User:SecretName101: Attack BLPs are still a very real thing

[Giraffe Stapler]

Bill Stevenson (businessman) (T-H-L) starts off:

William W. Stevenson III is an American businessman and convicted fraudster. He previously owned the Stone Balloon bar in Newark, Delaware, and was inducted into the Delaware Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame. In 1985 and 1986, he was convicted of separate financial fraud charges.

Oooooh, the Delaware Rock'n Roll Hall of Fame? Impressive! Why does this guy even have a Wikipedia entry? This is made clear in the fourth and final sentence of the lede:

He is the ex-husband of First Lady of the United States Jill Biden, to whom he was married from 1970 until finalizing their divorce in 1975.

Apparently Bill Stevenson wasn't very happy that someone created an article about him, detailing what seem to be fairly unexciting fraud charges. So he complained on the talk page of SecretName101, the person who recently created the article:

I don't know who you are, but I believe you are being paid to ruin my life. I have done so much good for so many. My businesses have grossed over 100 Million dollars. I have donated over $500,000.00 to charity.

I have no idea why you are trying to ruin my life. It was 1985. It was only an $8,000.00 car loan, Joe Biden came after me with The U.S. Department of Justice, after a bitter divorce trial. It is all you have added. I have done so much good for so many. Look me up on YouTube . Bill Stevenson / Jill Biden "The List" . It is only 4.12 long. My 19 year old "gay" granddaughter cried when she read my Wiki Page. I am worth millions, and will spend that money to get you kicked off this site. You are a horrible person, with an agenda you "Biden Family Groupie . I feel sad for you. Please leave me alone . Bill Stevenson lll DelawareFacts (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

and

SecretName101...I am not a public figure. You are calling me a "Fraudster" in the first sentence. I have a life of 52 years in business in Delaware, and have employed over 2,100 people. I have written a very successful book . There is not one other "business person" you have covered. 1. Say it was an $8,000.00 car loan. You have all the facts wrong in regard to my brother. He did not own one share of stock in The Stone Balloon. I was the only owner. 2. I bought the land and the business on the same day...8 August 1971...just me , not with my brother. 3. I was born in 1948, how can you get that wrong. 3. I am going into Federal Court to have you removed from my Wikipedia. 4. I see the company your are "working for" , I will contact them through my lawyers . 4. Like I said, you are a "Biden Family Groupie" . 5 I was named One of the 50 Most Influential People in Delaware , Over the last 50 Years, by Delaware Today Magazine in March 2012, but that is positive, so you ignore. I plan to hire a senior editor at Wiki to add this positive information. Tell me one thing, Why me if you don't have an agenda. Trust me, I will spend whatever I have to spend to correct this wrong you have created. YOU in fact are a real FRAUDSTER, I am a Delaware Businessman and Inventor. Stay tuned . DelawareFacts (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"I am going into Federal Court to get you removed from my Wikipedia". Despite that being clearly ridiculous, SecretName101 complained on ANI and Stevenson/DelawareFacts got blocked for it. But his unnecessary bio is still up, with all the unnecessary details about some fraud convictions in the 1980s. Stevenson really doesn't seem like a great guy, but there's no reason he should be more than a sentence in Jill Biden's article.

[Vigilant]

Sounds a bit reminiscent of GWickwire.

Perhaps dumping his personal information will make him less likely to abuse non-notable people with BLPs...

A couple of his first articles.

Pages Created

Plaza del Lago
1500 Sheridan Road
1616 Sheridan Road

1500 and 1616 Sheridan are in the same building and directly across the street from Plaza del Lago in Wilmette.

The two articles there are redlinked. I suspect he has inadvertently exposed his home address there.

I have begun a summer internship with the Wilmette Historical Society.
SecretName101 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

[Smiley]

Secretname101's name isn't very secret.

He is still a student and he serves as the Executive Board Secretary of the Michigan Federation of College Democrats.

Trust me, I will spend whatever I have to spend to correct this wrong you have created.

I wonder what he'd pay for the dox?

[Vigilant]

Secretname101's name isn't very secret.

He is still a student and he serves as the Executive Board Secretary of the Michigan Federation of College Democrats.

Trust me, I will spend whatever I have to spend to correct this wrong you have created.

I wonder what he'd pay for the dox?

How'd you make the connection?

I only started digging.

[Smiley]

Secretname101's name isn't very secret.

He is still a student and he serves as the Executive Board Secretary of the Michigan Federation of College Democrats.

Trust me, I will spend whatever I have to spend to correct this wrong you have created.

I wonder what he'd pay for the dox?

How'd you make the connection?

I only started digging.

It took less than five minutes. Simply google: "Wilmette Historical Society"+"intern"

[Giraffe Stapler]

Let's not dox SecretName101. I think the article will probably get deleted or redirected. They usually do once they get mentioned here.

[Vigilant]

Secretname101's name isn't very secret.

He is still a student and he serves as the Executive Board Secretary of the Michigan Federation of College Democrats.

Trust me, I will spend whatever I have to spend to correct this wrong you have created.

I wonder what he'd pay for the dox?

How'd you make the connection?

I only started digging.

It took less than five minutes. Simply google: "Wilmette Historical Society"+"intern"

Funny.
I started in the other direction with earliest edits.

I'll back off on doxxing this kid, but he really shouldn't be calling non-notable people 'fraudsters' in BLP articles.
Most people don't have a sense of humor about that.

An apology for this article would not go amiss.
Either mentoring on BLPs or a ban on editing them also seems like a good idea for this editor.

[Vigilant]

Someone trying to do the right thing

This was mentioned on a Wikipedia criticism site, which led me to look at Bill Stevenson (businessman), and while the threats are indeed nasty, it occurs to me that the user (who is also Delawarebill based on the latter's first edit summary) may have a case under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; I'm not sure the article demonstrates sufficient notability for a BLP whose subject has requested deletion. Do we need an AfD or can this be redirected to Jill Biden? See the edit summary by Folly Mox in the most recent edit for their assessment of why this person is notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone trying very hard to be human trash

He's certainly made his bio article more notable. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

Is it just me or is GoodDay (T-C-L) a piece of shit?

AfD

It's unsurprising that the subject reacted strongly to an attack article, but when it comes down to it, the citations are almost all to local papers and he's not someone anyone would care about outside the region except for a relatively short marriage to the now first lady fifty years ago. And since he does not get notability from her, and given WP:BLP considerations, it doesn't seem to me that an article is warranted. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep - as it seems to meet the notability requirements. The commotion over it, merely increases its notability. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I note this comment was added before the discussion was even started. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No matter. The commotion over his trying to get the bio deleted, has increased its notability. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's review, shall we?

ARCBOM case

Findings of fact
GoodDay has engaged in battleground conduct

1) Over an extended period of time ([3]), GoodDay (talk · contribs) has striven for the removal of diacritics from articles within various topics ([4]) while marginalising the concerns of opposing editors (#GoodDay has engaged in uncollegial conduct).

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay has engaged in uncollegial conduct

2) On many occasions, the behaviour of GoodDay has been disruptive. Among other recurring issues, GoodDay has: misinterpreted the legitimate complaints of other editors ([5], [6]); cast aspersions about groups of opposing contributors ([7], [8]); and failed to conduct himself with due professionalism ([9]).

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Prior attempts to resolve these problems have failed

3) In December 2011, GoodDay was the subject of a requests for comment about his conduct. Since January 2012, GoodDay was mentored by two experienced editors ([10]). In February 2012, GoodDay was topic-banned from "pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed" ([11]). Despite these measures, the conduct of GoodDay remains disruptive.

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics
Remedy vacated by motion.

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Amended 7 to 5 by motion at 17:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay warned

2) GoodDay is strongly warned that, in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 9 to 4, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

[Vigilant]

And now he's editing the article.

curprev 04:32, 24 October 2021‎ GoodDay talk contribs‎ 16,018 bytes +14‎ Intro undo
curprev 04:32, 24 October 2021‎ GoodDay talk contribs‎ 16,004 bytes +11‎ undo

Shades of Daniel Brandt.

How'd that work out?

[Vigilant]

The appalling lack of empathy for the aggrieved subject of an unwanted BLP article is so very much at the rotten core of en.wp.

The cruelty is the point.

[Vigilant]

I'm not sure Secretname101 deserves to be let slide on this.

He reports this to ANI and now KNOWS that the subject is very upset with the article.

Threats being made to me

Someone claiming to be Bill Stevenson (and who is likely him) is threatening me on my talk page, disliking the article created on him (which was created utilizing all the information I could readily find on them). They dislike that it describes their fraud charges, which I wrote about based on credible contemporary news articles. They are making threats of utilizing their fortune to get me kicked off the website, and god knows what else. Just thought this should be brought to the attention of admins. SecretName101 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Then, he immediately goes right back to the article and edits it a bunch more...

curprev 00:23, 24 October 2021‎ SecretName101 talk contribs‎ m 15,883 bytes −13‎ renaming section undo
curprev 00:23, 24 October 2021‎ SecretName101 talk contribs‎ m 15,896 bytes +7‎ →‎Stone Balloon and convictions: wording undo
curprev 00:23, 24 October 2021‎ SecretName101 talk contribs‎ 15,889 bytes −27‎ edit undo
curprev 00:22, 24 October 2021‎ SecretName101 talk contribs‎ 15,916 bytes +14‎ →‎Early life and marriage: edit undo
curprev 00:22, 24 October 2021‎ SecretName101 talk contribs‎ 15,902 bytes +379‎ →‎Later life and politics: adding info undo
curprev 00:21, 24 October 2021‎ Folly Mox talk contribs‎ m 15,523 bytes −22‎ →‎Stone Balloon and convictions: copy-edits undo
curprev 23:47, 23 October 2021‎ Folly Mox talk contribs‎ m 15,545 bytes −13‎ →‎Stone Balloon and convictions: reword undo
curprev 23:43, 23 October 2021‎ Folly Mox talk contribs‎ 15,558 bytes −167‎ →‎Biography: subheadings and trimmings undo
curprev 23:29, 23 October 2021‎ Folly Mox talk contribs‎ m 15,725 bytes +258‎ fix cite I broke two edits ago undo
curprev 23:26, 23 October 2021‎ Folly Mox talk contribs‎ 15,467 bytes −48‎ →‎Biography: reword undo
curprev 23:24, 23 October 2021‎ Folly Mox talk contribs‎ 15,515 bytes −669‎ →‎Biography: rm trivia undo
curprev 21:55, 23 October 2021‎ SecretName101 talk contribs‎ 16,184 bytes −25‎ Fixing short description. "fraudster" should NOT go first, businessman should be in description, and he was never related to Biden (he is the ex-spouse of Jill prior to her marrying Joe) undo
curprev 21:34, 23 October 2021‎ Folly Mox talk contribs‎ 16,209 bytes +95‎ Adding short description: "American fraudster, club owner, and presidential ex-relative (Joe Biden)" (Shortdesc helper) undo
curprev 18:45, 23 October 2021‎ SecretName101 talk contribs‎ 16,114 bytes +8‎ fix undo
curprev 18:45, 23 October 2021‎ SecretName101 talk contribs‎ m 16,106 bytes +25‎ fix citation undo
curprev 18:44, 23 October 2021‎ SecretName101 talk contribs‎ 16,081 bytes +47‎ improving undo
curprev 18:40, 23 October 2021‎ SecretName101 talk contribs‎ m 16,034 bytes +384‎ →‎Biography: improving info undo
curprev 18:27, 23 October 2021‎ SecretName101 talk contribs‎ 15,650 bytes +343‎ →‎Biography: adding info undo

I'll give it a day and then the gloves come off.

[AndyTheGrump]

The appalling lack of empathy for the aggrieved subject of an unwanted BLP article is so very much at the rotten core of en.wp.

The cruelty is the point.

My WP user page has lacked an appropriate quotation for some time. I shall be rectifying this omission.

[Smiley]

I'll back off on doxxing this kid, but he really shouldn't be calling non-notable people 'fraudsters' in BLP articles.
Most people don't have a sense of humor about that.

I'll only back off if you promise to stop spelling it doxxing.
I'm old enough to consider him a kid, but only just, and he ain't getting any younger.

Is it just me or is GoodDay a piece of shit?

Total edit count: 376,199

How the heck is Icewhiz able to create & use sock puppets, if he's globally banned? GoodDay (T-C-L)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1050892348

[Vigilant]

The appalling lack of empathy for the aggrieved subject of an unwanted BLP article is so very much at the rotten core of en.wp.

The cruelty is the point.

My WP user page has lacked an appropriate quotation for some time. I shall be rectifying this omission.

I'm standing here sorta speechless.

[Vigilant]

I'll back off on doxxing this kid, but he really shouldn't be calling non-notable people 'fraudsters' in BLP articles.
Most people don't have a sense of humor about that.

I'll only back off if you promise to stop spelling it doxxing.
I'm old enough to consider him a kid, but only just, and he ain't getting any younger.

How shall I spell it, oh lord?

Is it just me or is GoodDay a piece of shit?

Total edit count: 376,199

He had a previous account

My former Username was Mightberight/wrong

How the heck is Icewhiz able to create & use sock puppets, if he's globally banned? GoodDay (T-C-L)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1050892348

Obviously a fine addition to the editor ranks on en.wp.

[Smiley]

At the Administrators' Noticeboard for twelve hours, yet the opening sentence is still:

William W. Stevenson III (born 1948)[4][5] is an American businessman and convicted fraudster.

[Vigilant]

Delawarebill (T-C-L)


Strangely only has these contributions

19:07, 18 October 2021 diff hist −1,070‎ m Bill Stevenson (businessman) ‎ corrected the information regarding Stevenson's brother that was incorrect, added currebt wife Linda . Corrected the spelling of Stevenson . Tags: references removed Reverted
16:25, 17 October 2021 diff hist +136‎ m Bill Stevenson (businessman) ‎ Added current wife of 35 years, Linda. Corrected the name of his bar. Added net worth. Tag: Reverted
16:27, 11 October 2021 diff hist −6‎ m Bill Stevenson (businessman) ‎ Tag: Reverted
16:24, 11 October 2021 diff hist +112‎ m Bill Stevenson (businessman) ‎ I corrected the birthdate. i corrected ownership info, as I was the only owner of The Stone Balloon and property. I have donated over $500,000.00 to charity and people in need ( Added Philanthropist ) Deleted wrong information and Spellings of my name. Tag: Reverted

But has a deletion notice for an earlier variation on this article (2010) on his talk page...

Speedy deletion nomination of Wm Bill Stevenson 3rd
Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Wm Bill Stevenson 3rd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. noq (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there something that he's done in the intervening 11 years which suddenly thrust him into notability territory or is this a political hit job for this guy supporting Trump and threatening to release documents he claims he has about an affair?

SecretName101 needs to answer some pointed questions about how he came to create/edit this article.

I now strongly suspect this is an intentional dirty political hit job.

[Midsize Jake]

I'll only back off if you promise to stop spelling it doxxing.

I prefer "dokzzing," myself, but that's probably just because I've deluded myself into thinking that not including the "x" might help get our link-to privileges back on Reddit.

Anyway, don't hold off on my/our account, unless y'all just want to give them some time to reconsider the evil of their ways — frankly, this is about as clear a case of politically-motivated fucknuttery as we've seen in the past 4-5 years, which is saying a lot. And this "GoodDay" bozo is exactly the sort of filthy-ass Wikipedian we should be exposing for the POS he/she apparently is. People like this clearly have no business being anywhere near a heavily-visited reference information site, publicly-editable or otherwise.

[Vigilant]

This note is pretty interesting as well.

BLP references needed

@DelawareFacts:, @Delawarebill:: If you're the subject of this page, please find references to back up your edits. Don't engage in COI editing. Don't break 3RR. 202.8.114.163 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That IP geolocates to Bengal.

Contributions

Lots of Bengalese with deep interest in non-notable US people?

[Vigilant]

I'll only back off if you promise to stop spelling it doxxing.

I prefer "dokzzing," myself, but that's probably just because I've deluded myself into thinking that not including the "x" might help get our link-to privileges back on Reddit.

Anyway, don't hold off on my/our account, unless y'all just want to give them some time to reconsider the evil of their ways — frankly, this is about as clear a case of politically-motivated fucknuttery as we've seen in the past 4-5 years, which is saying a lot. And this "GoodDay" bozo is exactly the sort of filthy-ass Wikipedian we should be exposing for the POS he/she apparently is. People like this clearly have no business being anywhere near a heavily-visited reference information site, publicly-editable or otherwise.

This needs to be taken to ARBCOM and cleaned out with fire in the full view of Teh Communitah.

ARBCOM needs to unequivocally say, "We are better than this."

[AndyTheGrump]

At the Administrators' Noticeboard for twelve hours, yet the opening sentence is still:

William W. Stevenson III (born 1948)[4][5] is an American businessman and convicted fraudster.

Not as of now it isn't. link

[Vigilant]

Someone needs to go through Secretname101's article creations with a fine toothed comb.

For example...

Pedro_Martinez_(school_administrator) (T-H-L)

Lots of recently deleted articles as well.

[Vigilant]

At the Administrators' Noticeboard for twelve hours, yet the opening sentence is still:

William W. Stevenson III (born 1948)[4][5] is an American businessman and convicted fraudster.

Not as of now it isn't. link

Nice.

How long do we expect that to hold?

[AndyTheGrump]

At the Administrators' Noticeboard for twelve hours, yet the opening sentence is still:

William W. Stevenson III (born 1948)[4][5] is an American businessman and convicted fraudster.

Not as of now it isn't. link

Nice.

How long do we expect that to hold?

Dunno, but give that there is a WP:BLP exemption to WP:3RR, I might be busy...

[Vigilant]

Boom, bay-bee

06:17, 24 October 2021 El C talk contribs deleted page Bill Stevenson (businessman) (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Stevenson (businessman): speedy deleted shady attack page)

AfD Closed

The result was speedy deleted shady attack page of a subject whose marginal notability would qualify him having his bio deleted as a courtesy anyway. El_C 06:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

[Zoloft]

Salt it.

[AndyTheGrump]

And now it's gone, per El C (T-C-L): "G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP... speedy deleted shady attack page" link

Expect mutual hugs and smug self-satisfaction over at Wikipedia, as they've finally got around to doing the right thing. And a complete lack of awareness that it took a' legal threat' and a thread at Wikipediocracy to get anything done about it.

[Poetlister]

This is a perfect example of why notability should not be transferable to people close to you. His only possible claim to notability is that he was once married to someone who later became notable. If the article becomes a redirect, which is not unreasonable, the history should still be deleted.

[Ming]

Now converted to a redirect, which is going to require people to watch Jill Biden's article for changes about him.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Well, it looks like everything has worked out ok. Bill Stevenson's bio is gone. Everyone agrees that GoodDay is terrible. No one doxed SecretName101.

Dear Yngvadottir

Thanks for bringing this up on AN. Dealing with the individual cases doesn't help fix the systemic problems, but I think Bill Stevenson is happy that he no longer has to go to Federal Court to have SecretName101 removed from his article. I mean, if you've ever had to go to Federal Court to settle a dispute on the internet, you know it's a hassle. You have to line up for, like, a really long time to submit the forms and then they try to pretend that you're crazy or something. And there's nowhere to get lunch around there.

If you (or anyone) wants to keep SecretName101 out of trouble, perhaps you could have a quiet word with them on their talk page. Knock off the partisan editing. Be aware of how people might feel about the articles they create. Since they are Autistic, perhaps you could offer to be a sounding board if they aren't sure about something. Just a suggestion.

[Vigilant]

SecretName101 is still editing in a partisan manner

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1051619182

My politics align with his, but he seems to be anything but an objective editor.

[Poetlister]

Now converted to a redirect, which is going to require people to watch Jill Biden's article for changes about him.

The redirect itself is protected and the history is wiped, as I suggested.

[Vigilant]

I’ve blocked him for making legal threats such as [50]. If he has a problem with how he’s represented in the sources and on Wikipedia, there are better ways to go about resolving that. clpo13(talk) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

And how the fucking hell will someone who just got told they have an attack article for a BLP know how to do this?

Especially for people who are the victims of an unwanted BLP, shouldn't there me a direct line to someone on en.wp who can look at the situation with an objective view right away?

email: blphelp@wikipedia.org or something?

The arrogance on the part of Teh Communitah over this issue, combined with the utter panic when they get their IRL name exposed, disgusts me to no end.

[Smiley]

I’ve blocked him for making legal threats such as [50]. If he has a problem with how he’s represented in the sources and on Wikipedia, there are better ways to go about resolving that. clpo13(talk) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

And how the fucking hell will someone who just got told they have an attack article for a BLP know how to do this?

Especially for people who are the victims of an unwanted BLP, shouldn't there me a direct line to someone on en.wp who can look at the situation with an objective view right away?

email: blphelp@wikipedia.org or something?

The arrogance on the part of Teh Communitah over this issue, combined with the utter panic when they get their IRL name exposed, disgusts me to no end.

[AndyTheGrump]

there are better ways to go about resolving that

Citation needed, as they say on Wikipedia. I'd have to suggest that from past evidence, a 'legal threat' is often the most effective means of drawing attention to such issues. Sure you get blocked, but given the overt hostility and clueless gibberish about so-called 'conflicts of interest' you are likely to be met with there if you complain about anything written about you, along with the byzantine 'policies' and 'guidelines' you will be expected to understand and comply with to play the game their way, your chances of actually getting anywhere in a reasonable time period are slim. Don't play their game if you can avoid it - the game is rigged against you.

I think that maybe Stevenson's best tactic might have been to hire a real lawyer...

[Vigilant]

I'm unimpressed with SecretName101's response at WP:AN.

Reading his linkedin and facebook profiles, it's clear he's someone who shouldn't be near any political BLPs ever again.

Oh, goody. He writes political articles for local papers too. Perfect.

[AndyTheGrump]

I don't really think it is necessary to look at what SecretName101 does off-Wikipedia, at least from my perspective as someone trying to get something done on Wikipedia about his activities, since the facts seem to speak for themselves.

[Vigilant]

I don't really think it is necessary to look at what SecretName101 does off-Wikipedia, at least from my perspective as someone trying to get something done on Wikipedia about his activities, since the facts seem to speak for themselves.

He has an undisclosed conflict of interest.

I have yet to uncover a post or activity of his that was not explicitly political. Anywhere. No sports, food, books, tv, movies, hobbies, gaming ... nothing.

The worst part is that my politics align closely with his.

He should be topic banned from politics, at least for living people.

[Moral Hazard]

Someone trying to do the right thing

This was mentioned on a Wikipedia criticism site, which led me to look at Bill Stevenson (businessman), and while the threats are indeed nasty, it occurs to me that the user (who is also Delawarebill based on the latter's first edit summary) may have a case under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; I'm not sure the article demonstrates sufficient notability for a BLP whose subject has requested deletion. Do we need an AfD or can this be redirected to Jill Biden? See the edit summary by Folly Mox in the most recent edit for their assessment of why this person is notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the best people on Wikipedia, or anywhere.

[Poetlister]

I think that maybe Stevenson's best tactic might have been to hire a real lawyer...

The trouble with that is that the WMF will just hide behind Section 230 immunity and protest that they can't do anything about it. Maybe it would be possible to sue the author of the article, but how much good would that do?

[Giraffe Stapler]

I think that maybe Stevenson's best tactic might have been to hire a real lawyer...

The trouble with that is that the WMF will just hide behind Section 230 immunity and protest that they can't do anything about it. Maybe it would be possible to sue the author of the article, but how much good would that do?

Stevenson has no case. SecretName101 gathered publicly available material that was written by others and previously published in newspapers/websites. No responsible lawyer would take that case. If Stevenson found a willing lawyer, they may both find themselves in trouble. I am not a lawyer. Actual lawyers may disagree with my opinion.

[Vigilant]

I think that maybe Stevenson's best tactic might have been to hire a real lawyer...

The trouble with that is that the WMF will just hide behind Section 230 immunity and protest that they can't do anything about it. Maybe it would be possible to sue the author of the article, but how much good would that do?

Stevenson has no case. SecretName101 gathered publicly available material that was written by others and previously published in newspapers/websites. No responsible lawyer would take that case. If Stevenson found a willing lawyer, they may both find themselves in trouble. I am not a lawyer. Actual lawyers may disagree with my opinion.

You don't have to have a case to make someone's life very, very miserable in court.

[AndyTheGrump]

It doesn't even have to come to court to create misery - as I can say from personal experience.

A real lawyer should be capable of posting a more convincing 'legal threat' too, which might have resulted in the underlying issue being taken more seriously. Or at least, should have done, if the admin handing out the block had done what Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats (T-H-L) suggests, and actually looked into it.

[Vigilant]

Odd that he seems to lean the other way when the article is on a Democrat.

16:29, 24 October 2021 diff hist −1,410‎ Terry McAuliffe ‎ Undid revision 1051609147 by 70.191.130.23 (talk) again, not every fact-check is encyclopedia-worthy. This does not warrant inclusion Tag: Undo

[Ming]

I think that maybe Stevenson's best tactic might have been to hire a real lawyer...

The trouble with that is that the WMF will just hide behind Section 230 immunity and protest that they can't do anything about it. Maybe it would be possible to sue the author of the article, but how much good would that do?

If threats of legal action are the only things to which you respond, then you are an asshole. If your reaction to legal threats is inevitably to hide behind section 220, you are also an asshole. The initial reaction to Stevenson's complaint was pretty much a textbook example of WP's culture of assholery at work.

[AndyTheGrump]

In this case it isn't just a 'culture of assholery' at work, but actual laid-down-in-the-rules assholery by policy. The policy, says "block the fuckers on sight", with only an essay to suggest that maybe you should think about taking a look at whatever it is the fuckers are complaining about.

Wikipedia culture is all about civility. Except to people who don't know the rules to their game, or don't want to play in the first place. It is a culture of gross hypocrisy.

[Giraffe Stapler]

As a public service, here's an archive of the Google cache of a later version of the Bill Stevenson article.

[AndyTheGrump]

As a public service, here's an archive of the Google cache of a later version of the Bill Stevenson article.

Yup. Complete with a link to source number 25, link which Black Kite (T-H-L) has just described on the admin noticeboard, entirely accurately, as "a wingnut right-wing site". A distinctly odd source for someone with SecretName101's background and experience to be citing.

[Vigilant]

WP:BLP

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV)
Verifiability (V)
No original research (NOR)

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

Shall we count the failures in the lede from WP:BLP?

When you look further into the policy, the presumption of privacy section appears to have been completely ignored for this attack page.

WP:AVOIDVICTIM
WP:BLPCRIME
WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE
WP:BLPPRIVACY
WP:BLP1E

SecretName101 also falls afoul of WP:BLPCOI and utterly and egregiously fails WP:BLPKINDNESS.