Talk:Debi Gliori

References

The only reference for this page is a broken link. Some more new references should probably be found. Alphius (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fixed using the Internet Archive's Way Back Machine. Have also rooted out as many reliable references from google as I could find. Esowteric+Talk 13:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Bryony24 (talk · contribs) was censured in May 2012 for attempting to remove a controversy section from the stub article about Debi Gliori.

I believe that Bryony24 acted in good faith, following a sustained campaign of alleged internet bullying / stalking of the subject, Debi Gliori by another involved person's fans. This culminated in articles written in the press and the inclusion of the controversy section which the subject attempted unsuccessfully to have removed.

The entry, originally added by 86.182.215.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at 10:53, 9 May 2012, has been repeatedly added and removed since that time.

For Debi Gliori's side of the story, see Fiddle and pins: The Tobermory Cat, the trolls & me (25 October 2012).

Regarding the allegation of stealing ideas: these allegations are groundless. You cannot copyright or fake-trademark something well known in real life, in the public domain and generic like "The Tobermory Cat" any more than I could the Loch Ness monster. In any case, Saki wrote about a cat called "Tobermory" prior to his death in 1916. For the full story from The Chronicles of Clovis, see "Tobermory" by Saki.

Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 19:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's gone now, and I think it should stay gone per WP:UNDUE - Alison ^❤ 19:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Esowteric+Talk 20:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

30 October 2012

This just came in. Bit of a game changer: Guardian: Cat at centre of bitter children's book scrap Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 15:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is no longer a stub, and since the controversy has now been covered in detail in The Guardian, perhaps the controversy should feature in the article? Please feel free to comment or revert. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 19:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of the possibility of infringing WP:UNDUE, but I can see no easy way to achieve balance and clarity, if the controversy is to be mentioned. Have begun a Reception section above Controversy and added several reviews. There'll also be a favourable review from The Times to add on Saturday 3 November 2012. Esowteric+Talk 19:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A review of The Tobermory Cat in The Times on 3 November 2012 also leads with the controversy, adding to its notability. 12:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC). Esowteric+Talk 10:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And BBC Scotland on 7 November 2012 covered the story of the Tobermory cat, a book signing by Debi Gliori in Mull and the copyright dispute. Esowteric+Talk 11:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Statements by 41.243.171.14

WP:CONFLICT: Esowteric is making comments in the news articles about Debi Gliori, he is fanning the flames and attempting to make the controversy noteable. He informs the readers of Debi Gliori’s blog that a story has appeared on The Guardian web site. “Just in, haven't read it yet:” http://fiddleandpins.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-tobermory-cat-trolls-me.html.

I did this simply because I thought that Debi GLiori should be informed that someone had written an article in the press about her. Esowteric+Talk 09:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

He accused me of being under the influence of one the involved parties “a meat puppet”, knowing this will make the involved party look more guilty ; http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?s=f14bfc9a3ea5ec1c7c40b80b99b6bfe9&p=7720012&postcount=588

This is what I REALLY wrote. Please stop twisting things around:

"Hi, this is the first time I've seen this writers' forum, having been directed to this thread for unfortunate reasons, and I'm impressed. Thanks for being here.

"For what it's worth, I don't believe that the character ThingWithFeathers who defended Tobermory Cat in the comments to the Guardian article was a sockpuppet: ThingWithFeathers was rather more articulate. There certainly appeared to be a good deal of "history" about what they wrote which did not appear to support their assertion that they had only just read about the affair, however, so they may have been a meat puppet or an ardent supporter.

"ThingWithFeathers claimed to be in the GMT +2 hours timezone and in the southern hemisphere and shortly after their appearance at the Guardian site, an anonymous South African IP user did indeed refactor a comment that I had made on the talk page attached to Debi Gliori's Wikipedia biography. The text originally read:

"I believe that Bryony24 acted in good faith, following a sustained campaign of alleged internet bullying / stalking of the subject, Debi Gliori by another involved person and their fans" and they changed that to "... by another involved person's fans" (absolving the artist of blame). They also added the edit summary: "No proof the other involved person stalked or bullied anyone, only that their fans did so" which I feel requires a level of technical competence, sophistication and clarity that I have not seen in Tobermory Cat's responses here.

"One thing that does concern me are the pointy comments about Tobermory Cat's poor standard of English. There could be perfectly valid, perhaps unfortunate, reasons for this, such as dyslexia.

"Anyhow, thanks again. I look forward to reading more on this forum." Esowteric+Talk 09:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

He asks for help from the writers forum to “dilute the controversy”, his plan is to write up as many book reviews for the author in order to dilute the controversy on her wiki page. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?s=f14bfc9a3ea5ec1c7c40b80b99b6bfe9&p=7720109&postcount=592

I said that I would dilute the controversy by adding more content, because the controversy section was becoming WP:UNDUE in relation to the remaining, modest, start class content. Esowteric+Talk 09:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

He outs me to the forum, nobody in this forum would have known my IP without the information he supplied as a Wiki editor, he clearly states his business in the thread is as a Wiki editor.

All I provided was a publicly-available edit history of the article. Every time you edit, it shows your IP address; every time I edit, it shows my username. All this did was confirm that you live in South Africa, which you immediately agreed, and therefore proved that you are not the involved party, artist Angus Stewart. Esowteric+Talk 09:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?s=03d82b29c3b864f259b5e2eceed7298a&p=7720279&postcount=605

When the authors at the AbsoluteWrite forums decide enough is enough and all parties should make a peace plan. Esowteric says; “Well, thankfully for the good folk here, it looks like the action has moved on. Alas, it's now moved in the direction of Wikipedia: a user talk page. Now I do have an inkling of how Debi Gliori must have felt.” http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?s=3aba156823bc398a1abfc408df9d36b1&p=7720822&postcount=703

Esowteric is obviously fanning the flames of this controversy, he keeps redirecting people where to go next to fight it out, first he tells the readers of Debi Gliori’s blog to go over to The Guaridan, when that story is closed, he then goes into the writers forum and joins in the controversy there, when that is closed her tells them to go over to the wiki page. Where ever he goes he introduces himself as being on Wiki business. For the last 48 hours he has been tweeting furiously asking people to come to the wiki page. https://twitter.com/Esowteric/status/265428247435673600

Has not read even read the Sunday Times article yet is using it to write up the controversy section of Debi Gliori’s Wiki page, while pleading on twitter for somebody to supply him with the article. “@AmandaPCraig Just found the TC review URL, but can't read full article (pay wall). Could you email copy for review purposes at Wikipedia?” Would it not be wise to read an article first before quoting from it on a Wiki Page ?

Why does Esowteric use the headline grabbing opinions of journalist’s stories when the involved parties have written blogs about the matter. The news stories are written using the blogs as reference why must Wiki use another parties interpretation when the original source of the stories is available. I don’t want to know what The Guardian thought the involved party had done when the involved party has clearly stated what they believed happened in their blog.

Esowteric is running around screaming “troll” at anyone who does not support Debi Gliori’s POV, he has in a number of posts accused innocent parties, myself included, of being trolls for an involved party. If these accusations are believed then they help support Debi Gliori’s POV. He has also made a number of posts about his plan to make Debi Gliori’s Wiki better by “diluting the controversy” with book reviews. This after Debi Gliori complained that the controversy damaged her reputation by featuring so prominently in her Wiki. He is carrying out the wishes of Debi Gliori on the content of her Wiki and this is clearly a Conflict of Interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire Times article, but what you can see of it quite clearly says "Gliori was viciously attacked on the internet by trolls" as a result of the dispute with Stewart. Now I have every sympathy for an argument that says you should read the whole article before using it as a source, but in this case, the meaning of the sentence is rather plain, and there is no two ways about it: if you are viciously attacked on the internet by trolls, you are viciously attacked on the internet by trolls, and that seems to be a key element of the story as reported in reliable sources. I can see no good reason for deleting that. What, if anything, am I missing? Andreas JN466 02:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"Attacked by internet troll" should fall under Godwin's Law, it's just too easy to label anything you don't like as a "troll". Is it really immoral or evil to accuse someone of theft if you believe it to be true? If a wiki page reports someone as having been viciously trolled, does that actually explain what happened ? Not really, only that the writer believed it to be immoral and disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is an on-going AN/I. Please respond there. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

All we can go on is what is reported in reliable and verifiable sources. This is why I used the words "unproven allegations" (with intentional redundancy), rather than simply "allegations" (whereby mud might stick) and obviously, I could not use the words "unfounded allegations" (as Wikipedia is not a court of law). Esowteric+Talk 17:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Issues raised at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

In the interests of fairness, I should report that an anonymous IP user raised issues about my conduct in this Wikipedia article at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. See the now-closed and archived thread they started, entitled "Editor of story is cyber-bullying me, I believe the author's fans are using the wiki for cyberabuse against an involved party". Esowteric+Talk 12:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I opened a second thread at the Administrators' noticeboard/incidents Edits by recently blocked user 41.243.171.14‎. Please note that "recently banned" should read "recently blocked". I posted in haste.

One of the questions raised in the second AN/I was whether the controversy section should feature at all in the WP:BLP. Esowteric+Talk 10:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The controversy section in the current article seems to me to be well-balanced and accurately sourced. However this incident is recent, and perhaps with the passage of time its relative significance will fade and the article will need to be revised with regard to undue weight policy.Anonymous watcher (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Debi Gliori: Can we let this matter settle down, please?

The "involved party", artist Angus Stewart, recognizing the damage that this has done, has recently issued a heartfelt plea for the issue to settle down. Many people, including Debi Gliori are thankful and grateful for this manly approach:

He writes on his Facebook page for "Tobermory Cat":

"[Tobermory Cat] May we close this thread please. I would rather like things to settled down. It seems my idea to follow the process of creating a celebrity cat turns out to be an extremely dangerous and damaging idea. It has caused a great deal of hurt and I want no more of it. My understanding of what is and what is not acceptable is misguided. It has been extremely hurtful to Debi and she does not deserve it. I met her once and she does not deserve to be hurt by my work. I don’t like that. I am guilty of following an idea too far - the fog came down and I forgot about where I wanted to go. The good thing is Debi's book came out and its a good book and will give more pleasure to more people than this page will do if this is the way its going. Good things can come from difficult beginnings and truly hope that is the case for Debi’s book. I need a bit of time to think about this so if possible could everyone take a bit of a deep breath. Time to think about good stuff not bad. I would really appreciate that. Sunday [3 November 2012] at 12:20am · Edited · Unlike · 4"

Please can we allow this issue to settle down? Esowteric+Talk 09:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Statements by 41.243.171.14 #2

Ms. Gliori's blog describes the first meeting as an epic battle. She claims he was digging into her life and lunged at her, both of which are absolute nonsense. She claims she "snapped" and that "Hugh dug his heals in" when they should have just left. She mocks the importance of Facebook in Mr. Stewart's life claiming that it's insignificant in hers. Then her official line is of a victim whose very existence is threatened by the internet. Maybe if she had stayed on topic about the idea that was or wasn't stolen instead of Mr. Stewart's character her argument would be sound. Instead she just goes to her mob of fans' lowest instincts, which is the very same accusation she makes against Mr. Stewart, both are guilty of appealing to their fans for action when they should have resolved the matter amongst themselves. It also seems that she was very hostile towards Mr. Stewart before he took any action against her. What should be noted is that this story has been made into an issue of cyber-bullying by the press and not copyright and Ms. Gliori seems, so far, quite happy to go along with this. I think that it's important to note that the current flavour of the month for the press is "Cyber-bullying" and editors should be wary of any bias in the press because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will copy and paste this into the ongoing AN/I thread. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

"controversy" sections rarely make encyclopedic articles, particularly in articles about living people. In addition, the section in this article appears to rely on a lot of original research based on primary sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the deletions you made to the Reception section, I would agree with WP:UNDUE. However, please also see the "Undue" sub-section in this ongoing AN/I. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 07:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Have removed the controversy section per WP:UNDUE and added bulleted list to Media reception without comment. I am concerned, however, that readers will be left with totally the wrong idea about the unproven allegations of IP theft. Anyhow, please fight this out amongst yourselves. Esowteric+Talk 08:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debi Gliori. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303232417/http://www.scottisharts.org.uk/1/latestnews/1000704.aspx to http://www.scottisharts.org.uk/1/latestnews/1000704.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)