Slim decided that leading british paper is not a reliable source Options

Now the Observer shouldn't be mentioned on talkpages if SV doesn't like it - isn't this straight forward admin abuse of powers in a content dispute?




down the rabbit hole we go

Now the Observer shouldn't be mentioned on talkpages if SV doesn't like it - isn't this straight forward admin abuse of powers in a content dispute?
down the rabbit hole we go

This is the article in question . This is the newspaper article in question.

Rather than the "Observer" I believe you mean The Grauniad.

No, it's the Observer, the Guardian's sunday newspaper. We have had previous discussions about this person here and here.

Well I think this was well done. (removing this off his talk pag and freezing the page)

Are you guys not aware that: Someone at Wikipedia obviously contacted the writer (Jenny H or something) at the Guardian Observer, and asked her to write a smear article on Professor Carl H, detailing his bad arbcom and pre-arbcom session.

It was criminal that this even happened.

If Slim wants to cover it up, more power to her. It was complete crap that the article ever happened, the author used "wikipedia vocabulary" as if it were real English (calling the professor a "disruptive editor" which goes beyond being unkind - it is professionally insulting). The man never made a rude edit on wiki, and he gets that? For arguing with people about substance?

I think that the entire Observer article should be retracted. And certainly not mentioned on his talk page for God's sake.

Its the first decent thing SV has done in ages. Maybe the most decent thing shes ever done. Dont needle her on this one.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 18th December 2007, 9:39pm

Its the first decent thing SV has done in ages. [/b] Maybe the most decent thing shes ever done. Dont needle her on this one.

I can't speak to ancient disputes, but, in my more recent experience, Slim Virgin is not bad on BLP and privacy-related issues. Whether she's always been this way, or if it's a reaction to what's been done to her, I can't say, but I'd trust her on this kind of thing more than I would trust most editors. I can also assure that it's not the first decent thing she's done - she gave me the opportunity to argue to Jimbo and several arbitrators why Wikipedia should stop attacking my real world identity (unsuccessfully, I'm sorry to say.)

Its the first decent thing SV has done in ages. [/b] Maybe the most decent thing shes ever done. Dont needle her on this one.

I can't speak to ancient disputes, but, in my more recent experience, Slim Virgin is not bad on BLP and privacy-related issues. Whether she's always been this way, or if it's a reaction to what's been done to her, I can't say, but I'd trust her on this kind of thing more than I would trust most editors. I can also assure that it's not the first decent thing she's done - she gave me the opportunity to argue to Jimbo and several arbitrators why Wikipedia should stop attacking my real world identity (unsuccessfully, I'm sorry to say.)

Bringing a case where you are concerned about your identity to Arbcom was a BIG mistake.

The only way to handle that is with a nice demeanor and a BIG STICK in your back hand - ONE that they can SEE.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 18th December 2007, 10:05pm