Talk:Andy Martin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Changes

I made a few edits to help the article conform to WP:BLP standards. No important information was removed. Redddogg (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the wolf pack line because somebody deleted it, it's part of the quote of "feeling less sorry for the Holocaust" and i believe that he should be quoted in full context. The reference is attached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.36.208 (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

More is needed about his role in the anti-Obama smears

Somebody ought to include some of the information from today's NYTimes' article about him, such as the recent Fox News special about (that is, against) Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?scp=1&sq=andy%20martin&st=cse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.101.64 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the FNC program. JamesMLane t c 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I added info from the NYT article on The Obama Nation.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

Early this morning someone added the claim that A. Martin is the brother of Politico's Jonathan Martin. I happen to know JMart, who brought this to my attention a few minutes ago; he says this is not true and indeed, there seems to be about a 30-year difference in ages between the two of them. I have removed the claim, and in the extremely unlikely circumstance that someone produces evidence to the contrary, well, I'd sure be interested to see it. WWB (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest political stunt by Andy Martin

I just added the info about the lawsuit against the state of Hawaii by good ole' Andy Martin.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

---

== CRAPPY CRAP shame on you "posters".... wiki must have been taken over! This article wreaks of biased viewpoint with no accountability or effort to correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.134.197 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

---

guys, let's TRY to be a little fair and balanced here, ok? Rutenberg is clearly and obviously pro-Obama, not objective, and if he is going to be the source for things in this article, they should be ACCURATE. Andy Martin does NOT state as FACT in Hannity's America that "Obama was training to overthrow the government" as stated by Rutenberg. Martin states his OPINION, by prefacing his comments with "I think..." I added a source to the YouTube video where anyone can hear his words. Furthermore, "widely discredited" when used to describe Corsi's books are WEASEL WORDS...if we're going to describe the book is "widely discredited" then to be fair we should cite some actual discrediting by reputable...um..."discrediters." There have been many positive reviews of this book, it is the number one book on the NY Times best seller list, and the books is heavily sourced with easily checked cites. the pro-Obama slant to this wiki article is obvious, and needs a little balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.77.151.199 (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC) "the pro-Obama slant to this wiki article is obvious, and needs a little balance. " I agree. Shall we vote now? Kingphilip2 (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Barack Hussein Obama Bias

This whole article seems to be a smear attempt at Andy Martin. Need an example?.. Why is the title "U.S. politician" instead of "Internet writer/columnist/investigative journalist" ? Why was "Factcheck.org has seen and handled the actual birth certificate, and determined it to be genuine, including the requisite raised seal." removed? Is it because I posted this:

"Factcheck.org has seen and handled the actual birth certificate, and determined it to be genuine, including the requisite raised seal."

(The rest of the article was posted by yours truly.)

William Ayers and Barack Obama both served as co-chairs of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. Obama called for an $3.5 million dollar earmark for the Annenburg Foundation that sponsors FactCheck.org. Several FactCheck articles have been viewed as promoting the Obama campaign line instead of truly acting as a fact checkers. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was chaired by Barack Obama from 1995 to 1999.

Copyright © 2003 - 2008 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.

Barack Hussein Obama was also sued by Philip J. Berg, Esquire in Berg v. Obama. (Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC "ADMITTED", by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is "NOT QUALIFIED" to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

[1]

Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit - Obama's "Not" Qualified to be President Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President

Why was the above removed from the history of edits as well?Kingphilip2 (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the one who removed your material, but my first guess would be it was removed because it has nothing to do with Andy Martin, and this is Andy Martin's page, not Obama's or a page about Obama or the DNC. Everything you've brought up here is rather irrelevant, as it is not directly connected to anything about Andy Martin.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

At the time it was posted, the "Suit against the state of Hawaii" section concluded with; "Factcheck.org has seen and handled the actual birth certificate, and determined it to be genuine, including the requisite raised seal." I felt that, "William Ayers and Barack Obama both served as co-chairs of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. Obama called for an $3.5 million dollar earmark for the Annenburg Foundation that sponsors FactCheck.org." shows that Factcheck.org is not a RS in this particular case.Kingphilip2 (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy, but what about all the other stuff you've listed here? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Andy Martin.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Citing Youtube

Please, for the anonymous IP address you cited a Youtube video, don't do that again. Cite a credible news organization.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Find us a "credible news organization"...71.171.19.102 (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, Andy Martin

Suffice it to say that I find his lawsuits to be pretty entertaining. :-) 204.52.215.107 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find them and him sickening. Don't feed the troll. — Solo Owl (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable for one event

This gentleman may have filed many frivilous lawsuits and made many unsuccessful attempts at office, but his only claim to notability is his allegations about Obama. Wikipedia should discuss those allegations (while briefly noting that the person making them holds fringe opinions), not the person who makes them, under biography of one event. Andjam (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is so if you do not consider his 1996 Florida campaign a notable event.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it notable. Assaults are not a claim of notability in the vast majority of cases. Andjam (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, but this isn't just an assault propagated by some random thug or car burglar; it's one committed by a man who made a serious run for a state senate seat. Perhaps you are right though; if he had never made any allegations about Obama and become well-known in that regard, his anti-Semitic remarks and the fact that he simply made an assault does seem rather trivial for a Wiki article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh

"Obama is formerly a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, a Black Liberation Theology ("BLT") church inspired by BLT founder, James Hal Cone, who has repeatedly stated that BLT is a fusion between the teachings of the Nation of Islam and so-called Black Christianity."

Besides being blatantly POV ("so-called Black Christianity"?!?) this is a tangential statement that doesn't really belong in an article about Andy Martin. It's also offensive because it implies that black Christians are not really Christian, which is exactly the same thing that the KKK, the White Citizens Council, Christian Identity, Kinists, and their racist ilk were and are still saying. In any event, like I said, there's no relevance to an article about Andy Martin.

I'm removing it, and please don't re-add it. This is Wikipedia, not Wikkkipedia. -Mason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

This guy sounds like a complete idiot. Are there really still some Americans who vote for someone like this? Thank god that the majority of Americans now seem to want intelligent leaders rather than dickheads but I am a bit confused. Such racist people would not be allowed to hold office in many European countries. Is this yet another example of the 'American free speech'? --217.202.9.238 (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your sentiments, but this is not a blog for your opinions, this is a talk page for discussing how to improve Andy Martin's page. Quite frankly, for a person who is not very notable, Martin's page does not need any further expansions.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Someone added neutrality tags to the article recently, yet did not follow up with the necessary argument or justification for them here on the talk page. Care to explain the new tags? The first tag says not to remove it until the dispute is resolved: exactly what dispute is being made? I will remove the tags in a week's time if this isn't properly addressed here on the talk page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been four days already; I'm starting to think the person who added those tags isn't taking them very seriously.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion is that this article is currently written about as neutrally as possible, given the remarkable collection of verified facts about its subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's assume good faith here for now, and wait three more days (a full week's time since the 20th) to let this person state their case. I honestly don't think the person understands what the essential follow-up is when adding a neutrality tag, otherwise they would have immediately come here to the talk page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Martin is notable enough. He had a Wikipedia article earlier, which was deleted, and then he was on Hannity & Colmes as an 'independent expert' on Obama. The man is a nutcase, and if he's notable enough to get this sort of national exposure then he's notable enough to get a Wikipedia article to describe him factually. I realize some Wikipedians would like to delete every article about an anti-Semite, but I don't think that's actually helpful. Flatterworld (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's plenty of mainstream media coverage of this guy, and not just for the citizenship case.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The deletion log does not list the article being deleted at any stage. Can you please point to where it was deleted? With regards to media coverage, he has received some, but by way of comparison, a 2008 news archive search for Andy Martin Obama got about 117 results, whereas a news archive search for Corey Delaney party (an individual who is a mere redirect on BLP1E grounds) gets 1380 results. And no, I'm not seeking to delete him on the basis of his political views. I'd never seek to delete Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example, because he's notable. Martin is notable only for his claims about Obama (he's not succeeded in doing anything else notable), which makes him a BLP1E. Andjam (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That assumes that he's most famous for his Obama conspiracy theories. A search for "Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona" returns sixty-plus items on his vexatious litigation from the 70s/80s, and of course Web searches aren't going to pick up on a fraction of those from that period (enscribed on those awkward dead trees). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of his vexatious litigation, but I've argued on this talk page that it isn't a claim to notability. Do you wish to explain why you think his vexatious litigation is notable? Andjam (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because it wasn't "one event", as implied in the section you started. That's rather like suggesting that John Dillinger isn't notable because robbing banks is "one event". It was a several-year-long episode covered by multiple reliable sources. That he has also received coverage for other completely unrelated events like the Obama theories suggests that there is sufficient material covering a broad enough period of his life that a biography can be constructed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cover the event, not the person" wouldn't work well for Dillinger. Which "it" are you referring to with "Mainly because it wasn't "one event", as implied in the section you started."? Andjam (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The vexatious litigation in question was not one lawsuit, or even one series of related lawsuits; it was hundreds of different suits filed against different parties for different reasons over the course of several years. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So far you've argued that if his (non-Obama related) litigation is notable, then it should be in this article. Can you please now explain why his vexatious litigation is notable? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Multiple instances of direct, non-trivial coverage by secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the hits for the search you provided seem to be primary sources, rather than non-trivial coverage by secondary sources. Andjam (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I really should go through these properly and add them to the article, but over the first two pages of results there are already three instances of secondary coverage by the Chicago Tribune - one of which labels hism as "a political gadfly and frequent candidate". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you think primary sources are unacceptable. I suggest you review WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed "blantly"

My edit summary wasn't really accurate. Its not that "we get it", its more that its subjective how "blantly" his actions were, even though they appear to be pretty blatant :) Anyways, --Tom 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Allegations against Chuck Robb

Here is the link to the article: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-wwOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9HsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3820,2847783&dq=anthony+martin+trigona —Preceding I admit that I have difficulty with creating footnotes in Wiki, so if someone else feels like doing the honors, I would not be offended. unsigned comment added by 165.97.69.26 (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit

According to his press release, Mr. Martin has sued Wikimedia over the content of this article. Dragons flight (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikimedia foundation has not yet been formally served, and this should probably not go into the article until there is wider coverage than a press release from the subject of this article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 07:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to already be in , but I don't see why not, we have two citations and it was his announcement after all? well. we have the press release and the Huffington post. Off2riorob (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want the direct citation, it can be found here: [1] (This is his actual blog, I linked to it from his campaign site) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ta for that, its worth a read, he is saying... a hearing on January 8, 2010 on his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems we're giving this undue weight, with only a single independent source that does little beyond just printing the press release and highlighting some of it as well as portions of this article at the time. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Running for office

I'm pretty sure he's running for office in some republican primary. Why isn't it mentioned in the article? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

www.BoycottHawaii.com

Should we mention this website, run by Martin? I think it is extraordinary for an American to try to cause divisions in the union like that. But what would I know? I'm British. Maybe it happens all the time. Yaris678 (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO no, it looks like the obama birth certificate story and the site just seems to be for collecting donations and selling a book. Off2riorob (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So you don't think it extraordinary for an American to ask his fellow American's to boycott one of the 50 states? Yaris678 (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Amongst this gentleman's career not really, it seems to be a side issue as regards the obama story. Has it been widely reported in reliable sources? Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I just did a Google search and it came up with other people boycotting Hawaii! And not much about Martin. I guess it's not that notable. Yaris678 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

@Yaris: It does happen all the time. For example, a few years back, African-American leaders called for a boycott of South Carolina in protest of the Confederate battle flag flying over the state capitol. There is nothing wrong with citizens calling for a boycott of a state. This guy is just insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.97.69.11 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Rather than just removing sourced material, read what it says. My addition noted a quote from the Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party concerning Martin's ad. It had nothing to do with any claims made in the ad and the quote itself is not controversial. Please do not remove sourced material without the discussion you yourself asked for.Shsilver (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, having a citation does not make it non controversial, it is tittilating sexual specualation and not very encyclopedic, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read what is said in the current version (unless you've reverted it), you'll find that it simply mentioned the accusation Martin makes in a non-tittilating manner, and notes the response the state party has to Martin's ads. Where do you see the controversy? In Martin's accusations (yes those are controversial)? In the party's response (which is simply a quote from the party chair)? Be more specific in your objections. And generally removing the statements a citation refers to without removing the citation is considered akin to vandalism.Shsilver (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ec. - Your comment is also unclear..you have added this.. After Martin ran ads questioning the sexual orientation of Mark Kirk, the way you have worded this gives weight to the assumption that Martin ran specific adds for this questioning of this persons sexual preference and as far as I know this was actually just a small part of the add. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A quote from the ad in question: "Illinois Republican leader Jack Roeser says there is a 'solid rumor that Kirk is a homosexual.' Roeser suggests that Kirk is part of a Republican Party homosexual club. Lake County Illinois Republican leader Ray True says Kirk has surrounded himself with homosexuals. Mark Kirk should tell Republican voters the truth." Shsilver (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ec It is not also the parties response it is a single persons comment, can the comment not be added in a more neutral way? Perhaps putting Martins position and not just the negativity. Personally imo the sexual comments about someone else are of no value here in this encyclopedia. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

When the person speaking is the Chairman of the party, they are speaking officially for the party. If you want, we can include that above quote from the ad to specify Martin's position, although I feel that to do so adds to the titillation that you are arguing against.Shsilver (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also the inclusion of the whole comment from brady is imo a bit excessive and should not be included, especially this bit... His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech is excessive and adds nothing of value except to denigrate the subject of this article who might add is in some kind of legal issue with the wikipedia at the moment. Additions like this add nothing of encyclopedic value and are simply partisan attacks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you object to the quote from brady being removed, it is a bit opinionated and excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• From this...the Illinois Republican Party Chairman Patrick Brady announced that "The Illinois Republican Party disavows the statements made today by Mr. Andrew Martin in his statewide radio advertisements. His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech which has no place in the Illinois Republican Party. Mr. Martin will no longer be recognized as a legitimate Republican candidate by the Illinois Republican Party.

• To this...the Illinois Republican Party Chairman Patrick Brady announced that "The Illinois Republican Party disavows the statements made today by Mr. Andrew Martin in his statewide radio advertisements" and that "Mr. Martin will no longer be recognized as a legitimate Republican candidate by the Illinois Republican Party".Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the bit that imo is a bit excessive and better left out of the article His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech although of course it will be in the citation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I can live with it, although I would suggest (and I'm making the change) that an ellipses be used to specifically show something was left out, which, I think is a more accurate representation of his comments. Shsilver (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted? [2] I see absolutely nothing wrong with quoting a news source directly and the current paragraph does not accurately say what the cited source says. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, your alteration seems to be a bit excessive, the titillating details would sit well in a gossip column but all of this actually is about rumor and gossip, all of which isn't worth really adding, so the excessive comments and quotes are better imo left out and what s left is about as encyclopedic as we can get the comment, another editor Shsilver did support this position on my talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it titillating myself, I just think it's more informative of what actually happened. Making what basically amounts to a homophobic attack on a political opponent (who may not even be gay) is a bit more than simply asking someone to clarify their sexuality. :-/ Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big issue, just its a bit excessive for encyclopedic content and the trimmed down version is plenty, it is just a political campaign that gets dirty but there is no need for us to report every minute detail here, we comment and then link to the gory details, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well anyway, the grammar and punctuation in the paragraph was not right, so I fixed that. Also Roeser isn't really a "leader", Martin just called him that, so I removed that word from the description of Roeser. Finally, I moved the sun times cite up so it references the third sentence, as well as including it where it originally was. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your edits and your discussion are appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Illinois primary will be conducted on February 1, 2010

The Illinois primary will be conducted on February 2, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcl444 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Date corrected, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Updates

Are there any updates on the election results and the threatened legal lawsuit against the wikipedia? Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

heres the election results, five percent, this could be added. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vexed

My edit summary was truncated due to my poor typing. "vexatious litigant" has been part of the lead to this article for years, because its what this individual is primarily known for, along with "perennial candidate". There is a whole bloody section about itAndy_Martin_(American_politician)#Vexatious_litigation_and_anti-Semitic_remarks and unless Rob wants to delete that whole well sourced and established section, or rewrite the MoS so that the lead is not a summary of the article, I suggest he stop blind reverting and re-whitewashing the article. Not an NPOV problem, as Uncle Milty succinctly put it[3] Respectfully, KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, its gone there was a fraca about it and a complaint and the article was cleaned of such issues. Please don't just put it back in again, there was a thread at the BLPN and a dagree of support for the tidy version and the article has been stable for some time, perhaps you missed it as you don't seem to have been very involved here recently. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when is a whitewashed version called a "tidy" version? I guess I'll just go remove "murderer" from Gacy's article lead too, eh? Please provide a link to the BLP discussion; I'm presuming you're citing that as when consensus supposedly changed to remove a whole section from the article from being mentioned at all in the lead? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me you're not referring to this, where consensus was clear that he is a vexatious litigant, and one person suggested, with no support, that we "might consider" taking that out of the lead, as somehow being a change of consensus??? You must have something more, please link it here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks like the primary reason, yes, from three months ago. This situation has been pretty much stable since then you are the first person who basically wants to revert the article back to the state it was in then, which basically in my personal opinion was a bit of an attack article. Insisting on calling him in the lead a vex lit is imo a bit much. You are welcome to open a RFC if you like and see what people think about it, me I don't mind about him either way, I removed what I considered to be excessive POV. IMO the article as it stands now is fine a lot better than what you edited to today, but as I said, I am a neutral about him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I did say it might be considered, but given that the term appears to be technical (you get declared one by the courts of a locality, not just an opinion writer in the local rag) and given that the term appears to be, as Chihuahua says, a large part of what he is known for, I think leaving it in makes sense. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Precisely - he's been declared such by the courts; its his primary claim to fame; taking it out is not indicated by any argument put forth. Rob is merely whitewashing, and has no support for so doing. That no one noticed he'd done so for several months is not rationale for keeping his unsupported and non-consensus edits - Seigenthaler was missed for four months, after all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop stuffing it back in, the article has been stable without it for three months, if you want to readd it then ask for a RFC and we can get more community comments. 13:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See my comparison to Seigenthaler, above. You obtained no support for this whitewash before you implemented it; I am sorry it was missed for three months that you'd done so, but I have corrected the error now. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what the individual is known for yes? So why wouldn't we put it in the lead? I have to agree pretty strongly with the deadly puppy here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

When you have an RFC, you're supposed to invite earlier contributors. That didn't happen three months ago, so any claims to 'stability' are totally without merit. Martin's been declared a 'vexatious litigant' by the courts because of his many frivolous lawsuits. That is indeed his major claim to fame along with his many declared candidacies for various elected offices, and both belong in the lead. Flatterworld (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

disputed

[4] Explain how this well sourced content, which only Rob wants to remove, is "disputed" - it was the finding of a federal judge! Please provide a source that the judge was wrong. Explain how this is not the article subject's main claim to fame. Please do not resort to your pathetic "I changed it three months ago and no one changed it back until you" argument, it is worthless. That no one noticed your whitewash/rewrite is a pity, but does not change the facts. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try and stay civil, and stop refering to my editing in such a derogatory manner, please assume good faith. Just open an RFC to allow the community to choose which version is preferable, me I feel that the version you support is excessively pov in a negative way, and was the subject of complaints from the subject, I have simply taken a bit of the excessive weight out of it, the fact that a mijnor court judge refered to him as vex is not a reason for us to obsessively assert that about him in the infobox and lede. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course the subject complained; he's a vexatious litigant. Do you know what that means? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, it means that's what they do: complain a lot in a legal fashion. Findings of US federal judges are of course reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just start a RFC and get it over with. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be absurd; I am not your secretary and don't do your bidding. You have failed to explain why you think something well cited, a finding by a federal judge, is "disputed". You're the only one who desires this change. You are the only one who wants an Rfc. All I want is a sensible answer from you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

History of the dispute

• From the first version of this article in 30 June 2008, "vexatious litigant" has been part of the lead[5] - originally phrased as ..."several federal and state courts in the United States to label him a vexatious litigant."
• This was stable - no surprise, since its why he is notable. He's not notable for anything else.
• 18 Dec 2009, with no discussion on the talk page at all, and no edit summary, Off2riorob removed the phrase.[6]
• I noticed and put it back[7] 17 Mar 2010.
• Rob, claiming "support" (no links, no evidence, no names, no discussion) for his bizarre removal of the only thing which makes this man notable from the lead of his article, replaced it[8] and suggested I "move to discussion"
• Several back and forth edits later, Rob still has given no explanation for why he wants that out of the lead. You might as well argue that Poet should be removed from Robert Frost's article lead.
• Two other people have since weighed in; both support keeping the descriptive phrase in the lead.[9][10]
• 30 March 2010 Carnildo protects the article[11]... and dead silence from Rob.

Waiting on you, Rob. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have requested input from the last 18 editors of this article, skipping two who seem to have not become regular editors. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is really strange. I went back to see what this article looked like back in October, and I want to know why so much (including the offices he ran for under various parties) was deleted. Is this supposed to be some campaign brochure for his current run for US Senator?! btw - read this and then click on its related articles. Why isn't Martin suing them, if their facts are wrong? (rhetorical question) The more I see of this debacle, the more I'm irritated that 'Rob' decided not only to take it upon himself to change the article, but is now blocking the revert. I realize Illinois is known for political hacks of ill repute (including the pawnbroker who won the nomination for Lt. Gov. of Illinois this year), but Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an enabler. Flatterworld (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; the article has been whitewashed. I'll not speculate as to why, AGF applies. It is entirely possible that Rob misunderstood BLP to mean "try to avoid anything negative" but that results in a hagiography, not a biography. What is your view on the "vexatious litigant" phrase in the lead? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I see above you've stated you feel it belongs in the lead - I missed that before. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The term "vexatious litigant" as a technical term originated in California, which is not one of the main locations Martin has brought lawsuits, so I don't know how often courts have used that specific wording in finding against him. It could easily be checked, if desired. What is incontrovertible that Martin has filed many hundreds of lawsuits over a period of decades, and that virtually all of them have been dismissed, with multiple courts finding that the actions were variously meritless, frivolous, and maliciously motivated, to the point that there is a series of injunctions in effect precluding his bringing further pro se civil cases in the federal courts and in several states. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very concerned about what's been changed in the article in general - see comparison of changes as it appears it's been 'cleansed' of quite a bit of relevant material. Am I correct to infer Martin complained, threatened a lawsuit, and some editors (on their own, not based on any legal advice from the Wikimedia Foundataion) simply caved and removed everything Martin asked?! Just because he's currently running for US Senator (Illinois) doesn't mean we have to reinvent Wikipedia as his campaign headquarters. Flatterworld (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

With the one correction that the edits were done by one editor, without seeking or obtaining input from others, yes. There was a brief rumor that the subject was planning to threaten a lawsuit - which has not occurred - and one editor, based only on that SFAICT, has rewritten the article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Identification

Martin should be identified as a writer, not a journalist; as far as I know, he does not work for any news publication. Treybien 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I concur. What are your views on "vexatious litigant" appearing in the lead, as it has done since 2008? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Has he been officially ruled a vexatious litigant? DS (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

... I see he has. In that case, a) it should be part of the lead, yes; b) he will become upset about that, because that's the sort of thing vexatious litigants do. DS (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's fairly reliably predictable, there.[12] Thanks for your input! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in the lead. The problem seems to be that 'Off2riorob' thinks the term is a personal opinion, not an official ruling. (I would have thought someone contributing to an encyclopedia would know how to look something up, especially when he was asked to several times. I'll make it simple: Vexatious litigation. Click on it.) Flatterworld (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate Off2riorob's motivations and efforts in the light of WP:BLP as well as Martin's reported public dissatisfaction. However, I tend to agree with KC's view that the resulting version of the article ended up a bit on the anodyne side -- Martin is certainly not notable as a "journalist" or even as a "writer" but for his history of groundless accusations, political and legal. That being said, I am not necessarily wedded to explicitly describing him in direct noun form as "a vexatious litigant"; it might be just as effective to add a parenthetical describing the lawsuits, to-wit: ". . . numerous lawsuites (which one federal judge described as being of "a vexatious, frivolous and scandalous nature"). In any event, it would probably be wise to use multiple citations for this (found, for example, by googling the search string <Martin Trigona vexatious>. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  While I appreciate your concerns, why weasel it? There is no BLP concern, any more than there is for calling Barak Obama president, or Charles Manson a criminal - it is his primary claim to fame, and without it, no one outside his personal circle would have ever heard of him. More than one court has thus characterized him - the court documents I linked above cite him as "a notoriously vexatious and vindictive litigator who has long abused the American legal system". I concur with your point about adding a cite or two more - and will certainly do so, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Agree. Let's be cautious here, being sure to have sources to address any specific BLP concerns. That said, I don't think we'll have any trouble finding additional sources, if necessary, to support the wording that everyone appears to support other than Off2riorob. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Responding to an informal request for comment. A few points, which will put me somewhere in the middle here, and hopefully suggest a way forward too.

• Terminology: my understanding is that in many jurisdictions the term "vexatious litigant" has a specific meaning which involves a litigant being legally prevented from launching further suits etc without permission. To avoid confusion we should not use this term unless this is the case.
• Lead: the lead is supposed to summarize the article, giving appropriate weight to the material it contains. At the moment there only one sentence in the article (a quote dated to a long time ago, 1982) about his litigation etc. I think it could be argued that putting "vexatious litigant" in the lead without more to support it is inappropriate per WP:UNDUE
• Primary sources, such as those suggested above: per BLP, section, "Misuse of primary sources" we are not to use primary sources such as court records in articles about living people, though they can be used to support secondary refs.

BUT...

• There are multiple reliable secondary sources out there about Mr. Martin and his lawsuits, including ones that report that he has been restricted in some states from filing without permission. I would suggest expanding the section in the article, and separating it out from the anti-semitic remarks. If anybody sends me an email I can send copies of offline Factiva obtained newspaper articles and some of these scholarly journals listed that I have access to. And here are a few web-based ones see page 735-6[13][14][15]. But I will note that very few of them describe him as "vexatious litigant" per se. Most of them report his actions and then quote the various juicy "vexatious"-type statements from judges made about him. I'm inclined to think we might want to follow suit (pun intended!) --Slp1 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

At least one federal appeals court has said that he's "a notoriously vexatious and vindictive litigator who has long abused the American legal system." [16]. Seems pretty clear cut to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Off2riorob

I tire of such discussion, a neutral position is hard to find, sure there are plenty of people that don't like him, I thought the article was slanted against him and was pretty much an attack piece, he was complaining in the press and I cleaned the strong negative pov from the article, I am not a rep or a dem or from that area I have no issue or care about this man at all, I did the editing with respect for the man and for wikipedia, personally I wanted to take the what I see as quite a weak claim of antisemitism out as well, I mean , a hook nosed jew, who says that, I doubt the authenticity of that claim, anyway there has been an objection and KillerChihuahua wants to return to the previous version wants him portrayed as a much worse person that the article portrays now, I object and I will object forever more, I have done my job for wikipedia and for the reader, who just wants clear simple information about a living person, if they want partisan commentary and titillating vexatious name calling they can get it anywhere, so do as you will, I am not the one responsible. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I take very strong offense at your personal attack of accusing me: KillerChihuahua wants him portrayed as a much worse person - how dare you! I seek an accurate biography, and you presume to accuse me, although every other editor who has commented here on this page concurs that the content which you removed was incorrectly removed and should be restored. I request in the strongest terms that you strike that attack. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your being a bit sensitive, I have clearly said that I consider the version that you want to revert to was a bit of an attack article. You do want to assert in the lede additional negative assertions, don't you? Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I want to restore accuracy, by keeping the subject's main claim to notability in the article lead. I have no interest in whether an article is rendered inaccurate by whitewashing, as was one here, or by creating an attack article, as has been done on other articles. Either is unacceptable. But to claim I want to add something negative - that is a personal attack on my character, and a false one. I am done with this line of hostile accusation from you; I sincerely hope you are also done with your innuendo about what I "want" which you are creating out of whole cloth with no evidence whatsoever. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps ask the wiki lawyer which version he prefers. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're speaking of Mike Godwin, he's already commented on this on one of the email threads. If you wish I will dig it out and post what he said. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies; Cary commented on the OTRS email list that Mike had some communication with Mr. Martin. I do not have Mike's commentary on this, as it was not posted to the list. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So far I have found an Arbitrator's view, which is that the article as it existed in December was, if anything, less negative than the sources given. OTRS email thread view was unanimous that there was no need to remove "vexatious litigant". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Vex Lit was not removed, it sits happily in the body of the article, it has just been given less prominence, a session court judge once called him that is not an excuse for wikipedia to label his as that so prominently as if that is his main claim to fame in the lede and in the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"excuse"????? No one is looking for an "excuse", sir. Its is the main reason this man is at all notable. It should be in the lead. Following your logic, only due to some desire to smear innocents, make negative comments, and lean on any excuse, however flimsy, to do so, does the lead of Charles Manson contain the word criminal. I reject your repeated attempts to cast me in a bad light, and suggest you start attacking all the people who have agreed with my synopsis, starting with the person who wrote the article and continuing through the several editors above, or else admit that for some reason you have a personal dislike of me. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I googled to learn what Off2riorob is referring to and found this in the Washington Post:

An early October edition of his weekend show, "Hannity's America," was built around Andy Martin, a conservative writer who maintains an anti-Obama Web site. Martin said on the show that Obama's community-organizing work in Chicago was "training for a radical overthrow of the government." The onetime political candidate has a history of making controversial statements. In a 1983 personal bankruptcy case, according to the Chicago Tribune, he referred to a judge as a "crooked, slimy Jew" and described Holocaust survivors in a filing as "operating as a wolf pack." Martin has denied holding anti-Semitic views.

That reference is presumably to this Chicago Tribune story. I suggest all who are commenting here read it carefully and in full, including the part about Martin unsuccessfully suing the newspaper for libel. Flatterworld (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's the HuffPo article as well.[17] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please just WP:DENY editors that refuse to address the policy-based concerns brought up in these discussions. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have covered this, for example adding vex lit to the lede and the infobox, Mr Martin is not what he is most notable for , accusation comes from one session court judge. I removed what I saw as an excessive negative write of the available citations, NPOV, weight, BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Then, given the sources, a similar phrase could be used to summarize his vex lit? However, if vex lit has a legal definition, the definition has been used in legal rulings, and it describes his behavior in general, then it appears to be a proper phrase to summarize him in the lede. I'm more cautious about infoboxes, only because I'm not as familiar with their use.

Blanking and rejection of sourced material is neither NPOV nor BLP. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has been blanked or rejected, it is in the lede right now, known for filing numerous lawsuits ,the content about the litigation sits well right now in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Known for filing numerous lawsuits" is unnecessarily euphemistic. Coca Cola files "numerous lawsuits", but it is not vexatious. Honesty and clarity require calling him what he is. Thus, the lead and the infobox should be reverted to say "vexatious litigant". -Rrius (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there citations to support that he is well know specifically using the legal term Vex lit, one judge referred to him as that, are there multiple citations that report, Mr Martin the vexatious litigant? Andy Martin is a vexatious litigant (google search result) Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, "one judge" legally declaring him to be a vexatious litigant is not the tenuous support you think it is. When a judge does that, it means you are more than simply a pain-in-the-ass; it means you have so severely abused legal process on a continuing basis that the court is going to punish you or even ignore future filings. Secondly, try a Google News archive search. Not having dealt with you on any American articles before, I'm not sure which American news sources fail to live up to your personal bar. As such, I leave it to you to look through them yourself. -Rrius (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It ws not one judge, as you can see from the "sourcing" section below. I'm still trying to work out how many judges and courts have so characterized Martin (which we can reliably source). KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Rob's link shows as the first reference to this Andy Martin has Media Matters referring to him as a vex lit. Far more than "one judge" has done so.

Further, and what is of prime concern, no editor other than Rob feels it should be omitted from the lead of this article. Rob, are you willing to bow to strong consensus of your fellow editors, or do you plan to continue tendentiously arguing that you are right, and everyone else is wrong? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Which sources?

I have been looking into sourcing, and a quick check has turned up these, which is multiple courts, not "one judge":

• "Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida, and various federal courts" Florida's Vexatious Litigant Law: An End to the Pro Se Litigant's Courtroom Capers?
• in Re Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, Movant. in Re George Sassower, Movant., 9 F.3d 226 (2nd Cir. 1993) [18]
• United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: 737 F2d 1254 Martin-Trigona Martin-Trigona v. Lavien R Martin-Trigona [19][20]

  Ok, this one is the one in which, in 1984, due to his history of frivolous litigation, a federal judge issued an order prohibiting him from filing any legal action in federal court without first obtaining permission of that court. This was June 18, 1984 (kc, 15:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

• United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. March 26, 1993. Helen MARTIN-TRIGONA, Dr., Elizabeth I. Martin, Anthony R. Martin, IV, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Leander SHAW, Parker McDonald, Ben Overton, Gerald Kogan, Rosemary Barkett, Stephen Grimes, Major Harding, Paul Marko, Sherry Anderson, et al.,[21]
• Newsbusters [22]

and

• "Volumes could be written about Anthony Martin-Trigona's vexatious lawsuits, but any such treatise would have to contain annual pocket parts to provide any hope of keeping current." - 1993 decision involving Martin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [23]
• (not usable, but) "one of the truly great vexatious litigators in a nation not known for its shortage of vexatious litigation" [24]
• (also probably not usable) [25]
• "Local Rule 83.3(a) was promulgated by the District Court in response to a steady flow of vexatious litigation by one Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, a pro se litigator who filed numerous meritless suits, like one to intervene in federal Judge Jose Cabranes' divorce and get custody of the Cabranes children.

Martin-Trigona was prevented from joining the Illinois bar because he has a "moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character." So go figure that there's this guy named Andy Martin on Sean Hannity a few weeks back saying Obama is a Muslim. " [26](usable? find another source and confirm/debunk the local rule 83.3 being passed to deal with AM's vex lit.?)

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here is a press release about 83.3, which does require that anyone pass the bar before filing in the Ohio Southern Courts. Still looking for the background on this.[27] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And there is this:

• "In these consolidated cases this court confronts the litigious Anthony R. Martin-Trigona. See In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F.Supp. 1245, 1265 (D.Conn.1983) (discussing appellant's history of vexatious litigation), aff'd in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir.1984). In the present cases the District Court denied appellant's motions for leave to file complaints because he had failed to comply with the terms of an injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F.Supp. at 1267. Appellant raises several objections to the denial of his motions. Having considered each, we now affirm the District Court's denial of the motions.

As a result of appellant's litigious history, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut enjoined him from filing further lawsuits unless he first moved the court in which he sought to file the suit for leave to file it. Id. at 1266."[28]

which indicates that the court, tired of the stream of vexatious litigation, issued special restrictions against Martin filing future suits, in an attempt to curb the volume. This is a combined case which includes # proceedings

1. U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - Anthony Martin-Trigona, Appellant, v. United States of America. Anthony Martin-Trigona, Appellant, v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company., 779 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1985) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Need to track down sources and confirm/debunk claims here: "Andy Martin: In 1973 the Illinois Supreme Court refused to grant Andy Martin a license to practice, citing troubling conduct on Martin's part, including an attempt to have a parking violation thrown out because it had been "entered by an insane judge" and his description of an attorney as "shaking and tottering and drooling like an idiot."

"His 1996 run for the Florida State Senate came unraveled when it was revealed that he'd named his campaign committee "The Anthony R. Martin-Trigona Congressional Campaign to Exterminate Jew Power in America."

"Martin has been labeled a vexatious litigant by numerous federal and state courts. Federal judge Edward Weinfeld observed that he had a tendency to file "lawsuits of a vexatious, frivolous and scandalous nature." Federal judge Jose Cabranes noted that Martin had a tendency to file legal actions with "persistence, viciousness, and general disregard for decency and logic." According to Cabranes, Martin's practice was to file "an incessant stream of frivolous or meritless motions, demands, letters to the court and other documents," as well as "vexatious lawsuits" against anyone who dared cross him." [29] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, use the Chicago Tribune story. Flatterworld (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

page protection

Hi, I noticed that an admin protected this article. Im just curious. Although I do not want to see anyone blocked, If edit warring is the reason and people wont stop when told to stop... rather then protect the page so noone can edit it. wouldn't it make more sense to warn then block those edit warring so the rest of us can just move on with the article? -Tracer9999 (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not in this case. At the time the page was protected, Rob and I were the only two editing. With no input from anyone else, and no impetus to actually discuss things on the talk page, odds are strong that the two warring parties will merely wait until the block is lifted, and then resume. I was considering asking for portection when Carnildo protected. Blocking would have solved nothing, and led to no discussion. Now, on the other hand, since the protection, over a dozen people have commented on the talk page. All support, and all but two strongly support, the vex lit phrasing in the lead, as it is the only thing which has made this subject notable. If Rob edit wars after protection expires, he will be doing so in clear opposition to consensus. That will be a different situation - especially since his last block was reduced when he gave his word he would not edit war in the future.[30] and he has a history of POV pushing and edit warring. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to make a change while an article is protected is expected to post said change on the Talk page. If there's a consensus to support it, a request is made for an Admin to make the change. There's even a template for that: Template:Editprotected Flatterworld (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that the major point of contention appears to be resolved (overwhelming consensus says that vexatious litigant belongs in the lede), I don't see any reason this should remain protected. I've submitted a request for unprotection; the whole article shouldn't remain protected for a week over a resolved dispute over a very small portion. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Either request the article the 16:23, 29 March 2010 version, or request the page protection be lifted. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected. When I protected the article, there was an unproductive edit war and a lack of productive discussion on the talkpage; since then, a strong consensus for a particular wording has formed. --Carnildo (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there any specific info in the older version that requires further sources? --Ronz (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd check Off2riorob's comments above. If there is anything disputed that isn't sourced, it should be sourced or removed. For particularly contentious claims with only one source, I'd suggest making sure that source is definitively reliable, as we don't want poorly sourced controversial info for obvious reasons. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

missing section

Suit against Wikimedia Foundation

On December 17, 2009, Martin announced at an press conference in New York that he will be filing a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation seeking an injunction. Martin called the Wikimedia Foundation "protosocialist scams" that target conservatives, and a tax exempt wing of United States Presides Barack Obama's political operations. The announcement was accompanied by a press release, and occurred while he was at a conference in New York for the Second National Conference on Barack Obama’s Missing Birth Certificate and College Records.

Is this section not worthy of inclusion ? Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Some people thought it shouldn't count until a lawsuit has actually been filed and covered publicly. If you wrote a section every time this guy held a press conference to denounce a perceived injustice the article would be 500 pages long (hyperbole, yes, but he is a publicity hound). Even for non-vexatious, but frequent litigants we don't add a section every time they file a lawsuit; to a certain extent I would justify excluding this section on that basis. Mentioning specific high profile lawsuits makes sense, but making a whole section on a Wikimedia-related lawsuit seems like trumpeting our own "importance" too loudly. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There was some discussion about to add or not to add at the time, in the archives somewhere, I was not involved but the opinion was to include the comments. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Should not be included, as no suit was filed. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

the version inserted

Is a bit poor lots of weasel phrases and assertions...

this for example is very poor ...cited to two primary court records? is it not reported in any independent sources?

Since then, Martin has continued his pattern of filing legal action almost unabated (weaselly). It is estimated (who by?)that he has filed thousands of proceedings over the years. For example, in 1993 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that his mother was acting in concert with him by filing a federal civil rights action against several Florida state officials. The court noted similar wording in the suit filed by Martin's mother and a petition filed by Martin itself. In throwing out the suit, the 11th Circuit called Martin "a notoriously vexatious and vindictive litigator who has long abused the American legal system.http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/986/986.F2d.1384.-.91-5867.html Most recently, a libel and invasion of privacy suit against Media Matters and its founder, David Brock, was dismissed with prejudice because Martin had violated the terms of the injunction.Abstract of dismissal of Media Matters case http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/07C3154MartinvBrock-01.pdf Abstract of dismissal of Media Matters case

fact tag

I added a fact tag and it has been removed to this comment

Many of these filings were anti-Semitic in nature

Is this citable? Many how many, it seems weaselly to me and unexplained and uncited. Does anybody have a list of the anti semitic litigations he has filed? Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

NeilN has attempted to address my issue and changed many to a number which I do appreciate but it still shouts at me, how many and as it is such a severe accusation imo it is still in need of a more citable expression and perhaps details of the anti semitic litigations he has brought. If we are to assert strongly that Mr Martin is Anti semitic on multiple occasions then we need decent citations, don't we? Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We do provide several examples below. The NYTimes article uses the phrasing "[I]n various court papers, Mr. Martin had impugned Jews." We could use their phrasing and get out of the predicament entirely, but without the context it is unclear whether he has insulted specific Jews, or if he insulted them as a group. I should note that "filings" doesn't refer solely to actual lawsuits, it includes papers filed with the court during proceedings or appeals as well. The complaints listed immediately after that sentence support that he has done so on several occasions, if not necessarily "many." The original lawsuit may be free of anti-Semitism, but I'm fairly sure that stuff like:

A motion he filed in a 1983 bankruptcy case called the judge “a crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.”

and

In another motion, filed in 1983, Mr. Martin wrote, “I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did.”

satisfy the fact that he was in fact making filings, per the Webster definition of the term (in the legal context):

To put upon the files or among the records of a court; to note on (a paper) the fact date of its reception in court.

Motions are papers that are filed with the court, and thereby meet the definition. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That is two, isn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]

Perhaps some of these will be useful. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, a couple have anti semite in the lede and the smoking gun story is talking about another person that started the rumours about obama, nothing addition that is not directly related to these two court comments. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One of them,[37] a huffington blog post or something similar had this...We speak of Andy Martin: peripatetic electoral also-ran, self-styled "consumer advocate" from a parallel universe in which evil consumer advocates thrive, and one of the few people to earn the label "vexatious litigant" from the Wikipedia. (Side note: "Vexatious Litigants Of The Wikipedia" is my new favorite punk rock band name.) which is quite amusing, the comment asserts that it is wikipedia that has labeled him as such. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. The Smoking Gun story is about Martin: "The Chicago man credited with launching the Barack Obama-is-a-Muslim smear campaign once pledged to "exterminate Jew Power in America," and claimed that "Jew babies are fed with subsidized American taxpayer money," and that Jews were "schooled in blood sucking and money grubbing from birth." Those anti-Semitic statements (and many, many others) were contained in a 1986 fundraising letter circulated by Andy Martin, then a Connecticut congressional candidate." KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That photocopied document is not citable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, among those links is the fact that his Congressional campaign filed papers indicating that its purpose was to "exterminate Jew power in America and impeach U.S. District Court of Appeals judges in New York City." (the original source appears to be a Washington Times article that I can't access behind a paywall, but it's found at this search So that's three legal filings with anti-Semitic content. Interestingly, the vast majority of his anti-Semitic comments seem to occur around the time of his bankruptcy case. So for mitigation I suppose we could say that this was demonstrated in the past. But frankly, someone who has a problem with his judge and blames it on the "history of lying and thieving common to members of his race" is by definition an anti-Semite. You can rail at the unfairness of a judge all you want, but when you decide the problem is the judge's whole religion (or in Martin's view, his "race"), you're a bigot of some sort, and when it's Jews, it has a special term. He's not even trying to claim prejudice on the part of the judge; if his comment had been that the judge was out to get Christians you might argue that Martin perceived bigotry rather than engaging in it. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Smoking Gun also mentions his arrest record: "Martin's sleazy background...Martin's history of anti-Semitic statements or his arrest record (click here to view five of his mug shots)....Martin is wanted in New York and Florida on outstanding arrest warrants. The New York warrant, out of Ulster County, resulted from harassment charges related to a child custody battle. The Florida warrant, from Palm Beach County, was filed in connection with a criminal contempt conviction." - Perhaps we should include a section on his arrests and convictions? Right now the article is out of balance, with a lengthy section about hsi candidacies, and nothing about his running afoul of the law. Per NPOV, we need to ensure we cover all major aspects in a balanced fashion, and this is hardly mentioned. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Carry on, I don't mind at all what is added to the article as long at it is written in a decent NPOV manner and that controversial content is strongly cited as per BLP policy. Currently I don't feel this version is, we have so far gone from many to a number and as yet only three have been cited here. Controversial claims require very strong high quality citations. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This was written before you switched two to three; didn't even get an edit conflict in the replyAs I noted, there is at least one more in his campaign filings (unless you want to split hairs and claim his campaign is not the same as him). The search I linked contains an excerpt from the article that includes part of the quote (presumably the other sites with more extensive quotes paid to get past the paywall). With three confirmed (I could easily fill out the citation for the Washington Times article, as I have date, author, title and publisher, and could use the quotes from that article excerpted in the blogs). Going with "a number" is quite justifiable, even if "many" was going too far. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Does every crank who makes some noise get their own article? It seems like this article is of no importance at all. I was just curious if anyone else felt the same way? DemocraplypseNow (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You may think that he's a shameless publicity-seeking bozo and I may think he's a shameless publicity-seeking bozo, but if he managed to insert himself into prominent public controversies in such a way as to receive significant media coverage, then he's probably deserving of a Wikipedia article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss or comment about the subject of a BLP, ie. crank or bozo. I hate when folks say on a BLP talk page...I know this guy is a f@#$ piece of $#%& m$%^&*, but we need to treat him fairly and NPOV....I always feel its better not to make those type of comments so folks don't get the idea their is a conflict or bias, real or not. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a point that he is not really worthy of note for a bio but there is little chance of that position getting support at an AFD, the people that dislike him like to add bad comments about him. There is a case that he is a one event as in a person that tries to get into public office and fails, type repetitive one event. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)