ComeOnBoro

Jeff Winter

Hmmm. Either you are a brand new editor who doesn't like references to freemasons, or a sockpuppet on a campaign to eradicate freemason references. Whichever way, Wikipedia is not censored and so the valid encyclopedic info is restored. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a brand new editor but I am also the creator and editor of Jeff Winter's Official Site. Jeff is not a freemason and specifically asked me to remove the reference to him being a freemason.

Can we take some form of ownership of this page as there is a lot more information to add. I have editied this page many times but the changes never take effect.

Steve Goldby ComeOnBoro 07:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have just received (and replied to) your email. I do not watch user's talk pages. When I have posted to them, I would expect any replies to be directed to my own, or at the very least the talk page for the article in question, if it involves proposed consensual changes.

No, it is absolutely against the Wikipedia principle for anyone to take any form of ownership for any page published. Also impossible. Therefore, any articles are constantly subject to change, and constantly do.

The information in question was inserted into the article after discovery of a perfectly reliable and believable independent source (MQ Magazine online edition) which stated the correctness of the fact. Where there is a believable independent source, any editor has the right within Wikipedia to insert information covered by the source. Further, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, removal of the sourced content can be reverted, mainly due to editors not explaining why they are removing it, either in the edit summary or on the article talk page (or on the user talk page of the person who reverted the edit).

Apart from your above post, which I discovered when searching in reaction to today's email, and which I have moved down the page to its correct position, I have had no contact about this whatsoever. At no point has anyone openly said on the article talk page that the info is untrue. That is what is needed. Interested editors can then work together to discover the truth, and remove the info if consensus deems it so.

Finally, perhaps unfortunately, the person who is the subject of the article, if it is a biography, has no say over the content either. I have the utmost respect for Mr Winter, having followed his career closely, and having invested in his autobiography. I know there is plenty more which could be said (which could be gleaned from his book), but, although they are allowed as references, autobiographies are not classed as independent sources, and anything added to the article which the subject has recounted themselves in a book or other publication risks being removed if a truly independent source says otherwise. As his webmaster, you cannot be counted as a source. So you must provide independent sources to try to change consensus on this. As for vastly expanding the current article, encyclopedic articles are intended to be broad outlines about the subject, not in-depth chapter-and-verse covering the last little detail (albeit there are many examples in Wikipedia of grossly inflated accounts of certain subjects, which it has proved impossible to reduce in length). However, his membership of the freemasons, if correct, is encyclopedic. And, if correct, its removal amounts to censorship, which Wikipedia is not party to.

I hope you will post to the Jeff Winter talk page soon, so that consensus on this issue can be built and eventually acted upon. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't be interested - I have already tried to explain to you that it is impossible to take ownership of an article. There is nobody specific to ask on this - Wikipedia is guided by appointed administrators, who have certain extra powers. They do not, however, have the power to hand over an article, in fact it is expressly forbidden - they are bound by the same rules as any editor. You first need to thoroughly read the guideline WP:OWN, which will tell you why you cannot control what is written in Jeff's article in Wikipedia, other than through consensus properly discussed. Your only recourse is to ask for Jeff's article to be deleted, if it bothers you and him that much.

As far as your speaking on his behalf goes, that is not really a valid exercise where the subject of his being a freemason, or not a freemason, is concerned. Editors work on the hard facts gleaned from searches on the internet and the bookshelves - encyclopedic information gathered and supported by reliable independent sources. Having read the source I quoted, you must admit that it states quite categorically that he is. Working on that, the info, as encyclopedic, was introduced into the article in good faith - another pillar of the guidelines. To remove it without discussing the matter on the article talk page, and without providing hard sources to show why it should not be included, is seen either as vandalism or censorship, for whatever reason.

Where the particular subject in question is concerned, it is well known that brothers of the Masonic lodges never like to be identified in public, and it might be suspected by some editors that you are trying to arrange the removal of the info for that reason. I personally am not suggesting this is the case, merely putting a devil's advocate hat on.

As I have said before, I urge you to introduce yourself on the article talk page, and give your side of things as you see it, in an attempt to gain consensus for the removal of the info. However, I would urge you not to follow the "ownership" idea, as this is guaranteed to inflame the senses of most of the editors, and all of the admins, in Wikipedia. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Lee - if you really did have any respect for Jeff, you would cease from re-inserting the bit about him being a freemason as I have told you several times that he is not and personally asked me to remove that part of the sentence.

Here's the black and white, from Jeff himself.

Jeff is not a freemason. End of. That's all there is to say on the matter. Can I be any clearer than that?

If you are going to choose to believe some magazine that we haven't even heard of and contains no quotes, rather than what Jeff himself says, then it is clearly a waste of time even speaking to you. I think you are a bit smarter than that though.

Please do not change the page again. If you do, we will only be able to assume that you have some sort of hidden agenda.

Are you a freemason yourself?

Rgds,

Steve ComeOnBoro 20:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I have said all there is to say about guidelines for the use of Wikipedia. I have also made enough posts to your talk page, this will be the last, and I will make one more plea for you to take this to the article talk page at Talk:Jeff Winter, which is the proper procedure.

I am bound by those guidelines to believe that which gives checkable sources, such as the referenced magazine's online pages. It is impossible for me to check your information, your representation of Mr Winter is not proven, and we who edit the article cannot confirm for ourselves that you are who you say you are or that you are authorised to speak on his behalf.

If you can post to the talk page for the article with some proof that the disputed information is incorrect, then any reasonable editor in his right mind is going to comply and remove it. However, merely removing the info once more without following the conventions (post to the article page, state your sources) is not enough, and will result in the information being restored until such time as you do.

Please don't patronise, I am not a freemason - if I were I have no doubt that I would probably be as eager as you to have the offending line stricken from the article, given the nature of the organisation.

I hope to hear from you at the article talk page. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)