New "Forest Fires of Discussion", Will Beback vs. Cla68 Options

[-DS-]

So I went to the Arbitration requests page and discovered this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ndon_LaRouche_3

Maybe this time we shall see some justice.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

[Detective]

So I went to the Arbitration requests page and discovered this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ndon_LaRouche_3

Maybe this time we shall see some justice.

Maybe ... maybe not ...

[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.

[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.

[Sololol]

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]

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?

[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.

User2004 (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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.]

[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.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will Beback is still ranting, 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."

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And today the case bit the dust. Will Beback is already getting cocky.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will Beback, delirious with rage because multiple editors are now interloping on his LaRouche articles, has made an insanely rash tactical error. 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 adds a bunch of stuff about climate change 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."

[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:

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.

[Silver seren]

I'm hoping I can head Will off on his incoming rant on ANI about Jayen in the Cirt/Jayen issue discussion.

[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.

You're not wrong.