You caught yourself in a trap. 172 consistently distorts a number of articles in order to soften the impact of leftist totalitarianism. But he would like Wikipedia articles to be rather plain-spoken about reactionary atrocities which the Chilean coup certainly was. No reasonable person doubts that the CIA backed Augusto Pinochet. To folks in the know it was obvious in 1973. So when you try to put a positive spin on this monster, who indeed is small potatos as compared to the typical Stalinist despot, you try to create the same false impression that 172 regularly works toward. Thus you bring both camps down on your head.
I have recused myself in this matter, for those who are interested.
Fred
From: "VV" veryverily@myway.com Reply-To: veryverily@myway.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 04:15:25 -0400 (EDT) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!
This is my first ever posting to the mailing list. Hi everybody! I wish the circumstances surrounding my introduction were more pleasant, but alas I'm here because of this conflict, as I feel the need to respond to a few of Eloquence's points.
172 has long proposed a compromise, namely a footnote behind the "United States backed" to clarify what it means, but VV has ignored that compromise.
Eloquence, I'm disappointed by this summary.
To say that I ignored this faux "compromise" is wholly untrue. Both Cadr and I have expended thousands of words explaining our objection. 172 has responded with evasiveness, word games, and personal attacks. Just watch one of the long threads between him and Cadr to see how he dances around the issues.
You've witnessed 172's behavior, have you not? This does not come through in your posting.
As for the "new" evidence, I not long ago laid out a detailed, 500-word case summarizing responses point by point. No one has refuted it. 172 is just resting on the protection. Furthermore, I, Cadr, AstroNomer, and perhaps JamesMLane have all objected to this wording. Text which this many regular contributors strongly object to is prima facie controversial (the bogus poll notwithstanding).
I know how people feel about revert wars, and I have likely hurt my reputation by partaking in them. But understand that I am tired of allowing 172's bully tactics to carry the day. And the quickpoll experience, accurately relayed by Eloquence, demonstrates how seriously the 3-revert "rule" is taken, even when it was supposedly being enforced.
Of late I have been perusing the archives both here and on the 'pedia and see *many* occasions of 172 exhibiting the same behavior in other cases, with sometimes even talk of banning (e.g., a thread "It's time for 172 to be banned"). It is bad enough he claims "ownership" of certain articles and reverts others' edits, but in this case he came to an article others were working on, erased our work, reverted attempts to restore it even in part, and began dictating terms to the editors (e.g., "If [the edit] makes you uncomfortable, you'll probably have to bear it", "I offered you a footnote... take it or leave it").
Perhaps the question comes down to whether a user who does make valuable contributions but grossly flouts standards of neutrality, civility, and conduct is desirable. You can guess my answer.
Best, VeryVerily
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l