This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
R v Elliott article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2016. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Following article edit history disruption, the article was fully-protected from editing for three days.
Reason given by administrator AlexiusHoratius: "Protected "R v Elliott": Edit warring / content dispute".
The protection will expire 12:32, 25 March 2016.
Perhaps it would be best in the interim for the various editors involved in the "Edit warring / content dispute" -- to discuss the issues involved in the dispute -- here on the talk page ?
Maybe an editor or two could start -- summarizing the main issues involved in the recent dispute ?
— Cirt ( talk) 13:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no BLP issue. The quote specifies that there was a false claim. WP:BLPPRIMARY states that the augmentation of something with court material is accepted. Exactly what I tried. As in I'm following the book, the opposers aren't. There are 5+ different sources which describe the false pedophile association and the fact that it was defended by Guthrie in court. It's well-sourced. And for some reason a hostile "gamergate" warning was plastered to my personal talk page. I researched the matter and found out that ALL the opposers of the quote are frequent "gamergaters". One of the opposers and heavy editors of this article has admitted a personal connection to all three complainants: 1. I'd very much plaster this article with the "editor is associated" tag as if she's/he's in unison with the others then they all must be in some way connected to the complainants if not being the complainants themselves. If the complainant's friend is editing this article then why wouldn't the complainants themselves be?
The specific opposers have removed well-sourced material from this article in the past, especially citations: 1 (except the sources do support it), 2 (notice how there are many secondary sources besides the court document, and court documents are allowed to augment secondary sources), 3 (this isn't the only citation removed because of the reason "opinion piece" yet other sources in the article are opinion pieces but since they apparently support the "gamergaters" they aren't removed; for example the New Statesman one is a /blogs/ post and yet it's used as a source for the term "harassment" in place of "criticism"), 4 (LinkedIn of the person herself apprently isn't a credible source about the person?), 5 (cherry-picking a secondary source's text over a case where primary would overrule secondary and again, court material is allowed to augment) and 6 (pushing an article about the prosecutor's opinion to the lead which mentions nothing about the internet ban; with the preceding National Post actually verifying the internet ban).
At one point Paisley Rae's connection to the investigating officer Jeff Bangild as reported 1 and easily verifiable from the numerous Twitter conversations they've had among which 2 was also removed, even though it's obviously crucial to why this was even listed in the first place.
They have also removed the sourced information that the women testified that a meeting between them in 2012 about Elliott is said to have taken place, likely concerning the possibility of police action. Also very crucial to the case.
Simply put, these actions of theirs simply constitute as disruption of this article. That is the worst breach of Wikipedia policy, as I have just read. I myself tried to insert a single, short quote which clarifies the sentence preceding it, as perfectly per Wikipedia policy about use of court material. -- BertSten ( talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources have mentioned ... but none (even the notably biased Blatchford) have repeated the suggestion that Elliott was [falsely] accused of pedophilia.- this is demonstrably untrue. My cursory search finds four sources: Tech Dirt, Reason, The Federalist, The National Post.
As Ms. Guthrie testified, there is no such thing as a perfect victim. But Ms. Reilly’s retweeting of forceful, insulting, unconfirmed and ultimately inaccurate attacks suggesting pedophilia – combined with her tentative, hypothetical concerns that he could possibly move from online to offline harassment, and her knowledge that he never came to the Cadillac Lounge and never again referred to her whereabouts – raises doubt in my mind to whether she was afraid of Mr. Elliott.
The next question is where does it belong in the article? We don't want to give it undue weight, but it has been noted in at least a couple of sources. Here's a suggestion:
The case hinged on whether the women reasonably feared for their safety. [11] [12] Elliott's laywer, Chris Murphy, suggested that the women had an ulterior motive for reporting Elliott to the police. [13] Guthrie defended her continued tweeting about Elliott after having blocked him, including creating hashtags to mock him [14] and repeating allegations of pedophilia made by another account which were later shown to be false, [15] as being a means of fighting back against Elliott's harassment. [16]
I'm going to make a few other edit suggestions below, which I think are uncontroversial, but please comment if you think otherwise. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article is a joke. Apparently a source can be discredited because it's from a "men's rightist", and Blatchford's neutrality is questioned because she isn't feminist enough? Are all the sources except the ones you like biased? Ivanvector has self-admitted to being in personal contact with ALL THREE complainants of the court case. Judging from how in unison he/she is with the other main editors of this article with them editing all the same kind of articles even outside this one, the editors of this article all have blatant COI. I'll add both COI and POV tag later on.
And now for some bizarre reason Ivanvector is accepting the Reason version of the pedophile accusation which is just presenting the accusation as it, as in as an actual BLP violation but towards the defendant and not the complainant. As in seemingly Ivanvector's only goal here is to defend the complainant and abuse the rules the best he/she can to that purpose. Meanwhile, again, I only came here to add one quote from the complainant which illustrates the sentence preceding it. One, illustrating quote. BertSten ( talk) 00:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
See Here for Ivanvectors statement on the extant of his COI. — Strongjam ( talk) 17:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I apologize for my unfunny joke above. Sorry, what can I say? It's Friday. Dumuzid ( talk) 17:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
In what form would you accept mentions of these abovementioned things in the article? BertSten ( talk) 16:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
References
blatchford
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).federalist
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The case hinged on whether the women reasonably feared for their safety. [17] [18] Elliott's laywer, Chris Murphy, suggested that the women had an ulterior motive for reporting Elliott to the police. [19] Guthrie defended her continued tweeting about Elliott after having blocked him, including creating hashtags to mock him [20] and repeating allegations of pedophilia made by another account which were later shown to be false, [21] as being a means of fighting back against Elliott's harassment. [22]
Using the term “harassment” for what is essentially verbal behaviour implicitly begs the issue of free speech in favour of its antagonists. The term has a clear primary meaning of physical interference. Online or even in-person criticism per se does not interfere with a person in any physical way. If it did, then even political heckling would constitute harassment and thus be indictable. The writer is thus, possibly owing to an unconscious bias, conflating harassment with mockery. But that is exactly the unfounded conflation which the courts ultimately rejected. Orthotox ( talk) 23:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
But that is exactly the unfounded conflation which the courts ultimately rejected." That's not exactly accurate. The judge found Elliot not guilty of criminal harassment, but wrote in his ruling "There is no doubt that Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly were harassed by Gregory Alan Elliott over several months in 2012, either due to the volume or content of his tweets, but that alone does not meet the legal threshold for a conviction" Source. — Strongjam ( talk) 04:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
R v Elliott article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2016. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Following article edit history disruption, the article was fully-protected from editing for three days.
Reason given by administrator AlexiusHoratius: "Protected "R v Elliott": Edit warring / content dispute".
The protection will expire 12:32, 25 March 2016.
Perhaps it would be best in the interim for the various editors involved in the "Edit warring / content dispute" -- to discuss the issues involved in the dispute -- here on the talk page ?
Maybe an editor or two could start -- summarizing the main issues involved in the recent dispute ?
— Cirt ( talk) 13:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no BLP issue. The quote specifies that there was a false claim. WP:BLPPRIMARY states that the augmentation of something with court material is accepted. Exactly what I tried. As in I'm following the book, the opposers aren't. There are 5+ different sources which describe the false pedophile association and the fact that it was defended by Guthrie in court. It's well-sourced. And for some reason a hostile "gamergate" warning was plastered to my personal talk page. I researched the matter and found out that ALL the opposers of the quote are frequent "gamergaters". One of the opposers and heavy editors of this article has admitted a personal connection to all three complainants: 1. I'd very much plaster this article with the "editor is associated" tag as if she's/he's in unison with the others then they all must be in some way connected to the complainants if not being the complainants themselves. If the complainant's friend is editing this article then why wouldn't the complainants themselves be?
The specific opposers have removed well-sourced material from this article in the past, especially citations: 1 (except the sources do support it), 2 (notice how there are many secondary sources besides the court document, and court documents are allowed to augment secondary sources), 3 (this isn't the only citation removed because of the reason "opinion piece" yet other sources in the article are opinion pieces but since they apparently support the "gamergaters" they aren't removed; for example the New Statesman one is a /blogs/ post and yet it's used as a source for the term "harassment" in place of "criticism"), 4 (LinkedIn of the person herself apprently isn't a credible source about the person?), 5 (cherry-picking a secondary source's text over a case where primary would overrule secondary and again, court material is allowed to augment) and 6 (pushing an article about the prosecutor's opinion to the lead which mentions nothing about the internet ban; with the preceding National Post actually verifying the internet ban).
At one point Paisley Rae's connection to the investigating officer Jeff Bangild as reported 1 and easily verifiable from the numerous Twitter conversations they've had among which 2 was also removed, even though it's obviously crucial to why this was even listed in the first place.
They have also removed the sourced information that the women testified that a meeting between them in 2012 about Elliott is said to have taken place, likely concerning the possibility of police action. Also very crucial to the case.
Simply put, these actions of theirs simply constitute as disruption of this article. That is the worst breach of Wikipedia policy, as I have just read. I myself tried to insert a single, short quote which clarifies the sentence preceding it, as perfectly per Wikipedia policy about use of court material. -- BertSten ( talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources have mentioned ... but none (even the notably biased Blatchford) have repeated the suggestion that Elliott was [falsely] accused of pedophilia.- this is demonstrably untrue. My cursory search finds four sources: Tech Dirt, Reason, The Federalist, The National Post.
As Ms. Guthrie testified, there is no such thing as a perfect victim. But Ms. Reilly’s retweeting of forceful, insulting, unconfirmed and ultimately inaccurate attacks suggesting pedophilia – combined with her tentative, hypothetical concerns that he could possibly move from online to offline harassment, and her knowledge that he never came to the Cadillac Lounge and never again referred to her whereabouts – raises doubt in my mind to whether she was afraid of Mr. Elliott.
The next question is where does it belong in the article? We don't want to give it undue weight, but it has been noted in at least a couple of sources. Here's a suggestion:
The case hinged on whether the women reasonably feared for their safety. [11] [12] Elliott's laywer, Chris Murphy, suggested that the women had an ulterior motive for reporting Elliott to the police. [13] Guthrie defended her continued tweeting about Elliott after having blocked him, including creating hashtags to mock him [14] and repeating allegations of pedophilia made by another account which were later shown to be false, [15] as being a means of fighting back against Elliott's harassment. [16]
I'm going to make a few other edit suggestions below, which I think are uncontroversial, but please comment if you think otherwise. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article is a joke. Apparently a source can be discredited because it's from a "men's rightist", and Blatchford's neutrality is questioned because she isn't feminist enough? Are all the sources except the ones you like biased? Ivanvector has self-admitted to being in personal contact with ALL THREE complainants of the court case. Judging from how in unison he/she is with the other main editors of this article with them editing all the same kind of articles even outside this one, the editors of this article all have blatant COI. I'll add both COI and POV tag later on.
And now for some bizarre reason Ivanvector is accepting the Reason version of the pedophile accusation which is just presenting the accusation as it, as in as an actual BLP violation but towards the defendant and not the complainant. As in seemingly Ivanvector's only goal here is to defend the complainant and abuse the rules the best he/she can to that purpose. Meanwhile, again, I only came here to add one quote from the complainant which illustrates the sentence preceding it. One, illustrating quote. BertSten ( talk) 00:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
See Here for Ivanvectors statement on the extant of his COI. — Strongjam ( talk) 17:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I apologize for my unfunny joke above. Sorry, what can I say? It's Friday. Dumuzid ( talk) 17:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
In what form would you accept mentions of these abovementioned things in the article? BertSten ( talk) 16:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
References
blatchford
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).federalist
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The case hinged on whether the women reasonably feared for their safety. [17] [18] Elliott's laywer, Chris Murphy, suggested that the women had an ulterior motive for reporting Elliott to the police. [19] Guthrie defended her continued tweeting about Elliott after having blocked him, including creating hashtags to mock him [20] and repeating allegations of pedophilia made by another account which were later shown to be false, [21] as being a means of fighting back against Elliott's harassment. [22]
Using the term “harassment” for what is essentially verbal behaviour implicitly begs the issue of free speech in favour of its antagonists. The term has a clear primary meaning of physical interference. Online or even in-person criticism per se does not interfere with a person in any physical way. If it did, then even political heckling would constitute harassment and thus be indictable. The writer is thus, possibly owing to an unconscious bias, conflating harassment with mockery. But that is exactly the unfounded conflation which the courts ultimately rejected. Orthotox ( talk) 23:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
But that is exactly the unfounded conflation which the courts ultimately rejected." That's not exactly accurate. The judge found Elliot not guilty of criminal harassment, but wrote in his ruling "There is no doubt that Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly were harassed by Gregory Alan Elliott over several months in 2012, either due to the volume or content of his tweets, but that alone does not meet the legal threshold for a conviction" Source. — Strongjam ( talk) 04:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)