Talk:Biff Rose

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Older discussions: Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 1. Please do not move any additional discussions into this archive. Owen× ☎ 06:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

I noticed the back and forth on this page has resumed. I also noticed the previous discussion was archived. Why? As it is, the current version of the article is the one that was agreed on by general consensus. Please discuss any proposed changes here before making them. And stay civil. Marcuse 04:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sock puppets

Sojambi pinola-Sojambi Pinola is proven to be the same as poster 69.112.0.166 69.112.0.166

here's the proof.... (cur) (last) 07:52, 17 September 2005 Sojambi Pinola m (→Compilations - sorry...that was ME...not logged in. I am leaving the POV comments in for now, but please discuss them.) (cur) (last) 07:44, 17 September 2005 69.112.0.166 (→Compilations - This is the correct title of this LP.) (cur) (la

from the September 13th 2005 edits of Biff Rose article Mickey muos 20:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willmcw is at it again.Stephen Espinola 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll say he's at it again216.175.114.219

Sockpuppetry

I have just banned several sockpuppets created for the sole purpose of avoiding 3RR on this article. I will not hesitate to ban any others that show up, along with the users who create them. Think twice before you try such a stunt. Owen× ☎ 01:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, OwenX. I'm sure that was time consuming, and I appreciate the effort.

For the record, by intention, the ONLY username I use is Sojambi Pinola. User:69.112.0.166 is not a "sockpuppet" of me, usually it IS ME, when I have forgotten to log in or when my computer logs me out for some unknown reason (sometimes I have two browsers open and mess up). I am not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes when that IP address comes up. It's a goof that pops up statistically infrequently, given the number of posts this "drama" has generated. And the guy claiming otherwise knows it, too.

"Jonah" just created a user named Stephen Espinola. That's a version of my birth name, but that was not my post. It would appear he is acting in a hostile and deliberately misleading manner. -Sojambi Pinola 07:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is an accurate description of matters, as far as I am aware. I have permanently blocked all of the Jonah Ayers socks that I have found, and OwenX has temporarily blocked Ayers for disruption. The example of Ayers shouldn't be followed by anyone. Socks are allowed on Wikipedia, but any attempt to use them to abuse practices like editing by consensus or 3RR is strictly forbidden.

On the bright side, this article looks better now than it ever has. Thanks everyone for the good editing under hostile fire. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the new version reads well now. I expect it to be taken down. I will rewrite it. 216.175.120.24

I've protected the article now to have a "cooling down" period; I noticed a lot of reverting. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected; hopefully things have cooled down. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Retrieved from the archive:

Edit Wars again

I see that this article is the subject of content disputes. I see that there have been too many reverts that use as an edit summary that they are reverting vandalism. Removal of content that is the subject of a dispute as to whether it is correct or encyclopedic is not vandalism. Claims of vandalism, when there is a real content dispute, are personal attacks.

Can we please try to summarize what the content issues are?

I see one content issue, which is that the statement that recent Biff Rose songs have racist content is a POV. A statmenet that a writer has claimed that they have racist content is NPOV. Robert McClenon 11:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think that is the real issue. User:216.175.126.203 is making an assessment in the new version that Biff's web writings are anti-semitic. Biff claims, on the other hand, that he is "pro-Jewish and anti-Zionist." By the rules of Wikipedia, you are supposed to find outside criticism if you are going to make such claims of anti-semitism. So, in other words, a correct sentence would be more like...."Critics have accused Biff of making Anti-semitic comments on his website. He contends that he is pro-Jewish and anti-Zionist." That would be NPOV. Problem is, you have not yet found outside criticism making that claim. Find that, and that sentence as I wrote it would be factual and NPOV. -Sojambi Pinola 06:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this yahoo group seems to have been started with the specific intent of "getting back at Biff" for something: It includes messages that exhort its members to rewrite this Wikipedia article to make claims of antisemitism. Two contributors in particular seem to be doing most of the dialoguing, though at least four email names are used. You need to join to read the articles. I have archived them in case the group is taken down.

This somewhat out of date "links" page [1] brags about creating a fictional identity ("Bill Roberts") with the intent of duping Biff. Note the references to "lapdogs." The tone is very similar to that of an ongoing, multinamed contributor to this article. Make your own conclusions. --Sojambi Pinola 07:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know what Steve, if I wrote that I'd tell you. I'm not Walter, and I'm not a non new orleanian. I live in post Katrina New orleans, and I'm writing what is certainly true about Biff. You can say that I wrote all the htings on the web you want to, but that doesn't stop the fact that you are imbecilic in pointing out things I did not write. You question my stylistic merit, I've been writing for Offbeat for years, my ex wife writes for it too. I also write for a small music magazine called Spin. Jesus, you really area fruit. A total nut. Phone calls... how in the world do you know who called you? Phone calls, supposedly similar articles that when read prove not to resemble a damned thing I've written on here. You want my name so bad? It's Josh. Ask your pal biff, maybe he can figure it out. Tell him Snapperhead said hello too. Man. You are really incredible... the things that pop up in your head.216.175.127.126 06:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WILLMCW

info on editor Willmcw's official admonishment by wikipedia officials 1. Willmcw admonished Willmcw is admonished to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Nskinsella (Stephan Kinsella) who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Wikipedia. Passed 7-0

2. Error by Willmcw Willmcw has in at least one instance been caught up in the struggle over the content of political articles and edited inappropriately, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#David_Duke.2FLudwig_von_Mises_Institute Passed 7-0

3. Harassment of Nskinsella Willmcw has inappropriately quarreled with, and been involved in disputes regarding the articles concerning, a controversial and knowledgeable expert who is also an Wikipedia editor, Nskinsella, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Evidence_from_Nskinsella. Passed 7-0

Throw the book at me

It is apparent that I'm bein g singled out by a corrupt administrator, and a sock puppet of rose. Look at User:Willmcw's page and see how the official wikipedians ruled against him. also note on Biff Rose's own website the dialogue established between User:Sojambi Pinola and Rose himself. The POV that has been developed in the article is relentless and I've edited it out. There is no need for all the links that double and triple prove rose was on carson, so I have taken them down. I noted that there are more links from Rose's entry than for Jimi Hendrix's entry, and this is absolutely ridiculous. It is time to realize that rose is a minor artist of very little note who only found his way on here because someone chose to write negative POV about him that proved to be untrue. If that first negative article was not written, Rose would not be on Wikipedia. In light of the recent mishaps in the editorial process in general, and those of User:Willmcw in particular, it is time for Willmcw to recuse himself from this entry. And Sojambi pinola should no longer edit the entry as he is basically the voice of rose, which violates the wikipedia rules against autobiography- and as Sojambi Pinola is working in conjunction with Biff rose, as seen on the biffrose.com messageboard then he should no longer be allowed to edit here in any way.Jonah Ayers

I certainly commit to not putting any opinions of Rose by David Duke into the article, and if user:Nskinsella participates in editing here I will show him appropriate respect. Thanks for your interest. -Willmcw 08:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Jonah," I will remind you that the links were put up there because the article had been heavily edited by you. The only way that I could corroborate the facts I wanted to include was by putting up links. This article has been more heavily challenged than the Hendrix article because of your agenda of minimizing this artist. Hence, more links were required.

This article has contained serious accusations --and flat-out libel-- about a living person, at a great many points in recent time. Circumstantial evidence suggests that you may have written some of the most serious claims under a different username. The claims under username Jonah Ayers are serious enough, as well.

It would be NORMAL for any living artist to be somewhat concerned that such libel about him is being posted at Wikipedia mirror sites all over the web. Hence, I don't think it's strange that Rose has written about it on his message board. Rose has had no direct input on the actual content of anything I have written. He did, however, express reasonable positivity AFTER a specific item was re-worded in a less libelous matter. I don't think that's so ominous. This is real writing about a real person in the real world, and these writings have real consequences. Wikipedia isn't a playpen; people actually read this. If similar claims were printed about a living artist in a newspaper, it would be reasonable for the artist to demand a retraction from the paper....and get it.

-Sojambi Pinola 14:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree real writing, not lame kiss me's from some fan boy bent on on telling one side of his hero's story? Real like taking interest in Biff's "controversial" use of words and phrases such as "stupid nigguh" and "Dirty kike", both of which you know appeared on his website messageboard, as well as the frequent and derogatory usage of the word "nigger" in his later lyrics. You're absolutely right. He should be accountable for the thingss he wrote, and not things about him that aren't true. Those things are true, and he can't use you to avoid the truth that he's written and and recorded. The more rose's sycophants try to pigeonhole him into "Controversial artist" categories the more they deny the true implications of the racist and anti semitic actualities of Rose's work. If you can call it work. I call it hate fueled bile. But as an editor on here I avoid landing my opinion of his worth on the artist, and just include the sentence that seems to cause so much consternation with the one person here, that one person being sojambi pinola. Rose is using anti-semitic language in a negative fashion, as well as racist terminology. This is not merely 'Strong Language' this is beyond that. Well beyond that. And real people should read real writing that addresses rea linstances of racism and anti semiticism. Really.

As for your baseless 'Circumstantial Evidence' where is it? When? How? Are you sure you have the right person here? From looking at your own posts, you've dug up a whole website dedicated to not liking Biff Rose. maybe one of the members over there is to blame for these wrongs you claim have been written about your dear kind hearted Biff rose. for that matter why? Because far as I see it, Rose's own words enact the phrase give em enough rope pretty damn well... or if you're a bit thick- he incriminates himself so much no one needs to make up stories about him. You accuse me, yet you show no proof, and that is very fascist and republican of you. For a fan of an ex hippie, you certainly seem more at home firing off loose conjecture that you can't back up. You're a disgrace to wikipedia when you behave as such, and so I implore you to stop these false allegations. I write one simple sentence about Rose- he's written racist and anti semitic lyrics and in the screeds he posts on his website message board. Don't pin your own misanthropic take on the world on me. AS far as Rose being able to demand a retraction, he wouldn't get one, the words nigger and kike appear in derogatory nature throughout his website and his later lyrics. It's very clear. Retractions come when the point the article made was untrue, and the point the article about Rose makes is that he writes racist and anti-semitic lyrics and websites. That is true. The real deal, so to speak. Thanks for reading Stevie. Now, my little manchurian candidate, work your mojo.216.175.114.219 07:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't believe this is still going on. Jonah, you are entirely mistaken about whether Sojambi can edit given connections to Biff. Biff Rose himself would be welcome to edit this article. If you go over to the arbitration page WP:RFAr, you will see that two cases were recently settled in favor of editors working on pages about themselves ... and the arbcom even took into account how unusually stressful it must have been for those editors. Derex 19:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]