Template:Did you know nominations/The Mad Pooper

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Mad Pooper

(

)

... that after a Colorado Springs family caught a jogger defecating on their sidewalk, she returned to do it again at least once a week for the next two months? "She confronted the woman, asking, 'Are you really taking a poop right here in front of my kids?' ... The family kept finding the runner's poop, Budde said, and the dirty paper napkins she leaves behind. The apparently remorseless runner has pooped on the sidewalk in front of the Budde family's home at least once a week for the past seven weeks. The Washington Post
- ALT1:... that despite being photographed, The Mad Pooper, a Colorado Springs woman who has been repeatedly defecating in public, remains unidentified? Source: "The story of the so-called 'Mad Pooper' went viral last month when Cathy Budde told police an unidentified woman had been defecating in front of her house for at least seven weeks ... Colorado Springs cops said they were searching for the mysterious woman, and that the search continues."Fox News
- ALT2:... that Procter & Gamble has offered The Mad Pooper of Colorado Springs a year's supply of Charmin if she turns herself in to police? Source: "If the #MadPooper turns herself in, we'll give her a year's supply of TP to help with her 'runs'" Twitter

Reviewed: James Fugaté

Created by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 05:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC).

The article seems contrary to WP:PERP, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." WP:DYKRULES states "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." If this is really a matter of historic importance then we should wait until the mystery is fully resolved rather being party to a trial by media. Andrew D. (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Per the cited WP:PERP: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event.". I understand your concern but we have plenty of other articles on unidentified criminals, criminals similarly known only by popular sobriquets like Mr. Cruel or the Original Night Stalker, that would not survive such a strict reading of policy. In the case of an unidentified individual whose purported criminal offenses have received enough reliable third-party coverage to satisfy our notability requirements, it is somewhat absurd to insist the article not "focus unduly on [their] negative aspects" since those negative aspects are in such cases the only thing known with any certainty or detail about them. I would also direct your attention to the "possible motives" section of the article, where I spent several paragraphs summing up a column in Woman's Health in which a woman with Crohn's disease pleads for sympathy for the article's subject on those grounds, if that is her problem. That angle is not otherwise reflected in most of the media coverage.

Should she be apprehended and charged, I would certainly amend the article appropriately.

If you feel there are any specific aspects of the article that could be improved, please let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't seem "historic" because it happened quite recently and still seems to be an open case but is fairly trivial and so seems unlikely to end up in the history books like, say, Jack the Ripper did. It seems to be just the sort of story which that rule refers to as "one side of an ongoing dispute". And, as we're publishing a photograph of the alleged perpetrator, it has potential to get much uglier at any time. I can't see any possible improvement which will change this and so my verdict is unchanged. If Daniel Case wants to press the matter, he should please call for another reviewer so that we can establish a consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"This doesn't seem 'historic' because it happened quite recently" The language of PERP is meant to refer to crimes where the alleged perpetrator is still living or reasonably likely to be. "It seems to be just the sort of story ..." You're being subjective here. I also don't see how this can possibly be "one side of an ongoing dispute" unless you didn't read the article thoroughly. " And, as we're publishing a photograph of the alleged perpetrator ..." Not a very good one. Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, then ...

I am requesting a new review. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting, well-referenced, and amusing article; great work. I don't believe it contradicts the general Wikipedia notability guideline of WP:PERP either. That said, it does seem like it's in contradiction of the DYK-specific restriction of "Articles that focus unduly negative aspects of living individuals". I guess it comes down to what exactly 'unduly' implies here, but I personally would take that as meaning "unduly for a front-page showcase". Since there's still a lot unknown about this crime per Andrew D., I'd err on the side of caution, since this is a BLP. Maybe just not the best DYK material.

Incidentally, it may be worth attempting to replace the word "unduly" with something more specific in the guidelines. Or even just remove it altogether if the implication is supposed to be that DYK is not a police blotter, even if it's referenced / neutral. SnowFire (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: OK, I will now officially withdraw this nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)