The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.

However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.

7 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The "foreign sources" controversy returns, the dynamic duo rides again
Kelly Martin
post Wed 16th February 2011, 12:42pm
Post #21


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



The stupid in that discussion is inane; they are arguing over sourcing regarding various predictions made by LaRouche? It's quite fairly transparent here that source reliability arguments are being used as proxies to exclude STUFFIDONTLIKE. The whole "exceptional claim" rule of theirs is just a hook for doing this sort of thing. (Then again, the "exceptional claim" notion is itself an outgrowth of Wikipedia's systemic preference for dogmatic Skepticism, which, of course, has nothing to do with being skeptical.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Wed 16th February 2011, 3:37pm
Post #22


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 16th February 2011, 4:42am) *

It's quite fairly transparent here that source reliability arguments are being used as proxies to exclude STUFFIDONTLIKE. The whole "exceptional claim" rule of theirs is just a hook for doing this sort of thing. (Then again, the "exceptional claim" notion is itself an outgrowth of Wikipedia's systemic preference for dogmatic Skepticism, which, of course, has nothing to do with being skeptical.)
Unfortunately, this tactic is not unique to Slim 'n' Will; it seems to be one of the essential building blocks of WikiMMORPGism.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BananaShowerMonkey
post Wed 16th February 2011, 4:31pm
Post #23


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat 20th Nov 2010, 1:33am
Member No.: 33,476



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 16th February 2011, 1:42pm) *

The stupid in that discussion is inane; they are arguing over sourcing regarding various predictions made by LaRouche? It's quite fairly transparent here that source reliability arguments are being used as proxies to exclude STUFFIDONTLIKE. The whole "exceptional claim" rule of theirs is just a hook for doing this sort of thing. (Then again, the "exceptional claim" notion is itself an outgrowth of Wikipedia's systemic preference for dogmatic Skepticism, which, of course, has nothing to do with being skeptical.)


Interesting. "Dogmatic Skepticism", a lovely paradox: to stubbornly put everything in doubt but stubbornness itself.

This post has been edited by BananaShowerMonkey: Wed 16th February 2011, 4:32pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Thu 17th February 2011, 1:37am
Post #24


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This exchange is in some ways more interesting. It reveals the depth of WB's obsession with the LaRouche articles. There is some hysterical lying, as when he says "I don't have any personal feelings about the subject of those articles." There are also indications that WB is a faithful reader of the Review. WB apparently continues to believe that every editor who opposes him is me. This is despite the fact that in the past several months, several of his opponents have been IP editors, and it doesn't require you to have a CheckUser in your pocket to know that they could not possibly be me. For example, 81.210.206.223 geolocates to Europe and 190.80.8.6 geolocates to South America. It's possible that these editors have resorted to editing as IPs, rather than open accounts, as a defense against being banned by WB. It seems clear that WB is impervious to self-reflection.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Thu 17th February 2011, 5:40pm
Post #25


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



And now Will Beback makes his move to get Angel's Flight indef-blocked.

It looks like this exchange with Cla68 pushed him over the edge.

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank: Thu 17th February 2011, 5:49pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Thu 17th February 2011, 9:53pm
Post #26


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Will is doing his usual victory dance right now, which may be a tactical error. He's under a fair amount of scrutiny.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Fri 18th February 2011, 1:04am
Post #27


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 17th February 2011, 9:53pm) *

Will is doing his usual victory dance right now, which may be a tactical error. He's under a fair amount of scrutiny.


Where is Will's checkuser evidence? As far as I know, Will isn't a checkuser, but he talks in that ANI thread as if he has all the information he needed. How did he get checkuser information without making a formal request?

This post has been edited by Cla68: Fri 18th February 2011, 1:21am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Fri 18th February 2011, 2:24am
Post #28


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



Is jpgordon a checkuser? He makes the same claim here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Fri 18th February 2011, 3:03am
Post #29


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



Another interesting detail: Beback planted the "sock of Hersch" flag here, but "Please refer to this Sockpuppet investigation for evidence" is a redlink.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Fri 18th February 2011, 4:39am
Post #30


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 18th February 2011, 3:03am) *

Another interesting detail: Beback planted the "sock of Hersch" flag here, but "Please refer to this Sockpuppet investigation for evidence" is a redlink.


I emailed the checkuser audit subcommittee and asked them to check into it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Fri 18th February 2011, 3:30pm
Post #31


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 17th February 2011, 5:04pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 17th February 2011, 9:53pm) *

Will is doing his usual victory dance right now, which may be a tactical error. He's under a fair amount of scrutiny.


Where is Will's checkuser evidence? As far as I know, Will isn't a checkuser, but he talks in that ANI thread as if he has all the information he needed. How did he get checkuser information without making a formal request?
Well, now we know. Yep, she's still got it goin' on!

The ANI thread has turned into a real Donnybrook.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Fri 18th February 2011, 7:23pm
Post #32


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 12th February 2011, 11:52pm) *

There's something peculiar going on here. As recently as 5 days ago both Slim and Will were spreading the rumor on ANI that Angel's Flight was my sock. Now, why just a rumor instead of a point-blank accusation?
All in good time.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Fri 18th February 2011, 7:26pm
Post #33


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 17th February 2011, 1:37am) *

This exchange is in some ways more interesting.
It's a lot longer now, and includes this golden moment:
QUOTE
It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere?120.23.0.60 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of that means... Will Beback talk 04:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sat 19th February 2011, 12:16am
Post #34


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



If there is someone here with a Wikipedia account in good standing who would be willing to post a message for me on ANI, please PM me.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gruntled
post Sat 19th February 2011, 6:20pm
Post #35


Quite an unusual member
***

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue 2nd Feb 2010, 12:23pm
Member No.: 16,954



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 18th February 2011, 1:04am) *

Where is Will's checkuser evidence?

WR:AGF, please. Maybe he spotted a couple of cases of someone editing while logged out. It happens all the time.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gruntled
post Sat 19th February 2011, 6:23pm
Post #36


Quite an unusual member
***

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue 2nd Feb 2010, 12:23pm
Member No.: 16,954



QUOTE
It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere?120.23.0.60 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Same old, same old. Someone has vaguely the same views, interests and style as a banned user, ergo they are effectively the same user (even if they are physically someone different), ergo they must be blocked. I call that the Bauder rule, and it's been going on for years.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sun 20th February 2011, 5:29pm
Post #37


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Angel Flight's 2nd unblock request has been up in the air for 2 days, which seems to me to be a remarkably long time. From what I have observed, unblock requests usually result in "Wham, bam, thanks, you're banned." I think that Cla68's remarkable grilling of Slim 'n' Will may have caused some turbulence behind the scenes among the WikiElites. I think it's also a bit of a revelation that Jpgordon is Slim's new pet CheckUser, now that Jayjg is out of the picture.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Tue 22nd February 2011, 10:06pm
Post #38


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Virginia Slim makes an abortive attempt to declare victory, and then commences WikiHounding™ of her various opponents, with the delightful added feature of accusing her quarry of WikiHounding.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Wed 23rd February 2011, 12:59am
Post #39


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Here's the CU investigation on Angel's Flight. It was in your sockpuppet archive, Herschel.

However, T. Canens as clerk closer just stated "This is being hashed out on ANI with the CU done privately. No need for a separate SPI."

Since when is a private Checkuser done in a situation like this? I've only heard of private CU's done in very specific situations, where it was high profile and there were possible legal issues and things like that. But a private CU in a situation like this?

Something's fishy here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Wed 23rd February 2011, 1:25am
Post #40


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 22nd February 2011, 4:59pm) *

Here's the CU investigation on Angel's Flight. It was in your sockpuppet archive, Herschel.

However, T. Canens as clerk closer just stated "This is being hashed out on ANI with the CU done privately. No need for a separate SPI."

Since when is a private Checkuser done in a situation like this? I've only heard of private CU's done in very specific situations, where it was high profile and there were possible legal issues and things like that. But a private CU in a situation like this?

Something's fishy here.


I don't really understand how these things work, but out of the dozens and dozens of alleged socks that Will Beback said were me, there are only a handful listed here, and the CU is marked "Inconclusive." And yet, they appear to have been banned.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th 3 17, 3:47pm