Wikipedia

Talk:Nash the Slash/Archive 1

< Talk:Nash the Slash
Latest comment: 18 years ago by E Pluribus Anthony in topic Banning for Outing
Archive 1

RFC summary

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

this stupid thing to the ongoing dispute (see article history) about whether the article should or should not give the artist's real name.

The user who introduced the current uncertainty did so only after being advised that the "Jeff Plewman" name could only be removed if it were factually wrong (and after this RfC was launched); prior to that, his own edits and e-mails on the subject clearly stated that the name was correct but Wikipedia's use of it was a personal inconvenience for Nash.

The following question has been posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment: Does the subject of an article (or the president of his fan club) have the right to insist that Wikipedia cannot give his real name, if his real name is already publicly available on other websites? Nobody's claiming that the information is wrong; the claim is that the artist doesn't want it publicized (even though it already has been elsewhere).

My points are as follows:

  1. The information is already out there, and nobody disputed its accuracy until after I made clear that Wikipedia would only remove it on factual grounds. Previously, the user's own words communicated the exact opposite position of what he chooses to communicate now.
  2. The subject of a Wikipedia article does not have the right to dictate what Wikipedia can or cannot write about him unless the information is objectively false.

Comments? Bearcat 17:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Latest comment: 19 years ago40 comments6 people in discussion
Nash's real identity was revealed in a 1996 edition of the Gary Numan Digest ([1]), and is now available to anyone with Google access. I can respect the artist (and/or his fan club president) for wanting to preserve the "invisible man" mystique, but this information has been in the public domain for some time.
Bearcat is correct on both points. Unless there are questions of accuracy (and I don't believe this is the case), the information should be retained. CJCurrie 18:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed This information should be retained. This information is available through other accessible sources (i.e., the public domain); as well to my knowledge, there are no outstanding legal issues challenging this. There's no need or basis to 'slash' this information. :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. The name is a fact, therefore, not slander, therefore, there is no reason ont to include it. Zhatt 19:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree. The real name of a performer is encyclopedic information. So long as this is verifiable (which it appears to be) there is no legitimate reason to remove it. Nash/Plewman seeks publicity. Unfortunately, it is not possible in this world to demand attention yet control what people say. -Willmcw 20:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree for exactly the same reasons as I would oppose anyone else who wanted to suppress inconvenient facts about themselves. DJ Clayworth 21:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Nash's real identity was revealed in a 1996 edition of the Gary Numan Digest.[2], and is now available to anyone with Google access. I can respect the artist (and/or his fan club president) for wanting to preserve the "invisible man" mystique, but this information has been in the public domain for some time. - How accurate is this fanzine !!, and what are its sources' Nashferatu'
Disagree User:Nashferatu - This is laughable because on many web pages he is identified as 'Ben Mink', so its up to you lot to reveal his true identity, and until that time the edit should be removed.
Since this was brought up, and if it can be verified, perhaps that name should be referenced, too? E Pluribus Anthony 10:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It cannot be proved what his real name is, therefore any mention of any name is pure speculation. I have seen him identified by at least 5 different names (Ben Mink,Michael Waite, Noah Young,Jeff Plewman, some people in the UK still think he's Billy Currie). We all know Reg Dwight is Elton John, cos he does'nt hide it - but do we really know who Nash The Slash is, and should we base an encyclopedia entry on some poorly researched magazine article's. The entry should either be left blank or entered as 'believed to be'.

quote from www.80sxchange.com/forums - I recall seeing Billie Currie touring with Gary Numan mainly playing the electric violin. At about the same time a remake of jan and deans deadmans curve was released by a masked electric violinist called nash the slash and heavily rumoured to be Billie Currie- Polly - unquote. User:Nashferatu


This comment was added to my talk page by User:Nashferatu: You should not identify the real name of an artist on Wikipedia without researching your sources, and their validity. Dont believe all you read on the internet - but I should'nt need to tell you that.

My points in response:

  1. I am not the person who added the information, and therefore am not the person you need to talk to about it. I've also already indicated to you that any discussion of the matter is to happen on this page; any comments on my personal talk page pertaining to this discussion will be removed. And you are not welcome to e-mail me privately to discuss it, either. Discussion will take place only on this public page.
  2. Your edits prior to this discussion clearly indicated that you were removing the information because it was personally inconvenient to Nash to have his name revealed. Your private e-mail to me also indicated the same. Your edit summary prior to this discussion was not "this is unconfirmed"; it was "The artist does not want his name used on a public page". You only began the "but he might be Ben Mink!" line of reasoning after I advised you that the only grounds under which Wikipedia could remove the information was if it was factually inaccurate. In other words, this approach was an afterthought.
  3. Even The Canadian Encyclopedia gives a specific name and birthdate for Nash, and they don't think he's Ben Mink or Billy Currie.
  4. Finally, you must respect Wikipedia rules for discussion formatting. (For example, your response to CJCurrie's comment must be placed after all other comments which have already been posted as responses to his. And when posting to a person's talk page, you post at the bottom of the page, not at the top as you did on mine.)

The bottom line: the fact that you only changed to this tactic after we refused to kowtow to the "don't give his name because it'll make him cry" approach is very revealing and fascinating, but nonetheless you've successfully obfuscated the issue. I've consequently restructured the information as follows: In 1996, a Gary Numan fan magazine gave his real name as Jeff Plewman, although Nash has never officially confirmed or denied this. Some fans continue to believe that Nash may in fact be Ben Mink or Billy Currie.

You, however, need to be aware that Wikipedia is not a public relations database in which the subject of an article has the right to control the article's spin. Bearcat 17:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Nashferatu - above is not quite correct. I stated that the artists does not want his name used on a public page, I did not state that the name was correct, although I may in hindsight have given this impression with the use of words.

User:Nashferatu - I have never said the statements in the edit are correct or incorrect. Bearcat is basing his findings on magazine articles, and at best these are conjecture. In the early eighties it was claimed that Nash was in fact the son of Knowlton Nash, the CBC presenter, and indeed they appeared on the front cover of 'Now' magazine together. Nash has never officially confirmed or denied being any identity. What I have merely said is that it has been claimed by various people that he is this person or that person,but there is no hard factual evidence to support any of the findings. With this in mind the comments of Bearcat are speculative at best.Knowing Nash as I do, it is quite likely that he threw in the 'Plewman' name as a red herring to keep everyone guessing. And judging by the comments in this page it has done the trick.

It seems ironic, Nashferatu, that you are now advocating to purposely obfuscate the issue or further market a mystique about Nash. On the other end of it: why not list any 'major' names for this gent, especially names generated by you recently AND that we can corroborate from other sources? Various sources in magazines, online, and the Canadian Encyclopedia indicate the supposed identity/name(s) of this gent (as Plewman, Mink, Currie, or as Crosby, Stills, Nash, and or Young!:) ); why should Wikipedia not cite any and all information that is presented and corroborated, particularly recently? Wikipedia is, after all, a publicly accessible resource containing readily available (but relevant) information. Perhaps a note should be expanded upon (but not significantly) in the article, as well, about attempts to actively 'obscure' Nash's true name? However, this may have the undesirable effect of promoting Nash inappropriately, which Wikipedia cannot do intentionally or actively.
Besides: can you corroborate your knowledge of Nash "as [you] do", Nashferatu? Otherwise, this is just as speculative as anything else we can't substantiate. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 08:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Nashferatu - yes I can corroborate my knowledge of Nash. Can you corroborate that man has indeed landed on the moon ? , as this whole discussion is getting ridiculous. How far do you take any supposed evidence of anything. An ecycylopedia should be 'A work containing factual articles on subjects in every field of knowledge'. I still claim that Nash's true identity cannot be cited as fact and therefore the page as it appears today is speculative. At best it should be cited that Nash's true identity is unknown.

We still have the point that your own position was consistently expressed as "please don't identify him by his real name", a priori indicating that he was being identified by his real name, until after I told you that Wikipedia would not remove the name unless it was factually wrong. Then you suddenly shifted to "um, er...on second thought, this might not actually be his real name after all!"
And what part of I am not the person who originally added the name aren't you getting? This has nothing to do with my findings. And, for that matter, there's a difference between "source" and "speculation"; a fan on a message board speculating that Billy Currie might be Nash is not a "source" and does not have the same weight of credibility as The Canadian Encyclopedia.
And for the last effing time, you do not have the right to alter other people's comments on this page. You may comment on the RFC summary in your own comments; you may not insert them directly into the original summary. Bearcat 17:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
We agree to disagree, Nashferatu; yes this is getting trite but, again, you are purposely obfuscating the matter to prove your point and have the name (corroborated one) removed. The moon landing can be corroborated by many sources, and this article actually deals with those who dispute its occurrence. And the Nash name ref can at least be backed up through the Canadian Encyclopedia. Until you can do so otherwise, the reference(s) -- corroborated ones -- should and will stay. E Pluribus Anthony 17:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
And if you can corroborate your relationship, Nashferatu, please do -- 'cause we may include it if we can corroborate it -- but so far you haven't. E Pluribus Anthony 17:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
He's the president of Nash's fan club. Bearcat 17:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, and as such you'd think I know who he is would'nt you !! User:Nashferatu
I know (I jest!), but as long as it can be corroborated, it's fine with me! :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ref Bearcats comments above, the Gary Numan fanzine you mention is also a fan speculating, so what does that make of your sources !!. The Canadian Encyclopedia is no more accurate than this website. Where did they get their info - probably from the same Numan fanzine that you cite !. - Hell, tomorrow I could go on stage in bandages and then take them off and claim I'm Nash the Slash - who'd know !.User:Nashferatu

I do not believe, even given your affiliation, that you can legitimately dispute the accuracy of the Canadian Encyclopedia and other publicly available information sources. While errors can be made in publications, what is the basis of your contention that they are inaccurate? Horseplay? You initially requested removal of the name as an inconvenience to Mr. 'Nash' and, once challenged and overruled, now try to dispute its authenticity? The Wikipedia article currently provides a summary of what his name is believed to be (based on corroboration) and any disputed names you've brought to Wikipedia's attention. The burden of disproof, therefore, is yours. E Pluribus Anthony 20:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify a few points for everyone's benefit:

(i) Bearcat didn't reference the Gary Numan site, I did. I fully acknowledge that this site isn't authoritative on its own, but that wasn't my point. There are other, more reliable sites that also reveal Nash's real name as Jeff Plewman, the Canadian Encyclopedia being the most obvious case. Had I been addressing the issue of accuracy, I would have referenced one of these sites.

My sole purpose in referencing the Numan site was to indicate that NtS had been revealed as Jeff Plewman nine years ago, on a public site. Since then, the information has been verified by more credible sources. Given the longevity of these reports, Nash's long-protected "secret identity" can no longer be said to exist. Are we clear now?

(ii) Anyone who confuses Nash the Slash with Ben Mink is simply unaware of FM's history. Mink replaced Nash as the band's violinist; Nash later rejoined. Simple as that.

(iii) Nash appears without his mask on the back cover of an early EP (Bedside Companion, if memory serves), and is obviously not Ben Mink or Billy Currie.

(iv) The Knowlton Nash cover was a joke, and doesn't merit reference except as such. CJCurrie 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Works for me; thanks for ... corroborating! :) E Pluribus Anthony 21:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The picture referred to in 'Bedside Companion' could be anybody.Keep taking the pills.User Nashferatu

In reply to User:CJCurrie - I'll bring something else into this discussion that can be proven as fact. In March 1981 Nash the Slash was interviewed by the UK magazine 'Smash Hits'. In this interview Nash gave his full name as Nashville Thebodiah Slasher. This can be corroborated, beyond all reasonable doubt (I have the magazine page).This is the only known admission from the man himself as to his real identity. Now,you can laugh or scowl all u like, but who is to say that the artist did not legally change his name ?. With this in mind, the name should be entered in the article as a personal admission. User:Nashferatu

The article can note this, but it cannot assert that this is the actual definitive answer to the question. The name also does not merit its own distinct article separately from this one.
Also, regarding your recent edits to Children of the Night, Wikipedia has very specific rules about how an article is to be formatted. The current format is consistent with those rules; your edits were not. You do not have permission to undo edits just because they weren't made by you. Bearcat 17:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

And who made you the effing Managing Director of Wikipedia Bearcat. I keep adding statements that can be backed up, both by online and printed sources, and you think you have the god given right to amend them to your own words. Well keep on going, and I'll keep on putting it back again. How about I go through all your edited pages on Wiki and change everything I think is spurious ?????. And yes the article can assert Nash's statement because it came from 'the horses mouth'. User:Nashferatu

For the last fucking goddamned time, WIKIPEDIA HAS SPECIFIC RULES ABOUT ARTICLE STRUCTURE, FORMATTING, GRAMMAR, SPELLING AND CITATION OF FACTS. You are not at liberty to ignore them, you do not have the right to assert that your work is uneditable, and imposing the standing rules does not make me "the managing director of Wikipedia". I am, however, a person with administrator privileges. Bearcat 18:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well after the above outburst you damn well should'nt have administrator privileges. All you are doing is repeatedly editing over my comments, and I have not said that my work is uneditable, it's just that you are the only goddamn person editing it, and the way you are doing this is not giving justice to the available information. You cut bits out, change meanings,or add suggestions. The facts are clear - by his own admission, he gave his name as Nashville Thebodiah Slasher this is the only physical evidence that can be corroborated, what more do you want !!. User:nashferatu

My edits have involved the following:
  1. correcting grammar,
  2. italicizing magazine and album titles,
  3. wikilinking things that should be wikilinked (eg. Smash Hits) and unwikilinking numerous times when you simply linked the article back to itself,
  4. correcting links (eg. Highway 61 --> Highway 61 (film)) where you linked to a disambiguation page instead of the intended article,
  5. putting spaces after commas and periods,
  6. formatting the album article consistently with Wikipedia's expected format for album articles,
  7. adding information like the Blood & Roses and Roadkill film scores.
I at no time "cut bits out" or "changed meanings" inappropriately. My edits have been exclusively structural. You're conflating me with other users if you think I've cut anything out.
As for why Wikipedia can't cite "Nashville Thebodiah Slasher" as his actual legal name, the issue is that it's obviously a clever non-answer meant to dodge the question. While it's certainly possible that he might have legally changed his name to that, Wikipedia cannot assert that something is true just because it might be true. We can leave the name in the article (which I did, I have to point out); we just can't assert that it's actually his real legal name without proof that he actually had it legally changed to that. Wikipedia information has to be verifiable.
And as for my "outburst", how on earth do you expect me to react when you repeatedly ignore my points about Wikipedia's established rules? Bearcat 19:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Highway 61 was released as an original soundtrack in 1991 - it was the original score intended for the movie - FACT. User:Nashferatu

By the way, H61 is a great flick with a great soundtrack. :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Did I dispute that somehow? The point is that the article Highway 61 is a disambiguation page whose only content is a list of five different potential meanings of the term, two of which are actual highways and one of which is a Bob Dylan album. Wikipedia is sometimes in the position of having two, three, four or even twelve articles which could legitimately own the exact same article title -- so there's a disambiguation process to deal with that type of circumstance.
So if you specifically mean the film or its soundtrack, the link you wikify has to be Highway 61 (film) or Highway 61 (soundtrack). You can't just link to the disambiguation page. I didn't dispute either the existence or the relevance of the soundtrack, or remove the information; I corrected the link to point directly to the appropriate article instead of the disambiguation page. If you don't understand what I mean, click on those three links and see for yourself what they contain. Bearcat 13:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The correct title of the film is 'Blood & Donuts' not 'Blood & Roses' - Sorry if I've pissed you off in the past :)- User:Nashferatu

Right you are...guess I misread the IMDB listing. Just so's ya don't get the impression that I think I'm always right *grin* Bearcat 21:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I just opened this wiki account so i may not be doing this correctly. bear with me.

nash the slash's real name is jeff plewman or more accurately james jeffery plewman. i have known him for over 20 years personally. it doesnt matter if he wants this private - as others have pointed out its been in the public domain for many years. and who cares anyway. its not like it changes anything.

he is not ben mink or billie currie any one else for that matter.

Re last comment, anything else to add, or is that the best you can come up with !!. User:Nashferatu.

Is it me, or is this an attempt to intimidate a contributor? For a user such as Nashferatu who is purposely obfuscating Nash's identity, despite any and all information in the public domain, this is unacceptable. E Pluribus Anthony 10:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, it is you !!. What exactly is intimidating about my comment. I simply named a name like he attempted to, if people are going to cite names then for reasons of accuracy they should reveal who they are - I see nothing intimidating about that. By the way, my name is Steve Gregory - got a problem with that ?, I've got a birth certificate to prove it, which is more than you lot have for Nash the Slash. Oh, and by the way his real name is Max Schreck.User:Nashferatu

Yes ... and I'm not going away! I encourage any and all contributors (present company included) to cite their contributions when making them. There's a distinct difference, however, when users like you - who so clearly and vehemently are against naming the subject of this article - 'out' another who may or not wish to verify its contents. I and other users (including said individual) choose aliases for personal and, yes - privacy, reasons ... something which Nash has been unable to forego in this debate and which you cannot obviate or disrespect through obfuscation. Your name means as much as my alias does.
Regardless of adminstering his fan club, perhaps you should just move your Nash-isn't-Plewman campaign elsewhere and authoritatively and respectfully cite your sources (as others generally have from the public domain), because it is losing its currency here. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony 17:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should move your comments elsewhere as well, because what you are writing has about as much significance as spindrift. Shall I 'obfuscate' a little more, as this word seems to be yr catchphrase. When attempting to name this artist, and there are numerous possibilities, bear in mind that the internet is full of information & disinformation. I repudiate any and all of this. Ponder all you like, but baby you dont have the facts. In this information age people expect to know the facts instantly, 'do a google' etc etc, if it is'nt there then it gets made up (in case your missing the point !!). You, and anyone else for that matter, are not entitled to know the artists real name, sorry to emasculate you. Jack the Ripper, any idea ?, no, thats why the publics fascination remains to this day. The pulchritude of all this just adds to the enigma of this seminal musician/artist. Keep posting the comments, Mr Diletante.

Absolutely no comment (other than): you just proved why we should and will disengage from you hereafter. Bye! :) E Pluribus Anthony 12:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: said user misspelled "dilettante". E Pluribus Anthony 12:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: the word remains misspelled ... who is what? E Pluribus Anthony 17:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, you mean I've made a valid point and you have nothing to come back with !!. User:Nashferatu

Not at all: you're a troll, maybe even an imp, and I will not indulge you further by responding. The balcony is closed ... E Pluribus Anthony 12:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Good,because your incessant bumblings are the mark of a meeker :) User:Nashferatu

Spelling corrections !! How petty are you going to get E.Pluribus !!, actually it was a typo error. Now what is your real name ?. I've given you mine, whats yours, oh, of course, you go under an alias, whys that exactly ???, and why should'nt Nash have the same privacy rights as you think your entitled to online ?. I rest my case. User:Nashferatu

No comment. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, no comment so stop throwing those stones or move out of the greenhouse.. User:Nashferatu

No comment – translation: ditto. E Pluribus Anthony 18:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, no comment so stop throwing those stones or move out of the greenhouse.. User:Nashferatu


Bah, your just a snake E.Pluribus, yr quite happy to anonymously edit these pages and condone the public naming of people who do not want to be named, but when it comes to telling us your name you go all' no comment' on us. You think by stating that his name is in the public domain makes it OK to try and out them, well it aint f***** OK is it and you still cant prove anything. So whats your name ?, eh, whats your name ?, what your name ?. Gone very quiet has'nt it.....

Anthony is not a public celebrity. This discussion is to end, now. Bearcat 22:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

TY, Bc. :) E Pluribus Anthony 23:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Does'nt change the fact that Nash is entitled, the same as you are, not to have his name splattered all over the internet for reasons of privacy and security. I dont see either Bearcat or Anthony giving their real names. Anyway how does Bearcat know Anthony is not a public celeb, or some other popular figure ?, and who gave Bearcat the power to decide to end this discussion ???. Basically what you are saying Bearcat, is that because Nash is a celebrity, we the public, have the right to know his name, and because you are not a celebrity you have the right to anonymity ?? - WRONG. So what else do you think we should know about celebrities, what size shirt they wear, who they shagged last night, how many times they go for a dump in a day - well ??, sounds pretty sordid to me, so how far do you take this kind of intrusion when the celeb involved has clearly chosen to keep his name to himself. Next you'll be asking for his credit card numbers.... I dont give a damn if other websites say he is called Ben,Jeff,Billie or Jesus Christ, it does'nt make it right, or valid. User:Nashferatu

So now you are removing other peoples comments - I hope your not in government. User:Nashferatu

What gives me "the power to decide to end this discussion" is the fact that I am a Wikipedia administrator, who has both the responsibility to enforce Wikipedia rules when they're being broken, and the ability to temporarily or permanently ban users who continue to ignore the rules. This talk page is for discussion of the article; it is not for outing Wikipedia contributors who are not the subject of the article. That's the rules. HTH, HAND. Bearcat 19:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

So its OK to out anybody in the public eye, with no regard for their privacy or security, but not you ???. Very diplomatic. Your administrator privileges are questionable. User:Nashferatu

What part of "I'm not the subject of this article" are you having trouble understanding? And, frankly, it's not up to you to decide who does or doesn't deserve admin privileges around here. Bearcat 20:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This part you moron, you are condoning the naming of someone who does not want to be named - this is an abuse of their privacy, you would'nt like it, so dont sit there in judgement.THIS IS AN ABUSE, and all name references should be removed. And I will make as many comments as I like about my opinion of your admin privileges, esp if I think you are abusing them - my country is a democracy - maybe yours is'nt. User:Nashferatu

No, I am condoning Wikipedia's right to cite information that already exists in the public domain. You will kindly note that the information is already structured to permit the maximum possible ambiguity under the circumstances. Oh, and for the record, (a) Wikipedia is not "your country", (b) I am not "abusing my privileges", and (c) Wikipedia rules also require discussion to be conducted in a civil and mature manner. You will not call anybody a moron on this page again. Bearcat 20:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


Jeez, you really do make it up as you go along... So its OK for you to swear at me, quote :For the last fucking goddamned time unquote, see abv, but I call you a moron and now you will probably ban my edits - is your second name 'Amin' by any chance. User:Nashferatu

Yeah, so I used a swear word. That's hardly comparable to calling somebody a moron; one is a direct personal insult meant to specifically demean the target's intelligence, and the other one is just the word "fuck". I'm not making it up as I go along; I'm responding to your rule breaches as they occur. And no, my middle name isn't "Amin", although it does begin with an A. So at least you got one letter right. Bearcat 20:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


Yes you did swear in writing, twice now - I expect many young children visit Wikipedia every day, lets hope they do not stumble on this page eh - nice example to set 'mate'. Moron fits in this context, dont you think. !!!. And in reply to yr penultimate comment, Wikipedia does not automatically have rights to everything it users so decide, and judging by this and other pages it would not surprise me to see it heavily regulated in the near future. I am already in communication with the Canadian Encyclopedia's editors about their sources of information on Nash - all the other referenced sources are about as reliable as rattlesnake poo. You should respect this individuals privacy wishes as you would expect others to respect yours. Your and E.Pluribus's comments carry very little weight IMHO.User:Nashferatu.

No comment (note to hypocrites: before calling someone names, ensure that you spell the epithets correctly ("dilettante") and edit them correctly after being reminded of your errors.) Bye! E Pluribus Anthony 21:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. There's even an article on the word fuck, freely accessible to anyone who uses Wikipedia, and that is not going to change. Swear words are not unacceptable on Wikipedia; direct personal insults are.
  2. Wikipedia has the right to any information that exists in the public domain.
  3. As I've said before, I really don't care if my real name is published on Wikipedia; the point is that this article, and therefore this talk page, is not about me, and therefore this page is not the place to discuss revealing or not revealing my name. Bearcat 21:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Pathetic - are you guys still in your teens. E.Pluribus is still whinging about a typo error from a few days ago...boring or what (yawns). Bearcats comments - sorry it does'nt wash. Where I come from the word f*** is highly offensive and threatening, and as an administrator you should refrain from using such obscenities. The discussion is whether it is right to name this person in the article, and quite rightly I compared it to naming you or anyone else here, from a privacy perspective, therefore this is the place to discuss it, as it is an integral part of the debate. I assume if the name is retracted by the Canadian Encyclopedia then Wikipedia will do the same ? - probably not because you two appear to have your own agenda. One other thing, Wikipedia should be censored for the protection of minors and I'm very very surprised that it is'nt. User:Nashferatu

Well, then, feel free to launch a policy debate proposing that Wikipedia adopt censorship, and see how far you get. As for my "agenda", well, the funniest part of it is that my entire agenda is limited to ensuring that Wikipedia policy is respected and upheld; I have no agenda whatsoever with regards to Nash himself. The truth is, I really don't give a rat's dropping whether his real name is in the article or not — my agenda and my responsibility as an administrator is to ensure that Wikipedia policy and procedure is respected and upheld, and not disregarded just because it doesn't suit your own personal agenda. End of discussion. Bearcat 00:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

End of discussion - laughable. Its only the end because you have nothing more constructive to add, and I have made valid points regarding privacy,security, and respect, that you just cannot debate. I have been called and Imp by another user, but you choose to ignore any reference to this in your ramblings, however I call you a moron and you jump on it straight away - a definite bias here. You swear more than once, and then you condone your use of abusive language, another bias. End of discussion User:Nashferatu 09:15, 7 November 2005 (GMT)

what you have to understand is that user Nashferatu aka steve gregory is a huge nash the slash fan and runs an unofficial nash fan site. steve regularily comes to toronto to visit nash and has something of a friendship with him. so Nashferatu/steve has a huge emotional vested interest in nash. the rest of us could probably care less and are most interested in having an accurate account in this wiki entry. nash's real name is often cited in the national newspapers when there is a story writen about him (which happens less and less these days). especially in the toronto star. his name is usually cited at 'jeff plewman' which is the name nash himself tells people but his legal name is 'james jeffery plewman' as i mentioned. anyway its not as a big a deal as it seems. just keep in mind that Nashferatu is a huge nash fan and friend and simply has nash's best interests in mind. unfortunately Nashferatu has them in mind so much that he forgets manners and ettiquete.

for the rest of you, i have been a close friend of nash's from 1981 to 2004 and if you have any questions please dont hesitate to ask.

  • I have a question, and it's even relevant to the article: Is it true that Nash originally planned the "invisible man" costume as a one-time-only stage gimmick for an anti-Nuclear show?
  • And did he really lose his original bandages after a scrabble game in Barrie?


In reply to the above, although its got sod all to do with the article, firstly the Nash The Slash Fan Site [3] is official sanctioned by Nash. Secondly, and its worth reiterating your own point, your friendship with Nash ended in 2004. Third, surely a supposed friend of 20 years would know the answers to those questions ? . What could any Nash fan possibly want to know from you, when you dont even know the history of the bandages..... Need I say more. User:Nashferatu 15:42, 8 November 2005 (GMT)

is it just me or is Nashferatu aka Steve Gregory the keeper of the Nash the Slash Fan Site a nasty poster? Other than reading some of the things that Nash has turned out to various people, I have not read so much nasty, unreasonable, aggressive, horrible sociopathic prose written to a public site in a long long time. Its a shame that a person such as Mr. Gregory with such a presense as a Nash fan would act in such a manner on this otherwise excellent source of information. I guess brids of a feather do flock together. ;)

Banning for Outing

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

To the administrator,

I am not at all pleased about Nashferatu 'outing' me on this site. If you read my posts I was simply trying to add accurate information to an entry which is what I understand from the policies to be one of the values of wikipedia. I do not know Nashferatu, I did not give him my name and I did not give him permission to post my name here. I would request that you consider banning him from Wikipedia either temporarily or ideally permanently as you see fit. I would also ask, if its possible, for you to remove my birth name from these pages. My real name unlike Nash's is not part of a related entry in this encyclopedia and therefore I do not feel it should be indicated here publicly.

Thank you -Plexuss (BM)

  • Just for the record, Wikipedia has a lot of administrators; I'm not the only one. I will refer your request to the administrators' notice board for further discussion and action if they deem it appropriate, but since I've been directly involved in this dispute it would be inappropriate for me to personally impose the measures you request. Bearcat 01:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed all occurances of my name as posted by Nashferatu as I never gave permission for my name to be posted and I do not know Nashferatu personally. Further, my name is irrelevant to this entry. Bearcat, how can I contact you? I want to make sure my request for the ban of Nashferatu is being considered. Thanks. Plexuss 16:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, Plexus ([alias]) is a musician that was quite well known in Toronto. Why should he keep his name a secret when he is so willing to try and give the real name of another artist, and one he has performed with many times in the past. [alias] also chooses to forget that we met in Oct 2000. Again it comes down to a matter of privacy, had [alias] not tried to 'out' Nash The Slash I would not have mentioned his name - this is all sour grapes on the part of Plexus. [alias] states that he did not give permission for his name to be used and requests it be removed, well neither did Nash the Slash, so where does that leave wikipedia ??, bearing in mind that [alias] is/was also a musician of some note. This wont go away - ban me if you like, I'll just get one of the 600 or so members of the Nash fan club to take up the posting duties. As I have said before Nash is entitled to privacy the same as anyone else. If it pleases [alias], I would be happy to see this whole discussion page removed and the article left 'as is'. PS, You can't just change this page to suit yourself.User:Nashferatu

  1. Is Plexuss the subject of this article? No.
  2. Are there web references which directly link Plexuss' real name to the user name Plexuss? "Does his name exist on the web" is not an equivalent question to the matter at hand. The key question is "do references on the web specifically link his real name to this specific username", and the answer to that question is no. (And no, identifying him on the Nash fansite wouldn't count; it would have to be an objective reference, not planted by you, on an authoritative reference site.)

This is not a double standard. To be a double standard, both of those questions would have to be answerable in the affirmative. Bearcat 19:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Double standards again I see. For the record Plexus performed with Nash the Slash in the early nineties as 'Psychedelitron'. This info is in the public domain and referred to on nash's website and the nash fan site, among others. Why, therefore, does this person think they have a right to anonymity over Nash. I could easily add these details to Nash's career entry, and it is an integral part of his career, but users may then wonder 'well who is this Plexus performer', and according to wiki they have a right to know, much as they do Nash the Slash. I believe I've made a point here... [alias]. User:Nashferatu

By all means create an entry for Plexus and in it you can put my full name. However in the context used here in this disucssion, it is irrelevant and unsupported and I stand by me request for a some kind of repremand of Nashferatu. It would be helpful indeed to all, Nashferatu, if you could tone down the aggresiveness. This isnt a conspiracy. Play nice in the sandbox, please. Plexuss 18:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no aggression here on my part, I am merely stating fact. You try to name another artist but you dont want to cite yourself other than by an alias, despite the fact that you were a performing artist yourself. It is neither irrelevant or unsupported (it's in the public domain). And your trying to get me banned, it sounds like you are throwing your toys out of the playpen, not me. And in reply to Bearcat , Plexus is linked on many web pages to his real name, here are just a few : http://www.plexusinteractivegroup.com/sales/home.html http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Pop_Encyclopedia/N/Nash_The_Slash.html - this is the Canadian Pop Encyclopedia, how more authoritative do you want!!. http://www.oldbmw.com/scoots/electrics.html. I did not plant the info on my website as the aboove links prove, and I am not a liar as your innuendo suggests. If there is any further proof you need, pls let me know, I'll be glad to supply it. User:Nashferatu

  • I have warned User:Nashferatu on his talk page, and i now warn all other editors in this discussion -- it is not acceptable to reveal persoanl information about a wikipedia editor without that editor's consent on a wikipedia page. I consider that doing so is a form of disruption and is therefore subject under our blocking bolicy to blocking the offender from wikipedia editing for a limited time period. I note that if an editor was also the subject of an artilce, information about that editor which can be found in the public domain may be included if relevant and appropriate, and that my statemetn did not applyu to editors who are the subjects of articels, within thsoe articles. DES (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks, DES, for your necessary note and actions. As a general user who initially called N's actions to account, I also admit some personal frustration and beligerence throughout. Rest assured, however, that I will hereafter be vigilant in upholding Wp policies regarding conduct and in ensuring the integrity of the information presented therein. Please also let me know if you've any questions. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 23:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


I gather from DESiegel's comments that I would be right to include Plexus's real name, but I just need to start an article about this artist !!. Well, you'll all be glad to hear that I wont be joining in this discussion anymore as I disagree with both Wikipedia's policies, and the above editors comments. In your books it is OK to 'out' anybody you choose on this website who is a celebrity or other public figure, even when the person clearly want's to retain their privacy. I agree that Nash The Slash is mentioned on a minimal amount of websites under various 'real names', and the article as it is now reflects the uncertainty of his name correctly. However Nash The Slash has never given his real name to any journalist or indeed anyone else in the press. FYI I have asked the Canadian Encyclopedia for their source of information about Nash's real name in three separate emails over the course of the last 2 weeks - I have not received any reply. This suggest's that their source is nothing more than popular myth. I find it unsavoury that editors are content to sit in the corner and snigger behind their aliases, pointing their fingers at whoever they choose. I have clearly identified myself on this discussion page, to qualify my comments. Wikipedia has a long way to go.User:Nashferatu

The article clearly states this ambiguity and relevant citations, so there is no problem with the content or its propriety. There is a problem and it is unsavoury, however, when certain users abuse this medium to promulgate their zealous – even self-serving – views. To that end, I think I can speak for the Canadian Encyclopedia and other Wp users when I say: no comment. E Pluribus Anthony 10:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reiterating my previous edit,in the first line of yours, but why bother, maybe you like having the last word. Goodbye. no comment User:Nashferatu

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nash_the_Slash/Archive_1&oldid=1137035662"