Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Bureaucracy _ New "Forest Fires of Discussion"
Posted by: -DS-
So I went to the Arbitration requests page and discovered this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=423484501#Lyndon_LaRouche_3
Maybe this time we shall see some justice.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
There is now an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfAR#Lyndon_LaRouche_3 in which Cla68 takes on SV and Will Beback over BLP and related issues on the LaRouche articles. You can imagine my dilemma, trying to decide which side to root for. But this will definitely be an indicator of whether the ArbCom has actually improved over the years. Watch for the "BADSITES" defense.
Mod note -- merged two threads on same topic.
Posted by: Detective
So I went to the Arbitration requests page and discovered this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=423484501#Lyndon_LaRouche_3
Maybe this time we shall see some justice.
Maybe ... maybe not ...
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
SlimVirgin is so slick... "Oh, mercy me! Did I edit a LaRouche article? Why, I hardly know the man! Does he have something to do with Jeremiah Duggan?"
And Will Beback: "I demand that you tell me specifically which one of the 1,500 times I added negative information about LaRouche was the one where I violated procedure."
Question: do JPGordon and Georgewilliamherbert actually have clean hands in this matter? I understand that they may have been technically within the rules, but I have the strong impression that they were going out of their way to aid and abet SlimVirgin and Beback.
Posted by: Zoloft
I don't forsee Will Beback loosening his grip on LaRouche any time soon. You can see him gnawing on my ankle at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche.
For Will's information, if he comes over here:
I don't know personally any adherent of LaRouche. I've examined his ideas, and he seems somewhat incoherent and really, really passé. His group, despite the recent spurt in activity related to the Tea Partiers, has no influence whatever.
Those articles are about a living person. My interest is in reducing harm to people in BLPs. Even people I disagree with.
I'd be happy if there were fewer articles, maybe two, about the whole LaRouche daffiness.
In the present condition, the articles are slanted heavily in a negative direction and contain all kinds of crap.
Just my opinion.
Posted by: Sololol
There is now an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfAR#Lyndon_LaRouche_3 in which Cla68 takes on SV and Will Beback over BLP and related issues on the LaRouche articles. You can imagine my dilemma, trying to decide which side to root for. But this will definitely be an indicator of whether the ArbCom has actually improved over the years. Watch for the "BADSITES" defense.
Mod note -- merged two threads on same topic.
I think I'll root for Cla68. In my limited experience he seemed fairly principled (although this is relative and I've been wrong many times). I don't even know who LaRouche is, I guess my generation missed him at his peak, but the article leads me to believe he's some sort of political vampire dabbling in fascism and bigotry.
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
Will Beback is citing http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Lyndon_LaRouche&since=&until=2011-01-01&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html as evidence. I guess that's "being bold."
Also, I just realized that Beback set his stats to leave out edits for this year. If you bring it up to date, it looks like http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Lyndon_LaRouche&since=&until=2011-04-20&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html.
Who is Formeruser-81?
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Formeruser-81 was an anti-LaRouche editor about 6 years back who was better behaved in terms of WP policies than WB and SV. Formeruser-81 was not his original username -- as I understand it, he changed it due to "outing" issues. He also has an account here under yet another name, but hasn't been heard from lately.
User2004Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, on the other hand, is Will Beback. User2004 weighs in with 48 edits, bringing Will's actual edit count to 713, still slightly behind SlimVirgin. I notice that Will is anxious to disassociate himself from SV in his comment -- he's very sensitive about "tag-team" allegations.
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
Question: do JPGordon and Georgewilliamherbert actually have clean hands in this matter? I understand that they may have been technically within the rules, but I have the strong impression that they were going out of their way to aid and abet SlimVirgin and Beback.
Both of them have now made statements. Georgewilliamherbert is using the "wall of jargon" approach, and Jpgordon's statement is oddly ambiguous.
New question: why is Kirill recusing himself?
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Mod note: if you know who Formeruser-81 is, please don't post any info about it until I can confer with Somey. I think we have some kind of agreement to keep him anonymous.
Posted by: Silver seren
It's not going to go through, it's been too long since the big arguments before. If this had been started then, it would have been much more likely to be accepted, but not now.
Posted by: Gruntled
I promise not to post Formeruser-81's name.
However....I can't help remarking that he once had a BLP on Wikipedia. ... Said BLP was deleted and restored many, many times.
And today, if you try to go to that article,
you find yourself redirected......to this.
Mods - please delete EricBarbour's post as it easily allows anyone to find the chap's real name.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
[Mod's note -- well, I deleted it, although I'm not entirely convinced it was necessary to do so. I'm erring on the side of caution until I get briefed by Somey on the circumstances.]
Posted by: Cla68
It's not going to go through, it's been too long since the big arguments before. If this had been started then, it would have been much more likely to be accepted, but not now.
I think over the past couple of years the ArbCom has sent some mixed messages about how seriously it really is taking protecting BLPs in Wikipedia. The quick dismissal of this case, as well as the reluctance to ban all the climate change activist editors who were clearly trying to use Wikipedia to discredit and defame global warming contrarians are two examples.
The next case I bring to ArbCom may be the Intelligent Design mob. They have, wisely, greatly backed-off trying to impugn all the signers of that ID petition, but from what I've seen they still are at it to some degree.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Will Beback is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=425638043, nonetheless -- in addition to continuing to make the claim that every account whose ban he has engineered was my sock, a claim that none of the other admins or checkusers involved has made, he has offered the following gems:
- "The old "anti-LaRouche" activist editors on this topic left years ago." Will and SlimVirgin are therefore not anti-LaRouche; they simply find that only negative information belongs in the article.
- "The active, non-banned editors are doing a fine job on this topic, working together amicably and productively."
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
And today the case http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=next&oldid=425980904. Will Beback is already getting cocky.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Will Beback, delirious with rage because multiple editors are now interloping on his LaRouche articles, has made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cla68. He is attempting to game the system to drive Cla68 away, in a way that is so obvious that even the typical Wikipediot is going to catch on. First, he http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement&diff=428725367&oldid=427267224 to a LaRouche article. Then he goes to the ArbCom to complain that Cla68 is violating the Climate Change arbcom decision because he is commenting (not editing, just commenting) on an article about a "major climate change denier."
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
He is attempting to game the system to drive Cla68 away, in a way that is so obvious that even the typical Wikipediot is going to catch on.
Stephan Schultz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Sixty-six_percent_is_consensus isn't going so well for Beback, either.
Posted by: Silver seren
I'm hoping I can head Will off on his incoming rant on ANI about Jayen in the Cirt/Jayen issue discussion.
Posted by: CharlotteWebb
Then he goes to the ArbCom to complain that Cla68 is violating the Climate Change arbcom decision because he is commenting (not editing, just commenting) on an article about a "major climate change denier."
Statement is substantially true, no?
I'm pretty sure that LaRouche believes that global warming is scientific fraud. Correct me if I'm wrong.
http://larouchepac.com/node/9916
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Then he goes to the ArbCom to complain that Cla68 is violating the Climate Change arbcom decision because he is commenting (not editing, just commenting) on an article about a "major climate change denier."
Statement is substantially true, no?
I'm pretty sure that LaRouche believes that global warming is scientific fraud. Correct me if I'm wrong.
http://larouchepac.com/node/9916
Posted by: Cla68
One of the problems with the LaRouche articles is that right now they appear to primarily represent the views on the topic, including the way that sources are represented, of Will Beback. That would be fine if he had done a good job of NPOV editing, but judging from the observations of most previously uninvolved editors who have commented on the current state of those articles, including Jayen, SilverSeren, Collect, and a few others, Will hasn't done a very good job at NPOV editing in those articles.
Now that a few editors are trying to fix it, he appears to be trying to fight it, and in the process he's showing what he is about to a large segment of Wikipedia's admin enforcement community. He doesn't seem to understand that compromise would be the way to go. For example, me and Jayen appear to agree that Chip Berlet's and Dennis King's published books are reliable sources. But, that doesn't seem to be good enough for him. That was one of the points of my ACTIVIST essay, which is that activist editors won't accept ambiguity. Instead, they want to establish the authority of their POV as Wikipedia's voice, and they can't accept anything less than that.
Posted by: Silver seren
I totally expect to get in trouble for what I said at AE, since you're not supposed to actually outright say what's going on in an obvious situation. 
That's why everyone is tiptoeing around and avoiding saying the obvious on what's going on, that Will is trying to game the AE system.
Posted by: CharlotteWebb
The term "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism" is a major http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEASEL#Unsupported_attributions. Other than that, LaRouche does believe that anthropogenic global warming is a scientific fraud. That, however, is not what is at issue here. The question is whether Will suddenly developed an interest in LaRouche's views on this subject, because he thought he saw an opportunity to drive Cla68 away from LaRouche articles by gaming the CC arbcom decision.
LaRouche's views on climate change (and the environment in general) are unambiguous, known to all moderately familiar with him, and overdue for inclusion regardless of underlying motive.
The likelihood that a user added certain content chiefly to be a dick does not imply said content is an inch out of place.
Posted by: Zoloft
Got your hidden meaning.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
There is clearly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&oldid=431253299#Climate_change_RFAR_and_LaRouche, including some sort of "BADSITES revisited."
The cryptic comment by Cirt refers to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt#Reply_by_Cirt_-_I_strive_to_defer_to_on-Wikipedia_discussion_and_community_consensus.
Posted by: Silver seren
Will's AE request bombed quickly and is now closed.
That was fun.
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
If Beback wants to quote Wikipedia Review discussions, he should be willing to disclose his off-Wiki communications with SlimVirgin so that those may be examined also.