Talk:Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

Notes

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)

Comment

Perhaps we should forget this ever happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.135.59 (talk • contribs) 08:19, December 11, 2005 (UTC)

This was the straw that broke the camel's back - or in Wikipedia's case, the straw that made anonymous creation of articles no longer possible. I think it is interesting historically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjaminhill (talk • contribs) 09:49, December 11, 2005 (UTC)

I thought he had resigned his job?

Birthday

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 ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Deletion

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)

You can vote to keep it here --RayaruB 16:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep --L1nX 17:20 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a keeper. Baltakatei 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, not here. Here. --Mr. Billion 23:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Definite keeper! --69.19.14.26 11:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is linked from outside, for example from one of the biggest German news magazines (Der Spiegel) in articles about the controversy. If Mr. Chase does not merit an article himself (and there are people with more interesting bios), it should at least be merged with the main page about the controversy and fitted with a redirect. However, as we all want to read about Mr. Chase's fate (is he getting back to work?) later, which will not be really a part of the controversy itself, the page should be kept. gbrandt 07:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Categorization of this article

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)

Wikipedia history

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)

You can add your opinion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer). Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union?

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)

Yes. Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong IP listed?

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 _talk^contribs 21:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• The edits were deleted. Deleted contributions aren't listed on contribs pages. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 21:53

The relevant portion of the history of deleted versions of John_Seigenthaler_Sr. is here:

 12:22, 6 December 2005 . . Brian0918 (moved John Seigenthaler Sr. to John Seigenthaler Sr./temp: copyediting)
 15:52, 29 May 2005 . . SNIyer12
 08:29, 26 May 2005 . . 65.81.97.208
 13:53, 15 September 2004 . . 65.170.144.130 

AxelBoldt 18:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why Delete

Isn't it a bit hypocritical and revisionist to remove this? The fact that it is even a question supports much of the Wikipedia criticisms. In any case, it's part of important Wiki History. Do not delete.

Wikipedia doesn't exist to record its own history, so the question is whether Brian Chase matters to enough people that an encyclopedia should have an article about him. You can have your say here. Canderson7 ^(talk) 22:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it should. Wikipedia is too big and important now for it to be able to not consider itself part of the informational milieu in 2005. Many sites mirror it or link to it, and when there's a problem with it, it ends up in (U.S.) national newspapers. Nothing Wikipedia now says can be considered distinct or separate from the things it proposes to document.4.239.99.164 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but we have to make sure that articles relating to Wikipedia meet the same notability standards as our other articles. Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And making national and local news doesn't fall under that category? --198.110.83.85 01:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Notability is not a deletion criterion. So no, that is not the question. --BRIAN0918 13:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason that newscasters at sporting events do not show footage of fans that disrupt the games. By calling attention to this hoaxer (even though he may not have entirely realised what he was doing.) it gives others incentive to do the same. APL 03:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The article currently claims that "The source of the hoax was uncovered by Daniel Brandt, who used an IP Locator to track down Mr. Chase". However, the article on Brandt suggests that he found Chase due to his company's website being at the IP address he edited Wikipedia from.

I don't know the details of the case so I'm not going to edit anything, but one of the articles is wrong, and I think it's more likely to be this one.

166.111.43.152 03:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That sentence was removed from the article over six hours ago. Are you sure you are looking at the most recent version? Canderson7 ^(talk) 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This person has been the center of attention of several articles from major newspaper publishers such as USA Today and New York Times. Chase also qualifies for inclusion under WP:BIO, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". There is no doubt that this person is now notorious for what has become a widely reported hoax. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this page should absolutely not be deleted. For one, once all the news surrounding this has died down, it is still valuable information. Oftentimes, events and details will be forgotten with the passage of time. By keeping this article, keeping it up-to-date, and retaining the information, we will end up with an article that has more detail. This man deserves to have a wikipedia entry. In fact, I can think of quite a few articles that should end up on the chopping block before this one. It's historical, it's pertinant to any future talk about Wikipedia, and just because it's about some controversy occuring now doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Ten years from now, do you think people will care about this? I think so. The actions of this man may have far reaching implications in the future. Keeping track of this is important. 160.36.121.50 21:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My response to the issues raised above

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 ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 09:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

If this page isn't anymore scheduled for deletion plaese remove the "Scheduled for deletion" tag. Thanks.

Yeah, don't delete it, there are much more frivolous articles around, about which deletion is not being discussed Yoink23 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Comment

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. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 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)

Proof that the new policy is wrong.

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) errr.. I did sign it!!! --156.34.85.70 08:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this page

I will go over a list of reasons why I believe that this page should not exist. As follows:

1. Brian Chase is a manager at some kind of delivery service. Distinctly non-notable and doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. It is an invasion of privacy to list such an article about someone like this.
7. 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.
8. 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)

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)

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)

Afd

Wow, the Afd is out of control. I say we ignore the Afd and merge this into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy where it belongs. Oh, it's already there. I've redirected. Friday (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW if someone disagrees strongly enough to revert, don't worry, I won't fight over it. It just seems clear to me that the Afd is unlikely to produce a useful result. Friday (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What hiding? His part in this mess is well documented in the article I redirected to. If someone is newsworthy as part of a larger event but not so much on their own, it's entirely proper for them to be mentioned as part of the event, rather than having their own article. Once people start making biographies of him and we have a wealth of sources about him, then maybe he ought to have his own article. Friday (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Couple things: 1) it's not a vote. 2) Yes, Wikipedia is meant to rely on reliable sources. We don't have to be last, but we cannot be first. Friday (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

(ec) Hmm, alright. So we wait until the Afd is closed as "no consensus" and THEN we redirect? Does anyone have objections to that? Friday (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the rush? When the Afd is closed we will all have some perspective on this. --JWSchmidt 15:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be arrogant at all. I was hoping to save some unfortunate soul the effort of wading through the Afd mess and skip right to the result that will eventually come anyway. But, JWSchmidt is probably right, there's no need to rush. It sure seems to me like a talk page is more likely to produce fruitful discussion (resulting, if we're lucky, in a "consensus") than a sock-infested Afd. I consider Afd a very poor indicator of consensus in cases like this, that's why I tried to skip over it and just go to straight to the result. Friday (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it shows incredible arrogance that after more than 150 people have either edited or commented on this topic, a new person comes in and unilaterally effectively deletes it by redirecting it to another subject and when that is undone then somebody else redirects and renames the subject. Neither of these two people had previously been involved in the discussion and they probably did not even bother to read what others had already written about these questions. Therefore, I am changing it back to the way it was this morning. Sam Sloan 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish you'd assume good faith. I really was just trying to save time and effort and go directly to the end result. I'm well aware of the ridiculously-large Afd, and I don't see that additional time will improve it. This guy is already covered in the main article, so to me the redirect was a no-brainer. I'll admit it was bold, but I don't see how it's arrogant. I explained my reasoning and didn't edit war, what more do you want? Friday (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The AfD not coming to a clear result means the article stays. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD is closed

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)

My Comments on this AfD

I did the counting and here was the criteria I used.

Removed anonymous votes, Unsigned votes both <s> and {{unsigned}} 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 ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 02:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Page move?

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)

• Any... alternate suggestions? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 01:33

  How about just plain "Wikipedian"? — PhilHibbs | talk 17:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Under the rules it is not supposed to be moved or redirected until the AFD is resolved. Therefore, the two people who moved it broke the rules. Therefore, it should be moved back to where it was.

I tried to move it back. The result was that Brian Chase (hoaxer) pointed to Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) and, at the same time, Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) pointed to Brian Chase (hoaxer). The result was a stalemate and nothing moved.

There are many possible alternate names, but with nearly 200 people so far participating in this, some sort of vote should be taken and nobody should take unilateral action. Sam Sloan 02:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• This isn't exactly true. A page can be moved during an AFD, provided that the AFD link is updated accordingly, so as not to disrupt the discussion. The article should not be blanked, redirected (because this blanks it), or the AFD notice removed. Other actions are permissible. However, I don't wish to move the page without some agreement as to where it should be moved. And unfortunately, I don't currently have any suggestions. I simply feel that labelling a person as a "hoaxer" for creating a false article on wikipedia under a flawed presumption is, well, somewhat slanderous and PoV. There has to be a middle ground. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Any... alternate suggestions? :) Subramanian ^talk 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

Merge?

(Yes, this is somewhat reduntant with the Afd, but I'm assuming we're headed straight toward "no consensus" there.) Since the only content in this article is about his involvement in the John Seigenthaler thing, how about merging this there? Sorry for redirecting previously without discussion; it seemed like the obviously right thing to do to me. To me, the question is, does this guy have "notability" (or verifiability, if you prefer) outside the Seigenthaler affair? It looks like the answer is no, so he should be mentioned in that article, as he already is, and he does not need his own article. Friday (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have tried and cannot figure out how to move the history. Visiters here need to know that there have been more than 120 edits and nearly as many comments, so that they will not repeat something that has already been suggested and rejected many times, as the poster above does again. Sam Sloan 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that it's been suggested and rejected. In fact, I see no discussion of merging at all, here on the talk page. That's why I posted the above. Am I looking in the wrong place? Friday (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this article should be separate because what Chase did makes him nottable,. His actions, judging by the papers, is far the biggest thing that has happened to wikipedia, and this makes him nottable. While I understand someone putting an Afd on the article over 100 people and the largets number of opeople wanted to keep this article, IO gueress confirming Chase's notability, SqueakBox 15:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What he did was cause the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. That's all we have on him. Unless he writes a famous opera or flies to the moon, that seems like all we'll ever have on him. So, I still don't see a reason for his own article. Friday (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the Brian Chase article that sets forth his newsworthiness and narrates his role as a "fifteen minute newsmaker," his impact on Wikipedia, and his potential to become a public figure. // NetEsq 11:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. So, the best argument we have so far is based on his potential to become a public figure. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so why don't we merge for now, and if/when he becomes a public figure and we have verifiable facts NOT related to the Seigenthaler thing, he gets split off into his own article again? This is the way things are normally done, and it generally works just fine. Keep in mind, this is Wikipedia, not Wikinews, and people who are players in a newsworthy event don't automatically need their own articles independant of that event. Friday (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What has changed? I still oppose merging, as do others, SqueakBox 16:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not much has changed. The merge is still IMO the completely obviously right thing to do. However, I'm glad to have, for the first time, an argument for not merging that is NOT related to the Afd. This argument runs contrary to WP:NOT, though. But at least it's not the same invalid "the Afd permanently prevents normal article editing" argument. Friday (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

<< So, the best argument we have so far is based on his potential to become a public figure. >>

At best, that is a gross oversimplification of my argument*S* (plural). Moreover, the paragraph of unique content that I added to the Brian Chase article was deleted by SpinyNorman who dismissed it as "nothing but editorial comment," reminding me of why I limit my contributions to Wikipedia, prefering to publish my content on other venues where I have more editorial control and a vested interest in quality control. In other words, as misguided as they are, those who are persistent enough in urging a merge will eventually get their way, even as their arguments turn to straw and become less and less meritorious. // NetEsq 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is completely redundant. Let's merge! Kaldari 22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Privacy

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)

Vandalism

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)

I disagree. At this point, we are not allowed to read what Brian Chase actually wrote. Also, it seems that Seigenthaler really did know Robert Kennedy and probably John F. Kennedy personally. Thus, it is possible that Brian Chase had some basis for believing whatever it was that he wrote. Until we are allowed to see what he actually wrote, suggestions that this was a hoax, a prank or even vandalism are just speculations. Sam Sloan 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

The irony of it all. Now that Brian Chase has an article about himself, he (the Brian Chase article) is vulnerable to vandalism. GoodDay 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Alright, I stand corrected. His biography-article is (ironically), vulnerable to editoral abuse. GoodDay 22:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

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)

So I'm going to redirect this (again). There was no "consensus to keep", there was merely no consensus to delete, and I'm not deleting anything. A merge is a form of keep. Having an article that just restates the contents of another article is stupid and counterproductive. Find me a single fact that's in this article that's not at the Seigenthaler controversy page (and if you can then add it to that article, don't revert this one). -R. fiend 14:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The consensus was to keep. Apparently you don't like consensus. Why not learn to live with it, SqueakBox 15:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"The consensus was to keep." Bullshit. I urge you to look up what a consensus is. Less than half the votes were to keep (many of them invalid, by the way). If 50% is a consensus then we're going to start seeing a lot more AFDs closed with consensus to delete. To quote the closer: "this does not provide an overwhelming keep vs. merge consensus." In any case, it doesn't take an AFD to merge an article. They can be done at any time, and should be done with any article that is 100% redundant. The people who voted to keep got their way. The information is kept at John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, where it belongs. So quit whining. -R. fiend 15:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The information is not at the now protected Siegenthal article, Stop attacking me as personal attacks will not help your argumment, more they will hinder it, I DON'T WHINGE!!!!!SqueakBox 15:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap, that must be the longest AFD in history. Anyway my two cents is that there is no clear consensus either way. I'd be inclined to keep by default for now, and maybe revisit this in a couple of months when things have died down and we gain some perspective with another AFD. After all the information should remain either way. the wub "?!" 15:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should at least wait until the Siegenthal article is unprotected, SqueakBox 15:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A redirect is the right thing to do here in my opinion. It's not going against consensus to make an edit to an article after it's been Afd'd. No one has given a reason why not to merge it in the couple days that the suggestion has been on the talk page. I don't see how making the redirect is "against consensus" at all. Friday (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect is a sneaky way of deleting, sneaky in this case where an Afd was rejected and apparently thosewho wanted it got rid of are refusing to accept consensus and are now using this back door method, SqueakBox 15:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"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)

Why are people talking about the Afd instead of talking about the article?!?!? The Afd was pointless, and it've over now. Can we get back to making an encyclopedia? No one has addressed the points about why this shouldn't have its own article. He's a player in a larger controversy, and that's all we know about him. Merging helps keep things where they best belong and provides context. Friday (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Afd was not pointless. That is your interpretation. The consensus was to keep, which means people want the article. Editors who hate consemsus when it means they don't get their way should learn to accept no getting their way. This brings the whole Afd process into disrepute, SqueakBox 15:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 15:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Please be civil. This kind of comment is really uncalled-for. Friday (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It is true that posters here should be civil, but you have repeatedly redirected this article after being told by several different editors not to do that, so it is understandable that you have made people angry and annoyed. Sam Sloan 16:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

You are wrong, as usual. Many users have given good reasons why the two articles should not be merged or redirected. Have you even bothered to read the lengthy discussions about this? Here is one especially good example from a user in Germany.

This page is linked from outside, for example from one of the biggest German news magazines (Der Spiegel) in articles about the controversy. If Mr. Chase does not merit an article himself (and there are people with more interesting bios), it should at least be merged with the main page about the controversy and fitted with a redirect. However, as we all want to read about Mr. Chase's fate (is he getting back to work?) later, which will not be really a part of the controversy itself, the page should be kept. gbrandt 07:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam Sloan 16:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Brian Chase is the subject of a front page article in the New York Times, plus articles in Der Spiegel, BBC News and many other major media around the world. Thus, he has become a public figure, a media personality. This affair may be embasassing to Wikipedia and you may want to hide or bury it, but there can be no doubt that it meets all the criterea for inclusion here. Sam Sloan 17:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Well wait a week and put another Afd on it, expressing your reasons. I don't think this article should be repeated at Siegenthal, and when it is unlocked I will edit that article to make sure there is no duplication. It seems to me the real problem at the moment is that that article is locked, and hopefully will be unlocked soon. A lot of people have argued to keep the article, more than argued for any other position on the Afd, and we need to respect that, SqueakBox 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

And in principle I agree with you, but it seems to me that this is a case where a separate article is justified because I do believe he is nottable enough, and that the community consensus backs this. It is certainly possible to Afd an article asking for it to be redirected. i did this to an article the other day, not because I couldn't have done the rediurect myself but because I thought the input of other editors would be valuable in deciding whether or not the article should be an article of its own in the mainspace or not, so I would say you could do an Afd asking for it top be made into a redirect, SqueakBox 17:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Well that has never been my experience of Afd, indeed in my exoperience Afding for a redirect is entirely legitimate. A merge request is fine. My argument is that he is nottable enough to have an article given the enormous impact his actions have had on wikipedia. certainly in the UK they have given wikipedia a publicity impetus which wikipedia has never had before, and it is a genuine story. There is the issue of whether he is going to lose his job, as I heard he resigned in embarrassment, and I am sure we can improve the article rather than redirecting it, SqueakBox 18:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in here as well. I feel that the article should be merged with the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Actually, it's already all but duplicated there anyway. The subject of this article isn't inherently notable; vandalizing a wikipedia article does not make a person notable. I do grant may be worthwhile to leave the article for now and make a decision in a few weeks, after the press dies down a bit. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Was the Statement by Brian Chase true?

Here is part of what Brian Chase wrote:

"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."

Now, it is a fact that John Seigenthaler Sr. was the Assistant Attorney General under President John F. Kennedy. It is also a fact that just about everybody of significance in the entire world has been at one time or another accused of involvement in the Kennedy Assassination. Therefore, it might be true that somebody, somewhere said that John Seigenthaler Sr. was involved. Brian Chase covers himself by stating "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved". I suspect that he can provide some source, however unreliable, for this assertion.

Next, John Seigenthaler Sr. says that although this had been posted for four months, he did not know about it. I doubt that this is true. Pop the name John Seigenthaler Sr. into any search engine, and the Wikipedia biography will come out on top. So, he probably did know about it.

Thirdly, rather than simply delete the false statements in the article, as he easily could have done, he wrote to the founder of Wikipedia demanding that the entire article be deleted. Since John Seigenthaler Sr. clearly is a public figure, this demand was refused for a time, and properly so.

Finally, John Seigenthaler Sr. chose to write an article about it in USA today. So, it is clear that he chose to publicize the incident rather than quitely remove it. I know that I had never heard of John Seigenthaler Sr. prior to this incident and I doubt that many other readers had. He has become famous or at least more famous, because of this controversy.

I think that this raises questions which ought to be addressed. Sam Sloan 18:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

<< John Seigenthaler Sr. chose to write an article about [the vandalism of his Wikipedia article] in USA today. So, it is clear that he chose to publicize the incident rather than quitely remove it. I know that I had never heard of John Seigenthaler Sr. prior to this incident and I doubt that many other readers had. He has become famous or at least more famous, because of this controversy. >>

I, too, question Seigenthaler's choice to publicize the vandalism of his Wikipedia article rather than simply quietly see to its removal through the powers that be. Clearly, he had something to prove about how wicked-da-pedia is. However, that issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the article about Brian Chase, who -- incidentally, would properly be described by an article entitled "Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster)." Should not the discussion about Seigenthaler's self-aggrandizing publicity be moved to the Talk page of one of the Seigenthaler articles? // NetEsq 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I can say with certainty that it is true that *SOMEONE* once thought that he was involved. As you say, everyone involved with JFK was at one point suspected. There were hundreds if not thousands of people who were suspected.

The only libellous thing was saying that Seigenthaler was born in the Soviet Union. That is untrue. However, suggesting that that could hurt his reputation at all is silly. Its factually inaccurate, but it doesn't hurt him.

If I put in to someone's article "He was once briefly thought to be gay" then its not libellous. Its the same kind of thing. Practically everyone at some point has been accused of being gay. It is probably non-notable and not appropriate for the article, but its not libellous. There's a difference. You could add to Arnold Schwarzenegger's article that "Scwarzenegger was once briefly thought to be gay" and he couldn't sue you for it. But it'd still be vandalism though. Big deal. Petty vandalism. That's it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

A better name for this article

I think the most appropriate name for the Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) article would be Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster). He doesn't qualify as a hoaxster, nor does he really qualify as a vandal, as he purportedly assumed that Wikipedia was a "joke sight" and consequently attempted to use Wikipedia to perpetrate a private prank. // NetEsq 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like thaty at all. Do we call the many vandals here pranksters? No. Wikipedia says we should use the common name, so I would like to see it called Brian Chase (Wikipedia vandal) as vandal is clearly the common term, and as it is very important to be neutral in this self-referencing article, we should gop for it and do so, SqueakBox 19:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Support renaming this article to Brian Chase (Wikipedia vandal). Hall Monitor 21:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not just have Brian Chase (delivery guy)? That's what he actually does. His occupation isn't to disrupt Wikipedia. He did it once for 2 minutes. So what if he's famous for 2 minutes worth of work? Its not his occupation. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Because he's not notable for being a delivery guy, he's notable for being a hoaxer. --RayaruB 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

<< Why not just have Brian Chase (delivery guy)? That's what he actually does. >>

Not anymore, it isn't. So why not have Brian Chase (former delivery guy come fifteen minute newsmaker who lost his job because of a prank perpetrated via Wikipedia)? // NetEsq 21:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many possible names, several of which might be better. However, I feel that now that more than 150 registeed users have edited this page, plus thousands have obviously read it, plus it has been mentioned in the International news, including Der Speigel and BBC News, that it is too late to consider any name changes.

Sam Sloan 14:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't agree, Sam. Wikipedia rules state we are allowed to change the name, and if the BBC etc want to comment on that, no problem, SqueakBox 15:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Being a wiki, nothing is ever set in stone. Since people obviously want to keep this article (the notability reasonign is beyond me), it should at least follow naming conventions and other policy here. If not merged, it should be located at Brian Chase (vandal). WP is not self-referential. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, certainly oppose just "vandal". That's very misleading, and far from neutral. If I saw that I'd expect the article to be about a guy who trashed cars or something, not wrote a joke article which some users (for some reason) have actually defended as being mostly true. Self-reference is not a problem in this occurance; anyone who says it is is misinterpreting the guidelines. Wikipedia can be mentioned in wikipedia. If not Jimbo's article would be a very strange read, as it tried to dance around what he's famous for, without mentioning it. I imagine if there was another famous Jimmy Wales with an article his would be called "Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia founder)" without any problem. It's not like the article says "Why don't you check out a few other articles we have here at the Wikipedia?" which is the sort of self-reference we want to avoid. We needn't start mentioning "The-online-encyclopedia-who-must-not-be-named". -R. fiend 23:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What Lord Voldemort said about nothing on wikis being set in stone, but I still prefer the title Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster), or (if you wish to avoid a self-reference to Wikipedia) Brian Chase (wiki prankster). // NetEsq 21:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Brian Chase (internet vandal)? SqueakBox 17:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that was better than the current title, too. Support move. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As Squeakbox says, "it is very important to be neutral". "Vandal" does not strike me as terribly neutral. I'm not really sure what's wrong with the current title. -R. fiend 18:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

First, what he put really wasn't a "hoax", so to call him a hoaxer is wrong. Second, Wikipedia is not self-referential, so having "Wikipedia" in the title is probably not good either. I don't think vandal is POV, I think it is factual. Someone who vandalises is a vandal. There is no POV in stating facts. What about Brian Chase (guy who puts misinformation on Internet sites)? I think calling him an Internet vandal is perfectly NPOV. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the guy admitted he did it as a joke, so I think calling it a hoax is pretty accurate. And self-reference is not a problem if the article is about wikipedia; we do have a Wikipedia article, need I remind you, and the main article (which this one should redirect to, in my view) is called John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy (there's that W-word again). I see no problem with the title as is (and if it's redirected, it's even less of an issue). -R. fiend 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree it should be redirected somewhere, but it isn't really a "hoax". Maybe it should be Brian Chase (Internet jokester)? Then again, I'm not exactly sure these people understand the concept of notability. Oh well, I'm done with this article for awhile. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The current article title, Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer), is just fine in my opinion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Settling the merge issue

Since AFD is not for settling merge issues, bringing the issue there is stupid. As the vote on deletion resulted in no consensus, the article was obviously not deleted. The merge issue is unsettled, despite claims by a few editors (some with a couple weeks worth of contributions) that there was some sort of consensus that the article not be merged. So let's just have a vote here. Majority rules. This is NOT about deletion, so people, please leave all spurious arguments about deletion, AFD, etc at home. (I'm sorry it's come to this.)

Arguments Pro/Con

(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:

1. Figure is notable enough to warrant an article.
2. 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)

   Disagree. If you are a merger please stick to your side of the argument, SqueakBox 17:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

3. If this article overlaps in Seigenthaler the content should be removed from that article.
4. Redirecting to the article about Seigenthaler controversy will cause information specifically about Brian Chase to be lost in a sea of information.
5. Chase may become significant outside the Seigenthaler affair.
6. This entire notable event was precipitated by one person, the subject of this article. Precedents: separate articles for W. Mark Felt and Deep Throat (Watergate); Ernesto Miranda and Miranda rights, etc.
7. Categories such as Category:1967 births, Category:People from Tennessee, and Category:Hoaxes would be lost.

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)

Votes

Merge/redirect (merging has been done)

1. R. fiend 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
2. GoodDay 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Of course. The only verifiable info we have on Chase relates to the Seigenthaler thing. I don't get how this was ever controversial. Friday (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Obviously. Chase has done nothing notable that is not part of the controversy. The AfD merely prohibits deletion of the information and does not prohibit merging. Gamaliel 18:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Agree per Gamaliel and Friday. Create a redirect to Seigenthaler controversy. --Fang Aili 22:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Agree. How anyone could think this person merits an article of his own, beyond the article about the hoax he precipitated, is beyond me. --Srleffler 14:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
8. I have never seen a more obvious candidate for merging. Kaldari 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep as a separate article

1. SqueakBox 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Jokestress 17:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Hall Monitor 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
4. SpinyNorman 01:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC) - the idea that Chase "has done nothing notable" or "is not part of the controversy" is demonstrably untrue.

   Who is assering that? By advocating a merge, we are saying that he clearly is part of the controversy. Gamaliel 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

5. Keep. The editors already reached a conclusion at AfD. This poll is an attempt to game the system. Durova 22:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

   This is no attempt to game the system, this is an attempt to build an encyclopedia using common sense. Some of us feel that the Afd is not relevant to the question of merging. Even if it is, the Afd didn't produce good consensus, but "merge" did get more votes than any other option. So, to interpret the Afd as preventing a merge is utterly baffling to some of us. Can you explain why an Afd in general, or this Afd in particular, would prevent a merge from being done after the Afd is over? Friday (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

   Please note it is Friday's opinion that merge got the most votes on the Afd, it is not a statement of fact, SqueakBox 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

   Um, no, it's a fact. I suppose it's his opinion that 83 is a greater number than 79? You seem to have an interesting definition of "opinion". In any case the AfD question is settled. The information is not being deleted (though I suppose that's another "opinion"; maybe a merge/redirect is the same thing as deletion. Perhaps it's just your "opinion" that Brian Chase exists at all). -R. fiend 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

   R. fiend: Perhaps it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but other Wikipedians have rebuked you for your rather contentious personal style on your User Talk Page, so I think it's safe to say that said other Wikipedians would object to your snide parenthetical comment to Squeakbox that "Perhaps it's just your 'opinion' that Brian Chase exists at all." As set forth in my comment below, which you pre-empted with your comment, I agree with Squeakbox. To wit, the data Friday used to reach his/her opinion was heavily filtered and is now stale. Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that said heavily filtered and stale data was wholly correct, it would be Friday's opinion (and apparently yours as well) that the portent of that data was a plurality in favor of a merge. The only way to know for sure is to get a new vote with the same participants stating their current preferences, but (as I set forth below) said participants probably consider the issue resolved. To that end, it is incumbent on those (such as yourself) who wish to disturb the status quo by appealing to a questionable interpretration of stale data to hunt down said participants and have them set forth their current preferences rather than putting words in their mouth. // NetEsq 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

   So the only way to know what the result of the first vote was is to have a second vote on that vote? I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. If they voted merge, as many did, that's their words, not mine. No one said "most wikipedians want this merged"; Friday and I both merely said that, at the last vote, more legit users voted to merge than any other choice. That is a fact (you could argue about what a legit voter is, but it certainly never includes anons and people who create accounts for the sole purpose of voting on an AfD; do your own count if you you question this one). Nor does one need a vote or a consensus to merge, any more than one needs a vote or a consensus not to merge. The "status quo" is superfluous. The status quo was disturbed by the creation of the article in the first place. I honestly am not overly concerned with the AfD vote; I just find it odd that those who said "well more people voted to keep than to merge so we have to keep as a separate article" suddenly are backpedalling when it is revealed that more people voted to merge than keep. Suddenly it's "oh, that old vote? That doesn't matter." You're right, exactly how people voted at AfD is not the issue; it's the people who want a separate article who made it one. In any case, we are having a second vote here; there is no need to try to get everyone who voted the first time involved, nor should we try to. I said we'd have a vote, majority would decide, and no one objected; those that voted gave their tacit approval, implying they would honor the result. Squeakbox said it should go for a week. At the end of a week (yesterday) the vote was tied. Rather than do sudden death and claim victory for the mergers (who are now ahead by one), I think we should extend this another week. The fact that a very partisan summary of the situation was posted for a week at RfC could be made an issue of, but I'm not going to make a stink about it. -R. fiend 20:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

   << I said we'd have a vote, majority would decide, and no one objected; those that voted gave their tacit approval, implying they would honor the result. >>

   Sorry, but that's not how it works. Voting is evil, and -- whether or not I am in the majority -- I have a standing objection to the majority imposing its will upon the minority. Rather, if we are unable to reach a consensus, then there are a whole host of dispute resolution procedures that can -- and should -- be invoked. // NetEsq 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

   What Squeakbox said. If this were an actual election, the best that the pro-mergers could claim in re the AfD would be the need for a runoff vote. Meanwhile, absent notice to the contrary, each and every one of the people who voted "keep" in the AfD could reasonably assume that the issue of keep vs. delete had been resolved. // NetEsq 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

6. Keep. What Durova said. And while the length of one's tenure at Wikipedia is irrelevant to one's standing as a Wikipedian, I have been editing at Wikipedia for appreciably more than two weeks. // NetEsq 07:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

   Interesting. Those look like votes to merge to me, as that was the plurality vote at AfD (see below). -R. fiend 13:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

   As set forth above, the best that the pro-mergers could claim in re the AfD would be the need for a runoff vote, and the best that they might be able claim now is a simple majority that was achieved after most people who were involved in the initial vote considered the issue resolved. No matter how one might choose to define a consensus, that's as far as one can get from a consensus short of a complete Balkanization of opinions. // NetEsq 18:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

   Oddly enough, I went back to review the comments accompanying the AfD, and I noticed that my original vote was "Strongly Undecided." As I am no longer "undecided, " I guess that means that the purported plurality alluded to by Friday and R. fiend can now be changed to 83 for merge and 80 for keep. And with no less than 2 more converts from the "merge or keep" camp, the purported plurality to merge would no longer exist. // NetEsq 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

7. Keep seperate. Don't think anyone is going to get consensus for a merge, nor is space a problem. Dan100 (Talk) 16:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Meh. Don't get me started.--TVPR 17:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
9. For the reasons given above, I would prefer to see this article kept seperate. The outcome of this straw poll is likely to be split down the middle, given that the recent AFD result was keep 79, delete 31, and merge 83. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
10. This individual is notable and gets over 104,000 hits on Google. Fromoutthere 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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)

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)

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)

First I have had that the idea that "redirection is a form of deletion" is insane. Is that policy or opinion? SqueakBox 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Please leave other people's comments intact. This is a talkm page and other than personal attacks nobody has the right to interfere with the comments of another. I would prefer to see the mergers stick to their own arguments and not try to contribute to the separate article reasons, SqueakBox 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Well, FWIW, the "future significance" argument WAS given by someone else on this very talk page. Maybe it should be reworded more neutrally instead of removed altogether? Also, can anyone explain why a past Afd is meant to bind our hands on how to edit the article afterward? Friday (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments on the "arguments for merging". #1 is a strawman. The redundancy exists only because those who argue for a merge have created it. This issue could easily be resolved by removing the redundant information from the Seigenthaler article. Argument #2 is redundant to #1. #3 is factually incorrect. Seigenthaler may have started to controversy, but Chase was the one who committed the act that led to the controversy. Ergo, that is actually an argument in favor of a separate argument, not against it. The only question of any relevance is whether or not Chase is sufficiently notable to warrant an article and there is no question about that. The fact that he's mentioned in the Seigenthaler article is evidence that he's notable. Oh, and the most important issue of all is that this has already been decided. This latest to-do is just a bunch of people who didn't like the way the last vote came out looking for another bite at the apple. --SpinyNorman 01:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and to the person(s) who keep claiming that there was no consensus against the merge... I direct you to the above section entitled "AFD is closed". The final vote tally was Keep: 146, Delete: 46, Merge: 124. That seems, to me at least, to indicate a clear consensus that the article is to be kept and not deleted or merged. --SpinyNorman 01:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Because Wikipedia does not run on simple majority votes. Wikipedia works on "consensus". --Srleffler 14:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There are very experienced editors on both sides of this debate. Having admin powers gives zero extra weight to someone's argument as admins are prohibited from using their admin power on this page when they participate in it as regular editors, so to characteirse this debate as experienced admins against newbies or anything remotely like that is simply false, and I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve in doing so, SqueakBox 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

SpinyNorman, based on what you're saying, it doesn't look to me like you're understanding the issue here. Nobody is trying to remove information about Chase. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about how to organize the encyclopedia. This guy is a player in the controversy. The only information we have on him relates to the controversy and is already covered in that article. His info is only relevant in the context of the controversy. If he records a hit record next year, he'll need his own article then, but let's wait and see if that actually happens, alright? Also, nobody is talking about "overruling a vote". The Afd is over and done with; it's not relevant to the question of whether to merge. Friday (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Though I supported having the "Brian Chase" article merged with the Seigenthaler controversy article, the fact that it isn't is no problem to me. However, I think I know how all these prolonged discussions could have been avoided. When the AFD was held, it should have had 2 questions, 1)Delete the article or, 2)Save the article. If the majority was Save the article then a second Vote should have been taken on weither or not to merge, 1) merge article with Seigenthaler controversy article or, 2)leave article stand alone. The questions in each Vote should have been clear cut YES or NO, (Black or White, no grey areas). Just my observations. GoodDay 18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

There has been a request for informal mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/29_12_2005_Brian_Chase --Fasten 20:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• The voting does not appear to have reached a WP:Consensus with a significant majority.
• WP:BIO states "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy ^[1] events" do qualify for a Wikipedia biography and "There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, but there is no intention to delete them all."
• Merging the article is very nearly the same as deleting it as it is highly redundant with the John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy.

• Exactly why it should be merged, and why merging it is not deletion. -R. fiend 17:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

^[1] Apparently the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy has been newsworthy.

I propose to leave the article the way it is, at least for the time being.

Should this be considered unacceptable by some editors I propose we gather the number of editors who deem a further voting necessary and set an arbitrary threshold of 1/4 of the participants of the AfD (79) as the number of votes required to start a further voting process.

Well, this whole thing seems a bit dumb to me, but in any case, 1/4 of the legit participants is more like 55 than 79 (less really). Besides, isn't there something a bit odd about voting to see whether we should have a vote? -R. fiend 17:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is much easier to see if a fixed threshold of supporters is reached than to initiate a vote, especially when some critics may hold the opinion that the vote is not justified ^[1] after the AfD. I admit it's convenient. As the threshold is arbitrary anyway let's settle for 50 votes. --Fasten 17:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

^[1] It could be seen as an attempt to vote until the desired result is reached.

A list for signing is available on the page of the mediation case: Do you request another vote?

Should another vote be considered necessary I propose that possible choices, requirements for the validity of a vote and the required majority should be determined before the voting process is started.

AfD results

As everyone seems to love to point to the results of the AFD to justify the retention of a separate article, I just spent nearly 2 hours going over said vote, and realized it was tallied rather sloppily (not that I blame the closer, who wants to spend 2 hours on a single vote?). I checked the edit history of nearly everyone who voted, and read what they actually said, not just the section under which their votes were placed. I discounted all anons, users with fewer to 50 edits anywhere in wikipedia, and any user who had no edit history before Dec 11 (the date the article was created and nominated), which removed many votes on all sides (and keep in mind this is still pretty inclusionary; many admins require months of contributions, and a more substantial history). I got the following results:

• Keep: 79
• Delete: 31
• Merge: 83
• Keep or merge: 20
• Delete or merge: 8

That's a plurality for merging, a sizeable majority if the "keep or merges" and "delete or merges" are included as merges. 36% voted that there should be an article at Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer), and there should be no redirect. Far from a majority, even further from a consensus. -R. fiend 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. It sure looks like merging had considerable support. It's also got support here on the talk page, of course. I'd be inclined to apply the redirect right now if I hadn't already been reverted a few times on that. As soon as folks are willing to say they won't revert it, I think the redirect should be put back in place. Friday (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, 1) its my fault if the number count was "improper" (why I tend to avoid closing AFDs) 2) with an AFD this contested, I feel we should basically lock this article... and put up an RFC on the subject of merging. We should should probably also limit that RFC to users with more than 50 edits. I think this should be relisted come January 1, 2006. Start the vote off fresh in a new year. But thats just my opinion....  ALKIVAR™ 02:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair and reasonable idea to me. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fair and reasonable to me, too. Jokestress 03:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The AfD is not contested. You quite properly closed it with no consensus to delete. No sane person would have done otherwise. The controversy as it exists at Articles for Deletion is settled. It was not deleted. That is not the issue. If anyone wants to do an RfC, that's fine with me, I just didn't want to go through the bother; a vote here should be sufficient. I really don't want to rehash a similar debacle that we saw at the AfD, with anons and socks descending on the issue like vultures. Here, so far, we have not had that problem. The problem is we have some admins who insist that keep and merge votes are identical, while some users seem to believe that a merge is equivalent to a delete. -R. fiend 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that some editors in this debate are admins and others aren't clearly has zero importance to this debate as the admin functions have nothing to do with one's ability or judgement, and nor do the functions enhance the judgement or editorial capacity of the editors here who happen to be admins, but who are disbarred from using those extra admin functions in this article by having contributed as editors. I suggest we give the debate here a week and if there is no clear consensus (as right now) we take it to Rfc, SqueakBox 14:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should give the vote a week, SqueakBox 20:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

These votes are not decided by majority rule. If every page were kept or deleted by majority rule, then there would be almost no pages left on Wikipedia. Right now, by your count, 79 people voted to keep this page. That is an exceptional number by any computation. Therefore, the page should be kept, even if there were hundreds who voted to delete it. Sam Sloan 01:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it should not be deleted. Fortunately, no one is proposing to delete the article or lose any information at all. Friday (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That is debatable, ie I don't agree for one that that is the case, SqueakBox 02:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Then debate away. Supply a single iota of evidence to back up your case. If information is being deleted, then identify that information. If not, please stop making such statements. -R. fiend 06:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well wanting to redirect the article is deletion as I have already argued satisfactorily, SqueakBox 14:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No! You haven't! Stating the same few words over and over again is not an argument at all, much less a satisfactory one. How is it deletion if no information is removed, and no articles are deleted? What exactly, specifically, is being deleted? If it is deletion, then something must be deleted. What is deleted when a redirect is made? I don't know how I can ask this question in any more simple terms. -R. fiend 14:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Right now if I (as an uninterested party) want info on Brian Chase and type it into wikipedia I get this article. Nice, clean, straightforward. If it was a redirect I would get a Seigenthaler article which |I wopuld have to wade through to then find the info on Chase. In that sense I think there are too many redirects, and really should start changing any inappropriate ones I find (what links to Internet slang would be a good place to start. Besides he is notable enought o have a separate article distinct from Seigenthaler. Ultimately that is my editorial judgement based on my thoughts about wikipedia, and I clearly have editors who agree with me, and editors who don't. I think to claim I and others who argue for a separate article have not givenm arguments as sound as those given by the redirect camp is simply not true so don't expect any more arguments unless some new people turn up who might have something new to say. i have said wehat I have said and that is my argument. I am waiting to see how many more people agree with me and how many don't. That is the stage of play right now, SqueakBox 14:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I get that (I don't agree with it, but I get it), but that is about organization, and has nothing to do with deletion. They are two different things. -R. fiend 15:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the RFC idea, it wouldn't hurt to get more opinions, but I'm not sure it's neccessary either. There's growing consensus for the merge already. I'm beginning to think there would never have been opposition to the merge if it hadn't been for the Afd. Afd's are bad enough in and of themselves. When they start preventing normal editing after they're over, something is seriously wrong. Friday (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

<< There's growing consensus for the merge already. >>

Actually, the "growing consensus" is more aptly described as shrinking patience on the part of those Wikipedians who have already expressed their opinions on the matter clearly and succinctly. To wit, there was and is a distinct and insular group of noteworthy Wikipedians who favor keeping the Brian Chase article as a separate article rather than redirecting it to another article where the content about Brian Chase will be lost in a sea of information. By virtue of his involvement in the Wikipedia edit read round the world, Chase became a fifteen minute newsmaker and subsequent events have made him a limited public figure as noteworthy as Rosa Parks or Norma McCorvey (better known by her pseudonym Jane Roe). As evidenced by this very discussion, Chase has had a profound impact on Wikipedia and become the center of an ongoing controversy involving the issue of what qualifies private persons as public figures. // NetEsq 16:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

"As noteworthy as Rosa Parks"???? Are you completely insane? And where is this controversy about "private persons" and " public figures" that Chase is such an integral part of? I hope you're not using this discussion as an example. Now for those who say "this has been decided at AfD", well fine. 36% of AfD voters voted "keep", I guess we can dismiss that outcome now. -R. fiend 18:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

<< Are you completely insane ? >

For expecting rational discourse from you, perhaps I am. Nonetheless, as insane as it may seem, I will direct your attention to the well-established Wikipedia policies that prohibit hyperbolic exhortations such as yours. To wit, at No personal attacks, you will find clear instructions on how to comment on content rather than a contributor. Ironically enough, I (personally) consider this policy to be very misguided, as I am well known on several other venues for having a poison pen, and this policy prohibits me from responding to your personal attack the way that I might otherwise be able to do.

<< [W]here is this controversy about "private persons" and " public figures" that Chase is such an integral part of? >>

Given the tenor of the present exchange, I will respectfully decline to throw pearls before swine. Suffice it to say that any fool who is following the ongoing media and blog/blawg coverage of Wikipedia -- certainly a contentious Wikipedian who dismisses opposing views with questions about the sanity of other contributors -- should be able to find extensive discussion about Brian Chase in the media and in the blogosphere/blawgosphere. On this note, I am presently compiling a commentary on said stories for publication on another venue where I have a vested interested in quality control and editorial content.

Wikipedia's coverage of legal topics is particularly scant, and its coverage of defamation law is no exception. To wit, the only coverage that Wikipedia currently has regarding what qualifies a private person as a limited public figure is the larger article regarding public figures, which directs people to the article about Terry Rakolta as its only example. Given that Daniel Brandt, et al. consider themselves private persons who have had their privacy violated by Wikipedia, coverage of limited public figures who are at the center of Wikipedia controversies should be expanded rather than hidden in articles about public figures such as John Seigenthaler Sr. // NetEsq 20:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh get off the high horse. Anyone who thinks Chase is as notable as Rosa Parks is either insane or downright stupid. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. If that's a problem maybe next time I won't. I'm sure if Chase dies at the age of 92 he'll lie at the Capitol rotunda before burial. All he did was post a hoax, just as thousands of people do every day, only his became notable, and is thus covered under the controversy. If his identity were never discovered his influence would have been exactly the same. Would we then have an article for IP address 65.81.97.208? According to some arguments, I guess we would. And your response to my inquiry about this discussion about what constitutes a public figure addressed nothing at all. First you say some blogs are talking about Chase (I'm sure they are. Fantastic. Though I bet not one is talking about him outside of his role in the controversy), then you say Wikipedia doesn't have adequate coverage on the subject of limited public figures. All I see there is a non-sequitor. I'm not going to go on a google hunt trying to find some guys posting in a message board arguing about whether Chase is a "public figure", a "limited public figure", or a "private person". If there's some great debate thats noteworthy outside of a chatroom, point it out. -R. fiend 21:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that Rosa Parks is an excellent example. Rosa Parks did absolutely nothing to become famous. All she did was not move to the back of the bus. Many Blacks, before and since, have done the same thing. None of them became famous. Nobody has ever heard of them today. It was just a fantastic historical accident that Rosa Parks became famous for not moving.

Brian Chase at least did something. He posted a hoax on Wikipedia and then he admitted it and apologized. It may not have been much, but at least it was something. Sam Sloan 01:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat, leading to a bus boycott that was one of the most substantial elements of the Civil Rights movement, changing, if not the world, then at least the US, is on par with a guy who wrote something as a joke, and, as a result, made Wikipedia a little more willing to make people take 3 seconds to register before beginnig a new article? And those two things are supposed to be equivalent? Nevermind that Rosa Parks is a recognizable name to the vast majority of semi-eduacted Americans (I bet, taking a random sample of 100 Americans, not one would identify this Brian Chase), this comparison is ludicrous. Maybe I should write an article on Mike Richard, because his trolling led to major changes at www.stiffs.com. Really changed the world, he did. -R. fiend 01:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

<< So Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat, leading to a bus boycott that was one of the most substantial elements of the Civil Rights movement, changing, if not the world, then at least the US, is on par with a guy who wrote something as a joke, and, as a result, made Wikipedia a little more willing to make people take 3 seconds to register before beginnig[sic] a new article? >>

That just about covers it. // NetEsq 03:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

<< Nevermind that Rosa Parks is a recognizable name to the vast majority of semi-eduacted[sic] Americans (I bet, taking a random sample of 100 Americans, not one would identify this Brian Chase), this comparison is ludicrous. >>

Strangely enough, I was riding a bus in Austin, Texas on the 50th Anniversary of Rosa Parks Day (December 1st, 2005) when a woman of color riding on that same bus saw an announcement of that fact and asked, "Who's Rosa Parks?" Other than me, only the bus driver seemed to have any real knowledge of Rosa Parks' claim to fame, much less the facts of her life beyond that particular claim to fame. And yet, virtually every educated person I know (i.e., ranging from "some college" to advanced college degrees) has clipped newspaper articles about Brian Chase and shared them with me during the last month. All of these educated people have asked me for more information about Brian Chase, and I have directed them to this Wikipedia article, only to find that this article has yet to be fleshed out and that a handful of pompous Johnny-come-lately Wikipedians who just achieved administrator status about three months ago are waging a misguided campaign to see this article eliminated as a separate entry in Wikipedia. // NetEsq 03:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I said "semi-educated" people. Not Texans. Of all the educated people I know (from college grads to PhDs) not a single shit was given about Brian Chase. If all these "educated people" you know are so obsessed with Chase (which, if true, is kind of eerie), why don't you flesh out the article with all the pertinent information that's lacking. His favorite flavor of jelly, perhaps? -R. fiend 08:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

<< I said "semi-educated" people. Not Texans. >>

Well, I suppose if I was a Texan or if I was talking exclusively about Texans when I referred to educated people, them 'ed be fighting words. However, I am a native of Los Angeles, both of my parents are Yankees, and my anecdote about Rosa Parks Day was only a passing reference to Texas, where I happened to be passing through on December 1st, 2005. To wit, Austin, Texas, a liberal college town which is the capital of Texas with a population made up largely of carpetbaggers who come there to get educated at the University of Texas at Austin (with an overall U.S. News and World Report ranking of 52 out of 120 for national universities). In fact, I was in Austin on the eve of the 2004 election, and I could not find one person who had ever voted for President Bush. Go figure.

Simply put, as an Internet consultant who works primarily with attorneys, my work takes me to major metropolitan areas all over the United States and Canada -- Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Salt Lake City, Denver, Austin, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans, New York, Toronto, . . . etc. -- and most of my friends and clients are published authors who hold advanced degrees from a wide variety of universities -- Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley, Stanford, Chicago, . . . etc. Among said friends and clients, the jury is still out on Wikipedia because they perceive it to be a bastion of anonymous alias-wielding trolls who need not bring any bona fides to the table, although most of my friends and clients do see the potential of the extremely open wiki publishing format. // NetEsq 16:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

<< If all these "educated people" you know are so obsessed with Chase (which, if true, is kind of eerie), why don't you flesh out the article with all the pertinent information that's lacking. >>

Although there was no question mark punctuating that sentence, I will assume it to be a question, and it is a question that I have already answered more than once on this very Talk page. To wit, I have curtailed my involvement in and contributions to Wikipedia, preferring venues where I have more editorial control, because Wikipedia has unresolved issues with quality control and dispute resolution and because I have no vested interest in Wikipedia's success. Even so, the issue of Brian Chase's emerging role as a limited public figure is one that I am researching for my own purposes, and this particular Talk page discussion is one where I have decided to delurk temporarily in the hopes that the publication of my carefully considered words will prevent louder, shriller voices from prevailing. // NetEsq 16:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. So the best reason we have against the merge is still the assertion of impending future importance of this guy. How bout we wait a couple weeks, and, if no further information has been added to the article (using reputable sources, of course) then the merge will be less controversial? I would have thought that time had already come, but apparently not. This may be a case of both sides thinking their answer is obviously correct, and thus not being able to explain it at all to anyone who doesn't already agree. Friday (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

<< So the best reason we have against the merge is still the assertion of impending future importance of this guy. >>

The classic straw man argument. // NetEsq 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

<< How bout we wait a couple weeks, and, if no further information has been added to the article (using reputable sources, of course) then the merge will be less controversial? >>

How bout[sic] you stop reverting information derived and quoted from reputable sources already referenced in the article footnotes that offer unqualified support for the fact that Brian Chase deserves his own article? // NetEsq 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I've now left in the quote, and removed the editorializing comparing him to Rosa Parks and saying how important he is. Quotes are fine, arguing against the merge in the contents of the article is most certainly not. BTW, labelling it a straw man doesn't make it one. I was replying to your own argument about his "emerging role". Friday (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

<< I've now left in the quote, and removed the editorializing comparing him to Rosa Parks and saying how important he is. >>

Hey, thanks for reminding me (once again) why I limit my contributions to and involvement with Wikipedia. To wit, without the introductory material, the quote make the article look very disjointed, and yet it clearly points out that there is content out there regarding Brian Chase that makes him worthy of his own Wikipedia article. To this end, those who are who so eager to merge and redirect might want to consider the benefit of additional research in re a separate and distinct Brian Chase article in lieu of perpetuating the trench warfare that is this particular discussion. // NetEsq 19:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

<< Quotes are fine, arguing against the merge in the contents of the article is most certainly not. >>

With all due respect, I don't remember asking your opinion regarding quotes in Wikipedia articles, nor do I appreciate your characterization of my content contribution as being an "argument." Rather, it was a fair synopsis of a noteworthy point of view in re a controversial topic that can and should be set forth along with all other noteworthy points of view in re that topic -- i.e., NPOV treatment. The problem that you seem to have with presenting that noteworthy point of view in the article is that it renders any argument contrary to that point of view totally moot. // NetEsq 19:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

<< BTW, labelling it a straw man doesn't make it one. I was replying to your own argument about his "emerging role". >>

I wholeheartedly disagree. You were unfairly characterizing my argument with logical fallacies of ambiguity and particularity, ignoring the larger issues of Chase's impact on Wikipedia and what qualifies a private person as a public figure and seizing upon one word (i.e., "emerging") to create a strawman argument that you could more easily dismiss. // NetEsq 19:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

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)

Merge discussion

If there's disagreement, I see no harm in leaving the merge tag up for a bit. I doubt there'll be consensus, but you never know. Picking a time when the no-mergers happen to outnumber the pro-mergers and saying, "Look, we've arrived at a decision!" is just plain silly. There were plenty of times when the pro-mergers outnumbered the no-mergers, so saying that the merge has been voted down is a bit of a stretch. At best, I'd say there's no consensus. Friday (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

<< At best, I'd say there's no consensus. >>

Being in the current majority, I agree that there's no consensus either approving (or disapproving) of a merge, and that no harm will be done by leaving the merge tag up temporarily. The question is: Can we reach a consensus? And if we can't, what is the next step? // NetEsq 19:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an even split regarding whether or not to merge this article, and I do not expect this to change any time in the near future. I have removed this tag from the article as it unnecessarily clutters up the article. Hall Monitor 19:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I'm not personally inclined to make it a redirect again without some kind of agreement on the talk page; it would just be reverted. My best guess is, what will hapen is something like this: The article won't change much, and 6 months from now, fresh eyes will come by, look at it, and decide that merging is obviously the best solution, and perform the redirect. By then, it'll be obvious to everyone that this guy has no lasting significance outside what's already covered in the other article, and nobody will argue about the redirect. Problem solved. Friday (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, leaving the merge tag up after two discussions is doubly disingenuous. Wikipedia policy is clear: lack of consensus = status quo. Let it rest, people. Durova 06:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please define status quo. The status quo before this article was created was to have Chase covered at the "Seigenthalergate" article. -R. fiend 17:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To me the merge is still no a brainer, and if it'd been done instead of the crazy Afd, we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, I've no intention of putting the merge tag back, since consensus for the merge was not forthcoming. Friday (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please consider the mediation proposal. --Fasten 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is unnecessary. The community has discussed this twice and the subject is closed. Durova 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point of view. --Fasten 12:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is such an obvious merge. The man's only notability derives from this seigenthaler nonsense. His bio-blurb could easily fit inside that article. Someday this will be merged. Until then, I am taking this off my watchlist.--God of War 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV flag

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)

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)

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)

Photo requested

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

How and Why was the History Page blanked?

The history page of the main article at [1] 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)

A Total of 324 Edits so far

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)

Redirect?

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)

Don't you have another life? There have already been several votes on this and each time the vote has been to keep the article. There is no concensus to redirect this article. There is just you saying over and over again for the past two months since early December that we should merge it. Yes, if you merge it again, it will be reverted again, just as it was the last few times you merged it. Sam Sloan 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. -R. fiend 04:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude, Sam Sloan. Friday (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose Friday's proposal. See above vote that was clearly anything but a consensus for a redirect/merge scenario, SqueakBox 04:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Again? I don't believe so, SqueakBox 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is such bullshit. The concensus was to keep the article and a people didn't like that so they try to pretend that the consensus didn't happen... In the words of the great Daffy Duck: "what a way to run a railroad!" --SpinyNorman 02:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The End

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)

You are not alone. I have reverted the redirect, [2] as there was no case made for making such a unilateral decision. Fromoutthere 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

That is your opinion, one which I strongly disagree with. Fromoutthere 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'm not shocked at all. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, it is a dictatorship. And given the actions of some of the jackasses they hand out admin rights to, I'm surprised the content isn't worse than it is. --SpinyNorman 02:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has spoken

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)

So am I to understand that Jimbo Wales' actions are unquestionable? Fromoutthere 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

This needs a redirect

This should redirect to Brian Chase (controversy sparker). Can someone fulfill this request? Thanks. --Shultz III 14:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Protected edit request on 6 February 2014

Please replace existing source in its entirety with the following:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident]]
{{R to related topic}}
{{R fully protected}}
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)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)