the vote officially." and I meant it too :) -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 02:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)|AFD]] is closed 

message: I did the counting and here was the criteria I used. 
: Removed anonymous votes, Unsigned votes both  and  Unregistered users counted provided they signed with ~~~~. removed votes from very low edit users which were noted by others. removed one vote due to uncivil. Just so no one doubts the fairness of this count I would like to note that the position I voted for lost. The decision appears to be keep. with a total of 146 votes total.
I also made the following personal comment on my first AfD. "Good discussion everyone. Thanks for an informative insight into the consensus process :) Could someone more familer with the process close out the vote officially." and I meant it too :) -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 02:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Comments on this AfD 

message: I don't know how the AFD is going to turn out, but in the meantime, it might be worthwhile to choose a better title for this article. "Hoaxer" doesn't seem very NPOV. Anyway, I wish to avoid any disputes by moving it myself, and am not really sure what a better title would be, so figured I'd toss this concern here. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any... alternate suggestions? :)  Subramanian talk 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *As I've already stated, twice, no, not really. That's part of the reason I posted here, to see if people could suggest some alternate suggestions. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move? 

message: Whilst this guy obviously released his name voluntarily to the press, and hence reprinted it is valid, I question whether we really should be releasing his private details in this article.  I made a "bold" removal there on that basis, as it is not necessary in establishing the facts of the article, and only serves to invade his privacy and potentially set him up for further personal distress (and also potentially to legal problems for Wikipedia for doing that - if breaking the law is relevant to people here).  If you really strongly disagree, then put it back in, but please provide reasons.  Note that this guy didn't defame Seigenthaler.  He allegedly defamed him.  We cannot say that he did (or libelled, or slandered) until it is proven in a court of law.  Also, we should note that there is no absolute proof that he did it.  Okay, he confessed, but there is a very real chance that this is a false confession.  So just be careful there.  Even if you think that this article is sufficiently notable for its own entry, and you personally believe that it will still be notable next week (who knows, it might be!) the legal concerns for having this article in existence is very strong.  I think that everyone contributing to it should be extraordinarily careful with what they say. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy 

message: What Chase did is vandalism. this is the common usage word for that kind of behaviour so it is important that that is how it is described in the article. Hence my changes, SqueakBox 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I read it, it said he was implied in the assasination but "Nothing was ever proven"; implying he had a role and the evidence was merely insufficient. - RoyBoy 800 06:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't Seigenthaler quote it in the USA today article?  Or is there a question that perhaps Seigenthaler was misquoting what Chase wrote? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Calling it vanalism is inaccurate.  He did not destroy any property...to say he defaced property is a stretch.  Abuse is an accurate description.  B Cas 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I stand corrected. His biography-article is (ironically), vulnerable to editoral abuse. GoodDay 22:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: After a huge Afd with a clear keep consensus one editor decides to redirect the arrticle. What gives? We muswt respect the consensus in this case, SqueakBox 14:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Redirect is a sneaky way of deleting"??? Where do you get such asinine ideas? All the information is still there, whether it is redirected or not. -R. fiend 15:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, "pointless" is just my opinion, sorry.  The Afd was closed as a "keep", although it was most accurately a "no consensus".   But, we have WP:DRV for talking about Afd's after the fact.  Can we talk about the article instead of about the Afd, pretty please?  Without worrying about rules and procedures, is there a reason the encyclopedia is better with this as a seperate article?  Good reasons for merging have been given, and nobody's refuted them.  Friday (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And for fuck's sake quit cut/pasting this article into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. If it's redundant in it's own article, don't you think it might be redundant in the other article too? Do you want Wikipedia to look like it's edited by 10 year olds who can't form a cohesive article? -R. fiend 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil.   This kind of comment is really uncalled-for.  Friday (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The one redirect I made during the Afd was a bad idea; I've admitted that.  It was promptly reverted, and I didn't do it again.  I already said sorry for doing it in the first place; I should have known it wouldn't fly while the Afd was happening.  The second redirect I did was after the Afd was over, so I see nothing wrong with it.  There's nothing about an Afd that is meant to prevent people from making edits to the article after it's over; that would be bizarre and unworkable.  I don't think doing a redirect again a few days later should be described as "repeatedly redirecting", particularly when I made an argument in favor of a merge on the talk page a couple days before.  Nobody gave a reason why the merge shouldn't be done.  Friday (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not the best reasoning, really. It even says "it should at least be merged with the main page about the controversy and fitted with a redirect", which is exactly what happened. I'm sure whether he does get his job back is of interest to no one except himself, his family and friends, and some wikipedians, who are the only ones interested in this guy, and a note as to whether he does get his job back would be fine to include in the controversy article. What would it take, 4 additional words? "He was later rehired" or "he was not rehired". Hardly worth a separate article. In fact, 170 votes basically say that this should not be a separate article (187 if you count the "keep and merges", and I haven't checked to see if the many "keep or merges" that were listed under "keep" for whatever reason wre counted as such). There is not really any good reason for this not to be redirected. It's entirely redundant. since when is redundancy a good thing? -R. fiend 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know how you can say that a redirect to a better, more complete article is an attempt to "bury" anything. I'm not trying to "bury" anything. I certainly think everyone who considers themself a serious contributor to wikiepdia should read about this and see what happens when wikipedia bites off more than it can chew. And please point to a news story, any news story, that is about Chase and not about the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. The controversy is what is notable, and, had I been around for its AFD, I would have voted to keep it. Now, has Chase made any public appearances? Or even any public statements beyond his confession/apology? Has he appeared on The O'Reilly Factor or anything? When he does, we might start to make a case for a separate article, but even then, everything will still be in reference to the greater controversy. When he writes a book about his experience (or anything else) and it becomes a bestseller, then we will have a good reason for a separate article. But still no one has given any good reason why an article that 100% repeats the content of another article is even slightly beneficial. Can you explain why it is? -R. fiend 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't want to start an AFD because I don't want the thing deleted. Why is that so hard to understand? I just think this tendency for wikipedia to have 5 articles where one will do is a problem that makes the entire project harder to monitor. -R. fiend 17:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well that's not what AFD is for. It's called Articles for deletion, after all, and such nominations usually get a "what did you bring this here for?" at some point. Redirects are best addressed through discussion pages, as well as merge templates, and, if need be, RFCs. In any case, I have no desire to reopen that can of worms by even mentioning this article at AFD again. I'm still waiting for a reason why a redundant article is necessary. I'll add a merge template to this article and see what that does. -R. fiend 17:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: (please keep this about content not about AFD)
Arguments for merging:
*The article is completely redundant, all the information is already included at John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy
*Having multiple articles that repeat the exact same material is detrimental to the project. Done on a large scale is greatly increases the number of articles that need to be monitored for vandalism, without adding anything to Wikipedia.
* The event was started by Seigenthaler himself.  If not for his involvement, this would have been run-of-the-mill hoaxing that happens every single day and we'd never know who did it.  (This is really a response to the "don't merge" argument #5, rather than a reason to merge.)
Arguments for a having separate article:
# Figure is notable enough to warrant an article.
# Consensus of the AFD discussion was to keep the article, not merge.   I question the statement that Afd's are not for redirecting as it is anopther form of deletion. 
#::Arguments are to be about content, not about AFD. And there was not a consesnsus to keep! Stop making things up. -R. fiend 17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Hoaxes can be placed in the Seigenthaler article.  1967 births is speculative and should be there anyway, and little is lost if Chase is not in the Tennessee category. Gamaliel 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments Pro/Con

message: ====Merge/redirect (merging has been done)====
#R. fiend 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: #R. fiend 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge/redirect (merging has been done)

message: #SqueakBox 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep as a separate article

message: Reason #1 for not merging sure looks wrong to me, based on the content of this article being exclusively about the Seigenthaler affair.  #2 is based on a misunderstanding of Afd.  Also, it would be helpful if people on either side would explain their reasoning instead of just "voting".  Friday (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I may comments about reason 3, obviously we can't remove all the redundant information from the article, he's part of the controversy and has to be mentioned in it. Would it be preferable not to mention his role at all and just include him as a see also link? also the idea that "redirection is a form of deletion" is utterly insane, and runs counter to official deletion policy. -R. fiend 17:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The loss of categories is insignificant. :Category: Hoaxes could stay, the others are pointless anyway. 1967 births is a bad category anyway, as it's based on an estimate. -R. fiend 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Look at the deletion policy. -R. fiend 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Jokestress 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Then I advise you to look at the wikipedia guidlines for what constitutes a consensus. <50% is never sufficient. In addition, yes, one could remove the redundant information, but it would serve no purpose. It would weaken both articles. One could turn any article into 4 or 5 by turning every proper noun mentioned therein into a separate article. All that does is aid wikipedia in the race to one million "articles". One shouldn't send in 4 articles where one will do. -R. fiend 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the most original argument to overrule a majority vote that I've seen in a long time.  If more people vote to do A than to do B or C, how can anyone seriously argue that A isn't the thing to do?  --SpinyNorman 04:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia does not run on simple majority votes. Wikipedia works on "consensus". --Srleffler 14:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  If the choice is to do A, B or C and the majority of people vote to do A...  why isn't that a consensus? --SpinyNorman 08:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, upon further reflection, all the information was redundant all along (except for a single fact). There was no plot by mergists to do make it so. The moment the Chase article was created it contained no new information, just the same stuff repeated with slightly different phrasing. Absolutely pointless. -R. fiend 03:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes,  so you've said - on many occasions.  The fundamental problem here is that more people disagree with you than agree with you and there's really no way around it.  --SpinyNorman 04:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else find it kind of amusing that someone who's been editing for about two weeks is lecturing several admins (some of whom have been here closer to 2 years) on how wikipedia works?  And as for disagreement, well, as has been said, people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitlied to their own facts. People can "disagree" by saying that merging is deletion, or the article was not created as a complete redundnacy, but that doesn't make it any closer to the truth. -R. fiend 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: R. fiend, please refrain from personal attacks against other editors, and don't bite the newcomers. You can make your points by arguing from your side and without denigrating other views or editors. Jokestress 16:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: FWIW, the experienced editors on the "don't merge" side have yet to explain their reasoning, while the people who feel a merge is appropriate have explained why very well.  Friday (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, Friday! I think I have explained my reasoning on many occasions. The Afd voted to keep, and within that Afd were many reasons for keeping. Personally I think what Chase did combined with what Seigenthaler did has made a difference. Look at the way the amount raised goes so much faster than last time. Wikipedia has become so much more mainstream because of this event, and certainly in a country like the UK I reckon several times as many people now know no of wikipedia than did before because of its mainstream media coverage for the first time ever. The fact that Chase did it by hoaxing (which IMO is a misnomer as the common word is vandalism) itself has enormous implications. What Chase did is, IMO, pretty crap but lots of people who have articles are notable for having done bad things which have had a profound effect on society or bits of it and I would certainly categorise Chase as such a person, SqueakBox 17:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh.  This completely fails to address the issue here.  Once again, nobody is talking about removing content!  We're talking about how to organize articles.  I don't know how to explain it any better than that.  Consensus here looks to be in favor of a merge.  Can we just merge it and agree to disagree, or will you revert again?  Friday (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This poll looks like an attempt to overrule the result of one of the most well-attended AfD discussions at Wikipedia.  I find that obnoxious.  You've posted an RfC: now you have mine. Durova 23:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been asked to elaborate on my vote.  The above statement is a full expression of my opinion. Durova 05:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Friday, I think I understand that this is an issue of organization.  Some people want to take the information in this Chase's article and put it in the article about the controversy as a whole (redirecting this one to the main article).  Other people want to keep Chase's information in a separate article under his own name and create a link to it in the "controversy" article.  Is that correct?  Now, the way I see it, a vote was taken and the people who want to keep the article separate outnumbered the people who want to merge it.  This brings me to the part of this that I admit I don't really understand:  Why are some people still trying to argue that this issue hasn't been settled?  How can this continued debate by the "merge faction" be seen as anything other than sour grapes?  Shouldn't they just move on?  --SpinyNorman 08:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I just noticed that an RfC was opened on this topic a couple weeks ago, with a fraduulent synopsis (aren't these supposed to be expressed neutrally?), which has since been fixed. It would have been nice if that had been mentioned here. -R. fiend 22:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: The long closing quote on the article endorses the extremely persistent POV of some editors that this article should not exist. Durova 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I'm not crazy about having that long quote in there either, it's not very relevant in my opinion.  As I recall, it was added by someone who was very opposed to the merge, in this edit right here.  I don't think it was intended to do what you suggest, based on the "look how important he is" editorializing that accompanied it. Friday (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way it's bad style to conclude by giving the final say to one very biased critic. Durova 02:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV flag 

message: An earlier photo request was removed following the conversion of this article to a redirect. TheGrappler 03:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo requested

message: The history page of the main article at  was blanked by a newly registered user on January 7. I would like to know how he did this. I cannot figure out how it was done. I feel that this action should be reverted because more than 100 registered users had voted and a majority were in favor of keeping the title of the article. Sam Sloan 13:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How and Why was the History Page blanked? 

message: Now that the history of this page has been restored back to the way it was before it was redirected on January 7, I have just counted the edits.
There have been a total of 324 edits of this page thus far. This demonstrates why it was wrong to blank the history page. Sam Sloan 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Total of 324 Edits so far 

message: So far there looks to be decent consensus for a merge.  Since the merge is already done, would anyone revert me at this point if I turned this into a redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy?  I think it's the right thing to do but I don't want an edit war over it.  Friday (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. -R. fiend 04:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to be rude, Sam Sloan.  Friday (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See the talk page where it's been discussed.  The merge is a done deal, all that's left to argue about is the redirect. Friday (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect? 

message: I am frankly shocked that, after two votes were taken and it was decided to keep the article and after more than 324 edits by numerous users were made to the article, Jimbo himself came in and deleted it. But, after all, he is the boss. Sam Sloan 10:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not alone.  I have reverted the redirect,  as there was no case made for making such a unilateral decision.  Fromoutthere 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I may not agree with the latest reasoning, there has been considerable discussion of the redirect, as anyone could see from looking at the talk page.  No reasonable arguments against the merge have been presented.  Friday (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is your opinion, one which I strongly disagree with.  Fromoutthere 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it would be good to explain yourself over on the other talk page.  So far everyone there supports the redirect, except one editor who's been very long on insistance that it's wrong but very short on reasoning.  In the meantime, I'm putting it back to a redirect. Friday (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is this other talk page?   Please do not put it back, there is a majority to keep this seperate.  Fromoutthere 21:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The End 

message: Given that Jimbo's ability to override consensus and step in and impose a solution is well established, in that spirit, I'm restoring the redirect and protecting it. Gamaliel 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So am I to understand that Jimbo Wales' actions are unquestionable?  Fromoutthere 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't personally say that, but I would say that edit warring with him is a superbly bad idea.  Friday (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop trying to infer that I was "edit warring".  What I saw was a long discussion, with no solid consensus either way, with a majority of people supporting this article be kept seperate.  Me disagreeing with someone regardless of their position of power should not be misconstrued as a "war".  Fromoutthere 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo has spoken

message: This should redirect to Brian Chase (controversy sparker). Can someone fulfill this request? Thanks. --Shultz III 14:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this article became a redirect by edict of Jimbo; your recreation doesn't really need to exist either, as he's only 'famous' in the context of the Siegenthaler thing. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This needs a redirect

message: Please replace existing source in its entirety with the following:
#REDIRECT Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident


Reasons: (1) to fix double redirect caused by target page move; (2) to include R templates. Thanks.
– Wdchk (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 6 February 2014