Who is Peter Grenader?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue May 20, 2014 1:38 am

I've tried to post this before, on WR. He's still up to it, so I'm starting a new thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Grenader

If you examine the history, you will see that virtually all of the recent edits are either by "PlanBGuy", or by an IP address belonging to an AT&T DSL customer in Los Angeles. Which is practically guaranteed to be Peter Grenader. He even created the article originally, in 2007.

He last edited it on 27 April, three weeks ago. For information, he's been keeping a very low profile since 2009, because he's apparently still got some angry customers looking for him.

Please note this recent addition, made on Christmas Day 2013:

Design innovations credited by Grenader are the introduction of buffered multiples, the motion sensing dual axis joystick controller, a programmable tap clock and the first manufacture to include variable potentiometer control within a 2cm wide module: the ELF series.

I'm not really sure he invented the buffered mult -- trying to get confirmation, but it's an old idea, possibly predating modular synthesizers. I can probably find people who would take great issue with this sentence.

This editing is against Wikipedia policy, of course. WP:NPOV WP:COI, and possibly WP:OWN, if he starts fighting with others over it. No one has noticed or cares, though -- the talkpage is empty.

He's also doing a bad job of referencing it. No inline refs, no tags.

Yes, it's already been reported, no action was taken. Yet. Does he get a free ride on Wikipedia, simply because he's an obscure figure, or because some admin thinks he's a "cool guy"? Why do paid-editing whiners like Coretheapple or Orangemike allow things like this to go on for SEVEN YEARS?

(Disclaimer: I have known Grenader slightly for many, many years, although I haven't seen him since he crashed Plan B into the ground in 2009, and earned himself enemies. And I can easily picture him glorifying himself like this.)

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue May 20, 2014 4:51 am

Well, technically, he's saying these things are credited by Grenader, not to Grenader, meaning that someone else presumably did all that stuff. Though I'll admit the average reader won't make the distinction.

Nevertheless, I would say that his obscurity is what best explains this article's existence, balanced by the author's clever use of name-dropping and invention-listing to avoid the dreaded A7 deletion rationale used by admins on "drive-by" deletion sprees. (Not that there's anything wrong with deletion sprees - if I were a Wikipedia admin, I'd be doing that all the time!)

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue May 20, 2014 7:50 pm

Does that mean he is credited with introducing motion sensing dual axis controllers to music hardware? Because I am pretty certain he had nothing to do with the design/invention *of* the dual axis controller...

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed May 21, 2014 12:40 am

Anroth wrote:Does that mean he is credited with introducing motion sensing dual axis controllers to music hardware? Because I am pretty certain he had nothing to do with the design/invention *of* the dual axis controller...

No, of course he didn't. Look at the "references". Not only are some repeated in the "References/Citations" and "External links", most of them are interviews of him or blog entries he wrote, making all kinds of wild claims. Plus links to his Discog, All Music, and Last FM accounts. And some are already dead links.

Except for possibly the interviews, these will probably not pass WP:V or RS. He gets away with it because nobody on WP cares about him.

TimEd · Unread post by **TimEd** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:25 pm

So it seems that flagging an article for 'speedy deletion' is one way to alert someone that an article might be dodgy - the speedy deletion was removed a mere 13 minutes later!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =626097967

However since then someone else has come in and done a shed-load of minor edits, mainly adding multiple tags questioning the validity of many of the claims (and I'm a little surprised the 'A member of the SEAMUS board of directors' didn't get the same treatment: I can find no mention of his name at the SEAMUS site - he doesn't even appear to be a member - and from the Wayback Machine, the only reference I found was that he used to be their webmaster).

Some of the mud that was being slung around at the time of Plan B's demise has also been added back in, e.g. failure to deliver etc. - such stuff didn't last long last time it was in there, so it will be interesting to see how long it lasts this time! (And one of the points - the supposed using of parts from customer returns for new build - I seem to recall Peter actually gave a good account of what had happened, in that the items concerned were 'restocks' rather than customer units...)

Tim

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:39 pm

TimEd wrote:So it seems that flagging an article for 'speedy deletion' is one way to alert someone that an article might be dodgy - the speedy deletion was removed a mere 13 minutes later!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =626097967

Ar ar ar, sooo funny. Not.

However since then someone else has come in and done a shed-load of minor edits, mainly adding multiple tags questioning the validity of many of the claims (and I'm a little surprised the 'A member of the SEAMUS board of directors' didn't get the same treatment: I can find no mention of his name at the SEAMUS site - he doesn't even appear to be a member - and from the Wayback Machine, the only reference I found was that he used to be their webmaster).

Whatever. The point being that Wikipedia is wide open to self-aggrandizing editing, by people who aren't "really famous". And attempts to remove the self-aggrandizing might be reverted by a random drive-by admin or gnome, because crazy.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 4:59 am

Meanwhile,
:welcome:

to TimEd.

Enjoy our site.

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:25 am

Good Evening Ladies and Gentleman and then , there's Eric. Neither a gentleman nor a truthful one.

Comments to and about Eric Barbour:

Eric... we 'slightly' know each other? We've eaten meals together on several occasions. You've been to my home in Toluca Lake and I've carted you around in my car around the East San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles and you have been on this mission to wipe this page well before this posting as you were the first commenter on the Peter Grenader WIkipedia Talk Page in the last decade with information similar to this in order to have this page removed.. And for the unaware, let me go into further details on Eric Barbour: he is owner of the company Metasonix, another manufacturer of Euro rack modular synthesizer modules and a competitor of Plan B/EAR is and it is my belief that his ongoing and now SUCCESSFUL efforts to remove this page were nothing short of professional sabotage and this will now not only take this issue of deletion to the highest ranks of Wikipedia, but strip him of any authority within it as he clearly is misusing it as a vehicle which serves his own personal and professional interests. Anyone who reads just the comments on this page alone can easily determine this is not about my credibility or accomplishments as they pertain to the development and history of electronic music in the Uniited States, this is about a personal vendetta with Eric Barbour and again, a misuse of the authority that he may have within Wikipedia.

WIth the release of the Plan B Model 31, I introduced the Buffered Mult into Modular Synthesizers in 2007. For an entity which prides itself with accuracy of information and the requirement certification of stated facts, I d0n't believe that "I'm pretty sure': meets those requirements, yet it is sufficient to have a page removed?

Eric Barbour, you are making a qualification that i did not invent the dual axis controller...and I didn't...but the page never said I did and let me go into further detail here:

To Anroth:

If you are making the assertion that i did not invent the dual axis controller and you are correct. However, the page stated the FACT that I did invent the MOTION SENSING dual axis controller - the Plan B Model 31 in 2009, with a feature witch would detect controller axis movement in either the X or Y direction, or both. This concept has been incorporated by other manufacturers since the introduction of the Model 31 in 2009, namely Intelligell.

There are been other notes asserting that this was a self generated page, due to the fact that "PlanBguy" has ISP coordinates in Los Angeles, where I am. Ladies and Gentleman...there are correctly 3.884 million people in Los Angeles. I am not PlanBguy, I never was . There have been two individuals who have taken the task to administrate and update information on this page in the past.

Again, I am clearly disappointed at the editorial nature of the issues brought to bear which have prompted the removal of this WIkipedia page, and I am taking this further and correcting the core issue - that Eric Barbour, as a competitor of Plan B/.EAR had taken it upon himself to discredit my information and accomplishments for the purposes of vendetta and professional sabotage/ restraint of trade - which is in violation of international law.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:33 am

Well, this just got interesting. Welcome, Mr. Grenader.

I'll start the gratuitous kibitzing by offering $5 to any charity of your choice if it becomes clear beyond reasonable doubt that Eric Barbour directly edited either your Wikipedia biography, its Talk page, or its deletion discussion at any time in the past 12 months. I just cannot see Barbour ever touching Wikipedia, he hates it so.

And my second bit of kibitzing would be to offer this personal advice -- removal of a dodgy Wikipedia biography is a great victory, not a loss, for the human subject. You really should be very thankful.

HRA1924 · Unread post by **HRA1924** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:11 pm

thekohser wrote:Well, this just got interesting. Welcome, Mr. Grenader.
And my second bit of kibitzing would be to offer this personal advice -- removal of a dodgy Wikipedia biography is a great victory, not a loss, for the human subject. You really should be very thankful.

+1
Nothing ever gets lost in cyberspace and this could be the no.1 search result on Google 3 months from now, since the 800 pound gorilla has been taken out.

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 2:22 pm

Dear Dr. Kohs - thank you for replying.

I did not imply he edited it. I did imply the truth - he has been somewhat obsessed with making sure i am not actively listed in it since 2009. He was the first poster in it's Talk Page - which was the first time he began this rant in 2009 and from the snarky comments he's listed to influence his obsession, i am sure that it wasn't done as a favor to me (in reference to your comment that not being listed being a good thing).

I don't mean to come off as dramatic, but for a guy to spend this much time over this span of years trumpeting his views and attempting to defame one person's reputation and accomplishments, drawing the conclusion of obsession may not be far off the mark, is it?

Now, let me take a moment to touch upon something he has brought up on multiple occasions that I find COMPLETELY irrelevant to whether or not that page was removed:

Plan B did have customer problems in 2009. The company was grossly overextended by it's sole worldwide distributor, Noisebug anf as a result, we fell behind in prepaid orders over an eight week period starting in February and ending in April 2009. Let it be known that during that period we were also fired from Noisebug for not making the numbers they felt they needed - which were causing quality problems in our attempts to meet them - and given our manufacturong facility was in the loft of Noisebug, we also had to find a new permanent home during the period when the delivery problems ensued, move the operation back to Los Angeles set-up production. There was an additional issue of not completing repairs returned through Noisebug. This stemmed from the paperwork we received the repair inventory with from Noisebug NOT including information relevant to the customer. Only workorder numbers were listed. This system worked fine when Noisebug and Plan B were still associated (customer returned goods to Noisebug. Noisebug logs return, sends goods upstairs with workorder for actual repair.. Item is fixed, sent back downstairs, repackaged by Noisebug. Original sender information is reunited, item sent back) but when the two broke apart it left us with a series of repairs with no reference of who to return them to. It took time to rectify this situation. While one gentleman here as taken the time to relist the contents of the first section of the original listing, if the same were done to the second section which focused on the company Plan B, you will notice mention of these problems were included.

Regardless - all outstanding debts have been paid in full. By and large, the industry has forgiven Plan B/EAR and this is because I am one of a few who completely ceased production and further product development/release until all the matters were taken care of.

Mr.Kohs - i appreciate your replying, seriously. I hope that in the process of what may be our ongoing exchange that a re-review of the deletion is considered.

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:32 pm

thekohser wrote:I just cannot see Barbour ever touching Wikipedia, he hates it so.

Not only that, but Wikipedia hates him right back. Their vision of him looks something like this:

To the extent that Eric has any influence over the wikipediots whatever, it is to send them into spasms of rage, fear and paranoia over his "crimes" of "outing" and of lese majesty against the Wikipedia ruling classes. As we here know well, there is no love lost between them. None. At. All.

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:54 pm

Cedric:

The world does not operate around Eric Barbour's approval of what that should be. If he has problems with it's ongoing social evolution, there are other avenues he should and could take to relieve his personal angst.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:55 pm

PeterGrenader wrote:Dear Dr. Kohs - thank you for replying.

I did not imply he edited it.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your words saying, "a misuse of the authority that he may have within Wikipedia", and your use of the phrase "this page" to apparently refer to how a Wikipedia article can be affected by the forum post we're in right now. As mentioned above, Mr. Barbour has not only zero authority within Wikipedia, but a very strong "negative authority", if such a thing could be described.

I feel your anguish, honestly I do.

On a completely separate note, you may wish to read this.

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:59 pm

Fantastic!

How can a review of the decision to delete this article be undertaken?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:06 pm

PeterGrenader wrote:Fantastic!

How can a review of the decision to delete this article be undertaken?

You would go here: Wikipedia:Deletion review (T-H-L)

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:12 pm

Thank you Mr. Kohs

In my naivety on how WIkipedia operates, i did go there, but i see no way of posting information to request this decision be reviewed again. How exactly would I begin that process - how is info added and what would be the protocol in which to do this?

Thank you in advance

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:31 pm

I was involved in the deletion discussion regarding the PG piece. I found it in the course of my own ordinary patrolling of Articles for Deletion. I just want to assure you that Eric never sent me there and the opinion offered (that it should be "blown up" and started from scratch with better sourcing since the article was deeply flawed but the subject probably notable) was my own.

I see you left a comment for me about the piece on my user page (not user talk), which was "revision deleted" (erased) before I could read it. Somebody just provided me with the text of it as an unposted message here.

Tim Davenport
Carrite on WP
RfB

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:10 pm

My comment was deleted before you even saw it? I just posted it yesterday! wow! Are things THIS political on WIkipedia?

Anyway, thank you for recognizing it - do you need clarification of what that comment was or have you retrieved the original context?

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:30 pm

Carrie I hope that this decision can be legitimately reconsidered. I do not see myself on trial here before a jury of my peers and I do appreciate the time you and other administrators take on WIkipedia.

BUt please let me say this: it is a hard task to attempt to describe the import of some of the milestones listed in the bio section of the deleted Peter Grenader WIki page without intimate knowledge of Electornic Mjusic on the United States in the classic sense, as there may be some among you that, based on your individual aesthetic, may question if this art form should be considered music at all. This is a battle that Electronic Music/Electro-Acoustic composers have been fighting since the onset of the genre in the mid 50s.

It is uncomfortable for me to trump my personal accolades, but if i may, if a jury of my EM peers were to be assembled here, the very fact that I've been published in the Journal Seamus should be enough to make any grade of acceptability as it roughly equivalent to a a paper in Scientific American within the science community.

While you and others have assured me that Eric Barbour was not intimately involved in this process, I find it difficult to grok he did not influence it as every online conversation which deals with the possibility was initiated by him. That's my take from this, As for other comments regarding Eric's robust communication of things he does not like, i am no stranger to this. I have walked the halls of the Namm show with him where he has carried an electronic remote that scans all available frequencies and turns TV monitors off which would otherwise require synced coding the device it was to effect. So he walks through the hall and turns TV displays off of various booths...and laughs as the employees hustle to repair the problem and he does this just because he hates these monitors and with this little toy he has in his pocket, he can do something about it. Kinda funny/cute, but also bullying, destructive and patently immature. These people are just trying to make a living, just as he is.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:45 pm

Shouldn't someone post a :welcome:

sign? Especially for such a fascinating contributor.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:17 pm

Poetlister wrote:Shouldn't someone post a sign? Especially for such a fascinating contributor.

Yes, where are our manners?

:welcome:

to our newest member, Peter Grenader.

Please bear in mind, Peter, that this site has no official connection to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, and is mostly despised over at that august organization.

Also, the proper appellation for RandyfromBoise/Carrite is 'Tim.'

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:44 pm

From 2009:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24602

From May 2014:
http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113453

Get a clue, Peter.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:29 am

PeterGrenader wrote:My comment was deleted before you even saw it? I just posted it yesterday! wow! Are things THIS political on WIkipedia?

Anyway, thank you for recognizing it - do you need clarification of what that comment was or have you retrieved the original context?

No, you put it in the wrong place — on my User page rather than User Talk — and someone totally smoked the comment before I saw it since you were using real names in it.

No, the comment shouldn't have been "revision deleted" rather than simply moved (best) or silently removed (which would have at least been readable once I figured out that it was there.)

Yes, things are always political on Wikipedia, ha ha!

tim

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:49 am

Randy from Boise wrote:Yes, things are always political on Wikipedia, ha ha!

As well as bureaucratic, imperious and Kafkaesque, ha ha!

TimEd · Unread post by **TimEd** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:36 pm

In the interests of fairness/apportioning blame/finger-pointing etc., I will make a few points.

Peter, if you want to blame anyone for the deletion, then blame me, as it was clearly my post above which precipitated that action (though even I was taken aback by how fast it happened, as I seem to recall the 'Plan B Synthesizers' page was marked for deletion for about a year before it was finally removed). Details follow, but first I should make my position clear, in the spirit of disclosure/transparency/whatever: I have no direct association with Plan B/Peter Grenader, other than I am intimately acquainted with the Plan B designs, having produced modifications and fixes for many of the problems which are present in them:

http://www.timstinchcombe.co.uk/index.php?pge=pbsum

[How relevant/useful this is to the synth community at large is for others to judge: I had half been expecting someone to link to my pages from the now-deleted BLP, but ultimately it is such a small 'niche', few are really that bothered or care - being as I am connected in this way, I didn't see it as my business to add such a link myself (it would likely have been quickly reverted in any case!). Other than the comment mentioned below, the only editing I've done on WP has been for minor syntactical or grammatical mistakes.]

The sequence of events leading to the deletion: around early October (I think it was) someone flagged the BLP for 'speedy deletion'; this was reverted very quickly (within minutes), but it seems to have raised the profile of the article, as at least one person then saw fit to check out some of the links and claims, and seeded it with many 'citation needed' flags, on the basis that it was badly sourced and failed many criteria for verifiability, neutrality etc. This both amused and bemused me, given that the Wikipedia Review article, pointing many of these same shortcomings out, had been around for more than 5 years, hence my post above (made a few weeks after the 'speedy deletion' incident I believe). Within about 7 hours of my post above the article acquired a full set of standard 'article being considered for deletion' tags, thus making me feel that what I had heard about this forum being closely watched by WP editors was in fact very true, and so my post clearly had the unwitting effect of causing the deletion.

PeterGrenader wrote:...as you were the first commenter on the Peter Grenader WIkipedia Talk Page in the last decade with information similar to this in order to have this page removed..

It's gone now so I can't be sure, but again I suspect this could have been me, and not Eric, as I do remember being bemused by the fact that that Wikipedia Review post had somehow resulted in the deletion of the Plan B Synthesizers article, and not the BLP which was what was being highlighted as not meeting many of WP's guidelines for such things, and I do remember I commented somewhere about this. (And indeed, from my viewpoint it looks like Eric's main beef is with the way WP works/doesn't work, with your BLP just being a prime example, rather than anything more sinister.)

I am not PlanBguy, I never was .

Well if it is not you, then that whoever it is was willing to spend many hours last Christmas day editing and re-editing the article bears all the hallmarks of it being a very close friend or a family member, so hardly meeting neutrality or conflict of interest requirements, etc!

And a few minor corrections:

WIth the release of the Plan B Model 31, I introduced the Buffered Mult into Modular Synthesizers in 2007. For an entity which prides itself with accuracy of information and the requirement certification of stated facts, ...

(My emphasis.) According to post #2130 at the Plan B Yahoo group the Model 31 was released on 4 November 2008 (i.e. quite a way from 2007).

However, the page stated the FACT that I did invent the MOTION SENSING dual axis controller - the Plan B Model 31 in 2009, ... This concept has been incorporated by other manufacturers since the introduction of the Model 31 in 2009,...

Both of these references should be Model 32 of course.

Tim

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:40 pm

We strive for accuracy in deleted articles... about non-consumer electronics... with funny names.

Sadly, often we fall short. :irony:

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:16 pm

TimEd wrote:Peter, if you want to blame anyone for the deletion, then blame me, as it was clearly my post above which precipitated that action (though even I was taken aback by how fast it happened, as I seem to recall the 'Plan B Synthesizers' page was marked for deletion for about a year before it was finally removed). Details follow, but first I should make my position clear, in the spirit of disclosure/transparency/whatever: I have no direct association with Plan B/Peter Grenader, other than I am intimately acquainted with the Plan B designs, having produced modifications and fixes for many of the problems which are present in them:

http://www.timstinchcombe.co.uk/index.php?pge=pbsum

[How relevant/useful this is to the synth community at large is for others to judge: I had half been expecting someone to link to my pages from the now-deleted BLP, but ultimately it is such a small 'niche', few are really that bothered or care - being as I am connected in this way, I didn't see it as my business to add such a link myself (it would likely have been quickly reverted in any case!). Other than the comment mentioned below, the only editing I've done on WP has been for minor syntactical or grammatical mistakes.]

Thank you, Tim. Perhaps now Peter is starting to see a bit of light.

BTW, if anyone is wondering what the article looked like....Speedy Deletion Wiki to the rescue!

http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Peter_Grenader

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:25 pm

Tim: Plan B guy is not a family member. He does this for various LA Composer Forum members. I know the guy and a few of the other composers which are also members of Los Angeles Composer's Forum which he administers . There is no conflict of interests here. Most of this information is taken word by word from the bio printed in Secret Life. I believe someone else started doing the administration of these pages towards the end. I did once make an edit to the Electro-Acoustic Research page which was wiped a few years ago. I did this to restore the original text after someone thought it funny to replace the word 'modules' with 'vaporware'.

I also appreciate you trying to take the bullet for Eric, but I must disagree. You made a comment , yes. Eric made several in many different forums over a five year period, specifically lobbying for the page's removal and in all of them attempted to justify it in part by making an issue of my bad reputation among some members of the synth community, which while true - and even touched up on the page content itself - is irrelevant.

This page was not marked for deletion for a year. An issue came up regarding the copyrights of the photos that were included a short while ago and i was contacted by WIkipedia about them. I would assume that if the page was earmarked he would have simply wiped it then and not go through the hassle to registering those images in the common usage library as he did. It had been marked for citation requests but that notice vanished after the link were added.

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:59 pm

EricBarbour wrote:From 2009:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24602

From May 2014:
http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113453

Get a clue, Peter.

Pardon my laughter and thank you for proving my point about your past obsession with this issue. But...devil's advocate... what clue would you assume i need to get, Eric? That you spent far too much time lobbying for something which did not effect your life in any way which, by the words you chose to use in the process could easily be seen as a vendetta? It sure wasn't righteousness because who didn't make a peep when MIke Brown had similar problems .

So now, with this page's removal, I assume you now feel like the world makes a whole lot more sense.,,and I;m the one who has to get the clue?

As far as my reputation is concerned - yes - a small handful of people will always remember me as the guy who had a six month period of chaos and got behind on orders. They will refuse to recognize that every single issue has been rectified and refunded. I think you're one of these guys Eric and as a manufacturer, if you've never found yourself in this situation then it's you that should be in WIkipedia because you are the ONLY small company in the history of commerce who hasn't.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:17 pm

PeterGrenader wrote:This page was not marked for deletion for a year.

As you become more familiar with how stupid Wikipedia processes are, you will learn that this comment is irrelevant.

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:02 pm

thekohser wrote:
PeterGrenader wrote:This page was not marked for deletion for a year.
As you become more familiar with how stupid Wikipedia processes are, you will learn that this comment is irrelevant.

OK, good to know... libel had punitive rewards.

TimEd · Unread post by **TimEd** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:55 pm

PeterGrenader wrote:Plan B guy is not a family member. He does this for various LA Composer Forum members. I know the guy and a few of the other composers which are also members of Los Angeles Composer's Forum which he administers .

OK, so maybe the PlanBguy name was a poor choice that makes things look ultra-suspicious; and so is it just coincidence that the PlanBguy account is suddenly removed?

There is no conflict of interests here. Most of this information is taken word by word from the bio printed in Secret Life.

Which was written by...who? And where does someone used to writing composers' bios get the notion that you introduced buffered multiples and motion-sensing joysticks, or that you are 'credited with doing xyz' etc? It is quite easy to see why people were so leery of the article.

This page was not marked for deletion for a year.

No, indeed it wasn't. My 'marked for deletion for about a year' comment was in reference to the Plan B Synthesizers article, which I seemed to recall was in limbo for about that length of time, and since making that comment I've came across two dates which reinforce that belief: the AFD entry for it shows it was finally deleted on 15 June 2009, but the PlanBguy talkpage suggests it was first flagged for deletion on 6 Feb 2007 (so way before that Wikipedia Review thread linked above), which ties in with my memory that it was a long time between being flagged and actually being deleted. This was why when the BLP was flagged on 19 Oct and deleted just over three weeks later, on 11 Nov, I was somewhat taken aback! (Dates from the BLP's AFD entry.)

Tim

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:44 pm

Tim, I'm not sure you necessarily understand how the deletion procedures work. That CSD (candidate for speedy deletion) tag (which went up in February 2007) was a request for speedy deletion, which was obviously rejected by an admin, and the tag wouldn't have been up for very long (a day at most, I would expect). Two years later, in May 2009, iridescent (T-C-L) filed an AfD request (articles for deletion) based on the Wikipedia Review thread, less than half an hour after Eric started the thread. The AfD was then closed as giving a delete result on 15 June 2009. The page was certainly not hanging in limbo for that time, and Peter is quite right to point that out; it was only in any real limbo for about two weeks.

TimEd · Unread post by **TimEd** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:35 pm

Well I'm quite sure I don't understand the minutiae of the deletion process, but I'm pretty sure the Plan B Synthesizers page was 'consider for deletion' or some such for ages (which is what I meant by 'in limbo'), and only got deleted once the WR thread went up, hence my surprise that the Plan B article got deleted but at that time left the BLP alone, which was what the WR thread's main thrust was! But whatever, it is really a moot point, as I'm also fairly sure that what Peter is referring to above is the BLP article, as I vaguely recall seeing several photos coming and going in the BLP due to possible copyright infringement (this photo may be have been from around then too, early in 2014, following the BLPs big Christmas day 2013 edit session!).

But we are where we are - the articles were deemed to have fallen short of a variety of standards, and consequently have been deleted!

Tim

Lukeno94 wrote:Tim, I'm not sure you necessarily understand how the deletion procedures work. That CSD (candidate for speedy deletion) tag (which went up in February 2007) was a request for speedy deletion, which was obviously rejected by an admin, and the tag wouldn't have been up for very long (a day at most, I would expect). Two years later, in May 2009, iridescent (T-C-L) filed an AfD request (articles for deletion) based on the Wikipedia Review thread, less than half an hour after Eric started the thread. The AfD was then closed as giving a delete result on 15 June 2009. The page was certainly not hanging in limbo for that time, and Peter is quite right to point that out; it was only in any real limbo for about two weeks.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:52 pm

I would assume that you're probably referring to a "this article may fail notability requirements" style tag? I do agree that it definitely was deemed to fail various standards.

Interestingly, "Plan B Synthesizers" doesn't appear anywhere on the Speedy Deletion wikia, which is a tad surprising.

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:22 pm

TimEd wrote:
PeterGrenader wrote:Plan B guy is not a family member. He does this for various LA Composer Forum members. I know the guy and a few of the other composers which are also members of Los Angeles Composer's Forum which he administers .
OK, so maybe the PlanBguy name was a poor choice that makes things look ultra-suspicious; and so is it just coincidence that the PlanBguy account is suddenly removed?
There is no conflict of interests here. Most of this information is taken word by word from the bio printed in Secret Life.
Which was written by...who? And where does someone used to writing composers' bios get the notion that you introduced buffered multiples and motion-sensing joysticks, or that you are 'credited with doing xyz' etc? It is quite easy to see why people were so leery of the article.

This page was not marked for deletion for a year.
No, indeed it wasn't. My 'marked for deletion for about a year' comment was in reference to the Plan B Synthesizers article, which I seemed to recall was in limbo for about that length of time, and since making that comment I've came across two dates which reinforce that belief: the AFD entry for it shows it was finally deleted on 15 June 2009, but the PlanBguy talkpage suggests it was first flagged for deletion on 6 Feb 2007 (so way before that Wikipedia Review thread linked above), which ties in with my memory that it was a long time between being flagged and actually being deleted. This was why when the BLP was flagged on 19 Oct and deleted just over three weeks later, on 11 Nov, I was somewhat taken aback! (Dates from the BLP's AFD entry.)

Tim

TIm:

I wrote the bio that was on the webage for my record. If Plan B Guy copied that and pasted...surely that cannot be considered a violation and if it is, that is simply ridiculous. As of 1984 and the introduction of Macintosh, we live in a copy and paste world. Ids there s stipulation saying anything written must be original? If the violation was he didn't list a bibliography reference, that's what should have been posted on the top of the page, not deletion.

Regarding the Plan B stuff... i think it's a stretch to assert that Plan B Guy couldn't know this. If nothing else, the listed references mentioned a lot of that information. Is it because you didn't know about it that you assume no no one else did? This is the point I am making, and I feel it's valid;

In the world of WIkipedia, accuracy is everything. If something is stated, there is a requirement to back it up with references. But it seems to me the people that monitor pages to those requirements are free to go on instincts, not by qualification. You assumed I was plan B guy, you assumed there was mention of information no one would know...and it seems that was enough to act upon. Why is that seeming messed up to me?

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:36 pm

It can indeed be considered a violation, depending on exactly what you licensed your webpage as, and how PlanBGuy attributed the information. Wikipedia has a fairly specific Creative Commons license, and only certain things can be precisely quoted. If the copyright status of your website was unclear, or wasn't fully compatible, then the page is automatically a candidate for speedy deletion.

However, from what I can see, copyright issues were never cited as a reason for deletion; notability issues were, as were the COI of the article creator, and the general state of the articles. This applies to both your biography and the Plan B article.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:16 am

It's disheartening to see someone who works in the creative industry say that there's nothing wrong with just copying and pasting (without attribution) another person's creative work.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:23 pm

thekohser wrote:It's disheartening to see someone who works in the creative industry say that there's nothing wrong with just copying and pasting (without attribution) another person's creative work.

I think Peter is saying that in this instance he didn't mind anyone copying his own work.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:43 pm

Poetlister wrote:
thekohser wrote:It's disheartening to see someone who works in the creative industry say that there's nothing wrong with just copying and pasting (without attribution) another person's creative work.
I think Peter is saying that in this instance he didn't mind anyone copying his own work.

I don't think that's what he's saying:

...simply ridiculous. As of 1984 and the introduction of Macintosh, we live in a copy and paste world. Ids there s stipulation saying anything written must be original?

TimEd · Unread post by **TimEd** » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:51 pm

PeterGrenader wrote:I wrote the bio that was on the webage for my record. If Plan B Guy copied that and pasted...surely that cannot be considered a violation and if it is, that is simply ridiculous.

My question was of course semi-rhetorical, as I was not expecting you to say that anyone else but you wrote the bio. And yes I agree, in some circumstances not being able to copy something could easily be seen as being ridiculous. But anyone can say anything they like on the internet, but that doesn't mean it is true, even if copied ad nauseum. And therein lies the problem for Wikipedia editors/reviewers: how to verify that something added to a page is true? In simply copying the bio, it reads exactly like one would expect a bio written by the subject to read, to show the subject in the best light, and that it was written by someone calling himself 'PlanBguy' it is perhaps no wonder it looks like it was written by the subject, or at least someone very closely connected with him, and several reviewers mentioned this - I was not the only person to think that 'PlanBguy' was you.

If the violation was he didn't list a bibliography reference, that's what should have been posted on the top of the page, not deletion.

And that is more or less what did happen: shortly after the speedy deletion was removed, and before the subsequent deletion tags got added, someone else came in and seeded it with many tags querying its reliability, with the insertion of 'citation needed', or 'by whom?' etc. where they thought that the existing references simply weren't strong enough to validate some of the bolder assertions. And subsequent reviewers presumably agreed the article was sorely lacking, hence the deletion.

Regarding the Plan B stuff... i think it's a stretch to assert that Plan B Guy couldn't know this. If nothing else, the listed references mentioned a lot of that information. Is it because you didn't know about it that you assume no no one else did?

No: it is easy to find that you produced a buffered multiple module (by way of example) - it is much harder to establish that you were the first person to introduce the idea, and therefore that this is some great achievement worthy of mention (doubtless my knowledge of past synthesizers isn't that great, but there are enough of them out there for such a claim to require a good deal of detailed checking in order to be sure it is true - did we get any indication of such checking, or perhaps an authoritative third-party statement to the effect 'gee, a buffered multiple in a modular - why hasn't anybody thought of doing that before?!').

In the world of WIkipedia, accuracy is everything. If something is stated, there is a requirement to back it up with references.

Yes, and those given in the article were deemed to be lacking.

But it seems to me the people that monitor pages to those requirements are free to go on instincts, not by qualification. You assumed I was plan B guy, you assumed there was mention of information no one would know...and it seems that was enough to act upon. Why is that seeming messed up to me?

And it seems to me that they go by what they read in the article and its links - apparently what they saw was adjudged to be a self-promotional piece that appeared to be written by the subject, with links back to matter sourced by/from the subject, or simply interviews with the subject, with little independent assessment or verification.

Tim

Nw~ · Unread post by **Nw~** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:05 am

TimEd wrote:I was not the only person to think that 'PlanBguy' was you.

Even PlanBguy seemed to think he was Peter Grenader.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:18 am

Nw~ wrote:Even PlanBguy seemed to think he was Peter Grenader.

Imagine the level of advanced buffered-multiple technology that must have been required to deceive so many disparate individuals into thinking the identities they had lived under for most of their lives were actually completely false!

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:06 pm

TIm: i don't t remember the verbiage of the text, but i assure you that the was no mention of 'great achievement' in the introduction of the buffered mult. It was never done before and therefor an innovation, which i think that was more in line with the original text and the number of manufacturers who have produced buffered mults since the model 31 only serves to underscore that.

I can tell you exactly when the idea hit me however. I was repairing a Analogue Systems sequencer for Big City Music in early part of the last decade and noticed that the output drivers were such that if the output was fanned out to more than one location, if tuning was critical they would need to be re-tuned due to the increased load. Immediately the idea of producing a mult consisting of a single input and a series of voltage followers as the fan outs seemed an easy and elegant solution to this problem and it was. Along with this buffered mult I introduced the model 29 Dynamic Mult, in which the single input went to a series of outputs each with an attenuator. Not nearly as popular and not an original idea as it was suggested by Phil Gallo. If ths module would have been mentioned as a Plan B innovation, then there would be a problem. It wasn't.

In regard to another which was mentioned in that reference on the Wiki listing however, the Model 28 Tap Clock had never been done before in modular synthesis either, yet coding for that was done by Phil Gallo but at my request. It came at a time when he and I were both a bit burnt out working on the micro-based Milton Sequencer, the module 21, and I spoke to him about the idea of producing a tap clock as a distraction to break us out of the sludge so to speak. The Model 21 was immediately shelved and work began on the Model 28.

So let's not get ahead of what really happened here. A small list was compiled on the WIki page mentioning instruments which allowed functions which had never before been part of the modular synthesis tool pallet. Great achievement.... no mention of that whatsoever and there was no editorial verbiage included to suggest it's greatness, nor of any other isolated product within the entire Wiki article. If your major issue is the page was nothing more than a self-generated promotion to falsely make claim to Plan B being the great achievers of the modular renaissance, neither is true, not by the nature of the page or by inference.

As far as the citations which were listed - you're making issue that they did nothing to underscore information presented within the Plan B section. You are correct. They did however give historical reference to a number of items mentioned within the Peter Grenader biographical section in regard to music composition and therefor completely applicable.

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:39 pm

thekohser wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
thekohser wrote:It's disheartening to see someone who works in the creative industry say that there's nothing wrong with just copying and pasting (without attribution) another person's creative work.
I think Peter is saying that in this instance he didn't mind anyone copying his own work.
I don't think that's what he's saying:

...simply ridiculous. As of 1984 and the introduction of Macintosh, we live in a copy and paste world. Ids there s stipulation saying anything written must be original?

Thank you Mr, Kohs for giving some clarity to this ridiculous claim which took my mention of cut and paste completely out of context.

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:43 pm

Nw~ wrote:
TimEd wrote:I was not the only person to think that 'PlanBguy' was you.
Even PlanBguy seemed to think he was Peter Grenader.

Do you understand what you are looking at here? This is a page which granted Creative Commons license to an image, it was directed to PlanBguy by the WIki administrators because PlanBguy was the individual who added the images.

PeterGrenader · Unread post by **PeterGrenader** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:02 pm

Regarding copyrights:

While it's true that copyright protections are invoked whether or not the owner files for them, let's keep in mind that a violation can only be substantiated by a judge if a claim is made against the specific instance by the holder. One can ONLY assume that a violation occurred in this or any other instance, because public notification of any granted license is not required. The lack of that public notification however alone does not imply proof or not of licensed use. A for instance:

Within the lIner notes of Secret Life, I included a quote from Robert Fripp. I received written approval from his representatives that he was OK with this before hand. In this instance i elected to footnote that consent, but there is no requirement that I must. Had I not, if a case for infringement was brought against me by Mr. Fripp, I could and would present that license to the court, which was specific to it's usage - whereupon the case would be thrown out. While I applaud WIki for at least doing SOMETHING to control what could be their involvement in willful infringement over what youtube currently has in play (read: nothing), it would be a gross overextension to take a page down over IMPLIED violation.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:49 pm

PeterGrenader wrote:
Nw~ wrote:
TimEd wrote:I was not the only person to think that 'PlanBguy' was you.
Even PlanBguy seemed to think he was Peter Grenader.
Do you understand what you are looking at here? This is a page which granted Creative Commons license to an image, it was directed to PlanBguy by the WIki administrators because PlanBguy was the individual who added the images.

No, Peter, that's not how it works. You're looking there at the file as it was initially uploaded, and the PlanBGuy account very clearly says that they took the photo themselves, and that they are you. Either you ran that account, or whoever ran it was impersonating you.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:49 pm

PeterGrenader wrote:...it would be a gross overextension...

"Gross overextension" is Wikimedia Commons' middle name, Peter.

Look, I can tell that you mean very well here, defending yourself. But, you're talking to a bunch of people who are anywhere from 3 to 8 years more experienced than you are, in terms of having come to the conclusion that Wikipedia and its affiliated projects are mostly a joke. Reason is an impotent weapon against those who worship at the altar of Jimbo.