Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marvin Diode (talk | contribs) at 12:03, 14 October 2007 (→Blocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am temporarily leaving Misplaced Pages in protest over structural and procedural polices that reward aggression and bigotry here on Misplaced Pages.

I do not think these are intentional, but there has been a consistent refusal to deal with these issues over several years.

The system rewards and promotes:

1). aggressive bullies and stalkers who are often young and male.

2). racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots.

I am leaving for one month to commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht, which is on November 9th; after which I will reconsider my options, especially regarding the failure of Misplaced Pages to deal with the protracted and multi-year manipulation of Wikpedia by supporters of the notorious Lyndon LaRouche, especially on the entry, Views of Lyndon LaRouche.

At what point do we as Misplaced Pages editors become complicit? At what point do we step back and consider how we have become enablers and apologists for aggression and bigotry?

I came to this decision while preparing an essay tied to the anniversary of Kristallnacht in Germany.

Cberlet

(Chip Berlet)

Please do not try to engage me in a conversation during my period of rethinking my particiapation on Misplaced Pages. It is far too late for that. When the Foundation members, Arbcom, and Jimbo decide to get a backbone and deal with this issue, please send me an e-mail. Otherwise, the issue of Kristallnacht is far more important than any bullshit anyone tries to post on this page. History judges us. What do you see when you look in the mirror? All posts on this page will be deleted until the commemoration of Kristallnacht on November 9th. What would you have done? Where do you stand? History judges us!

Never Again!

¡No Pasarán!

Deal with it.--Cberlet 01:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for intentional disruption edit warring over the removal of the BLP violation. I have also posted a request at AN/I for a review of your comments and my block. You may request unblocking via the usual routes. Thatcher131 13:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Revised Thatcher131 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you know how to formulate your point in a way that would be more acceptable; please remember that BLP applies on talk and other pages as well as articles. Also, please note that I consider the remainder of your complaint to stretch the boundaries of the user page policy on polemics (comparing Misplaced Pages editors to Germans who were complicit by inaction in Kristallnacht) but I did not block you for posting the complaint itself. Thatcher131 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I reset your block to 12 hours from the original time because someone asked nicely on your behalf. Please find a way to express your concerns that does not violate policy. Thatcher131 19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 is correct that BLP issues are important (though I suppose there's a difference of opinion on the best solution). I think we need to recognize that there are different standards at play.

One standard is legal libel. As it happens, Lyndon LaRouche has initiated libel cases and I believe he has lost them all. In one case, the judge found that calling LaRouche a "small-time Hitler" was not libellous.

Another standard is public opinion, as reflected in news reporting. LaRouche is routinely referred to as as being on the "fringe", and of being a conspiracy theorists with unusual ideas, and of being an "anti-Semite". So common are these perceptions that the subject has written letters to the editors of newspapers protesting that "Fringe candidate" is not part of his name, and that he isn't really anti-Semitic despite being called that so often. So saying that LaRouche is called a "fringe, anti-Semitic, homophobic conspiracy theorist" would be entirely consistent with the majority viewpoint (the one which WP:NPOV requires we give the greatest weight).

A third standard is WP:BLP, which sets a threshold far higher than libel laws or journalistic standards. It requires that all contentious material, especially anything that could be considered derogatory, must be adequately sourced. We can provide a hundred sources that call LaRouche an anti-Semite and a thousand calling him "fringe", so sourcing is not a problem. BLP also calls on us to give special attention to neutrality when it comes to living people. This is the part where we need to be careful. While it's neutral to say that "the subject is often called an XYZ", it is less neutral to say that "the subject is an XYZ". It may be legally acceptable to do so, and it may be journalisticly acceptable too, but it may not be acceptable to NPOV. Perhaps after the subject passes away the neutrality issue will be less sensitive.

In summary, I think that referring to LaRouche as a "fringe, anti-Semitic, homophobic conspiracy theorist" may violate the neutrality provision of the BLP, and we should avoid doing so even though it is sourceable and non-libellous. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A request for arbitration has been filed that includes yourself

Please note here. --Marvin Diode 12:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)