Talk:James McGibney

Educational Degrees

(Redacted) (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not his supporter, never seen this article before today and all I know about him was I see in the article. His degree from Boston University is reported in the Las Vegas Sun, a reliable source. I do not know how reliable Celebzter is, but primary sources are ok for non-controversial personal information which a degree is. You say these two degrees shouldn't be listed because they are self promotion but it is ok to put he "claims" to have degrees from a different university. Either they all belong or none of them. GB fan 03:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed WP:OUTING info. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So you just reverted the information I put into the article without reading it? GB fan 03:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You also removed it the information with the LV sun source here without ever reading the source? GB fan 03:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(Redacted) Dead Goldfish (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't make claims that things are not well sourced when they are and then say that you have not even looked at the sources. If you feel a sock puppet investigation is warranted then start one. The second account I just blocked is not a sockpuppet because I told them to pick a new name, they just picked another bad name. GB fan 03:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So how do I do it? And how do I stop these people from constantly reverting the article? You're the expert, so please help me. Dead Goldfish (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I they continue to revert they will be blocked. I suggest you do not file a sock puppet investigation, but if you want to the directions are at WP:SPI. GB fan 03:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:GB fan there is a rapidly growing sockfarm here..can you take a look [[1]] and possibly throw some blocks around. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Source for Chadwick University claim is unreliable

Material violates WP:BLP

WP:BLP is clear about WP:USERG sources like Business Insider's investor profiles being disallowed for pages about living people. The claim that James McGibney has degrees from Chadwick seems to be based solely on this source (I can find no other sources) and the claim seems to have originated on this Wikipedia article. I suggest we remove this claim and protect the page so it cannot be re-added. AceWriterOfFacts (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC) As the source for this has been questionable reliability, I have removed this degree from the article. It should not be reinstated until a discussion has determined that the source is reliable or a reliable source is found. GB fan 23:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Prove that Business Week magazine is an unreliable source. The person claiming it as unreliable as hardly an unbiased source as he has tried four times to edit this article and has several blocked accounts. Business Week & Bloomberg Corp. is a billion dollar company in the business of reporting about business and, as you can plainly see, it was established in 1929 and is quite reliable. It is not a tabloid or a blog or some random person's edits. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Businessweek. This clearly qualifies as a reliable source pursuant to Wikipedia's guidelines here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Dead Goldfish (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC) I would further point out that Business Week magazine is hardly a User Generated Source (as claimed by the person formerly known as ViaViw / BullyVille, Slingerville, and now known as "Ace Writer of Facts", who has been busily attempting to whitewash this article. If someone wishes to claim that a source is unreliable, it burden of proving that claim is clearly upon them. Just saying it is so isn't enough. Dead Goldfish (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Normally, one would think that mentioning a subject has a degree from a school sourced to Businessweek, would be non-controversial. However, in this case, the fact has been disputed by the subject, who is pursuing the issue with Businessweek, In addition, the institution has a less than positive reputation, so the claim is not innocuous, but may be viewed as a BLP violation. Consequently, I am removing the claim, and suggest that restoring it ought to require more than a single reference, in view of the claim by the subject that it is not true.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC) So you are in possession of some secret, personal research that shows that this individual is "pursuing the issue with Business Week." And this is relevant, how? Business Week is the equivalent to the NY Times. Just because someone doesn't like the article in the Times does not mean that it goes away. If you have some inside knowledge about this, that clearly shows that you edit is not free from bias. And until you have something from Business Week showing that it is removing the information or is inaccurate, the post stays. You do not get to pick and chose what sources you like and don't like. Business Week is an acceptable Wikipedia source. Dead Goldfish (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC) This has been questioned by multiple editors now, it should not remian unless there is consensus to readd it. You can raise the question of reliability of the source at WP:RSN if you still feel it is reliable. Do not readd before there is consensus to do so. 00:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Multiple editors"?! You're joking, right? Because the only ones questioning it are the subject of the article (hardly an unbiased person) and you. You seem pretty fixated on whitewashing this and I wonder why. And you're saying that it is my saying that Business Week is reliable is simply not true. The publication is what it is and it meets the Wikipedia guidelines. Dead Goldfish (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC) I questioned it and Sphilbrick seems to think that it is questionable. Just because it is on the Business Week site does not mean it is reliable. There is nothing as to where the information came from or an author for that page. It is questionable whether it has been reviewed by anyone before publishing. I am not whitewashing anything, I am ensuring our WP:BLP policies are adhered to. We lose nothing by leaving it out for a few days until it is discussed. On the other hand it can do harm if left in and it is untrue. GB fan 00:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC) And there is times when editors do edits based on non-public information. When information comes in through the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team editors can act on it and the information is non-public. There is no problem with that. GB fan 01:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC) So where is this information that came through the volunteer response team at? How do you know that it is a legitimate issue or just the subject of the article trying to whitewash things from Wikipedia? It seems a useful way to game the system to me. Dead Goldfish (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC) It is within the volunteer response system. That is the job of the volunteers to assess the information to determine if it is legitimate. Sphilbrick has access and has determined it is legitimate enough to act on. The degree information is not that important that we lose anything by it not being in the article for a while. GB fan 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC) Thus far about the only educational degree of McGibney's that I can firmly establish is a high school diploma from Monroe Woodbury HS in Central Valley, NY from 1992. Chadwick "University" confirms in a written statement that he was a student there and that he "graduated" on June 12, 1996, with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BSBA). Which confirms the Business Week magazine article. A copy of that written confirmation was provided to Wikipedia staff, as well as to the editorial board at Business Week (in case he is trying to whitewash information there). Thus, I think this information should be replaced in the article. Harvard says they've never heard of him. Dead Goldfish (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Interestingly enough, yet another source for McGibney's claim of having a Chadwick University "degree" has emerged: a press release bio of him put out by his former employer at Rudolph & Sletten. It seems McGibney can't keep his story straight on which "degrees" he has since his claims are clearly inconsistent. Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Funny how McGibney's fan base has been busily trying to white wash this page again. I have found three separate sources for McGibney's Chadwick "degrees" - to include a biography put out by one of McGibney's former employers! A consensus was already reached that this information needs to stay - and stay it shall. Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC) I do not see consensus on this page that this information should remain. Regardless, it no longer appears to be reliably sourced. Businessweek no longer mentions this degree, and "marketvisual.com" and "interop.com" don't appear to be reliable sources. If you disagree, you can discuss those sources at the reliable source noticeboard. Until we have solid sources, the material should remain out of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC) There was a consensus at WP:RSN that said the Businessweek source was reliable, the problem is that source has now been changed to remove the information. There is no explanation there as to why they removed the information, so we have to assume they are doing it in because of information they received. The other two sources do not appear to be reliable sources. GB fan 00:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

In the fourth paragraph of the article there is a broken link to USPO. The link should either be removed or fixed.--Rockfang (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I expanded it to [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]]. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheaterville defamation lawsuit section

The user Dead Goldfish is indefinitely blocked for violation of the WP:BLP policy.

I am looking at the this section and question whether it belongs in the article. The section is about a lawsuit against a poster on one of the websites that is owned by the company that McGibney is the founder and CEO. The website was not sued. The article is around 550 words long and about 130 of them are devoted to this one paragraph. This appears to be undue weight to an issue that isn't about McGibney. GB fan 19:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC) I disagree. McGibney has gone to great lengths to inset himself into that personal controversy, as evidenced by these news articles here and here and here and here . And here McGibney announces the fact that he has joined a class action lawsuit against these posters. And right here you can find an article in the UK Daily News in which it is clearly stated that the lawsuit is against McGibney & Cheaterville in which the couple were wrongly 'outed' by McGibney and company as being "gay, married, and looking for sex." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401151/Happily-married-couple-sue-Cheaterville-com-finding-photos-malicious-posts-online.html Seems pretty clear to me that this information deserves to be in here. Dead Goldfish (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC) That is not what the article says. GB fan 21:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC) I have removed the section as giving undue weight to a controversy about a living person. As it was written it says that the lawsuit was against a third party if that is not true then we need to write it differently. It should not be reinstated without discussion of how it pertains to McGibney with proper reliable sources. GB fan 23:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC) I disagree with your unilateral decision to remove this material without even attempting to allow a consensus to form here. It seems that you are in a bit of a hurry to pull the trigger here. Dead Goldfish (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC) I understand you disagree with the decision but the section as it was written even after you edited after your last post here did not mention anything that said it pertained to McGibney. It expressly stated that the website was not sued. In articles about living people we err on the conservative side and remove things that might shed a bad light on the living person unless well sourced. In this case it could be construed as guilt by association. If you can rewrite the section so it shows how it involves McGibney it can be reinstated. GB fan 23:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC) There is a sitewide consensus that we take special care with negative material regarding a living person. In most articles, if there is a dispute about the inclusion or exclusion of some item, we ask for a consensus to form before deciding whether to include it or exclude it. However, in the case of living persons, we err on the side of exclusion, until such time as we can be sure it deserves inclusion. While this section is about the lawsuit, I understand you feel the university degree should be included. have you attempted to contact the University to see if they can confirm or deny the degree? They might be able to shed some light on it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC) So if I contact this university and they confirm issuance of a degree, how do I get that information included into this article then? Dead Goldfish (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC) So I contacted Harvard College directly and got an email response saying they've never heard of the guy. So it seems that he also has a fake degree from Harvard. Dead Goldfish (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC) As noted in a section below, reporting the results of your direct contact to the university constitutes wp:OR, and is thus not usable. (If that contact resulted in identification of relevant reliable sources, then those sources can be used.) However, the statement it seems that he also has a fake degree from Harvard is bordering on a personal attack, salvaged only by the itseems although others may feel differently. There are a number of reasons why you might have failed to obtain confirmation other than that the subject has a fake degree, and even if tru, we do nto make such claims absent proof from reliable sources. WP:BLP applies to talk page, not just article pages.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC) References

Hunter Moore judgment

While I am loathe to contribute to an article which I think should be deleted due to non-notability (unfortunately I didn't see the deletion discussion while it was ongoing), I also think it's important to note that his judgment against Hunter Moore was a default judgment. In other words, McGibney won only because Moore ignored the lawsuit, and not because McGibney proved his case in a court of law. That's a pretty huge difference, so it should be noted in the article. HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The last discussion was no consensus, so it's entirely possible that more eyes could get it deleted if it were nominated again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone could please contact me in the event that it's nominated again, that would be great. In the meantime, I've cleaned up the section about the lawsuits. The reasons for this are that it was poorly written and formatted; it also appears to have be written by a supporter, and thus lacked a disinterested third-party viewpoint. I also changed the lawsuit information to reflect that they were both default judgments, so the article is clear about the circumstances of those judgments. HillbillyGoat (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

HillbillyGoat, I've chosen to nominate it based on this conversation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look for it. HillbillyGoat (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Claim of Harvard Education by McGibney

The user Dead Goldfish is indefinitely blocked for violation of WP:BLP.

I would like to propose the removal of any information contained in the article with regards to claims by James McGibney of having participated in any Harvard education programs, classes, or courses. Such claim seems, in my opinion, to be completely and utterly false. This is especially true since Harvard has specifically stated that they never heard of the guy. As we all know, it is not uncommon for people to make false biographies of themselves and pass that along to the news media. A lie that is repeated often does not transform into the truth simply due to repetition. So I am proposing that the phrase "claims to have attended Harvard Business School for his executive education" be removed from the article. Until such a time as McGibney is able to provide proof positive of his enrollment & completion in the Harvard Business School this information should remain out, in my opinion. Dead Goldfish (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC) To add to this, the articles in which this claim has appeared only say that he claims to have gone there, not that he actually did. At no time is there any news source that says definitively and as a matter of fact that McGibney went there. Plus Harvard's own written statement saying that he never went there. Thus, there is no evidence to support this claim. Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Per WP:OR, we cannot conduct original research in this manner, so any information you received through your own investigations is irrelevant. If reliable sources say he went to Harvard, for Wikipedia's purposes he went to Harvard, period. The more pertinent question is http://celebzter.com a reliable source? Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC) @Gamaliel: I failed to get that site to open. Is it working for you now?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Its a broken site no longer working. Plus, FYI, its basically a blog written by one girl who talks about fashion and celebrities. Dead Goldfish (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC) By the way, Gamaliel, its not my original research. Anyone can contact Harvard themselves and Harvard will be only too happy to tell you that McGibney is full of BS. Harvard does not appreciate it when people make false claims of credentials. They have a specific website for dealing with this kind of stuff on account of all the fakes running around claiming degrees. http://www.hbs.edu/mba/registrar/general/Pages/general-verification.aspx Dead Goldfish (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC) What you describe is considered original research under Wikipedia policies. Gamaliel (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Dead Goldfish's claim is fairly easily replicatable by anyone who can be bothered, so should not be completely irrelevant - it should contribute to the evaluation of sources. Is a random celebrity-focussed blog a reliable source? Not really, and it's highly unlikely they did any sort of fact-checking like this. If there's no good source for the Harvard claim, it should not be included. Podiaebba (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC) There are a million reasons why we should discount amateur research: verifiability, accuracy, etc. What is most likely going on here is that his "executive education" refers to some kind of non-degree certificate program and DG inquired about degree programs. Regardless, Wikipedia policy is pretty clear that we should not be conducting such amateur research and it should not factor into our editing. The real issue is whether or not the source in question is a reliable one, but since I've found the same information on his own website bio, it's now a moot point and I will swap out the sources. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Before discounting my "amateur" research, you should have taken a moment to click on that Harvard link and read it a little better. Thus, you would have seen that Harvard is willing to verify enrollment in BOTH degree AND non-degree programs. Specifically, the second link in on Harvard's page offers the ability to conduct Non-MBA Program Verifications, such, "For Harvard Business School Executive Education Certificate Program attendance (AMP, OPM, PMD, etc.) please contact Harvard Business School Executive Education at 617.495.6555 or e-mail executive_education@hbs.edu." Thus, this research is easily verifiable for its reliability and accuracy. You do not have to depend upon my word here. You can pick up the phone yourself and call them, or email them, and after you hear the laughter die down upon the mention of James Alex McGibney's name, you will get an ear full from angry staff members about how false claims of Harvard credentials cheapen the system and hurt the public. This type of "research" is no more amateurish then looking out the window and verifying that the sky is still blue. Dead Goldfish (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC) You are missing the point. You aren't, as far as I know, a professional historian or journalist or researcher, so yes, you calling up Harvard would be amateur research. Even if you were, it would still be original research. No matter how easy or reliable it is, it is still prohibited by Wikipedia policies, especially when living individuals are involved. It is not verifiable in the sense that Wikipedia policy uses the word verifiable. Wikipedia articles rely on published sources and not on original amateur research. Gamaliel (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC) And you are missing the point that WP:OR is fundamentally about adding information to articles. The evaluation of sources often involves research which can be construed as "OR". The problematicness of this is much alleviated in cases like this one where there is a very straightforward way for the research to be replicated. Now, I'm not suggesting any negative information on this point be added to the article; that would be OR. But it can certainly inform whether or how the information is presented. I would argue anyway that the claim of attending Harvard for unspecified "executive education" is too vague to be useful and should be excluded regardless of the verification issue. I mean, this could be attending one public lecture on something business-related! Podiaebba (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC) "I mean, this could be attending one public lecture on something business-related - Podiaebba." Funny you should mention that. See http://bayimg.com/CAieLAafC Dead Goldfish (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC) No, you're missing the point that we don't conduct amateur research on living individuals. It doesn't matter how easy it can be replicated. Aside from the fact that we shouldn't be doing it in the first place, there are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the accuracy of the results, especially when it comes from an editor with an obvious agenda when it comes to the subject of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC) What results are there to be suspicious of when all you have to do is stick your head outside to see if the sky is blue or, in this case, that McGibney clearly does NOT have a Harvard Business School Executive Education? Dead Goldfish (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC) That link you placed in the article is to a Harvard Business School page with the words "Executive Education" in giant letters in the top. Gamaliel (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Um, Gamaliel, if you think you can go to a public three day seminar, get a certificate of attendance, and then appropriately claim to your human resources department that you have a Harvard Business School Executive Education on your CV, then by all means, do so. That's between you and your employer. But before you do so, I would URGE you to please read the following Wikipedia article on resume fraud. Just please do not expect the rest of the world to buy into your gross exaggerations. When you say the words "I attended Harvard Business School for my executive education", (which is EXACTLY what James McGibney did), the vast majority of the 7.7 BILLION people on this planet would take it to mean that you actually went to Harvard Business School for something more than a public three day seminar that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can attend if they are willing to pay. This is the exact equivalent to my taking a CPR & First Aid class that the Mayo Clinic here in Jacksonville, FL offers once a month and then claiming on my resume that I "attended Mayo Medical School for my medical education". Yes, the first aid class is being offered by the Mayo Medical School (just like the seminar is being offered by the Harvard Business School), but neither event legitimately constitutes an "Executive Education." Dead Goldfish (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source

I have raised the question of whether this, http://bayimg.com/CAieLAafC is a reliable source at WP:RSN#Source used on James McGibney. GB fan 11:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is now one comment there that the link is not a reliable source. GB fan 15:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies to sources and claims.

I just removed the Harvard reference completely, because there is currently no reliable source for it. The "About Us" section of his website didn't mention it when I looked at it. Unsourced and poorly sourced material must be removed immediately. There were also links to non-news blogs, raw court transcripts and primary source legal documents, which are completely disallowed when they refer to living people per WP:BLPPRIMARY. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted) Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes editors puff up articles like resumes. It's usually self-defeating, because a modest one paragraph article of simple and actually sourced material usually looks more interesting than a whole page of obvious hot air. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Requests from the subject

Mr. McGibney has contacted OTRS (Ticket:2014010310009136) with some concerns. As a result, Dead Goldfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for violations of WP:BLP - we have a credible suggestion of the real-world identity of this editor, and there is no way we want him anywhere on Wikipedia. There are a number of things Mr McGibney would like to see included, which have been removed as unsourced. I'd like to encourage people to find sources for these, please. I'm aware there are people with an agenda against r. McGibney, we need to be mindful of the potential for subtle belittling of him.

For the avoidance of doubt: I see no evidence of problematic editing other than from the blocked user and possibly IPs used by the same person. Removing uncited material from a BLP is absolutely OK, and I will defend anybody who does this, to Mr. McGibney. However, we should be aware that people have been trying to belittle him so sources may have been removed and content watered down to the point of appearing trivial. I'd urge a review of the history and sources, please.

The things he would like to see included are primarily:

1. He is a former marine (removed here).
2. He sued Blue Mist Media re. lookalike domains (removed here).
3. After purchasing isanyoneup, we say "the website was shut down" - it would be more accurate and less ambiguous to say that he shut the website down and redirected traffic. That was his intention, it was not shut down by some external agency. In fact his intention and his action wherever any domain related to revenge or revenge porn is acquired, has been to shut it down; we should IMO really say this in the lede where we mention that he owns them (note [2]).
4. The fact that he has appeared on TV etc. seems to have been removed as apparent resume-padding; it is, however, true, and probably worthy of note, as he's a reasonably frequent talking head when cyberbullying is being discussed.
5. He attended Harvard Business School for his executive education; this was not just a three-day seminar.

Mr. McGibney is, I think it would be fair to say, somewhat combative in pursuit of his goals, and has made himself unpopular with some rather unsavoury characters. I think we should do the right thing by him. Please do help out. If you do this you may be putting your head above the parapet, I do urge a few brave souls to "take one for the team" here. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to re-add non-neutral self-promotion. I took your advice to re-look at the sources, and I found something a little disturbing. The subject-owned website put up a direct link to a user-created iReport page falsely purporting to be CNN that I removed earlier. If you're not familiar with iReport, it's a user-generated site for anybody to submit news stories to a CNN-owned site, but it has no journalistic oversight of any kind, and the submitters have no official status with CNN. So it's an interview between the subject and "CNN" which has in no way been vetted or approved by CNN itself. If you look at the source, here you'll see that the headline "Tech Talk" has no actual relation to the "Tech" section of CNN, and the whole piece is not vetted by CNN. Here's another example of a "CNN" report like this.

The only good-case scenario is that the subject simply mistakenly thought he was being interviewed by CNN and posted the interview on his site in ignorance. (I can't see why anyone who had been interviewed on Anderson Cooper would need to create a fraudulent CNN interview, but this still isn't something we can base article material on.)
I didn't think it was that big a problem until my re-checking found this article and other press release-y "news" stories (that are currently in the article as reliable source citations) also being touted on the subject's site as actual news.

And all that being said, I'm not against adding material based on neutral second party sources, but people should understand that there's clearly non-theoretical COI and self-promotion issues here. It also looks like the news about his radio show is currently only sourced to a press release from his company. That should probably be replaced, or removed if there's no other source. We can add more to the article but it has to be from WP:V-compliant sources, and it can't be unduly self-promotional, regardless of what the subject would prefer here. NPOV might also require the inclusion of views here that aren't only positive. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(A further note about the Marine request, the lead says he's a former marine, and so does the career section, I don't think that was ever removed, only the third redundant mention of it, where it would be said twice in the same sentence.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Radio program looks it may never have existed; websites we have listed seem non-functional

Okay, I tried to find out more about the radio show that's listed. It doesn't look like it's happening now, and aside from the original press release I can't see where anybody made any mention of it at all. If someone else finds something that's not the text of the press release, please tell me. Right now there's no evidence it actually happened, just a notice in 2012 that it might happen in the future.
The other thing I've discovered is that some of the websites we have listed aren't actually functional or have any meaning. This www.judgeville.com looks inert, and CheaterU.com, DramaVille.com just redirects to a different site. We're currently promoting things that don't exist as products in the real world. I'm going to take them out, as the only source that mentions them is the self-published logos on the website. If someone thinks they're actual things, please let me know.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

archive.org coverage for these sites is very poor, the instructions at Wikipedia:Using_the_Wayback_Machine aren't working for me (they just redirect to other sites). They don't appear to be covered by Netcraft. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Right now, they don't seem to be anything, so I removed the claim that they were sites the subject "operates" currently. If there's a neutral second party source that talks about if they ever did anything, we can consider adding them if they ever seemed notable. I'm betting they weren't. The more interesting issue is that the entire career section is currently sourced only to user generated content and press releases. I think some of that can be fixed, but the claims that are made also don't always match what the sources say. The Businessweek source is an executive summary that can be submitted by users, so I'm assuming that came from someone directly connected to the subject.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A passing note

Dead Goldfish has already tried to unhide some of his inappropriate commentary above, in violation of his indefinite block. I will not hesitate to semi-protect this talk page if it happens again. It seems to me that we have some decent and thoughtful Wikipedians improving this article, and the input of Dead Goldfish is neither needed nor wanted at this point. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Medal

I think there should be an edit to the article on James McGibney to remove all references to him having a medal from the US Marines for providing security to US embassies. I do not believe that this claim is accurate. A quick google search will show his military records posted online (I won't link to them here, you can find them yourselves) and they show that he was only an administrative clerk who had nothing to do with computers or computer security. His medal citation is also online and it shows that he only got a medal because he arranged training schedules for students at some school he was assigned to while his boss was out sick.

I would also like to propose adding to the article information detailing the numerous US federal lawsuits he is involved in because of his Cheaterville website for claims involving defamation, extortion and the like. I found articles in the UK Daily Mail supporting this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401151/Happily-married-couple-sue-Cheaterville-com-finding-photos-malicious-posts-online.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585756/Maryland-doctor-sues-Cheaterville-website-wrongly-identifying-cheater-ruining-marriage.html

With revenge porn being in the news more and more I think this stuff would be important additions to the article about McGibney. Unholyrollerz (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to your suggestion of a "fake medal," I offer you this Google search result page, listing many sources showing that he did indeed receive that medal. The only source supporting your comments, as far as I can find, is this anti-McGibney blog. Suggesting that he didn't receive this medal, even in the talk page, could be considered a violation of WP:BLP, in the face of all those sources stating otherwise.—LucasThoms 02:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the second part of your request was discussed last year on this page. —LucasThoms 02:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I did not want to link to that website, but since you mentioned it. They have posted his original military records and they seem very specific and clear cut. The "sources" that you mention are all self-promotion. A lot of the material that was originally in this article I see has been removed because it was bogus self-promotion, like the Chadwick degrees and the claim of Harvard educations. But the military records are absolutely factual and clearly establish, in my opinion, that he did not receive a medal for computer security. He received a medal for doing a perfectly good job as an admin clerk. But it looks to me that the subject of this article has clearly been engaging in a lot of self-promotion, such as the bogus CNN "articles", in an effort to, I believe, falsely present himself as some kind of computer guru. I am just saying that this needs further inquiry. If this is going to be a legitimate encyclopedia, then the information in the article needs to be fully vetted and not simply consist of a PR Dept bio or self-promotion. Unholyrollerz (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

For something like refuting the subject's own statement of a medal, one blog with a very clear agenda of bringing him down simply isn't enough sourcing (especially because WP:BLPSOURCES doesn't allow blogs at all for contentions BLP content). While I agree that there aren't a huge number of reliable sources backing up the medal, there are some (this one and this one), which is certainly enough. They're independent of him and his "PR Dept".—LucasThoms 11:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the blog has an agenda. But does that make the information they posted any less credible? The military record is what it is. The medal citation says what it says - and it says nothing about McGibney providing computer security to US embassies or even having anything to do with computers. So regardless as to where it is posted, the information contained within it simply does not change. In my opinion, it is absolutely clear from the military record that James McGibney did NOT receive a medal for providing computer security for US embassies. He was simply a clerk typist and he got a pat on the head for juggling the class schedule for the school he was assigned to as a clerk in the orderly room or administrative office. While it is certainly nothing to be embarrassed about, it is also clear that the award had nothing to do with computers or providing security to US embassies worldwide, as McGibney likes to claim. Just because a couple gossip rags fail to do basic fact checking does not mean that Wikipedia can't have higher standards. Plus, you can read the medal citation for yourself.

The amount of unsupported claims or out right false claims in this article, plus the dates of their addition, make me suspect that the firm Wiki-PR is involved here, or something similar. Unholyrollerz (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"But does that make the information they posted any less credible?" Yes. We don't take information from unreliable blogs - see WP:RS - and we don't dig through primary sources to disprove claims - see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Gamaliel (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with Gamaliel, so this might sound a bit familiar) Yes, actually, it might be less credible for that. Because DD214s can only be accessed by veterans and their families, we (the outside world) have no way of fact checking the blog. This wouldn't be an issue if we (again, the outside world) didn't have reason to believe that the blog would want to fake something like that. Also, out of curiosity, I looked for the medal citation but couldn't find it. Could you please point me in the right direction? Finally, be careful throwing around accusations like Wiki-PR because that could be considered a personal attack on any of this article's contributors.—LucasThoms 19:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article and documents that you requested. https://viaviewfiles.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/james-mcgibney-is-guilty-of-stolen-valor-100-verified/ See the middle of the article. As you can plainly see, the medal citation is there and it is legitimate, in my opinion. I am not suggesting that we use a blog as a source. But the DD 214 and the medal citation are obviously genuine and matters of public record. As we all know a lot of public figures have, in the past, made fake claims about their military service (or lack thereof) which comes back to bite them in the butt when the truth comes out. So this kind of puffery is not an uncommon thing. We have to be very watchful for military claims that are not true from popping up in Wikipedia articles. There is a huge incentive for people to make such bogus claims and we should be watchful for them. Unholyrollerz (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We do have to be careful that we do not add in untruthful claims. We do not though take the word of people whose mission is to hurt McGibney's character as true. The images look good, but I could make the documents look just as good and be completely fake. There is not enough there to indicate whether the documents are true or not. We need to have a reliable source that discusses the documents and determines whether they are true or not. There really isn't anything to discuss here unless we have reliable sources. GB fan 22:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"We do have to be careful that we do not add in untruthful claims." Yes I totally get that GB Fan. That is why I am saying that we need to remove this medal claim until there is some sort of proof that it is legitimate. Self-serving, self-promotional claims are not reliable. Just like all the fake CNN iReports "news articles" that have found not to be truthful or are otherwise self-promoting have been removed, this should be removed, too. Removing the medal claims aren't going to hurt the reputation of McGibney. But having potentially fake information in the article will. Fake information that is "positive" is just as bad as fake information that is "negative", right? So until this is clarified it should be removed just to be safe. Just because the blog in question could be characterized as an anti-McGibney blog makes the information no less credible. And honestly, do those documents look fake? hardly. Unholyrollerz (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't take that blog and those alleged documents into account because Wikipedia rules prohibit that, even if we had zero suspicions about the accuracy of those documents. Do we have any reason besides this blog to dispute the accuracy of the Bloomberg source? Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Just because the blog in question could be characterized as an anti-McGibney blog makes the information no less credible." It makes it very much less credible. They have a reason to misreport his history; why wouldn't they? Point blank, they are not a reliable source.—LucasThoms 23:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am NOT suggesting using them as a source. I am suggesting that this calls into question the reliability of McGibney's medal claims and that, until there is actual proof he has the medal for computer security, that it be removed from the article. Isn't fake information that is positive just as bad as fake information that is negative? Unholyrollerz (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We do not have any reliable information that they are fake, all we have is a reliable source that says he earned the medal. A non-reliable source means nothing for or against the information. GB fan 00:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: By RS, I meant as a source to disprove the medal/disinclude it from the article, not as an actual source. Anyway, @Unholyrollerz: unsourced positive info is not as bad as negative info in BLPs, because unsourced, false negative info can harm the subject (and his/her reputation), and be considered libelous/defamatory. (Yes, any falsehood is bad, but negative BLP content is #1 on the list of what we don't want). Final clarification: that last comment is not me agreeing that the medal is a falsehood; I'm speaking in general.—LucasThoms 00:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if this was a normal article about a normal person. But there seems to be a very long history of "embellishments" in this article. First the Chadwick University degree then the claim of a Harvard Business School Executive Education, then all the fake CNN iReport "articles" and self-promotion. So this medal claim isn't just a one-off kind of thing, but it appears to be a specific pattern of self-aggrandizement going on here. That is what makes me especially suspicious of this military medal claim. With this guy its just one thing after another it seems. That is why I feel it should be removed and given another look. Keep in point, the ONLY sources of this medal claim is this completely bogus Bloomberg biography which is user generated content. There is absolutely NO INDEPENDANT verification done by Bloomberg. Whatever you send them, they put up. Also, keep in mind that it was the very same Bloomberg source that had the claim about the bogus Chadwick University degrees, too, right? So right there that should tell you guys something. And GB Fan, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that McGibney's Harvard claim is bogus because you have seen the certificate he got some that seminar and I see from the discussion above that it was discussed about on the Noticeboard, right? So already you should be on high alert for bogus claims about this guy. Unholyrollerz (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Bloomberg content is, by the strictest definition, user generated. However, it is verified by experts. To quote that Bloomberg page:

• When suggesting a change: "All data changes require verification from public sources. Please include the correct value or values and a source where we can verify."
• After suggesting a change: "Our data partners will research the update request and update the information on this page if necessary. Research and follow-up could take several weeks. If you have questions, you can contact them at [removed, because it's irrelevant to this]"

This sounds to me like "INDEPENDANT [sic] verification." Also, according to a discussion above, Bloomberg was discussed at WP:RSN and was found to be reliable.—LucasThoms 02:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Unholyrollerz, I do not know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Harvard claim is bogus. I have seen a certificate that said McGibney attended executive education at Harvard but that certificate means as much as the DD214 and medal certificate that you linked to above, nothing. I do not know if any of those documents are real or if someone created them and is presenting them as real. What I do know is that we have is an unreliable source casting doubt on a reliable source. This is a very easy conclusion to make. We disregard the unreliable source and go with what the reliable source says. GB fan 10:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Specific to the medal alone: During the last clean-up, I left the note about the medal in, sourced (as has been discussed) to something that is the equivalent of his resume (and no, Bloomberg Businessweek does not claim the specific facts in self-uploaded resumes are somehow "expert-verified", only that the claim was made publicly somewhere else. Bloomberg Businessweek was not found reliable for extraordinary claims on RSN quite decisively). The reason we left the weak sourcing is that it is not that extraordinary a claim. A "Navy Achievement Medal" is not anywhere near as rare as something like a Purple Heart or other more significant medals. It looks fairly common for the military service (tens of thousands given out) and SPS can be okay for not excessively self-promotional claims like a commonplace service medal (but certainly not for a non-defined "Harvard Education"). I don't think the medal is worth fighting about either way. It's extremely borderline as either maybe-barely-self-promotion or basic biographical fact. Maybe it could be considered undue if we gave it more attention, but the idea that the medal was awarded is not an extraordinary claim. It's not material that should be used to paint McGibney as an exaggerator or as an exceptionally decorated soldier. It is a borderline case of WP:ABOUTSELF. I think the medal mention is arguably okay without much elaboration either way. Other more extraordinary and unsourced claims were removed en masse and rightfully so; I don't think this is the same situation and removing it looks like unhelpful overkill. It's a small point about his life, it should not be puffed up and it also shouldn't be treated as some kind of "bogus claim".__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

So how about changing the article to read "McGibney was awarded the Navy Achievement Medal during his service in the US Marines"? We can all agree that he did, in fact, receive the medal. Its just the circumstances of that award that are in doubt. The claim McGibney has made (that he was awarded this medal for providing computer security for ALL US Embassies WORLDWIDE) is a VERY extraordinary claim. He claims not to have provided computer security for just one embassy or two embassies, but for ALL embassies all over the world (This at a time more than 20 years ago when there really wasn't an internet like there is today). Remember, its not just one thing about this article that was bogus, but a whole host of items that were bogus and rightfully removed. This is just yet another example.

So I would like to propose that the article be changed just to say he got the medal, but without any mention as to the circumstances. That seems fair. Unholyrollerz (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be fair only if we give credence to the claims of an unreliable blog. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Dialling it back to a completely neutral mention is probably fine, and fine with me, and BLP-compliant. (Nothing from the blog should be included, ever.) This is ultimately a due weight issue more than a source issue, and should just reflect editor discretion. Other issues on this page were much more clearly problematic and policy non-compliant. The other slightly trivial one was the mention of a possible future radio show, that I was never able to find a reliable source that it ever happened. Again, it's something the subject is self-reporting regarding their activities, and that sentence could arguably be removed without harm to anyone, but I also don't think it's a wildly extravagant claim that he had a show on a small local radio station. I think both the subject and Wikipedia are best served by removing the worst instances of possible self-aggrandisement and deeply compromised promotional sourcing, (and I removed a lot of that myself) but I don't think it always serves the project well to remove the non-extraordinary positive stuff because of other events.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

McGibney was awarded the Navy Achievement Medal during his service in the US Marines. Positive material about the subject, neutrally worded, verifiable from a SPA-source with no argument about it being unduly self-serving or containing an exceptional claim. And with absolutely no claim that the subject misrepresented anything about the situation, and no in-article credence or mention given to any poisonous blog. I think it's a fair compromise that keeps the positive fact that he received recognition for his time in the military.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I also feel it might be helpful to point out that policies and guidelines like PEACOCK, WP:ABOUTSELF and others dealing with not repeating self-agrandizement are actually there to protect a BLP subject. If a subject writes, "I was the most important and intelligent employee at Xerox in 1981", then it's kind and NPOV of Wikipedia to report that as simply "Subject started working at Xerox in 1981". Reporting a detail we suspect may be fudged a little has the potential to embarrass a subject later, even in those cases where the subject would personally demand the inclusion of the material at the time. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree the reason is not necessary and have updated the article. GB fan 22:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Bullying & Vigilante Activities

A new article by Rolling Stone news reporter David Kushner appeared on Oct 7th regarding McGibney say: Why do you keep changing the article on James McGibney when the version that is there is as a result of discussions between THREE editors. The information is fully sourced to the America Al Jazeera news organization's website which has an article about this guy. Just because it is unflattering does not make it any less true. Why do you make unilateral revisions without talking to any one first? Can you please help me understand what it is that you are seeing that we might be missing? The added materials come straight out of the Al Jazeera article, do they not? And isn't Al Jazeera America a reliable source? The reporter who wrote the piece seems reliable enough, too. What are your thoughts, please?

In an October 7, 2014, article about McGibney in Al Jazeerza America, McGibney claims to be "the most controversial vigilante online" who "battles those he deems the Internet’s worst fiends." However, McGibney himself is now accused of being the bully through the use of vigilante tactics such as email hacking, digging up personal information on his enemies, online harassment and stalking. McGibney and his ViaView company are being sued by several people in US Federal Court. McGibney claims that he actively works with the illegal hacking groups Anonymous and The Rustle League.

In the article, James McGibney was quoted by news reporter David Kashner as saying, "Revenge is never pretty, but when done meticulously, intelligently, and psychotically, it sure is a thing of beauty." Because of this and because of McGibney's actions, McGibney's Bullyville.com lead celebrity spokesperson, Glee star Becca Tobin, has publically condemned McGibney's behavior and has renounced her association with McGibney saying, "I believe in providing strength to those who have been bullied, but not in bullying a bully." McGibney's other Bullyville celebrity spokesman, Guns N' Roses lead guitarist DJ Ashba has also quit.

Because of McGibney's very controversial business and personal tactics, he has lost all of his celebrity endorsements - which McGibney claims to have cost him over $250,000.

However, that initial article has since been whittled down to this version as the result of the three Editors / admins:

In an October 7, 2014, article about McGibney in Al Jazeerza America, McGibney claims to be "the most controversial vigilante online" who "battles those he deems the Internet’s worst fiends."[19] McGibney claims that he actively works with the hacking groups Anonymous and The Rustle League.

In the article, James McGibney was quoted by news reporter David Kushner as saying, "Revenge is never pretty, but when done meticulously, intelligently, and psychotically, it sure is a thing of beauty." McGibney's Bullyville.com lead celebrity spokesperson, Glee star Becca Tobin, has publically condemned McGibney's behavior and has renounced her association with McGibney saying, "I believe in providing strength to those who have been bullied, but not in bullying a bully." McGibney's other Bullyville celebrity spokesman, Guns N' Roses lead guitarist DJ Ashba has also quit.[20]

This bottom ones seems fine with me. what do the rest of you guys say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unholyrollerz (talk • contribs) 08:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Unholyrollerz, your approach is not the way it works. You were bold and your were reverted. Instead of at that point trying to discuss the information you revert. Another editor disagrees and you revert again, with minor changes. I started going through the information and removing those sentences that are not supported by the source. One of the previous editors removes the whole section again and you revert, claiming consensus. There is no consensus. There is you adding the information and three editors removing information. The second one is better, but I had not gotten to look at what the source say vs the statements that you made. I already am questioning your objectivity, because you added information into the article claiming it is supported by the source when it is not. You need to get consensus before adding the information back in. GB fan 10:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not a question of being bold. It is an issue of adding material to the Wiki article that comes from a legitimate and well founded news article. Something only violates BLP is it is untrue, not because it is unflattering. The quotes about McGibney being in this for the revenge and how his celebrity endorse publically disavowed herself specifically because of McGibney's bullying are all facts. Just like the accusations of him being involved in hacking groups Anonymous and the Rustle League, just like the accusation of him being involved in email hacking, stalking, ect. Unholyrollerz (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Above, you said that that "the version that is there is as a result of discussions between THREE editors." Can you please link to the discussion between those three editors because it is not on this page? The article does not say that he is involved in hacking groups Anonymous and the Rustle league. Can you quote where in the source where it says that McGibney is involved stalking, or email hacking, not that a third party accusing him of being involved, but either him stating it or a conviction of those crimes. Also can you quote where he says he is in it for the revenge, again not where some third party believes he is in it for the revenge but him saying it because a personal opinion of what he is in it for means nothing. Most of the information you added is not reliably sourced by the source you provided. GB fan 23:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Direct quote from McGibney: "Revenge is never pretty, but when done meticulously, intelligently, and psychotically, it sure is a thing of beauty.” Becca Tobin saying she is quitting because she does not approve is his actions is a direct quote. The guy claiming that he has lost $250,000 in revenue because all of his celebrities and advertisers have left is a direct quote. How about you come up with some suggestions that you think will work? I offered up mine, but you don't like them. So how about you please help out and show me what you think? The article can certainly say "Many people have accused McGibney of email hacking and the digging up of personal information and posting it online." Because that is what he was accused of doing to Hunter Moore and that other guy Craig Brittain. We can certainly say that he has been accused of this by those two grandmothers on account of the Kate Gosselin controversy, too. Im not saying he is quilty, just accused which is what the article also says. McGibney himself admits being involved with the illegal hacking groups Anonymous and the Rustle League - that is straight from the article. Direct quote from the article: "That’s where McGibney and his shadowy crew of hackers and sleuths come in. They’ve infiltrated, attacked and dethroned some of the baddest bad guys (and girls) of the digital age. As McGibney puts it with his usual bravado, “I will mentally skullfuck a bully.” Here is another: "Though others might consider such practices a form of extortion, McGibney saw it as ammo for fighting back." "Behind the scenes, McGibney had a powerful gang of volunteers feeding him more dirt on Moore: Anonymous" And, GB Fan, as you know, Anonymous is an illegal hacking group - no two doubts about it. And there is another article where McGibney admits to working with these hacking groups, see paragraph 12: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/10/the-bully-waging-war-against-bullies.html Unholyrollerz (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• We cannot say that people have accused McGibney of illegal activities based on what you have presented. The policy on Biographies of Living Persons is very clear on this. In the Public figures section, it says that if you do not have multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Here we have one source that makes these accusations and that is not enough to support mentioning them in the article. The quote you gave from McGibney is in the source, but that quote does not say he is in it for the revenge, just that revenge can be a thing of beauty if done correctly. The quote doesn't even say that he has taken revenge on anyone, he is commenting on the nature of revenge. In the Daily Beast article McGibney doesn't admit to working with Anonymous. The author of the article states: "He occasionally works with the controversial hacking collective Anonymous and Rustle League, a smaller group of online trolls and security professionals." That statement by the author is sandwiched in between two quotes by McGibney but it is not McGibney stating it. A quote does say "We’re very thorough on how we dox someone and get their information,” What the quote does not say is how they dox someone. It appears to me that you are reading things into what the source says. There might be some information from that article that could go into the article but it is not what you are trying to add. I am willing to discuss proposed wording but will not be creating the wording. GB fan 01:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is important to notice how McGibney has been exposed to being a part of the problem and clearly not the solution. This new article shows that much of what he claimed is not true and I think this article here needs to reflect that. How about saying that "McGibney has lost the support of celebrities he once had due to allegations of misconduct and bullying activities"? Becca Tobin did issue a strongly worded statement when she quit Bullyville. That was the #1 celebrity for that website. The article needs to fairly reflect how the tide of public opinion has turned against this man and not be just a total whitewash. 64.28.250.2 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hit with Record Setting Court Sanctions

According to the Courthouse News Service McGibney was hit with record setting sanctions for violating the anti-SLAPP law in Texas. This to me seems similar to what happened in the Hunter Moore case in which McGibney sued Moore for supposedly defamation. But in this new case it was McGibney that was ordered to pay court sanctions. Perhaps the Hunter Moore article should be updated to reflect this new information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowTaxiCab (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016

Dear,

  I am writing to suggest edits to the James McGibney page. His page currently talks about his default judgement in the lawsuit against Hunter Moore, so with that in mind, and being fair and balanced, I think it is only right that his recent loses in three courts (Fed, Ca. State and Texas) should also be covered. Here are a few of the links...

(California State Case)

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/h041521.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1741355.html https://californiaappellatetracker.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/viaview-inc-v-retzlaff/

(Texas State Case) http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/second-court-of-appeals/2014/02-14-00215-cv.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1686467.html https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2760063/neal-rauhauser-v-james-mcgibney-and-viaview-inc/

(California Federal Case) Document 172 of this matter is the Court's ORDER dismissing the case http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24qg371z3/california-northern-district-court/mcgibney-et-al-v-retzlaff/.

I will not get into conjecture here, but I would like to state that wither the complete removal of the Hunter Moore (IsAnyoneUp) mention.

Next Up: I would like to address footnote "5" in the article as is: "He was awarded the Navy Achievement Medal for his service in the US Marines." however when visiting the footnote, it is conspicuacly missing ANY mention of the Navy Achievement Medal at all... the only text it has on that cite is:

  "Mr. James McGibney serves as the Chief Executive Officer and President of ViaView, Inc. Mr. McGibney is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of CheaterVille, Inc. Mr. McGibney founded Sapias, Inc. in 1999. He founded SecuraTrak on June 5, 1999. He serves as a Director of ViaView, Inc. Mr. McGibney has earned a master of criminal justice degree from Boston University."

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=11255770&privcapId=138613817&previousCapId=2263285&previousTitle=Sapias,%2520Inc.

As such, using that footnote as a method of authenticating what may not be a real Navy Achievement Medal is not appropriate.

I would like to state that I am very familure with the events of this page. I have never attempted to edit it, nor do I even know how to edit a wikipedia page. I do however think that these additions (or substractions depending on how you decide to proceed) should be taken into consideration. With record setting anti-slapp sanctions and 3 loses in court for exactly the same thing that Hunter Moore was sued for (except these loses were not default and McGibney was the plaintiff not the defendant) merits a strong edit to this page.

I am making these suggestions under my real name, and you can contact me anytime to verify my identity and authenticity. JosephACamp@yandex.com

Thank you so much for considering these edits.

JosephACamp (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Joseph Jojo Camp

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MediaKill13 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James McGibney. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625083732/http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2009/prod_090109.html to http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2009/prod_090109.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

SLAPP

I just added an addendum to the SLAPP section that states that the original ruling in the case was overturned by the judge. If anyone has a reliable source that gives the outcome of that case, please add it to the paragraph - I cannot find anything from a quick search. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)