Pierre Jovanovic, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bradv 02:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, received your email thank you.

See also User talk:Andrewa#Your email, and of course you can't comment there but I'm watching here if you wish to. Andrewa (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• I have never been paid by Jovanovic, and had no contact with him until I decided starting his page. I was just a fan of his books and youtube videos.
• My motivation was taking the side of the whistleblower who is gagged by the mainstream press, and see if I could make a change.
• If this first page had been successful, I would have gone on creating more pages on similar people. My deep belief is that we have a great wealth of original thinkers in France, and it is the right time to see a "New Wave" of intellectuals who challenge established ideas.
• I went to visit Pierre Jovanovic at his home very recently, trying to find supporting sources. It was the very first time that I had ever met the man. He has hundreds of press releases, radio and TV interviews in Italy, Canada and the USA, including CNN. But most of this material is nearly unusable, in paper form, pre-internet, with no online sources, dating from 1995. I also discovered that he had a very big press review on his own website, which is very badly structured, and that would require a lot of work to put into proper form. If the work were properly done I estimate that we could extract at least 10 to 15 quality, reputable, in-depth secondary sources. He gave me a couple of his books with dedications.
• I was trying to convince Pierre Jovanovic that Wikipedia is an open source system with some ayatollahs inside and that with due process some impact can be made. Now he is more convinced than ever that Wikipedia, just like Google and other internet giants, are under complete control of the dark "deep state", and that he is the victim of organized censorship.

Micha Jo (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Agree, maybe best to let it lie. Your call, you have met him and I have not.

What would definitely be of great use is if he could provide you with sources. Or, if he can't, maybe you might rethink your admiration! See #Sources below.

I know nothing of his work, but see my other-wiki essays:

• a perfect world
• management by objectives and
• so-called universities

for some of mine. Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 :

• Correre Della Sera 01/03/1995, in depth article in major Italian newspaper
• Radiotelevisione Italiana 08/04/1996, interview in main italian TV channel.
• Jeune Afrique 22/10/1993, in depth article in major African magazine
• Quotidien de Paris 05/10/1993, in depth article in French daily newspaper
• Psychologies magazine July 1994, mention of author and book in article
• Yahoo Magazine, December 1996, p83, article
• TF1 date unknown, in depth interview in main French TV Channel
• TF1 Magazine n°7 1995, in depth article
• CKAK AM Radio (Quebec, Canada) 09/09/1994, in depth interview on Canadian radio

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:

• Plus interviews on French TV : TF1, A2, Canal 5, FR3). On Spanish TV : TV5.
• On French radios dates unknown : France Inter 20mn, Europe 1 30mn, Radio Monte Carlo 15mn, RTL 30mn, Radio Canada 5mn, France Culture 15mn, Radio Courtoisie 30mn, Radio Protestante 10mn, Radio Montmartre 30mn, Radio France 3mn, Radio Tour Eiffel 10mn.

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)[reply]

Three of those look promising...

• Correre Della Sera 01/03/1995, in depth article (assuming that's really Corriere della Sera)
• Jeune Afrique 22/10/1993, in depth article
• Quotidien de Paris 05/10/1993, in depth article

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Andrewa: I sent to your private email pics of the paper articles from:

• it:Corriere Della Sera "Angeli custodi:una cronaca vera", author Ulderico Munzi, 22/10/1993
• it:La Stampa "Inchiesta sull angeli custody", author Maurella Capuano, date approx 18/02/1995
• it:Elle (rivista) "Alla ricerca dell'angelo custode", author Michela Cristallo April 1995

Regards. Micha Jo (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have sent me several emails via Tutanota and I assume that these scans are in one or more of them. However when I attempt to read them I am asked for a password previously agreed with you according to that website. If you have sent this to me it has been lost somewhere, so please resend the password in a form that I can access. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Andrewa" . Micha Jo (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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 :

1. Corriere Della Sera 22/10/1993
2. Elle Magazine Italy April 1995
3. Est Republicain 12/09/1993
4. Jeune Afrique 22/10/1993
5. La Stampa 18/02/1995
6. Le Nouveau Quotidien 27/12/1993
7. Psychologies Magazine 07 and 08/1994
8. Quotidien de Paris 05/10/1993

Best regards Micha Jo (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify... you are saying 800,000 copies sold overall? I was under the impression that it was 800,000 each for at least two of those 12 titles.

I still have not received the scans of the two sources in which I am particularly interested. Andrewa (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa:No, the 800,000+ copies are for the book "Enquête sur l'existence des anges gardiens" only. It was a big success and translated in many languages. I do not have figures for the other books, but the book on "Blythe Masters" also was well received and was translated in Chinese. Micha Jo (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try the password "Andrewa" in order to read my emails from Tutanota. I will resend you these scanned copies of articles using another email. Best Regards. Micha Jo (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, received I think. I can't see why it's necessary to use Tutanota for this. 203.189.127.54 (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was afraid of copyright problems. So I did not consider posting these scans on Wikimedia. Micha Jo (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia is not the place for them. But my website may be! Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I don't think that proves anything we did not already know. It's not anywhere near a reliable secondary source.

But thank you again for the scans. May I publish those I find most interesting on my personal website? Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: I understand that this CNN letter is not a good quality secondary source. I provided it because (1) You were requesting further sources in the English language and (2) even after extensive research, I could not find archives of CNN dating back to 1995. I believed that an official cover letter signed from a Senior Vice President and an Executive Producer carried some proof value. OK, I am learning... I take your point and strike out this source.

In terms of English sources, I had previously provided this one [[4]]. It is in English. It is a scientific article published by the reputable German publisher Springer_Science+Business_Media. The author has a solid background[[5]]. And Jovanovic is clearly cited as a reference. I do not understand why it was dismissed as a not reliable secondary source

You are welcome to publish the scans on your personal website. Regards and Thanks. Micha Jo (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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):

1. in 2018 [[6]] starting at 12:45,
2. in 2016 [[7]] starting at 13:15,
3. in 2014 [[8]] starting at 12:15.

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)[reply]

Interesting... I'd never considered that youtube might be a secondary source. 203.189.127.54 (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is Russia Today's official channel on Youtube, with over 3 million subscribers! But the same videos (plus more) are also directly on RT's website, see here:

1. Episode 1248 [[9]] starting at 12:45
2. Episode 971 [[10]] starting at 16:18
3. Episode 564 [[11]] starting at 15:15
4. Episode 1249 [[12]] starting at 13:15
5. Episode 414 [[13]] starting at 15:45
6. Episode 442 [[14]] starting at 15:07
7. Episode 564 [[15]] starting at 15:15

Regards. Micha Jo (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Whether they are secondary sources might be questioned... I'll view them when I find time. The IP 203.189.127.54 above is me, just BTW. No sockpuppetry intended, just an innocent mistake, I thought I was logged on but wasn't. Andrewa (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

First the evidence provided by Praxidicae doesn't hold water :

• SPA (Single Purpose Account). This is the first wikipedia page I am creating after years of passively reading. I have plans to create many others. This is not a proof.
• Similar votes : well, others like Andrewa (an administrator) are voting like me. This is not a proof.
• so-called Snafu : Apparently, it is a syntax error, and I am the only one who made it. This is an absolute zero value argument.
• Messing with time stamps : I do not know about the other user, but when I do edits, I sometimes replace the old signature with the 4~. This is NOT messing, it's trying to do things right.
• Use of open proxies. I use a VPN as security when I am connected to public Wifi networks in cafes or in airports. It prevents "man in the middle" attacks in insecure public networks. It is also the only way to access some websites like Gmail, Facebook and Youtube when I am travelling in China. Again, this is not a proof.

Could you please consider these other arguments ?

• The argument of similar IP's has not been used, so I suspect that they are different. Actually, I KNOW that they are different. Could you please check if the IP's are the same or not?
• The arguments of time stamps has not been used, so I suspect that timestamps do not match. Could you please check?
• I find it amazing that the investigation was closed so quickly with such weak or non existing evidence before I can bring counter-arguments. This is very shocking!
• We are in a heated discussion on a page that I have created^[2], and Praxidicae is opposing my views. The trend is not in his favor, as user Andrewa (an administrator) has reversed his opinion. I was winning the debate with strong rational arguments and this false accusation is preventing me from continuing the discussion. This is a very unfair way to try to win an argument, and I suspect Praxidicae of bad faith.
• Sockpuppet investigator Ponyo who reviewed the investigation considers the accusations as "Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) with emphasis on the likely". Well this is not a proof, and indefinite banning is a very serious punishment to impose without proof.
• You are violating one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles : Wikipedia:Assume good faith

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)[reply]

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 :

• False accusations of undisclosed payments : ^[6]
• Request for suppression of the page I have created : ^[7]
• And now false accusations of sockpuppetry : ^[8]

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)[reply]

Hello @Andrewa:, First of all, thanks for your answer, it is lonely being blocked.

I do not know what is an Open Proxy. What I use is a commercial (paid) VPN that protects me when I use wifi in airports, and allows me to access websites from countries like China where they are blocked. And this VPN is recognized by Wikipedia. Wikipedia lets me read, but I cannot edit when I am logged through the VPN. So it is impossible to make any changes to Wikipedia while I am using it.

Actually, I had a plan for creating quite a few other pages; I had no idea how hard it is. Jovanovic's page was just a first step.

I will try to contact you directly. Regards Micha Jo (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK... so you have made no edits when using this VPN, is that what you are saying? And the only edits you have made personally are those made when logged in at this account? Or are there exceptions?

It is very important that we get this 100% accurate. A single exception that you forget and do not reveal may remove any chance of unblocking, and I am wasting my time. So think hard!

The most popular open proxy is probably Tor. Have you used it or anything like it when editing? Andrewa (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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:

• I often use a commercial VPN for security reasons when I use public wifi networks. I sent you its name in my private email. It is recognized and blocked by Wikipedia, so I can read but cannot edit with it. So no issue here.
• I am not a user of TOR. I have never used it for editing Wikipedia. Same for Open Proxies.
• Recently, I have been testing a private VPN, which is on a server physically based in my home and that I can access from the outside. The goal of this setup is to have secure remote access to my media files stored at home, and to eventually replace the commercial VPN. And yes, I have done edits on Wikipedia with it. The key point is that the output IP of my private VPN is exactly the same IP than my home IP. That is because the VPN is physically at home, and uses my own internet provider's address. This point can be checked in my logs : when I make any edits on Wikipedia with the VPN, these edits are always done with my usual IP, and always under the userid of "Micha Jo".
• Note that I may be accessing with several IPs in different countries as I am a big traveller. I am on an aircraft several times per month. So when I connect directly from a workplace, the IP may vary, but the private VPN address never varies, as it sits in my home.
• The intent is not to hide, but to have secure access when I am on public wifis, as I spend a significant amount of my time working in airports and hotels abroad. So it is a legitimate use.
• This is quite technical, and I am no software expert. I hope that I made my points clearly. Please ask any question if there is a need for clarification.

Best regards. Micha Jo (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Andrewa: Regarding meatpuppet, I will replicate here part of the email that I sent you some days ago:

• I have been trying to gather support in the fight for Jovanovic's page in 2 ways.
• One way was asking for support on the talk pages of Wikipedia users. This is how you and others like Anne Delong joined the discussion.
• I have also been talking about this to a number of my friends. I told them about Pierre Jovanovic's story (a sort of whistleblower which is unfairly gagged by mainstream media), and they agreed to contribute to the AfC. Two of them were old but not very active Wikipedia users. They are Alyona2011 and Wikiyam. They wrote exactly what they wanted, in their own words. Actually, I was a little horrified by what Wikiyam wrote, as I felt that it was naive and could even be counterproductive. But they did freely as they wanted.
• After being blocked, I did some research, and I discovered the concept of "meatpuppetry", and I realized that I might be guilty of it. I did not know what meatpuppetry was, and I was unaware that it is not accepted. This is a rookie mistake.
• By carefully checking the meatpuppetry criteria, it seems that I am not 100% guilty as these were not new but old accounts, that these accounts are completely unrelated to me. Also these acccounts were not created for the sole purpose of the AfC. Alyona had done in the past some editing in Wikipedia on various topics but had lost interest. Wikiyam had done some editing in the past but had abandoned Wikipedia because all his edits were rejected and he felt badly about it. The positive side is that they could come back editing Wikipedia.

Regards Micha Jo (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• They waste the time of those who are reading this page, including and especially those reviewing the block.
• They demonstrate that you don't understand how Wikipedia works, and raise suspicions that you don't even care.

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)[reply]

@Andrewa: I appreciate the time that you are spending on this matter and I am taking your observations very seriously, and trying to learn Wikipedia's ropes. It is a steep learning curve.

Regarding the CNN source, please see my answer here User_talk:Micha_Jo#Other_source_:_CNN

I did read your essays on wp:creed and wp:soap and I agree. I will send you an email regarding plans for further articles. I agree that Pierre Jovanovic is one of my pet causes, but I would not have taken the time and energy to create this wikipedia page if I did not sincerely believe that it has some encyclopaedic value. My deep motivation is that I am scared of the mainstream media increasingly supressing dissenting voices. There is a bunch of intellectuals that I do not agree with, but I want to preserve the freedom to read their views.

Point well taken regarding further criticism.

Point well taken regarding water under the bridge and taking a step back. Time to move on to other things.

Finally, I would like to quote David Hume (a Scot) "Truth springs from arguments amongs friends". Please assume I was in good faith. Regards Micha Jo (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: I sent you a private email Micha Jo (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for reopening the investigation Micha Jo (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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:

• Very : "Really and very are strong. When one of these words is placed in front of an adjective or adverb, it makes the meaning of that adjective or adverb more intense, more powerful"
• Quite : "When quite is placed in front of an adjective or adverb, it adds strength, but not as much strength as really or very."

Another hypothesis might be the influence of nationality and culture. According to ^[10] and ^[11] :

• "In British English quite usually means ‘fairly’: The film was quite enjoyable, although some of the acting was weak."
• "When American speakers say quite, they usually mean ‘very’: We’ve examined the figures quite thoroughly. Speakers of British English sometimes use quite to mean ‘very’, but only before words with an extreme meaning: The whole experience was quite amazing."

According to Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Other_ambiguity_(complex_cases)

• "Sometimes the confusion is more subtle. In AmE the word quite used as a qualifier is generally a reinforcement: for example, "I'm quite hungry" means "I'm very hungry". In BrE quite (which is much more common in conversation) may have this meaning, as in "quite right" or "quite mad", but it more commonly means "somewhat", so that in BrE "I'm quite hungry" can mean "I'm somewhat hungry". This divergence of use can lead to misunderstanding."

And I note that Alyona2011 uses both words :

• "Pierre Jovanovic is quite famous"
• "He is a very vocal critic" (she didn't say "he is a quite vocal critic")

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)[reply]

It seems to me that Jovanovic is borderline famous at best, judging by the apparent absence of mention of him in the English press. And his notability (which is not the same thing but nobody has ever coherently explained the difference as far as I know, which makes it quite (;-> difficult) is also borderline at best on the evidence we had when the article was deleted. But the scans you have now sent me (thank you!) might well resolve that in his favour. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

So I see. I'm sure you noticed that this was against my strong advice both there and to the proposer.

Wikipedia is certainly not perfect. If you do not wish to be any further part of the project, I regret that and understand.

But if you do, then I'm prepared to help in whatever way I can. I'm assuming that you are here for the right reasons, see The Wikipedia Creed (an essay of mine) for what I personally consider those to be.

I agree that Wikipedia has taken some worrying directions, and I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss these with you or M. Jovanovic or both. You both appear to me to be highly intelligent and highly idealistic.

I even wonder whether we would be able to include Jimbo in the conversation. That would really put the cat among the pigeons. But for now my strong advice is, softly softly. You have good reason to be angry and not entirely logical. These emotions make for good politics sometimes, but they are highly dangerous.

You said you have several other articles you intended to create. If these are adequately sourced in terms of English Wikipedia's (imperfect) instructions, I would be happy to do that.

Please make no attempt to edit Wikipedia while blocked. I hope I did not need to say that but the consequences of such actions would be so serious that I have said it anyway. Please do not take that personally. Andrewa (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: Don't worry, as I am giving up editing on Wikipedia. I have a list of other pages that I was planning to create, but it is about thinkers as controversial as Pierre Jovanovic, so it is a lost cause. As I wrote to you, my motivation was to defend a whistleblower, and my ambition was to help create a "New Wave" of out-of-the-box thinkers.

It is absolutely crazy that such an author is missing from Wikipedia : original thinking, 12 books published, 800,000+ sold, in 7 languages, cited in 13 independent books and 16+ secondary articles, 4 scholar articles or books, 2 TV documentaries or shows, 3 million unique visitors per year on his blog, 27,500 twitter followers ...

I think it could be interesting that @Jimbo Wales: has a look at this whole controversy, because his child is slowly fossilizing and becoming irrelevant.

Thanks heartily for your support. It is greatly appreciated. I will still watch for your private emails. Best regards. Micha Jo (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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 :

• Reconsider, and at least check the substance of my arguments before I was blocked ?
• Or move the page back to Draft until the investigation is definitely settled ?

Regards. Micha Jo (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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.

I've spent far too long reviewing this case and need to step away for now. Here is my attempt to summarize the relevant facts and events:

• Pierre Jovanović (note the accent) was created on March 17, 2015 and deleted by AfD on March 1, 2016. The consensus was that there were not enough sources to establish notability. One editor noted that an equivalent article on the French Wikipedia was deleted for non-notability in 2014. Pierre Jovanovic was created March 3, 2016 and speedy deleted the next day for being a recreation of a deleted article.
• Micha Jo recreated Pierre Jovanovic on September 6, 2018 via AfC. This was their first edit. The draft was accepted by User:L293D on November 2, 2018. This version of the article was more substantial than previous incarnations, with many sources cited. Most of these sources were non-RS, however, and the article had a promotional tone.
• The article was nominated for deletion on November 4, 2018 by User:Bradv. The AfD discussion had the following !votes:
  • Keep - Micha Jo
  • Delete - User:Praxidicae
  • Keep (or Move to Draft) - User:Andrewa
  • Keep - User:Alonya2011, an account with only a few unrelated edits in 2012-13
  • Keep - User:Wikyam, an account with no previous edits
• User:Praxidicae opened a sockpuppet investigation on November 7 based on similar behavior and markup errors made by both Micha Jo and Wikyam. User:Oshwah blocked both accounts and closed the investigation 20 minutes later. A few hours later, checkuser User:Ponyo noted that Micah Jo is using an open proxy.
• User:Wumbolo opened another SPI on November 9, including Alonya2011 this time based on similar language. Checkuser User:Guerillero is unable to confirm. User:Andrewa believes that Wikyam and Alyona2011 may be inadvertent meatpuppets based on discussions with Micha Jo both on and off-wiki. SPI is still open at this time.
• User:Sandstein closed the deletion discussion for Pierre Jovanovic on November 12, noting only that Micha Jo and Wikyam are socks and Alyona2011 is a likely sock. The page was deleted.
• Micha Jo requested unblocking on November 8. User:Yamla declined the unblock request on November 14 because it didn't provide a clear rationale for unblocking, just pointed to a wall of arguments on the talk page.

And my thoughts at the moment:

• The AfD result for Pierre Jovanovic was closed before reaching consensus, primarily due to suspected sockpuppetry by Micha Jo. I will withhold opinion on the merits of the article, but I don't believe it was given a fair hearing.
• The initial SPI came to a hasty conclusion. This is understandable given the evidence, but should not be taken as proving sockpuppetry. Micha Jo's claims of inadvertent meatpuppetry seem plausible.
• The previous unblock request was declined (reasonably) because of the way it was presented, not seriously considering its merits.
• Micha Jo is a SPA on a mission to promote this subject. They have demonstrated very little understanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. They have occasionally been combative. However, they have also acknowledged their errors and made what seem to be good faith efforts to conform to the rules when pointed out.

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. -- Scott (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott Burley: Thanks for making this synthesis. It was well needed for clarification. I understand how you can believe that I am SPA. I hope to bring proof of the contrary in the future. Regards. Micha Jo (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott Burley: I would like to point out a small error that you made, stating that "Wikyam has no previous edits on wikipedia". It is true of the ENGLISH Wikipedia, but he had previous edits on the FRENCH Wikipedia, see here fr:Spécial:Contributions/Wikyam. The guy is a surfer that had started editing Wikipedia, but he abandoned unhappy that all his edits had been suppressed. Micha Jo (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I would uphold the block. I couldn't confirm due to proxy use, but I think the behavioral is strong enough for meats --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has admitted inadvertently violating wp:meatpuppet. So that is not an issue. By which I mean, we don't need any more evidence than that admission, do we? Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not infallible. A Pope is only infallible if he speaks ex cathedra. And I never speak ex cathedra. - John XXIII

Didn't he have a great sense of humour? And we all need that. As my then AAEC workmate Peter Ellis once commented Lose your sense of humour and you worry about things that don't really matter, and that ain't funny.

Have a look at how my early efforts were received. OK it was a deletable sub-stub, I guess I should be glad it wasn't AfDd or just speedy deleted. I don't think we even had a draft namespace in those days. I was intending to expand the article (and did), and didn't know how to start it in my user space. I got accused of not making even the most minimal effort, by an established editor who vandalised my article... Henry Felsen is somebody at the University of Iowa indeed. Very funny. Not the place for it, was it? Perhaps a note at my user talk page suggesting userfying the sub-stub? Nope. Just hit-and-run vandalism.

IMO it has since got worse not better. We have spent lots of time wondering why we don't retain editors. You and I know! But nobody is listening.

But I'm hanging in there. I believe in the project, and in AGF and NPA and the other policies that even some admins now ignore. Some people get blocked through no fault of their own, others get away with ridiculously bad behaviour. But it's a random thing IMO. (If you or M. J have evidence of systematic bias, I'd be glad to forward it to the Foundation. But I do mean evidence. Logic, not rhetoric.)

On the other hand, it's only a matter of time before the big end of town uses AI to take control of Wikipedia, or at least tries to do so. Hopefully the Foundation is ahead of them on this. But rule one of mental heath is, don't take responsibility for anything you cannot control. So I'm just hanging in there regardless.

Sometimes it's painful. I think it's worth it. Andrewa (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@Praxidicae:. I fail to understand why you are "deeply concerned by this". Could you please explain why ?

The technical evidence is not conclusive. The behavioral evidence was explained as a rookie error: I confessed meatpuppetry as I was unaware that this was forbidden. I Recognized my error and apologized.

And how do you differentiate between a newcomer who is creating his first page and an SPA? Only time can tell, so give me a chance and please stop wp:biting. Micha Jo (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question! In my opinion we don't need to differentiate between a newcomer who is creating his first page and an SPA, simply because it's no crime to be an SPA. It is on the other hand a crime to fail to disclose a COI, or to solicit or act as a meatpuppet, and the essay at wp:SPA gives valuable guidance in these areas and I link to it a lot. But to discount a !vote just because a user is an SPA (or an IP for that matter) is as I understand it contrary to long-standing policy and practice, while those of socks and meats are automatically discarded without even considering their arguments. Yes, I know several editors have expressed the opposite view. In my opinion they are quite simply and clearly wrong, see User talk:Andrewa#Response to Bradv above for previous discussion on this. Andrewa (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that I am heavily involved and I'm mindful of that policy, which reads in part editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. But I have not sought, and will not seek, to act as an administrator in this discussion.

And in view of that I do not think that it is in either the letter or intent of that policy to disqualify me from discussing the issues here. But I take it you do? Andrewa (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A reminder to admins reviewing the block; this is not a checkuser block, it is a regular administrator block based on behavioural evidence as I emphasized here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and thank you for that reply to my query on your talk page some time ago. Highly recommended reading. Andrewa (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So @Guerillero:, you are keeping an undefinite block on me because:

1. I am legitimately using my own private proxy (see my arguments above, NOT an open proxy).
2. I made the rookie mistake of asking friends to come and support my page, not knowing what a meatpuppet was. I learned and apologized for it.
3. This is the very first page that I was trying to create, so it's easy to accuse me of being a SPA.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have removed your talk page access because you are being disruptive with it - unwarranted personal attacks on Guerillero and ping spamming of random users. You can still appeal via the Unblock Ticket Request System or an email to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Realized this is a behavioral block, not a CU block, so am striking the recommendation to email ArbCom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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)[reply]

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.

• Micha Jo wrote Pierre Jovanovic, which was then deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanovic. The AfD was sparsely attended, and the delete close looks like a bit of supervote. I would have relisted the AfD for another week myself. I see a lot of news sources about Jovanovic, mainly in French, and he appears to have done a number of high-profile interviews so my answer to the question of "should we have an article about him?" is "Maybe, I'm not sure yet". Ask somebody who lives in Paris who is "up" on politics. In my personal view, that means you should have kept the article; only delete things when you are absolutely sure it can never be improved.

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.

• I generally think those obsessed with sockpuppetry assume too much bad faith, but this seems to have as much effect as Nick Clegg saying he's sorry for not scrapping tuition fees, so I might as well be shouting at a brick wall.

• If you think this is a personal attack, you should have seen some of the things said to me on the internet (particularly when I have said Brexit is an economic disaster or that Trump is a racist misogynistic jerk).

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:

• Micha Jo agrees to use this account only and if they have been using other accounts, to declare them here. (This may have been done already, I haven't waded through the walls of text above) Once this is done, I will unblock.

• Anyone wanting to rewrite a draft on Pierre Jovanovic should be free to do so in draft space, which should be accepted by the standard Articles for creation process.

* 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 would like to see what other articles Micha Jo would like to work on besides Jovanovic. As their talk page is disabled, this would need to be done via email or via OTRS.

I think that's everything. Any constructive comments welcome. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Ritchie333#I am listening but maybe that is a bit harsh. Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: i.r.t #3, what's Praxidicae got to do with this? You've been rather vocal in your dislike of her, and seem to take any opportunity to have a pop - saying things like "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.

I'm really really tired of some of our long term editors' behaviour, and I think they should know better - I don't want to use your "catchphrase" against you, but perhaps if you'd spent your time writing an article instead of stirring things up and working out how you can drag Prax into something, we'd all be able to have a slightly better day. Who knows. - TNT ^💖 20:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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)[reply]

As the IBAN suggestion on me has been withdrawn I'm going to buy back into this.

• The removal of talk page access was the only reasonable action following this post, which makes any unblocking requests moot... lost cause for now at least.
• The recreation of the article (as a draft or elsewhere for comment and subsequent move to article namespace if approved) is a good idea, and should not be prohibited and I will probably get around to it if I'm allowed to do so.
• IMO if some of the sources now found had been cited in the article in the first place, the whole thing would not have happened. But we're now under extra scrutiny and sources need to be very carefully scrutinised, and recreation performed only according to the spirit and letter of the law.
• I am not acting as an administrator in this, have never done so nor will seek to do so as I am heavily involved. While administrators do come under extra scrutiny in all their actions whether acting as an administrator or not (because we're supposed to be trustworthy beyond the normal AGF), I do not believe that I am acting improperly in providing the input I have. If anyone thinks I have, my user talk page should be the first port of call. To raise such issues here or anywhere other than my user talk page was and is improper IMO.

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)[reply]