Andy Stepheson, Wikipedia, and me.

[Kelvin Mace]

I was in the process writing a paper for a senate candidate summarizing the e-voting issue when I went to Wikipedia to refresh my memory on many of the players (Avi Rubin, Rebbecca Mercuri, etc), and observed some curious facts.

1) Andy Stephenson has no entry whatsoever.

2) The only mention of me had been for the entry on "Black Box Voting" which credited me with coining the term, and providing the formal definition. I wrote for it years ago for the BBV book. At one time, I was credited and a link was provided to Bev's site and the specific page of her book the definition was found. The entry was completely deleted (it has since been partially restored) and the Bev has altered the page that was linked to and removed the definition and credit.

The entry mentions Bev's lawsuit, and says that money she received was donated to her foundation, citing Bev's Form 990, Schedule A as evidence. Yet I do not recall ever seeing that entry in the 990 docs that were released.

3) Bev's page is completely free of any mention of controversy, including stuff that made the newspapers.

Now, I am NOT suggesting we start a war over at Wikipedia, in fact I am opposed to getting into a pissing fight with certain skunks, BUT I think:

1) Andy deserves an entry, tastefully written that adheres to facts that can be documented in the newspapers (the nastiness against him DID make the papers) and honors him for what he contributed.

2) Some mention, again, that which can be documented with press citations, should be in Bev's entry.

Your thoughts on the matter please.

And I would ask that folks do not work themselves up and that they omit the usual words that are used to describe Bev and her supporters. I would like to keep this a relatively low-key discussion so as not to upset the Mods who have enough headaches with the primaries.

What is important demonstrably FACTUAL record and honoring Andy.

David Allen

[Ian David]

1. The right-wing has a very active militant front on WikiPedia.

I suggest you skip Wikipedia and use Dkosopedia instead.

And while you do Andy Stephenson's entry, perhaps you want to restore the one for Andrew Veal as well.

[Kelvin Mace]

3. Wikipedia is the coin of the realm

we have to make a stand there.

Also, I don't see this as actions by the Right, but by Bev Harris and her loyalists.

I was just examining Diebold's entry and there is scant mention of the BBV issue at all.

Even if this is the actions of a "militant front" of wingnuts, since when do we role over an cede ground? That's such a Pelosi/Reid thing to do. :)

[Ian David]

5. Does Godwin's Law apply to comparing someone to Pelosi yet?

You've got a good point.



Never give up. Never surrender!

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Rido ad alto voce!

(Italian LOL)

Nancy isn't a Nazi (now there a nice alliteration), just a collaborator.

(edited to correct my Italian grammar)

[CTyankee]

20. Use of future tense with "ridero"? Just wondering...

I would probably use the present indicative "rido" if you are saying "I am laughing out loud."

[Kelvin Mace]

21. You are correct

my brain short circuited this morning.

Si parle italiano? Da dove vieni?

[CTyankee]

24. Sono Americana ma

ho studiato l'italiano per pochi anni e ho viaggiato a Italia. Vado a Torino in maggio, quest'anno. Mi piace molto l'Italia -- la gente, la cucina, l'arte.

L'italiano non e difficile ECCETTO "l'imperfetto indicativo." Lo capicsce bene?

[Kelvin Mace]

30. Si, ho imparato il mio italiano

a scuola in Muralto, canton Ticino, in Svizzera. Ho abitato la per due anni (1969-1970) quando era dieci anni.

Ho dimenticato molto, ma sono felice di trovare qualcuno per esercitarsi la lingua.

[CTyankee]

45. Allora, ho dimenticato molto anche!

Lei è stato all'Italia da tempo fa lei aveva dieci anni?

[Kelvin Mace]

47. Se capisco le sue domanda

guisto, no. Abitanno vicino la frontiera italiana (10 miglie), e ho vistiato le citta italiane vicino. (Re, Domodossola, l'isola de Brissago, Como, etc.) Le citta vicino a me, era Bellinzona, Lugano, Chiasso, e Ascona.

[Firespirit]

2. A warning about Wikipedia

There is a policy at that site that mandates secondary sources and they go berserk over an article that contains content researched by reading the primary source, or subject of the article. (I.e. if a writeup about an organization appears in a newspaper, that's an acceptable source, but researching the organization and writing up information -- however factual -- is against policy.) It is my opinion that this policy of "we can only parrot what someone else has said" is in opposition to free and independent thought.

Naturally there is a group on Wikipedia that selectively use this policy to silence facts they don't like. They will delete and revert anything that isn't "properly sourced." You're highly unlikely to find a secondary source which is both honest about what happened to Andy and is "reliable" (mainstream) enough to satisfy the WikiAgenda brigade.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. True

but there is quite a bit in "secondary sources" to post. Bev's banning on DU made Wired News. The attacks against Andy made the Seattle Weekly. It was a pretty good piece:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2005-07-13/news/a-fight-to-the-end.php

So, yes, there are sources.

Also, there is Randi Rhodes slap down on Air America of Bev. You can't get much more "reliable" than that.

[opihimoimoi]

116. K&R I miss Kheph....he was The Man

[livvy]

6. I agree. Andy worked tirelessly and deserves the recognition...

for the role he played.
I know that Wiki is not perfect, but I use it when I'm researching a topic and want some links or background. Without Andy's part, the info about e-voting is not complete.
Your part should be there as well.

[EFerrari]

7. Ben was working on an entry for Andy some time ago

and was mobbed by wing nuts. I wonder what happened.

[sellitman]

8. I haven't seen Ben here in a while?

Is he ok?

[EFerrari]

9. Ben hasn't been at DU for a long time and I haven't been able

to raise him.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. troubling...

I haven't heard anything in a while either...

[leftchick]

17. this is why

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=111047

:(

[Kelvin Mace]

19. Well, I knew he had been baned from here

but I haven't heard from him outside DU.

[troubleinwinter]

41. Think he had a physical injury last year that laid him up for awhile.

[Canuckistanian]

108. I had heard that from Bartcop

Bart is in contact with him fairly regularly, I think.

[Jim Lane]

26. Ben Burch is still involved on Wikipedia

He's removed some anti-DU crap from Wikipedia's article -- which, frankly, I don't know whether I'd be gracious enough to do if I'd been tombstoned.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. Well, it is always nice when folks rise

above their disagreements.

Kudos to Ben.

[SmokingJacket]

80. Ben's a great guy.

One of my all-time DU favorites.

I can't remember what lead to his tombstoning, but DU hasn't been the same since. :(

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

50. Good.

:)

[Kelvin Mace]

51. Hot damn!

The idiots must have let the domain lapse!

[Hissyspit]

69. Yes, that's what happened. And it got scooped up. Someone posted about it here at the time, although

I don't remember who(m?) it was.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. We need to ask him about it.

We need to get it up, and defend it. The wingnut contingent have ZERO "objective" sources for any claims about Andy.

[EFerrari]

13. That's right. Oh -- I talked to the reporter who wrote that series

a little while back. The guy he interviewed who lives in Nebraska has disappeared off the face of the Earth. Isn't that strange?

[Kelvin Mace]

14. Back into the mental institue he came from

I guess.

Here's the other story we can use:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2005-07-06/news/cancerous-campaign.php

We need to find a person whose up on Wikipedia's barnd of HTML, which I confess throws me at times.

[EFerrari]

15. I only posted there once when Ben was being given a hard time.

But, there seem to be several DUers who write entries over there.

[troubleinwinter]

34. Ya mean 'Frank Solich' disappeared? Very strange.

[EFerrari]

37. Yep. I tracked down George for something else

and he volunteered that "Frank" was not to be found.

[troubleinwinter]

60. "Frank" is around.

At least posting as a moderator as recently as 2/1/08 on a new rw trash board.

[EFerrari]

96. Interesting. Maybe he just relocated to a new septic tank. n/t

[timtom]

16. I wholeheartedly agree.

And if it keeps getting deleted, it should just as quickly be re-entered.

[Kelvin Mace]

18. At some point, it will be locked and

an editor assigned. The editor will vette our sources. Since we can provide actual HARD evidence of our claims and Freepers can't, ours will remain and the entry will be watched to prevent vandalism.

Personally, I don't see a problem.

[Tesha]

59. The administrators can take steps that make it impossible to recreate the article.

And that's what they'll do. Frankly, unless you can
establish Andy's notability using independent sources,
that's what they SHOULD do.

Tesha

[Kelvin Mace]

63. As I said

there are many more references to Andy in the media, including a documentary that ran on HBO.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133214,00.html
http://pcworld.about.com/news/Sep242004id117911.htm
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2004/0923consugroup.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CE6DC103CF93BA3575BC0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2004/06/63954
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/feb/02/houseofcommons.society

So we have stories from Fox News, PC World, Network Week, the New York Times, Wired News and The Guardian.

I spent two minutes pulling up these stories, so I think we have more than enough sources to make Wiki editors happy.

[Tesha]

73. Then just make sure the new article includes all of those references.

And when the Reich Wing folks inevitably bring it up for
AfD ("Article for Deletion"), be prepared to argue it all
the way up to ArbCom. Perhaps you'll get some sanctions
placed against the Winger editors as a result.

But you do have to be prepared to put your life as a
Wikipedian "on the line" as well.

Tesha

[Kelvin Mace]

81. I don't see how it can be deleted

it seems to meet all the criteria.

- He was a public figure.
- He was involved in a significant national/international issue.
- He is mentioned in numerous MSM stories, TV, newspapers, magazine, and radio.
- Any claim about his life and death can be documented in the above.
- Freepers can only point to Freeper sites (anonymous opinion) which are invalid as sources.

Game, set, match!

[Tesha]

91. But it will still need the warm bodies to defend the article.

Have your "ducks in a row" the next time *BEFORE* the
article is created so that you'll already have established
notability and have the correct set of people already
watching the article and ready to defend it against the
inevitable assault by the deletionists.

That way, you won't need to round up a gang of people
after the fact and be accused of canvassing.

Surely you can find a dozen or two long term editors
of the encyclopedia who'll come around to your point
of view regardingthe article. And if you can't, then
maybe the article really doesn't belong in the
encyclopedia. :(

Tesha

[Kelvin Mace]

98. That's the idea

If we are going to do this, we have to do it cold, without emotion. We need to write it up ahead of time with all citations in place. Again, if we leave emotion and unacceptable sources out of the discussion, the other can only cite dubious sources and emotional arguments.

Perhaps I am naive, but again, he demonstrably a public figure based on any criteria you could name, including US case law.

[troubleinwinter]

22. Yes, Ben had Andy's wiki entry going,

but it became a disgusting battle with the Scamdy types, and he finally decided it was better to just leave off with the ugliness. Now is probably a time when it can be put up again.

I'll send you Ben's email addy and where he posts now.

[Kelvin Mace]

23. Thanks

Did you catch the bit where Bev claims she gave the qui tam money to BBV and cites her 990?

Did I miss something?

D.

[troubleinwinter]

31. The 990 is a dead link. Hahahaha!!!!

Of course she has claimed that donation for years. I will say that she very much needs to be AUDITED.

I did email ya.

[EFerrari]

32. Maybe you could fix that link.

:evilgrin:

[Kelvin Mace]

36. We certainly must

and add that no such donation appears.

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Didn't we look at schedule A

and comment that the donation was absent?

Also, it isn't a dead link, they didn't bother to link to it at all.

Well, I have to run some errands. Back in a bit.

[troubleinwinter]

40. "it isn't a dead link, they didn't bother to link to it at all."

Does it remind you of her dear side-kick, "John Dean"? Hahahaha!!!! He has the "PROOF" ya know, that you & I & untold others are employed by Diebold. A nonexistent link sounds just like his usual "proof".

[Kelvin Mace]

42. Yeah,

did you know I was placed "on trial" for my crimes? I haven't heard much from John lately (over a year in fact). I assume he got put back in the home.

[Jim Lane]

25. Wikipedia did have an article about Andy Stephenson

It was removed as a result of the "Articles for Deletion" process, in which the community can be asked to comment on whether a particular article is appropriate. IIRC, the main issue about the Andy Stephenson article was the one mentioned by Firespirit (post #2 above) -- the policy that the subject of a biographical article must be notable, with notability established through coverage in secondary sources.

If it makes you feel any better, the biography of Jim Robinson (founder of Free Republic) was deleted for the same reason.

There are of course left-right divisions at Wikipedia, but there's a more fundamental deletionist versus inclusionist divide. Right now the deletionists are very strong. In my biased opinion (I'm an inclusionist), they have an exaggerated sense of themselves as gatekeepers, making sure that the unworthy are not granted the noble privilege of a Wikipedia article. I follow instead a criterion of service to the reader, by which standard Wikipedia should have articles on both Stephenson and Robinson.

I suspect that one Seattle Times article won't sway the deletionists. To restore the article and have it stick, you'd need to show more extensive coverage in the media (blogs don't count).

If anyone wants to undertake this project, I'll help out with my knowledge of Wikipedia, where I have more than 11,000 edits. Feel free to PM me.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. Well, there are other articles

we just have to drag them out.

I know he got TV and newspaper coverage as well, that's got to count for something.

Thanks for the offer to help!

[EFerrari]

29. That documentary is out now, too. It wasn't when Ben was

dealing with those people.

[Kelvin Mace]

33. Speaking of documentaries

we need to get some clips from "Invisible Ballots", which while it does have Bev, it also has her saying nice things about me, which completely undermines a lot of her later claims.

Also, I think Bev's on freakin' words in a freakin' documentary should hold water as a legitimate source.

On another note, I have been contacted by two different domain brokers about blackboxvoting.com. One offered me $10, the other $12,000. I wonder how much Bev would offer?

(And no, I have NO intention of selling at ANY price to anyone unless Al Gore or Jimmy Carter are getting into the anti-BBV biz, in which case $10 is just fine. I just like the mental image of blood shooting out of Bev's eyes at the idea of paying for something she thinks is belongs to her.)

[troubleinwinter]

38. Really!??! $12,000, huh?

That might give me a hint as to why she has dropped a particular ongoing $4,000 entry on her 990s. Hm.

I think somebody wants you to take the money and go away.

[Kelvin Mace]

43. Nah, wasn't her

The outfit is one of these sleazy squatter sites that buys and sells domains so they can be used for ads or sex sites. Bev's a different kind of sleazy.

[EFerrari]

39. There's a moment toward the end of HTV where Andy talks about

his legacy.

As for that person, the clip would be good. Maybe trouble would contribute some of the tax docs to the project.

[Kelvin Mace]

44. Yeah, I think we need to dig out some clips from it, "Invisible Ballots"

and the Randi Rhodes Show.

By the way, Bev's quote about "we aren't soiling ourselves with Qui Tam mone" was in the Wall Stree Journal, so I think THAT is a reliable source (even if the writer is John Fund).

Speaking of Wingnuts, I found to my dismay that I am quoted in Fund's book on vote fraud, as a chapter header no less. The quote wasn't derogatory to me, but the idea of being in a John Fund book makes me uneasy.

My wife thought it was positive, since it was a decent quote, but still...

[troubleinwinter]

53. Since we're talking quotes & Qui Tam....

Comments from Jim March, Bev Harris's partner in the Qui Tam and paid Member of the Board of BBV.org, on the occaision of the announcement that Qui Tam had been filed: (not in the Wall Street Journal, but on a gun-nut site)

I'm a professional gun rights activist in CALIFORNIA, if I didn't keep my sense of humor in this commie hell-hole I'da gone nuts ages ago.

...massive potential "bounty" was at stake. It means Viacom and Diebold are now engaged in a race to see who can make ol' Jim a millionaire first.

Eight figures in my pocket is...unlikely, almost bordering on impossible. Diebold would have to be REALLY dumb to let it go that far. More likely they'll settle to avoid tripplers.

So anyways...the profit potential here is just crazy. ....wait'll they get a load o' me and a couple million bucks to toss around.

Yes, there's a possibility that this "something else" (Qui Tam) will leave Bev and I millionaires.

say I get...I dunno, we'll use $5mil as a ballpark round number.

For doing all this, Bev and I are due to split a cut of the winnings (a "bounty"). It'll vary between "bigtime fun money" each to "retirement-level" loot, depending on how it all shakes out.

we've got ourselves one heck of a fine little PR machine going....

....Lockyer (CA's AG at the time) now has the same opportunity and he's liable to drag Bev and I along on a VERY profitable (kaCHING!) ride.

I ain't gonna tame down, I ain't gonna sheeple up, I ain't gonna meekly promise to turn over all "evil profits" to "the good of all as the DU community sees it".

A big part: the various "commies" over there (Democratic Underground) are choking over the idea of profit getting wrapped up in activism.

It's genuinely hilarious.

Me?

I'm a gun nut, remember? Call me a "bounty hunter" and I'll say: yup!

Silly commies.

Bev's reaction to March's comment:

Everyone knows that Jim March is right wing. Right wing sites call progressives who are upset about getting funding "commies." The point is valid-- Bev Harris

Jim now lives in Arizona (though is still on BBV Board), and has filed a Qui Tam in AZ with a few fellow republicans. Maybe he figures he'll get his millions this time.

He changed his registration from ("the libertarian wing of") the rupublican party to "independent", and has been hired as a "consultant" by the Dems in the state. Wonder if they know that he regards them as "commies".

[EFerrari]

76. What a slimeball.

Gack.

[Richard Steele]

46. I'll just give this a nice, venom-free K&R, as you requested. nm

[Kelvin Mace]

48. We have been behaving ourselves

No profanity so far. :):):)

[troubleinwinter]

54. It helps

when we don't have someone exclaiming that Bev is the Goddess of Democracy.

[Richard Steele]

71. It's not easy for me to REFRAIN from profanity when I see that certain 3-letter name...

But I'm doing it this one time, just for good karma
on this pro-Andy thread. He was a hell of a guy, and I'm
sure he wouldn't want me to waste my life HATING anyone.

But I'm not half as decent as he was, donchaknow.
The next time I see her name, I'm pretty certain that
the word "profanity" will fail to adequately describe
the heartfelt verbal expression of my thoughts and feelings.

[orleans]

52. (why is skinner signing off on your post? are you quoting him?)

i saw that wiki entry/non-entry of andy too. i don't know how you fix that. or start a new one.

my friend has been in a pissing contest with someone else over a wild chicago entry--this one person keeps deleting an entry about the tv show and a book reference that my friend (who was also on the show) puts up. the girl who keeps deleting the entry is just pissed off at the show so she doesn't want to give them any more credit--and then she adds this big bio about her relaxing in france (or some such shit)

go in and just edit bev's entry--and keep going back and putting it back in.

i don't know what else you can do.

[Jim Lane]

58. To get something done on Wikipedia, persistence is essential but not sufficient

Whether it's restoring a complete article on Andy Stephenson, or making sure that the Bev Harris article includes certain information, you need to work within the Wikipedia rules. For example, ceaselessly re-entering something, without addressing the objections of those who oppose its inclusion, will only get you blocked. Every Wikipedia article has an associated talk page for discussing such matters. Use it.

With regard to having a Wikipedia article about Andy Stephenson, see my post #25 above.

[Kelvin Mace]

64. Skinner and I have the same name.

David Allen

Which is why I don't post under that name.

I think I need to start signing it:

David Allen (not Skinner).

[orleans]

65. oh. (what are the odds?) sorry for asking. thanks for explaining.

i was confused.

[Kelvin Mace]

66. Never apologize for asking a question of clarification

Sometimes it save lives.

[orleans]

67. (smile.) (and kick) n/t

[demodonkey]

55. KICKIPEDIA for my friend Andy. He belongs on there with a great article about all the good...

... he did in his life.

I didn't know Andy for years and years but he was like a second brother to me in many ways.



Funny they are talking about things on other threads tonight that affected Paul, my only real brother who is also gone.

See POST #11 HERE:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2896722

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2895646&mesg_id=2895646

:cry:

[Left Brain]

62. so seconded

for Andy.

[Generic Other]

56. Like working in the Ministry of Truth

The lies change every day. The true story needs to be recorded.

Keep up the good fight all!

[juajen]

57. I certainly hope Andy will be remembered there.

He earned a place in the history of BBV, IMHO.

[demodonkey]

61. Get back up there.

:kick:

[DrDebug]

68. Andy Stephenson's removed Wikipedia page

The page was removed by the Team America tag team in coordinated effort ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard ). The Team America tag team has the same members as a site which shall remain nameless and includes DHS agents like MONGO ( http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/MONGO * ). As you can see on the Conspiracy Noticeboard it was used to delete all embarrassing Bush scandals including Andy Stephenson.

39. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Christison (CIA)
40. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Christison
41. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Election Selection Trauma (second nomination)
42. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination)
43. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Stephenson
44. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rivero
45. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer conspiracy -- snowball delete
46. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coincidence theory (second nomination)
47. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Caradori

(...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard

It has no use recreating it because they'll delete it immediately.

This is the saved entry before it was deleted:

Walter Andrew Stephenson (October 14, 1961 - July 7, 2005) was an Internet journalist, Democratic political candidate, and activist for voting reform in the United States.

Stephenson was born in El Paso, Texas. He attended the University of Texas at El Paso.

Following the 2000 presidential election, Stephenson began investigating allegations of voting fraud. He researched and became an activist on this issue and particularly with regard to the possibility of tampering with electronic voting machines. Stephenson also wrote several articles on this subject, which were hosted by various progressive web sites. ( http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=781&pid=2971&st=0�entry2971 ), ( http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=30 ) In 2004 he unsuccessfully ran for Secretary of State in Washington, again largely on a platform of voting reform. ( http://www.andystephenson.com/ )

In February 2005, Stephenson was hospitalized for suspected hepatitis. Further testing determined that the problem was actually a life-threatening pancreatic cancer. Friends and supporters of Stephenson then began to informally solicit online donations through Paypal for $50,000 to help pay for his surgery.

This goal was met within eleven days, but by the time the first half of the payment had been accumulated a counter campaign had also been launched. Conservative critics suggested that the donations were a scam and Stephenson was not really ill. Upon receiving these claims Paypal temporarily froze the funds to investigate. That caused a two-week delay in payment to the hospital and surgery to remove the tumor. ( http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_elizabet_050714_the_stalking_of_andy.htm )

Following the surgery there were problems with getting Medicaid funding due to the informal fundraiser. He also had post-surgical complications and several strokes. On July 7, 2005, around the time that his Medicaid was reinstated, Stephenson died at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, Washington. ( http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0528/050713_news_andy.php ), ( http://www.legacy.com/nwclassifieds/LegacySubPage2.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonId=14534907 )

Supporters of Stephenson have charged that the claims of fraud and delays in treatment they caused may have contributed to his death. Many of his detractors continue to claim that he was a scam artist, is not actually dead, and was hounded not by conservatives, but by his own friends and associates. Both sides point to the case as an example of the perfidy of their opponents.

* Encyclopedia Dramatica cannot be mentioned on Wikipedia either after they created a page about MONGO and the ED article was deleted as well!

[Tesha]

74. Most Wikipedia administrators will be willing to get the text of any of the deleted versions for you

Unless a page slanders/libels someone/something, most Wikipedia
administrators will be willing to get the text of any of the
deleted versions for you. That doesn't mean you can re-post
it, of course, but very little on Wikipedia is actually
deleted beyond retrieval.

Tesha

[DrDebug]

77. It's not about the text, but that it cannot be recreated

And the real irony is that there is a SIGNIFICANT overlap between the Team America clique on Wikipedia and the people behind Scamdy. In short, the deletion of Andy Stephenson was a coordinated effort by a far right group which includes administrators, DHS agents, and known posters on a messageboard whose only mission is to disrupt this messageboard.

The deletion debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Stephenson

Notice that the first posters all vote Delete and are part of the deletion team. Also notice that everybody who dares to speak out gets harassed immediately or their votes get discounted. Also they were really quick to put up a link to this site, yet wanted to know how a link was added to their messageboard which also caleld on their users to vote Delete. (A funny thing about the deletion team is that they are against conspiracy, however when a Clinton conspiracy was submitted they all voted Keep in unison!)

The next step is that Andy Stephenson was deleted out of process and a Deletion review was submitted. Once again it gets listed by the same group who immediately perform a rerun of the deletion debate. ( http://tinyurl.com/3dgnkg )

And that is exactly the problem with Wikipedia: There are two sets of rules and it seems that a certain group gets certain extra privileges like A DHS agent being the most prolific editor of 9/11 attacks and the biography of George W. Bush, conflict of interests and NPOV are not requirements for them, and Jimbo himself fully approves and endorses these practices even going as far as to endorse MONGO after he was desysoped for extensive abuse of power.

I actually wonder whether they would honor the request, because Everyking was desysoped when he merely mentioned that he could retrieve a deleted article.

Edit: tinyurled the seocnd link because it was too complex for the software

[Tesha]

78. I've outlined the appeal procedures for you.

I've outlined the appeal procedures for you. If you choose
not to follow them, that's not my (or "our") problem.

Once again:

AfD (you know about that)
Deleted article review (you know about that)
RFC (Request for Comment)
Mediation
Arbitration Committee

A stop at the Administrator Noticeboard would be useful as well.

"Everyking" had lots of other conflicts besides this one.

Personally, I think the article probably doesn't have merit
but that's up to you to decide.

Tesha

[DrDebug]

79. Actually I was not a participant in the fight

I only read the DU post hours after it was posted and it was already crystal clear that the freepers were winning. I merely checked their Article Deletion Vote list and saw it promimently displayed together with their argument for deletion. So it isn't "my" problem, I was merely observing the Wikipedia circus from a distant ever since they started a purge on 9/11 articles.

The deletion was before the airing of the HBO special which prominently featured Andy Stephenson and therefore they were gaming the system for non-notability while Andy Stephenson does meet the criteria. In fact he far surpasses the criteria which allowed Mzoli, Jimbo's favorite restaurant to qualify.

So let me see, there can be more arguments with the Scamdy crew at RfC, Mediation and the Arbitration and finally after half a year Wikipedia might actually allow Andy Stephenson biography. And people wonder what is wrong with Wikipedia :sarcasm:

I liked Everyking and even befriended Karmafist. They were both good administrators. They are now ex-administrators, because both Original Research and Original Thought are forbidden at that place.

"Waiting for approval is good, or at least, that what the Germans are telling me"
- Jimbo Wales ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5286458.stm )

[Kelvin Mace]

83. My advice is re-write the article from scratch

and show it to the Wikipedia admins/mods/editors/whoever. Let them see that it is meticulously sourced with unimpeachable citations. Explain to them the potential vandalism problem and ask for the entry to be locked and for additions/deletions to be discussed and approved.

Is this a better way to proceed?

[DrDebug]

84. The first problem is that Andy is currently a forbidden subject

It passed both Deletion "debate" and Deletion Review "debate". So not only do you need to show citations, you need to convince people at RfC that it is now notable and that the previous "debates" are no longer relevant.

The real dilemma is that that debate will once again be filled with the same people who were behind Scamdy and their pals of course which will prevent any meaningful discussion. Also bear in mind that several of the Team America members are administrators so they will actively use their tools against you or end the debate out of process in their favour thus triggering a debate at Mediation. I assume that you have no prior Wikipedia history, so your first entries will be discarded as a single purpose account... (I do have a prior history of +/- 3,000 edits, however I am far left loony who has a history of posting on extremist websites, so I don't qualify either)

Wikipedia will not lock the page a priori, so you need people to monitor and watch the page and revert all vandalism. Be aware that the Scamdy/Team America crew will use of course try to steer any vandalism, debate changes in their favor, so you need a team at least the size of Team America which has about 10 active members...

[EFerrari]

85. These people are still attacking Andy. Their own actions

contradict their denial of wrongdoing.

Maybe we should use Demopedia or whatever the forum here is called, and just deny them the opportunity to continuing their trolling.

[DrDebug]

86. Demopedia is no longer online

It had a slightly modified copy of the Wikipedia page (see a couple of posts up)

In a way Demopedia worked except that it was not very popular, however I quite enjoyed that Wiki, because there were no flame fights, no notability criteria and no trolls or vandalism either. That's why dkospedia might be a good suggestion, however I don't know whether they will allow it.

Wikipedia is not a real option, because it's too volatile to mass bullying. Another example is William Pitt. I hardly ever login to Wikipedia, however I suddenly noticed that it was up for deletion for the second time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Rivers_Pitt(Second_Nomination) ) and asked Ben to put in a Keep as well. Notice that William Pitt almost didn't survive that second nomination (5-4) if it weren't for me and Ben. That was the result of a single freeper.

Andy is less notable than William Pitt and the people behind the Andy story have a good reason to keep it hidden because they are featured players, so it'll be incredibly difficult to keep Andy.

[EFerrari]

88. That's too bad about Demopedia. Well, I'll go with whatever

David decides to do. It's a shame to be involved with that sewer again, though.

[DrDebug]

95. I prefer to stay out of that sewer as well

Don't mind helping out and I know enough about the system, however it needs to be very well coordinated, because else the group we are up against is organized. They are not as strong as they used to be: Mongo is no longer a sysop, tbeatty (nominator of Andy) has been banned for massive abuse, and Mantanmoreland, their British buddy, is currently under investigation for massive sock puppetry. Nevertheless they operate as a team and at least one member is paid by "W".

What I'm trying to say that there may be easier alternatives for Andy like a webpage or a closed Wiki instead wasting of man power and time on Wikipedia. Most pages are left to defend by random visitors and the stakes are too high for Andy.

[Kelvin Mace]

99. This is why I said we have to go in cold

We have to have the entry completely written and documented. We can't get upset, we have to let them play their natural part, deranged, slavering psychos.

[DrDebug]

105. Very good

We need a good, solid document and a place to communicate in case we need more people to counter an attack.

My Caption was EATEN BY A BEAR!

" It's going to be an ugly one, all the process ignorers are going to be there in force, but I thank you for standing with me during that when it comes. "

Karmafist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3ADr_Debug/archive3#Thank_You )


And even though Karmafist didn't survive that one, we are going to try again...
and even though Andy was deleted already, we are going to try again...
and return Andy to his proper place.

[Tesha]

87. Maybe if you can't get 10 supporters for the article then you shouldn't get the article.

> Be aware that the Scamdy/Team America crew will use of course
> try to steer any vandalism, debate changes in their favor, so
> you need a team at least the size of Team America which has
> about 10 active members.

Maybe if you can't get 10 supporters to help you defend
the article then you shouldn't get the article. But the
remedies I've cited do exist on Wikipedia and they extend
as far as sanctioning rogue administrators or administrators
who push a Point of View.

But arguing here won't change anything; you've got to go
press your points *OVER THERE*.

Tesha

[EFerrari]

90. We can get ten people in a heartbeat. And, there's no need to rush

over there, is there? In fact, that would be a little silly.

[Tesha]

92. But they have to be established editors of the encyclopedia...

But they have to be established editors of the encyclopedia
or it will look like you're "Canvassing" and organizing
"Meat puppets". Those sorts of acts piss off the Libertarian-
minded Wikipedians more than anything else you might do.

Tesha

[EFerrari]

93. I don't think it will be a problem. Andy had supporters all over.

For that matter, maybe some of us should go over there and start editing and establish some cred. It couldn't hurt.

[Tesha]

97. Precisely correct.

> For that matter, maybe some of us should go over there and
> start editing and establish some cred. It couldn't hurt.

Precisely correct.

Create a username and a basic user page. Then:

o If you feel like "mixing it up", help edit/police controversial
articles.

o If you feel less bold, add knowledge from your own professional
domain to relevant articles.

o Contribute to one or more of the Reference Desks.

o Help stamp out the continuing plague of petty vandalism.

Before you know it, you'll have thousands of edits and lots
and lots of "street cred".

Tesha

[Tesha]

89. Essentially no topic on Wikipedia is "forbidden".

Essentially no topic on Wikipedia is "forbidden".

(Yes, there are a few titles in the article space that
you can't create, but they tend to be scatological or
the direct result of legal threats against the Wikimedia
Foundation.)

Wikipedia is not censored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

But you can't create an article for a non-notable topic
or person. Establish notability, be willing to defend your
case, and you'll succeed. Stop blaming failure on others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability

Tesha

[Kelvin Mace]

101. OK, let me check

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Check - Dozens of stories in various parts of the print and broadcast media over a period of two years. He also ran for public office, which was also covered by the media.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.

Check.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

Check.

"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.

Check - Fox News, New York Times, AP, Reuters, Wired, Air America, Seattle Weekly, a number of Florida papers as I recall.

I just don't see how he fails any of these criterion.

What am I missing?

[Tesha]

104. You may be missing...

> What am I missing?

You may be missing the willingness to defend the article
against the inevitable political opposition, along with
the willing team of co-workers to help carry the load.
The right has plenty of both.

Tesha

[Kelvin Mace]

112. Unless the political opposition

can manage a Jedi mind trick, no rational human being can argue that we don't meet the criteria as defined by Wikipedia.

Defenders we can get. Training defenders now becomes key.

[Tesha]

115. Just remember, they must be "established editors"

> Defenders we can get. Training defenders now becomes key.

Just remember, they must be "established editors" or
their inputs will be disregarded (much like DU tends
to be much faster to drop a granite cookie on a newbie
than a long-established pain-in-the-ass). So they've
got to be regularly contributing to other areas of
the encylopedia.

Tesha

[Kelvin Mace]

82. With the exception of the Seattle Weekly articles

all the sources listed in that article would have been invalid.

If you look up thread, you'll see that I pulled sources for Fox News, PC World, Air America, The New York Times, and others. These are legitimate sources and cannot be dismissed. They establish Andy as a public figure of note.

You can't cite Andy's own web site from his SoS run, you have to cite local papers. I can understand why this was deleted. We have to do better and stick to documented facts. I know that will annoy some folk, but if we are going to honor Andy, then that what we have to do.

Realize that ANY mention of Andy on Wikipedia will cause high blood pressure with a certain crowd. It will eat at them, and haunt their dreams. They cannot STAND it. But THIS time, we will have the facts to keep the article up, and they will have nothing to smear him with that cannot be deleted for FAILING validation criteria.

[EFerrari]

94. Do you want to begin to develop an article in the DU research forum? n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

102. I think we need to privately sign up a group

then identify our online citations. Write and outline to match the citations, then flesh out the prose.

This should be done out of public view, then debuted when we have finished the article.

[EFerrari]

110. Sounds like a plan to me.

:)

[Divine Discontent]

70. Kick for Andy! eom

[travelingtypist]

72. What about Khephra?

Wiki it as popular members who died.

[Tesha]

75. Kheph was completely non-notable (in the Wikipedia sense). Nice guy, but not notable at all. (NT)

[Lars39]

106. Kephra *was* LBN, getting so many articles here to DU, helping it

become an amazing place to catch information 'hot off the press'.

[Tesha]

107. And in the grand scheme of the entire planet Earth, that amounts to exactly zip.

Like I said, I remember him, appreciated his posts, I met
him face-to-face at a demo down in Washington, but he
simply wasn't/isn't notable in the way that Wikipedia
measures notability.

Tesha

[helderheid]

100. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[WilliamPitt]

103. If I can help, let me know.

[Kelvin Mace]

113. Hey!

Long time, no chat.

Yes, we can always use your help.

David Allen (not Skinner)

[Redstone]

109. My thoughts? I have only one thought: That you are absolutely correct, from the top of

your post all the way down to the bottom. Not only in the facts of your post, but also in the premises thereof, and your own thoughts within which you wrapped those thoughts and premises.

(Yours may be the single best post I've ever seen on DU. For too many reasons for me to enumerate this evening.)

Redstone

[troubleinwinter]

111. Right on!!! And kick.

[Kelvin Mace]

114. Wow!

Very kind of you.

I'll start organizing the effort over the weekend.