Talk:Erik Möller/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for full article here

Request that this be developed into a full article since Erik Möller is now Executive Secretary of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees . see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence Lumos3 13:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Dan100 (Talk) 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Since this was reverted, I strongly encourage the redirect be removed and the full article restored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Strawpoll

Clearly it's not entirely known where the community stands in regards to giving our longtime contributor and trustee Erik an article. I wish to conduct an informal strawpoll to see where the community in general stands.

There should be an article

  1. Strongly support this option. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strongly support this option. WAS 4.250 18:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 09:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There should be a redirect to the Wikimedia Foundation article

  1. Support this as there's no option to delete this brown-nosing bit of self reference about an unotable member of a charity organisation, who if he were on the board of trustees of any other NPC would have been deleted within five minutes of creation. Proto:: 20:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to stand

  1. MESSEDROCKER 16:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments/other

Afd

This article was nominated for deletion and redirected. Now one individual who appears to hold a grudge against wikkipedia (based on his edits) insists on restoring it. Please do not do so as their is simply no consensus to do so and the afd should be respected. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

how do we go to appeal this? I don't know if I agree with it being deleted given the new information. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

this page. What new information? Thanks, SqueakBox 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No DRV necessary. If significant new notability arises, previous AfDs are moot. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so, as your actions are disputed, stop making up the rules as you go along. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, arent redirects editorial decisions and not necessarily binding? The last deletion discussion ended in a redirect rather than a deletion and thus we should be able to change this without a hassle if things change. Moller becoming the deputy director is quite a bit different than being on a board, and the discussion above seems to at least somewhat show a lack of clear support for a redirect. I am going to reverse you for now, I imagine you will nominate for deletion if you disagree with the prior outcome and with us. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 20:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing has really changed and besides this looks like an attempt by someone with a grudge to troll a member of the foundation rather than a good faith attempt to better the encyclopedia. And we certainly do not need to waste everyonne's time on an afd based on a trolling campaign, that is not how we work. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
i would have probably done the same. i dont believe im a troll, either. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 03:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well take it to drv then, this is what it is there for. Bramley's current edits are 100% revertign of me, I hope you have a better record. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually see you have virtually no edits of any sort. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
yes i'm virtually new, thanks. Whether this person's edits are only to this arent really relevant, but i dont think this is for drv because the article wasnt deleted. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It was deleted, please check the afd, and nothing has changed re the notability of this person whereas Bramlet certainly just edits wikimedia foundation articles, and in an aggressive way. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
but im looking at the most recent deletion information and it was not deleted, but simply turned to a redirect. How is Bramlet relevant here? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
But redirects are totally diiferent, of course the article should have been redirected as redirects are very useful , but that does not make them a justification for any user to come along and ignore the afd! What makes you think that? Please familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines before making such bold edits. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
im trying to familiarize myself with these things. dont those sort of discussions just get closed since redirects are editorial? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus at the Afd discussion was for a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. I think it's quite obvious that unilaterally turning it back into an article is not helpful.--Atlan (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
it was also a year ago and a lot has changed. its not unilateral either. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 03:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
That is true, consensus can change and so can notability. But you should at least explain why you think this should be an article now, that's how consensus is built. Continually reverting without much of an explanation is really not acceptable.--Atlan (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
i believe i explained that above. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This person's notability clearly has not changed at all. Another afd would be a pointless waste of time given that nothing has changed and that he nowhere near meets the notability requirements of living [people for wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
why has no one addressed the information above? instead of accusing me of trolling why not explain how deletion review will work or why not nominate it for afd instead of being nasty? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no information to address, you have done nothing here but ask questions, say you are trying to familiarize with WP's operations (you clearly aren't trying very hard), and say you disagree with this page being a redirect. There is really nothing you have said that could possibly be construed as a proper reason to recreate the article. You are a neophyte editor who is quickly becoming an edit-warring nuisance. I suggest you quickly change your editing behavior, because this will get you nowhere really fast.--Atlan (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
are you not reading? perhasps you should stop attacking me and read a bit, his position has changed and the article was not deleted. you attitde wont get you far either, thats not the way to convince anyone. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I read that just fine. You are apparently under the impression that that should totally convince me and anyone else Erik should now have his own article, while those 2 points are entirely uncompelling. You say his position has changed, without any explanation why that change makes him any more notable than he was before. The fact that the article was never deleted but redirected is even less of an argument for undoing the redirect.--Atlan (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
if you read the discussion taht resulted in the redirect, it was more due to the fact that he was a board member. hes since become more important. at best it should be its own article at worst you should send it to afd if you think its so wrong to exist instead of acting as you are. redirects are an editorial decision and there are at least two of us editing this who believe the article should exist. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"He's become more important" is again, entirely unconvincing an argument, as you fail to explain how he is more important and how that importance makes him any more notable. "Redirects are editorial decisions" is a moot point. The fact of the matter is that consensus was reached to this particular redirect. It was not just some editor's decision. Also, there are "at least two of us" that want to stick with the redirect as well, proving there is currently no consensus. In that case, you discuss BEFORE you change from previously established consensus, not after.--Atlan (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
unconvincing to you - thats why it was originally redirected, as he was only a board member. being the deputy director of a top ten website, not to mention the founder of a major website, is what makes him notable. consensus was reached for a redirect was reached without those issues existing, or being known or considered if we read the discussion. you have yet to make a good case as to why this should remain a redirect so why are you opposed to an afd on it if you want it gone? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Unconvincing to me and, IMO, unconvincing to any reasonable person. We have no evidence he either founded wikinews or that it is other than an entirely unnotable site, and God knows working behind the scenes for a top 10 site is not a sign of notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
how many people do you plan to insult today? meanwhile, the fact that hes a founder is noted in the wikinews article, and the site is notable to be included to have an article here, and he is a director, not behind the scenes. you are completely wrong, and you should take your case to afd if you think the article should not exist. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, afd has been done. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
yes and redirects are editorial decisions. thats what they say at deletion review when you bring them there. enough has changed and hes significantly more important now. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Using the same arguments over and over is not suddenly going to convince me. I'm going to stop replying to them. Anyway, I suggest RFCbio if you want more eyes on this.--Atlan (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
at least I have an argument, you have yet to address them so i have to keep making sure you see them. but since you wont reply to this, i guess i have to assume you cant argue against them? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The burden of providing arguments to sway consensus is on you, not me. As for your own arguments, I already said that this particular redirect is not simply an editorial decision, but a consensus based decision. I also already said that you fail to state why his change of position makes him notable. Saying "he's much more important now" is weak and meaningless. Importance and notability are not the same.--Atlan (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You put that well, Atlan. Wikipedia stresses that whoever adds material needs to justify it, not the person who removes the material. Also it is a consensus that this be a redirect. If, of course, nobody had challenged you in restoring the article, that would have been different but a number of editors are most strongly challenging this. And Moeller clearly is not more notable than when the afd happened, if he suddenly became notable I would be fine about restoring the article, though obviously giving prominence to whatever was making him notable. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
i have justified it, you have yet to justify remova;. two editors are currently challenging it, you and atlan. two people here so far are for restoring it, and the consensus at the last discussion was based around his being merely a board member, not discussing his founding of wikinews and his not being the deputy director. you have yet to addressthis, and I believe cannot. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not so, the removal has been justified on 2 grounds, consensus in afd and lack of notability. I dopn't know what you mean by merely a board member but I do no know that being deputy director is nowhere near enough to satisfy our notability requirements, and the article reflected that (poorly sourced etc). Thanks, SqueakBox 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
he is "notable" that is clear. the removal has not been justified since the change in status given the discussion at the most recent afd. i suggest rereading the discussion. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Did I not say his change of position does not necessarily make him more notable? YOU have yet to address THAT, and I believe you cannot, seeing as "he's more important now" is still your strongest argument. I would kindly ask you stop regurgitating the same few lame arguments and come up with something new, or edit somewhere else for a change. I really don't feel like arguing ad nauseum with an SPA, who refuses to get a clue.--Atlan (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
i have addressed that. enough insults, thanks. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Good, then you have addressed it poorly and I don't have to waste more time on that. And insults? Please, cry me a river.--Atlan (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
youve addressed it poorly, not me. good luck not wasting your time elsewhere. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Please do not re-add material without adding a reliable source that is verifiable, and remeber the burden of proof is on the person who adds, and also that BLP:our biography policy makes cleart hat removing of contentious, unsourced material re living people is not subject to our 3 reverts policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

No more. This article has been protected. Discuss your differences and use dispute resolution if necessary. Jehochman Talk 17:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Erik Moller

{{editprotected}} Should be redirected to Erik Möller. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Erik_Moller_protection. The Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor endorsed by the community, who empowers it, to have any control over content editorial matters like this. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

YesY Done Please note I did this solely as a maintenece job. Whatever the end result of this is (redirect to Wikimedia Foundation or leave as separate article), it should be done in parallel. It makes no sense to have Erik Möller be an actual article and Erik Moller be a redirect. If this ends up becoming a redirect to WMF in the end, then undo my change as a double redirect. As long as this article exists though, the other should point to here. Thanks. ^demon[omg plz] 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was this redirected?

He's clearly notable, all the current nonsense aside. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It was redirected after an Afd. This is the first serious effort to recreate the article since then. Looks pretty good so far.--Atlan (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Harald Bachner

Either someone should explain what Bachner cited from the Moller book or that statement should go. The mere act of being cited does not warrant inclusion in an article. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I will look into this and provide more context. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The never-ending debate on this article

Someone wants to redirect it again, based on the results of a 2+ year old AfD. Any new arguments for reversing the recreation from a year ago? [[User:Ed Wood's Wig|]] (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a tremendous amount of work has been done on the article since the last deletion discussion about it. At the very least, this would merit a new AfD discussion, not a unilateral action with no discussion. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
A unilateral action with no discussion? You mean like re-creating it following a deletion discussion? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The article has been in existence and stable in much the same version for easily over a year, and has involved the positive contributions of multiple Wikipedia editors. So yes, simply redirecting it with zero discussion about that is a unilateral action and inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A three-year old discussion does not carry a lot of weight, especially once you realise that it concerned a completely different article. The current article must stay until consensus determines otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.107.184 (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Don't shoot the messenger

Yeah, I know, this is Faux News, but they brought up a concern about Mr. Moller.192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. 147.226.197.219 (talk · contribs) added this to the article, without this ref and I reverted. Has it been raised by other news outlets in the past?
I like the way that Fox says "These writings were drudged up by Valleywag in May 2008", and then they proceed to re-drudge it.
John Vandenberg (chat) 01:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This might be significant enough to include in the article, but let's wait and see if it's picked up by any other independent sources - if not, we should err on the side of caution and leave it out. That's not just for WP:BLP reasons, but because Moeller has attacked Fox News' claims as defamatory and says he intends to take legal action (see his response here). In his words, 'Any repetition of those claims is, at best, reckless and irresponsible', and might expose us to legal action as well. The Wikimedia Foundation has also responded here. If this was included in this article (and as I said, I don't think it should be), it would be inappropriate to do so without including those responses. Robofish (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I would argue against including it in the article, on the basis that it represents one of the worst practices of Wikipedia biographies - all someone has to do is to get an accusation into the media, and it becomes a "controversy" to follow them forever ("So-and-so was accused of being the Anti-Christ. He denied it"). Though there is a certain irony here. I am not a lawyer, but my reading of applicable law is that if "he intends to take legal action", he will have a very difficult time of it due to "section 230 immunity", which is also Wikipedia's key argument against liability when it libels/defames someone. But rather than going the route of hoist-on-his-on-petard, and seeing him suffer as redemption for the many sins of Wikipedia, I'd rather use this as a basis for arguing everyone else should get the same consideration. Because you know the other side is WP:NOTCENSORED and Verifiability-Not-Truth. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)