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

[RMHED]

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.

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?

[LaraLove]

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?

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

[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?

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

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

[LaraLove]

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?

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

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

I feel ya.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

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?

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.

[Kato]

This delete captures it exactly:

Delete per Rootology and Boothroyd. He's not notable as a politician. This controversy has not received wide-spread attention in multiple reliable news sources. It's been inaccurately reported, libeling him. It's a non-notable event and, for all the same reasons the controversy article was deleted coupled with the reasons for the original BLP being deleted, this version should then be deleted as well. The cherry on top is the fact that the Boothroyd requests deletion. لennavecia 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

[RMHED]

This delete captures it exactly:

Delete per Rootology and Boothroyd. He's not notable as a politician. This controversy has not received wide-spread attention in multiple reliable news sources. It's been inaccurately reported, libeling him. It's a non-notable event and, for all the same reasons the controversy article was deleted coupled with the reasons for the original BLP being deleted, this version should then be deleted as well. The cherry on top is the fact that the Boothroyd requests deletion. لennavecia 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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 article 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 by phony rules.

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.

[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:Mis...David_Boothroyd

Indeed, all the sources used are from mainstream publications and such that are generally considered reliable.

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.

First, of all. Boothroyd has not "twice requested" that the article be deleted. A few years ago express the position that he wasn't notable. The community disagreed. That's not a request for deletion in the same sense of courtesy deletion. The second time he gave what frankly seemed like a pretty non-committal opinion making it clear that his friends consider the entire thing to be more silly than anything else.

According to JoshuaZ Boothroyd didn't request deletion and only offerered "non-committal opinion"? How "non-committal" is this?

* '''Comment'''. The subject repeats his request made four years ago for deletion. [[User:DavidBoothroyd|DavidBoothroyd]] ([[User talk:DavidBoothroyd|talk]]) 20:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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....

[dtobias]

Even the Conservative Party contains numerous high profile gay politicians. This isn't Iowa, you know!

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

[GlassBeadGame]

This delete captures it exactly:

Delete per Rootology and Boothroyd. He's not notable as a politician. This controversy has not received wide-spread attention in multiple reliable news sources. It's been inaccurately reported, libeling him. It's a non-notable event and, for all the same reasons the controversy article was deleted coupled with the reasons for the original BLP being deleted, this version should then be deleted as well. The cherry on top is the fact that the Boothroyd requests deletion. لennavecia 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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 article 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 by phony rules.

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.

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.

[RMHED]

This delete captures it exactly:

Delete per Rootology and Boothroyd. He's not notable as a politician. This controversy has not received wide-spread attention in multiple reliable news sources. It's been inaccurately reported, libeling him. It's a non-notable event and, for all the same reasons the controversy article was deleted coupled with the reasons for the original BLP being deleted, this version should then be deleted as well. The cherry on top is the fact that the Boothroyd requests deletion. لennavecia 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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 article 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 by phony rules.

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.

BLP concerns will always trump getting back at some abusive Wikipedian.

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.

[Floydsvoid]

JoshuaZ is a disgrace.

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?

[Milton Roe]

This delete captures it exactly:

Delete per Rootology and Boothroyd. He's not notable as a politician. This controversy has not received wide-spread attention in multiple reliable news sources. It's been inaccurately reported, libeling him. It's a non-notable event and, for all the same reasons the controversy article was deleted coupled with the reasons for the original BLP being deleted, this version should then be deleted as well. The cherry on top is the fact that the Boothroyd requests deletion. لennavecia 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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=...&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.

[LaraLove]

This delete captures it exactly:

Delete per Rootology and Boothroyd. He's not notable as a politician. This controversy has not received wide-spread attention in multiple reliable news sources. It's been inaccurately reported, libeling him. It's a non-notable event and, for all the same reasons the controversy article was deleted coupled with the reasons for the original BLP being deleted, this version should then be deleted as well. The cherry on top is the fact that the Boothroyd requests deletion. لennavecia 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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*

[Kato]

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=...&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.

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.

Cameron is reported to be known to friends and family as 'Dave' rather than David, although he invariably uses 'David' in public. [8] However, critics of Cameron often refer to him as "Call me Dave" in an attempt to imply false populism. [9] The Times columnist Daniel Finkelstein has opposed those who attempt to belittle Cameron by calling him 'Dave'.[10]

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?

It spirals out of control when either (a) A respected Turkish historian is wrongly detained 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 then used as the source to prove the false fact back to Wikipedia.

[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=...&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.

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.

Cameron is reported to be known to friends and family as 'Dave' rather than David, although he invariably uses 'David' in public. [8] However, critics of Cameron often refer to him as "Call me Dave" in an attempt to imply false populism. [9] The Times columnist Daniel Finkelstein has opposed those who attempt to belittle Cameron by calling him 'Dave'.[10]

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=...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=...&action=history

[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."

[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

[LaraLove]

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=...&action=history

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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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!

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