Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi/Archives/2012/December

Recent legal issue removals

Recently there has been an argument over the legal section of the Fraternity Website. I have been reviewing this wikipedia article for some time, knowing that my son, and son's son are legacies of TEP. As parents of college and university student's we all want a safe place for our children to grow and expand. The recent allegations of TEP at Cornel are an exmple of something that concerns me but rather I agree with Orange and Tim that these allegations are just that non-encyclopedic. I prefer to have the fraternity page as we have it as information only. Take a look at all of the other Fraternities and you will notice that they value their organization as a whole and would rather have a place for parents to read about the organization and its core value rather then a newspaper journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.76.145 (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This information is obviously not encyclopedic but rather a violation of Neutral Point of View. I was examining the poster Teps4Justice and realized that back in 2010 sometime a particular indivudal organized a group called, oddly enough, Teps4Justice. This same individual, if you read his/her new edits on the TEP Legal section is littered everywhere. If you take a look at other significant fraternity sites, SAE and TKE they have serious issues of hazing and not one bit of that is posted on those wikipedia sites. I stand by that this smells like a complete violation of Neutral Point of View. Admins make this a locked subject removing legal issues and sticking to encylopedic content only and removing all issues against NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.164.241 (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore it is nice to see admins such as McCloud and Orange cleaning up an article and taking a stance after some time. Thanks for standing by us parents guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.164.241 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

McCloud and Orange are not standing by "you parents"; they are standing by Wikipedia in order to protect its integrity. Both of you need to understand that the way this article is edited has nothing to do with you, your children, or your personal feelings. And to say "I prefer to have the fraternity page as we have it as information only" or that fraternities would "rather have a place for parents to read about the organization and its core value" is completely irrelevant and reflects a huge misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else prefers an article to be, nor is Wikipedia here to promote an organization in any particular light. If an editor adds neutral content that is worthy of inclusion and provides reliable sources to support it, then it stays. If not, it goes. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved editor, I'd like to know why you think there should be absolutely no coverage of the legal issues, given that it was clearly important enough to appear in the New York Times. That's a pretty good indication, to me at least, that this requires some coverage in our article. In fact, I'd argue that leaving it out entirely violates WP:NPOV, by intentionally hiding relevant information. Now, I also agree that the previous coverage was very excessive...but it seems like we need a small section. However, I'm not familiar with the backstory here, so I invite the comments of other involved editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Qwyrxian in all regards. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting you have such a direct involvement with TEP when you yourself asked Orange to delete someone who was being self serving just as the legal section was. Here is what you wrote about on Orange's wall. Sounds odd.

Having a legal section that is at length a direct violation of the Neutral Point of View is a direct violation of the wikipedia Terms of Service. The legal section was not specific information but rather several abstract points of view that referenced a specific individual or individuals as heros or villians. This reduces what wikipedia is all about. You obviously do not understand what it is like to be a parent and watch your children read things or hear about things in a public view that is quite dissapointing. A lot of the information in that topic was Bumfodder as OrangeMike said. It is not encylopedic to list the details that were listed or the specifics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.76.145 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention if I might as my son was toremented and hazed by this organization in September of 2012. If this legal section argument keeps coming up as it is, and directing an attack on 'the parents' as it is. I will go to the papers and media and explain to them the sheer lack of education and what exactly happened from my son's point of view this year. So watch your tone with me and have some respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.76.145 (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

First, IP 216, do not ever remove my, or any other editor's comments, as you did here with my comments at 04:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC). I have replaced the comments. Second, do not ever copy and paste my, or another editor's comments, from another talk page into a different talk page without that editor's permission, as you did here. They have been removed. Third, what does my asking an administrator (Orangemike) about deleting an apparently non-notable autobiography (of a completely unrelated subject to this one) have to do with anything? Nothing at all. And for the record, the consult with Mike was far from "self serving" as you describe it; in fact, it was actually "Wikipedia serving", which is why Mike, a very experienced administrator, quickly deleted the article. Now back to the issue at hand, which is how Wikipedia works and how this article will be edited. Neither I nor Qwyrxian, another very knowlegeable administrator, said that we disagreed with removal of the content. In fact, we both agree that the content that was removed was clearly excessive (in addition to other big problems). On the other hand, we both agree that because of reliable mainstream coverage, such as the NY Times, it should not be completely ignored. We explained to you how Wikipedia works and what its purpose is. As stated previously, "If an editor adds neutral content that is worthy of inclusion and provides reliable sources to support it, then it stays. If not, it goes." While we sympathize with any distress you are experiencing, this project cannot allow anyone's personal involvements in a situation affect how articles are edited. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 76, I apologize for letting my emotions cloud my neutrality view. In keeping with the neutrality perspective, I find it a conflict that the individual reposting the majority of the legal issues, (and originally posting the majority of this) is the same person that made the allegations to the New York Times. Just because something is printed in a newspaper, especially unproven allegations, does not make it encyclopedic. As I understand it according to both TimMcloud and OrangeMike, allegations are not encyclopedic and in light of the fact that the matter was dismissed by a Federal judge and the Supreme Court of New York further supports that allegations themselves do not warrant inclusions in this article. After all, the judiciary exercises the highest form of neutrality. Unproven allegations can be called opinions which do not belong on Wikipedia according to one of the 5 Wiki pillars. TimMcloud noted that allegations do not meet the requirements. Since the source and the motive for the NYT articles and others is a biased source (by Teps4justice aka Broughty), the special consideration required by Wiki regarding the affects on living persons should apply. The posting serves Teps4justice/Broughty's interests including having his name on Wiki.

Also, according to TimMcloud, who has been troubled by this section since 2010, and OrangeMike, an Admin of Wiki, who called it "legal bumfodder", Wiki is not a newspaper or a blog. That's why I understand the removal of the recent post from a parent regarding the hazing at Cornell. The hazing at Cornell was also reported in the news media and can be found on several reputable websites. But the same standards must be applied to all allegations including the allegations against Broughty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.76.145 (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone for a well written and clear discussion. Let me clarify my stance - The legal issues section (which was removed by someone other than myself) and the Hazing section (which I did remove because allegations are not facts) were distorting the WP:NPOV of the article, due entirely to the detail and their extent. The Legal section was over 1/2 of the article, and the Hazing section for this single incident was larger than the section on the organizations history section which represents the 100 years the fraternity has been in existence. I feel that a Legal section does belong in the article, but instead of a blow by blow, the legal arm wrestling between the brothers and the national chapter could be done a short paragraph - it was a significant event in the fraternities history. I believe that the recent hazing incident might also be represented by a single sentence, since the source was very reliable, but not an extensive section detailing the allegations against a single chapter. The TEP national fraternities has a non-hazing policy, but the allegations and actions of a single chapter do NOT represent the fraternity as a whole. It's unfortunate that Hazing and Fraternities have a long and sordid history, and it's not my intention to whitewash anything like that. There is an entire article on the subject - Hazing in Greek letter organizations - but notice that the article mentions the subject matter in a NPOV, and does not cite specific incidents.

My belief is that these specific subjects might rate inclusion in the article - the legal issues do rate as it was a major turning point in the organizations 100 year history, but in a much more abbreviated form. Possibly the same for the hazing incident too, but I would suggest that numerous fraternities have issues with Hazing incidents that even garner national attention, but those are isolated and don't represent their national fraternity as a whole, so it fails the NPOV to paint the entire fraternity in a broad brush from the stupid and dangerous actions of individuals or chapters.

Finally I made wholesale deletions only because I would have problems personally editing down both of those sections - I've tried to do it in the past and the whole NPOV thing applies to myself as well. I am a better editor on things like notable people, chapters, general history and reverting the inevitable sophomoric pranks when young college students discover the article the first time. I supported the brothers (Broughty) attempt in wresting control of the national fraternity from people whom I think are... maybe it would be better if I didn't describe my feelings of those gentlemen in print. Regardless, I have opinions in the matter, and I what I did try to do in the past is edit out the most egregious NPOV violations of the legal section over the years. Since the lawsuits are over, when someone else removed the entire section, I was ok with that as I felt it restored balance to the article. If another editor would like to try distilling these sections into something smaller and neutral without going into blow by blow or writing chapter and verse, I would support that completely.

And a last word to the parents - I feel your pain and understand your anger, but an encyclopedia is not the forum for either. Try [1] which is a much more appropriate forum for your outrage. Even in this talk page you can find a forum for discussing these incidents, but it does not belong in the main article. Timmccloud (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Timm, thank you for your thoughts. I have read 216 & 76 above. And I also cannot see how unproven allegations are Wiki worthy. I examined the threads and also read the legal documents on the national site which I believe clearly demonstrate that the allegations were dropped by those making them and that this action was endorsed by Broughty and others. Additionally, the Attorney General did not file any charges against any individuals.

As I understand not-for-profit law, it is the responsibility of the AG to examine all allegations regardless if those making the assertions drop them. As I also understand it, not only did the AG not pursue this matter, but nor did the Superior Court Judge and Federal Judge. I would propose that these individuals, government officials, would have the most NPOV position. In the documentation found on the national website, those who made the allegations rescinded them and reversed themselves by acknowledging those they accused of wrongdoing as valid, legal directors. The validated directors were even thanked by Broughty and others for their years of service. Stating names, dates and the unfounded and withdrawn allegations can only serve as a biased mechanism that actually works against neutrality which serves to only damage the organization and anyone mentioned in the unfounded allegations. The Wiki guidance addresses this matter. I agree with you that since the lawsuits were dropped that removing the legal section completely restores balance.

After stating that you have strong personal opinions on this matter, I can imagine how difficult it is for you to maintain the neutrality of this article. However, your decision to not interfere with the deletion of the legal issue section (as well as, the decision to remove the Cornell hazing section) was the honorable and correct thing to do.

Please maintain this balance and the spirit in which this entire matter was resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.28.238 (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 207, it is important to present what other editors say in context. While Tim did indeed say that he was ok with the removal of the legal section because he felt it restored balance, he finished that thought by saying, "If another editor would like to try distilling these sections into something smaller and neutral without going into blow by blow or writing chapter and verse, I would support that completely." You left that very key part out. Tim also said the following two things: (1) "I feel that a Legal section does belong in the article, but instead of a blow by blow, the legal arm wrestling between the brothers and the national chapter could be done a short paragraph - it was a significant event in the fraternities history." and (2) "My belief is that these specific subjects might rate inclusion in the article - the legal issues do rate as it was a major turning point in the organizations 100 year history, but in a much more abbreviated form." When one is personally and emotionally involved in an incident under discussion in an article, it can cause them to see or focus only on those words that appear to align with their own beliefs. By the way, anyone posting in a discussion needs to sign their comments by clicking on the blue pencil icon at the top of the edit box. Or type four tildes (~~~~). --76.189.101.221 (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

207.207.28.238, have you also been posting as 216.166.76.145? --76.189.101.221 (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 76 I agree with IP 207 and their reading of the Timmcdloud's post. Timmccloud does say that he was ok with the removal of the legal section, not only because the lawsuits were dropped, but because Timmccloud felt that the removal of the legal section restored balance to the article.

How is it being perceived that IP 207 is personally or emotionally involved? To the contrary, IP 207's well-reasoned points are supported by their additional research of source materials outside of Wiki, which I verified, including information that is available on the the national fraternity's website. For many, Wiki is the source for information and few will research beyond Wiki as IP 207 did.

Will you now assume, since I am making a post, that I am personally or emotionally involved? Does this same standard apply to all posts including yours? These are questions that come to mind because of your above comments.

If every Wiki article included any and all allegations against any and all persons involved in any and all businesses, organization, etc., it would destroy the very fabric of Wikipedia. Somewhere in a thread I read a post by Timmccloud that allegations and investigations are not encyclopedic and so they do not belong on Wiki. If allegations do not belong, then certainly retracted ones, as is the case with the ones in this instance, do not belong on Wiki. Stating allegations to only say that they were retracted is pointless.

As a supporter of Wikipedia, it is important to me to ensure the integrity by having balanced articles. Timmccloud stated that the article was more balanced without the legal section. Not to mention how an Admin, OrangeMike, also felt that it was worthy of deletion by calling it "bumfodder". IP 207 was just expressing their agreement with Timmccloud that the current edition of the article, that is, without the legal and hazing sections, is a better and balanced one. And I agree with them both.

This is just a note worthy rhetorical sidebar comment, but I find it also peculiar that no positive news about the organization has been posted subsequent the rescinding/retractions of all allegations, which is now approaching two years.173.195.2.249 (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what other editors say. Timmcloud actually says that we should have a legal section, just not one as long as we had before. I can't do the summation now, but I'll work something up next week. As a side note, I want to correct one more thing some said above--the lawsuits were not "dropped"; rather, they were settled. That is a radically different situation, as a settlement is two parties coming to a mutually agreeable decision, while dropping simply implies that the plaintiff gave up on the case for one reason or another. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You must understand that a dismissal of all claims against the directors and officers was approved by multiple courts of law. No court of law can absolve anyone of illegal activity as alleged. The AG had a legal obligation to examine all materials and if there were any substance to the allegations, it would have been his obligation to have prosecuted those directors, which he didn't. Additionally, this same obligation fell upon the federal court and to the trustee. The major responsibility of the trustee is to verify that the filing of the bankruptcy was indeed done legally and with just cause, which it was. Please consult the legal documents from the courts.

Lastly, the plaintiffs undeniably acknowledged the defendants as valid directors and officers which is a complete recant of their allegations. This is all contained in the legal documents that is part of both Federal and State records. When, as you put it, a plaintiff gives up a case for one reason or another, that falls under the category of a frivolous lawsuit. Theneutralfactor (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your legal analysis has no value here. The reliable sources we have say the matter was settled, not dropped as a frivolous law suitt. Note that I'm not talking about the hazing, which probably shouldn't go in, but just the suit whose settlement is posted on the fraternity's website. The suit was notable enough to be discussed in the New York Times. It ended amicably, which we should also report. The suit was directly related to the fraternity itself and the way the fraternity is governed. A few sentences will be sufficient to neutrally cover the matter. Leaving them out is just POV. As a side note, the fact that you registered with that name is of great benefit--in my long history here at Wikipedia, I've never heard seen an editor with "neutral" or "truth" or "proof" or any similar phrases in their name actually be here in the best interests of Wikipedia; just like you already appear to be, "neutral" to you seems to me "no negative information". I want to read the sources in detail, so I have to leave this for now, but I will come up with neutral, appropriately weight info to include. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

@IP Removed (who changed their time stamp and signature to User:Theneutralfactor while I was posting this): As both Qwyrxian and I have previously advised, it is important not to represent what other editors say in an out-of-context manner. It doesn't help one's cause to misstate what everyone else can read in black and white. As Qwyrxian explained (as did I previously), Tim clearly stated that this article should have a Legal section, but just not as long and detailed as it was. I suggest you re-read all of Tim's comments at 08:09, 27 November 2012, instead of just the part(s) that align with your own views. I explained this very clearly at 18:45, 27 November 2012. As far as your question, "How is it being perceived that IP 207 is personally or emotionally involved?", you have misunderstood who I was addressing. I said, "When one is personally and emotionally involved in an incident under discussion in an article, it can cause them to see or focus only on those words that appear to align with their own beliefs." Nowhere in that sentence do I mention IP 207, and that's because the comment was not directed to IP 207, but rather to any editors on Wikipedia who have a personal and emotional involvement in a matter under discussion. In this case, that would apply to IPs 216 and 206, who have openly revealed their frustrations due to their childrens' involvement in this fraternity. Would you be willing to share with us if you have a personal involvement in this matter or with IPs 216 or 206, or if you have any family members associated with this fraternity? Finally, Wikipedia relies on secondary reliable sources, not primary ones (such as court documents), which violate the very important no original research guidelines. As explained previously, we do not sanitize articles simply because some may be uncomfortable by certain content. Again, "If an editor adds neutral content that is worthy of inclusion and provides reliable sources to support it, then it stays. If not, it goes." I fully support Qwyrxian's effort to do a summation. He is a very experienced editor and administrator, and I fully trust his judgment in adding only appropriate content. And, as with any article, the other great editors and administrators who participate here will always have the opportunity to discuss any content disputes and initiate a consenus-building discussion so that everything is done appropriately. I also agree with Qwyrxian about the account name you just registered. By the way, we are still waiting to hear from 207.207.28.238 if he has also been posting as 216.166.76.145. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: Not withstanding your direct attack upon my choice of name and your prejudged characterization of my contributions to Wiki, I was just participating, I thought, in a discussion of thoughts about this article. I was agreeing with, as you call it, the POV of the previous actions of both Timmccloud and Orangemike of not interfering with the deletions. My position is that the article is better now than it was before the deletions. I cannot comment on something that has not been submitted but only offer suggestions to help prevent the disruption of the balance that currently exists. Other editors have called the now deleted legal section excessive. And yet it remained basically unchanged for 2 years. My comments were meant to address the imbalance, as expressed even by the editors, of the article previous to the deletions.

Regarding the inclusion of original research, I have not posted anything to the article. I only did what you say you are about to do, that is, read the sources. I have only expressed this in the talk and I thought this forum was meant for discussion.

Qwyrxian, Would you be willing to share if you are a member or have a member in this organization?

IP 76, I am not a member of the organization nor do I have any family involved. I am familiar with it from my so-long-ago college years. Your alignment with Qwyrxian's opinion of my choice of name and prejudgement is very telling. Would you share if you are a member or have family in the fraternity?

I thought I was participating in an open discussion.

I want to thank you both for making me feel so "welcome" here. Theneutralfactor (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

While it shouldn't be relevant, I've never even heard of the group before. In fact, I still almost know nothing about them--I haven't read anything in the article other than the now deleted section, along with some of the accompanying refs. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

@Theneutralfactor (IP removed), Prior to entering this discussion, I knew nothing about this fraternity. But based on the wording and tone of comments you made, it could leave one with the impression that you are familiar with both the fraternity and IP 207, who has yet to respond to whether he also posted as IP 216. I'm not sure in what way you believe my agreeing with another edtior about your name is "telling", but I certainly had the same reaction as Qwyrxian when I saw it, particularly since you clearly misrepresentated what Tim said and seem to be against having any content about the legal issue, even if it's neutral, encylopedic, and reliably sourced. You still have yet to acknowledge that Tim said there should be a Legal section. Also, you said you have no involvement with the fraternity, but you did not answer whether you have any personal connection to IPs 206 or 216. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

IP76, First of all, your memory fails you. You never asked me if I was connected with those individuals to which you refer. This line of thinking is extremely telling. It only demonstrates that you are very personally attached to this article and it is obviously clouding your judgement. And for the record, I do not know any of them.

As far as being familiar with the Fraternity, I have no connection to it. But I am a well-educated individual who can read the sources and come to an informed opinion. You seem threatened by this ability of mine. Again, I was just agreeing with the deletions because of their "excessive" nature especially in regard to the retracted allegations. Allegations are not facts. See Timmccloud @ 8:09 27 November 2012 (UTC).

I am not denying that Timmccloud said that he thought there should be something but he also mentioned in a non-decisive manner that the posting for the hazing might also be included. Seems that Timmccloud was talking outloud which I thought was the function of this forum.

Again, I cannot comment on something that has yet to be submitted but will offer suggestions to help ensure a balanced article that meets NPOV. (Removed)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theneutralfactor (talk • contribs)

@Theneutralfactor (IP Removed), you claim I never asked you if you were connected with the two IPs, but my post at 08:21, 28 November 2012 shows otherwise ("Would you be willing to share with us if you have a personal involvement in this matter or with IPs 216 or 206"). So what fails are your eyes, not my memory. And Tim did not merely say there should be "something"; he said specifically, ""I feel that a Legal section does belong in the article". Again, as you've been asked multiple times, please do not misrepresent what other editors have said (or not said). By the way, injecting your subjective interpretations about what another editor intended, or the "manner" in which they said it, is not helpful. We read editors' words, not minds. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This is strange that information that is properly sourced "in both the media and in final court rulings" are being removed from wiki. Companies that have legal issue (Like Enron) that are covered in the press and have final court rulings should be here. I do think it should be condensed. 21:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEPs4justice (talk • contribs)

TEPs4justice, since you are the one who added the contentious content and your edit history shows that you have a single-purpose account, it is obviously no surprise at all that you are objecting to its removal. There were serious problems with the content, beyond the unnecessary, excessive detail. An unbiased, experienced, previously-uninvolved editor/administrator has stated that he will be reviewing the issue and adding limited content about the matter that of course will adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. As always, any content disputes can be discussed here on the talk page or through other proper channels, if necessary. Be aware that just because something is in the media, or even reliably sourced, doesn't necessarily make it encylopedic; it must be worthy of inclusion. Also, Wikipedia uses secondary sources to support content, not primary ones (such as court documents). In the future, please be sure to sign your comments by clicking on the blue pencil icon at the top of the edit box. Or type four tildes (~~~~). --76.189.101.221 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

TEPs4justice, one other point: adding content to promote yourself, your organization, or your views, as you did here is highly inappropriate. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

TEPs4justice has completely reverted the Legal Issues section; I have left a pretty stern note and warning on his talk page here, and at the known risk to my own account for starting an edit war I have put the article back to the way it was when this discussion started - and IMHO it should stay that way until consensus is reached on this page. I hope all of you who are weighing in on this discussion support me in taking this step until we have consensus. Timmccloud (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL while I was writing this on the talk page, IP 76 did the revert for me. I will also put a slightly less stern note on his user page as well, since he only did what I was planning to do. Timmccloud (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Tim, after I posted my previous comments, I discovered that TEP4justice had added back all the contentious content. I removed them (before realizing that you were already handling it). I just read your excellent warning note on his talk page. By the way, why would you leave a note for me when I was doing exactly what you were doing? Unless it's a note of thanks. ;) --76.189.101.221 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow Tim, you actually posted a warning on my talk page. Very gutsy. I'll tell you what, Tim... if you want, I'll revert my revert and put back all of that highly contentious content into the article that we all agreed (except for TEPs4justice) should not be there. Then you can do the revert yourself, as you were planning on doing anyway, and I'll send you a non-sensical warning. Is that what you want? As I told you on my talk page, sending me a warning is like warning a good samaritan who stops a mugger. Instead, what you should have done is simply say "thank you". --76.189.101.221 (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As User:Qwyrxian and others have noted above, the legal disputes should be included in the article. As also noted, the recently removed text was overly detailed and likely gave undue weight to this issue. I recommend that the interested editors use this talk page to develop a concise version that represents the facts in a neutral manner. As a side note to 76.189.101.221, any editor has the absolute right to register an account and begin to use it. Linking an IP address with a registered account is outing and is a serious issue. Please do not continue to link an IP address with a registered account in any way. I will see if I can make some sense of the mess above where this has been done repeatedly. Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Tgeairn, I did not out anyone. Not even close. You apparently are not aware of all the facts. The editor first posted in this thread as 173.195.2.249 at 05:49, 28 November 2012, then posted his second comment as Theneutralfactor at 10:36, 28 November 2012, without revealing he was also IP 173. The only reason I knew it was the same person is because I noticed in the edit history of this page that he changed his signature and time stamp on that second post. Although I'm sure he meant no deception, that failure to reveal he was posting under two different accounts would make him a meatpuppet. So, yes, of course he can register an account. But, no, he cannot edit using two different accounts without revealing he is the same person. By the way, please remember that accusing someone of outing (which falls within the harassment guidelines) without clear evidence is inappropriate, per WP:AOHA. But I'm sure you just didn't realize all of the circumstances in this situation. I agree with all your other comments. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It looked to me like the editor intended nothing other than to begin editing as a registered user (having started off as an IP). Since he was changing mid-stream so-to-speak, the linkage was public. I assume that the editor wishes to continue to edit as a registered user (and it would now be inappropriate for them to switch back and forth). To be clear, I was not intending to accuse you or any other editor of outing - and I can see how my comment above looked that way. I was trying to prevent any future issue by asking that the linking of IP and registered user stop (and to draw attention to the policy, which it seems you understand). Given no complaints from the editor in question, I suggest we consider my unintentional diversion from the real issue at hand done. Thanks again, and I apologize for anything that appeared to be anything other than good faith. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tgeairn. :) I know your intentions were pure. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that the legal section should be on the page but to what degree. I do think is should be condensed. But to try to sensor information because it is uncomfortable is "WRONG". In this case the information is referenced and cited but has been removed. I know that Clinton Hasenberg and George Hasenberg are not happy about what the article says but the information is valid. "Wikipedia is not censored" Content on Wikipedia should be referenced with verifiable, reliable sources - like ones found in a library or scholarly journal.

I do think the "Legal issues" portion is way too long. But the Broughty-Hasenberg issue was a monumental turning point in this organisation and should be included. TEPs4justice (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

TEPs4justice, if you think the Legal section was "way too long", then why did you add all of it back yesterday, especially after there was unanimous consent in this discussion to leave it out and have it redone properly?? I strongly suggest you read WP:UNDUE and WP:RSUW. Also, adding content to promote yourself, your organization, or your views, as you did here is highly inappropriate. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a brother of a service fraternity, fairly heavily interested in Fraternal Affairs. IMO, there should be some mention of the issue in the article. I understand that things were more or less settled at the bankruptcy hearing, but regardless of how this is buried, I'd call it one of the most covered non-hazing situations in American Fraternity/Sorority issues in the last 20-30 years. It *certainly* counts as a significant event in Tau Epsilon Phi's history, how often do Social Fraternities apply for Bankruptcy. Ideally, the events over the last 10 years or so should be able to be condensed down to half the size of the current history.Naraht (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the talk going where it belongs, there is no reason to have an outside point of view. I am outside and suggest we keep this thread flowing.

It appears that TEPs4justice is defining the turning point of the organization as a Broughty issue versus a Hasenberg Issue. Wasn't this the reason that the editors spoke up several lines above. Teps4Justice it seems that you have a self interest in posting information for your gain. I have been following this thread for the last few days. I actually discovered it from a posting on the main Fraternity talk page. In fact there was a posting there that was not very nice regarding Tau Epsilon Phi. <redacted>

I concur with the admins, a small paragraph shall suffice in wrapping this up. 86.130.29.94 (talk)

Teps4justice: It doesn't matter what those two people like or what you think they might not like. There is a consensus already that there will be something about this issue in the article. And even you, who posted and re-posted the lengthy section, agree that it must be more concise. As the original poster of the contentious content, you are way to close to this and are not being objective. You have been given good advice by other editors and should take it. Also realize that it is very clear who you are and why you are doing what you are attempting to do.

IP 86: I'll leave the comments about your post to the more experienced editors.

I look forward to seeing what the experienced editors compose and to adding my thoughts to the consensus submission. Theneutralfactor (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors, please indent your comments. It makes discussions, especially long ones like this, much easier to read. And it is a basic Wikipedia guideline that all editors are expected to follow. To indent your comments, just type one colon more than the comment before yours. For example, if the editor before you used 3 colons, then you should use 4. 1 colon = 1 indentation, 2 colons = 2 indentations, etc. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I had to redact some of the comments by 86 above. This is not a forum--you can't use this page to talk about the fraternity in general, you cannot use it to attack the fraternity or its members, and you may not attempt to link a Wikipedia user with a real life person. Everyone needs to understand that the needs or wants of the fraternity, its members, it's alumni, parents, etc., have absolutely nothing to do with how this article is written. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be clear.. I am against Censorship.. But I will leave it to "more experienced editors" to fix it up. just one point, There was an edit war over this page before about the legal section. Wiki Admins cleaned it up and ok'd the content after they got complainants. P.S. I like the updated version. TEPs4justice (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 November 2012‎ (UTC)

I have to agree there was a huge debate before over the legal section but it was changed so many times. It is nice to see a final consenses with balanced NPOV. I also agree that the current version is exceptable and fine.

In September 2010, a group of fraternity members filed a civil lawsuit against the national Tau Epsilon Phi organization. The plaintiffs alleged that the then current board of directors and the then the national executive director, had been operating the fraternity for personal financial gain and drove chapters away by making unreasonable financial demands on them. They further argued that the exutive director failed to hold elections for his position for over 10 years, even though the fraternity's constitution required it biannually. The executive director stated that elections could not take place because none of the chapters were in good standing due to failure to pay dues, and thus there was no one who could legitimately vote.[5] While the judge in the case ordered a new election overseen by an independent party,[5] that order was automatically stayed after the national organization filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2011.[6] In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding cases and the fraternity agreed to hold new national elections.[7]

I am glad you concur.

86.174.57.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

New version for Legal issues section

I have added a new version of this section to the article. It's much shorter than before, coming in at a single paragraph of only 6 sentences. It avoids the blow-by-blow descriptions and does not contain any unsourced claims. I did not include any info from the New York Post article since it's not online so I couldn't review it; if someone has a copy and wants to consider additions from that, please provide quotations here so that we can see what the article says. Also, note that the older version of the article contained copyright violations, as the settlement section was copied verbatim from the Notice of Settlement on the TEP website; copying of copyrighted material into Wikipedia is never allowed. I hope that this new version will be acceptable to all (or most) parties, as I believe that it covers the information in due weight to its importance. The news articles make it clear that this series of events not only significantly changed the make-up of the organization, but also nearly resulted in the organizations full dissolution. Not covering it at all would be leaving out an important part of the TEP story. Covering it in more detail, though, would also be inappropriate given that the end result appears to be an amicable agreement. Finally, note that I did not include any information about alleged hazing or actions that happened at individual chapters, as no charges were filed (at least in the articles I read) and its not even clear that there is a connection to the broader organization anwyay. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done. One problem: the end of the second sentence is incomplete. It says that Hasenberg "had run the organization in a way that the fraternity and its chapters". The way the frat and its chapters WHAT? ;) --76.189.101.221 (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I edited the last part of the second sentence to complete it, per the included New York Times source.[2] --76.189.101.221 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have modified the new edition slightly to include proper conclusion to the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.29.94 (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 86: Although I have no doubt your changes were well-intentioned, the content you added was unnecessary and excessive. There is no need to change the last sentence to a lengthy, detailed separate paragraph. I feel that Qwyrxian's choice of content for that section, and the section as a whole, was appropriately concise and did an excellent job of summarizing all the key points. Therefore, I reverted your your edits. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the summarization of one sentence representing the whole agreement. Especially considering that one sentence does not entirely spell out the truth. I have reverted the edits back and reported you to the administrators for disregarding a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.247.205 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

One Paragraph is hardly excessive. Considering we came from over 13 paragraphs. One sentence can not embroil the whole settlement. Especially when the judge made the orders for an election and not the organization. You are out of line on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.247.205 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 86 and IP 76 it seems that you are both correct here. However, I agree with IP 86 there has to be a proper conclusion that isnt one sided. It appears that the slant of the history is not factual in nature. Why not just paste the settlement agreement as it is. Rather then rant on and keep these changes up. I will make a change for the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.242.34 (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I shortened up the entire legal section. There was a lot of uncessary wording that was unnecessary and to lengthy and detailed. 82.132.242.34 (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 82 I am not sure who you think you are getting involved in a debate between IP 76 and myself. What you are doing is causing a rash of sarcasm to embroil this forum. I am reverting back the changes you made and rewording it my way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.29.94 (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have explained very clearly and courteously (both above and in my edit comments) why I made the revert.[3][4] As well, I just discovered that IP 86 has added this content, which is not only non-encyclopedic, but, most importantly, a clear editing and copyright violation because it is a total copy and paste (verbatim) from this TEP webpage. I will leave this for an administator or other very experienced editors to sort out, as it appears that my friendly attempts to do what's best for this article are not working. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As 76 says, pasting the settlement is a copyright violation, and absolutely forbidden. There is no exception to that rule. But, I am open to a rewording. Why do you believe it's "slanted"--what did I miss? We certainly cannot include the "happy with the settlement and looking forward to move forward together" stuff, because that's just puffery. I thought I captured the whole settlement, but I admit that maybe I missed something that wasn't obvious. So please let me know what I missed and we can figure out, together, how to reword it. But any re-additions of copyrighted material will be reverted immediately, and your account will be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: I feel that the entire Legal section was written very well and I commend you for taking the initiative to create it. It is appropriately concise and accurate, per the sourcing. And overall, it adheres to all the principles of due weight. In terms of the last sentence, I agree that what you wrote did a great job of fairly summarizing the entire settlement. Turning that one concise, accurate sentence into a lengthy paragraph is not necessary at all. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And I agree that the new section is very concise and accurate, and thank you for your work on that section. Timmccloud (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a member of TEP but I will not edit or change the text. I also dont want my IP to show so I created a new acct. First, teps4justice has some good points but should not edit the page. COI. IP 76 also seems to have a COI and should also not edit the main page.

In my oppinion I think the page should read.

In September 2010, a group of fraternity members filed a civil lawsuit against the national Tau Epsilon Phi organization. The plaintiffs alleged that George Hasenberg, then the national executive director, had been operating the fraternity for personal financial gain and drove chapters away by making unreasonable financial demands on them. They further argued that Hasenberg failed to hold elections for his position for over 10 years, even though the fraternity's constitution required it biannually. Hasenberg stated that elections could not take place because none of the chapters were in good standing due to failure to pay dues, and thus there was no one who could legitimately vote.[5] The judge in the case ordered a new election overseen by an independent party. The national organization filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2011. In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding cases and the fraternity agreed to place an interim board in place until elections could be held.[7] Both sides retracted all negitive claims.

POSTSMILE (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

POSTSMILE: While Teps4justice has made his close association with TEP clear, I'm not sure why you would say that I "seem to have a COI". I have absolutely no conflict of interest, which I made clear early on. I never even heard of this fraternity prior to my participation here. As always, I simply want the content of this article to be encylopedic, reliably-sourced and to adhere to due weight guidelines. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for me to recuse myself from editing. Actually, Timmccloud acknowledges on his user page that he "was a member of the Tau Gamma branch of Tau Epsilon Phi fraternity" and has been actively involved in editing this article, but I don't see anyone asking him not to edit here. And I don't think he should recuse himself from editing because he's shown himself to be a good, fair editor. POSTSMILE, have you posted previously in this discussion? I am asking because you cannot post using two different accounts without identifying which accounts are yours. By the way, it is commendable that you have revealed your membership in TEP. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am very disappointed, how can a consensus be reached while you have posted it to the article? This is why there is a battle. It would have proper to post it here for a period of time and once a consensus was reached, then and only then would it be posted.

Anyhow, in reading all the deleted information and examining the non consensus posting, I do not think it excessive to add in the word rescinded. There is no reason why it cannot say "The plaintiffs alleged and later rescinded the claims that George Hassenberg, then national....." It is only 5 words. Let's be realistic. This is an accurate statement that comes from the very sources that rest of the post was cited. The citing on this is : Settlement ends bitter infighting at a fraternity from cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/settlement-ends-bitter-infighting-at-a-fraternity/ by the same author.

The language in present form is still not where it should be. As a courtesy, I will await 1 hour from this post for comments before I edit the article.

IP76 I would have appreciated the same consideration in kind and I believe by standing by 1 hour from my post here is very reasonable given that this is very active. Thank you. Theneutralfactor (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Theneutralfactor: First, waiting 1 hour is nothing on Wikipedia. Most editors don't monitor Wikipedia all day. And saying you'll make a potentially contentious edit while an active talk page discussion is happening could be taken as an inappropriate threat by many editors. There was strong consensus previously for adding a new, appropriate Legal section, and a very experienced editor and administrator created it. Contrary to your implication, I did not add any new content whatsoever. I merely did some minor cleanup (grammar, redundancies, etc.) to what the administrator had already added, and he had no objections. Several editors in this discussion have already indicated their approval of the new content. So if it's merely a few words you want added, then there's certainly no reason to rush into anything and start a huge battle when things have settled down so much. Just post exactly what you're proposing here on the talk page, include a working link (the one you put doesn't work), then be patient and wait for consensus. I don't know it matters about the plaintiffs allegedly "rescinding" any of their allegations, because the article makes very clear that a settlement was reached, but other editors can give their input. But what the article says is factual per the sourcing; that the plaintiffs made certain allegations and Hasenberg denied them. Then they settled. That's the point. In any case, show us where it says the plaintiffs rescinded their claims. Then everyone can decide. I'm fine with consensus on any content that's encyclopedic. One final question: Have you made recent edits to the article (within the past 24 hours) or at any time before that? --76.189.101.221 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw the article you referred us to and it indeed says, "as part of the settlement, all those allegations have been rescinded and the parties may no longer criticize each other in any medium". Now let's see if experienced editors feel it's worthy of inclusion, or if the current content is fine. If it's to be added, it should be tagged at the end of the paragraph, along with the settlement portion. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 76, I also thought originally that the new version would be posted here for discussion before being added to the article. But other editors did not feel it necessary to come to consensus before putting it up. I do not believe my proposal is contentious in any way since it is being sourced from NYT as other citations. I'm glad that you saw the verification of my proposal.

As has been stated before by other editors, allegations are not facts. And I do understand that a verifiable source has been used for the new version. But using the same verifiable source to clarify that these allegations were rescinded is certainly appropriate, not to mention, correct.

as I understand it, Wiki's policy on adding information on living persons should be done with particular care. Since there is no original research being used here and the source for my proposed edit is verifiable, it seems to me that the way to maintain a NPOV in regards to the person named is to cite it in the first paragraph that the allegations were rescinded. Also see the section of Wiki rules on persons accused of a crime.

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing a crime unless a conviction is secured."

Adding the wording and later rescinded the claims certainly would be more in line with Wiki's policy on living persons and persons accused of a crime, which has been mainly my point all along. Allegations are not facts but the rescinding of the claims is fact and in a verifiable source. Putting it at the bottom of paragraph conflicts with the particular care that should be taken when posting information regarding a living person and certainly is not in line with Wiki's policy of a person accused of a crime.

Wiki's policy on information on living persons was developed for a specific reason. Posting things on the Internet, including on Wiki, can have serious consequences in the real world lives of the people about which the information is posted.

Please stop asking me if I am posting under other names or IPs. Your repeated questioning is insulting. I am not those individuals. Theneutralfactor (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask if you were posting under other names or IPs. And you already acknowledged through a previous edit that you did in fact post here under a different account. That's been addressed by an administrator. But what I actually asked was: "Have you made recent edits to the article (within the past 24 hours) or at any time before that?" In terms of the Legal content, there was already consensus about the administrator adding a new Legal section. And now we have several editors who have indicated their approval of the new content. Now, we are in the midst of an ongoing discussion about any suggested changes so we can all move on. You have made your proposal about the "rescinded" content, so we all just need to be patient and wait for other editors to give their input. Generally, discussions about disputed content can go on for up to 30 days, but hopefully we can wrap this up quickly. By the way, the Legal section explains the events in chronological order. So if the "rescinded" language is inserted, it should be where it logically fits into the timeline of events: which of course is at the end. Otherwise, it could be perceived as violating undue weight guidelines. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

With consensus, I would have no objection to changing " In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding cases and the fraternity agreed to hold new national elections" to "In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding cases, all allegations were rescinded, and the fraternity agreed to hold new national elections" (or something similar). However, I realize some editors may feel that the "settled" language already indicates that any allegations were rescinded. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not in the edit history so you are asking me if I am editing under other IPs. I have never posted anything to the article section, however I can assure you that I will be shortly. By the way I read the exchange above between you and Tgeairn about outing an IP. And he was exactly right about my choosing to obtain an account in midstream. There was no deception and Tgeairn recognized that.

Since the majority, that is, those who made the allegations rescinded them, then it would not be giving undo weight by having that in first paragraph. This would be the majority view and so the proposed changes would actually give the due weight. The prominent viewpoint, that is, the rescinding of the allegations should be in the first paragraph to ensure a balanced and NPOV. The organization of the article should be an unbiased, accurate and proportionate representation. In this case, the chronological approach does not satisfy the neutrality.

The proposed change meets NPOV, verifiable source, proper weight, Wiki's policy on living persons and the policy on accused persons.

The other editors did not wait to post their changes for a thirty day review. Obviously, then there is no time requirement for discussion on this talk or for making valid changes to the article.Theneutralfactor (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

First, let's get the facts straight about my conversation with Tgearin. When he initially mentioned outing, he did not realize that you had posted here as the IP and then when you changed midstream (through an edit changing your signature and timestamp) did not identify yourself as being two different users in the same discussion. You can't do that; that's sockpuppetry. However, I am the one who said "I'm sure he meant no deception" and he made clear to you not to switch back and forth from that point on. Second, your comment: "I have never posted anything to the article section, however I can assure you that I will be shortly" indicates your disregard for working towards consensus with other editors. You just repeatedly keep posting how you're going to do what you want to the article, instead of simply being patient and waiting for input from other editors, even though you've been asked nicely mulitple times. I even told you I would support the change you're seeking upon consensus, yet amazingly you still want to ignore the cooperative process. In terms of talk page discussions, no one said there's a 30 day requirement. Yet again, you have misrepresentated what was stated, which was: "discussions about disputed content can go on for up to 30 days, but hopefully we can wrap this up quickly." Repeatedly misstating what other editors say is disruptive. Regarding any editors who refuse to participate in an ongoing talk page discussion and instead to decide to defy consensus by making contentious edits, they will be dealt with accordingly. Hopefully, you will choose to handle this matter the right way, with a cooperative spirit. And patience. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

IP76 The original new version was never put up for discussion here so that all editors could come to a consensus. And it was a well known fact that I wanted to participate as apparently others did as well. As long as there has been a discussion here, I have not posted anything to the article. However, according to Wiki, I can edit the article at anytime and will reserve my right to do so. I have afforded all courtesies to all concerned and that is more than I have received. I have observed Wiki etiquette in this matter while others have made posts and reverts to the article.

Also you never admitted that by asking again if I had made any posts in the last 24 hours was asking the same question of whether I was posting under alternate names/IP. One last time, I am not.

As Tgeairn recognized, and even you admit, my obtaining an account in midstream was done with no malice. Subject closed.

I have not misrepresented what you said about a review period lasting up to 30 days. What I was saying was that no one else is observing any review period! I have not been disruptive and, as I have said above, have only tried to be the most courteous of participants while making my points clear. I have been patient while others have posted and reverted without consensus. Obviously since I have waited way beyond when I said I would post, I am the only one who has been patient.

I will continue, within reason, to await "constructive" discussion.Theneutralfactor (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about my editing 76, I try to keep an NPOV and I do tread a fine line being associated with the subject of the article - but that also gives me extensive knowledge about the subject which I can leverage to improve the article, that other editors might not have. And I would like to personally thank everyone who has weighed in on this discussion - this is the most activity the article has had in YEARS, and IMHO the added attention can only improve the quality of the article. Timmccloud (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Theneutralfactor: First, it isn't necessary to type numerous separate paragraphs every time you post. It really clutters the page. You apparently want to continue microanalyzing and rehashing the same issues endlessly. I don't. This chat between you and I began with a simple and friendly request: "To prevent further content disputes, please discuss any proposed edits in this thread first and wait for consensus." Apparently, you turned that into somehow believing that one hour is reasonable, even though I explained to you that many discussions can take days, and sometimes weeks because most editors don't sit on Wikiepdia all day. If you are unable to control your urge and insist on making edits that could reignite disputes, no one can stop you. But be prepared that it might not work out as you hope. However, if you're confident in your proposal then there's no reason not to wait for Qwyrxian to return and give other editors a chance to participate. Qwyrxian is a longtime editor and excellent administrator who we entrusted to create the new Legal section, which he did very well. Now that he's done it, he's made clear that he welcomes any input so that it can be discussed. But he's away right now. So while you have indicated that your patience is running out, Qwyrxian is away today doing other things with his life. Perhaps you want to do the same instead of worrying so much about this. I will not be commenting again until Qwyrxian is back. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Tim, you're welcome. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am very disappointed, how can a consensus be reached while you have posted it to the article? This is why there is a battle. It would have proper to post it here for a period of time and once a consensus was reached, then and only then would it be posted.

Anyhow, in reading all the deleted information and examining the non consensus posting, I do not think it excessive to add in the word rescinded. There is no reason why it cannot say "The plaintiffs alleged and later rescinded the claims that George Hassenberg, then national....." It is only 5 words. Let's be realistic. This is an accurate statement that comes from the very sources that rest of the post was cited. The citing on this is : Settlement ends bitter infighting at a fraternity from cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/settlement-ends-bitter-infighting-at-a-fraternity/ by the same author.

The language in present form is still not where it should be. As a courtesy, I will await 1 hour from this post for comments before I edit the article.Theneutralfactor (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Theneutralfactor: To prevent further content disputes, please discuss any proposed edits in this thread first and wait for consensus. That is why this particular thread was started. Thank you. By the way, this thread ("History section") pertains only to content in the History section of the article. The "New version" section on the talk page is about the Legal section of the article. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint with wikipedia for several violations of NPOV. There have been several edits to a summarazied paragraph that has consistently targeted George Hasenberg and Nathaniel Broughty. In one instance TEPS4JUSTICE was told not to alter the edits to favor themselves. Then the same applies the edits can't be altered to include only one party to the suit. Therefor it is either all or nothing. To be truly NPOV then there is to be no reference to individuals names, especially since they are not public figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.247.205 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) As for the actual content of the article, I would have absolutely no problem with adding either the words "rescinded" or "retracted" to the paragraph. I do think it needs to be in chronological order, because if you say "alleged and later rescinded" it simply makes no sense. Did the make the allegations and rescind them later that day? Did they do so as a result of a negative judgment against them (like how the Tobacco companies are now being forced to admit decpetion)? Putting it at the end helps make the story clear--that it was part of the settlement. In fact, I mostly like the end suggested by POSTSMILE: "In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding cases and the fraternity agreed to place an interim board in place until elections could be held.[7] Both sides retracted all negitive claims." In fact, I think the only thing I would do is move the reference to the end and correct the spelling. Would anyone object to me changing the end of the paragraph in that way? I do have a problem with the sentence before that, but I'd prefer to focus on step-by-step changes.

In reference to the names above, I'm sorry, but you very much do not understand Wikipedia policy. I included Hasenberg's name because he was the person in charge, and was specifically named in the suits. I did not include Broughty's name because, as far as I can tell, he had no special standing in the cases--he's not called the "leader" or anythign like that. However, if anyone can think of a way to refer to Broughty, I have no problem with including his name. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

All names have been removed to make sure that NPOV is followed properly. If you include the name of George Hasenberg, then why not include Nathaniel Broughty or likewise the attorney general of New York. You can not target one name versus another. 86.147.247.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I see not only that 86.147.247.205 has reverted yet again, completely snubbing their nose at this discussion, but also continues to make false claims of "reporting" editors. In their revert earlier today, they said "no reason to get a 'consensus'". This is the third time they've falsely claimed to "report" someone.[5][6][7]. Apparently, they don't realize that we can see all of their activity. A timeout is needed until they learn how to play nice. Editors like this who go out of their way to be disruptive and antaognize others need to go. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Glad to see you are back and I trust you read my earlier posts. I think that this revision would present a more balanced article and address the wording that is needed to make more clear when the allegations were rescinded. I propose: In September 2010, a group of fraternity members filed a civil lawsuit against the National Tau Epsilon Phi organization. The plaintiffs alleged but then later rescinded in a settlement agreement signed in May 2011, that George Hasenberg.... That addresses this concern. Theneutralfactor (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

First sorry to IP-76 I meant IP 86 has a COI. I think the names of Nathaniel Broughty and George Hasenberg should be included because all of the law suits have broguhty's name on it and it is clear from the settlement document he was the leader. Here is another story from NYS that seems to have the same issues as TEP. UHO

""In November 2009, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed suit in Manhattan Supreme Court against the group, charging that the founders kept most of the change collected. The suit charged that UHO founder Stephen Riley and director Myra Walker used the money to buy items for their personal use, and to pay bills unrelated to UHO. The lawsuit sought a temporary injunction to shut down the UHO, permanently disband it, and keep Riley and Walker from ever taking part in charitable causes.[5] On June 24, 2010, UHO was permanently shut down."""

I hope this helps. POSTSMILE (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to change the text too..

On September 2010, a lawsuit was filed between members of Tau Epsilon Phi and the board of directors. The lawsuit alleged that the then current board of directors and the then national executive director George Hasenberg had been operating the fraternity for personal financial gain and drove chapters away by making unreasonable financial demands on them. They further argued that the board of directors failed to hold elections for positions for over 10 years, even though the fraternity's constitution required it biannually. The board of directors stated that elections could not take place because none of the chapters were in good standing due to failure to pay dues, and thus there was no one who could legitimately vote. While the judge in the case ordered a new election overseen by an independent party, the board of directors then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2011. That filing automatically stayed the judge’s order for new elections.

In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding claims, the board of directors resigned and both sides retracted all negative claims.

What do you guys think?

POSTSMILE (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Including the name of individual of very little public importance is not something that should be done. If you read the wikipedia terms, since this is the only issue that he is involved with, it should not be cited. Therefore, if you do try to site his name it will be argued as NPOV and removed. I suggest you remove any connection to personal names. You can however make a reference to any further details please read the source. Interesting that there are many attempts by people to include the 'man' who was claimed to be responsible for all these problems, yet if you read the citations all charges agains him were dropped. Sounds like an emotional argument.

86.174.57.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

POSTSMILE are you TEPs4JUSTICE as you made an error earlier on with an edit that was on here with that name quickly reverted to your name.???? If so you have been warned to stay away from promoting your organization. 86.174.57.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

??? OK attack me now. I am giving an opinion. Coping and pasting I might miss something. I need to go to England for a vacation. 72.80.83.106 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

IP 72. To whom are you referring your comment to. Is it possible you are on the wrong talk page? If you are you might want to double check where you are. It is a common mistake, especially when you have several tabs open. I remember researching about a Tiger once and posting an article on the wrong section but that was long ago lol. If not welcome to the discussion.

86.174.57.25 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC) 

IP 72 who are you talk too? IP 86 I agree with you comment but you need to relax. I am asking about adding names to articles but if everyone agrees not to I am OK with it. I feel that if the lawsuit is settled and all claims are withdrawn what is the right way of capturing the story in a neutral way. The names of the primary individuals should be in. POSTSMILE (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Including as you say Primary names is a touchy issue. I repeat what is said above, the individuals Broughty and Hasenberg should not be included in the final paragraph. They are normal people, not public figures and Wikipedia is not a forum for news journalism. The edits that were left in place by the administrator are edits that appear to be very much alligned with NPOV. A reference to view the citation for more details will suffice.

86.174.57.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree there was a huge debate before over the legal section but it was changed so many times. It is nice to see a final consenses with balanced NPOV. I also agree that the current version is exceptable and fine.

In September 2010, a group of fraternity members filed a civil lawsuit against the national Tau Epsilon Phi organization. The plaintiffs alleged that the then current board of directors and the then the national executive director, had been operating the fraternity for personal financial gain and drove chapters away by making unreasonable financial demands on them. They further argued that the exutive director failed to hold elections for his position for over 10 years, even though the fraternity's constitution required it biannually. The executive director stated that elections could not take place because none of the chapters were in good standing due to failure to pay dues, and thus there was no one who could legitimately vote.[5] While the judge in the case ordered a new election overseen by an independent party,[5] that order was automatically stayed after the national organization filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2011.[6] In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding cases and the fraternity agreed to hold new national elections.[7]

I am glad you concur. 86.174.57.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

While I personally think it is better to name Hasenberg, I'm not dead set on it, so if it will prevent more battling, I will agree to leave it out. The version posted just above this by 86.174 is fine by me, although there are some typos and grammar errors that need to be fixed. I can do that once we clearly have a consensus for this version. Do we all agree? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tgeairn that Hasenberg's name should be included in the section. He ran the national organization's day-to-day operations and is clearly the key figure in the story. And of course his name is used five times in the source (New York Times). We do not sanitize articles. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I will agree to the version proposed by 86.174 that removes all names of individuals. It satisfies the concerns that I have had all along about Wiki's policies on posts about living persons and accused persons, as well as, NPOV. And as others have pointed out, it is in line with Wiki policies on non-public figures and person involved in a single event. Describing the events without naming individuals is not a sanitizing of the article. This article page is not about individuals but about the organization. As you noted in the hazing discussion, consensus cannot override wiki "site-wide policies," which in this case, include those regarding living persons and accused persons, as well as, the other policies noted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theneutralfactor (talk • contribs) 08:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Accidentally hit the save before signing of the above. Theneutralfactor (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian and Theneutralfactor I agree with the sentiment above that any names of private individuals should be removed. It is the best way to prevent a certain bias and does not provide for the need to any clarification on the article. If someone is interested in pursuing the issue any further they can go ahead and click on the reference. That is why we have references after all. I was unaware of the non-public figure rule and single event until now. I have researched that and it is indeed true. Therefore I agree to remove all personal names from the article. IP 76 as for sanitize, that would be to mean to clean or make hygenic, seems that NPOV is inline with that. To be truly neutral with and maintain a balance between living persons and NPOV, the best solution is not to include any specific individual names. 86.174.57.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Tgeairn is right that Hasenberg's name should be included. Sanitizing on Wikipedia is when reliably-sourced, encyclopedic content is removed for bogus reasons. That is what would be a violation of NPOV. Hasenberg is undeniably the key figure in the story and is mentioned five times in the New York Times source. He is not a "private" individual, whatever that means. He was the leader of a national fraternity that filed for bankruptcy, and the story was covered by national, mainstream media. Also, every name is a "personal name". --76.189.126.40 (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

IP76 I think you are not reading your Wikipedia rules properly and are trying to take a well thought and talked about topic and trying to make this in to a type of journalistic review. Wikipedia is not a newspaper it is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Despite the fact that Hasenberg is a key figure in the lawsuit his title of Executive Director is just as sufficient of a definition. I mean no disrespect for the following comment but, he, as far as I know, based on the fact that he was the Executive Director of a small fraternity and not a key public figure, makes him nothing more then a private individual. The same also applies to Nathaniel Broughty or any other mention of the figures of little importance. The lawsuit itself might be a big event in the history of the fraternal, but it was also settled and resolved. The then board of directors and executive director were not found to be 'guilty' of anything and even then it is would be against the individuals right to private life. IP76 I suggest you take a NPOV appraoch to this and realize and understand the fact that a true statement of NPOV is as already three editors agree, but needs some grammar and spelling fix up, the paragraph:

In September 2010, a group of fraternity members filed a civil lawsuit against the national Tau Epsilon Phi organization. The plaintiffs alleged that the then current board of directors and the then the national executive director, had been operating the fraternity for personal financial gain and drove chapters away by making unreasonable financial demands on them. They further argued that the exutive director failed to hold elections for his position for over 10 years, even though the fraternity's constitution required it biannually. The executive director stated that elections could not take place because none of the chapters were in good standing due to failure to pay dues, and thus there was no one who could legitimately vote.[5] While the judge in the case ordered a new election overseen by an independent party,[5] that order was automatically stayed after the national organization filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2011.[6] In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding cases and the fraternity agreed to hold new national elections.[7]

The fact that the lawsuit was settled and the board of directors and the executive director George Hasenberg were found to have done nothing wrong lends itself to anyone accused of a crime. Even though this is a civil matter, they are private individuals so it can be implied the same. In that sense people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Therefore it might be in the best interest of the Tau Epsilon Phi article no not only remove the names of all of those involved but to rewrite it this way:

In September 2010, a group of fraternity members filed a civil lawsuit against Tau Epsilon Phi National Fraternity Inc. The plaintiffs argued a range of issues involving, finances, chapter management, leadership management and electoral processes. After several legal proceedings a Superior Court judge agreed to a settlement between both parties. Simultaneously, the fraternity filed for bankruptcy. Subsequently, new elections were held and a new team of leadership took over and run Tau Epsilon Phi Fraternity.

That paragraph above would even be more in line with NPOV and keeping all inidividuals privacy at bay. The proper citations are provided and further information for the reader can be obtained by viewing the citations. This provides the actual facts and not hidden innuendos for either side. Remember, newspapers sell articles and are not encylopedias so therefore they do not provide a proper NPOV. But that is not the nature of wikipedia, it is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.57.25 (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion and an easier signature I am 86.174.57.25 thank you. Opthamologist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! I think that with some new alterations, there is a consensus to not include the names. This is a good step. Opthamologist, thanks for registering—it does make the conversation easier. However, your last version is actually factually wrong. The settlement was not simultaneous with the bankruptcy filing (that wouldn't even be possible, since legal events don't happen in a way that the word "simultaneous" even makes sense). It also omits the specific charge that takes up the bulk of the NYT discussions (the no elections in ten years issue). Lastly, your last sentence is not verified in sources yet. And, even if it were, it's not relevant; what's relevant is that the settlement included an agreement to hold new elections. So, I cannot support your new version at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit Qwyrxian, there is no consenus at all. You are an admin, so you know better than to proclaim consenus before there clearly is one. Timmcloud, Teps4justice, Tgeairn, POSTSMILE, and I have all indicated that Hasenberg's name should be included. And you are the one who created the new Legal section and included Hasenberg's name. Why did you do that? You know why and all experienced editors know why. It sounds like you've been intimidated by one new editor who's posted the same false arguments repeatedly, and a couple of other one-day editors who not only completely disappeared, but admitted their conflict of interest (parents of frat members). But it doesn't matter because Hasenberg is referenced in the primary source, the NYT article, and is in fact the focus of the story. Therefore, his name cannot simply be whitewashed from this article simply because a few editors feel uncomfortable having his name in the article and one of them makes bogus arguments about him being a "private person", etc. Now, Qwyrxian, tell us the names of the editors who make up this so-called consenus you are claiming. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, IP76 I had to take a break for a bit and contend with other things, I was reading the string of dialog above and was quite pleased that a general consensus was being made. I have to side with Qwyrxian on the matter of not including any personal names because of NPOV as well as individuals that are not known. Your tone of voice is quite disrespectful to an editor who has been around for some time. Qwyrxian may have set it up orginally to include names but after review and constructive dialog he feels the same as the general tone, not to include personal names. Your tone, your lack of respect and also mentioning names of other users who may or may not be in agreement. Sounds like your argument is definately not NPOV and for some reason you want to include specific names to turn this article into a newsjournal rather then an encylopedia. 82.132.217.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian is an editor, just like everyone else. And the fact that he's also an admin who's been around for years makes it even more unacceptable to proclaim consensus when there clearly isn't one. And the names of other editors who say Hasenberg's name should be in the article is on the record, not speculation. So take your "who may or may not be" line somewhere else. "Had to take a break for a bit..." Lmao. Wow, the smell of socks in here is getting really strong again. 82, what is this... the third account you're posting under. Or the fourth? The way you indent, incorrectly sign your name, use the same terminology, and misspell the same words are just a few of the ways you have given yourself away. No need to reply because everyone knows you'll deny it. Still waiting to hear the names of the edtiors who make up this alleged consenus? --76.189.126.40 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No consensus can override wiki site-wide policy. The named individual is a private living person. He does not meet the standard of being a public figure. In addition, these were only allegations that were rescinded by the accusers. The history will still be in there without naming anyone. By the way, I also agree with Qwyrxian and the others that this should be included in the history section and that the separate legal section should be eliminated. Additionally, the rescinded wording should be in there. And if there are no names, then it could be put in the last sentence. Theneutralfactor (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I beleive that would mean that Qwyrxian, Myself (Opthamologist), TheNeutralFactor, IP82 also it can be implied since the original ADMIN did not revert back to the older entry Courcelles I'll let him speak for himself and also OrangeMike who originally approved of removing the legal bumfodder all together and again I will let him speak for himself all agree on keeping all names out of the entry and having readers refer to the citation. I also think there was another IP in there somewhere but I am to tired to read it all again. --Opthamologist (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, we don't "imply" anything and "another IP in there somewhere" is too ridiculous to even comment on. Courcelles and Orange had absolutely zero involvement since these discussions began. Courcelles was simply an uninvolved admin who protected the page where it stood, then moved on. Apparently, you don't understand that the wrong version is always saved in a content dispute. And of course the input of those with clear conflicts of interest don't count, nor do those who are obviously as smelly as socks in a laundry basket. "Bumfodder"? You just gave away yet another one of your multiple identities. Thanks. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read the rules about how a page is protected in full. The admin has the right to change the page to where it was prior to locking it. They can if they see a reason to do so. Also as for your implying I am someone who I am not, I do not appreciate your tone. If you have a complaint to make so be it, as I assure you, I have been completely transparent with all of my postings as to who I am. Your opinion is losing quite a bit of weight due to your emotional responses and continuous request to make an article that is now written as NPOV into one which will mention names. I find it strange, I have been following your talk page with Qwyrxian as well as Frank Curto. Interesting, you definition of NPOV varies from article to article. --Opthamologist (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You apparently didn't read Wrong Version. Or don't understand it. Second, following an editor is an easy way to get yourself banned. So thank you for admitting it in writing. Pretty pathetic, also. As is your obsession and total misunderstanding of NPOV. You spout about things you know very little about. Amazing how you've been on here a couple days, yet somehow think you're an expert on how Wikipedia works. Lmao. Now go choose another one of your many accounts to edit under. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not against the guidelines to click on a username or IP and see where things have been edited. Also please go on and continue your harassment, you are only discrediting yourself. --Opthamologist (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said, thanks for revealing that you are a stalker. The losers who do that aren't usually dumb enough to actually admit it in writing. Perfect way to get yourself banned, along with the list of different accounts you're edting under. So thanks again. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Again we can not change sitewide policy. No wikipedia person can do that and secondly, you can't say that the decision to include a non-public name is up for a vote. --Opthamologist (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Every time you talk, you make yourself look even more foolish than before. Do you actually believe that the only names that can be included in articles are public figures? Seriously? Hilarious. You have a lot to learn. That's almost as funny as your "disagreement" with how we do article and section titles, thinking that the first letter of every word must be upper case. Haha. But I love how you actually put all your nonsense in writing. And do not add the same content a second time to the discussion, especially excessive content. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

We do not "vote" on Wikipedia. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

IP76, Please stick to the issues at hand. Please further elaborate on how it is that the person named is a public figure. The allegation makers, who then rescinded the allegations and who signed a settlement agreement that includes a clause against defamation in any medium, should not be allowed to hide behind Wiki or to use the fraternity's article page to defame anyone. Allegations, especially rescinded ones, are not facts. Teps4justice wrote the original legal section and has been identified as someone who is legally obligated to adhere to the settlement agreement. Yet the content remained on Wiki for 2 years. And even after it was deleted during this time of talk page discussion, Teps4justice re-posted it and was admonished for that. Wiki is an encyclopedia not a soapbox or a tool to be used to defame innocent people. The number of times that a person's name is mentioned in a source is not significant nor does it make it encyclopedic. That's just a matter of the author's writing style. Wiki's policy is to "not bite the newbies." It is to be helpful, patient and respectful. Please stop suppressing/deleting content. Let's keep this civil. Theneutralfactor (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you not understand English? One does NOT have to be a public figure to be included in an article. His name is sourced, per NYT. Period. Learn how Wikipedia works. Now take you and all your other identities elsewhere. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

IP76 please stick to the issues at hand for the article:

As a Noob I am unsure how to properly cite an article I have already written. Please stop deleting my content as I have a right like anyone to post what I need.

The fact that the lawsuit was settled and the board of directors and the executive director George Hasenberg were found to have done nothing wrong lends itself to anyone accused of a crime. Even though this is a civil matter, they are private individuals so it can be implied the same. In that sense people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. So I stand that all names should be removed from the legal section and it should be moved to the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opthamologist (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Admins please help with this situation. IP76 keeps deleting our content. --Opthamologist (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

IP 76 The Kakistocat and Rushyo have reverted your attempt at censoring me. I have rewritten the concepts and even shortened them considerably. You are even deleting my single lines of txt. Opthamologist (talk)

IP76,Your continued accusations of my having multiple identities is strictly against wiki rules. Anyone who has a viewpoint that opposes yours is attacked and has false accusations leveled against them. That may explain why you are so adamant about including a non-public individual's name in the article. It is the same mindset. I'm going to educate myself on my rights and what recourse is available regarding your continued accusations and the treatment that I and others have been receiving. Theneutralfactor (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"Strictly against wiki rules". Please do show us these rules. Haha. Your socking is evident to everyone. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I like this version.

"On September 2010, a lawsuit was filed between members of Tau Epsilon Phi and the board of directors. The lawsuit alleged that the then current board of directors and the then national executive director George Hasenberg had been operating the fraternity for personal financial gain and drove chapters away by making unreasonable financial demands on them. They further argued that the board of directors failed to hold elections for positions for over 10 years, even though the fraternity's constitution required it biannually. The board of directors stated that elections could not take place because none of the chapters were in good standing due to failure to pay dues, and thus there was no one who could legitimately vote. While the judge in the case ordered a new election overseen by an independent party, the board of directors then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2011. That filing automatically stayed the judge’s order for new elections. In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding claims, the board of directors resigned and both sides retracted all negative claims."

This is a copy and paste from earlier. Hasenberg's name is in every source and in all the other articles (I can find) the primaries are listed.POSTSMILE (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back POSTSMILE, there has been a large discussion on that topic already and several editors have resolved it. Because of wikipedia policy about living persons all real life names in my opinion will be removed. It also has a basis on the fact that the lawsuit was settled and the board of directors and the executive director George Hasenberg were found to have done nothing wrong lends itself to anyone accused of a crime. Even though this is a civil matter, they are private individuals so it can be implied the same. In that sense people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. So I stand that all names should be removed from the legal section and it should be moved to the history.

I suggest you read the above especially the review from Qwyrxian about this. Also we are reviewing grammar below at this point. Thank's alot for your input. --Opthamologist (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to get clarity, I assembled the wording for the conclusion of the agreed ending of this issue. It is to be placed in the history section with the legal section removed. This also includes the portion previously discussed regarding the insertion of the "rescinding of the allegations."

In September 2010, a group of fraternity members filed a civil lawsuit against the national Tau Epsilon Phi organization. The plaintiffs alleged that the board of directors and national executive director had been operating the fraternity for personal financial gain and that they drove chapters away by making unreasonable financial demands on them. They further argued that the executive director failed to hold elections for his position for over 10 years, even though the fraternity's constitution required it biannually. The executive director stated that elections could not take place because none of the chapters were in good standing due to failure to pay dues, and thus there was no one who could legitimately vote.[5] While the judge in the case ordered a new election overseen by an independent party,[5] that order was automatically stayed after the national organization filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2011.[6] In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding cases, all allegations were rescinded, and the fraternity agreed to hold new national elections.[7]

The source for the addition is : Theneutralfactor (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what I did incorrectly but here is the source: cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/settlement-ends-bitter-infighting-at-a-fraternity/ Theneutralfactor (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Putting something in ref tags adds it to a reference list you have to add at the bottom of the page (works fine on the article itself, can be weird on a talk page). I accept this new version, and agree with moving it into the end of the history section. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hazing in the history section

Now that Qwyrxian has requested that the hazing section be removed we now need to discuss a way to include it in the history section as we discussed earlier. Any suggestions?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.31.115 (talk • contribs)

We can't add it there without more sources; at the moment the agreement is that there is no evidence that this meets WP:DUE for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This matter in the manner in which it is currently presented doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. If there was a credible source that would represent that the organization would be lacking in educating the chapters as a whole, then it would have relevance in being posted. Certainly the person mentioned within the hazing doesn't belong and his name should be removed immediately. Theneutralfactor (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on identities

Since the matter has been raised above, I just want to clarify how Wikipedia account and identification policy works. First of all, no one should be editing under two accounts, or editing as both a named account and an IP address simultaneously. This is covered under WP:SOCK. I am not accusing anyone of violating this, but I wanted to be clear that if you are, either intentionally or unintentionally, you will be blocked for doing so. So, if you were mistakenly using both an IP and a named account, just pick one, and use it consistently from now on; no one's going to go digging around trying to "catch" someone. Additionally, if anyone is on a dynamic IP (that is, your IP address changes each time you log in), it would be really really helpful if you could make an account, because it's very difficult to have a conversation like this when we don't know if we're talking to the same or different people.

However, on the flip side of this, no one should be trying to connect up the IP accounts with the named accounts. Doing so violates WP:OUTING, as it attempts to tie a named editor to real world information. Similarly, no one should be attempting to connect either named editors or IP addresses to real world identities. This will absolutely lead to a block. If you have reason to believe that someone is violating the SOCK policy, please send a private email to an administrator (not me, I can't act administratively on this article since I'm editing it) explaining your concerns; they can figure out how to proceed.

However (however), if any of you have a conflict of interest—that is, you are a current member of TEP (especially if you're on the board), are an active alumni, are a lawyer in the case, or something like that, please do not edit the article. Declare your COI (you don't need to give your name, just indicate that you are involved), and then only edit the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your request for clarification of identities is in direct violation of wikipedia. Also throwing around the sockpuppet rule as a posted threat is in violation. Nobody has to reveal who they are or what affiliation they have with the organization or anything for that matter. Wikipedia was designed for NPOV encylopedic content. Do not make threats that are not relevant Qwyrxian. I have submitted your name as well to the list of names to the master wikipedia editors we will see if any of these issues apply to you as well.

86.147.247.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

86, you are just begging to be banned with your outrageous behavior in this discussion and with all your rebelious reverts while a discussion is taking place. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

76 I think you have to be careful you might be treading on being civil and polite with other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspiringArtist (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about, 86? I explicitly didn't ask for people's identities? Did you fail to read what I wrote? What I said is that if people have a COI, they should identify it. This is not mandatory, but is considered best practice--please read WP:COI. You are correct that no one has to identify, but if they do have a connection, they should not edit the article directly. Second, I specifically told people not to give away their identities. Third, what the hell is a "master Wikipedia editor"? I've been here for over six years, and been an administrator for over three, and I've never heard of such a thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You just answered my question thank you. How can you state in one breath that you should state you are involved. It is not up to you to request that. It is a voluntary act of someone editing the page. Your attempt to through your 6 year weight around is at best a threat and that is certainly unacceptable, it is declared in their policy. As for your edits are you also 76.189.101.221 as you have several pages in the past that you have both edited and have actually had talk conversations. AspiringArtist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hazing

The issues of hazing in the organization need to be included as encylopedic content. Even if nothing has 'come of it' it is a crucial part of the current operations of the fraternities. You are now talking about the physical well being of its members and surely it should be made aware to those reading that this information is a part of TEP's culture. It is no different then a lawsuit that was settled with good intentions. If you are going to mention the lawsuit then the mention of a Hazing incident it content that is acceptable. AspiringArtist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that there is no evidence that there were any actual problems, and the only source you have is a school newspaper. Furthermore, it relates to the actions of only a single chapter (or, possibly, only a few people who were in the chapter and not actually the organization itself). The lawsuit, on the other hand, was discussed in two separate national newspaper articles, and nearly resulted in the fraternity ceasing to exist. In fact, one might say that the hazing is just a common occurrence that happens to a large number of fraternities (i.e., one or more people in a local chapter do something stupid breaking school rules or even the law, and they and/or the chapter gets in trouble). The act of suing the national organization is unusual and of interest in sources outside of the school. The hazing information should not appear in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Added a proper citation from the Ithaca Journal it is a regional paper in New York not a school Paper. 86.130.29.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Would the editors involved in this discussion consider combining this Hazing section with the #Cornell Hazing section above? The earlier section is still pretty fresh. Thanks --Tgeairn (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As a general practice, we do not include mention of isolated incidences of hazing on individual fraternity pages. Just about every fraternity has some kind of hazing incident in some chapter. In a few very rare instances these result in deaths, the closure of the national organization, or other persistently notable circumstances. Short of that, it's not encyclopedically notable. bd2412 T 03:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have done quite a bit of research on TEP and this is not an isolated incidence. There have been quite a few and they all come from reputable news sources. If need be we can list the lot of them and cite them accordingly. Giving that TEP is such a small fraternity with only 14 chapter, having any incident is statistically relevant to the organization. Organizations with a size of say 200+ chapters, having an 'occasional' incident might be something that is irrelevant, but in this case, imo it is most certainly relevant.86.130.29.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources, please. Particularly, provide sources for cases where there was positive determination that the fraternity itself was involved, ideally those that resulted in legal or university level punishment. Mere allegations do not belong in articles. I'm not saying that if you provide those sources that we'll include them--we're certainly not going to turn the article into a laundry list of complaints--but we need to see the extent of what you're talking about to judge. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Cornell hazing incident clearly has no business being in this article, which is about Tau Epsilon Phi as a whole. An isolated incident of merely allegations of hazing at one chapter in no way warrants a mention in the article. If there was a significant incident of substantiated hazing with big coverage, fine. If there was a pattern of substantiated hazing throughout the organization, fine. But this single, minor incident isn't even a close call. Not to mention the fact that the sourcing is weak even if it were encyclopedic. The Legal section, however, is not only obviously worthy of inclusion, it is vital, because it affected the entire existence of TEP (nationally), driving them to file for bankruptcy and go through reorganization. And it is extremely well-sourced. So let's get real and stop the chaos and purposeful disruption going on in this article by those editors who have a close connection to the fraternity and therefore a disqualifying conflict of interest. Trying to compare allegations of a single, local hazing incident to a well-documented crisis among the entire organization is ludicrous. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the huge ratio of brand-new accounts - registered and unregistered - that have magically stumbled into this article in the past couple days, and participated in the multiple concurrent talk page discussions, is astounding. And they all edit just one article. This one. Coincidence? It's interesting to see the glaring similarities in comments from different editors, the specific issue(s) they are most interested in, the format and styling of typed comments, along with all of the extremely disruptive, disrespectful, and inappropriate edits. A pretty clear pattern. Amazing... all these brand new, one-day editors who seem to know so much about Wikipedia's guidelines and terminology, and even are familiar with issuing (bogus) warnings to editors who add legitimate content, or remove illegitimate content, that happens to disagree with their own point of view. Quick learners, I guess. And somehow, they are so familiar with contentious content issues from long ago. The nonsense and total snubbing of the consensus-building process is outrageous. This article has been hijacked and experienced editors need to step up and do something about it. The taste of meat and smell of socks and COI is overwhelming. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just throwing in support for bd2412. My feeling for hazing in National Greek Letter Organizations is that it should show up if it gets National coverage and/or it affects the National Organization. For example if the settlement from the Hazing Lawsuit forces the Fraternity to sell the National HQ or if a National Officer was there and did nothing to stop the hazing. More or less, if the causes/effects of the hazing aren't national, it doesn't belong on the National page.Naraht (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely what I just said. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A discussion on hazing comes down to not whether a national representative was present or not. That would make no sense since I would imagine the national representatives of these fraternities probably do not have staff on location. According to the guidelines on the NIC and IFC websites it comes down to education passed down from the national fraternities to the local chapters. A hazing incident, even though on a local level, could be a result of the educational channels passed on from the national level as well as university. If for example the universities did not have proper training etc. Of course all of this is verifiable. But that being said using what Naraht said then any hazing incident is therefore is part of a national problem.

I am curious, and I can't seem to find an answer to this, is there any type of insurance policy in the fraternal system against hazing incidents. For example if let's say one of these members were injured how would it be handled. Just a side note if anyone knows.86.174.57.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nahrat did not say that hazing comes down to whether a nationl rep was present. He simply gave one of many examples of circumstances that might make a hazing incident worthy of inclusion in this article. The incident we are discussing were mere allegations of hazing at one chapter. And we don't decide whether content is encylopedic based on pure speculation or information from an unreliable source. What "could be" is meaningless. Content must be reliably sourced. However, even if something can be reliably sourced doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, every word that was ever published in a realiable source would qualify. Finally, the issue about the insurance policy doesn't belong here. Talk pages are not to be used for personal chit chat. As WP:TALK explains, "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject." 86.174.57.25, you should sign all your comments by clicking on the blue pencil icon at the top of the edit box. Or type four tildes (~~~~). --76.189.126.40 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC) (previously 76.189.101.221)

It is abundantly clear to me that people are willing to make allegations that this hazing event is important, but no one has provided a policy-compliant reason for inclusion. Keeping it here is a flat-out violation of WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE. There was one event, in one school, that allegedly involved one local chapter of this national fraternity. Not only were the allegations never proven, nor turned into disciplinary action, nor resulted in legal charges, but even if they had, they would still be the events of a single small part of the greater organization. If someone can produce a source that says explicitly that this is a regular, common problem at multiple TEP chapters, or can show an individual event that received more than local coverage, the information must be removed. Unlike the wording choices in the sections above, this is not something that consensus can decide, because local consensus cannot override site-wide policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree on the removal. I was just putting together an edit request for this, but since you're here... --Tgeairn (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian has repeatedly made it abundantly clear, per policies and common sense, why the hazing content must be removed. I concur. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, please note that there is actually a blank Hazing section and also a separate Cornell hazing section (with the title of course worded and formatted incorrectly). Both sections need to be removed. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: I'm outdenting because there becomes a point where the indentation has gone too far and it's too hard to read all the way on the right I can't edit through the protection. Well, I mean, I technically can, but I'm not allowed to by policy. Since I have made major edits to the article, and been in the major discussions here, I'm what we call involved, so I can't use my administrative tools on this article. We're very close to being able to make an edit protected request, since basically there appears to be only 1 person in support of inclusion and a number opposed. But I'm willing to wait a day or two to see if any new arguments are raised. Since there's no BLP violation or other similar major problem, it's not a tragedy if the bad info is up for a little bit longer. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's nice to see a very knowledgeable administrator participating in an ethical and patient manner, using common sense, and courteously citing relevant policies and guidelines. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is in the best interest of the article to at least reference the hazing incident in a way that is fair and in line with NPOV. If you research further the hazing allegations especially at Cornel this is something that is part of the ingrained culture. It is quite scary for parents and students. As I realize before being 'concerned' parents is irrelevant to an encyclopedic entry it is still an encylopedic entry because the fraternity was issued with a suspension. The charges were not dropped and nor was it dismissed. There must be a way we can mention it as a citation since it is permissible to add this to the article. It is information that is verified and published. As long as we keep it NPOV then we can have it. For the record here is an article earlier in the year on another fraternity SAE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/cornell-fraternity-hazing-death-sigma-alpha-elipson-sentence_n_2025241.html. I am going to discuss this on the talk section of the other relevant fraternities as well. 86.174.57.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

86.174.57.25, you should sign all your comments by clicking on the blue pencil icon at the top of the edit box. Or by typing four tildes (~~~~). --76.189.126.40 (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Also Qwryxian you stated above the allegations were never proven or any punishment given but yet the chapter was suspended. Just thought I would point that out to you.--86.174.57.25 (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not realizing this resulted in disciplinary action. Nonetheless, I still don't believe this meets policy. The thing is, simply being verified in a reliable source is not sufficient for something to be mentioned in an article; the key is WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE: the information/opinion must be of an appropriate weight in balance to the overall subject. This is a fraternity with more than 100 years of history, that used to have many dozens of chapters. This event you want kept in the article is a single event that happened one year with a limited group of students. To me, that doesn't meet WP:DUE. If the Cornell chapter had their own article (I'm not saying they should, I'm just hypothesizing if they did), then this event would probably be of appropriate weight. But including just one event doesn't seem to meet policy to me. Note that it is for exactly the same reason that I argued above that the lawsuit had to be included--because it got national news coverage and almost resulted in the dissolution of the fraternity; thus, not including it would violate WP:NPOV since we'd be leaving out a critical part of their long history. The only real way I could see including this information would be if you could produce references of other events. If, say, there were a number of problems, what I'd do is create a single sentence (or 2) that said something like "TEP chapters have been subject to university discipline on a number of campuses due to problems with hazing." and then provide references for each of the incidents. I would embed that in the history section. But its own section? A whole paragraph? On a single event? Policy seems to clearly forbid that. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok Qwyrxian I can agree with what you are saying. I will do some continued research and see if I can provide additional details. Maybe having its own section would be a little excessive. On a side note since the legal section is also similar in nature although a lot bigger, it might be better to also include that as part of the history. It would then be in a chronological order. --86.174.57.25 (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to incorporating the legal section into the history; in fact, I like the idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My main interest and concern is the hazing situation etc., I will research that information for you Qwyrxian and try to write a shortened and condensed paragraph that we can include in the history. Also, reviewing other fraternity sites, many of them include some details on there symbolism etc. We might want to touch on that later as a new section all together. There is a template that is recommended we follow for Fraternities. --Opthamologist (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Opthamologist, will you agree to removing the Hazing section until such time as you have pulled more sources to demonstrate that this section is due? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the policy for living persons - we removed Hasenbergs name from the legal sections (and that was better sourced), can we at least remove Lane Koplon's name from the Hazing section? Timmccloud (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, I was also going to mention that myself. Especially, since we are adding this to the history section now.

--Opthamologist (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} I believe that I see a consensus here to remove the hazing section in its entirety. The person who originally added it has agreed that it does not yet meet our requirements per WP:UNDUE, and I don't see any outstanding objections. As such, the information should be removed. Note that this in no way prejudices the possibility of inclusion in the future, should more sources become available that show the alleged problem is widespread or important enough to meet WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the section pending the formal determination of consensus on the issue. I note that as an administrator, I have accorded weight to the opinions expressed here reflecting the length of time and breadth of contributions with which participants in this discussion have participated in Wikipedia generally, on the grounds that those who have made thousands of edits over a period of years are more likely to be familiar with the purpose and policies of the encyclopedia. Since we are writing an enduring work, and aim to be equally relevant to an audience reading this page in ten years or in a hundred, no ill effect will come from delaying, for the duration of the discussion, the inclusion of the materials under review. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree with BD2412 here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, agree with BD2412 as well. Timmccloud (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Grammar request

While I think we're getting close to agreement on the disputed section, while we're still discussing I think it would help to fix the grammar errors currently in the article. In the "Legal issues" section, could you please change "that the then current board of directors and the then the national executive director" to simply "the board of directors and national executive director"; the extra verbiage is not necessary and at the moment has an extra "the". Additionally, please remove the comma after "executive director" in the same sentence. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. I tweaked the sentence a bit further to remove some ambiguity as well. As it was, it could have been read that the plaintiffs drove chapters away, which I'm pretty sure is not what was intended. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also removed both the "Hazing" heading and the "Cornell Investigates Hazing Allegations Against TEP Fraternity" heading, and replaced them both with a new "Hazing investigation" heading. I have seen the discussion below and I realise you are still talking about exactly what heading, if any, to use. However, having a double heading like that looks really bad for our readers, so I thought it was worth bending the rules a bit to make things look a bit better for them while the discussion is under way. For the record, I do not mind at all what your final decision is, and I won't contest it at all. I don't intend to have any future involvement with this article. (I'll be happy to answer any questions anyone might have about my actions, however.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional edits under discussion

This topic was split off from #Grammar request, above. As it does not address the formatted edit protected request. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do these two things, also: (1) Remove the Hazing section. The section is blank; it has no content, and (2) Correct the styling and excessive length of the Cornell Investigates Hazing Allegations Against TEP Fraternity section title. The first letter of every word is mistakenly upper-cased. It should simply be shortened to "Cornell hazing allegations". (This section is probably going to be removed anyway, but it should be correctly written while it's still there.) --76.189.126.40 (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I do disagree with the capitalization of the hazing incident. As a title of an article all major words should be capitalized. But, I will leave all grammar changes to the editors to decide. --Opthamologist (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

<personal attack redacted> This is not an issue that involves agreeing or disagreeing; it's a style guide policy.... a requirement. As WP:SECTIONCAPS explains, "Capitalize the first letter of the first word, but leave the rest lower case (except for proper nouns and other items that would ordinarily be capitalized in running text)." We use sentence-style capitalization on Wikipedia, not title-style capitalization. This goes for article titles, also. If you had taken a couple minutes to look at other articles on Wikipedia, you'd know this. And by the way, your name is spelled wrong. It's "ophthalmologist". --76.189.126.40 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not need to justify to you why I have the chosen name I do. <redacted>--Opthamologist (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

<redacted> --76.189.126.40 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

76 (I think we have more than one? I can't tell). See below for striking reasons Your comments here are a personal attack. Stop it now. Comment on content, not on contributors.

Regarding the other points, I wish people hadn't hijacked this request. Now the grammar may not be changed, because a patrolling admin will not see consensus. The whole point of this was to make a request for an obviously indisputed point; the hazing section hasn't been solved yet. OPthamalogist, 76 is correct that the section titles shouldn't be capitalized; as explained at MOS:SECTIONS, we don't follow newspaper formatting, but instead capitalizing only the first word and proper nouns. As a side note, the reason I didn't ask for correction on this title is because I'm hoping we can agree to remove the whole thing, then we don't have to worry about what the title is. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought there were two different 76 editors, because I had left a talk page message, and when I went back it wasn't there, so I thought the IP address must have been changing. In fact, 76 had just removed my post there. None of which, of course, is bad, and I wasn't blaming anyone. I just wanted to be sure that I didn't accuse one person of something that someone else had done. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)