Talk:Keith Davidson

Templates Added

This BLP is not written in a NPOV. Undue Weight: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. I've never seen a BLP with so many pictures of other individuals and so much insignificant detail, i.e., "'slept in a closet in college." Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

One Source for 40+ citations. One Smoking Gun article is cited more than 40 times. I am unable to find multiple reliable third-part sources documenting the majority of this article, i.e., much of this information cannot be sourced anywhere else. In addition, this fact has been obscured by the author of this content. Making it hard to notice without a closer look. Per Wikipedia guidelines: 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.

Reminder:Administrator Accountability I believe this page has remained in it's current state due to the "prestige of the admin who wrote it." Because of this, any requests for changes have been denied. However, per Wikipedia policy: Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.

SJP89 (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

My response

@SJP89: While, after reviewing what changes you made, you haven't sanitized the article as I suspected you might from your post above (although you have left a great deal of your new paragraph breaks without footnotes, so thoughtfully leaving that to other editors to clean up (see the red type in the footnotes; that's all your fault)—is this perhaps some deliberate strategy meant to allow other anonymous IPs to come in and leave {{fact}} tags, thus perhaps degrading the quality of the article in readers' eyes), I still am not entirely certain that I'm not dealing with an editor working for a reputation management firm and not disclosing this ... I mean, you've only been editing since November and, other than this article, have mostly shown a keen interest in Schmidt's Naturals and apparently setting the record straight there in some way, to the point that you feel compelled to leave multiple messages in the wrong place on the talk page announcing your intentions and actions to the world in great detail, just as you have above (Is this so the client can see that you're earning your pay?)

Your critique above really does seem intended for some eyes other your ostensible fellow Wikipedians, as it doesn't really show the kind of grasp of Wikipedia policy that I'd expect from a seasoned fellow editor. It's long on rhetoric but short on specifics, and what specifics there seem to be I will address below.

• The Smoking Gun: First, there is no requirement that we have multiple sources for everything, as long as they're reliable. Second, the reliability of The Smoking Gun has been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard; while that discussion is almost a decade old it is the most recent one, and seems to have reached a consensus that it is, since the time Court TV had just bought the site.

  I am also unable to ascertain what you mean, and if you are indicating me personally, when you say that "this fact has been obscured by the author of this content." Which brings me to ...

• Your assertion of a conflict of interest: You make that, and duly tagged the article, on no factual basis whatsoever other than your own speculation. In the real world this is grounds for a defamation lawsuit, or at least a strongly worded letter from an attorney asking that you retract it and cease and desist from making further such baseless allegations. On Wikipedia it is both a personal attack and an assumption of bad faith.

  I therefore request that as soon as possible after reading this you remove the COI tag from the article, retract and strikethrough your assertions above, and apologize profusely for having done so (And for the record, I have absolutely nothing to do with any organization, that I know of, that might have any reason to attack Mr. Davidson, nor any personal motive to harm his reputation. I have merely researched all available sources and tried to write a complete article about him that people would read if and when his name came up, including anything he said in his own defense and anything positive anyone says about him).

  If you do not do these things within three days, I will remove the COI tag myself and raise this issue at the appropriate noticeboard for possible discussion there, as well as your other edits on other articles.

• My alleged use of the administrative tools to prevent changes to this article. Again, you are making a serious allegation without any factual basis ... and you will find none. I have never, and would never, use any of the administrative tools to prevail in any dispute over the content of the article. I cannot find anywhere in the article history where I've even used the rollback tool (and that's not exclusive to admins in any event). I request that you retract this accusation it as well and specifically include it in your apology.

  I also don't see what you're getting at (do you, for that matter?) with that reference to my "prestige"? The respect I enjoy, that I have earned here from the community over years? Is this now to be seen as some unfairly gained and exercised privilege?

• The use of all those other pictures of celebrities. That's a personal preference you're suggesting is policy. It would have been better to discuss it first on the talk page before going in and editing.

  But if you must ... they're all free images, and since the article was rather long (OK, some of what you did was probably useful copy editing), it broke up the flow of the text some and made it easier to read (is that another reputation management strategy they teach you? Make the article a wall of text that nobody will bother to read?)

Lastly may I just say that it was extremely craven of you not to even mention my name as you attacked me, or at least ping me that you'd written and done this. This is not behavior I would expect from someone meriting the term "Wikipedian". Not behavior I'd expect from someone who's been here for eight months and says they want to know how they can best serve the community. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing COI

@Daniel Case: I have removed the COI template and the reference to it above. The reason I added it in the first place is because of how biased the article was. It felt to me that no one would write an attack article like this without intent to defame. In this context I assumed there was a personal reason for doing so. This was an assumption based on tone, detail, and lack of reliable sources in the article.

I also added the Reminder of Admin Accountability - not as an accusation but as a reminder of the role of an admin. It was clear to me from your edit history that you tend to "strong arm" editors who disagree with you. I would have no way of knowing about your use of admin tools and that was not what I was trying to communicate. If I did, I apologize for that. I was expecting a strong response from you on the edits to this article. SJP89 (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

Is that another way of saying you were trying to pick a fight? Perhaps you could have considered raising the issue on the talk page before making edits ... when other editors have done that, on other articles on my watchlist, I have been delighted to discuss the issue in a climate of mutual respect and trust. When I have felt that way myself, I have done the same thing (assuming the edit history shows that there is at least one editor who seems to care about the article).

This did not happen here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Not Finished

@Daniel Case: There is so much work to do on this page that I am not finished editing it which is why you are seeing the issues you are seeing. I will continue to work on it today. Seeing your edit history I had a strong feeling this would be your response. I apologize but it's not a well written article and the sourcing is atrocious. It's written in a style to defame someone. I'm working to make it more neutral. No need for pointing fingers because I'm editing a page you wrote. That's not very Wikipedian of you.

SJP89 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

Anyone behind that mess at Schmidt's Naturals (or at least what it was before I began working on it just now), anyone for whom English is this clearly not their first language, is not really in any position to criticize anyone else's writing as "atrocious".

Do people ever tell you you have no tact? Because you don't. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional Edits

I have spent several hours cleaning up this article. I estimate that 60-70% of the article's contents are taken from one Smoking Gun article. Additional citations still need to be added. I believe this article is much too long and goes into excruciating and irrelevant detail. The abundance of quotes from journalists, editors, and colleagues does not add to the article. Overall, the entire page needs to be reorganized and condensed to contain well sourced information pertinent to the subject of the article. At this time, it is not.

In addition, I did not attack anyone by adding relevant templates to the page. I do not appreciate being harassed, accused, or threatened by any editors on Wikipedia much less an admin. Please do raise this issue with the appropriate notice boards, including the NPOV and BLP. I am happy to raise them with the oversight committee and arbitration committee if needed.

There really is no need to be upset. The article is getting better, more relevant, concise and accurate. Admins do not own Wikipedia - trolling pages is not beneficial to the community. With an unbiased eye, I think you'll agree that the article is still a work on in progress and that it is moving in the right direction. If there are specific facts you would like to discuss regarding this content I am happy to engage.

Best, SJP89 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

If this is your best I would hate to see your worst. "In addition, I did not attack anyone by adding relevant templates to the page." Excuse me ... when you add one saying that "a major contributor appears to have a close connection to the subject", how, pray tell, is that not an accusation, an attack, against an individual editor?

I see you raised this issue at BLPN, and I would heed the response I got there if I were you. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

My Apologies

@Daniel Case: Daniel, I sincerely apologize for my accusations. It has been pointed out to me that a conflict does not necessarily mean a conflict of interest. Please take this apology in good faith that I made an incorrect assumption. I am apologizing for this again despite your continued threats including, " I would heed the response I got there if I were you." Please accept that I am not as experienced an editor as you and I recognize that my actions were not committed in the appropriate order. I will take this into careful consideration for future editing. I wish us to move past this in an effort to remedy the page issues. Thank you for your help. SJP89 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

I accept this apology. Really, I'm not so myopic and self-centered as to think that everything I write is absolutely perfect as it is. No one who has that attitude lasts forever around here. Just assume good faith, and keep making Wikipedia better. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Again - my apologies for being aggressive. I have removed the page from the BLP noticeboard. I will assume good faith moving forward - I should have done that here. SJP89 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Keith M. Davidson.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)