I can see that at Wikipedia Review, my identity is being discussed. I hope this helps people understand why I have used a SPA; I don't want my wife and daughter to be threatened by Don Murphy's stooges. I was wondering if it was possible at all to userfy my revision to show readers at Wikipedia Review exactly what I did. With the ongoing deletion review, there is nothing for visitors to look at with the article having been deleted. I've provided links to major coverage of Don Murphy in the deletion review, but I do not know if they have been fully explored. I was wondering if anyone with a Wikipedia Review account could share the information found at The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, LA Weekly, and IGN. I think that a few choice quotes need to be shared with all to establish that Don Murphy is by no means a private figure that wants to be left alone. Please provide this message and the content at User:RTFA/Sandbox. There were both positive and negative traits reported about him, and I added both to his article. I even quoted Murphy twice, where he acknowledged his reputation both times. Unlike what he attempts to suggest, it was not "illegal vandalism". RTFA (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize for being the catalyst to all this fury about the article on Don Murphy. I had observed issues with the article in the past, and I had my own questions about Don Murphy's notability. I saw in the previous AFDs that while they were kept, there were some opinions that Murphy was not notable. I wanted to investigate this topic, so I researched and found plentiful coverage about Murphy and his background. I included much of this content in the article to cement Murphy's notability, since my opinion was that it would be hard to argue against it based on my revision. I noticed a complaint by Don Murphy at Wikipedia Review that the "Reputation" subsection I created defamed him. I find this odd because I merely reported the independent coverage by reliable sources, and I even included two quotes from Murphy to show that this was not just tabloid detail. Perhaps the format could have been revised, and I asked for independent perspectives at Talk:Don Murphy to see if the article was in line with WP:BLP. I was completely willing to make changes, feeling that the notability was quite clear with my revision.

I used a SPA because I am very much aware that Don Murphy has rallied his stooges to harass people on Wikipedia. I think my identity is irrelevant here, especially considering that all my contributions to his article were fully cited and that I requested help in appropriating the content. Thus my handle "RTFA" was intended to look at the information added about Don Murphy, not to look at who I am. I was surprised that Viridae unilaterally deleted the article. Obviously, during the deletion review, my revision is not available to anyone who wanted to weigh in on the proceedings. I've attempted to reflect the basis of my contributions to everyone, but with the review getting a little long in the tooth, I don't know if the message was received. I knew I was going to revitalize discussion about the article, but I was hoping that it would be a discussion about the content. Obviously, this has not been the case, and people have been using "history as memory" perspectives to recommend action one way or another. Don Murphy is not a household name, but there are many, many notable people who are not household names. I'm disappointed to see people claim that Don Murphy is only known because Natural Born Killers or Transformers were made, when I've clearly provided evidence that explores Murphy directly as a person, not just his specific projects.

If the deletion of the article is overturned and the article becomes available again, I ask people to look at my revision and see how much more content the article had than ever before in its page history. Having gotten little sleep in thinking about all this, I am going to leave this issue behind. I've made my comments, and I hope that others have been receptive of them. Considering that I only intended to add to the article and revise it accordingly, I don't think it matters for me to be involved anymore. Again, I apologize for opening this can of worms, and I hope that the article will be restored with the appropriate details about Don Murphy in his capacity as a producer. I have to go to work soon, so I wanted to get this off my chest. Good luck, and I hope that common sense and verifiability reign. RTFA (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

while I disagree with him in just about everything, vehemently in some things, I see no harm being done in posting this at his request. As JzG has said, OTRS can be a bit backed up at times, so let's let him speak in his own words. SirFozzie (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"While it is true that I want no article, I lived with the one that Squeakbox kept for months. Though inaccurate, it was harmless. The latest brouhaha has started because an obsessed editor or admin, RTFA, has spent literally HOURS trying to turn the article into a multiple page definitive article, complete with defamation and professional attacks. Go back and read the RTFA version. Go to his sandbox page. Ask yourself why he is doing this. Sure, the last version had no BLP problems. But that is because I sent people out to alter the evil things that RTFA anonymously added. Why do some of you have a problem understanding what others above have written? HUMAN DECENCY? In the midst of you there is this RTFA, whose goal it is to get you and or me in trouble. And you debate this? I bet 99% of you don't even know what the role of the producer IS. Please have HUMAN DECENCY. " personal attack removed -- Naerii · plz create stuff 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please redact the "criminal" part. Even if you aren't the author of this you are responsible for what is posted when you are posting on behalf of others who can't post here themselves and that is a blatant personal attack (not to mention libel). He can say whatever it is he wants to say without resorting to such language. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well done Fozzie, I would have posted it myself but as it mentions me I didn't. Certainly this problem began when RTFA started editing, and unless we delete or permanently lock this will continue on every time somebody new wants to edit to expand the article or to re-add the BLP stuff I have been trying to ensure remains deleted, and in order to keep the peace. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Murphy's stance is inconsistent. He insisted to me only two days ago that nothing but the complete deletion of the article would be acceptable, no half-measures, no "IMDB-style" one line entries, nothing. Should the article be restored, he should not be allowed to determine its content beyond the obvious BLP violations which have plagued the article in the past. If Murphy does or says something which is notable enough for inclusion in the article, should someone add the information, it should not be removed later on under the guise of BLP just because he doesn't like it. Steve ^{T • C} 16:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely if Murphy is willing to soften his stance, isn't that good? As an adult and a film producer he presumably knows that compromise and negotiation are a better wayy of getting some of what one wants than a completely inflexible stand, though the latter can certainly be a negotiating position in order to encourage flexibility and compromise from the other side. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is good! But he should not be the sole arbiter of what is included in the article. If every subject of an article were able to do so, there'd be no point in having them, and it would call into question the integrity of the encyclopedia. Your efforts to contain the controversy are commendable, but it's time this was brought to a head and sorted out once and for all, one way or the other. Steve ^{T • C} 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think what Squeak's trying to say is, is that if the main argument for deletion is that the subject wants it deleted, and we've found a version he's happy with, than providing we can stabilise it on this version, that solves the problem. I don't think many people are arguing that he's not important in his field. SB, correct me if I'm misinterpreting you. — iridescent 18:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • My question is simply this: why is it necessary (rather than merely preferable) to have a version of an article that the subject is happy with? Steve ^{T • C} 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I wouldn't say it's necessary - but as I understand it, the subject's problem here isn't with the article's existence, but with the high levels of vandalism. If he's happy with the unvandalised article - if necessary with semi-protection - that seems to resolve all the issues. — iridescent 18:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • Do no harm is a fundamental pillar of wikipedia, is it not? I had a feeling this was going to erupt when I saw RFTA editing. I thought some material was too personal and removed it int eh middle of his edits. He flagged me on my talk page and we had a nice little thread and he agreed to leave the personal stuff such as which school Murphy attended so I left him to it, and RFTA didn't restore the personal info but it exploded anyway so this is an article that it is hard to see being stable without full permanent protection. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are aware that if this is deleted you will need to watch this closely anyway and even then you won't be able to G4 this without an AfD? This needs to be deleted at AfD before we can speedy recreations. Is Murphy aware of this too before he decides to prefer deletion over full protection of a stub? EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither RTFA's alternate account nor Mr. Murphy's extreme wording would be necessary if Wikipedia had a reasonable and clearly defined opt-out for BLP subjects? We'd have less drama and more time for encyclopedia-building. I'm off to go do productive stuff now. If this article gets reinstated, please ping me and I'll write an AFD for it. Durova^Charge! 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, Durova, if this fails an afd would be a good idea but I have already nominated it once and am reluctant to again personally18:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

Editors who are dedicated to this site's biography articles: come pitch in with the final part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts featured portal drive (Portal:Textile Arts)! We've got all the other elements of a featured portal in place and only need 6 more B-class biographies. Enjoy zero drama, make durable improvements, and perhaps receive the coveted cross-stitched barnstar. Choose any of entries from the list below. :) Durova^Charge! 20:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Elizabeth Zimmermann = Start-class, No relevant free-use image in article.
2. John Henry Dearle = B-class, free-use image of work in article.
3. William Morris = B-class, free-use image of individual in article. WP:LEAD could use expansion.
4. Betsy Ross = B-class, relevant free-use image in article. WP:LEAD could use expansion.
5. Dobri Zhelyazkov = Start-class, relevant free-use image. Needs expansion and referencing.
6. Rosey Grier = Start-class, relevant free-use image. Needs longer lead, expansion, and referencing.
7. Sir William Henry Perkin = B-class, free-use image and good lead. Needs inline citations.
8. Eli Whitney = B-class, free-use image. Needs longer lead and inline citations.
9. William Madison Wood = Start-class. Needs free use image, introduction, and citations.
10. Jedediah Strutt = Unassessed (strong start to weak B). Relevant free-use image. Needs better lead and references.
11. Samuel Slater = B-class (weak B), free use image. Needs better lead. Expansion would be good.
12. Richard Arkwright = Start-class, free use image. Needs organization, expansion, and referencing.
13. Anni Albers = Start-class, no free use image. Needs expansion and image.

Another down, 5 more to go. Eli Whitney never gave Wikipedia any grief. ;) Durova^Charge! 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 down, 4 to go (help with these important durable biographies would really be appreciated). Durova^Charge! 03:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More done. Come help build an encyclopedia! Durova^Charge! 08:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear from the recent additions to the debate, we're once again straying from the point, or repeating old arguments. It seems to me that there are two points which are now clear:

1. We will not reach consensus here over Don Murphy's ultimate notability.
2. We will not reach consensus here over the content of the Don Murphy article, should it be restored.

With that in mind, I would urge new participants in the review to ignore these points, and focus solely on the minor violation of process which brought us here. We can reach consensus over the article's restoration. Nothing more needs be considered. The above points can then be tackled in turn; point #1 at AfD, then (should the consensus be to keep) point #2 in a perfectly civil discussion on the article's talk page. Steve ^{T • C} 20:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy is emotionally upset over a high google ranking page for a google search of "Don Murphy" that anyone can edit. When we finally get stable versions or when it is ok to treat wiki-bios like the front page (locked down), then we can have an article named after Murphy that he won't be extremely angry about. Meanwhile, I think it would be best if content about him was restricted to articles that did not have his name in the title. Like Brandt, he may still be pissed off at vandalism about him or negative claims about him in other articles, but I still think this will be helpful. He thinks of this article as "my article". The emotions will be less for claims on an article about a book or movie. Accordimg to data from http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0006613/ and other places; articles that could contain claims about him include:

1. Shoot 'Em Up - producer of film
2. Transformers - producer of film
3. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - producer of film
4. From Hell - producer of film
5. Bully - producer of film
6. Permanent Midnight - producer of film
7. Apt Pupil - producer of film
8. Double Dragon - producer of film
9. Natural Born Killers - producer of film and actor in film
10. Monday Morning - producer of film
11. Hairshirt - actor in film
12. Monday Morning - director of film
13. Assembling the League - appeared as himself in film
14. HBO First Look - appeared as himself in film
15. Chaos Rising: The Storm Around 'Natural Born Killers' - appeared as himself in film
16. A View from Hell - appeared as himself in film
17. Predators from Beyond Neptune - appeared as himself in film
18. Jane Hamsher - business partner
19. JD Productions - his business
20. Killer Instinct - book in which he figures prominently
21. Angry Films - his business
22. Susan Montford - his wife
23. donmurphyonline.com - his website
24. Chaminade High School - alumnus
25. Georgetown University - alumnus
26. USC School of Cinema-Television - alumnus

WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that article Don Murphy contain the above data in list format and be locked from further editing. I suggested that in another case calling it a "disambig" and everyone set about arguing that that was not what a disambig was. Well, call it what you like, I think that is what should be done here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy has made clear that any form of article about him, even a list of data about him is unacceptable. He has similarly rejected an article focusing on his business. And considering he objects to us mentioning that he and Montford are married, that isn't an option either. None of these are good targets and even if they were he isn't interested. The long list above of possible targets for single details does do a pretty good job though of demonstrating why he need to have an article about him. Oh, and we all know how well our last attempt at a complex merge placating someone who got his jollies off of harassing Wikipedians. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, you argue that we should ignore his desire not to have this article because we can't please his every desire. That's beneath you. You are plenty smart enough to know and understand the flaws in your logic. So are the rest of us. So stop it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I simply observe that by Murphy's own description he will not be any happier at all with merge solutions. And the last time we went ahead and did a complex merge despite someone saying they wouldn't be any happier, guess what happened? They didn't get any happier as far as we can tell, and they still harass us. This is a proposal that would have some minimal merit if he thought this was any better. But that's not the case. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best if someone asked him about this at Wikipedia Review? WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that can be an option at a future AfD, this is a DRV concerning an out of process deletion. I do not support at this time. R. Baley (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against process for the sake of process. If we agree to go this route, there is no reason to feel forced to go through an AFD to get there. That said, more and more, people feel process must be followed so we probably will end up going to AFD first. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, two issues with that 1) there are good reasons for process; in particular, when we throw process completely to the wind we get people talking to each other at cross purposes. 2) Certain aspects of process help prevent runs around actual community consensus and this seems to be a pretty clear example given that we have two previous AfDs that were overwhelming keeps. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a good case to be made for that. Another reason to think this will wind up at AFD again. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]