All Matt wants for Christmas is to stop himself from harassing Erin Brokovich. He didn’t get that.

11 22 2017 Erin Brokovich


Wikipedia still has editors laughing at Matt with these new archives!!!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Berdyck

Although AfC drafts aren’t indexed by Google, they are picked up by mirrors. See [12]. I’m rather concerned about this draft in general. After reading it closely, I removed this on BLP grounds. Note that it is a claim about a third party referenced to a YouTube video which is simply a recording on a private answering machine. Another of the “references”, i.e. this one, is highly inappropriate from a BLP point of view. I’m not sure we should even be linking to it. That combined with the text of the draft suggests that the proposed Wikipedia article is being used as part of the various internet forum battles the subject is involved in. Further background to this can be found at the AfC Help Desk here and here where there are lengthy posts from the draft’s creator claiming to be the subject’s friend and most recently an IP claiming to be the subject. Any suggestions? Voceditenore (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There’s nothing to stop anyone removing controversial unsourced info from draft articles (as you’ve already done). Though in the case of this draft it is one of the worst examples, seems to be someone making a poorly sourced right-to-reply written by someone who knows a considerable amount about the subject. Maybe a “NO INDEX” template would help? Sionk (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
So, basically we have an article about a person lacking notability, minimum NPOV, reliable sources, with BLP issues. I removed the blogspot reference, your removal was perfectly fine and the AFC reviewer was correct in declining. The Helpdesk thread seems to have devolved into “OMG Wikipedia is teh big business tool and I’m being censored” now, so no help there. Claims the subject is coming out with a groundbreaking documentary, so maybe they they should wait until that gets some solid coverage. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I’ve just gone through it and removed a whole swathe of material [13] per WP:BLP. Even though this is probably an autobiography, unreferenced assertions re the subject’s DoB, parents’ names, his sexuality, criminal charges brought against him, alleged malfeasance by the named mayor of his hometown, accusations against him on internet forums, etc. etc. all went. Hopefully, there will be no attempts to restore it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Good job. Looks like it was just tagged for speedy too, so that might be the best outcome at this point. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

that was my G11. I suggest salting it for a few weeks as well. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this whole assessment. I’m noting that one of the editors above seems to be mocking Matthew Berdyck’s dyslexia. I find that to be both unprofessional and ignorant. After reading quite a bit of this guys work I have noted that he has been trying to leave his film career for the last year but keeps having success in spite of himself. That does not suggest someone who is attempting to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. As an outside opinion I agree with Mr Berdyck that Wikipedia editors were bullying him. His article explained how he was being stalked on the internet using the above mentioned blog. Before that blog was recently removed from Google for impersonation several Wikipedia editors posted in the comments giving the woman who was harassing him ammo to attack him. staff seem to have been able to pick up on the harassment. That woman has now been permabanned from multiple services for issues with cyber stalking. I think Wikipedia owes this man an apology. (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)