[WikiEN-l] Karmosin: "172 has baggage"

[actionforum at comcast.net]

Karmosin,

You left this message on my talk page while I am blocked,
so I am responding here:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASilverback&diff=25718620&oldid=25697995

I apologize, I probably should have said that "wikipedia
has baggage in dealing with 172".  However, you don't
provide any evidence of your characterizations.

Ask yourself why, you are considering a long ban,
for "off-topic accusations in the form of insulting
political guilt by association."  Considering the
amount of personal attacks, name calling and vitriol
on wikipedia, I am being singled out for a few
comments in one running battle with 172.

Note, I am not condemning wikipedia as a whole,
the quantity of these occurances can be large,
but the percentage managable because wikipedia
has become quite large.  I admit that I look for
connections and underlying principles, and my focus
in my degree in philosophy was basicly anti-marxism.

But it does not take a stretch of the imagination to
see the relation to someone who disrupted the vote
for deletion of  "Category: totalitarian dicatators",
and who routinely battles against negative information
on Fidel Castro, Khruschev, etc. as a POV warrior.
Except that instead of just calling him a POV warrior,
I actually label what that POV is, by referring to him
as an "apologist for dictators".    There is no way
this particular "personal attack" can be considered
off topic.  Given all the personal attacks on wikipedia,
with people getting mild or no rebukes for dozens,
is that theirs were just heated emotional outbursts
instead of carefully considered and apropo labels.

It is interesting that you label my editing warring
as "frustratingly elusive", of course, you could have
said "patient and clever" just as easily.  Perhaps you
just pass territorial editors by and concede articles.

While I am sure that comment relates to my editing
with csloat on Saddam and al Qaeda, it is also
appropriate to the 172 behavior.  Marxism is purposely
frustratingly elusive and deceptive.  Calling dictatorships
and oligarchies "peoples republics" or "dictatorships
of the proletariat", and if for some reason these
terrible transitional means of getting to the ends that
justify them, i.e. the nirvana of the stateless
classless, communally held property society,
then they still are not called totalitarian dictatorships,
but instead "permanent proletarian revolutions",
or are said to be in a "permanent revolutionary state".

Current "progressives" openly embrace mass-action
"democracy" as a form of disrupting events through
mob behavior by a small minority willing to misbehave
under the cloak of anonymity.  Marxist influence on
our culture has been considerable is probably partially
responsible for the postmodern denial of truth and 
morality that is so popular among the weak minded.
172 harkens to this when he argues for deletion 
of totalitarian dictator, because there is NO WAY it
can be NPOV.    However, as we do in science,
it can be defined for out purposes, and then applied
to factual circumstance, if we are intellectually honest
and really do have "good faith".  The reality is that
172 does not want it to be NPOV, it is too dangerous
and possible true a term.

I am trying to keep this brief, but rest assured, provide
sufficient evidence that he is an apologist for dictators.

Given this, and your statement that I made "off-topic"
accusations, I believe we come down to you proposing
a "long ban" for only two concepts that I put forward,
one is the speculation that 172s line crossing behavior
may carry forward into his personal life, and the other
is that his line crossing behavior may be due to the
cloak of anonymity, and not translate to his personal
life where he may actually be a milquetoast.

Yes, negative characterizations that hit close to home
"hurt", so don't assert that these were "off-topic",
I am being persecuted because, my comparatively
miniscule number of "offenses" were too close to
the truth.

So, what is wikipedia's baggage in relation to 172?
The arbcom gave him only a mild rebuke for his
first abuse of admin powers, the arbcom did not
review his second even more serious abuse of
admin powers, because he "left", although it did
shutdown his admin powers and not restore them
despite his defiant and unapologetic protest, and
then wikipedia just winked at his disruption of the
VfD on the totalitarian category.

Why single out 172 for "abuse"?  He is not really
any worse person than the others in the progressive
or marixts cliques, in fact, he is actually a sympathetic
figure, actually likable.  He gets singled out because
of his lack of self control, and impulsive line-crossing
disruptive outbursts.  The sad thing is, he doesn't
realize that wikipedia, with its respect for consensus,
is actually a friendly place to the collaborative efforts
of collectivist thinking.  There is critical mass here
of progressives that, united, could get anything
they want, so is outbursts are completely 
unnecessary.  He needs to be patient and clever
like the rest of them (or should it be called "frustratingly
elusive"), but instead he misbehaves and becomes
vulnerable, like the slowest antelope in the herd.

It is customary, in these circumstances, to point to all
the valuable contributions to wikipedia as extenuating
circumstances.   I think I have contributed to a lot
of balance on both scientific and political topics,
including much that is well sourced to peer review
literature.  However, I would not want to be judged
on my record of the last couple months, I've been
on a bit of a wiki-vacation watching the scientific
literature for interesting new developments, and 
as far as wiki goes, just monitoring the watch list
and occassionally be stirred to action by something
particularly outrageous, such as csloats monomanic
territorialism and 172s "bold" disruption of the 
deletion vote.
                              -- Silverback