|
|
|
New "Forest Fires of Discussion", Will Beback vs. Cla68 |
|
|
Zoloft |
|
May we all find solace in our dreams.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Sololol |
|
Bell the Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 21st April 2011, 10:40am) There is now an ArbCom case 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.
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
Will Beback is citing this 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 this. Who is Formeruser-81?
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 23rd April 2011, 12:40am) 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. This post has been edited by Cla68:
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 26th May 2011, 2:54pm) 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: QUOTE Suggesting that CC was added to the articles just to bar other editors seems to suggest bad faith. Yuh think? This isn't going so well for Beback, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |