[WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Charles Matthews]

Giacomo M-Z wrote:
> Really Charles, you mentioning Greg Kohs to prove your point - you 
> must be truly desperate, is he not another of the many dissenters that 
> you, Jimbo and Co have suppressed. Anyone who does not toe the "Jimbo 
> line" has to be driven off or banned and shut up. I correspond with 
> many and listen to their views, even when I don't always agree (as I 
> didn't with Greg on that occasion); it's a great pity that Wikipedians 
> are prevented by Jimbo and his cronies from doing likewise openly and 
> honestly on Wikipedia because then, and only then the project may 
> mature and grow.
>  
> Wikipedia's PR stinks because it has to know-tow to the wishes of 
> Jimbo and his coterie, a group of sycophants singularly lacking in 
> judgement and wisdom - as long as this situation is allowed to 
> continue, Wikipedia is fair game to all journalists as it will always 
> appear amateurish and ,frankly, rather silly and unreliable.
No, I'm not "desperate". The Sam Blacketer issue doesn't revolve around 
you and your "dissent".

You have ducked the point I was making, which was that your wish to 
campaign against Jimbo led you in that matter to present an open goal to 
a dedicated critic, Kohs, on an issue (biographies of living people) 
which is serious and ongoing. Jimbo was quite right to say that you were 
intending the Hattersley article as a "coatrack".  What you (don't deny 
you) wrote to Kohs makes that plain. We have a policy to prevent such 
use of articles as a way of discomfiting our critics, amongst other things.

Your intervention here seems pure mudslinging, with nothing to offer on 
the topic of the thread. It should be quite obvious why you aren't 
consulted on these matters. The example I have given serves to show why 
you'd be just about the last person to ask.

Charles