I'd like to draw attention to the behaviour of [[User:Toby Bartels]], in using [[Talk:Lubos Motl]] to pursue an agenda I have no sympathy with.
Lubos Motl as [[User:Lumidek]] has been posting highly competent string theory articles; he is a high-flying academic in the field. Toby obviously has some beefs to do with off-WP matters that I really think are quite irrelevant. I have been pursuing private email with Lubos and Toby, in an attempt to make Lubos the Wikipedian feel less unwelcome, in the context that Toby the long-established Wikipedian has written some fairly nasty stuff about him (in ignorance, it is true, but it is hardly excusable behaviour anyway).
Now Toby seems to want to pursue this, by reverts on [[Talk:Lubos Motl]], a back-handed apology on [[User talk:Lumidek]], and [[User talk:Charles Matthews]].
Ironic is not really strong enough for how I felt at spending WP-gets-Community-Webby-Day emailing, trying to put a bandage on this damaging stuff. I'd be very grateful if someone could talk some sense into Toby Bartels. I'm actually incandescent, that he can so clearly put personal gripes ahead of the needs of the project.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
I'd like to draw attention to the behaviour of [[User:Toby Bartels]], in using [[Talk:Lubos Motl]] to pursue an agenda I have no sympathy with.
Lubos Motl as [[User:Lumidek]] has been posting highly competent string theory articles; he is a high-flying academic in the field. Toby obviously has some beefs to do with off-WP matters that I really think are quite irrelevant. I have been pursuing private email with Lubos and Toby, in an attempt to make Lubos the Wikipedian feel less unwelcome, in the context that Toby the long-established Wikipedian has written some fairly nasty stuff about him (in ignorance, it is true, but it is hardly excusable behaviour anyway).
Any long-time participant in Usenet discussion will have developed a pretty thick skin; I'll hazard a guess that all this bothers you more than it does Lubos himself. There are plenty of articles that discuss Usenet goings-on and some of the people that have become (in)famous for their activities; but there's not much of an established standard for how to describe these neutrally, and looks like Toby made an imperfect attempt in good faith. Including a mention of Usenet flamewars seems less relevant than our many bios of historical scientists that quote some of the nasty things they said about each other!
With each passing month, there are going to be more and more people who discover that they have bios in WP, with varying degrees of accuracy and impartiality. Might be worth pinging them proactively, give them an opportunity to address problems that we might be propagating from poor sources (still insisting on verifiability and neutrality of course).
Stan