User:FayssalF/JK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is dedicated to discuss and sort out all the issues related to the following articles:

• Bachir Attar
• Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka
• Brion Gysin
• Cherie Nutting
• Mohamed Hamri
• Master Musicians of Jajouka
• Master Musicians of Joujouka
• Paul Bowles
• William S. Burroughs
• Frank Rynne
• Vincent Salafia

[edit] Background

The conflict can be described in a whole as a coflict of interests as per the definition at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

2 groups of Musicians with almost similar backgrounds exist in real world and both have their own article in Wikipedia. The bands in question are Master Musicians of Joujouka and Master Musicians of Jajouka. Both articles are still being tagged w/ {{Not verified}}, {{Primarysources}} and {{totallydisputed}} templates.

It should be noted that these 2 groups have been directly associated w/ other biographical articles of a few notable writers, paiters, musicians and photographers who were or have been associated w/ the Beat Generation somehow. All of these articles are mentioned in the section above.

Lately, some of these articles has been subject to edit warring. Apart from the accounts of some of the users involved (see accouts below), many IPs were edit warring as well. These IPs hail from both Europe (Ireland and France) and the US (NY area and Florida). The confidentiality of these IPs is guaranteed and only User:FayssalF and User:Mel Etitis may have formal access to them who reserve the right to NOT divulge them to any party whatsover be it in Wikipedia or outseide Wikipedia.

There have been many discussion between editors at the articles talk pages and some have led to concensuses. We do appreciate those efforts. However, the following infrigments of policies and guidelines have been noted:

• WP:BLP
• WP:LIBEL
• WP:NPA
• WP:CIVIL
• WP:HARRASS
• WP:AGF
• WP:NPOV
• WP:CITE
• Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Please note that Wikipedia is not a BATTLEGROUND.

[edit] The goal of this mediation

The goal of this mediation is to reach a concensus between all involved parties on how to make those articles reach a GA-Class status. In order to achieve that all parties should work together while respecting all Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

[edit] Participants and involved parties

• User:Abelelkrim
• User:BKLisenbee
• User:Cherie Nutting
• User:Emerman User requested not to participate via email to FayssalF due to his uninvolvment in the articles in question since mid-February, a date before the last edit warring begun.
• User:Jonur
• User:Opiumjones 23
• User:Theoldanarchist aka Charles
• User:Tuathal
• User:FayssalF aka Szvest - mediator
• User:Mel Etitis - mediator

[edit] Questions and broad comments

[edit] Question from Anonymous 134.226.1.194

I agree with this process. But how does it proceed , note edits continue from summoned parties. -- 134.226.1.194 00:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Thanks for the initiative. Much appreciated. In order to have a transparent process it would be advised to use formal accounts. One of the main points i mentioned above is privacy and confidentiality. Maybe i understand you when commenting now using an IP but in order to reach the objective set above we have to be be transparent enough to gain time while avoiding to remind participants about WP:AGF.
2. One important thing is that is not a trial. Everybody does mistakes. It is not to go back to the past and find a guilty prey. It is not about that. We are not wanting to know about anyone's past sockpuppetry or IPs. We look forward for corrective measures instead of punishing ones. This page is set for hearing about everyone's concerns (one by one) and fix what needs to be fixed and quickly. I say quickly because we have the tools (policies and guidelines including manuals of style). I personally know little about your off-Wikipedia dispute but i know enough about how stuff works here. So we both have to listen to each other and find ways for each single obstacle between this status quo and making good articles free of POV and stomach filled w/ reliable sources mostly not primary.
3. For a better result i suggest everybody speaks once and avoid responding to any other comment until the second round. This means that the first round of interventions would be limited to exposing your concerns and not responding to prior interventions of other parties. Please respect the note at the top of the statements section below. I will also put your question in a separate one in order to have a new statement space when logging in. Please note that when necessary, Mel or me would intervene to remove inappropriate comments. -- 41.251.67.241 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up®}

[edit] No anonymous edits, please

I don't know how this works, but I really think that we shouldn't have anonymous edits. The whole point is to try to get things out in the open and find some consensus so that the various pages can be defined and then broadly left alone. If we don't know who is talking from one moment to the next, there is no credibility. Jonur 08:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jonur. I've just added it to the note above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles protected

I've just protected a few related articles in order to give a chance to this mediation and encourage people to participate in this process. Thanks for your understanding. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of intent to participate in good faith

Hello all, I'm glad to see there is a summary process under way here, finally. I hope you can all sort this out for once and for all. For the record, I wish to open by stating that I have never posted to Wikipedia under any identity other than my own. Where do we go from here? Tuathal 21:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Tuathal. Well you can just give us your opinion re the articles. The problems you have encountered and/or suggestions to sort out this issue. Please participate w/ a statement at the dedicated section below. I will make a summary after everybody gave a statement. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements

(Please keep your statements brief. Excessively long or offensively phrased entries will be edited.)

[edit] Statement by Charles

My concern, both then and now, is that the articles in question be factually accurate. I take no side in the numerous extra-Wikipedia disputes, and I am adamant that these articles not be used to advance one party's POV at the expense of someone else. I want nothing to do with libel and slander, and want such rubbish kept out of Wikipedia. My sincere thanks to User:FayssalF for starting this discussion. I hope we can get these matters settled. ---Charles 17:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Official site of the Master Musicians of Jajouka featuring Bachir Attar

-

• Site of the Master Musicians of Joujouka Frank Rynne

- - why does the Master Musicians of Joujouka link have frank rynne as a description rather than "Official site of the Master Musicians of Joujouka" ? Which it is.

- - Plus as blocks on editing are lifted and there has been little participation is this process; is it now moribund?

- - User:Opiumjones 23 01:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

- User:Opiumjones 23 01:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

-

Fixed. I don't know about people participation in this mediation process. Anyway, as people failed to talk about their concerns here and if edit warring and disruption start again i'll be obliged to start applying wiki policies in a rouge manner. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka

the artist is credited Master Musicians of Jajouka in the text but this is contentious. Original artist was the Master Musicians of Joujouka and both groups claim the album. Perhaps a double link could solve this? Or is this difficult?

User:Opiumjones 23 00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_BKLisenbee

this User has been invited to this page but now vandalises the pages above Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_BKLisenbee—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.19.65.5 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read above that IPs are NOT welcomed? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] censorship

The above has been censoring on this site for a while

Alienklien 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

is this your third edit ever? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes settlements

I've been noticing that some of the editors involved have no clue about some of our core policies and guidelines. So here are some insights.

[edit] What WP:BLP means...

Our BLP (Biography of Living People) policy has been out there for almost 2 years now. It started as an essay. It then became a guideline and now it is a policy. Please read it carefully and abide by its rules. We know that neither Hamri nor Paul Bowles are concerned by this policy but it is very clear that allegations about their involvement in some illegal activities have no place in their biographies even if it is well sourced. It is alleged that Modigliani was an homosexual but we could only document that here if there are some reliable and notable sources which link that to his works. In other words, what has one's personal life to do w/ his activities for which he is known for? Nothing, unless it is argued that Modigliani paintings (or at least some of them) where influenced by his alleged homosexual activities. Period!

[edit] What WP:COI means...

Our COI (Conflict of Interests) guideline has been here for more than 3 years now. It started as an essay. It is now a behavioral guideline. Please read it carefully. In relation to this matter, Brink.com comes therefore in contradiction w/ this guideline.

I therefore hope that all allegations about Bowles and Hamri stop immediately. True or not true, it is in no way an encyclopaedic content. No encyclopaedic value is added. Brink.com is no way a notable outlet. The interviews at Brink.com, as i explained above, are in contradiction of WP:COI.

What is left? Who is the real Master? Ok, that you have to discuss it. I can gladly help w/ my insight if i'd be asked. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Here

User:Opiumjones 23 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re BKLisenbe editing again without his socks

What should be done about him ? His POV has been gone into at length. So who shall block and revert his serial edits on the concerned pages?

See

His POV edit history

and His sock puppets

His recent edits are an attempt to erase facts and history prior to his client visiting Canada next month. Therefore he is using this site as a public relations tool. Pls advise.

User:Opiumjones 23 16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re BKLisenbee RESPONSE

Fayssal:

I am not anyone's "client", and I have no agenda other than to help get accurate information. I would appreciate it if you would instruct Opiumjones23, Frankrynne, and any other user who puts my name into their discussions that only usernames are to be used. Perhaps he/they are jealous that the MMofJ are making a tour to Montreal, but I did not arrange that.

I hope you informed him that his threatening mails are not welcome, and he is equally guilty of a POV since he runs his Joujouka group. He has slandered and threatened and bullied, and used others to put malicious untruths on the Web.

If you are now recovered from your accident I hope you will deal with the mails I have sent to you, and yes, I have now begun editing as BKLisenbee. This was the only recourse as people have botched up various articles to the point of making Wikipedia look like a sounding-board for personal grudges. His e-mails are not welcome and I will not dignify him by any response.

I am perfectly capable of doing honest research and editing, just as he is. I am not distorting anything on these edits.

Best wishes and Thank you, FayssalF. User:BKLisenbee

[edit] Important

Hi guys. It is getting there again. You already know the policies and guidelines i assume you have understood them and so abide by their rules. You are violating all of WP:SOCK, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:COI plus off-wiki harassment.

I am sorry if i would not be able to respond to emails of both of you because everything i have to say can be found here. Blocking your accounts would not help because probably the dispute and further violations of policy would continue unless the block is indefinite.

There's a place where Conflict of interests problems are discussed/reported. Your case is better to be handled by the community. Your case is a complicated one and is deeply tied to business. One admin can't deal with your case unless starting issuing blocks which i consider unhelpful hoping you read again the rules in depth. If not you'll have no other chance except a formal mediation. If that fails, then i'd surely use the administrative (instead of mediative) tools and block for periods relative to the kind, degree and frequency of the violation. I really advise you to enter in a civil debate and talk about your wrongdoings and decide to abide by the different policies and guidelines. Just don't infinitely accuse each other when everyone is really violating the rules of the game. Let's start with this:

• opiumjones 23. Don't send threatening emails. I know it is off-wiki but it is relevant to disrupting Wikipedia. Do abide by WP:NPOV and read WP:BLP. Please do never disclose people's identities. Just never.
• BKLisenbee. no SOCK. Do abide by WP:NPOV. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If that fails, then i'd surely use the administrative (instead of mediative) tools and block for periods relative to the kind, degree and frequency of the violation.

edits still occurring

User:Opiumjones 23 22:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

check this Category talk:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BKLisenbee‎ (cur) (last) 15:29, 25 October 2007 BKLisenbee (Talk | contribs) m (empty) (anonymous IPs unsigned IPs are NOT welcome See FayssalF discussion page Put infor on FayssalF's discussion page) (undo)

this lists 11 ips identified as socks of the editor who posted the above before deleting details of his pov i suppose i must revert him myself? or add {{indef}}

for this user and then delete? User:Opiumjones 23 03:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been both blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week because of disruption and sockpuppetry. This is opiunmjones 23 and this is BKLisenbee. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

.so following a week hols i think that a general revert on lisenbee's recent edits are in order

User:Opiumjones 23 21:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP problems re links to letters that BKLisenbee has added to wiki pages

This letter that purports to be addressed to frank rynne and joe ambrose 1 what is it? 2 Where is its place on wiki links? It is not a historical document like the open letter from Hamri that was actually distributed and which provides a strong historical background in a published form. If the letter was sent to the addressees do they own it? If not then it is possibly copyright of the writer if he /she exists?

As other letters eg one on the same site as above supposedly from the kingdom of Morocco lacks headers, address line or signature then these links from jajouka.com amount to unsubstantiated soap boxing. Pls advise before I delete tomorrow in the A.M.

User:Opiumjones 23 21:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request to move page Master Musicians of Jajouka to Master Musicians of Jajouka featuring Bachir Attar as the group represented by this article does not exist it is the other link Master Musicians of Jajouka featuring Bachir Attar that this page represents.

There is no such group as Master Musicians of Jajouka only Master Musicians of Joujouka the group represented by the page isMaster Musicians of Jajouka featuring Bachir Attar. The former group names represent musicians of the village, the latter a solo commercial group led by Bachir Attar and policed by session musicians from ? . Move to redirect User:Opiumjones 23 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

this need sto be here

[edit] Re BKLisenbee deleting my comments, don't delete my comments on my Talk page or my comments on other discussion pages

The above user is campaigning on Wikipedia on a very much debated area re Jajouka, Bachir Attar, etc. His POV is proven below but he keeps deleting this post. BKLisenbee do not edit my talk page!!!!!!or remove my commnets. This is against all the rules you quote so much. The Babelmed

• Article refs Bachir Attar history and his drinking eg vodka

is generally a soft piece of journalism promoting Bachir Attar save for the journalist noting Attar's drinking. A Sufi trance musician in a Halal region of Morocco drinking two bottles of vodka in a sitting strikes me as noteworthy. Bachir Attar co-operated on the article so your cherry picking is obtuse and obviously designed to protect the image of this star. That is not what we are here for, neither it it our job to denigrate. However, Mr. Attar is a controversial figure as is shown on the talk pages and archived talk pages on related pages show and also in actual articles.. Therefore it a more than noteworthy point!!!! It may be a central issue in the divisions that seem to plague Jajouka. My post again is below, leave it here until admin comes back to me. Below is the deleted post: [ [User: BK Lisenbee]] It was not the personal involvement that you below justify that I was referring to. However the below statement seems to indicate that you were not “personally involved” until two people who advocate a differing POV ie they work/ or are somehow advocates of the The Master Musicians of Joujouka did an interview you object to. You posted the following on your User page “I am not "obiously a part of the story", as you say. I was only drawn into this because Frank Rynne & Joe Ambrose slandered Paul Bowles and libeled myself and a friend, who still live in Tangier” The above quote from your posting on your user page is actually stating that you not” obviously a part of the story” but your personal involvement is justified because of an interview referred to above. This is confirming that you have a POV. As your deletions followed a pattern of recent vandalism they gave great cause for concern. However the personal involvement I referred in my post on your user page "Personal Involvement" was to do with the below information which I did not feel I needed to go into as I was sure you were aware of your involvement in the affairs of Bachir Attar So here is a little of what I found about this on the web. Some issues were previously raised on archived discussions pages. You are webmaster and designer of [http/www.paulbowles.org] a website associated with the Paul Bowle’s Estate some of the beneficiaries of which included Ms Cherie Nutting (Bachir Attar's manager) and a Philip Ramey. See

• Arts web page detailing one aspect of your involvement in paul bowles site

Site notes that responsibility Lisenbee, Kenneth (Designer)and also Responsibility PaulBowles.org and the estate of Paul and Jane Bowles who are noted as (Copyright_holder)

The website you run contains negative references to Mohamed Hamri and you have been editing the Wiki page on him. see

• Paul Bowles site you run

Your website promotes and links to

• [1] Bachir Attar’s website and has recently helped promoting a show by his group.
• Bachir Attar promo and link to his commercial site on your website

The ex wife of Bachir Attar and current manager of his group, Cherie Nutting writes for your site. Her photographs are also used throughout. You say you met Miss Nutting and Bachir Attar as they visited Mr. Bowles in Tangier. In light of the above and the below links and facts I am afraid that I can not accept your statement at face value. You are also listed as having travelled with Miss. Nutting to events On the below site See

• Travellling to USA with C. Nutting

This link refs , Phillip Ramey, Kenneth Lisenbee, Joseph A. McPhillips III, Cherie Nutting, Virginia Spencer Carr, Claude Nathalie Thomas, Irene Herrmann and Philip Krone attending a private collaborators event. Therefore I would again suggest in the strongest Wiki way that you cease to edit the various Jajouka Joujouka and related pages which you have previously edited with a pro Master Musicians of Jajouka/Bachir Attar and anti Master Musicians of Joujouka/ Mohamed Hamri bias. These edits are sometimes very minor I will admit such as putting links to Master Musicians of Joujouka in different positions to highlight your friend and colleague's pages Master Musicians of Jajouka. However you have also completely changed Bachir Attar in the last few days.

This is not exactly the same as editing your own page but it is against Wiki rules and good behaviour.

Again I must reiterate that it was the closeness of your recent edits to blocked Anon IPs who vandalised links that brought your edits to my attention. These IPs' edits are consitant with your POV edits. This Jajouka Joujouka mess needs to be straightened out and is best left to people who are not directly involved in either sides' business affairs. Please respect the rules of this site.

One last note after your link deletions you have now started editing, amongst other pages, Jajouka This page is under discussion and certain users feel that the official Moroccan government spelling should be adopted with links from the two names used by the recording groups for clarity. I shall revert your copy edits later.

Abelelkrim 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 -   -   - 

Abelelkrim 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Opiumjones 23 03:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Master Musicians of Joujouka, Brian Jones and the Rolling Stones

In 1968 Rolling Stones Brian Jones recorded the Master Musicians of Joujouka . He was brought there by Brion Gysin and Mohamed Hamri the {{joujouka]] painter who brought jajouka joujouka music to western ears. . Ref the LP Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka sleeve notes. The record was released on Rolling Stones Records in 1971.

User:Opiumjones 23 02:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Edits

BKLisenbee has been making bad edits yet again. ?

User:Opiumjones 23 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

and again reverted the one on this page

User:Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Klein and Bachir Attar re issue of Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka / Jajouka

"Allen Klein (born December 18, 1931) is an American businessman and record label executive. He is best known (and somewhat notorious) for his tenacious management of rock and roll performers in the 1960s, and the subsequent hostile acquisition and control of their works. Investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission led to his trial, conviction, and prison sentence for insider trading and securities fraud." from Allen Klein "Allen Klein (born December 18, 1931) is an American businessman and record label executive. He is best known (and somewhat notorious) for his tenacious management of rock and roll performers in the 1960s, and the subsequent hostile acquisition and control of their works. Investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission led to his trial, conviction, and prison sentence for insider trading and securities fraud." from Allen Klein

This sheds light on Bachir Attar's advocate User:BKLisenbee's claims that the Rolling Stones had something to did with the reissue of Brian Jones' LP.

User:Opiumjones 23 (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a fact, like it or not. Aside from that, Brian Jones wasn't the one who invented the Master Musicians of Jajouka in the first place. That should easily be agreed upon. Nevertheless, the Rolling Stones did grant the rights to re-release the Brian Jones Pipes of Pan to Bachir Atttar and the Master Musicians of Jajouka, (NOT a "Joujouka" band allegedly led by an Ahmed el-Attar), and it was indeed released with a different cover. There is no crime or fraud in that. Blame the Stones. Hamri was not involved at all in this re-release, nor was any so-called "Joujouka" band. As has already been reported to Wikipedia higher-ups and administrators, no unverifiable user comments are to be made, nor e-mail threats or threats or lawsuits. Prove your point and please stop stating that I am someone's client, as you do not know that to be a fact. And what does Elvis have to do with any of this? BKLisenbee 00:22, 05 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Elvis not the king of rock'n'roll?

User:Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] note this edit

[[2]]. Svest is enough not enough?

User:Opiumjones 23 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is happening daily with "loud"" action notes and weird deletions or pov edits contra to previous discussions and consensus.

eg note the deleted link on the same page to a primary source newspaper the UK Independent which he deleted here

[[3]] User:Opiumjones 23 01:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Returning after long absence

Hello FayssalF, everyone. I've been gone for a long time and am glad to see that there is a concerted effort to sort out this longrunning dispute. I will do some reading and try and catch up on what is going on. Tuathal (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Tuathal. It is really nice to see people back. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a formal dispute resolution

This issue needs to be sorted out for once and i am afraid one admin cannot be able to catch up on all what's going on. I've been thinking of making this process a formal one. In other words --> WP:MEDIATION. Any ideas or objections guys? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes good idea.

User:Opiumjones 23 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreement to request for formal mediation

Thank you FayssalF for proposing formal mediation. I believe it is an absolute necessity, and pledge my full co-operation. The edit wars are raging worse than ever, and I have decided it is much better to follow the mediation process through, under supervision, than to begin editing and have them sap the life out of me. There are a large number of items that need examination, and rather than fighting individual battles on each one, a larger framework, and some good objective criticism is needed. I await further instructions. Tuathal (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

welcomed but what now? someone is missing from the table?

User:Opiumjones 23 (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formal Mediation

FayssalF/opiumjones/Tuathal....Having watched and been involved in this editing war for quite a while now, I welcome and agree to participate in the formal process that you FayssalF, have proposed. Hannahdolly (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

that makes three but what about User:BKLisenbee User:Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Hannahdolly and opiumjones. It's good to see people joining in. I see BKLisenbee has still not agreed yet. I don't believe we can really proceed without him, since he seems to be at the centre of many of many page disputes. What to do? Tuathal (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee doesn't want to participate in any mediation process where Tuathal would be involved for the reasons he stated at his talk page. I still see this as inappropriate because any party participation is encouraged. However, if Tuathal's non-participation would be helpful i'd suggest that Tuathal remains apart since he hasn't edited Wikipedia for months. I don't know but this should move forward.

Opiumjones, we've already talked about the links from brink.com (there's a lot of COI involved). Please avoid them and let formal mediators advice both parties on how to proceed.

BKLisenbee, please use this subpage instead of your user talk pagein order to keep track of all discussions easily.

Regards -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not added or deleted those links to my knowledge on the site but they seem primary source material? Other admins seem to think that info from them should be put into pages but I leave that to others. Tuathal did not issue any legal threats but merely advised that this issue was one which probably required a legal approach that he would look into. I know no more but I feel sure from memory that threats were not issued. Let's see how Tuathal feels? Howevr BKL is in no position to insist. this matter needs to be sorted out and parameters put on the article re BLP, NPOV and perhaps a complete moratorium on edits from current parties to a set list of pages? This should follow a set guideline so admins in the future know the score. It should also be policed by admins and IPs blocked? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

and obviously I await and welcome advice. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[4] this is where Tuathal did not threaten legal action. This is also where we dont need to go again. Can checkuser be of use here. Is /was Emerman Lisenbee ? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

simple statement of key issues would be the best start. BLK has to come on board or cease editing. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Moved to Mediation at User:FayssalF/JK

User:FayssalF/JK

Have adde above to several talk pages for areas under discussion to encourage further participation. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BKLisenbee William S. Burroughs

this issue has been corrected but pls note the below.

This user has been editing a lot and as an example of his edits vs. his stated edits see

[5]

This is pretty drastic POV editing covered by a pretense of civility. His stated edits are "corrected spellings of Tangiers to the accepted Tangier for consistency,". How many more of his edits are similarily tagged with misleading tags in order to cover his POV edits?

User:Opiumjones 23 (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Been trying to add some footnotes to various aricles listed above.User:Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Have sorted ~many refs for Mohamed Hamri but needs some more refs Opiumjones 23 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Pages

• Tales of Joujouka
• Boujeloud (album)
• Joujouka Black Eyes

User:Opiumjones 23 (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page histories for this mediation

• [6]

Talk:Master_Musicians_of_Joujouka

• [7]

Talk:Brian_Jones_Presents_The_Pipes_of_Pan_at_Jajouka

• [8] Talk:Master_Musicians_of_Jajouka

Talk:Master_Musicians_of_Jajouka

• [9]

Talk:Bachir_Attar

• [10]

Talk:Jajouka

• [11]

Talk:Mohamed_Hamri

• [12]

Talk:Master_Musicians_of_Joujouka

This may shorten our time here please re-read.

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

time to get this moving? User:BKLisenbee wont mediate and is editing again making violations of BLP , POV edits and vandalising pages. Enough is enough can we block this guy? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RESPONSE FROM USER BKLisenbee

May I feel free to state that it is pure speculation and ridiculous to conjecture that I and a former user Emerman were the same. It was my understanding from reading the discussion that Emerman considered user Tuathal, a lawyer friend who went to the same school in Dublin with user Frankrynne, aka, Opiumjones_23, and perhaps sockpuppets of users Abdelelkrim and also Hannadolly, to be threatening the user Emerman with legal action. Please note also that user Frankrynne in no ambiguous manner threatened me with legal action, and he was banned and warned against making such threats. I am still being accused of things which I have not done, such as removing links to his "Joujouka". With the exception of the Brink.com articles, I have not done so. He, however, removes link to serious letters from William S. Burroughs on his own biography page because he does not like what James Grauerholz and Burroughs wrote, explaining in no uncertain terms that they regarded him to be misguided and that Bachir Attar was the only rightful inheritor of the mantle of leader of the Master Musicians of Jajouka, etc. This is obviously a POV bias of user Frankrynne, Opiumjones_23, Abelelkrim, Hannadolly, and now his lawyer friend, Tuathal. I am a legitimate user, concerned with facts. Please note also that no administrator agreed that blog sources such as thehandstand.org, brink.com, etc., and current variations are reliable sources as they are written by user Frankrynne, his friends, and contain defamatory and unverifiable information about living persons. These users have made no efforts to remove the smears and innuendoes regarding me, as they were instructed to do, and William S. Burroughs letter stating that he regarded Bachir Attar the only rightful inheritor of the mantle of the Master Musicians of Jajouka, and that his [Attar's group] is the only true Master Musicians. That letter was removed from user Frankrynne's own Wikipedia entry, which is a major POV of this user. Under no circumstances will I participate in any mediation process if user Tualal is involved, as he is a lawyer friend of user Frankrynne, et. al, who went to school with him at Trinity College in Dublin, *Ireland. FayssalF was last on a Wikibreak, however, I would like to receive an e-mail from him if he is currently back as an administrator. Also, please note that trivia inserted in discussion pages by non-related parties is not warrented, and violates the *privacy rights of those parties. I do believe that user Frankrynne, et. al, continue to violate the policies of Wikipedia, and even with new articles such as Boujeloud, regarding his Sub Rosa recording. Be aware also that confusion persists by having two articles on the Master Musicians of Jajouka/Joujouka, and that by having two articles, various sites and blogs are getting a distorted view of the true facts. Of great interest is the James Grauerholz letter which explains Hamri's role in meddling. And please also note that user's Frankrynne, Opiumjones_23 and Abeleldrim all revert my edits, adding their two cents worth, and that is why I have to revert theirs. I hope this is a satisfactory explanation as to why I will not agree to this mediation, until higher ups at Wikipedia and Wikimedia in Flordia get involved. Perhaps these users could also be banned, since he/they feel that I should be permanently blocked? I have had enough of the bullying and harrassment by these users. It is time for other administrators to intervene to remove their comments which are being indexed in Google and damaging my reputation and those of totally non-related parties.

User:BKLisenbee 11:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Goggle seems to be the main issue with the above user's edits. See for example refs to searchs here [13]. He names people and places while claiming that others are doing i.e. he is violating the very privilages he claims to be deprived of!!!!!. His edits on certain pages violate WP:BLP and he edits without refs on pages that he owns the subject or is employed by /beneficary to the estate of.

This user is a waste of time re argument or concenus but still we must urge mediation or complete blocking if he will not come to the table of discourse. He refuses mediation while retaining the right to POV edit, this is not correct protocol here. Issues that are being discussed and have been concluded

• Master Musicians of Joujouka recorded the Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka LP in 1968 = Correct
• This LP released 1971 on Rolling Stones Records artist = Master Musicians of Joujouka = Correct.
• Master Musicians of Jajouka featuring Bachir Attar began recording albums in 1991 = Correct

and on with other verifiable facts................. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

re emerman only checkuser will confirm your innocence. You may make a voluntary request here? !!!Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] violations of WP:BLP again by User:BKLisenbee

violations of WP:BLP at [14]. Issue naming people and colleges and occupations unverified and pejorative. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radical POV edits by User:BKLisenbee on Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka page

This user is again radically altering refrenced facts on the Brian Jones Joujouka LP page/ reissue CD page. see User :BKLisenbee deletions and additions., Opiumjones 23 (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the deletions and additions. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move requested BJ presents ........ at Jajouka to "Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka"

This would be logical as the first LP is the most sought after, the original and was approved by Brian Jones. The reissue is a controversial but a subsequent and less notable event save for the controversy and the non payment of advances and royalties to the actual musicians or their families.. The LP B J P T P O P at "Joujouka" 1971 is the only uncontested version and was the first release on Rolling Stones Records. This is another precedent and addition to the notability of the original. The reissue should be secondary to the original. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:BKLisenbee needs to be blocked now

This user refuses to mediate and persists in editing contra to discussion aand violating WP:BLP. A block is in order.

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation should proceed

Because User:BKLisenbee refuses to participate in mediation, and yet continues editing, I think the disputed pages should be locked down, while mediation proceeds among the remaining parties. When mediation concludes the agreed versions should be installed, and then locked down from further edits by User:BKLisenbee 89.204.240.102 (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I made the above comment, without realising I wasn't logged in. Tuathal (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:M#Disputants, Any disputant may refuse or withdraw from the mediation process at their will. No party is required to participate in mediation, though refusal to do so may result in the dispute escalating to binding resolution through the Arbitration Committee.

Unfortunately, or fortunately -depending on how everyone sees it, this issue would end up at the hands of the Arbitration Committee (which i am part of it). There is a clear need to fix this mess especially that offline disputes bothers the smooth running of Wikipedia. There are chances that the ArbCom reject this case. If that happens then the disputing parties would have to start over again with a possible supervision of a few admins.

So protecting or unprotecting the pages is not the solution. It is up to the conflicting parties here. Policies still apply and any admin may intervene to block offenders. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. How about this then? The parties that do agree to mediation, i.e., everyone except User:BKLisenbee, should sandbox somewhere and come up with agreed edits of disputed pages. Then the pages should be installed, and monitored. Presumably, User:BKLisenbee and others will then begin editing, which can be monitored by all parties, and individual disputes can be dealt with as they arise, possibly resulting in binding resolution through the Arbitration Committee. At least we will have a template to work from. Somehow, we need to move this process forward. Tuathal (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] so where now?

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC) editing a bit await agreement from bkl to mediate Opiumjones 23 (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User BKL is editing again deleting links and deleting articles while claiming to re order links. He wrecked the Master Musicians of Joujouka page which I also reverted. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaker for yourself. I have never "wrecked" your Joujouka page, nor have I ever deleted any article unless it is unfactual and thus not encyclopedic. On the other hand. You have done nothing but smear the Master Musicians of Jajouka and Bachir Attar, and causing problems, posted nasty and unfactual comments on blogs. Give us all a break, Opiumjones 23, please. We are all sick of this, and that is why Mediation is the only solution. I totally resent being referred to as a "vandal" when I am not. Your reversions amount to vandalism, in my opinion. I have already agreed to formal arbitration, as have other concerned parties. But please stop your smear campaign, as it is most unprofessional. BKLisenbee 7 March 2008 (UTC)

if you have agreed to mediation then you should allow admin to respond before continuing to vandalise pages. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Have just reviewed and revrted your recent edits. FYI one of your sock puppets, Emermann I think, argued two years ago for the name of the village of Zahjouka, Joujouka, jajouka to be made Jajouka on wikipedia page. Therefore to correctly link Master Musicians of Joujouka to their home village page on Wiki the spelling Jajouka must be used in link. You have continuously vandalised that page and others. FYI The Master Musicians of Joujouka released an album on Rolling Stones Records in 1971. It was called Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka by the artists Master Musicians of Joujouka, That is a historical and well documented fact. So why do you keep deleting it? Admin pls HELP!!!!! Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just protected the article subject to edit warring. I am reviewing them before providing here a list of the problematic things. Please allow me a day or two. Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

how is it proceeding? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes by FayssalF

This is a preliminary list of some issues and what has to be done. Please leave your comments on the section dedicated for that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On behavior

1. Editors are put under a revert parole; no more than 1 revert per 24h. Users who violate this restriction may be blocked for a period up to a week.

wise Opiumjones 23 (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On using sources and references

1. Using partisan websites as sources and references are not allowed anymore in this case. Links to jajouka.net, joujouka.net, brink.com and joeambrose.net should be avoided.

its jajouka.com i think,

more later Opiumjones 23 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

one link to mainpage of joujouka.net or jajouka.com as is the norm should be ok? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Unreferenced edits will be removed. Questionable edits without sources will be tagged for a week or so before being removed if no reliable source produced by a reliable third party is provided.

absolutely but then comes the old Emerman/BLK argument that one article from The Wire can be used and another can not , what happens?. The other issue is Brian Jones presents the Pipe of Pan at Joujouka which is very contensious in many ways and the naming reflects an out of issue re release CD rather than the original Rolling Stones Records release which was approved by Brian Jones. The spelling on the page should be reconsidered and before that the cover image of the original album should also be on the page, as well as the details of the controversy over the re release without the permission of the musicians and their families as is recorded by papers of record cited and deleted by later editors. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On external links and 'see also'

1. Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.

so links to unpublished or unverified letters claiming to be written to living people would be out. sounds good

however Hamri obit is an impotant resource that is published in a paper of record. therefore it is a good link?Opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Links at 'See also' sections are to be avoided if they are already being mentioned on the article bod

yes well spotted removed some on non blocked pagesOpiumjones 23 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to notes

see under headings aboveOpiumjones 23 (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry i answered under the issues above, but this is a good plan and will work well. Talk pages can be used again for citation issues and discussion but the rules are strong and workable.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] page unprotect request

Please unprotect Brian Jones presents and Mmo Joujouka Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason for that? Unprotections can only be done if you both agree to the points above. Those points have policy and guidelines' basis and it is unimportant that we agree or disagree with them. Unless everyone understand them clearly, disputed articles have to be kept protected. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

that is all fine as stated above by me. However it is rather strange that as the abusive party in this BKL does not participate you wish to retain his edited versions of these pages.?

Rather than unblock perhaps you can do the edits?

Eg photo of original cover of the LP by Master Musicians of Joujouka on the page Brian Jones presents. Artist on same is Master Musicians of Joujouka as per sleeve notes and various quoted articles. Re master Musicians of Joujouka all the wiki links to the village Zahjouka rendered Jajouka on Wikipedia should certainly be done. Also the William Burroughs show that the musicians are participating in at the Irish Museum of Modern Art might be linked? http://www.imma.ie/en/page_170634.htm

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some actions - more to come if necessary

It should be noted the follwing:

1. Articles to be unprotected in order for the problematic edits to be fixed - once the articles are unprotected, all of the edits should respect the above-mentioned points.
2. For the rest of the articles, 1RR would be applied for an indefinite period of time and articles put on a temporrary probation period until everything settles down. This rule will be applied to all editors of those articles.
3. Any breach of WP:BLP would lead to harsher disiplinary methods (i.e. blocks for long periods of time and probably to indefinite depending on the level of BLP violations)
4. I'll be performing some randomly-timed check-usering if disruption is brought up by some IPs and new accounts.
5. I have no obligation whatsoever to remind for the n^th time about the rest of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
6. And of course, any kind of evidenced off-wiki harassment or stalking of any nature which can be reported to my via email would be faced by blocks of long periods or indefinite if necessary.
7. There would be probably further points in case they would appear necessary.

P.S. I've edited some of the articles recently to give you an idea about what should be done and how. If you have any question re anything related to editing, feel free to ask me on my userpage. One example: 'See also' sections are not serving for nothing except wikilinking to cherry-picked articles that favour one POV or another and have to be removed.

P.S.P.S If each of the parties can make a clean-organized list of any other problematic issues which need administrative attention, it would be great. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this really going to work

Note this diff [[15]]. It is a footnoted ref to Hamri's birth in Joujouka from a recent book on him. Ref in the edit is that this user agrees he was born in Ksar el Kebir.

I actually added the ref to his birth in Joujouka Jajouka. So again we are confronted with disingenuous edits and edit summery from [User:BKLissenbee].

I will leave it to the FayssalF to decide rather than merely revert. This and other edits by BKL are still POV pushing and violated a range of WP guidelines eg WP:NPOV, WP:BLP etc see [16]

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

More pushing See [17] Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)*reverted bj and deleted some linksOpiumjones 23 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re anon Ips removing link to recent Guardian article on Tangier

These deletes are suspected of being made by User:BKLisenbee contra to mediation here. Sock Puppets must not be used . I emailed you regarding the first. Now we can define a pattern . I do hope you will take some robust action.

41.249.96.210 diff see[18]

edit summery states External links: the article is not a good link for Tangier, and is one of numerous written over the years on Tangier.) Not a good link for tangier? a recent article from Britains paper of record in the Blair Brown era? I don't see the rational

This edit aslo removes a second link "silently".

162.84.140.168 diff see[19] edit summery "(→External links: removed link to a very minor travel article, among many others, more trivia hard facts"

The Guardiian is not a minor paper therefore a full page feature is not a minor article!!!

Both summeries almost identical.

Article interviews widow of Mohamed Hamri and offends the Users POV editing style . As an oft time visitor to Tangier I found it informative especially regarding the new “chic” aspect of TNG and other matters. I have reverted and reported incidents here.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Check User Request More anon IP socks being used

See User:196.206.99.127 Diff

[20]

User BKLisenbee 30min approx before

[21]

[22]

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)