3 ms·

What @leftworks1 did is not a "conflict with Wikipedia". It is disruption, a deliberate attempt to insert poorly sourced material into contentious articles. It

What @leftworks1 did is not a "conflict with Wikipedia". It is disruption, a deliberate attempt to insert poorly sourced material into contentious articles. It is _exactly_ what you are calling Philip Cross out for. You are applying a double standard here - if you think Philip Cross is a bad editor, @leftworks1 is bad too (and worse - they rather openly broke the rules again and again).

k1m 8y ago
I'm not going to speak for @leftworks1. But looking at the links you provided it seems they were trying to add information relating to a court case at the high court, with a public claim number. You might want to see Neil Clark's tweet about the information Philip Cross is trying to hide from Kamm's Wikipedia page: https://twitter.com/neilclark66/status/991310986643730433 https://twitter.com/neilclark66/status/991310986643730433 So we have an attempt to add information on to a Wikipedia page (to my mind information that should be on the page) by someone who is quickly banned indefinitely and their changes removed (thanks to Philip Cross monitoring the page in question). You are comparing this to a years-long campaign by a prominent Wikipedia editor to discredit, very unfairly (as I'm sure the edits show) a number of prominent anti-war voices. His changes are not reverted, he is not banned. I'm not sure how they're comparable at all.
- bhouston 8y ago
  Unfortunately Wikipedia is based on self selection and thus you tend to only get partisans from both sides involved on charged subjects. And if you appeal to an opposing partisan, one who may even pretend to be impartial or simple authoritive, you will lose.
bhouston 8y ago
Philip Cross obvious is running an adgenda and is good at it. Leftworks is a poor editor and rather reactionary. They do not justify each other in any way. They are both problems that need to be addressed, not balanced against each other. I find that the desire to balance is because one has picked a side and wants to absolve one side of consequences via showing the other side as more guilty. This is dangerous in and of itself.

k1m 8y ago

I'm not going to speak for @leftworks1. But looking at the links you provided it seems they were trying to add information relating to a court case at the high court, with a public claim number. You might want to see Neil Clark's tweet about the information Philip Cross is trying to hide from Kamm's Wikipedia page: https://twitter.com/neilclark66/status/991310986643730433 https://twitter.com/neilclark66/status/991310986643730433 So we have an attempt to add information on to a Wikipedia page (to my mind information that should be on the page) by someone who is quickly banned indefinitely and their changes removed (thanks to Philip Cross monitoring the page in question). You are comparing this to a years-long campaign by a prominent Wikipedia editor to discredit, very unfairly (as I'm sure the edits show) a number of prominent anti-war voices. His changes are not reverted, he is not banned. I'm not sure how they're comparable at all.

bhouston 8y ago
Unfortunately Wikipedia is based on self selection and thus you tend to only get partisans from both sides involved on charged subjects. And if you appeal to an opposing partisan, one who may even pretend to be impartial or simple authoritive, you will lose.

bhouston 8y ago

Philip Cross obvious is running an adgenda and is good at it. Leftworks is a poor editor and rather reactionary. They do not justify each other in any way. They are both problems that need to be addressed, not balanced against each other. I find that the desire to balance is because one has picked a side and wants to absolve one side of consequences via showing the other side as more guilty. This is dangerous in and of itself.