Talk:Steve Comisar

Socks and meats and threats, Oh my!

Editors should be aware of the shenanigans outlined at this ANI discussion: [1]. EEng (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No more lobbying/canvassing please!

Please can friends and associates of the subject please stop lobbying for his proposed changes here? It isn't going to work any better now than it has in the past. If anything it is only going to drive greater determination that this content does not go in.

Please can uninvolved editors take a brief moment to skim the old messages on this page so that they are aware of the history of lobbying here and are able to recognise it when they see it, even when it is posed in superficially plausible terms.

I would also like to reiterate a concern I raised here several years ago: It does not seem to be in his own best interests for him to become/remain obsessed with this article and in mythologising his own shady past when he should be thinking about what he has done wrong and how he is going to do better in the future. I'd be quite happy to be back here in another 8 years time adding reliably referenced details to say that he really had become a notable actor, author or found some other legitimate occupation. If this is what he wants to see in this article then he has to make that happen in the real world before it can be reflected here on Wikipedia. If the people lobbying for him really are his friends then they would do well to help him to understand that instead of persisting with their efforts here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe that I have not made myself clear enough yet. Oh well. In that case please let me just add this:

Single Purpose Accounts canvassing on people's talk pages are not welcome either and are not going to fool anybody. This has to stop! Please just give it up so we don't have to go through the rigmarole of holding formal sockpuppet investigations just to prove what we all know. I'm sure we all have better things to do. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The acting that Comisar has done, although not notable in itself, is sourced online and worthy of mention in the article. It's appropriate biographical content only because Comisar is the only famous con man who has also done some acting. This fact should not be hidden from the public. I'm suggesting a sentence or two at the end of the "career" section. I am in no way suggesting he is worthy of mention as solely an actor. I fully agree that he is not notable as an actor. I am only disagreeing with your opinion that his acting should not be mentioned anywhere in the article. Amit Mishra, India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniamit (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've answered this on your page and mine, but you need to provide sourcing that would establish that he's acted and that these roles are notable enough to warrant inclusion. Part of the issue people have had is that the only sourcing that has been provided to prove that he acted was IMDb (which anyone can alter and add information to) and a YouTube video of someone that is claimed to be Comisar. Neither of these are considered to be reliable sources. Reliable sources would be something like The Hollywood Reporter or New York Times writing about Comisar and mentioning that he was an actor. As for him being the only famous con man that has done some acting, you have to back claims like that up with RS that not only establish this fact but also show that it's a claim that would give notability. Being the only one or few people to have done something does not automatically establish notability for the claim or that it's something that would warrant mention in an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I also just qot a query on my talk page from Curiouskitten777 on my talk page, which requests help to get his acting and a bit about his alleged fbi status included. I responded there, but thought their might be interested editors at this page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that kitten has now been caged as a sockpuppet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Since we had a sockpuppet come up, I'm going to open an SPI to check for sleepers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• @Maniamit: if he is the only con man who has had acting roles, that might be an interesting fact, but it should be sourced as such, and presented using a source that explicitly states that this is unique to Steve Comisar. LjL (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To celebrate the successful conclusion to the sockpuppet investigation I have rolled up the lobbying here. The intention is to clear away all the old nonsense in the hope that it makes a space for some more constructive discussion in the future. If anybody thinks I made any mistakes, or overdid it, then please tweak as appropriate. I hope things will calm down now but I have my doubts. The presence of an IPv6 address lobbying on his behalf is new and possibly a sign of bad things to come. Lets hope not.

Going forward I suggest that we rollup lobbying on sight. So long as it fits the existing pattern and does not come from an established Wikipedian with a history of valid edits on a range of subjects, I think we can conclude that it is just sockpuppets of the same people as before and that there will be no need to answer them all over again. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. I think that it'd also be worthwhile to have a section that deals with frequently stated claims or requests. For example, I know that several accounts tried to claim the following:

1. That the acting claims were mentioned in the GQ article.
2. That the acting claims were backed up by IMDb and the YouTube video.
3. That the FBI called Comisar one of the top ten con men of all time, which was backed up by an Observer article.

We should have a section or a header that responds to these accordingly, like:

1. The GQ article mentions that Comisar was on talk shows, but does not mention his acting career. (Appearing on these shows does not count as acting.)
2. IMDb is not seen as a RS, nor is a YT clip. What's needed here is in-depth coverage in RS, which is lacking.
3. The Observer article took its content from an interview another website held with Comisar, where he himself made this claim. Claims of this nature cannot be validated by a primary source, especially given that Comisar is known as a con man.

We could then back that up with specific requests for what would be needed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree as well. It would certainly make dealing with his fanboys much easier. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A conman may have conned his way into a couple of bit-parts. Neither surprising nor notable. Time to move on. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Userpage comment

A new IP came to my page and gave a specific cite for the acting claims in the GQ article. I apparently did miss it and there is a mention. Here's what they posted on my page:

"I found Comisar's acting claims in the GQ article, page 156, second paragraph. It says: "Comisar will now make money the legitimate, old fashioned way, by acting. . .He landed a role in the movie, Tough Luck, playing the boyfriend of all things, a femme fatale con artist. . .Producer Josh Etting said, "You know, he's not a bad actor."

I'm going to repeat here what I posted on my talk page. Comisar has effectively poisoned the well here to where it'll take quite a bit (about 2-3 good sources) to really show that the acting would merit a mention on Wikipedia. Comisar repeatedly spammed people on and off-line with requests to add in this information, to the point where it became harassment. During this someone received threats, which made things even worse. He's apparently managed to get people to work on his behalf, which doesn't help matters out in the slightest, since there's already a long history here of harassment and threats with the article. In other words, if someone else does something that could result in them getting reported (which at this point would be easier to do given the history here), then they're the ones that have to deal with the fallout, not Comisar.

Right now the best thing that Comisar and his helpers can do for him is to leave the Wikipedia article alone and wait out the end of his sentence. If he does continue to pursue acting after his release and he gains more roles, then it can be added at that point. The acting at this point is rather incidental to the main point of the article, which is his con man history, so again - there will need to be a lot to warrant inclusion at this point in time.

I need to restate what others have said: trying to aggressively get something added to an article can backfire dramatically if the media picks up on the fact. In other words, the media could report on him stating that he was using online harassment tactics (which is essentially what is going on here) to achieve a goal and if the coverage is heavy enough, this could warrant being added to the article. Since his goal is to rehabilitate his image, this would achieve the exact opposite. Unless those good sources about the acting can be found, it's just best to wait things out. Again, at this point it's extremely unlikely that the acting will be added given the existing sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A conman conned his way into some bit parts. That does not make him an actor, and it certainly does nto constitute a reliably-sourced "acting career" because the source of the claim is, rather obviously, the conman himself. He has two options: drop the stick or, as you say, risk a backfire. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it could backfire in other ways too. The prison and probation people presumably want to know whether he has rehabilitated himself and whether he has any realistic plans for making an honest living when he is released. All of the nonsense we have seen here raises questions over those things and could give them reason to worry. He seems to have no idea how much he is his own worst enemy. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• An IP user came back to my talk page to post this, which they've asked that I post on this page:

"Steven Comisar has been in federal prison for the past 14 years. He has absolutely no access to email or the internet, including Wikipedia. His only contact with the public is through carefully screened US Mail and highly monitored telephone calls. While he is aware of his Wikipedia page, Steven has not instructed anyone to attempt to make any changes whatsoever. He is fully aware that the content of his page is completely out of his control. Steven has literally millions of fans worldwide. Any of these people can be doing this without his knowledge or consent. While Steven is not yet a known actor, he does in fact have real acting credits. Steven's team consists of very well-established and reputable agents, managers, and lawyers. None of us would attempt to use any unethical means to influence the content of his page."

Now what concerns me is that this could mean that the management team is going to stop (meaning that they were behind some of the prior actions, which nobody doubts) and that they could potentially ask the fanbase to make these edits for them. The reason I'm specifying this is because if this is what they're planning on doing, this is just as bad of an idea as if they were to do it themselves. I've made sure to comment on my talk page that it's really not a good idea for anyone to try to add this information in any time soon. If anyone wants to get this added, it'd be a far wiser expenditure of energy to lobby film related RS to write about his acting career. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

What also concerns me is that quite a lot of that stuff you received is very clearly not based in fact. I don't know if he has internet access at the moment but he clearly had access to the internet and a printer when he wrote to me. As for "millions of fans worldwide" and a "team" of professionals... Well, I'm not sure how to respond to that. If it is just a ham fisted line to impress us then it is pathetic but if he really believes it then I feel even more sorry for him. Some people really do believe that they can bend reality around them with their words but only a rare few succeed to any great extent each century. He needs to be thinking realistically about how he will make an honest living when he is released. I am not saying he should not try to do a bit of acting, maybe as a hobby, if he gets a chance, but I think he would be very ill advised to assume that it will be a significant source of income. Which brings me back to my general theme here: It is cruel for anybody to string him along with stories of "millions of fans". The people who purport to be his friends should be helping him to get a grip on reality. He is going to need it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read my edit request responding to Cullen328 and Tokyogirl79. Because of your heavy involvement in the Comisar article, I am also bringing this to your attention in hopes that you can help make this a more fair and balanced article by the inclusion of acting as verified by GQ a reliable source. The article is locked for editing, except for a small handful of professional editors, of which I am not one of. Thank you sir. Undertaker6666 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• More stuff from my talk page. This will be the last thing I'll post from them on this page unless it's something particularly major. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"To clarify the statement in our disclaimer, Mr. Comisar, and his management team, asks the friends, fans, and supporters of him to refrain from attempting to add anything to his Wikipedia page and not make suggestions on any of the Wikipedia talk pages. Any additions made to the Steve Comisar Wikipedia page will be made by experienced editors and administrators only. We do not encourage or condone anyone else making additions or comments to this page. Steve Comisar and his entire management team thank you in advance for your cooperation."

Am I alone, do you think, in concluding that he has many imaginary friends? Guy (Help!) 14:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Kindly add notable con man Steve Comisar to the list of living notable con men. Also, he has been an actor since 1983. His article should at least mention that he is an actor as well as a con man. Puzzling how it's omitted from his article when his acting is mentioned all over the internet equally to his con man career. Undertaker6666 (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Because Comisar "poisoned the well" does not negate the fact that his acting is verified by GQ, a reliable source, and by the Observer, another reliable source. His careers in the article is con man and extortionist. There is only one source on the internet verifying this extortionist career. There are many reliable sources verifying his acting career yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Although IMDb is not a reliable source, All new entries for credits are now verified, and if they are fake, they will not be published on the site. Even if only five or 10 of his many credits are real, he is still a verified actor, and the inclusion of this career should be in the article. In the interest of a fair and balanced article, please add acting somewhere in the article that you deem appropriate. The article is blocked with the exception of a small handful of professional editors, so I will respectfully request that you add acting into the article. That's all. thank you very much. Undertaker6666 (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Cost of the clothesline.

On the article it says that he sold the clothesline for $39.95. On the source it says he sold it for $49.95. BananaBaron (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add to the end of the first paragraph under "Career":

Comisar was convicted of a variety of frauds in 1983, 1990, 1994 and 1999. All these trials took place in Federal court in Los Angeles.

References

 Done Sam Sailor 11:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

Steve Comisar has been released from prison on 27th April, 2018.

Kindly make changes in the first paragraphs

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsh RModi (talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comisar should be added to the list of living notable con men. He is also an actor but his article doesn't say one word about it. Maybe just a sentence "In 2004 Comisar co-starred in the movie Tough Luck." Check the internet because his acting is mentioned just as much as his con man career. Undertaker6666 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

References

I made an edit request but erroneously posted it under the page locking section. Can someone nice please find it and assist me? My first day here and this site is very difficult to navigate. Please help me if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairbot21 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Clothesline story: dubious source

I started looking into this after seeing a meme about it. The only mentions online do not have any references to a first party source. And there /should be/ one, if it really happened, as it was supposedly published in a classified ad.

The one listed on the page (reference 4 at this time) is a book on housekeeping, and it's only included as an aside. I also found a GQ article (The creep with the golden tongue, august that similarly lists it without source, and it's not a direct quote.

I propose that language be added to clarify that this is a claim, and not an established fact. Scordalooper (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"The Creep With the Golden Tongue" is the most detailed and comprehensive coverage of Comisar. We do not require reliable sources to cite their sources, so I see no need to qualify the assertion, unless you can provide a reliable source that calls the assertion into question, Scordalooper. By the way, what brings you to this particular article as your second edit on Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The clothesline scam is real and cited by many reliable sources across the internet. I also agree that the GQ article is the most comprehensive coverage of Comisar. In that same article, Josh Etting, the producer of the movie, Tough Luck, said that Comisar was "not a bad actor." Now there is a reliable source that verifies that besides being an con man, he has also done some acting. The Observer article further verifies his acting and supports the inclusion of his acting in the article. For some reason this article is locked for editing except for certain editors. FYI: While IMDb is not a reliable source they have a new vetting process. All new credits are verified prior to publication and if they are fake the credits will not be published. There is only one source verifying that Comisar is an extortionist. Yet under careers it says he is a con man and an extortionist. Therefore in the interests of fairness his acting should also be included in the article. Take a look and please help if you can. Undertaker6666 (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Comisar's only claim to notability is his criminal record as a con man and extortionist, full stop. The article is semi-protected because Comisar and his associates have been trying to mess with it for the past nine years, and that will not be allowed. Please read WP:IMDB. The consensus of the community is that IMDb is not a reliable source. Comisar and other con artists have added incorrect information to that website, and that is well-documented. "Fairness" in the abstract is not a thing on Wikipedia. The role of Wikipedia editors is to summarize the coverage of the topic, Comisar in this case, in reliable independent sources, giving due weight to the points that all of them make. The preponderance of the sources describe him as a con man. A four word description that he is "not a bad actor" is not significant coverage, and is unsurprising, since con artistry is a pernicious and illegal variant of legal acting. Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but besides Comisar being a con man he has also worked as an actor since 1983. He's been a member of SAG-AFTRA since 1985. There are reliable references on the Internet supporting his acting work starting with the GQ article, the Observer article and many others. There are also video clips from some of his acting roles on IMDb, YouTube, and other sources that are not allowed as references but still verify the work so an editor can add the acting work using other sources and know that it's real and not a made up career added by Comisar to deceive the public. Because of Comisar being a con man, it is interesting that he has also done some acting which makes adding it a more well rounded, and a fair and balanced article. Even if only a few sentences satisfies the need for inclusion instead of concealing his acting in it's entirety. Everyone has their own opinion on what a bad person Comisar was/is. Unfortunately, his acting is a fact, verified on the internet, and should be added. Undertaker6666 (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Add acting career to header and in career. Referenced by GQ Magazine Undertaker6666 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

See above edit request herein by Undertaker6666 replying to Cullen328 on 18 May 2023 (UTC) Undertaker6666 (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add Comisar's deceptive self-promotional efforts to this article, and until you gain consensus, it is simply not going to happen. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

How can anyone contribute to this article when only a small handful of people are permitted to edit the article? The article has been blocked for general contribution for several years now. It must be nice being the gatekeeper of this article and controlling what gets added and what does not. I don't think intimidating other editors and notable persons who are the subject of these articles is appropriate, fair, or otherwise in compliance with the Wikipedia rules. Undertaker6666 (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Comisar is a con-man who has done some minor acting jobs. Over-emphasis on his theatrical gigs is like treating William F. Buckley, Jr. as an actor because he has a SAG-AFTRA card and has done a couple of cameos. Comisar is not notable for his acting gigs, he is notable for his criminal history. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but shouldn't the acting be worth a sentence or two because it's verified in GQ, the Observer, and other reputable sources? Wouldn't it make the article more interesting revealing that the con man has also done some acting work? Undertaker6666 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add acting to this article as Comisar is in fact an actor besides being a con man. This is verified by GQ and The Observer among other credible sources on the internet. The public should get the whole picture of Comisar not just his conning people. It makes for a fair and balanced article. Please help. Undertaker6666 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

I wonder why they have this talk page if nobody reads it, or makes the requested edits. I am very disappointed with the Wikipedia editors, who are ignoring this important request. Undertaker6666 (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Undertaker6666, you are not using Edit request templates, which alert uninvolved editors. Therefore, nobody knows about your requests. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems very complicated to me. I wouldn't know where to begin. Would you be willing to help me? Undertaker6666 (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If he did in fact have several acting roles this information should be included in the article providing its reliably sourced. Undertaker6666 (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

If he did in fact have several acting roles that were reliably sourced then it should be included in the article. Undertaker6666 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)