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

[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

[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.

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!

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.

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.