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

[Giacomo M-Z]

Charles, I can understand that you are bitter at having been so firmly voted
off the Arbcom, but you really should ask yourself why that was, and try and
draw some benefeits from the experience. Ths community wanted change, a
change that is from your Jimbo biased perspective. A perspective which has
got Wikipedia into this mess, that is my point - nothing more.
Giano


On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>