This is Micha Jo's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 11:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pierre Jovanovic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanovic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Brad v 02:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day again Micha Jo It's been brought to my attention that Jovanovic is canvassing support on Twitter, and linking there to the AfD on the article on himself.
If you have any influence on him or his other supporters, I suggest you discourage this very strongly. IMO, the last thing we want is a flood of editors responding to this. That would be an obvious threat to the integrity of Wikipedia.
We have of course no control over what he or others outside the Wikipedia community do to canvass support, but there are effective measures to minimise the damage of such campaigns. And we do not want them invoked.
What we need to establish is that it is in English Wikipedia's best interests to keep the article. And this not the way to do that. It just adds ammunition for those who say we are better off without it... as French Wikipedia has already decided. And perhaps this is not entirely their fault!
Best. Andrewa ( talk) 18:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Andrewa,
Yes,I have seen that Jovanovic has put the links on his twitter account. Apparently with not much impact.
As I wrote to you on your personal email last thursday (did you receive it ?), he is more interested in protesting "wikipedia's censorship" rather than defending the AfD page. By the way, I do not see much further discussion on this page, so maybe it is time to close the debate ?
Best regards.
Micha Jo (
talk)
20:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow, this is reaching unexpected proportions. You should know that this is in no way orchestrated or an entrapment. I am disclosing here part of the email that I sent to Andrewa:
Micha Jo ( talk) 21:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: I am wondering wether I should try to ask Jovanovic to stop canvassing. I am afraid that this would do more harm than good. Better just let it rest ? Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 21:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: I have been a coder in a previous life (I developped compilers with Lex (software) and Yacc), so I can appreciate your second article! It would be a pleasure to meet in real life. Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 23:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
most of this material is nearly unusable, in paper form, pre-internet, with no online sources, dating from 1995 [1]
That makes no difference... it just must be verifiable, and if it's in the collections of public libraries for example (as all major Australian newspapers are) then it is verifiable.
We must talk more on this. Andrewa ( talk) 22:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Andrewa: Well, I have seen and touched this paper material, in two big binders. I took some pictures with my smartphone, so I have hard proof of the following :
I did not have time to sit down and take pictures of all. It was hundreds of pages. It would be great to be able to access NEXIS in order to fully document these sources.
Plus:
IT could be possible to go to all these radios and try to query their archives. Big work.
Best regards Micha Jo ( talk) 23:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Three of those look promising...
Have any of those been cited in the article to date?
I'll check, but it seems to me that had those been cited right at the start, there might have been no problem at all.
What would be ideal would be for you (or Pierre) to scan these three articles and send them to me (particularly the French ones, which I can read). We can't use the scans directly, but if the information in those articles provides a sourced claim of notability, then hopefully problem solved. I'm sure we can find an Italian reader to cope with the third article.
Or if we can find them archived to the web, even better. As I said before, the Australian National Library is scanning and OCRing many Australian newspapers, and providing the searchable text on the web. Andrewa ( talk) 05:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: I sent to your private email the pics of the paper articles of fr:Jeune Afrique and of fr:Quotidien de Paris. Plus fr:Psychologies Magazine (which is a well respected magazine, and TF1 magazine linked to the French TV channel TF1. The pic of it:Corriere Della Sera was not right (wrong page). I am trying to recover the original article. Regards Micha Jo ( talk) 13:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: I sent to your private email pics of the paper articles from:
Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: Hello. Since you had difficulties with the Tutanota email, I am sending you all the scans again with Protonmail. All the articles are from reputable newspapers or magazines, in French or Italian, and they are all "in-depth". Here they are :
Best regards Micha Jo ( talk) 09:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Andrewa: Here is another source : Pierre Jovanovic was interviewed by CNN on a nearly 1 hour show in 1995. Proof of it is a letter he received from the editors of CNN. Public copy of this letter can be found here [
[2]] and here [
[3]]. Regards
Micha Jo (
talk)
11:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: More sources here. I am sorry to flog a dead horse, so this is only for the record. 3 in-depth interviews in English of Pierre Jovanovic on RT (TV network):
I read carefully reliable secondary sources before posting this. It seems to be a reliable source, as it is from an established news organization, even though some might dispute its bias, but it looks like a clear indication of notability. Micha Jo ( talk) 14:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 09:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Micha Jo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See my arguments below on my talk page Micha Jo ( talk) 00:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No. Provide a summary of your argument in your unblock request. Nobody's going to read a wall of text like that. Yamla ( talk) 13:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ Yamla: Hello. I cannot write on my investigation casepage as I am blocked. The summary of my arguments is here below. The core of my defense is that I deny the sockpuppet accusations, but I recognize that I am PARTLY guilty of meatpuppet, as I induced 2 friends to come and support me in the debate. These 2 friends are real and not SPA (Single Purpose Accounts): they are old accounts and have touched other subjects. This mishap is a rookie mistake. I apologize and am now wiser. Please assume good faith. Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 09:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Oshwah: Hello. I have been blocked by you
[1], on the initiative of Praxidicae. These accusations are completely false, I am please asking you re-consider your decision, because this has very serious consequences.
@
Oshwah: @
Wumbolo: Hello. I am unable to input any comments on my investigation case page [
[16]], so I am putting my comments on my talk page here below. Is this OK ? I want to be sure that the person reviewing my case can read my defence arguments. Thanks.
Micha Jo (
talk)
14:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
First the evidence provided by Praxidicae doesn't hold water :
Could you please consider these other arguments ?
Again I completely refute these accusations.
Thanks for your consideration. This is urgent as the AfD will close soon. Best regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 19:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
PS1. @
Andrewa: @
Anne Delong: @
Art LaPella: @
L293D: I think that I am treated very unfairly with false accusations of sockpuppetry, see here
[3] and that the situation is very serious. I am please asking you for your help. Can you have a look at it? I am considering requesting arbitration, but it will take time, and time is running out for the AfD. I was planning to bring more quality secondary sources to the debate. For example I completely missed out on Jovanovic's own huge press review on his own website. See here, it is huge!
[4]
PS2. @
FeanorStar7:, @
Bearcat:, @
AntiCompositeNumber:, @
TAnthony: Hello. You have kindly contributed to a page that I have created see here
[5]. Since then, I have been the victim of coordinated abuse :
I request your support. @ Jimbo Wales:, @ Amakuru: @ Acroterion: @ WikiDan61: @ Eagleash: @ Alexf: @ AxelBoldt: and others : What has Wikipedia become ?
A key issue here is your use of open proxies. I've looked at the various logs and discussions, and yes there is some inconsistency as to whether the sock puppetry is suspected or confirmed. It's the open proxies that make this very difficult.
If you have innocently done this not realising it was a problem, then I'm afraid you have made a tragic and at least partly irreversible mistake. These pose severe problems for Wikipedia. To quote Jimbo In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses. [17]
If on the other hand you have reasons to use them, the news is perhaps worse. Jimbo again If you have such a severe personal situation that editing Wikipedia with the level of anonymity provided by an ip number is dangerous to you, well, I guess you shouldn't edit wikipedia. [18]
Feel free to email me if you'd like to tell me exactly what is going on, confidentially. And we can take it from there. There is such a thing as a clean start, but we'd need you unblocked first.
And it won't be in time for you to contribute further to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanovic, but in any case I would strongly suggest you make no further edits there or to that article. You have made your point. If that article is the only reason you are here, then that saddens me greatly, I have enjoyed our discussions and invite you again to email me to continue them. I have my own website expressing similar views, and you will find me probably more radical than Pierre. (;-> Andrewa ( talk) 11:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Andrewa: I have sent you a private email, have you received it ? I have taken a part of this email and updated it here.
Regarding the use of Proxies:
Best regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I note that wp:meatpuppet states under the subheading Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Sharing an IP address If two or more registered editors use the same computer or network connection, their accounts may be linked by a CheckUser. Editors in this position are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. There are userboxes available for this; see {{ User shared IP address}}. Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.
The problem here is, it's IMO unreasonable to expect contributors with only a few edits to have read this policy unless they have had some warning referring to it. That's why I have headed this section Possibly innocent. While it appears to be a technical breach of this policy (and also of at least one related ARBCOM decision), it may well be inadvertent. Andrewa ( talk) 08:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
A few observations. I'm genuinely sorry that some of them are harsh.
I do not believe that either the article deletion or the blocking of your account were well handled. But that is water under the bridge. Further criticism of these actions is not going to get the article reinstated or your block lifted.
Nor is providing "sources" such as the letter from CNN. These only do two things:
If you wish to be involved in building Wikipedia, have a good read of my essay at wp:creed and also the pages at wp:here and wp:soap. If, as it clearly appears to me, you don't want to put your efforts towards building Wikipedia, then there is no case for appealing the block. The block is not punishment, it is purely to protect Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you are interested in building a better Wikipedia, now or at some future time, that's a different story. You mentioned that you have several other articles that you thought should be created. I'm interested. You have my email, or you can propose them here and feel free to ping me if you do. But first you need to understand exactly what reliable secondary sources are according to our policies and practices. If you can't provide these then don't waste time proposing those other articles for creation.
In Wikipedia's defense, you might note that I feel free to post comments such as the above. We are not immune to self-criticism. Many thousands of editors are doing our best to build the encyclopedia. But many thousands of others would like to instead use our resources to promote their own pet causes, and they all probably think that Wikipedia and the world would be better off if we allowed them to do so. You and M. Jovanovic's other supporters, and possibly the man himself, seem to be in the latter group! And that is not a bad thing. It is good to want to improve the world.
Part of our way of improving the world is to make Wikipedia the best we can. And that does not allow us to misuse Wikipedia to support our own pet causes, or to allow others to do so.
All the best. Andrewa ( talk) 18:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Micha Jo, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
wumbolo ^^^ 15:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reopening the investigation Micha Jo ( talk) 16:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Wumbolo: Interesting point. I can' speak for Alyona2011 ( talk · contribs), but I suppose she expressed a degree of strength. They are not synonymous. According to [9] "very" is stronger than "quite". And saying that Pierre Jovanovic is "very" famous is an excessive statement. I quote:
Another hypothesis might be the influence of nationality and culture. According to [10] and [11] :
According to Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Other_ambiguity_(complex_cases)
And I note that Alyona2011 uses both words :
It seems to me that she meant that Pierre Jovanovic is famous with a degree of "++" but that he is vocal critic with a degree of "+++". And also, she uses the word "corrupt" which I nearly never use. Same for "famous', I use "notable", in line with Wikipedia's criteria for Biographies of living persons. Micha Jo ( talk) 16:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Andrewa: Well, the article was deleted. This is absolutely disgusting. Objectively, the article verified all criteria. I can only attribute this result to BAD FAITH of Wikipedia editors. Andrewa: what are you doing, wasting your time in such an horrible place ? Regards.
Micha Jo (
talk)
20:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: I am coming to the views of Pierre Jovanovic and others : Wikipedia is under the control of a clique of mainstream censors. Interesting content is blocked, but She-Ra and the Princesses of Power is considered of encyclopaedic value. Its Bread and circuses. Wikipedia is like the mainstream press : no value, just amusement for the uneducated. Micha Jo ( talk) 20:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: Hello. You closed the discussion and deleted the page, because you discounted all my arguments (before I was blocked) and you dismissed other opinions as "likely socks" even though the investigation was NOT closed. I feel that this is not fair! Could you please :
Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 09:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, I have moved this request to a new section. It was originally posted immediately below the first unblock request in the section "I have been wrongly accused of sockpuppetry" -- Scott ( talk) 23:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Micha Jo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hello. I cannot write on my investigation casepage as I am blocked. The summary of my arguments is here below. The core of my defense is that I deny the sockpuppet accusations, but I recognize that I am PARTLY guilty of meatpuppet, as I induced 2 friends to come and support me in the debate. These 2 friends are real and not SPA (Single Purpose Accounts): they are old accounts and have touched other subjects. This mishap is a rookie mistake. I apologize and am now wiser. Please assume good faith. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micha Jo ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't see a strong reason to unblock a proxy-using single purpose account that has admitted to meat puppetry that wants to only re-create the page that lead to this whole mess. You need to drop the stick and show that you are here to improve an encyclopedia instead of promote Pierre Jovanovic. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is getting quite complicated, and I am involved. But I endorse nearly all of Scott's summary and thought above.
I would like to qualify it in two important ways. First and most important, there is a very big difference between being a sock and being an SPA. Both nom and closer of the AfD seem quite frankly to have missed this point and its importance. Both Wikyam and Micha Jo were (and are) both blocked as a result of SPI at the time of the AfD closing, so it was reasonable to regard them as sockpuppeteer and sock. However I would point out that while wp:SPA is an essay, wp:bite is a behavioural guideline. To say, imply or assume (I won't provide the diff just now but can on request) that being an SPA is much the same as being a sock is IMO a clear breach of wp:bite. (But I don't wish to raise it as a behavioral issue, which is why I don't want to provide the diff. I just want to say, let us avoid making that same mistake.)
Secondly, the blocks are not punishment. They are purely to protect Wikipedia. They should be removed if and only if they are not necessary for this purpose.
Having made those points, I will say that I am of two minds about the blocks. The SPI investigator involved has said that they were surprised to see Micha Jo blocked and would not have done so themselves. On the other hand, Micha Jo has said that they wish to give up on Wikipedia. So why unblock them? It's not necessary to remove the insult. There is no insult implied.
However, if the blocks are removed, the case for deletion collapses completely (I still don't think it was ever particularly strong) and the deletion should be summarily reversed. We should not even waste more time in reopening the AfD. I appeal instead to common sense. Move back to draft might still be an option, but not deletion. And we move on. Andrewa ( talk) 17:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This whole experience has been quite painful, I have been bitten hard. Please assume good faith, rookie mistakes, and no intention whatsoever to hurt Wikipedia. Still, some benefit may be derived from this. All the battle on the AfD and the SPI induced me to do much deeper research on sources. I believe that the article can be raised to a higher level of quality than when it was first approved. If I am free to edit again, then I have the intention to prove that I was not an SPA.
Micha Jo (
talk)
19:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
On the whole, I am leaning toward unblocking, but need to take a break. Any other admin should feel free to pick up from here.I am deeply concerned by this, Scott Burley as this has essentially been endorsed by not one, but two checkusers who have evaluated both the technical evidence and behavioral evidence. (Courtesy ping to Ponyo, Guerillero) originally blocked by Oshwah on behavioral grounds and declined by an experienced administrator, Yamla on the same. And with all due respect, Andrewa you're the last person who should be evaluating any of this as you are heavily involved. Praxidicae ( talk) 14:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
So @ Guerillero:, you are keeping an undefinite block on me because:
Clearly this is unfair. I am accusing you of being a wp:WikiVampire. I am asking for help, because your actions are harmful to Wikipedia. You are keeping new editors away from Wikipedia. Since I am blocked, I cannot even properly appeal for arbitration, so I appeal to @ Jimbo Wales: and other administrators.
Hello @
Wtmitchell:, @
Brighterorange:, @
Canley:, @
Excirial:, @
Morven:, @
Ritchie333:, @
MichaelQSchmidt:, @
Ihcoyc:, @
WereSpielChequers:, @
Zanimum:, @
Fuzheado:, @
Airplaneman:. I am appealing to you because you are part of
wp:Article Rescue Squadron/Members. Could you please review and get involved here? I believe that this case of
wp:WikiVampire is at the root of new editors staying away from Wikipedia. Thanks.
Micha Jo (
talk)
08:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
To members of the Arbitration Committee: @
BU Rob13:, @
Callanecc:, @
DeltaQuad:, @
DGG:, @
Doug Weller:, @
Euryalus:, @
KrakatoaKatie:, @
Ks0stm:, @
Mkdw:, @
Newyorkbrad:, @
Opabinia regalis:, @
Premeditated Chaos:, @
RickinBaltimore:, @
Worm That Turned:.
I am contacting you directly because I am blocked, and I can only edit my talk page.
Guerillero is abusing his
wp:functionary powers, which should be revoked. He is hurting Wikipedia by being a
wp:WikiVampire.
Could you please have a look at this issue ? Thank you very much.
Micha Jo (
talk)
08:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Micha Jo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #23319 was submitted on Nov 20, 2018 09:20:35. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 09:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I was pinged into this discussion. I don't know anything about any of the participants involved, and I haven't read any of the responses above, but looked at individual contributions and drawn my own conclusions. Here's my view.
2) Andrewa has been unnecessarily aggressive and badgering towards Micha Jo, and needs to stay away. He doesn't seem to have done much writing, and much of it seems to be towards glamour modelling and tabloid newspapers; now it's not my thing but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with writing about that, but if you
add unsourced content like this, expect it to get reverted until you do find sources. It certainly doesn't mean you should be annoying people to write about a possible notable author and journalist. Get your own house in order before badgering other people.
3) I am disappointed that Praxidixae wants to bash people over the head for writing articles, something that has been recently been
criticised by the Wikimedia Foundation (although Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it). I notice that
Micha Jo is thinking on the same lines. People who don't spend half their lives on Wikipedia are pissed off with some of the processes - deal with it.
Note: I have struck some of the above comments as they are completely unproductive and unhelpful to resolving this situation.
So, moving forward, I propose the following:
* Andrewa takes a one-way interaction ban from Micha Jo, as it's not constructive towards improving the encyclopedia. (This isn't a community ban, this is just informal advice, I trust you can take it in the spirit offered).
I think that's everything. Any constructive comments welcome. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I know from first-hand experience they are close to [Donna Strickland]" makes it sound like you're accusing her of having a conflict of interest. Is that your intent? Would you like us to investigate that? If it's not, you really should clarify or strike that comment, and consider if your personal opinion is starting to cloud your "professional" view.
Micha Jo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #23336 was submitted on Nov 22, 2018 06:18:52. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 06:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
As the IBAN suggestion on me has been withdrawn I'm going to buy back into this.
Any comments on non-bahavioral issues (or behavioural issues concerning Micha Jo as this is after all their user talk page) welcome of course. Andrewa ( talk) 20:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
This is Micha Jo's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 11:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pierre Jovanovic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanovic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Brad v 02:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day again Micha Jo It's been brought to my attention that Jovanovic is canvassing support on Twitter, and linking there to the AfD on the article on himself.
If you have any influence on him or his other supporters, I suggest you discourage this very strongly. IMO, the last thing we want is a flood of editors responding to this. That would be an obvious threat to the integrity of Wikipedia.
We have of course no control over what he or others outside the Wikipedia community do to canvass support, but there are effective measures to minimise the damage of such campaigns. And we do not want them invoked.
What we need to establish is that it is in English Wikipedia's best interests to keep the article. And this not the way to do that. It just adds ammunition for those who say we are better off without it... as French Wikipedia has already decided. And perhaps this is not entirely their fault!
Best. Andrewa ( talk) 18:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Andrewa,
Yes,I have seen that Jovanovic has put the links on his twitter account. Apparently with not much impact.
As I wrote to you on your personal email last thursday (did you receive it ?), he is more interested in protesting "wikipedia's censorship" rather than defending the AfD page. By the way, I do not see much further discussion on this page, so maybe it is time to close the debate ?
Best regards.
Micha Jo (
talk)
20:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow, this is reaching unexpected proportions. You should know that this is in no way orchestrated or an entrapment. I am disclosing here part of the email that I sent to Andrewa:
Micha Jo ( talk) 21:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: I am wondering wether I should try to ask Jovanovic to stop canvassing. I am afraid that this would do more harm than good. Better just let it rest ? Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 21:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: I have been a coder in a previous life (I developped compilers with Lex (software) and Yacc), so I can appreciate your second article! It would be a pleasure to meet in real life. Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 23:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
most of this material is nearly unusable, in paper form, pre-internet, with no online sources, dating from 1995 [1]
That makes no difference... it just must be verifiable, and if it's in the collections of public libraries for example (as all major Australian newspapers are) then it is verifiable.
We must talk more on this. Andrewa ( talk) 22:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Andrewa: Well, I have seen and touched this paper material, in two big binders. I took some pictures with my smartphone, so I have hard proof of the following :
I did not have time to sit down and take pictures of all. It was hundreds of pages. It would be great to be able to access NEXIS in order to fully document these sources.
Plus:
IT could be possible to go to all these radios and try to query their archives. Big work.
Best regards Micha Jo ( talk) 23:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Three of those look promising...
Have any of those been cited in the article to date?
I'll check, but it seems to me that had those been cited right at the start, there might have been no problem at all.
What would be ideal would be for you (or Pierre) to scan these three articles and send them to me (particularly the French ones, which I can read). We can't use the scans directly, but if the information in those articles provides a sourced claim of notability, then hopefully problem solved. I'm sure we can find an Italian reader to cope with the third article.
Or if we can find them archived to the web, even better. As I said before, the Australian National Library is scanning and OCRing many Australian newspapers, and providing the searchable text on the web. Andrewa ( talk) 05:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: I sent to your private email the pics of the paper articles of fr:Jeune Afrique and of fr:Quotidien de Paris. Plus fr:Psychologies Magazine (which is a well respected magazine, and TF1 magazine linked to the French TV channel TF1. The pic of it:Corriere Della Sera was not right (wrong page). I am trying to recover the original article. Regards Micha Jo ( talk) 13:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: I sent to your private email pics of the paper articles from:
Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: Hello. Since you had difficulties with the Tutanota email, I am sending you all the scans again with Protonmail. All the articles are from reputable newspapers or magazines, in French or Italian, and they are all "in-depth". Here they are :
Best regards Micha Jo ( talk) 09:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Andrewa: Here is another source : Pierre Jovanovic was interviewed by CNN on a nearly 1 hour show in 1995. Proof of it is a letter he received from the editors of CNN. Public copy of this letter can be found here [
[2]] and here [
[3]]. Regards
Micha Jo (
talk)
11:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: More sources here. I am sorry to flog a dead horse, so this is only for the record. 3 in-depth interviews in English of Pierre Jovanovic on RT (TV network):
I read carefully reliable secondary sources before posting this. It seems to be a reliable source, as it is from an established news organization, even though some might dispute its bias, but it looks like a clear indication of notability. Micha Jo ( talk) 14:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 09:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Micha Jo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See my arguments below on my talk page Micha Jo ( talk) 00:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No. Provide a summary of your argument in your unblock request. Nobody's going to read a wall of text like that. Yamla ( talk) 13:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ Yamla: Hello. I cannot write on my investigation casepage as I am blocked. The summary of my arguments is here below. The core of my defense is that I deny the sockpuppet accusations, but I recognize that I am PARTLY guilty of meatpuppet, as I induced 2 friends to come and support me in the debate. These 2 friends are real and not SPA (Single Purpose Accounts): they are old accounts and have touched other subjects. This mishap is a rookie mistake. I apologize and am now wiser. Please assume good faith. Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 09:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Oshwah: Hello. I have been blocked by you
[1], on the initiative of Praxidicae. These accusations are completely false, I am please asking you re-consider your decision, because this has very serious consequences.
@
Oshwah: @
Wumbolo: Hello. I am unable to input any comments on my investigation case page [
[16]], so I am putting my comments on my talk page here below. Is this OK ? I want to be sure that the person reviewing my case can read my defence arguments. Thanks.
Micha Jo (
talk)
14:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
First the evidence provided by Praxidicae doesn't hold water :
Could you please consider these other arguments ?
Again I completely refute these accusations.
Thanks for your consideration. This is urgent as the AfD will close soon. Best regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 19:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
PS1. @
Andrewa: @
Anne Delong: @
Art LaPella: @
L293D: I think that I am treated very unfairly with false accusations of sockpuppetry, see here
[3] and that the situation is very serious. I am please asking you for your help. Can you have a look at it? I am considering requesting arbitration, but it will take time, and time is running out for the AfD. I was planning to bring more quality secondary sources to the debate. For example I completely missed out on Jovanovic's own huge press review on his own website. See here, it is huge!
[4]
PS2. @
FeanorStar7:, @
Bearcat:, @
AntiCompositeNumber:, @
TAnthony: Hello. You have kindly contributed to a page that I have created see here
[5]. Since then, I have been the victim of coordinated abuse :
I request your support. @ Jimbo Wales:, @ Amakuru: @ Acroterion: @ WikiDan61: @ Eagleash: @ Alexf: @ AxelBoldt: and others : What has Wikipedia become ?
A key issue here is your use of open proxies. I've looked at the various logs and discussions, and yes there is some inconsistency as to whether the sock puppetry is suspected or confirmed. It's the open proxies that make this very difficult.
If you have innocently done this not realising it was a problem, then I'm afraid you have made a tragic and at least partly irreversible mistake. These pose severe problems for Wikipedia. To quote Jimbo In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses. [17]
If on the other hand you have reasons to use them, the news is perhaps worse. Jimbo again If you have such a severe personal situation that editing Wikipedia with the level of anonymity provided by an ip number is dangerous to you, well, I guess you shouldn't edit wikipedia. [18]
Feel free to email me if you'd like to tell me exactly what is going on, confidentially. And we can take it from there. There is such a thing as a clean start, but we'd need you unblocked first.
And it won't be in time for you to contribute further to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanovic, but in any case I would strongly suggest you make no further edits there or to that article. You have made your point. If that article is the only reason you are here, then that saddens me greatly, I have enjoyed our discussions and invite you again to email me to continue them. I have my own website expressing similar views, and you will find me probably more radical than Pierre. (;-> Andrewa ( talk) 11:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Andrewa: I have sent you a private email, have you received it ? I have taken a part of this email and updated it here.
Regarding the use of Proxies:
Best regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I note that wp:meatpuppet states under the subheading Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Sharing an IP address If two or more registered editors use the same computer or network connection, their accounts may be linked by a CheckUser. Editors in this position are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. There are userboxes available for this; see {{ User shared IP address}}. Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.
The problem here is, it's IMO unreasonable to expect contributors with only a few edits to have read this policy unless they have had some warning referring to it. That's why I have headed this section Possibly innocent. While it appears to be a technical breach of this policy (and also of at least one related ARBCOM decision), it may well be inadvertent. Andrewa ( talk) 08:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
A few observations. I'm genuinely sorry that some of them are harsh.
I do not believe that either the article deletion or the blocking of your account were well handled. But that is water under the bridge. Further criticism of these actions is not going to get the article reinstated or your block lifted.
Nor is providing "sources" such as the letter from CNN. These only do two things:
If you wish to be involved in building Wikipedia, have a good read of my essay at wp:creed and also the pages at wp:here and wp:soap. If, as it clearly appears to me, you don't want to put your efforts towards building Wikipedia, then there is no case for appealing the block. The block is not punishment, it is purely to protect Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you are interested in building a better Wikipedia, now or at some future time, that's a different story. You mentioned that you have several other articles that you thought should be created. I'm interested. You have my email, or you can propose them here and feel free to ping me if you do. But first you need to understand exactly what reliable secondary sources are according to our policies and practices. If you can't provide these then don't waste time proposing those other articles for creation.
In Wikipedia's defense, you might note that I feel free to post comments such as the above. We are not immune to self-criticism. Many thousands of editors are doing our best to build the encyclopedia. But many thousands of others would like to instead use our resources to promote their own pet causes, and they all probably think that Wikipedia and the world would be better off if we allowed them to do so. You and M. Jovanovic's other supporters, and possibly the man himself, seem to be in the latter group! And that is not a bad thing. It is good to want to improve the world.
Part of our way of improving the world is to make Wikipedia the best we can. And that does not allow us to misuse Wikipedia to support our own pet causes, or to allow others to do so.
All the best. Andrewa ( talk) 18:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Micha Jo, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
wumbolo ^^^ 15:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reopening the investigation Micha Jo ( talk) 16:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Wumbolo: Interesting point. I can' speak for Alyona2011 ( talk · contribs), but I suppose she expressed a degree of strength. They are not synonymous. According to [9] "very" is stronger than "quite". And saying that Pierre Jovanovic is "very" famous is an excessive statement. I quote:
Another hypothesis might be the influence of nationality and culture. According to [10] and [11] :
According to Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Other_ambiguity_(complex_cases)
And I note that Alyona2011 uses both words :
It seems to me that she meant that Pierre Jovanovic is famous with a degree of "++" but that he is vocal critic with a degree of "+++". And also, she uses the word "corrupt" which I nearly never use. Same for "famous', I use "notable", in line with Wikipedia's criteria for Biographies of living persons. Micha Jo ( talk) 16:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Andrewa: Well, the article was deleted. This is absolutely disgusting. Objectively, the article verified all criteria. I can only attribute this result to BAD FAITH of Wikipedia editors. Andrewa: what are you doing, wasting your time in such an horrible place ? Regards.
Micha Jo (
talk)
20:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: I am coming to the views of Pierre Jovanovic and others : Wikipedia is under the control of a clique of mainstream censors. Interesting content is blocked, but She-Ra and the Princesses of Power is considered of encyclopaedic value. Its Bread and circuses. Wikipedia is like the mainstream press : no value, just amusement for the uneducated. Micha Jo ( talk) 20:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: Hello. You closed the discussion and deleted the page, because you discounted all my arguments (before I was blocked) and you dismissed other opinions as "likely socks" even though the investigation was NOT closed. I feel that this is not fair! Could you please :
Regards. Micha Jo ( talk) 09:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, I have moved this request to a new section. It was originally posted immediately below the first unblock request in the section "I have been wrongly accused of sockpuppetry" -- Scott ( talk) 23:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Micha Jo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hello. I cannot write on my investigation casepage as I am blocked. The summary of my arguments is here below. The core of my defense is that I deny the sockpuppet accusations, but I recognize that I am PARTLY guilty of meatpuppet, as I induced 2 friends to come and support me in the debate. These 2 friends are real and not SPA (Single Purpose Accounts): they are old accounts and have touched other subjects. This mishap is a rookie mistake. I apologize and am now wiser. Please assume good faith. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micha Jo ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't see a strong reason to unblock a proxy-using single purpose account that has admitted to meat puppetry that wants to only re-create the page that lead to this whole mess. You need to drop the stick and show that you are here to improve an encyclopedia instead of promote Pierre Jovanovic. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is getting quite complicated, and I am involved. But I endorse nearly all of Scott's summary and thought above.
I would like to qualify it in two important ways. First and most important, there is a very big difference between being a sock and being an SPA. Both nom and closer of the AfD seem quite frankly to have missed this point and its importance. Both Wikyam and Micha Jo were (and are) both blocked as a result of SPI at the time of the AfD closing, so it was reasonable to regard them as sockpuppeteer and sock. However I would point out that while wp:SPA is an essay, wp:bite is a behavioural guideline. To say, imply or assume (I won't provide the diff just now but can on request) that being an SPA is much the same as being a sock is IMO a clear breach of wp:bite. (But I don't wish to raise it as a behavioral issue, which is why I don't want to provide the diff. I just want to say, let us avoid making that same mistake.)
Secondly, the blocks are not punishment. They are purely to protect Wikipedia. They should be removed if and only if they are not necessary for this purpose.
Having made those points, I will say that I am of two minds about the blocks. The SPI investigator involved has said that they were surprised to see Micha Jo blocked and would not have done so themselves. On the other hand, Micha Jo has said that they wish to give up on Wikipedia. So why unblock them? It's not necessary to remove the insult. There is no insult implied.
However, if the blocks are removed, the case for deletion collapses completely (I still don't think it was ever particularly strong) and the deletion should be summarily reversed. We should not even waste more time in reopening the AfD. I appeal instead to common sense. Move back to draft might still be an option, but not deletion. And we move on. Andrewa ( talk) 17:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This whole experience has been quite painful, I have been bitten hard. Please assume good faith, rookie mistakes, and no intention whatsoever to hurt Wikipedia. Still, some benefit may be derived from this. All the battle on the AfD and the SPI induced me to do much deeper research on sources. I believe that the article can be raised to a higher level of quality than when it was first approved. If I am free to edit again, then I have the intention to prove that I was not an SPA.
Micha Jo (
talk)
19:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
On the whole, I am leaning toward unblocking, but need to take a break. Any other admin should feel free to pick up from here.I am deeply concerned by this, Scott Burley as this has essentially been endorsed by not one, but two checkusers who have evaluated both the technical evidence and behavioral evidence. (Courtesy ping to Ponyo, Guerillero) originally blocked by Oshwah on behavioral grounds and declined by an experienced administrator, Yamla on the same. And with all due respect, Andrewa you're the last person who should be evaluating any of this as you are heavily involved. Praxidicae ( talk) 14:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
So @ Guerillero:, you are keeping an undefinite block on me because:
Clearly this is unfair. I am accusing you of being a wp:WikiVampire. I am asking for help, because your actions are harmful to Wikipedia. You are keeping new editors away from Wikipedia. Since I am blocked, I cannot even properly appeal for arbitration, so I appeal to @ Jimbo Wales: and other administrators.
Hello @
Wtmitchell:, @
Brighterorange:, @
Canley:, @
Excirial:, @
Morven:, @
Ritchie333:, @
MichaelQSchmidt:, @
Ihcoyc:, @
WereSpielChequers:, @
Zanimum:, @
Fuzheado:, @
Airplaneman:. I am appealing to you because you are part of
wp:Article Rescue Squadron/Members. Could you please review and get involved here? I believe that this case of
wp:WikiVampire is at the root of new editors staying away from Wikipedia. Thanks.
Micha Jo (
talk)
08:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
To members of the Arbitration Committee: @
BU Rob13:, @
Callanecc:, @
DeltaQuad:, @
DGG:, @
Doug Weller:, @
Euryalus:, @
KrakatoaKatie:, @
Ks0stm:, @
Mkdw:, @
Newyorkbrad:, @
Opabinia regalis:, @
Premeditated Chaos:, @
RickinBaltimore:, @
Worm That Turned:.
I am contacting you directly because I am blocked, and I can only edit my talk page.
Guerillero is abusing his
wp:functionary powers, which should be revoked. He is hurting Wikipedia by being a
wp:WikiVampire.
Could you please have a look at this issue ? Thank you very much.
Micha Jo (
talk)
08:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Micha Jo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #23319 was submitted on Nov 20, 2018 09:20:35. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 09:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I was pinged into this discussion. I don't know anything about any of the participants involved, and I haven't read any of the responses above, but looked at individual contributions and drawn my own conclusions. Here's my view.
2) Andrewa has been unnecessarily aggressive and badgering towards Micha Jo, and needs to stay away. He doesn't seem to have done much writing, and much of it seems to be towards glamour modelling and tabloid newspapers; now it's not my thing but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with writing about that, but if you
add unsourced content like this, expect it to get reverted until you do find sources. It certainly doesn't mean you should be annoying people to write about a possible notable author and journalist. Get your own house in order before badgering other people.
3) I am disappointed that Praxidixae wants to bash people over the head for writing articles, something that has been recently been
criticised by the Wikimedia Foundation (although Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it). I notice that
Micha Jo is thinking on the same lines. People who don't spend half their lives on Wikipedia are pissed off with some of the processes - deal with it.
Note: I have struck some of the above comments as they are completely unproductive and unhelpful to resolving this situation.
So, moving forward, I propose the following:
* Andrewa takes a one-way interaction ban from Micha Jo, as it's not constructive towards improving the encyclopedia. (This isn't a community ban, this is just informal advice, I trust you can take it in the spirit offered).
I think that's everything. Any constructive comments welcome. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I know from first-hand experience they are close to [Donna Strickland]" makes it sound like you're accusing her of having a conflict of interest. Is that your intent? Would you like us to investigate that? If it's not, you really should clarify or strike that comment, and consider if your personal opinion is starting to cloud your "professional" view.
Micha Jo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #23336 was submitted on Nov 22, 2018 06:18:52. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 06:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
As the IBAN suggestion on me has been withdrawn I'm going to buy back into this.
Any comments on non-bahavioral issues (or behavioural issues concerning Micha Jo as this is after all their user talk page) welcome of course. Andrewa ( talk) 20:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)