Talk:Aaron Swartz

Library of Congress Bibliographic records citation

The article cites a quote in The Economist -- "he obtained—though he would not say how—the complete bibliographic data for books held by the Library of Congress" -- for this section, but Archive.org identifies this as the source of the LoC bibliographic records: http://archive.org/details/marc_records_scriblio_net . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.192.218 (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WP's treatment of quotations

WP:QUOTE (emphasis added)

2 General guidelines

The quotation should be representative of the whole source document….

Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it … should be avoided.

Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false.

4 Overusing quotations, WP:QUOTEFARM

Long quotations … remove attention from other information.…  A summary or paraphrase … is often better where the original wording could be improved.

Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing or by working smaller portions … into the article text.

4.1 Examples of overuse of quotations, WP:LONGQUOTE

_ Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style….

_ Quoteboxes should generally be avoided; … they draw special attention to the opinion of one source….

_ Longer quotations may … be hidden in the reference as a [ref quote] to facilitate verification … without sacrificing readability.

5 Copyrighted material and fair use

The quotation must … aid understanding of the subject [of the article].

---

Replying to MarkBernstein’s request (Undid numerous deletions… Too entangled to resolve one by one. Discuss individually and less boldly on talk page. please):

   Short reasons for each individual major deletion are found in each summary.  In many cases, an authoritative reason is found above.  If not, please restore the individual deletion.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 21:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 03:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

More on unexplained deletions:

   Rephrasing of a short text.  “ft followed by … the new version of what was changed … fully informs about the edit.” (WP:Edit summary legend).  A rephrasing doesn’t need to be explained.

   When a deletion is unexplained, it could be a signal that the editor is going to be rephrasing or reorganizing sometime later.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

... Luckily, any prospective edit war can be avoided here just by permitting other editors to make individual restores of any individual edit (or individual subset of entangled edits) that they don’t agree with.  I myself don’t intend to do any more reverting or restoring for a while.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Support restore by MarkBernstein of Salon item about mural added by HectorMoffet (In the press).  --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)  Strongly support MarkBernstein’s awesome removal of longstanding but dilutive 19-word passage in lede (-‘and later worked … was also a contributing editor….’) --22:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In light of the 40 or 50 edits here, please define the meaning of "a while" in the following half-sentence: "I myself don’t intend to do any more reverting or restoring for a while." David in DC (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Three days plus...  While. 1.d. A relatively short period of time; a brief time.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the irony inherent in linking to a definition in a dictionary whose content lies behind a paywall intentional? David in DC (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Meow...  (Implying that $29.95/yr is mere pocket change for some of us...)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my point was too obscure. Given the subject this particular talk page is attached to, even so minimal a paywall as $29.95/year inevitably prompts this question: WWAD? David in DC (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No point is too obscure for Dervorguilla!!  But WTF does “WWAD” mean?  Can′t find it in Webster′s.  Help!  --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Replace "A" with "J" and regoogle. David in DC (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

One presumes He would use the Learner′s Dictionary, which is free... --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Silverglate, sec. II

This statement could be left out too:

“According to attorney Harvey Silverglate, lawyers familiar with the original case told him they had expected it to be dismissed after a ‘continuance without a finding’.”

1’. WP:BLPGOSSIP
“Ask yourself … whether the material [that] is being presented as true … is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.”

• Are the erroneous (or erroneously quoted) opinions of unnamed interested lawyers relevant to an article about a person?

2’. WP:WELLKNOWN
“In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources….  If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation … leave it out.”

• Silverglate is considered a reliable published source.  Can others be found?  --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, no, and no This has been discussed thoroughly before; I'd refer you to the archives, but I believe you were a participant in some of those discussions as well. (a) This is not gossip. It is the core assertion of a news report that appeared in the leading professional news source for the Massachusetts Bar. (b) What evidence can you provide that the quotation is inaccurate? *Two* news organizations separately reported it. The reporter has a strong reputation, as does the editor of Mass Lawyers Weekly. No reliable news organization has reported that this quotation is erroneous. (c) Many, many significant facts are sourced to specific interviews. Nearly every off-the-record and background quotation in your daily paper has precisely this sourcing. The quotation is entirely appropriate, and the constant efforts by one or two people to remove it do bring to mind the grinding of a WP:AXE.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I share MarkBerstein's frustration. These issues have been discussed in great depth and detail. Dervorguilla was deeply involved in the discussions. The archive is full of them. Replowing the same ground, over and over again, is tendentious editing. There is not a thing in these two new Silverglate talk sections that has not already been resolved, in a manner that is evidently not to Dervorguilla's liking. Well, she's out of luck. Just because I haven't been vocal recently does not mean I have forgotten the days of tedious discussion refuting the points now being regurgitated, perhaps in the hope that other editors have been worn down, or have tired of trying to edit collaboratively with editors who haven't the commitment to collegiality and consensus this project requires. Dervorguilla, CarthCaresen and CarthCarsen's IP alter ego have been the worst offenders here, although there have been a few others, plus some suspicious IP editors with few edits but encyclopedic (if skewed) knowledge of wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Dervorguilla, please knock it off. You've entreated others, off-wiki, to intercede on your behalf, to assure editors that your motives ought not be suspect. The result of one such off-wiki plea can be found on my talk page. I stand now where I stood then. I can barely divine my own motives, sometimes. I'm not going to try to divine yours. But your behavior, that I can draw conclusions about. And your editing behavior is slipping into old, unwelcome patterns. It is becoming disruptive. Please take some time off, take a step back, and return with a willingness to concede a point, now and again, when you know the enormous weight of discussion, most of it archived, stands against propositions you now seek to "re-litigate" with absolutely no new facts or insights.

I've come to doubt that you're being intentionally destructive to the project. I've come to believe you're simply misguided, if on a collossal scale. Please do a kindness for everyone who holds this collaborative encyclopedia-writing project dear. Stop editing pages you have such an emotional attachment to. Spend a month or two editing pages you know nothing about. Get some perspective. You have the makings of a good editor. You also have the makings of a train wreck. Choose wisely, please. David in DC (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Summary for newcomers: Mass Lawyer’s Weekly is a trade newspaper widely read by attorneys in the state and region. In an article about the Swartz case, attorney Harvey Silverglate reported that state prosecutors had intended to dismiss the subject with a stern warning, a quotes them to the effect that it was the federal involvement that led to a very different outcome. This narrative of events had been widely assumed in early reports of Swartz’s death, but Silverglate was able to provide verified background sourcing. Other news agencies followed, depending on the same off-the-record sources.

Since the day of publication, one or two editors have repeatedly sought to remove reference to this article, adducing various arguments. First, it was argued that wikipedia cannot use background-sourced quotations. Then it was argued that Silverglate was in some way an interested party. Then it was argued that the opinion expressed in the quotation is in some way unreliable. I believe that the common thread among these arguments, none of which has won much support and none of which has much in common with the others save that they all argue to exclude the quotation, is a desire to exclude a quotation that might seem to embarrass the US Attorney or her assistants. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

“It is the core assertion of a news report that appeared in the leading professional news source for the Massachusetts Bar.” — MarkBernstein.

On this point Silverglate agrees with Dervorguilla (me), not with MarkBernstein.

MarkBernstein says he made the assertion in a news report; Silverglate says he made it in an op-ed.

Harvey Silverglate, The Swartz Suicide and the Sick Culture of the DOJ, The SilvergLatest (Jan. 23, 2013) (emphasis added):

“I was asked to do an op-ed for the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.”

Silverglate doesn’t say he wrote a news report or a news article or was asked to write one.  MarkBernstein’s dispute is with Silverglate, not with other WP eds.  (It could best be discussed with Silverglate, not here.)  The point has been made before:

== Does Silverglate’s op-ed cite only anonymous partisan sources…? ==

--Dervorguilla (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It appeared in Mass Lawyers' Weekly. That newspaper stands behind it, and stands behind the reporting that underlies it. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We agree, then, that the Silverglate piece is an op-ed.  Featured on the op-ed page.  Meant to reflect an individual point of view.  Only. 
“op–ed page. The page usually opposite the editorial page of a newspaper that features by-lined articles reflecting individual points of view.”  --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)  00:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not gossip. It is the core assertion of a news report that appeared in the leading professional news source for the Massachusetts Bar. — MarkBernstein

“gossip. 4. Rumor, report, … or behind-the-scenes information….” — Webster’s Third.

“Be wary of sources … that attribute material to anonymous sources.” — WP:BLPGOSSIP

“anonymous. 1. Having or giving no name; of a name or with the name unknown or unrevealed; nameless <an anonymous author>.” — Webster’s Third.

Silverglate attributes the behind-the-scenes information to unnamed sources.  Lawyers call this kind of material ‘legal gossip’.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

... and for those who haven’t been reading both Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz:

Compare Aaron Swartz as edited by David in DC at 03:05, 8 February 2013:

According to attorney Harvey Silverglate, who is of counsel to the first firm to represent Swartz on the federal charges, lawyers familiar with the case told him the Middlesex County District Attorney had planned to resolve Swartz’s case with a "stern warning" and "continuance without a finding." As he explained to c|net's Declan McCullagh

Under such a disposition, the charge is held in abeyance ("continued") without any verdict ("without a finding"). The defendant is on probation for a period of a few months up to maybe a couple of years at the most; if the defendant does not get into further legal trouble, the charge is dismissed, and the defendant has no criminal record. This is what the lawyers expected to happen when Swartz was arrested....

"Tragedy intervened," Silverglate wrote in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, "when Ortiz's office took over the case to send 'a message.'"

with Carmen Ortiz as edited by David in DC at 17:24, 5 February 2013:

According to attorney Harvey Slivergate, who is affiliated with the firm that first represented Swartz on the federal charges, the Middlesex County District Attorney had planned to resolve Swartz's case in state court with a "stern warning" and a "continuance without a finding". As he explained to c|net

Under such a disposition, the charge is held in abeyance ("continued") without any verdict ("without a finding"). The defendant is on probation for a period of a few months up to maybe a couple of years at the most; if the defendant does not get into further legal trouble, the charge is dismissed, and the defendant has no criminal record. This is what the lawyers expected to happen when Swartz was arrested for "trespassing at MIT." But then the feds took over....

"Tragedy intervened," Slivergate wrote in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, "when Ortiz's office took over the case to send 'a message.'

See also Talk:Carmen Ortiz: Slivergate analysis and reporting:

[…] Please do not revert negative information just because it's negative.[…] David in DC (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

and Carmen Ortiz: Revision history:

• 14:10, 5 February 2013‎ Collect (talk) . . (rm sentence which is pure opinion and not a clear fact from a BLP -)

--Dervorguilla (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

An interesting selection to cite, that Ortiz reversion. Because it did not stand. Consensus was that the quote was kosher, it was reinserted, and more than two months later, it stands. As I've already noted once, this decision to re-argue extensively discussed and resolved consensus decisions, months later, with absolutely no new insight, is part of a disturbing, disruptive pattern of editing behavior that ill-becomes its author. David in DC (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the consensus David in DC mentions above.  See Slivergate analysis and reporting at Carmen Ortiz.

…Please do not revert. Please discuss, here. David in DC (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The new edit seems less problematic than some earlier versions were.… Collect (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a new insight (one of several).

08:27, 16 April 2013 Dervorguilla . . (→Arrest and state charges: +'On November 17, Swartz was indicted by a Middlesex Superior Court grand jury on state charges of breaking and entering with intent, larceny of electronic data, and unauthorized access to a computer network.’)

Collect was right.  Other edits by David in DC have been more problematic.  But given our new insight, does any of the old material have to be kept?  If so, which part? --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(One of David in DC’s allegedly ‘problematic’ edits at Carmen Ortiz can be attributed to me.)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've thoroughly rewritten the Ortiz grafs to remedy the paralels between the prose on that page and this. I don't think it was necessary, but it ain't hard to use the same sources and wrote the prose two different ways, so what the hell.

But this business of suggesting that that an op-ed piece cannot contain reporting, as well as opinion, is poppycock. Silverglate is reporting facts when he indicates what the sources have told him. (And I've said this before, but it seems as likely that his unnamed sources include peeved Middlesex County ADA's as outraged Swartz attorneys. Give his article a close reading. He's not just giving voice to defense outrage. He's also giving props to state prosecutors vis-a-vis the feds.)

He then opines about the facts, but the best newspaper opinion columns include reportage that provides a foundation for the opinions it expresses. Please read the topic paragraph of this Wall Street Journal article written after the death of Robert Novak. I was no great fan of The Prince of Darkness' politics, but I read his column religiously, precisely because he reported his op-eds every bit as much as he opined in them. Silverglate's piece reminded me very much of a Novak op-ed, chock full of factual reporting AND fearless opinion-slinging. And that, folks, may be the only time you ever read a paragraph arguing that Novak and Silverglate ever had anything in common, about anything. David in DC (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In any case, *any* article in a news journal must, when it asserts facts, adhere to that journal's rules. At the very least, Mass Lawyers Weekly stands by the assertion that the sources are accurately represented and that they should be expected to know, or can be shown to know, what they're saying. One editor here apparently thinks something in these uncontroversial remarks is unbearably embarrassing to someone, and has been grasping at straws since the date of publication for some rationale to exclude it. I really don't understand why this is such a focus of their attention, or why Wikipedia is the appropriate venue for the fight. Why not write to the editor of Mass Lawyers Weekly if the editor thinks the Silverglate piece was intolerable? Why not take the case to The Boston Globe or the Herald? Wikipedia is not the best or only place to defend one's son-in-law or second cousin. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dervorguilla denies MarkBernstein’s malicious accusation by innuendo that a member of her immediate family has an affiliation with USAMA.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

'Arrest and state charges', proposed revision

Draft

==== Arrest and state charges ====

On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested near the Harvard campus by two MIT police officers and a U.S. Secret Service agent on state charges of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony.

Attorney Harvey Silverglate wrote an op-ed for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly describing what some lawyers familiar with the case told him: they had expected that Middlesex County District Attorney Gerard Leone would have the breaking-and-entering charges held in abeyance (continued without a finding) for at most two years and then dismissed, should Swartz have caused no further trouble in the meantime.

On November 17, Leone had Swartz indicted by a Middlesex Superior Court grand jury on charges of breaking-and-entering with intent, larceny of electronic data, and unauthorized access to a computer network. On December 16, he had the charges dismissed.

Swartz’s law firm said federal prosecutors had been running the investigation since he was first arrested:

The lead prosecutor in Mr. Swartz’s [federal] case, AUSA Stephen Heymann, ... and [Secret Service] Agent Pickett directed and controlled the investigation of Mr. Swartz from the time of [his] arrest on January 6, 2011.... Heymann’s involvement in the case had commenced very early in the investigation....

^ …

^ Silverglate, Harvey (January 23, 2013). "The Swartz suicide and the sick culture of the DOJ". Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2013-01-24. "It was anticipated that the state charge would be continued without a finding, with Swartz duly admonished and then returned to civil society to continue his pioneering electronic work in a less legally questionable manner. Tragedy intervened when Ortiz’s office took over the case to send ‘a message.’"
^ McCullagh, Declan (January 25, 2013), "Swartz didn't face prison until feds took over case, report says". c|net. Retrieved 2013-02-07.
^ …

--Dervorguilla (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)  23:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I declare that I do not intend to do any edit-warring. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No. You're trying (again) to impeach Silverglate, whose authoritative interviews have the been widely reported. I think we're all tired of this argument, which for reasons unknown you've been trying to push without respite since January -- three full months ago. Silverglate did not write as Swartz's advocate, as you insinuate. The current language is fine.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to call attention of my fellow editors to a new practice Dervorguilla has adopted, of making ten or more consecutive tiny edits and embedding one or more POV edits in the middle of them. This both hides the major edit and makes it hard to revert, since subsequent minor edits conflict with a revert. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken note of it and tried to remedy it in one specific area. As stated above below, if her sophisticated version of edit-warring continues, it's time to call in the admins to review my work, hers, and any others' they need to review, and issue some guidance, corrective sanctions, or both. David in DC (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all.  WP:PERSONAL.  Or to try to prevent, see above (cited by other user below).  --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)  16:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"I declare that I do not intend to do any edit-warring. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)"

After my latest edits, her declaration shall be put to the test. If it proves false, in my view, it's time for admins to review my edits, hers, and take such action as they deem appropriate. David in DC (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan!  ;)   --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Restoring nice consensus version as edited by Ocaasi at 16:30, 7 February 2013, and supported by MarkBernstein at 16:38, 7 February 2013.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad you don't intend to edit war this time. I'm not sure just what you think is better about the Feb 7 version than the current version. Some details of references and punctuation that have been recently approved would be lost by the revert. And what's the point? What is it about this passage in Silverglate that matters to you so much that you'd risk another ban block to try to soften it? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think she's risking a block, rather than a ban, but I'm mystified too. As I typed yesterday, "[i]f it [Dervorguilla's declaration disclaiming intent to edit war] proves false, in my view, it's time for admins to review my edits, hers, and take such action as they deem appropriate." Yo, lurking admins, this is your cue. David in DC (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Addressing MarkBernstein′s comment (“Some details of references and punctuation that have been recently approved would be lost by the revert.”).

I believe that no details of references or punctuation would be lost.  Can you explain your remark?

See generally CIV: “Other uncivil behaviors: …; lying”.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

“admission by silence.  The failure of a party to speak after another party’s assertion of fact that, if untrue, would naturally compel a person to deny the statement.”

Dervorguilla respectfully asks that MarkBernstein

     (a) deny he was lying or

     (b) reword or strikeout his comment.

Identifying incivility (“Other uncivil behaviors: lying”).  --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi consensus text of Feb 7

Restoring the Ocaasi–Jeff G.–Shearonink–MarkBernstein–Dervorguilla consensus text of February 7 (reverted by David in DC on February 8).

Ocaasi has asserted that the rephrased text is “more neutral” than the old MB–DDC text.

“Rephrase, a bit more neutrally.” — Ocaasi.

Ocaasi, Jeff G, Shearonink, MB, and Dervorguilla appear to have agreed that the old material by MB and DDC ought to be rephrased more neutrally.  See page history.

About ten hours after Ocaasi published the consensus text, it was reverted.  By DDC.  He didn’t disagree that the old material was less neutral; rather, he said:

         “With 1 dissenting voice, talk page consensus favors including this material.” — DDC.

So far, no editor appears to have disagreed with Ocaasi’s assertion that the consensus text is more neutral.  All editors:  If you think it isn’t, or if you’d rather have it restored anyway, could you give your reasoning here?  --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)  13:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CNET 'echo' of op-ed

Removing the CNET reference, as suggested by Seth Finkelstein:

== c|net and Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly are reliable sources ==
[…] Can someone explain why we're substituting our own opinions for what's been published in c|net, a reliable secondary source. --David in DC 01:34, 7 February 2013

The McCullagh article isn’t a reliable source for BDP.  It was not fact-checked by CNET. --Dervorguilla 06:32, 7 February 2013

[…] I would suggest that CNET be left out of it, since that's just an echo of the original post.[…] -- Seth Finkelstein 08:41, 7 February 2013

So far, no editor has disagreed that some of the statements in the McCullagh article about the Silverglate op-ed are false.  All editors:  If you believe that the article was indeed fact-checked, could you give your reasoning here?  --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)  13:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No. No. and No This is getting very old. (a) The Silverglate article was published by Mass Lawyers Weekly, which stands behind it. (b) The CNET article was published by CNET, which stands behind that article. (c) You apparently have special super-secret knowledge that leads you to believe the McCullagh article is in some way incorrect but if you've cited a reliable independent source for that knowledge, I haven't seen it. Instead, for three months you pretend that one article or the other was not "fact checked" or that background sourcing can't be cited in Wikipedia or something else. Please, stop this. It’s over. Finished. Dead as John Cleese's parrot. If you want to impeach McCullagh, force CNET to retract the story. If you have super-secret knowledge, get Mass Lawyers Weekly to publish your story. Until then, please leave the article (and us) alone.MarkBernstein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Henriette Campagne (Vice President for Editorial) can address your question about whether Mass Lawyers Weekly fact-checked the Silverglate op-ed.  “Henriette can be contacted … by e-mail at henriette campagne @ masslawyersweekly com.”

Answer:  MLW doesn’t fact-check op-eds.

That’s my “special super-secret knowledge”.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

'Does mass lawyers weekly not stand behind the publication? Bring us a a published retraction, not private correspondence and original research.MarkBernstein (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Henriette Campagne can address your question about whether Mass Lawyers Weekly is publishing a retraction of the Silverglate op-ed.  “Henriette can be contacted at (617) 218-[....].”

Dervorguilla has no private correspondence on the matter.

Your request is denied.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about here. These pseudo-legalism is at best obscure. Mass Lawyers Weekly stands by its article, which should be included here. I can't for the life of me fathom what bothers you so much about it; it appears to me to simply state a fact that everyone understands but for with Mass Lawyers Weekly provided a solid, though off-the-record, source. MarkBernstein (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dervorguilla is denying your request for production of the “published retraction” specified by you, which you asked her to provide for inspection.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE

The second heading in WP:MOSQUOTE, about typographic conformitysiderations, is being routinely ignored on this page. It indicates, in its very first "bullet point" that brackets should be used within direct quotations to avoid having capital letters in the middle of sentences. Please read the Manual of Style and please do not "correct" the series of MOS edits I'm about to make. I understand that this aspect of the Wikipedia Manual of Style may not be in accord with a couple of other style guides. But guess what: on Wikipedia, where our Manual of Style conflicts with Turabian, or the AP, or MLA, or Strunk & White, or Little, Brown, or Stan Lee's Guide to the Marvel Way, we take the unusual step of following our own style and usage rules. David in DC (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That heading about typographical conformity is indeed being routinely ignored−by one editor only.  Review the most pertinent illustrations at WP:MOS...
     Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable."
     Bob said, "Did Jim say 'I ate the apple' after he left?"
     Eve said, "He ate the apple."
     Eve said "He ate the apple."
     She said "Yes!"
Also, purely typographical alterations shouldn’t be bracketed.
     A penny saved is a penny earned.
     … the oft-repeated maxim "a penny saved is a penny earned" …
not
     … the oft-repeated maxim "[a] penny saved is a penny earned" …
And cf. MOSR:Curly or straight: Currently there is no consensus regarding which quotation glyphs to use.
The erroneous serial editing (and the WP:MOSQUOTE misquotation) are unacceptable.  In most cases, attention-seeking edits should be reverted without comment.  I believe however that in this case the responsible editor is thoughtful enough to revert his own edits and strikethrough his remarks.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Dervorguilla has just made her own attention-seeking (minor) edit — to the hidden comment in the lede about ‘hanged’ vs. ‘hung’ — and reverted.  Restore if you think it improves on the original (and is mildly humorous).  (“Both men AND women are ‘hanged’.”)  Thx!  --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) I deny "attention-seeking". I'm just trying to get it right. (2) I'm wrong about needing brackets when I change a capital in the middle of a sentence. The rules says just do it without brackets. Some examples say don't do it. I'm going with the text rather than the examples. (3) While the MOS language does say there's a lack of consensus over "straight v. curly", they also say consistence is most impotant, and straight is prefered over curly. I'm leaving those. (4) Both are correct and yours is funnier. I'll reinsert. David in DC (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!  (What’s also amusing is that some of the examples at WP:MOS directly contradict its guidelines, as David in DC discovered.)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Harmonizing sources

I'd like to suggest that federal control of the investigation from the outset does not necessarily contradict Silverglate's reporting nor CNET's additional reporting about the initial state charges and prosecution. (And CNET really isn't just an echo - the Silverglate quote in the CNET report helps move us forward.)

It seems irefutable that the feds were in on this from the beginning. It's the only way having a Secret Service agent on hand at the arrest makes sense. And Heymann is a notable expert in cybercrime. But none of that means the feds were going to prosecute the case, under the CFAA, at first. Investigation and prosecution are different things.

Something changed while the state charges were pending. There's no reason to doubt Silverglate's reporting about what the D.A. intended to do and what all the lawyers expected. (And again, I'll note that his sources likely include outraged Swartz attorneys AND peeved Middlesex ADA's. Defense attorneys don't much like federal prosecutors, on principal. But, generally, state prosecutors don't like being big-footed by the feds either. It's even worse in law enforcement, where state cops routinely call FBI agents "the feebs," a play on words making use of truncation of the word "feeble.")

We've got a report about what changed everything. Quinn Norton writes that she'd assumed the feds knew about the Manifesto. She mentioned it in answer to questions from Heymann, never dreaming he'd never heard of it. She's now concuded, she wrote, that this ill-advised mention is what made Heymann (and Ortiz) decide to, quite literally, "make a federal case of it."

Connecting these dots, in the article, violates WP:SYNTH. Our job is to put all the dots out there, as coherently and in as neutral a way as possible. How to connect them is the reader's job.

Dervorguilla, your efforts on this page and on the Ortiz page are being slapped back, by totally unconnected editors, because you're trying to make the "the feds controlled the case all along" trope guide the story. That's not wiki-editing. It might make a good op-ed piece in a newspaper. As I've written earlier, the best op-ed writing is based on a foundation of reportage. What makes it opinion is the conclusions the author draws from the facts.

But here, on wikipedia, we're Joe Friday. Just the facts, ma'am.

So please, I beg of thee, stop treating "the feds controlled the case all along" as if it, of necessity, contradicts Silverglate. Whether it does or not is up to the reader. Your editing behavior on this is counter-productive and it's disruptive to the project. If it continues, unabated, it's archetypal edit-warring. We all know where that's led you once. Please consider making new mistakes. Making mistakes is an inevitable feature of the human condition. But making the same mistake over and over is not. That's entirely optional. And unwise. David in DC (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just popping in for a moment - "the feds" isn't a unitary entity. The Secret Service, indeed involved at the start due to the nature of the investigation, isn't the same department as the Federal prosecutor for the Massachusetts district. Also, while I'm sure mentioning the Manifesto didn't help matters, I have a hard time seeing it as making all the difference between prosecution and not prosecuting. It would indeed help establish motive, but there's still all the complicated legal issues pertaining to "access", which don't depend on motive. Norton might sadly be experiencing some survivor's guilt. Regarding CNET, I'm not passionate about excluding it, and personally wouldn't put much effort into arguing to leave it out. From my point of view, quoting general journalism to explain legal concepts is bad practice (though not inaccurate in this specific instance, but that's more akin to accident than design). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing excessive quotes

Pertinent thread at Reliable sources noticeboard:  Can an op-ed by an eminent lawyer be used to support a contentious statement in a BDP (Aaron Swartz) or BLP (Carmen Ortiz)?  What if the lawyer attributes his information to anonymous sources who were engaged in a legal dispute with the LP?  --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

'“[The local D.A. was planning for Swartz’s state case to be] continued without a finding, with Swartz duly admonished and then returned to civil society to continue his pioneering electronic work in a less legally questionable manner.  Tragedy intervened when Ortiz’s office took over the case to send ‘a message’.”

The amount of quotes in the Swartz article is excessive; … a shorter article would have far greater effectiveness.  I note the example quote given above is “first year law” and thus of little value – and ESP as to what someone “would have done”; [this] is speculation in any event, which must be sourced to the specific person asserting such knowledge.  [comment by Collect (talk) at Reliable sources noticeboard 13:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)]

--Dervorguilla (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)  17:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


Removing dispensable 155-word quote, as recommended by Collect at WP:RSN (April 30) (“amount of quotes … is excessive....  The quote is ‘first year law’ and thus of little value”).

According to attorney Harvey Silverglate, lawyers familiar with the case told him the Middlesex County District Attorney's plan had been to resolve Swartz’s case by having it “...continued without a finding, with Swartz duly admonished and then returned to civil society to continue his pioneering electronic work in a less legally questionable manner.”  As he explained to CNET’s Declan McCullagh:  “Under such a disposition, the charge is held in abeyance (‘continued’) without any verdict (‘without a finding’).  The defendant is on probation for a period of a few months up to maybe a couple of years at the most; if the defendant does not get into further legal trouble, the charge is dismissed, and the defendant has no criminal record.  This is what the lawyers expected to happen when Swartz was arrested.”  “Tragedy intervened,” Silverglate wrote in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, “when [United States Attorney Carmen] Ortiz’s office took over the case to ‘send a message’.”

Removing CNET ref at Arrest and state charges, as suggested by SethFinkelstein at Harmonizing sources (May 1, 2013) (“quoting general journalism to explain legal concepts is bad practice”).

Removing dispensable 64-word quote, in accord with Collect at WP:RSN (April 30) (“amount of quotes … is excessive”).

Malamud went on to link PACER to Swartz′s subsequent prosecution in the JSTOR case.  “Was the overly aggressive posture of the Department of Justice prosecutors and law enforcement officials revenge because they were embarrassed that – in their view at least – we somehow got away with something in the PACER incident?  Was the merciless JSTOR prosecution the revenge of embarrassed bureaucrats because they looked stupid in the New York Times, because the U.S. Senate called them on the carpet?”

Removing dispensable 50-word quote, in accord with Collect at WP:RSN (“amount of quotes … is excessive”).  Content is one author’s opinion (“Voices”) only.  Not an organizational opinion.  Published in MSNBC, not in flagship NBCNews.  Because the author isn’t a recognized expert on Swartz or on law, his opinion isn’t significant.
Cf. WP:NEWSORG in WP:RS (“Editorial commentary [and] analysis ... are rarely reliable for statements of fact.…  The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.”

MSNBC contributor Chris Hayes criticized the prosecutors, saying “at the time of his death Aaron was being prosecuted by the federal government and threatened with up to 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines for the crime of – and I’m not exaggerating here – downloading too many free articles from the online database of scholarly work JSTOR.”

Removing dispensable 48-word quote from 100-word LONGQUOTE, in accord with Collect at WP:RSN (“amount of quotes … is excessive”).

“Heymann engaged in serious prosecutorial misconduct on multiple occasions.”…  Of Holder, she wrote, “The Department of Justice is not interested in admitting their errors, even when an out of control US Attorney’s office has cost this country one of our best and brightest.  The DOJ is only interested in covering their asses.”

Removing dispensable 40-word quote, in accord with Collect at WP:RSN (“amount of quotes … is excessive”).

Slate technology columnist Farhad Manjoo said, “If MIT truly wants to atone for joining the federal case against Swartz ... it should pledge to spend its money, prestige, and moral authority to launch a multiuniversity campaign to free every scholarly article from behind paywall archives like JSTOR.”

Dervorguilla again denies MarkBernstein’s accusation that “You … have special super-secret knowledge”.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

MarkBernstein may be “involved” in the article.  Cf. comment at Dervorguilla:Talk.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, as argued above. But I'm busy as conference chair at ACM Web Science. Could someone else please cope with Dervorguilla' this time? Thanks in advance. MarkBernstein (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Administrators’ noticeboard/Edit warring, reported by Dervorguilla (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Who Was/Were the Judge(s) Who Oversaw the Prosecution to Date?

It would be helpful to know who the judge(s) were, as this case progressed. E.g., was it Mark Wolf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benefac (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Roanne Sragow, state, mitcrimeclub.org/SwartzFilings-state.pdf; Nathaniel Gorton, federal, ia700504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137971/gov.uscourts.mad.137971.docket.html.  The federal proceedings were held before a magistrate judge, Judith Dein (who hears pretrial matters only).  --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)  12:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Restoring Silverglate

The previous consensus language was as follows:

Writing in Mass. Lawyers’ Weekly, Harvey Silverglate reported that lawyers familiar with the original case told him they had expected it to be dismissed after a “‘continuance without a finding’.... The charge [would be] held in abeyance ... without any verdict ... for a period of a few months up to maybe a couple of years.” (If the defendant manages to stay out of further legal trouble, the case is typically dismissed.) “Tragedy intervened,” Silverglate said, “when [U.S. Attorney Carmen] Ortiz’s office took over the case to send a message.”

One editor objects to this, and has repeatedly excised the passage. Nothing here seems particularly controversial or duplicative. My opinion is that this information will help readers understand the JSTOR issue, that there is no reason to doubt the authority of either Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly or CNET, and that this straightforward question has now consumed a great deal of time and energy to the detriment of the article and of the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The original language was

Writing in Mass. Lawyers’ Weekly, Harvey Silverglate reported that lawyers familiar with the original case told him they had expected it to be dismissed after a “‘continuance without a finding’.... The charge [would be] held in abeyance ... without any verdict ... for a period of a few months up to maybe a couple of years.” (If the defendant manages to stay out of further legal trouble, the case is typically dismissed.) “Tragedy intervened,” Silverglate said, “when [U.S. Attorney Carmen] Ortiz’s office took over the case to send a message.”

How might this be rewritten to address Devorgiulia's concerns while retaining all the facts? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

MarkBernstein asked that I come here from AN3, so here I am. From what I can tell, there's a disagreement over whether or not the Silverglate source is acceptable and if it goes against WP:UNDUE. Is that a fair reading of the situation?

Also, may I remind Dervorguilla that this is strangely reminiscent of her behaviour three months ago, which resulted in a block for edit warring. Further reversions without discussion are not recommended. m.o.p 19:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- as far as I can tell, these are the grounds of the disagreement. 20:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs)

Dervorguilla gratefully acknowledges the contributions of:

• Sysop Ocaasi at Aaron Swartz (concern about BLPSOURCES)

15:55, 7 February 2013‎ Ocaasi] . . (→‎JSTOR: rephrase, a bit more neutrally …)

• Sysop Bbb23 at BLPN:Stephen Heymann (concern about BLPSOURCES)

More input would be appreciated with respect to recent changes [by MarkBernstein] to the article.… --Bbb23 18:56, 17 March 2013

Harvey Silvergate’s essay for Mass Lawyers Weekly is not inappropriate for a biography of a living person.… --MarkBernstein 23:33, 17 March 2013

I don’t care if it was written by a supreme court justice. It’s an opinion piece that attacks Heymann.… --Bbb23 00:27, 18 March 2013

• Rollbacker FreeRangeFrog at Talk:Stephen Heymann (concern about GRAPEVINE)

The Harvey Silvergate report in Mass Lawyers Weekly is entirely appropriate for a biography of a living person.… --MarkBernstein 23:40, 17 March 2013

OK, I’ll give you my humble opinion. Including the essay directly is original research. Basically it means “I think this guy is right”…. --FreeRangeFrog 18:03, 22 March 2013

• Sysop Collect at RSN (concern about BLPSOURCES)

… I note the example quote given above is “first-year law” – and thus of little value, esp as to what someone “would have done”, this being speculation in any event, which must be sourced to the specific person asserting such knowledge. --Collect 13:56, 30 April 2013

• Sysop Collect at AN3 (concern about NOPR)

… My employer’s house magazine, TEKKA, did publish some work by Swartz seven or eight years ago. I’d completely forgotten those discussions about getting teenage Swartz to write a book.… --MarkBernstein 07:49, 3 May 2013

The TEKKA website presents you as more than just an “employee”. I think that your words on it suggest a stronger connection that you seem to imply here to the Swartz article. --Collect 08:04, 3 May 2013

[Typographical errors and grammatical slips have been silently corrected.] --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)  12:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Swartz was quite prolific, especially in circles that often overlap with Wikimedians. You couldn't swing a dead cat around here without hitting someone who has some sort of "six degrees of separation" connection to Swartz. Best to focus on behavior, not identity. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Full Disclosure of Financial Interests:  I myself have no kind of connection to Swartz.  Do you have evidence that some other editor on this page does — beside MarkBernstein?  --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Note to bystanders: Here's the shopping list of quotes again. Dervorguilla, not having received the support she was looking for at AN3, has now taken this discussion to ANI. And here. And she's started making inconsequential edits at Eastgate Systems, in which she's presumably interested because I work there. At other pages, these inconsequential edits have been the prelude to an edit war. This is getting tiresome.

Substance: is Silverglate WP::UNDUE? Perhaps for Steve Heymann, since we have no idea whether he was or was not involved in the federal takeover and escalation which Silverglate's source discusses. But clearly this is not undue for Swartz, nor for Carmen Ortiz (since it was, ultimately, her decision and her responsibility).

Is Silverglate a reliable source? Silverglate published a background quote in an established professional journal; that's a reliable source. It was picked up by CNET, which also stands behind the statement. Far from retracting the quote, Mass Lawyers Weekly ran a front-page story on reaction to story in the following issue. Silverglate's source might be mistaken, but we have the full credit of the paper that the quote is not invented or misrepresented.

Does User:MarkBernstein have a conflict of interest? This seems to be the thrust of the final quotation here. But it regards a handshake for serial rights for a projected technical monograph, reached years ago with a teenager who never did write the book. Anyone in publishing has "conflicts" like this with half the world. It has no bearing at all on anything we're discussing here. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Says Silverglate: The op-ed was misinterpreted, Ortiz did not say she was sending “a message”.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Eastgate Systems, not EastgateSystems.  Diff not a minor.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Do the two editors in the dispute have an example "diff" between your two proposed languages? --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor Dervorguilla would support wording proposed by more authoritative editors, like Bbb23, Collect, FreeRangeFrog, Ocaasi, RightCowLeftCoast, or Guardian columnist SethFinkelstein.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

HectorMoffet: I'd support the language at the top of this section. As far as I can see, Dervorguilla insists that the passage and reference not appear at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If that’s how the other editors feel.  But Dervorguilla is hoping that MarkBernstein could first give everyone access to that front-page story about the reaction to the op-ed.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. I came her through a notification, as I was mentioned.

My understand is that the source from the Mass. Lawyers’ Weekly, as discussed at RSN, was an OpEd piece. As I said there, even if the information in the OpEd is factual, as an OpEd it should only be used to verify the opinions of the OpEd's author. Therefore, the question really is, is the author's opinion significant amount that it should have weight in this article? Who is the author, why is their opinion important to the subject? Is the author a leading authority, etc.?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The author is a leading criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts, with special expertise in this sort of prosecution. The refs to his own wikipedia article are a good place to start in assessing his expertise. Not the wiki-article itself, written by hacks like us, but the reliable sources the article is based upon. Massachusetts Lawyers' Weekly's publication of his reportage and opinions in this piece (it has both factual reporting AND opinion) also stands for his reliability. It is, itself, a respected journal in the legal community. CNET's choice to cover his original piece, and further interview him, stand for the reliability and credibility of the original piece. The quotes from CNET, as opposed to Massachusetts Lawyers' Weekly ought to be beyond questioning. We cite to CNET as a reliable source all the time. I'm looking forward to MarkBernstein providing the subsequent front page article from Massachusetts Lawyers' Weekly, buttressing Silverglate's original reporting. It's likely to make all but the most zealous detractor of the consensus language at the top of this section recognize the correctness of the consensus. David in DC (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the paper copy. Possible leads (behind a paywall) include http://masslawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/ortiz-under-fire/ , http://masslawyersweekly.com/2013/01/24/a-lesson-in-the-wake-of-the-swartz-tragedy/ , http://masslawyersweekly.com/the-docket-blog/2013/03/12/d-c-hearing-still-unscheduled-on-swartz/ . There's also http://www.wbur.org/2013/02/20/carmen-ortiz-investigation , a report on a joint investigation of WBUR (a Boston-area NPR station) and Mass Lawyers Weekly. Perhaps useful here or for Carmen Ortiz, http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swart . MarkBernstein (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In looking at the sources, and the article about Silverglate, I am now more cautious regarding inclusion of a full quote from the individual, per WP:NOTADVOCATE. The organization which Silvergate has cofounded appears to have questionable notability, and if Silverglate's opinion is significant there should be other reliable sources other then the op-ed itself that have repeated/reported the opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The question is not Silverglate's notability (though he is notable), nor his opinion (though it is widely shared -- see the article and the sources listed immediately above.) The article reports a background interview with a source "familiar with the original [state] case" which is (so far) uniquely Silverglate's source. This is hardly unusual in reporting -- compare Watergate, for one of innumerable examples -- and such reports are as reliable as the underlying publication. In this case, Mass Lawyer's Weekly and CNET implicitly assure readers that "a source familiar with the original case" did say what he or she is claimed to have said. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The three sources in Mass Lawyers Weekly that MarkBernstein is citing to support the statement he’s given us are available at [LINK REDACTED] --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these are the sources MarkBerstein is alluding to, or not. But there's a much bigger problem here. The link above, which I've hidden, is rife with copyright violations.

One of these is a joint report from WBUR and Mass Lawyers Weekly. Here a version not protected by a paywall, nor needing to be cited to the MIT Crime Club's posting of copyright-protected material from a Nexis/Lexis search: Boeri, David and David Frank, Ortiz Under Fire: Critics Say Swartz Tragedy Is Evidence Of Troublesome Pattern, 90.9-WBUR website, 20 February 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2013. It doesn't include Silverglate's reporting about what the attorneys close to the case told him they expected the result of the state prosecution to be. But it's a rich source for criticism of the federal prosecution and prosecutors in Swartz's case and in a series of others. Some is from a former federal judge who'd criticized Ortiz's office in prior cases before that judge, and who is at least equally critical of the handling of the Swartz case. Some is from the decisions of other judges in cases brought by the US Attorney for Massachusetts. Some is from academics, and some is from defense counsel with experience on the receiving end of the Office's less-than-universally praised conduct in criminal court.

One is a brief article, about when and whether Ortiz will appear before Issa's committee. Again, it might be useful to add info from this article to the Issa investigation section, but we couldn't link to the copyright-violating document the MIT Crime club has posted. That's OK, there's no requirement that a ref be retrievable on the Internet.

One is a fairly brief article about federal jurisprudence under the CFAA. It's tangentially related to the Swartz case. It might be good for beefing up the CFAA wiki-article. But again, we could not link to the copyright-violating version from the MIT Crime Club's .pdf of a Lexis/Nexis search.

Query: should the link Dervorguilla has posted to this talk page be oversighted? I'm guessing her violation of our copyright rules is inadvertant. She's probably just trying to be helpful and has enlisted assistance from the club she used to advise and whose wikipedia page she has tended to over time. But I think the link is problematic, even on a talk page and even if posted in good faith. In an excess of caution, I'm going to hide the link for now. If I'm wrong, would an admin please unhide it? David in DC (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remain included To my knowledge, it looks like we should include the Silvergate quote (or an equivalent source). Basically, the reader should know that initial arrest on state charges alone would not normally have led to much more than a warning, were it not for the DOJ "making a a Federal Case out of it". That's a useful fact that is essential to understand, and I don't think that's a point in dispute, is it? The current quote explains this fact well, but perhaps other sources explain it better. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

HectorMoffet:  Do we agree, then, that if the allegation’s more likely false than true, the quote’s not too useful?

• We’ve yet to find found a source that supports Harvey’s allegation.  MarkBernstein’s research suggests we’re not likely to.
• Leone’s official statement on the matter indicates that he wanted to prosecute Swartz himself, for the publicity.

Press Release, Middlesex Dist. Attorney, Cambridge Man Indicted on Breaking & Entering Charges, Larceny Charges in Connection with Data Theft (Nov. 17, 2011):

Aaron Swartz was indicted today on [state] charges of Breaking and Entering with Intent to Commit a Felony, [Grand] Larceny, …

“The defendant violated the trust of a not-for-profit organization [JSTOR] by stealing …, going so far as to physically break into a MIT server room in order to continue his theft undisturbed,” Leone said.  “The steps he took to accomplish his thievery were criminal.”

Emphasis added.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What reliable published source states that the background quotation in the Silverglate passage was not, in fact, provided by a "lawyer familiar with the original case"? I know of know reliable published source that claims this. Dervorguilla apparently believes that Silverglate’s source was lying or misinformed, but of course Silverglate, his source, and Silverglate’s editors know more than we do -- and we're getting so deep into WP:OR at this point that we can barely see the surface. If we have some reason to also cite the Middlesex DA, that's a separate discussion. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)