Talk:Mike Kernell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BLP1E[edit]

Per WP:BLP1E, I'm a bit concerned about this article. It either needs to be expanded to include more about this guy or it needs to be renamed Sarah Palin e-mail hacking incident or something similar. --B (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried my best to flag this. The article probably needs to be split into two or three. It definitely needs to be worked on. While it hasn't been vandalized yet, I would also think someone should keep an eye on it. 75.3.229.144 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

Someone placed a split sign on the article despite the fact that the article is still a stub and has little information even by stub standards. It would be questionable to split it as nothing would be left. Hobartimus (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mike Kernell is a public person and it should be possible to write a BLP about him. Most of the article should be in a separate article on the Sarah Palin email hacking incident, which relates only incidentally to Mike Kernell and is barely relevant to Sarah Palin in the greater scheme of things. John Nevard (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the incident is a far cry from having enough independent notability to survive an afd. Hobartimus (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. As it is though, I don't think the information relating to his son should make up 5/6ths of his biography. Cut and pasted below. John Nevard (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 2008, Mike Kernell became the subject of some prominence when his twenty-year-old son, David, was accused of hacking [[Sarah Palin]]'s e-mail account.<ref>{{cite news |first=Larry |last=Greenemeier |title=Palin e-mail hack highlights weak Web security; Democratic lawmaker's son implicated |url=http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=palin-e-mail-hack-highlights-weak-w-2008-09-19 |work=[[Scientific American]] |date=2008-09-19 |accessdate=2008-09-21 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first=Jeffrey |last=Scott |title=Tennessee legislator’s son at center of Palin hacking speculation |url=http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2008/09/19/palin_email_hack.html |work=[[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]] |date=2008-09-19 |accessdate=2008-09-21 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first=Michele |last=Masterson |title=Memphis Democrat Rep. Confirms Son Is Subject Of Speculation In Connection With Palin Hack |url=http://www.crn.com/security/210602693 |work=Channel Web |date=2008-09-19 |accessdate=2008-09-21 }} [http://www.crn.com/security/210602693 http://www.crn.com/security/210602693]</ref> On September 17, 2008, the private [[Yahoo! Mail]] account of [[Sarah Palin]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] [[Vice President of the United States|vice presidential]] candidate in the [[United States presidential election, 2008|2008 United States presidential election]], was hacked into. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/0/4chans-half-hac.html |title=4Chan's half-hack of Palin's email goes awry|publisher=''[[The Los Angeles Times]]''|author=David Sarno|date=2008-09-17|accessdate=2008-09-17}}</ref> The [[FBI]] and [[Secret Service]] began investigating the incident shortly after its occurrence. On September 20, it was revealed they were questioning the son of Mike Kernell, a [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] [[State Representative]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Suspect-Nabbed-in-Palin-E-mail-Hack/story.xhtml?story_id=110003SJWA8K |title=Suspect Nabbed in Palin E-mail Hack|publisher=NewsFactor|author=Steve Bosak |date=2008-09-20|accessdate=2008-09-21}}</ref> The son, David Kernell (20), is a self described "Obamacrat"<ref>http://terryfrank.net/?p=3591</ref> and a student at the [[University of Tennessee]]. His university residence was raided while he was "having a party" by FBI agents who served him with a search warrant. <ref>[http://www.wbir.com/news/breaking/story.aspx?storyid=64033&catid=29 UPDATE: FBI serves search warrant against UT student in Palin case]</ref> Agents spent 1.5 to 2 hours taking pictures of everything inside his apartment. Kennel's three roommates were also subpoenaed and expected to testify the next week in Chattanooga.

Most of the info about the incident is already in Sarah Palin. It doesn't really merit more than a mention and crossreference on the guy's dad's WP page. If it really is notable enough to go into a BLP, it should probably be in a David Kernell page, but considering the guy is only notable for one thing as of right now, it would probably be better off in an article about the incident. Since it's already covered on the Palin page, any objections to taking it down to a brief mention and a link to the relevant section of the Palin page? --Minderbinder (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's eminently notable as evidenced by the sources. I think what you really want to do here is expand the coverage of this person in every direction so one day it can actually become a real article instead of a stub. Hobartimus (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The incident may be notable and worthy of an article, but it is only relevant to Mike Kernell in passing. Noone will edit this article in five years time and think 'son broke into email account of major politician' is an argument for notability, as opposed to 'long term state politician'. This article could use some more sources, but it's better as a stub than a WP:COATRACK. John Nevard (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is Mike Kernell. What happens to his kids is only worth mentioning to the extent that it effects him. The section on Palin/Yahoo mentioned Mike Kernell in passing, so it should not make up the majority of Wikipedia's biography. In the absence of a devoted article, the best place for this content is the Incidents section of the Anonymous (group) article, which is where I have merged it. Sincerely, the skomorokh 17:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kernell's son[edit]

I've removed material about Kernell's son from the article, in response to a query posted at the biographical articles noticeboard. This material violates several aspects of the biographies of living persons policy. At this point, the accusations against Kernell's son appear to be coming from blogs and tabloids. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and is not a vehicle for spreading rumor. Until there is some reliable confirmation or disavowal of Kernell's son's involvement, it does not belong in this article. A separate case could be made at Sarah Palin, where this material is more appropriate in any case. Still, the essence of our policy is that we don't spread rumors, we try to avoid unecessary harm to living people (particularly private figures), and we wait to get it right rather than rushing to include iffy material as soon as possible (see WP:NOT#NEWS). I'd welcome more discussion here or in the relevant thread at the noticeboard; however, please do not reinsert this material pending discussion and consensus about how and whether to cover it. MastCell Talk 18:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Agree. A brief mention here (on sentence) - anything more is a coatrack and BLP unfairness - anything less will look unrealistic.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that wording of the charges against David Kernell be changed to: He was found guilty of the charges of Destruction, Alteration or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations and unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer as a result of unauthorized access to a computer, but was acquitted on a charge of wire fraud.
The fourth count of the indictment against David Kernell charges a violation of 18 § U.S.C. 159 (Destruction, Alteration or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations), not anticipatory obstruction of justice. The third count of the indictment against David Kernell charges a violation of 18 § U.S.C. 1030 (unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer as a result of unauthorized access to a computer), not unauthorized access to a computer. ( source: http://www.box.net/shared/2s35qxtn40#/shared/2s35qxtn40/2/41710410/426284466/1 ) I'm a new user on Wikipedia and am a bit gunshy about pulling the trigger on an article edit. Also, the article ref # 8 is no longer a valid link. Mdaubrey (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No backdoor deletion outside of porcess[edit]

I object to the backdoor deletion attempts outside of the Afd process. If anyone could just reduce articles to a few sentences, delete most of their content and sourcing we wouldn't need the Afd process to handle deletions every unwanted article could just be blanked without any discussion. Out of process deletions and blanking have no place here the correct place for this sort of stuff is at Afd. The article currently has 18 reliable sources I will watch that number closely. Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. On the other hand, paring down articles which violate WP:BLP is not "out-of-process"; it is the process. WP:BLP states: "Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic." That's the policy basis for removing material which apparently violates WP:BLP until the issue can be discussed and resolved. MastCell Talk 18:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how AFD is relevant here. The information was removed simply because it wasn't about the topic of this article, senator Mike Kernell. That information still exists at both Anonymous (group) and Sarah Palin (which of those two it's appropriate at, if any, is probably debatable). --Minderbinder (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence currently in the article[edit]

Currently this is the only material in the article about the incident,

In 2008, Mike Kernell became the subject of some prominence when his twenty-year-old son, David, was accused of hacking into the email account of Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate in the 2008 United States presidential election.[8][9][10]

As the material was written in the article in an organic way, and this was the first sentence, the sentence and the supported sources reflect an older state of affairs, we have a lot more information from more and better sources about this, the sentence could at least be updated to reflect it. For example replace the objective "accused of" which is based on not so good sources with the actual "FBI search in apartment" which can be also sourced much better. The old version before the blanking where information can be lifted is here [1]. Hobartimus (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that his son is in a controversy is worth a sentence - who searched who's apartment is not relevant.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. THIS article doesn't need anything more than a mention of his son and a link to one of the articles that goes into more detail about the incident. --Minderbinder (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do this in one thread (this one is fine). I'd suggest something along the lines of "Anonymous sources reported that the FBI had searched the home of Kernell's son in connection with the hacking of Sarah Palin's Yahoo! email account." Sourced here. MastCell Talk 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a fair summary of what is known right now, and looks like a good source - I'd just include a link to the full story at Anonymous (group). --Minderbinder (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobartimus and others willfully disregard the letter of WP:BLP, according to which BLP's are held to a stricter standard that "reliable sourcing" promulgated in WP:RS. I think no mention of the investigation should be made until the son is indicted. Hurmata (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is you only posted your comment above after editing the article. The sentence and wording you removed [2] as BLP violating content was originally placed into the article by user:MastCell in this edit [3], including the exact phrasing and the choice of source, the Associated Press. Your above comment is out of line. Without giving any warning let me just ask that you 'comment on content not on contributors'. Hobartimus (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobartimus is issuing edit war warnings on my Talk page for having reverted User:Dof's BLP violations. It is to laugh. Corvus cornixtalk 07:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the original text was inserted by administrator MastCell in this edit [4]. It is really to laugh that you accuse him of BLP violations without even explaining how was the text a violation which part of BLP was violated etc. Please laugh away but first explain. Hobartimus (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit-warring here is getting a bit out of hand. As Hobartimus suggests, I was OK with a one-sentence mention of the incident with his son, using a single reliable source (I chose the AP). This is not my preference, but I think it does comply with WP:BLP and, probably, WP:WEIGHT. Let's have some further discussion in lieu of edit-warring; if that's not possible, I'll ask that the page be temporarily protected. MastCell Talk 18:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

This dude wasn't on anybody outside of Tennessee's radar screen until the Palin mail hack thing. Suddenly his article is the target of an edit war. To pretend he wasn't in the news smacks of whitewashing. It deserves a sentence. Politics n such (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Politics n such has restored the BLP violation. It's time to protect this page. Corvus cornixtalk 07:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Including well-sourced information on the investigation against his son is not a WP:BLP violation, it's an undue weight violation. The two are dealt with by fundamentally different processes, so you must be sure to keep the terminology straight. --erachima talk 08:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, the header that was added was definitely a BLP violation. --66.151.13.191 (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring[edit]

I am watching this page as an admin. It appears I need to remind the editors that the core BLP issue is the inclusion of unsourced or inadequately sourced negative content. That is what we must immediately fix, and the BLP policy gives some advantages to editors that are dealing with that. If material is reliably sourced, and presented conservatively with respect to the reliable sources, then there is not a core BLP issue and I am going to attend to edit warring as edit warring.

WP:BLP does not override WP:RS, it says that we must insist negative material actually is sourced to satisfy WP:RS now instead of maybe someday. WP:BLP also says that we can't go further than the sources but instead should choose to err on the side of wording more conservatively than the sources. Aan egregious and not particularly relevant example of going further than a source would be if a source said "was present at the death of" and we instead said "killed" without another reliable source for that.

If material is indeed reliably sourced - and the sentence MastCell put in as the compromise last night was - then whether or not to include becomes an issue of coatracking and undue weight. In as much as the son has an obvious connection to his father's biography there is relevance to mentioning the son here. Since there is at least a temporary notoriety around the son, a single sentence is at least arguably reasonable, and so long as the sentence remains reliably sourced and conservatively worded, I view the matter of whether or not to include a sentence as not a BLP issue for which I will give edit warriors any benefit of the doubt.

If the sentence starts evolving into the bulk of the article, I will give some limited grace to those pruning it back, even though coatracking is not the core BLP issue. I do hope, though, that everyone choose to spend some time trying to improve and expand the rest of the article.

If the sentence starts evolving again into a core BLP issue of being un or inadequately sourced, or going further than its sources, that will be a core BLP issue where I will give a benefit of the doubt. My strong preference is for all of you to not edit war. This talk page exists for you to reach consensus on issues that are properly subject to editorial consensus. GRBerry 19:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mike Kernell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mike Kernell. 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:

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) 11:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Kernell&oldid=1207953460"