Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:39, 18 March 2008

18 March 2008

Don Murphy

Don Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted by wheel-warring administrator Viridae after surviving several AfDs. He did not discuss this at all on-Wiki, and instead preferred to discuss it on a WP:BADSITE that I can't link to because it contains egregious personal attacks against many Wikipedians. Bongout (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: It would appear that Viridae is now canvassing for people to influence this discussion: here and here. Completely inappropriate. Bongout (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment These are 2 admin users with a great track record whose opinions we should here in this case, hardly classic WP:CANVAS or inappropriate WP:CANVAS. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

While the canvass page is clear, and the reason why I put a note on the talk page of this DRV. I see v did not. However, in that case, there is also another policy I'll keep in mind. I does appear, questionable.  :| NonvocalScream (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Restore. I would encourage the deleting administrator to reverse his own action, where IAR did not apply, and cited BLP did not appear to apply. I did not see anything BLP violating. BLP process did not allow for this. It does not improve, so IAR does not allow for this. AFD would have been the proper action... not outright deletion. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as we need to respect Murphy. If Murphy acts like a wanker and we act like honourable men and women this really helps the project and its BLP issues. This is a real no brainer and could set a good example/precedent. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless a revision appeared recently that I did not see, there were no glaring libel, or mad BLP issues. How do ye address that? NonvocalScream (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I suggest you read the recent revisions (if you can) rather than make such an inaccurate comment). Thanks, SqueakBox 03:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted obviously Don Murphy is of limited notability by wikipedia's standards, he stands right on the edge and it is only his involvement in a handfull of semi sucessful movies that has gained him an article. However he is only a producer, not the very well known director of one of those movies (Oliver Stone). The producer features little in the movie production process in comparison to telelvison. The director gets all the credit - the producer just (to my knowledge) runs the financial and managerial side. While important to the production of the movie, its not that important to how the movie looks. Thus as non big name producer he is only notable for his connection to the movies he has directed, a link which is therefore tenuous. Murphy has strenuously objected to this article for a variety of reasons across a variety of forums including Misplaced Pages and The Misplaced Pages Review (which can by the way be linked to - BADSITES is a rejected policy). Misplaced Pages gains very little from having this article, Murphy has stated he is very unhappy with its existance, and as wikipedia is not here to make people sad (to paraphrase Jimbo), the article shoudl remain deleted or from WP:BLP "Misplaced Pages articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects", Murphys Dignity is not being respected as he considers himself a private individual, not one that is in the public eye, and I challenege anyone to prove that he is a significantly public individual. I might also point out that the only Wheel warring was by John Reaves (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) because WP:BLP, the policy i cited when deleting the article, specifically states "Administrators must obtain consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article." Viridae 02:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing BLP doesn't cast your poor decision into undeletable stone. John Reaves 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, until consensus exists for undeletion it does. Viridae 02:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, I don't see where in BLP it permits you to delete in this manner. Please quote, because I think I'm missing it. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You did an end run around AFD on flimsy grounds. You know you did. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking the assumed power of three letters and a wikilink with the actual spirit of the policy. John Reaves 02:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As my link shows, you're wheel-warring as well, and that's something you've recently been warned about by respected administrator Georgewilliamherbert. Also, despite BADSITES being a failed policy, it is still against Misplaced Pages policy to link to attack sites, which is something that an administrator should know. Bongout (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? Try to get your facts straight before you call unblocking someone with unanimous agreement (apart from george) for the unblock wheel warring. Viridae 02:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call your unblock wheel-warring. I simply brought up the matter with George to show that you had recently been warned about it. Bongout (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn as and as per nom. Bongout (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without comment on the potential wheel warring issue. This deletion is in keeping with the precedents from Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt, and with Misplaced Pages:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards. Mr. Murphy has requested deletion. Although Wikipedians have not reached general consensus on how far to extend courtesy deletions, for nearly a year now I have advocated a dead-trees standard. Since it is unlikely that Mr. Murphy has attained the level of notability that would give him an entry in a paper-and-ink encyclopedia about the film industry, any encyclopedic information mentioning him could be incorporated into Natural Born Killers and other relevant articles. Durova 02:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI the relevant policy clause is: When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus about how much weight editors should give the subject's wishes; in that matter the closing administrator exerts discretion. Durova 02:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Durova... Where is the AFD Viridae closed that was ambiguous? Surely you recognize the need for administrators to discuss first (AFD) rather than delete where no pressing BLP concern exists. What say you? Respectfully NonvocalScream (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no AfD. Bongout (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of starting the AFD myself. And as a procedural matter I wouldn't object to restoring the article for the specific purpose of running a regular AFD on it. Durova 03:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Can admins please review the revision I had written before it was reverted by sockpuppets of Mr. Murphy? There was substantially more content about him as independently reported by reliable sources -- both his personal life and his professional career. His notability is definitely not limited to Natural Born Killers. The reason I had expanded the article because on the surface, it seems that he is not very notable. However, I found plenty of evidence to the contrary, showing that he definitely has a reputation in Hollywood. RTFA (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Well if anyone reviews RTFAs edits they should mine too, we botyh edited heavily opver the last 24 hours. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment:I find it outrageous that RTFA would have the gall to sign in here. He is the entire cause of the latest explosion which has led to much wasted time, calls to Wales and other issues that are really just a part of a grudge match. Who is RTFA? He obviously knows Misplaced Pages but is a single purpose account designed to edit and push for edits for Don Murphy. He started a section called PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION which included aspersions and attacks that would affect livelihood and be problematic for Misplaced Pages. He did all of this to get back at Murphy. His comment is just chilling - who is he? Why is he doing this?TooManyTools (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Obvious sock/soldier of the subject of the article. First and only edit. SirFozzie (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This template must be substituted.

• Overturn deletion. The idea that a Hollywood film producer with the credits of Murphy is of "borderline notability" is ridiculous. I do not think this was a valid BLP deletion and am very disappointed by Viridae's conduct in this matter. WjBscribe 03:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Restore. Personally I approve of BLP practices being extended so as to make the subject's wishes an issue of consideration, but clearly this is going too far. Bypassing AfD in order to delete an article contra consensus should be reserved for BLP emergencies, not invoked whenever a subject expresses distaste. The article wasn't particularly good, but it certainly didn't call for such irregular treatment. — xDanielx /_C\ 03:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside comment on policy related issues - My understanding is that NPOV is our core mandatory content guide. Other policies all seem to acknowledge the primacy of NPOV for topics that will be included. I feel the above rationale, though good-faith, is flawed in several ways:

1. If the subject is notable (sufficient suitable independent reliable sources) and appropriate (WP:NOT) with adequate sources allowing an article to exist, then an article may exist if someone wishes to write one. Doubts about notability are an AFD matter not a summary deletion issue.
2. BLP says of privacy that "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic". Not "deleted". It puts NPOV and sourcing as the priorities.
3. Basic human dignity is cited in the context of "articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects". It is not cited as grounds for summary deletion. Its thrust is not to write maliciously or carelessly when it's a BLP. It again puts quality of writing as the priority.
4. BLP permits summary removal only for specifically non-compliant content, not ideally the entire article including valid content (unless the entire article is non-compliant and the problematic material is unable to be otherwise removed). Material that clearly does not breach BLP should not be removed. BLP says in several places the remedy is to par back specific non-compliant material.
5. Content is subject to WP:NPOV, and BLP places NPOV and quality of sources at a higher level than itself. Its thrust is compliance with high quality editing.

This is a contentious topic hence views of DRV participants can be expected to differ. But the above may help as a plain reading of the words of the policy. Obviously communal norms may differ from policy wording, but I am not convinced there is a communal norm that a concern by any one of 2000 admins that the subject may not be notable or has expressed objection to having an article, is widely taken as good cause for summarily deletion for BLP.... especially when the notability issue has been decided by consensus before. Viridae cites consensus as needed to undelete, but has omitted that consensus is also needed to deem a previously-agreed notable topic non-notable, too. Overall, it is not for one admin to argue essentially that "I myself assert against consensus that the subject is non-notable, so that means I can delete it repeatedly even though there is an established consensus against my view". Apologies to Viridae, but that seems the thrust of the argument, and if so, it seems flawed. FT2  03:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion because the argument for lack of notability is completely fallacious. Not only is he known for Natural Born Killers (there is likely more detail about him in Jane Hamsher's Killer Instinct), he has received significant coverage from The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, and LA Weekly about the producer in many different aspects, not just because he contributed to the controversial Natural Born Killers. Don Murphy has repeatedly warred against Misplaced Pages because the vandalism of Transformers fans to his Misplaced Pages article has made him feel invaded. He is not the only living person whose article gets vandalized often -- he just happens to have a computer and self-proclaimed stooges to harass editors like H. His opinion matters little because he has clearly been noted in the public eye as shown by some of the sources I've shared. RTFA (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• DeleteRTFA is a single purpose account, perhaps Murphy himself, designed to get WP in trouble. He showed up out of nowhere and created all this havocTooManyTools (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Multiple vote attempt from new account. SirFozzie (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Assume good faith. While not available now, my expansion did far more justice to Murphy as a film producer, outlining his ambitions and reputation and accomplishments. In addition, this is a SPA because Don Murphy is known to have harassed editors -- please see his thread here. RTFA (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - this falls into the category of not worth the trouble. --B (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. I'm more than a bit troubled that inconvenient information is censored but happy to allow generous BLP latitude to remove material unsourced/unreported. Deleting the whole article though? Seems big brother-ish and serves to make the project worse. Trim the BLP-violating stuff and keep the rest. If vandals and SPAs are causing problems deal with those as needed. Benjiboi 03:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• overturn we've had multiple prior DRVs about this article, all of which ended as keep. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination). As I've discussed at User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP when dealing with deletions requested by the subject, we should let the community consensus decide whether or not the BLP-penumbra issue overrides notability. In this case there were two AfDs where the consensus was clear. Admin wheel-warring in such cases is not helpful in the extreme. There are great many sources about this individual (RTFA's above comment should be read in detail- the fact that he is an SPA doesn't change the fact that he makes a very good point). And many other sources have been presented in the previous AfDs. This is a highly notable individual. There may be people where when they make a request for deletion we can reasonably consider it. This is not one of those individuals, as much as I'd like him to be (he might be inclined to go away and spend his time making good movies again rather than spending it trying to annoy us). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Deletes that were the result of a request are not the same as other BLP-related deletions, and do not require a DRV to be overturned. But since we're here anyways, overturn. When something has gone through multiple AfDs and been kept, you don't use the somewhat disputed and grey area rationale of "subject requests deletion". -- Ned Scott 03:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification point: user:RTFA appears to be an alternate account used by a legitimate Wikipedian in apparent good standing, who is separating their edits in relation to this article from their other edits. There is no obvious abuse of multiple accounts in examining their edits, and judging by their other edits this is quite likely a subject of genuine editorial interest rather than "pov pushing". RTFA should probably best be treated as a second account of an editor with a clean record who seeks to not have Don Murphy related issues intrude in his main account for whatever reason, and accepted as such. If any user has concerns that the edits would thereby be abusive, they may want to let me know any concern by email (for privacy of RTFA and others), and I'll check deeper. But for now I don't see a reason to treat this other than "On the surface" as a good-faith alt account. FT2  03:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)