JoshuaZ goes after Boothroyd BLP, Plots new bio in user Options

[Kato]

Arch BLP extremist and Prosecutor Horriblus JoshuaZ has been working on a new article on David Boothroyd in his user space. Boothroyd is the guy who ditched his real name account after a kerfuffle in 2007, got another account with a fake name and rose to Arbcom with that other account.

Boothroyd requested to delete the non-notable biography years ago to no avail. There was a flurry of deletes when the story broke of Boothroyd's antics recently, and now JoshuaZ is turning the screws in the only way he knows how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoshuaZ/David_Boothroyd

JoshuaZ's version was 4th in the Google search the last time I looked.

The more I ponder this Boothroyd case, the more sympathy I have for him. Other than being a bit of an asshole, and then being a representative of Wikipedia by sitting on the dreaded Arbcom, DB hasn't done a whole lot wrong. The media who blew up the political storm have exaggerated his crimes not to expose WP, but to score political points in what is all out media / political war in the UK at present. And righteous Wikipedios who bleat about his naughty sockpuppeteering don't have a leg to stand on. Breaking Wikipedia's lame gaming laws is hardly an offence after all. JoshuaZ should know, he was caught at it as well.

And in the end, if a barely notable figure like Boothroyd wants to OPT-OUT, (who lets face it edited WP for years using his real name before anyone gave a crap) then he should be granted his wish. JoshuaZ be damned. Again.

[Viridae]

This should help with the google problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=295440026

[Milton Roe]

And in the end, if a barely notable figure like Boothroyd wants to OPT-OUT, (who lets face it edited WP for years using his real name before anyone gave a crap) then he should be granted his wish. JoshuaZ be damned. Again.

Yes, for just about everybody BUT people contributing to the horrid WP BLP process in the first place. Boothroyd, PLEASE REMEMBER, very nearly does BLP for a living. And not just on people who want them. Almost none of them notable enough to make it into a paper general encyclopedia. And he altered the BLPs of at least one person in an opposing parties that he thought had been unfairly promoted by their, well, promoters. He's given NO sign at all as an admin that he supports the "opt out" policy for others, that he now would seeks to implement permanently for himself.

Tough, Boothroyd. I actually have less sympathy for the celebrity-seekers who find themselves on WP, than I do for him. He helped make it possible for more people-- small time politicians and candidates only recognizable locally, to suffer on the world stage. And now, with his own exposure, he recognizes that this is NO FUN. But it (so far as I can tell) has TOUGHT HIM NOTHING. We have not had a shred of self-insight from him, on WP or anywhere else.

I'm not gunna forgive him until he shows signs of learning something from this. Meanwhile, he's Zelinski's pet in a glass jar. An exquisitely just and perfect place for him.

[Daniel]

For all those who come to this thread and are unsure what the original poster is referring to with regards to Zelinsky's history with BLP, see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15878 . Even now, it is a fascinating read.

[Kato]

JoshuaZ specializes in petitioning to keep borderline notable BLPs against a subject's request. It is an angry obsession, it seems. And he'll go as far as to create sockpuppets to do it, if necessary.

[Random832]

And he altered the BLPs of at least one person in an opposing parties that he thought had been unfairly promoted by their, well, promoters.

Is this something else, or did you swallow the line the conservative papers are pushing about him reverting the photo on the David Cameron article?

[Milton Roe]

And he altered the BLPs of at least one person in an opposing parties that he thought had been unfairly promoted by their, well, promoters.

Is this something else, or did you swallow the line the conservative papers are pushing about him reverting the photo on the David Cameron article?

That wasn't true? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

He has made more edits on the David Cameron article than just about anybody else has (I think he's #2 or #3 editor). Are you saying he worked hard to make the thing more fair in all of that?

[A Horse With No Name]

"In 2007, he was elected to the Arbitration Committee, a body within the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, that settles editorial disputes and is the highest level of dispute resolution on Wikipedia."

I clicked off following that sentence. Lord, what awful writing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Random832]

Is this something else, or did you swallow the line the conservative papers are pushing about him reverting the photo on the David Cameron article?

That wasn't true? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

The photo that was removed was a ridiculous-looking (and probably photoshopped, and a copyright violation anyway) one with him backlit to look like he had a halo (and even without that it was an unflattering picture), it did not belong in any encyclopedia. I suspect none of the papers have even SEEN the picture - which in an ideal world would mean they don't publish about it without checking their facts, but instead they draw their own conclusions about what the edit summary means.

[Somey]

It seems to me that what this proves, or should prove to other Wikipedia users, is that JoshuaZ knows perfectly well that a Wikipedia BLP article can be used as a form of punishment against another person, almost like a public stoning, at least once someone like him (JoshuaZ) takes an interest in it. And that this is why he does what he does.

We've known that all along, of course, and we knew JoshuaZ has been lying about his true motivations since the beginning, but I can't imagine even the most starry-eyed WP'er not also knowing it after looking at this situation.

I'd say the more germane JoshuaZ thread on WR in this instance would be this one, since it attempts to provide a deeper insight into his twisted mentality. Very scary person, though I'm sure if you met him in real life, you wouldn't even notice him if he came up and tried to slap you.

[EricBarbour]

I don't think he's "scary". Just an annoying twit with an inferiority complex.
He won't slap you.....or anyone.

However, he's another handy example of the hypocrisy of WP "governance".

He was caught socking --- in an extremely nasty manner.

Yet he, being an longstanding admin, was NOT BANNED.
Why was he not banned?
Because they love him, and think he's cute??

Many other people have been banned for far, far less.

The problem is not Josh Zelinsky being a little shit,
the problem is that Wikipedia extends to him special treatment.

[cyofee]

The better question is why his socks aren't tagged as such. Someone tried to add them some time ago, but they were reverted and banned.

[Moulton]

As above, so below.

It seems to me that what this proves, or should prove to other Wikipedia users, is that JoshuaZ knows perfectly well that a Wikipedia BLP article can be used as a form of punishment against another person, almost like a public stoning, at least once someone like him (JoshuaZ) takes an interest in it. And that this is why he does what he does.

The trope of public stoning pervades Wikiculture, but only because it pervades all of human society.

We live in an authoritarian, fear-oriented, control-oriented, punishment-oriented police culture. Problematic features of that culture appear in all online communities, including Wikipedia.

In the early days of the Internet, there was some glimmer of hope that the pioneers of cyberspace might evolve beyond that problematic culture to something more enlightened and more functional.

It almost happened.

But then the same socio-cultural disease that has long plagued human political culture infected cyberspace as well.

Pity.

[Cla68]

See here.

[Random832]

I do know that at least one editor subsequently sought to ban JoshuaZ from editing BLPs—apparently being consistently a moderate voice on BLP is a bad thing

moderate?

[RMHED]

See here.

So JZ hits up Rooty about Arby pressure.

JZ backpedals from Rooty's spotlight of integrity, the Arby just chill and watch da fun.

[Somey]

So JZ hits up Rooty about Arby pressure. ... JZ backpedals from Rooty's spotlight of integrity, the Arby just chill and watch da fun.

If I might dare to summarize this particular fiasco, what seems to have happened is that our very own John "Jayvdb" Vandenberg rather inadvisedly asked JoshuaZ to "wrap it up" with respect to his user-space version of the All-New, Extra-Special David Boothroyd BLP Article™ (featuring Wikipedian Navel-Gazing of the worst kind) prior to JoshuaZ's own "desysop appeal" in the next week or so. Meanwhile, Mr. Boothroyd is about to nominate himself for adminship again - that's right - he doesn't believe that his activities should have warranted the loss of his administrative privileges, and of course JoshuaZ has been using various flimsy excuses to protest his "innocence" for quite some time. There's a reasonably good chance that neither of them will succeed, though of course we must never underestimate the Wikipedian tendency to ignore reality. As for rationale, Mr. Vandenberg apparently believed that editing of the page in question would result in "increased drama." Oooh, can't have that! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Faced with this terrible pressure, ol' Joshy for some reason decided to ask Rootology (T-C-L-K-R-D) of all people for assistance in "cleaning up" the article before the "deadline." Since that's probably the last person he logically should have asked, we can only assume that JoshuaZ has now either gone completely insane, or is simply laughing uproariously at the rest of us while he makes a mockery of everything civilization holds dear.

Indeed, one of Joshy's reasons for asking Rootology for help was that he "doesn't have library access this week." What the HELL does that mean? He was actually going to look up info about Boothroyd in a library (hint: he wouldn't have found anything whatsoever) and, failing that, would have simply thrown up his hands and... done what, exactly? Perhaps hired a paid editing service? Or does this mean JoshuaZ doesn't have internet access in his apartment, or dorm room, or whatever sort of place he lives in, and therefore has to bring his Wi-Fi enabled laptop to a nearby library, which he doesn't have access to this specific week, conveniently ignoring the existence of hundreds of other internet-enabled hotspots in the New Haven, CT area or wherever the heck he is these days?

This strikes me as yet another one of Josh's really wierd excuses, though not quite as lame as the now-famous "rootkit" story.

Meanwhile, the Boothroyd article has been "whipped into shape" (i.e., made a real hatchet-job) by ChildOfMidnight (T-C-L-K-R-D) , whose antipathy towards Boothroyd seems nearly boundless. Hey, great chance to get those digs in! Revenge never tasted so sweet, particularly now that they've started adding all that high-fructose corn syrup to the formula.

[Peter Damian]

Ugh this is complete shite especially the bit here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...18863#Wikipedia (permalink)

If 'recentism' is placing undue emphasis on things that happened very recently, what is the name for placing undue emphasis on things that happen on Wikipedia and which no one else gives a f--- about?

Wikipedia
Using the name Sam Blacketer as an anonymous identity, Boothroyd was elected to the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee in 2007, the highest level of dispute resolution on the site.[1] He received multiple awards for his extensive contrbutions.[19]

In May 2009, Boothroyd's use of multiple accounts including Sam Blacketer was uncovered and connected with edits to David Cameron, leader of the Labour Party's rival Conservative Party.[1] Boothroyd's edits included an adjustment to the description of the Conservative Party's lead in opinion polls over the Labour Party.[20] He said "I have never written to self-serve," but admitted he was in the wrong, saying he created other identities after his political allegiance had been discovered. His edits were described by the The Daily Mail as "not inaccurate or overtly critical" but as including many that were unfavourable.[20] The paper described the incident as an embarrassment for the Labour Party, and "another blow for the hugely popular website, which has tried to stamp out malicious tampering."[20]

(Scream)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Nerd]

Why is there this ridiculous desperation to keep an article on Boothroyd? Really, why? I don't understand this hardcore inclusionism, where every person who ever lived who happened to get mentioned in a news story somewhere MUST have an article. Can't they spend their time doing something else?

Someone should create an article on JoshuaZ, he's probably more notable than Boothroyd! (Though that would be fairly hypocritical).

[thekohser]

The Wikipedians have successfully wiped the embarrassing version of Boothroyd from their encyclopedia, even though it was "just fine" for years before they realized that "Sam Blacketer" wasn't such a good parrot after all.

I guess now if people want to learn about Sam Blacketer, they will have to go to some other Sam Blacketer article for information.

[Jon Awbrey]

The Wikipedians have successfully wiped the embarrassing version of Boothroyd from their encyclopedia, even though it was "just fine" for years before they realized that "Sam Blacketer" wasn't such a good parrot after all.

I guess now if people want to learn about Sam Blacketer, they will have to go to some other Sam Blacketer article for information.

As usual, the e-bare-ass-ment was effectively Neutralized in accordance with the Wikipediot Policy of WP:NEOOFAAC (Neutralize Egg On Our Faces At All Costs).

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[The Joy]

It is back, albeit not for long unless Rootology and Jehochman are somehow silenced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChildofM...David_Boothroyd

[Somey]

And again, up for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mis...David_Boothroyd

I've been wondering if all this silliness is actually part of a more general campaign by JoshuaZ to lower "notability" standards to the point where Mr. Zelinsky himself would be considered article-worthy. It could be that he feels his efforts to make Wikipedia a complete laughing-stock and a danger to civilization haven't been sufficiently recognized, and that an article about himself would be "the least they could do," even if the article contains mostly "negative" information (which he himself would probably think of as "positive" information, presumably).

There's an interesting exchange on the page above between someone named Hans Adler (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Joshy in which Mr. Adler asks how Josh would feel about such an article being created (in user-space, of course).

Oh, so it would be OK for me to start working on User:Hans Adler/Joshua Zelinsky, using all the non-notable, non-reliable stuff I can find on the web? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument in that we've already had at least one AfD that decided that Boothroyd was notable so working on an article to make the community happy about it again isn't the same at all. Furthermore, I'm not someone who has become publicly involved in politics. And there'd be a whole POINT issue. But, if you genuinely think that I'm notable and want to demonstrate that feel free to work on a page in your userspace (if you want, I'll even help you assemble sources. I don't think I'm notable but I see nothing wrong with you trying to do show otherwise). I'd hope that the draft be NOINDEXed as the Boothroyd draft is. I'd hope that you wouldn't use "all" the "non-reliable stuff" you can find on the web, just as we have not done so in this draft. Indeed, all the sources used are from mainstream publications and such that are generally considered reliable. But subject to minimal constraints of reasonability feel free. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, it isn't really a "strawman argument" at all. JoshuaZ's activities on Wikipedia are at least as "notable" from a world perspective as Boothroyd's political activities, not that either of them should qualify for much of anything in terms of public attention. (Admittedly, Boothroyd did author a book, though.) Also, the AfD that "decided" Boothroyd's notability was from 4 years ago, and standards have been tightened considerably since then. Meanwhile, by "non-reliable stuff" he presumably means the material about him here on WR, which is (surprise!) probably the only place where JoshuaZ's sock-puppeting and other clearly abusive WP activities have been analyzed in detail.

Of course, if we eliminate Wikipedia activities from the equation completely, JoshuaZ has done absolutely nothing to warrant inclusion in any publication whatsoever, online or off. So the idea that he would even consider the idea could very well indicate that there's more going on here than mere navel-gazing or narcissism.

[Kato]

JoshuaZ fights to keep the article in the user space of User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mis...David_Boothroyd

keep This constitutes a BLP compliant draft. There appear to be a number of serious misconceptions, most of which have already been dealt with. However, one thing that needs to be clear is that this is a NOINDEX(i.e. not google searchable) page that constitutes a draft. Claims of UNDUE weight about the recent issues while interesting do not by themselves create a BLP violation when we are working on a draft. No one is claiming that any statements made therein is false and undue by itself is a difficult and subjective matter. If we followed this logic through, drafts of BLPs would never be acceptable. Moreover, the article is making steady progress as we are finding more material about Boothroyd's successful career. Building articles takes time. That process is still ongoing. Let us ask, would we allow such a draft if it had nothing to do with Wikipedia? The answer seems to be yes. Let us then evaluate this with those same objective standards. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Joshua is quick to defend the piece on the basis that it had a NOINDEX tag added. But that was only because we raised it as a compaint here, and after I spotted JoshuaZ's own Boothroyd article at the top of my google search for Boothroyd. So really he doesn't give a crap. His motives are typically disingenuous, given that he has fought tooth and nail to expose people to google searches at every possibility. JoshuaZ's nasty antics a couple of years ago meant that WR removed its own NOINDEX tags from the Notable Editors section in retaliation.

JoshuaZ has been doing this exact thing, working on unwanted BLPs against the subjects wishes, for years. He was also caught using sockpuppets to intimidate BLP victims, and elsewhere given an Arbcom restriction to stop doing this exact thing to Brandt's bio. WP must rein him in and show him the boot asap. He is a disgrace and a menace.

[dtobias]

So, some of you are in high dudgeon over the outrage that Wikipedia would even consider having an article on this person against his wishes, while others of you are offended that WP practices censorship of anything reflecting badly on it. It just goes to show that no matter what they do, somebody here will be offended by it. If a vigorous, drama-filled edit/wheel war breaks out, as often happens with stuff like this, then there's ample opportunity for both sides to get offended... no matter which side eventually prevails, the other side here will be offended that the "evil" opponents were even granted the slightest hearing.

[Somey]

So, some of you are in high dudgeon over the outrage that Wikipedia would even consider having an article on this person against his wishes, while others of you are offended that WP practices censorship of anything reflecting badly on it. It just goes to show that no matter what they do, somebody here will be offended by it.

Without actually going so far as to say you're looking at the situation a bit too simplistically, I don't see why a person couldn't be in both camps. The BLP article on Boothroyd really is "vanity-cruft," after all, and they could very easily write up the incident in their "Criticisms of Wikipedia" and/or "History of Wikipedia" articles without mentioning his real name, if they wanted to. (I just don't think they could do it accurately, because apparently there are no "reliable" sources that accurately explain what actually happened.)

Remember, the real issue (at least as far as this thread is concerned) is JoshuaZ. IMO there's absolutely no logical, rational, or decent reason for him to be doing this - at least with User:ChildOfMidnight, there's a clear political bias to explain it, but with Joshers, there's nothing, other than his usual Private Revenge-opedia Playpen™ thing, which isn't logical, rational, or decent at all. But if you can think of one, by all means, please spill!

[Jon Awbrey]

Without actually going so far as to say you're looking at the situation a bit too simplistically …

Not the sort of reservation that would occur to me, of course.

Dan always has the greatest difficulty with complex concepts — like hypocrisy, for instance. It hasn't occurred to him that when you criticize people for the vast disconnections between their preachings and their practices that you just might just have to censure both their preachings and their practices.

Jon Awbrey

[CharlotteWebb]

I don't know. If this wasn't a person who was (at least once) considered "notable" enough for an article, and if political spin-control wasn't a factor, I'm not sure anyone other than Cade Metz would give a shit.

Hell, he could have identified himself to the foundation without delay as "David Boothroyd IV" and Cary would have said "mmm, a sounds like a limey, never heard a'ya but have fun with this stuff", at which point Sam-i-am Blacketer could have waved that magic eraser at any edits which hinted a connection to previous incarnations and the real-world identity thereof.

And then, my friends, there would be no story.

Old BLP → acknowledgment of what "DBIV" stands for → something to hide from while answering to "Sam" → shock and awe that we let him gain so much after losing so much[1] → big story → new BLP

[1] I don't know why people have made the biggest deal out of this. Tables will turn, tears will fall, bridges will burn, hearts will roll, and tables will turn again. It's the circle of life, Simba, get over it. Meanwhile how about a serious analysis of the arbcom cases involving individuals against whom Sam/Dave was likely begrudged, but from which he failed to recuse himself. Forget the small beers, this is the real... uhhhh... forty-ouncer!

[Somey]

[1] I don't know why people have made the biggest deal out of this. Tables will turn, tears will fall, bridges will burn, hearts will roll, and tables will turn again...

This is obvious, is it not? British conservatives want to make a big deal out of it because Boothroyd is a Labour Party member, not to mention gay, and JoshuaZ wants to make a big deal out of it because that's just what he does, that's all he does, and he will not stop until the internet is dead. Greg Kohs is interested because "Sam Blacketer" once wished he would become "sick as a parrot," or whatever it is he said, all the while doing something very similar himself.

I'd say the rest of us are like you, we're more interested in the reaction than the actual offense, whatever that was.

[CharlotteWebb]

[1] I don't know why people have made the biggest deal out of this. Tables will turn, tears will fall, bridges will burn, hearts will roll, and tables will turn again...

This is obvious, is it not? British conservatives want to make a big deal out of it because Boothroyd is a Labour Party member, not to mention gay, and JoshuaZ wants to make a big deal out of it because that's just what he does, that's all he does, and he will not stop until the internet is dead. Greg Kohs is interested because "Sam Blacketer" once wished he would become "sick as a parrot," or whatever it is he said, all the while doing something very similar himself.

I'd say the rest of us are like you, we're more interested in the reaction than the actual offense, whatever that was.

I agree with your points, which stem from the fact that he isn't just a completely nobody like the rest of us and (for example) Essjay. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

When I said "made biggest deal out of this" I meant the way people have reacted to the specific fact that Sam/Dave was adminned, de-adminned, adminned under a different name, then elected to arbcom—as if that's some kind of huge sin by itself. I should have made myself clearer.

Of course we can debate all day whether his pursuit of these things was motivated by revenge, politics, or power hunger for its own sake, and whether it matters.

[Somey]

Of course we can debate all day whether his pursuit of these things was motivated by revenge, politics, or power hunger for its own sake...

Don't forget "sense of entitlement engendered by possibly-delusional feelings of personal victimization."

[CharlotteWebb]

I think between the other three choices we've got that covered.

[thekohser]

Greg Kohs is interested because "Sam Blacketer" once wished he would become "sick as a parrot," or whatever it is he said, all the while doing something very similar himself.

Heck, I'm such an upstanding guy, I've even reiterated publicly here that the "attack-ish" article that I maintain on Wikipedia Review about Boothroyd is located in my site's Directory space. Meaning, if and when the subject of the article wishes to take control of it, they may!

So far, the Parrot Whisperer seems not to be interested in this policy nuance. Thus, I'll just keep enjoying the search engine hits... about 5 per day.

[Cla68]

Remember, the real issue (at least as far as this thread is concerned) is JoshuaZ. IMO there's absolutely no logical, rational, or decent reason for him to be doing this - at least with User:ChildOfMidnight, there's a clear political bias to explain it, but with Joshers, there's nothing, other than his usual Private Revenge-opedia Playpen™ thing, which isn't logical, rational, or decent at all. But if you can think of one, by all means, please spill!

Was it Joshua who once tried to insult Encyclopedia Dramatica editors by claiming that they all probably got less action than he did, and he doesn't get very much? If so, then perhaps all he needs is a girlfriend?

[RMHED]

...If so, then perhaps all he needs is a girlfriend?

Or boyfriend or animal friend or blow-up inflatable friend, best not limit the options.

[EricBarbour]

Looks as if the Boothroyd BLP deletion bit is leaning towards keep.
Ten keep and four delete, and an increasing pile of blubbering dramah chunder.

This is a really bad MFD. I get the feeling that the people talking about this are conflicted
about kissing up to Boothroyd (OH GOD HE'S AN ARBITRATOR I SHOULD KISS HIS ASS),
so they wobble on and on in a cowardly manner......

And Zelinsky? Nuff said. Needs a spanking and to be put to bed without dinner.

I predict that Boothroyd will get his own BLP, and it will be PROTECTED in perpetuity.
And thereafter, anyone with any status on Wikipedia will seek--and get--their own BLPs.
Said BLPs will have "high status" and be undeletable by whatever means.

Thus will this "encyclopedia" make its final plunge into irrelevancy as a gigantic blog
cum MMORPG, complete with unspoken-yet-absolute social hierarchy. With nasty little
boys like Josh Zelinsky sitting at the top, blowing raspberries at the rest of the world.

[Newyorkbrad]

I predict that Boothroyd will get his own BLP, and it will be PROTECTED in perpetuity.
And thereafter, anyone with any status on Wikipedia will seek--and get--their own BLPs.
Said BLPs will have "high status" and be undeletable by whatever means.

How is this consistent with the fact that many Wikipedia editors in elected positions prefer, or preferred, not even to mention our real names, so that there would be no perceived interplay between our real-life identities and our roles on Wikipedia?

[CharlotteWebb]

This is a really bad MFD. I get the feeling that the people talking about this are conflicted
about kissing up to Boothroyd (OH GOD HE'S AN ARBITRATOR I SHOULD KISS HIS ASS)

But as of three weeks ago he's not, see, so anything goes.

[Kato]

[1] I don't know why people have made the biggest deal out of this. Tables will turn, tears will fall, bridges will burn, hearts will roll, and tables will turn again...

This is obvious, is it not? British conservatives want to make a big deal out of it because Boothroyd is a Labour Party member, not to mention gay*, and JoshuaZ wants to make a big deal out of it because that's just what he does, that's all he does, and he will not stop until the internet is dead. Greg Kohs is interested because "Sam Blacketer" once wished he would become "sick as a parrot," or whatever it is he said, all the while doing something very similar himself.

I'd say the rest of us are like you, we're more interested in the reaction than the actual offense, whatever that was.

That's basically it. Boothroyd was silly and screwed up, but WP's woeful checking structure should ultimately take the blame. Now, the focus of criticism should be on WP's fudged response.

I don't know if it is British Conservatives who are calling to keep the article on WP, but the wider media attention from Cade Metz's original article was a direct result of the UK Conservative media sticking the knife into Labour at a key moment in history. Last week (Euro elections and all) saw the climax of a long period of media pressure on the Labour Party, and that Boothroyd story came at a convenient time for the media.

*I should note that Boothroyd being gay was very unlikely to be an issue for British Conservative or Labour supporters, and not for the media either. Even the Conservative Party contains numerous high profile gay politicians. This isn't Iowa, you know! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I agree with your points, which stem from the fact that he isn't just a completely nobody like the rest of us and (for example) Essjay. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Really, he was. Individual Councillors are nobodies, very local representatives elected by only a few hundred people. When I first saw Dbiv on WP a few years back, and read his resume, I found it mildly interesting in a WP context. But not notable in any real sense. I follow politics quite closely, yet don't know anything about my local Councillors, or what party they represent - so even I couldn't give a crap about someone in a completely different region.

[LaraLove]

Looks as if the Boothroyd BLP deletion bit is leaning towards keep.
Ten keep and four delete, and an increasing pile of blubbering dramah chunder.

This is a really bad MFD. I get the feeling that the people talking about this are conflicted
about kissing up to Boothroyd (OH GOD HE'S AN ARBITRATOR I SHOULD KISS HIS ASS),
so they wobble on and on in a cowardly manner......

And Zelinsky? Nuff said. Needs a spanking and to be put to bed without dinner.

I predict that Boothroyd will get his own BLP, and it will be PROTECTED in perpetuity.
And thereafter, anyone with any status on Wikipedia will seek--and get--their own BLPs.
Said BLPs will have "high status" and be undeletable by whatever means.

Thus will this "encyclopedia" make its final plunge into irrelevancy as a gigantic blog
cum MMORPG, complete with unspoken-yet-absolute social hierarchy. With nasty little
boys like Josh Zelinsky sitting at the top, blowing raspberries at the rest of the world.

You seem to be implying that Boothroyd wants his own article. He doesn't.