Talk:Mark Meechan/Archive 1

Archive 1

SamHolt6 and their involvement with this page

I'd just like to flag a potential issue with this user and their editing of this page. I know I'm not the best Wikipedian and my edits may lack certain technical flair, but I am concerned about the entry this user left on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Megajeffzilla&diff=838425539&oldid=787465990

As you'll see, this user accuses me of making "unsolicited edits" to this page. Have there ever been solicited edits on Wikipedia? I am also accused of including well sourced material without first discussing it here. Again, it is my understanding that accurate, well sourced material is always welcome on Wikipedia.

I just wanted to flag this issue so that any future editors making changes to this page are aware of SamHolt6's previous conduct while editing it. Megajeffzilla (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

From your edits to the article [1] [2] [3] it seems you did not understand my note to you about gaining consensus before editing. You added content (including duplicate refs, broken refs), I objected to this addition on the basis that renaming subheadings was unneeded. Consensus has clearly not been established, but I have taken a brief break from the page out of respect for 3RR. --SamHolt6 (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, my use of "unsolicited" is correct as you edits were not presented on this talk page before they were added (thus unasked for), and due to the fact we are all volunteer (unsolicited -unasked-) editors. And yes, I sadly know all to well that their are editors on Wikipedia that make solicited edits.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. You repeatedly refer to WP:CON in a manner which, at best, shows that you do not understand the way in which consensus is achieved on Wikipedia. To quote directly from the relevant page: "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." Clearly, there is no need to discuss the addition of material on the talk page. If someone then wanted that material to be removed, then discussion would move to the talk page rather than just mindlessly reverting the page without adequately explaining why the material should not be included. I've asked you several times why you feel the judges sentencing remarks should not be included on this page, yet the best you seem able to come up with is minor formatting quibbles, which clearly do not call for reverts.

As for your use of the word unsolicited, it seems to me from the context of your comment on my talk page that you were using in a pejorative sense, and in a manner which seemed to suggest you feel you have some kind of ownership over this page. Of course, other Wikipedians are free to make up their own minds on the matter. Megajeffzilla (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, I feel your grasp of WP:CONSENSUS may be leading you in the wrong direction. You stated "Clearly, there is no need to discuss the addition of material on the talk page." I could provide a rebuttal in my own words, but WP:CON itself directly refutes this assertion. Quoting from said policy, "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion", "If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia". This was relayed to you via my edit summaries. Note that in said summaries [4] [5] I attempted to explain my reverts. This argument could go back and forth for awhile; you support changing a subheading, I disagree. You state that I need a reason to revert, I state I am returning the page to a previous version as we have not reached a consensus; on and on it goes. But let me quote what policy says at Wikipedia:NOCON (part of WP:CON); "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." This is fairly definitive, and I apologize for not quoting from it directly sooner. It supports my revisions on two counts; no consensus has been reached to implement your edits and thus the previous version of the article should be retained, and this matter concerns a fairly controversial living person and thus the contentious edits should be removed. I feel the first point is the stronger one as in reality we do not disagree on that much.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I invite any arguments you have against the inclusion of the material that do not rely on there not having been consensus for its inclusion before it was included.

And you did indeed include comments in your reverts, but these were unhelpful and did not serve to actually debate the material that has been included. Eg: You claim that my additions were "unnecessary" but did not explain why. Nor have you explained why you oppose these changes despite being given several opportunities to do so. Furthermore, the material I have included is in no way contentious as it is factual material from a highly reputable source. I would note that just because a Wikipedia may not like the fact contained in a source, that in no way makes the material contentious. Again, I would be receptive to any genuine reasoning as to why the material I added should not be included in this article, but again I would note that this is something I have asked for several times and am yet to see in these talk pages. Megajeffzilla (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Including material from sentencing remarks

As including material from the sentencing remarks of this case has proved to be controversial with at least one Wikipedian, it seems sensible to have a discussion about them here. As this article is largely about a court case, it seems inconceivable to me that the article should not draw on the courts remarks, but I'm willing to hear arguments as to why they should be ignored. Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Megajeffzilla: I have a fairly simple solution; I will add a "court case" subsection to the article in which you can add information related to the trial, including any statements from the court. We must keep in mind however that this article is first and foremost a biography about Meechan and thus must reflect the controversy surrounding him.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We can reorganize the article later; for now have at the "court case subsection".--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As neither of your replies include a reason as to why sentencing remarks should not be featured heavily in this article, which is the point of this section of the talk page, I will now add them back in. I would ask that you do not remove these well sourced remarks, which come from a primary source, unless you can fully explain, on this talk page, why you have done so. Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

My response comes in two parts, one to address the issue of consensus and the other related to content.

• It seems that I did not adequately explain the cycle of consensus building to you, so I will direct you to WP:CONSENSUS. You have added content that I object to on what I believe to be valid grounds, and seeing as how we are the only two editors involved in the discussion, consensus has not been established and as such the information in question should not be added. Note that I have held off editing the page out of respect for 3RR. I also resorted to mass reverts of your work as you continuously duplicated refs, shuffled sentences, and improperly cited refs.
• It should also be noted that I did respond to your question with about quotes from the trial with the line "I will add a "court case" subsection to the article in which you can add information related to the trial, including any statements from the court". I have nothing against adding primary sources related to the court case; I am however strongly against your renaming any subheading and using duplicates of the same source. My offer to create a new subheading for the court case stems from the fact that coverage centers around both Meechan's trial and sentencing and this could lead to flow issues.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I will point out that you have, at best, misunderstood WP:CONSENSUS. There is absolutely no onus on anyone to gain consensus before adding material to a Wikipedia page. In fact, consensus would have to be achieved to remove content once it has been placed on a page. I would also note that the section discussing this issue was started by me. I will also note, that you have not provided any real reason as to why you object to the inclusion of material sourced from the sentencing remarks for this case, despite being asked to do so several times.

As for you being "strongly against" my renaming any subheading, do you have a reason for this that falls within the rules of Wikipedia. As I pointed out, Meechan is know for his court case. All the sources cited on this page are in some way related to that court case. To call it a "controversy" is an unnecessary euphemism. It was, and will remain, a section about a court case. I remain open to any arguments as to why the word "controversy" is a better way to describe a court case than the words "court case". Megajeffzilla (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I will restate my comment from above. On the contrary, I feel your grasp of WP:CONSENSUS may be leading you in the wrong direction. You stated "Clearly, there is no need to discuss the addition of material on the talk page." I could provide a rebuttal in my own words, but WP:CON itself directly refutes your assertion. Quoting from said policy, "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion", "If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia". This was relayed to you via my edit summaries. Note that in said summaries [6] [7] I attempted to explain my reverts. This argument could go back and forth for awhile; you support changing a subheading, I disagree. You state that I need a reason to revert, I state I am returning the page to a previous version as we have not reached a consensus; on and on it goes. But let me quote what policy says at Wikipedia:NOCON (part of WP:CON); "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." This is fairly definitive, and I apologize for not quoting from it directly sooner. It supports my revisions on two counts; no consensus has been reached to implement your edits and thus the previous version of the article should be retained, and this matter concerns a fairly controversial living person and thus the contentious edits should be removed. I feel the first point is the stronger one as in reality we do not disagree on that much.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

So, as you quote from WP:CONSENSUS: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion", "If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia". I made edits which I believed were well sourced and in no way contentious. You disagreed and reverted them, without adequate explanation. Because of this, I reverted again, explaining why the material should be included. And so on. Eventually, I created this very section on this very talk page to discus the merits of the material I included. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, you seem more keen to discuss the semantics of WP:CON. Your argument is that I should have not made these edits without first debating them on the talk page, which is why you reverted them several times. As far as I can tell, this remains your only argument for the non inclusion of the material I added to this article. You need to argue against the inclusion of the material based on the wider rules of Wikipedia. It is not enough to simply repeatedly state that there is not consensus for a change, and your doing so drags the actual discussion away from something that might actual end up producing useful results. (After all, I could easy take your consensus argument and reverse it to fit my own needs, and it would be equally as valid. In fact, your argument could be used to derail any Wikipedia page in existence.) So I'll ask you again: Do you have any reason for opposing my inclusion of material from the sentencing remarks that is supported by Wikipedia's rules? If you can't answer this question, then you have no reason to oppose my changes, and I feel that your continuing to do so may be considered WP:TE Megajeffzilla (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

For convenience's sake I will again split my arguments into two parts, one concerning content and one concerning the issue of consensus:

• Content I have no issue with the inclusion of primary sources in the form of the court's statements. These references are improperly cited at the moment, but this is easily remedied. Sentence placement and some minor c/e may be warranted, but this is not a major point of contention. Having made more alterations to the article myself, some of the rewording done in the earlier edits are no longer a point of contention for me. The only change I am strongly contesting is the change of the heading 'Controversy' to "Court case', as the discussion at Talk:Mark_Meechan#Subtitle demonstrates.
• Consensus consensus is needed to implement any edits that have been contested via reverts, edit summaries, or dialogue. The issue of contention this discussion concerns ("Controversy" or "Court case" heading) has been contested by me and is part of an ongoing discussion, and as such no consensus has been reached to implement the change made with [8]. Thus Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS comes into play and mandates the revision of the disputed content; quoting from the text, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it."

Now for my further remarks. After reading your comments above, I must insist that you not labor under the idea that I am required to convince you that your changes are incorrect; rather, the burden is on you to convince me to no longer contest the changes you wish to make to the article. The discussion below at Talk:Mark_Meechan#Subtitle stands testament to the fact that we disagree on this issue, and thus no consensus has been established. Whether you believe that I have adequately refuted your arguments is irrelevant, as WP:NOCON policy trumps either of our subjective opinions. Thus I will momentarily be implementing an edit that will revert the disputed material to the revision [9] prior to your change until consensus has been reached. I will also be fixing several duplicate and improperly cited sources. If your contest these changes, we can continue the discussion below or you can start a new discussion on this talk page.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"I have no issue with the inclusion of primary sources in the form of the court's statements." This is completely at odds with your previous statements and actions regarding this page. I would remind you that you have reverted this page several times expressly because of the inclusion of that content. You then repeatedly argued against its conclusion on this talk page. It may be that you no longer have any issue with the inclusion of this material, but your statement is phrased in a way that suggested you never had any issue with the inclusion of the material, which I find deeply concerning because it is transparently untrue.

And you continue to misunderstand the point I am making regarding WP:CON. It is not an issue of whether I am convinced by your argument as regards the inclusion of material sourced from the sentencing remarks because, as I have pointed out several times, you have no real argument against the inclusion of this material. The point of WP:CON is to enable discussion within in the rules of Wikipedia with the aim of achieving consensus. If consensus cannot be reached within the rules of Wikipedia, then that would be WP:NOCON. However, if the argument against a change was simply "I don't like it" then that would not be WP:NOCON as not liking something is not reason enough to exclude it from Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, your only objection to the inclusion of this material was that you didn't like it. Now that objection has gone, so we can end this discussion. It would have been nice if we could have reached this situation much, much earlier but there you go. Megajeffzilla (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Subtitle

I've changed "controversy" to "court case" because, well, it was a court case. Megajeffzilla (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The controversy has spread to facets of society beyond a court case, and this article is in any rate biography of Meechan.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

So you were open to renaming the whole page, but now you're not open to renaming a subsection? I think it's perfectly reasonable to call a section about a court case "court case". There's still plenty of stuff in there about the wider debate. I'd suggest perhaps a little too much. Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A broad "controversy" section is better suited to Meechan's situation as presented by reliable sources. To be sure, the court case is a large part of the controversy surrounding Meechan, but press coverage and public opinion have placed more emphasis on the controversy than on the court case. This goes for events before and after the proper trial and sentencing of Meechan. We can however entertain adding a "court case" subheading to the article if we amass enough information about the court case.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

His noterity stems only from the fact that he was involved in a court case, which he lost. This is reflected in your own earlier comments, and those from a fellow Wikipedian. Megajeffzilla (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources beg to differ on this point; Significant coverage exists about Meechan's video and the resulting chain of events more than they do about solely his trial. Note also this article is a biography of Meechan and not an article about his trial, and Meechan's notoriety stems from his viral (and controversial) video. For this reason I support the "Controversy" subheading as it is broad enough to cover all aspects of the case (the controversial video, the controversial trial, the controversial debate over free speech, etc).--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I would humbly note that the one thing that unites all sources linked to in this article, no matter what aspect of the issue they discuss, or which angle they approach it from, is that they all mention Meechan will be/is/has been involved in a court case. Megajeffzilla (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I would counter that some sources focus on his arrest before his court date, and that the issue has expanded in scope beyond court proceedings to encompass politicians [10], comedians [11][12], free speech activists, etc. I would also note that just as one could claim that all of these reactions stem from a court case, one could just as easily claim (as I am) that the whole situation stems from a controversial video made by a now-controversial man. It would also be incorrect not to list Meechan's arrest, trial, and sentencing as not applicable to a broader "controversy" heading.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The politicians, comedians and others are commenting on aspects of the court case. I'd be willing to consider changing the title from court case to something like "legal proceedings", but "controversy" is an unnecessary euphemism. His court case may stem from the creation of a YouTube video, but Wikipedia is not in the habit of creating a page for the creator of every viral YouTube video. He is a figure of interest precisely because of the court case. Furthermore, when you make a statement like "It would also be incorrect not to list Meechan's arrest, trial, and sentencing as not applicable to a broader "controversy" heading." you actually need to back it up with an argument, rather than just making a statement. Again, I think it is perfectly acceptable to have wider discussion on this court case listed under the heading of "court case" and fail to see why we should avoid the simplest heading for this section. As always, feel free to try and convince me otherwise, but it does feel like I have already addressed the points in your most recent comment in this section in my previous comment. Megajeffzilla (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

So flows the winding river of developing a consensus. I would note coverage of Meechan before his trial (these note the outrage the video initially generated [13] [14] [15] back in 2016) exists, and would argue that controversy around Meechan's arrest is distinguishable from outrage that his later court case generated.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I would note the "controversy" section itself says "Meechan's conviction subsequently generated controversy". It's clear that this section is dealing with a court case, and wider debate generated by the court case. So, it should be called court case, or similar. I've previously suggested a compromise such as "legal proceedings" or something similar. Megajeffzilla (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

True, but the quoted line is also the topic sentence of the fourth paragraph under the "controversy" heading. The information found above said paragraph stems from sources like [16] that were written immediately after the video went viral; indeed, several sources and the statements from groups like the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities condemned Meechan (see this article from 20 April 2016, just over a week after the video was produced [17]) months before Meechan's arrest, trial, or conviction. I would wager these condemnations count as a controversy, or at the very least established that the event needs a broader subheading than one implying the court case was the singualr event in Meechan's ongoing saga. We should however be on the lookout for case studies and articles in law reviews for more sources related to the actual trial. We may even consider creating a separate article about Meechan's trial in the future if the coverage is there.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Just a note to say that using US tabloids as sources for a Scottish court case probably isn't the best idea. Megajeffzilla (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Article name

Note, I am more than willing to discuss moving this article to a new name if need be.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

SamHolt6. In my opinion it should be an article about the trial because at this moment it is the only thing that Meechan is notable and famous for. There is the possibility that with this increased attention around him he could become more famous for other things in the future, but right now this is all there is. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is first and foremost a biography concerning Meechan, who is most notable for his video and the controversy it inspired. The vast weight of the sources cited by the article in question mention the trial as part of the larger story of Meechan, his video, the backlash, and the debate over free speech in the UK.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The article should be rewritten and retitled to focus on the dog. That dog is clearly a Nazi and Meechan exposing him on YouTube should be the real focus of the article imho. 74.46.254.158 (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The article should be about the man and his content, all the jobs and his life, it's about a person not a trial Stanley Sanders (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Criminal?

He's been included in the Scottish Male Criminals and 21st Century Criminals categories? How is he a criminal? I believe it shouldn't be listed there just because he pulled off a joke which was taken too literally. A criminal to me is a person who makes money breaking the law, not a person who laughs about nazi symbolism and a government arresting him for it.ProductofWit (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

A criminal, by definition is someone who has been found guilty of breaking the law. If he successfully overturns the ruling then it should be removedApolloCarmb (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether anyone agrees with Meechan's arrest, trial, or conviction or not is irrelevant. Clearly there is debate in the UK in regards to the issue of free speech, but the fact of the matter is that he was charged and convicted by a court under a standing UK law (the Communications Act 2003), hence he is a criminal. If there is an appeal that results in the overturn of the verdict, then we could remove him from the categories in question.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD

There's no way this guy merits a page. Rather, there should be a page devoted to his stupidity and the attendant legal consequences, perhaps entitled "Count Dankula controversy". 70.48.112.199 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Just because you haven't heard anything about him outside of the Pug joke, doesn't mean he doesn't warrant attention. If Stampy can have a wiki page, and he certainly doesn't warrant one, so does Dankula. (Someguyonwiki.2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:18C9:C500:AD7D:7F21:9D0:4F35 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

How would that be better in any way Emperoringo (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

@FlightTime Phone: do you have any objections to the infobox change? wumbolo ^^^ 15:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Well, kinda. I don't think being arrested once make you a criminal. I would also like to see some consensus from other editors who watch this page. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the documentation for {{Infobox criminal}} says that it's used for convicted criminals (which he is) who are primarily notable for the crime (which he is). wumbolo ^^^ 17:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I believe his notability came around long before his conviction. Also worthy to note the context: "This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals." from {{Infobox criminal}}. I have pleaded guilty of speeding and been fined, does that also make me worthy of having the Infobox criminal? Velojareal (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

^{Reference tag around cite template removed, newlines added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)}

Let us have fun you goof. Mark Meechan himself said it was okay

Meechan, Mark. "@CountDankulaTV". Twitter.com.

Frenlypizza uwu (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done, but thank you for the link. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Day for Freedom" rally

@TheTruthiness: Meechan's speech at the "Day for Freedom" rally is supported by four sources, but the article currently doesn't explain why this is significant, nor provide any simple way for readers to determine this. As several (already cited) sources have mentioned, the event's name is not informative or descriptive, so this current vague sentence is more confusing than helpful. According to the sources already cited, this rally was noteworthy because of the far-right ideology and Islamophobic views expressed by other attendees. It was also noteworthy for the protests and violence which accompanied these ideas. Since this event is noteworthy enough to mention, per sources, and since Meechan's speech was notably different from the other attendees, the quote from iNews is intended to provide context while also accommodating WP:BLP. Since all of these sources mention Meechan, calling this a WP:COATRACK is a misrepresentation of both the edit, and meaning of "coatrack" on Wikipedia. The event was connnected by sources to the far-right and Islomophobia. You do not have to accept that as fair, but the connection has indisputably been made. Meechan's participation in this event must be contextualized. This is not about attacking him, this is about providing a more nuanced reflection of sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That appears to be WP:SYNTH. There are sources calling Tommy Robinson "far-right" and "Islamophobic" (he disputes the latter, I'm unsure about "far-right"), but there are also just as many sources disputing those labels. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, we'd need a full context that'd be WP:UNDUE so none of this belongs here. wumbolo ^^^ 13:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

How is is synth to repeat the context provided by a reliable source? Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)