Talk:Ellington, Connecticut

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Connecticut High‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ebenezer Nash

Ebenezer Nash, Ellington's representative to the voting on the Constitution. Was an anti-federalist and voted against the ratification of the constitution. Which I take to mean the Federal Consitution of the United States. The problems being that 1) Ellington wouldn't get to send a representative to that, the state would and 2) Sherman, Johnson and Ellsworth were the representatives. [:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryconnect.html] I've removed the entry pending clarification. Markvs88 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this refers to the United States Constitution. One or two representatives from each town were chosen for the state convention held in Hartford to ratify the U.S. constitution (this was after the Philadelphia Convention). Ebenezer Nash was the sole representative from Ellington and he did indeed vote No. The vote was 128-40 to ratify. --Polaron | Talk 15:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Polaron, I had no idea. I'll add it back in with a little rewrite. Markvs88 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education section

Hello. I created the page for Ellington Public Schools and wondered if the schools in the district should still be listed on this wiki page. The schools were already listed before I created the school district page. Per the wiki guidelines for US cities, it is not necessary to list each school. I wanted to see what other editors thought? Thank you.--BuzyBody (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ellington, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning edit, regarding alleged child slavery by a town official being edited out.

I was looking through the history of this Wikipedia article, as I was bored and I'm a resident of Ellington... and I found something that was highly concerning. The Town Of Ellington, itself edited the Wikipedia article to remove highly credible concerning information about possible corruption. The information was as follows:

2601:182:4203:5a70:2c27:5ff8:b198:c73a "Adding the crimes of a town official which should not be forgotten or swept under the rug. Hiding the truth is why horrible things are allowed to happen."

The content they edited in, was the following. "In 2018, the second in command of the Ellington Volunteer Ambulance Corps was arrested on human trafficking charges. The man, Simon Hessler, was the owner of the Baymont Inn & Suites in nearby Manchester, where he allegedly held and "trained" young girls which he would sell - this he admitted to undercover police officers. The Town of Ellington lacks its own Police Department, relying only on a Resident State Trooper; the investigation of Mr. Hessler was undertaken by Connecticut State Police. Town officials, including the First Selectwoman and the President of the Amblulance Corps claimed to have had no knowledge of Mr. Hessler's activities, but when pressed by reporters refused to comment further. [11] [12] [13]"

I did a check using this tool https://www.opentracker.net/feature/ip-tracker (and https://www.iptrackeronline.com/ too) and it turned out that it was made by a completely regular Wikipedia user. The ISP was "Comcast Cable Communications LLC" meaning this was an average consumer of Comcast Cable. There were three highly credible citations, and I was a bit agitated by how it was edited out.

What's concerning about it being edited out? It was edited by the IP address "74.95.76.25." and the only reasoning why was "deleted irrelevant information." How is a town official who abused children into sexual slavery irrelevant in a Wikipedia article about the town?

And this is where I drew the line. I looked up this IP. Who was the ISP? According to another website which gave me more information "Town Of Ellington." (Redacted)

You got that right. The town tried to cover up something this major. (Redacted). This isn't irrelevant. In fact, this town alone trying to cover up something like this possibly could be illegal. I'm not letting this slide.

To add also, I'm editing this back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai94 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few words of advice from someone who's IP locates to the other side of the Atlantic, and had never heard of Ellington, Connecticut (I saw this dispute mentioned at WP:ANI):

Firstly, Wikipedia has very strong policies regarding content relating to living persons (See WP:BLP). Unless and until this individual is convicted, making statements to the effect that he has actually committed any specific crime is a sure way to get yourself blocked. And this applies to edit summaries and talk pages, not just article content. Wikipedia may well report charges, but we prefer to wait until the trial is over before delivering a verdict.

Secondly, A sure-fire way to piss off Wikipedia contributors is to engage in off-Wikipedia canvassing. Larger groups than a few Redditors have tried this sort of thing (e.g. the Scientologists for one) and it almost invariably backfires, and makes it harder to get content added.

Thirdly, if you think specific content merits inclusion, you should present evidence that indicates why. Not engage in conspiracy-mongering about 'cover-ups'. Maybe someone from Ellington did remove the content about Hessler. If they did so, they were almost certainly entirely compliant with Wikipedia policy to do so. If articles about towns and cities included every alleged crime by every resident (or even every person employed by said town or city) many articles would extend to the sort of size that no sane reader would want to read through. From the limited information I can gather (much of it is behind firewalls to us Europeans) there is nothing in the allegations that suggests any particular link to Hessler's work with the Ambulance Corps. And if Ellington officials have declined to comment, I see no reason to assume that they have done so for any more sinister reason than that they don't have anything useful to say, and that (per above) they wouldn't wish to prejudice a trial. This is an article about a town with a long history. It is not a tabloid newspaper looking for headlines. And nor is it a repository for every bit of negative content regarding things that sadly could have occurred anywhere. Short of some verifiable evidence (i.e. trustworthy sources that actually state so directly) there seems to be little evidence that these particular alleged crimes will have any particular ongoing significance to the town's history. If you want to argue to the contrary, familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies (e.g. WP:RS, WP:BLP for a start) and then make a reasoned argument here. I doubt that you will succeed, but you stand a better chance of doing so than by trying to raise a lynch-mob on Reddit. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't know better. I was honestly just concerned and I freaked out too much. I wasn't trying to raise a lynch mob, I stated I wanted to have support on what to do but it backfired as people came here. Even I stated in the Reddit thread I only wanted advice and I never added more. But that was not enough. I should have blurred out the IPs and names. I've already deleted everything regarding it so no people attract more attention from that. I didn't mean to raise a mob one bit, but the internet is a crazy place and someone wanted to boycott it and get people to bring more people here to keep it in here or something. That too, I didn't mean to conspiracy monger. I used cover up because I didn't have better english to use, I meant to say they removed it and it was bad. It violated trust a bit for them to do that to this and it felt like a slap on the wrist for any of the people who were abused by him.

Chennai94 (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. You can't really be responsible for how other people on Reddit react, and I don't think there is going to be a major issue over this. As I said above, I don't personally think that material on Hessler belongs in the article, but it is open to anyone to argue the contrary, provided they do so in accordance with Wikipedia's ways of doing things. It might be easier to make such an argument after Hessler comes to trial, and if he's found guilty, though even then I think people would be sceptical that it was of long term significance to the town itself. As horrific as such crimes can be, they sadly aren't that rare, and are probably better discussed in articles covering the topic itself, rather than scattered about in places where readers won't look for them. I see that someone on Reddit suggested that a biography on Hessler himself might be appropriate. I wouldn't totally rule that out, though it would have to be very carefully written if it was created before his conviction - if and when that happens - and would also have to meet the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines not to risk deletion. I'm not sure that the coverage so far would necessarily be enough for that, given the high level of media coverage that seems to be asked for when dealing with such topics. And on a personal level, I'd suggest that articles on Wikipedia don't strike me as a particularly effective place to try to draw attention to the broader topics of child abuse, human trafficking etc. It isn't intended as a platform for campaigning, and trying to use it as such tends to result in a lot of conflict. There are charities and other groups that do such things more effectively, and I'd suggest that if you want to do something for the victims of such crimes, you might do better to contact them to see if you can help. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not start an edit war here

I'm starting another section simply because I want people to read this faster. My post on reddit was mainly meant for advice on what to do. It backfired as I didn't blur out anything and rather instead someone wanted to create a edit war who I didn't endorse. I got the advice I needed on reddit eventually, but I forgot to delete it. That too, the edit I reinstated from another IP address was biased I'm pretty sure and didn't cite proper evidence. (Redacted) The next time something like this happens I'll be sure to not use any website outside of this for any concerns or complaints I may have. Chennai94 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]