Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Viridae

This should help with the google problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJoshuaZ%2FDavid_Boothroyd&diff=295490201&oldid=295440026

Posted by: Milton Roe

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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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?

Posted by: Milton Roe

That wasn't true?

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?

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Random832

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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15878 --- 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Moulton

As above, so below.

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.

Posted by: Cla68

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Sam_Blacketer_RFA.2FDavid_Boothroyd_article_inquiry_-_Arbcom_pressure.3F

Posted by: Random832

moderate?

Posted by: RMHED

So JZ hits up Rooty about Arby pressure.

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

Posted by: Somey

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!

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 "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=296107511&oldid=296104251." 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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Ugh this is complete shite especially the bit here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ChildofMidnight/David_Boothroyd&oldid=296118863#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?

(Scream)

Posted by: 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).

Posted by: thekohser

The Wikipedians have successfully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Blacketer_controversy 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 http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:David_Boothroyd for information.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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

Posted by: The Joy

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

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

Posted by: Somey

And again, up for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/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).

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.

Posted by: Kato

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David_Boothroyd

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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Somey

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!

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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

Posted by: 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!

Posted by: Somey

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.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

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.

Posted by: Somey

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

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

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

Posted by: thekohser

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.

Posted by: Cla68

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?

Posted by: RMHED

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

Posted by: EricBarbour

Looks as if the Boothroyd BLP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David_Boothroyd 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.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

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?

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

But as of three weeks ago http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=296496712#Resignation, so anything goes.

Posted by: Kato

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!


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.

Posted by: LaraLove

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

Posted by: RMHED

My heart bleeds for poor old David Boothroyd, he wants out of the Wiki bullshit machine, as do many others, why should he receive preferential treatment?

Posted by: LaraLove

Go read my comments on-wiki. I'm not going through this shit again here.

Posted by: RMHED

That would require an effort that I really can't be bothered to bring to this endeavour.

Posted by: LaraLove

I feel ya.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

He clearly is a victim of Wikipedia's revenge machine is being punished for his "betrayal" of Wikipedia. It would be best if he would make a clean break, show remorse for his own abuse of others on Wikipedia and give a detailed account of the exact nature and mechanics of Wikipedia's workings in victimizing others. That is a lot to ask from someone under Wikipedia's heel at the moment. We have to take Wikipedia victims as we find them and that is very often imperfect. At present he is a BLP victim.

Posted by: Kato

This delete captures it exactly:

The WP article on Boothroyd opens up some of the other problems of WP. A clearly biased media (the notorious anti-Labour Daily Mail) reported that Boothroyd had been attacking Conservative Leader David Cameron's article. This is false. We all know this is false, having followed the Sam Blacketer scandal from a tiny post on this site. Yet WP perpetuates this falsehood by adding it to the bio citing "mainstream / reliable" sources.

This kind of intellectual dishonesty is the kind of garbage that WP spreads like a plague. The WP formula is so broken that it is willing to replicate known falsehoods about real people and justify that by its own phony rules.

Posted by: RMHED

Of course it should be deleted, but so should at least 75% of Wikipedia's BLP's, is that likely to happen? Is it fuck. Why does Boothroyd get all this hand-wringing attention, just because he's some twat who held high office on Wikipedia. He was part of the problem and likely still is, make all these fuckers accountable especially the moral vacuums who sit on the Wikimedia Foundation board. Those turds deserve an article anyone can edit, see how they like it.

Posted by: Kato

JoshuaZ is a disgrace. He must be removed from all BLP discussions not just those he was banned from in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David_Boothroyd

The Daily Mail, which is the most "mainstream" publication in the list of sources, is clearly not a reliable on the subject of Labour politics at this time, as anyone with half an idea what "Reliable" means . Not least because they demonstrably published a false story about Boothroyd attacking Cameron's bio in this story alone.

Also, two of the provided sources are from a Local Planning document, where Boothroyd in his role as local councillor "declared an interest" in a few trees located in his ward. Clearly not a "mainstream publication" and wholly banal in nature. Others come from tiny local papers and obscure sources which barely include Boothroyd at all.



According to JoshuaZ Boothroyd didn't request deletion and only offerered "non-committal opinion"? How "non-committal" is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Boothroyd_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=291872159?



Get this moron, this cheat, this cretin, JoshuaZ off the site asap. He's been at this very same crap since the early days of the Brandt BLP. And look how that turned out....

Posted by: dtobias

Iowa is one of the handful of states that allows gay marriage, so it's not so reactionary on this subject.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Wikipedians should understand that their own internal dealing are of no importance. Their "high offices" and squabbles are of no more importance than some kid's level on WoW or the outcome of some battle in that game. BLP concerns will always trump getting back at some abusive Wikipedian.

Posted by: RMHED

Boothroyd wasn't abusive, just another 'pedia addict whose needful predilections led him astray.

The real abusers are the Foundation Board members, they shield themselves from responsibility and refuse to act with any kind of moral integrity. The WMF's prime concern is self preservation, their actions, or more correctly inactions, means they deserve a whole heap of shit rained down upon them.

Posted by: Floydsvoid

There's a feedback loop involved here. Non-notable wiki higher-up gets involved in a wiki-scandal picked up by marginal press escalating the notability of said higher-up. Non-notable approaches notable.

My question is: Why does Google give such preferential attention to Wikipedia in the first place? Is it because of Wikipedia's deep linking scheme? Seems to me there's a feedback loop involved here too. When does it all spiral out of control?

Posted by: Milton Roe

Well, it was Fys who added the part about Cameron's critics deriding him by calling him "Call-me-Dave", to satirize his attempts to look populist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&diff=82085312&oldid=82007058

Fys/Blacketer's editing has NOT been entirely neutral. If you put in snarky criticisms of a public figure, however-well-referenced, you're in the game.

Posted by: LaraLove

Thanks. And I just realized I referred to him as "the Boothroyd". Haha. Like the Fonz. Ugh. I was going to write "the subject", then backed it up and personalized it. Should have taken out "the". *facepalm*

Posted by: Kato

Note that Boothroyd's Fys account was at that time known as Dbiv, and he also made it very clear at that time who he was on his user page.

Here is the edit. It's hardly a hatchet job and is actually sourced to the pro-Cameron Daily Mail newspaper.




It spirals out of control when either (a) A respected Turkish historian is http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/turkisharmenian/fiskArticle.pdf by Toronto officials based on malicious lies added to his bio or when (b) Wikipedia states a false fact, a reputable media outlet copies the false fact, and this outlet is thttp://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22875.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yeeees. So? I'm not claiming he did it as sock. I'm just noting that he managed to get the info in there. As a Yank, I didn't know Cameron was the butt of "call me Dave" jokes. But now I do. Oh, how the Times columnist Finkelstein has opposed those who attempt to belittle Cameron by calling him "Dave"! As well he should be opposed to them. The cads. We see now, that calling him "Dave" is actually a very low and cheap type of political humor. Don't you SEE what they're attempting to do!

An encyclopedia is a wonderous thing. The stuff you learn!

Here's a bit of unsourced OR courtesy of Blacketer: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&diff=106836136&oldid=106718293. Countering somebody else's equally unsourced claim. Which is the truth? I dunno! I'm a Yank.

And here's another question which nags me. Considering all the IP vandalism that goes on in this article, and the amount of time Blacketer spent reverting it, why did he only sprotect it occasionally, and for short periods of time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&dir=prev&offset=20070511085316&limit=500&action=history

Posted by: Moulton

Facepalm Follies

If Woody Allen and Mel Brooks teamed up with Stephen Spielberg and Sam Vaknin to write an epic saga based on Wikiculture, this episode would be entitled "Revenge of the Narcissistic Imbeciles."

Posted by: sbrown

Has anyone noticed that Fys is still an admin on WQ?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Template:List_of_admins

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:Fys

Posted by: LaraLove

It's considered bad practice, most times, to protect pages you frequently edit. The protection log looks pretty standard, though. The duration of the protections seem to be progressing normally, considering most admins are more likely to abuse the block button than protect an article for any meaningful amount of time. Defenders of the Wikipedia Tagline, ya know? Personally, I believe BLPs should get longer protections, which is what we're doing with User:Lar/Liberal Semi.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Just curious: what is this "control", and does it include the power to delete?

Posted by: Somey

There's a good explanation http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/14/googlepedia_announced/, from Dec. 2007 by Andrew Orlowski. Essentially, blogspammers are mostly to blame, along with bad timing.

Posted by: Floydsvoid

Ahh, thanks for restoring my faithlessness in humanity

Posted by: jayvdb

Yea, he http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/Fys?limit=1. Maybe they will use the "vote of confidence" mechanism imported from Wikisource for Poetlister. There is a lot of http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=441085 http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Village_pump&diff=prev&oldid=500223 http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=555676. I agree with what Fys is saying there as a general principle, and have said the same over on Wikisource. Poetlister is not a typical case.

Posted by: WikiWatch

Thanks somey. Knol has been around for a few months now and Google must be disappointed in it. It still hasn't in any shape or form been able to overtake, let alone challenge, the dominance of wikipedia. Other pedias such as citizendium, mwb etc still rank lowly in search results, so the status quo has continued, and looks like continuing for some years.

Posted by: thekohser

On the http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&num=100&q=jimmy+wales+criticism&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=, though, Wikipedia Review actually outranks Wikipedia in the search results.

Posted by: sbrown

Even Google cant find something on wikipeida if its not allowed to be there!

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

This is an exceptionally succinct and truthful history of the project:

Posted by: sbrown

Hold on are you saying that Fys colluded with another sockpuppetter? Theres no evidence there. He supported two RFAs and so did lots of people. He said that WP and WQ are different and independent places and so did a lot of people. Next youll be accusing Aphaia.

Posted by: The Joy

WQ is a very whacky place, even by Wikipedian standards. The community there is so small that everyone pretty much gets along with and trusts everyone. Fys wasn't the only one that trusted Poetlister, Cato, etc. WQ also is very territorial and will not tolerate Wikipedians interfering in their processes. So even if Fys is found to have colluded with PL, no one's going to do anything about it unless the Foundation or prominent people on the Meta Wikipedia convince WQ to act.

Also everyone on Wikipedia and its sister projects "collude" with sockpuppeteers all the time. You just don't always know it.

Posted by: jayvdb

I am not saying anything of the sort. That would be hypocritical given the rest of my comment where I said that I agreed with what Fys was saying, and given that I nominated Poetlister for adminship on Wikisource (..and dont regret it either). Poetlister is even allowed back to Wikisource. Obviously we would expect that Poetlister used only one account if they returned, but multiple accounts doesn't help anyone there as the concept of "consensus" is rarely relied upon.

As The Joy points out, this is just another problem with Wikiquote. I haven't been able to work out what is the underlying cause of the problems with that project, because there are parallels between its structure and community with that of the other small projects. There are a few good people on Wikiquote, so hopefully they can pull it together, however it seems that they are outnumbered. The simplest solution is to move it to Wikia, or /dev/null. Important quotes can be compiled as a "Wikibook" of quotes. No need for a separate project.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Interesting. I've never contributed to Wikisource (or Wikiquote for that matter) so I don't know how this works. However I have often wondered what it would take for Wikipedia (and other projects) to adopt a robust just-say-no-to-groupthink philosophy.

Posted by: sbrown

Conversely of course everyone must have trusted Fys.


Ive been involved with some small wikimedia projects. My guess based on only a quick look is theres no real dynamic leader on English WQ who knows how to run things. On a small project you need one or two. If (butter up) they made Somey an admin there it would be much better.