Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

• Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archives/2008/November
• Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archives/2008/December

Response to Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' comments above & Does Lulu have a COI?

I don't recall writing "that ACORN is trying to 'bring about the demise of capitalist system.'" Does anyone have a citation for that? I believe he is referring to a sourced quotation from the Cloward-Piven Strategy article about what that strategy was supposed to accomplish, but I could be wrong. I suspect Lulu's antipathy for my edits and seeming pettiness (such as thinking that 'thirty' somehow reads better than the more succinct '30') might be related to his communist-anarchist political beliefs (e.g. his stated belief on his user page that intellectual property is theft). I have no COI. What I want to know is if Lulu does. Let me explain. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has revealed his real life identity at his user page. [[1]] On said page he helpfully links to an article on WP about him. [[2]] The article reveals that he is vice-president and chief technology officer of the Open Voting Consortium. Does the Open Voting Consortium have a relationship with ACORN? If it does the question then arises, Should Lulu be editing the ACORN article? It's obviously very dear to his heart judging from the intensity of his actions and his vitriolic response to any change to the article that conveys derogatory information about ACORN. What is his personal and/or professional relationship to ACORN? Syntacticus (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Syntacticus: should the same questions be asked of you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threepillars (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The same questions were asked of me. I have answered them. Some will be satisfied with my answers; some will not. Syntacticus (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm actually not currently a member of the board of OVC, since my term expired (if someone wants to update the Wikipedia article on me, that's fine, I won't because of COI)... I am still generally supportive of them, and volunteer a small amount of time on some technical stuff. In any case, OVC neither has nor ever had an affiliation with ACORN; the purpose of the organizations are rather strikingly different. OVC is thoroughly non-partisan in its lobbying for transparent, accurate and accountable voting systems. OVC is entirely about the actual technical mechanisms of voting (and tabulation), not about any specific candidate, party, or measure that might be so voted.

Obviously, this is a pretty striking contrast with Syntacticus who has a subtantial outside reputation specifically in publishing accusations against ACORN (that are often inserted in article space). LotLE×talk 10:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I guess you don't have a COI. Thank you for indulging my curiosity, Lulu. Changing subjects, what exactly is this "subtantial [sic] outside reputation" you write of? I've noticed other people on the web use my pseudonym too, FWIW, e.g. this guy: [[3]]. I can't control what they write. Syntacticus (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite your disingenuous ANI claims and all that, let's just stop the pretense that you are someone other than the very same "Syntacticus" who continually inserts references to articles by Matthew Vadum/CRC at Free Republic and Daily Kos... A belabored claim that you can shed your carapace and emerge as a whole different butterfly is not the meaning or WP:OUTING. Unlike you, I make no pretense of being "some other person" than the one I actually am (in particular, I give all my true biography right on my user page, and make no inventions about "gee, I must accidentally share an IP block with someone I have no connection with other than promoting his articles). LotLE×talk 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New Edits

There's an active IP editor at the moment, i suspect some dust will be kicked up as a consequence. If there are major objections to what state the article ends up in when he's done, I would support efforts to get back to the status quo ante if that would avoid another majore flareup here. I don't even want to provide my take on the substance of his edits yet (I've already asked him on his talk page to seek consensus for major changes here first) because it's ongoing.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is an "active IP editor"? Is that me? Syntacticus (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

IP editor = not logged in (see IP address).Bali's referring to 138.88.159.151 (talk · contribs). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

JeremyMcCracken: But wasn't Bali above addressing the IP editor at 138.88.159.151 here? Syntacticus (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I made two slight changes. I cannot see that either will cause a "dust up." So let's not stir the pot Bali before it happens. The changes I made correct inclusion of poorly supported comments by minor critics, overly detailed deductions about what's going on around ACORN (I put some back in after a revert by Bali), and a non-sequitor about McCain at an event where ACORN was (what does this have to do with the unsupported view from the far right that ACORN's housing program brought on the mortgage crisis?). Sorry I'm not logged in, but my password has failed and I haven't redone the login yet. I'll come back later and fix that if it doesn't auto correct.Threepillars (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of 138.88.159.151's edits are helpful but others are not and I have reverted the latter. Revert explained at [[4]]. Syntacticus (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You still don't explain if serious economists take this claim to be credible. A few wacky people publishing op-eds on their own websites or at those of far right think tanks is not credible enough for entry here. Discuss some more but I will suggest removing it again (and the non sequitar reference to McCain at the ACORN rally). Threepillars (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What proof do you have that the economists are "wacky people"? You really should not smear those sources. Syntacticus (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say economists are wacky people. Please read more cafeully. Also, I'm not smearing those sources, I'm judging (some) of them based on their writings. Threepillars (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW: for some good writing on the issue of CRA and the 2008 econ crisis see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis (at least the version on this date.) Threepillars (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

McCain's scapegoating of ACORN as a cause of the bank collapse, as farfetched as it is, is perhaps notable to the organization because it shows how it became wrapped up in the politics of the day. The fact that a professor at UT Dallas wrote a dubious, partisan editorial in the New York Post that supports McCain's position[5] is hardly worth covering in Wikipedia. The claim that ACORN caused the financial crisis (and the other one made the article, that hosing discrimination against minorities does not exist) are outliers to the point of being finge/preposterous. If he were being more honest instead of partisan about it he would have said much more mildly that although ACORN did not in any material way cause the crisis, it was engaged in the same misguided form of thinking about loans that the banks were; also that although housing discrimination is real the studies used to back up the claim were false. The truth is unremarkable, and to the extent the professor stretches the truth in order to make remarkable claims, his doing so is utterly irrelevant to ACORN. We can't cover his claims as true because it's clearly opinion - not a reliable source. In order to say that his claim is worth covering we would have to establish some weight to it, namely a reliable secondary source that says this professor's opinion matters. I doubt it's out there because I don't think anyone took the piece for more than it was, an election year policy statement. Because it's been in and out for some time, and to avoid edit warring, I won't revert, but it's poorly sourced contentious information so it really ought not to be in the article. Wikidemon (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Support GoodDamon's Wikidemon's statement. And whatever ones arguments about the CRA, they don't belong here. They belong at Community Reinvestment Act.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the way the page looks now (on this issue), but if we leave in McCain's far fetched allegations on the impact of ACORN's work on the economy, there should be (for balance sake) links to ACORN's rebuttal and to the CRA page on Wikipedia (noting that the charges against ACORN are really charges against its support for CRA and use of it for negotiating with banks). Thanks for fixing my html footnotes also! Threepillars (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Stan

Just to say i support the liebowitz stuff going now. The actual article is about the 2007 mortgage downturn, not the full blown explosion of this year, it's a fringe opinion of no apparent wide-spread acceptance that, apparently makes a causal link between housing advocacy for the poor and bad loans to buy multiple condos on florida swampland, this economist isn't a big deal such that every opinion of his would be notable, kooky or not, etc... I had argued against the inclusion of this material when it was first placed here and support its removal now.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the main reasons ACORN has been so vilified by its critics is because of its (alleged) connection to the subprime crisis via its CRA advocacy. To omit Liebowitz's work is to leave a gaping hole in the article that would leave readers confused about why ACORN is so disliked by its critics. It is completely relevant and leaving it out is a whitewash of sorts. Readers are free to decide for themselves how to treat his views. You are splitting hairs (WP:WIKILAWYERING perhaps) about the 2007 downturn and the subsequent further downturn in 2008. It is a continuum, not separate events. Syntacticus (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's vilified on the right because it signs up a demographic of voters who tend to vote democratic and supports (generally) democratic causes, not because it supported the passage of a law (which has nothing to do with 95% of the bad debt currently in the US system) 30 years ago. There is no "gaping hole" and no reason to include a fairly incoherent opinion piece by a non-notable economist to make some strained point or other via the 2007 mortgage downturn.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. ACORN is no doubt disliked by rightists for the voter sign up efforts you cite but it is also disliked intensely because it supported CRA which encouraged a general loosening of underwriting standards across the whole lending industry, which is one of the points Liebowitz makes. It is a completely coherent, well written opinion piece, your academic snobbery notwithstanding (notability of the economist's view is relevant, not his supposed lack of academic stardom). The mere fact that the media repeated the CRA/ACORN allegations again and again and again during the 2008 election campaign establishes notability of the argument and supports inclusion in the ACORN article. Excluding the info might lead readers to believe ACORN critics are kooks and ACORN activists misunderstood saints. Maybe that's what you want. Syntacticus (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The tone of the piece is a lowbrow election cycle editoria - it is not written academically. There is no sourcing to suggest that this particular opinion is widespread or influential. During the election cycle almost everything Obama was involved in (or that people could try to attach to him) was criticized for every possible angle. All that stuff is not encyclopedic, and not relevant to the various people and organizations that became objects of the partisan campaigns. Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon that the "ACORN helped cause the economy to collapse" stuff is not a common belief or one that was even picked up by the media. Even the McCain campaign didn't push it hard. It's trivial and should be removed entirely. If included, we should revert to the links to ACORN's dismissal of it or to the wiki page on this issue (assuming that is stable). BTW: I moved the last footnote to the correct place and took out the phrase after McCain's quote as we don't need to finish his thought for him (i.e., we don't know that he meant voter reg fraud, their camp seemed to be geering up for election stealing accusations...bizarre as that sounds).Threepillars (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Some (sourced) content into what McCain was talking about would be useful. Standing alone his claim seems very out of place. Wikidemon (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorsement of Obama

I added a little bit about Bertha Lewis endorsing Obama via YouTube. It is relevant because ACORN goes to tremendous pains to note that it is strictly nonpartisan yet the endorsement of Obama seems to undermine that claim. Nonpartisan groups don't normally endorse candidates for office. Syntacticus (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, ever more craptastic digressions! Lewis was making a personal endorsement, not stating one by the organization. Few, if any, non-partisan organizations prohibit their employees (or even officers) from having personal political opinions, or even stating them publicly. However, trying to twist this into some sort of hypocrisy is farther still from any reality: ACORN can and has endorsed candidates, and never made claims not to; they merely did not endorse Obama specifically, for whatever reason. An endorsement wouldn't be particularly notable, but this particular endorsement didn't happen. LotLE×talk 07:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, upon consideration, I was wrong. ACORN gave the endorsement, not Lewis. It is an official video from ACORN affiliate Working Families Party. I regret the error and have fixed it. Thanks. Syntacticus (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lotle, actually it was on behalf of a political party she's affiliated with. It aint "on behalf of acorn." Syntacticus has mischaracterized that youtube video. (is a trivial endorsement by a member of an org in her capacity as a member of a different political party sourced only to youtube worth including here? Have to wonder...)Bali ultimate (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

this edit [[6]] syntacticus is quite frankly wrong. They are not officially affiliated in any way (at the very least this would be something that would need proving). I'll note that you had originally written this video said "Lewis on behalf of acorn endorsed" which was astonishingly misleading. I'll now leave it to someone else for now to correct this (and invite them to watch the youtube video for themselves.)Bali ultimate (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bali, maybe you have a problem with comprehension. Her wording certainly suggested it was from ACORN. She said so outright on the video, so you have it wrong. Also, you evidently don't know the history of the Working_Families_Party which was co-founded by ACORN and remains its affiliate to this day. Perhaps you should not edit unless you know what you're talking about, hmm? You seem to keep reverting my edits because of some personal animus. Syntacticus (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I watched. It was for this party, which i'd never heard of before. As for "affiliate;" do you have a citation from a reliable source proving this, or something from the WFP web-page at least? I presume by "affiliate" you mean some sort of formal relationship. By the way, your hotlinking to dailykos in the text of the article got me to wondering -- are you and the occasional dailykos diarist "syntacticus," who shares precisely your interests, the same guy?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly do love to speculate about stuff. The Working Families Party was founded by ACORN says the WP entry for the party here:

[[7]] Corroborated by DTN [[8]]. Syntacticus (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that the facts don't speak for themselves, interpreting her speech is a question of WP:OR. You would have to find reliable secondary sourcing for accuracy and weight. Wikidemon (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no other possible interpretation. Syntacticus (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that the material was reverted back in, and I have removed it again. Please do not add marginal material like this. The edit warring is unseemly, and no way to edit an encyclopedia. The burden is on anyone who wants to include information like this to show that it is both accurate, and that it is relevant to the article. Given that we already say that ACORN endorsed Obama in the primary, I cannot see how the fact of an ACORN official personally endorsing OBAMA on behalf of some other organization is relevant to ACORN. No sources have been provided to support that it is. Hence, the material should stay out until and unless this is established and consensus built around it. Wikidemon (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I watched the Lewis video again. Completely irrelevant to any article, but I really like her! What a charming demeanor. Whether Lewis is speaking for anyone other than herself is entirely unclear from the video, and asking readers to interpret the meaning of any Youtube video is definitely WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Lewis gives a "shout out" to a large number of organizations she is sympathetic with, but presumably she isn't speaking for all of them. This seems to be the status of ACORN in her video. She is endorsing Working Families Party by suggesting that you should vote Obama on that line[*], but this looks more like an endorsement of WFP than by WFP to me.

[*] In NY and a few other states, candidates can be affiliated with multiple parties. During a tally, not only the candidate, but the voted affiliation is counted. So while a vote for either, e.g. "Obama/Democrat" or "Obama/WFP" is counted towards the same candidate, the number of party voters is used for stuff like matching funds and ballot access for parties. Lewis, in her statement, more-or-less presumes that her listeners will vote Obama, but wishes that vote to also help WFP. LotLE×talk 20:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you're going to like Lewis because she is a communist just like you -- your radicalism seems to infect all your edits. But I digress, your spin is utterly convincing. ACORN is not supposed to be a partisan outfit and whenever they take heat during an election cycle they invariably respond that their get out the vote/registration efforts are strictly nonpartisan. Earlier in the year ACORN's PAC endorsed Obama, not ACORN itself. The Lewis video is different. In it she, the acting CEO of the group, urges people to vote for Obama. No reasonable person could interpret that as anything other than ACORN, the purportedly nonpartisan group, endorsing Obama. My larger point is that ACORN's claim that it is nonpartisan is bullshit. Syntacticus (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why youtube videos are not a reliable source. They're open to interpretation (besides other like tampering possibilities). Edits should be backed up by a WP:RS and youtube isn't one unless accomplished by one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Nonsense. Watch the video [[9]] again. She says "I want to thank everyone out there for defending ACORN against the scurrilous right-wing attacks and smears. That’ll teach 'em to attack a community organizer! [skip ahead] And if you live in New York there’s one more simple thing you can all do to help ACORN: vote for the community organizer Barack Obama on the Working Families Party ballot line!" Let us recap. ACORN's interim CEO issued ACORN's endorsement of Obama in the general election. If the matter goes to the Federal Elections Commission and or the IRS, they will agree with me because there is no other possible way of interpreting her words. ACORN may very well lose its tax exempt status because they screwed up. Syntacticus (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't nonpartisanship a legal status for tax and election purposes? As long as they meet it, as determined by the relevant controlling institutions (not you), and until they are shown otherwise to have not met it, again not by you, that's the way it stands. No? Threepillars (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • Did you read what I wrote? Yes, they have to be nonpartisan. That's what I said again and again. The IRS uses a facts and circumstances test. The head of ACORN endorsing Obama weeks before the election on YouTube might very well meet the test for sanctions against ACORN. My point was that her statement put ACORN in jeopardy because it got ACORN involved in the election in a partisan way. I'm not sure what your "not by you" comment is getting at. The authorities and any reasonable person would interpret her statement to be ACORN's endorsement of Obama because she is who she is (that is, head of ACORN). If it was meant to be a personal endorsement, she would have said so but there she was on the video with a WFP banner or sign right behind her (and as shown above WFP is affiliated with ACORN). Even if the endorsement doesn't cause legal ramifications for ACORN it still undermines ACORN's claim that it is strictly nonpartisan. At a minimum she has shown that ACORN's claim to be nonpartisan is a sham. Syntacticus (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what you wrote? Their status is what it is and will only change if they or the proper authorities change it. I didn't ask if they have to be nonpartisan. I asked, as a way of trying to politely point out (but manners seem lost on you), that their status is a legal determination by legal institutions, not by you. Stated more plainly: Your opinion doesn't matter. You're not a judge nor are you a tax official. File complaints or do whatever, just don't place your opinions into Wikipedia articles. This is not the place for op-eds or pretend lawyering.Threepillars (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For such statements there are plenty of forums and blogs. If you want to be taken serious on WP you might want to consider reading the guidelines and rules. What might fit into a blog doesn't mean it belongs into an encyclopedia, even if it is an online one. Till you get this straitened out in your mind you should hold your personal effort till you can improve this enziclopedia within the rules, which are or should be non-partisan and always sourced reliable.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus on a Bicycle! (to quote some charming editor I saw comment on something else recently). This strained reasoning of our friend from CRC is getting crazier by the minute. Lewis is not, of course, the CEO of ACORN, but she apparently is "chief organizer", whatever that title means. Someone who does something for an organization really isn't transparently identical with that organization! This is the sort of thing one normally learns in grade school, if that grade school isn't run by a right-wing "think tank". I could record a Youtube video asking viewers to "vote Communist" (to pick up on Syntacticus' trope; minus the insanity of calling Lewis a Communist for endorsing Obama)... and y'know what, even if I did so it wouldn't say anything about the OVC, or the ACM, or the LA Libraries, or MCF, or any other organization I happen to be a member of. Not even if it were freely uploaded to a popular video blog site. LotLE×talk 08:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To summarize for Syntacticus: "What's your point, Walter?"Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Speak plainly. Threepillars (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bali's just goofing around, being flippant as usual and quoting "The Big Lebowski." In any event, I never tried to insert my opinion in the article and recommend that you take a valium, Threepillars. (And what is an "enziclopedia"?) ACORN always claims to be nonpartisan and in so doing it is lying and hypocritical. If you don't agree, fine, but that was my point. As for Red Lulu's thoughtless rambling above, the "chief organizer" of ACORN is the group's chief executive officer. I didn't create the title. Chief organizer is top job (effectively CEO) at ACORN, or so reports NPR. [[10]] Maybe Lulu should read up on ACORN before making unsupported, incorrect assertions about the group. I see the ACORN article is going to continue to be a PR blowjob for some time to come. Syntacticus (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to drop the insults and goofing around yourself, I think. It is fine for you to believe ACORN lies, but this is not a personal essay website. There are such websites, this is not one. Your judgement that the YouTube video violates tax law is not a reliable source. It's that simple. (FYI: continued personal insults will just lead to my ignoring you. You may not care, but just letting you know).12:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threepillars (talk • contribs)

• Threepillars: You continue to obfuscate and throw out red herrings. Surely you're not as clueless as you're pretending to be. I NEVER EVER wrote in the article about tax law. I was explaining in this talk page to you why it was relevant. If you lack the ability to understand this distinction you have no business editing articles. I don't give a sh** about tax law and I don't give a sh** about what you think about tax law and I don't give a sh** if you ignore me. The only point you and Wikidemon below make that is relevant is whether anyone who is a reliable source has raised the issue of ACORN pretending to be nonpartisan. Fair enough. I know lots of people have and I'll see what I can find that comports with WP policy. Syntacticus (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The point, clearly, has been that the only people that would be important enough to report on in this article regarding what they think are those that determine tax status. Anybody else is speculating about a problem that doesn't exist. If the IRS isn't bothered by it, anybody else is blowing smoking.Threepillars (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, setting aside the jibs and the jabs, if you think the political endorsements of their "chief organier" are notable to the group, you're welcome to show that through reliable sources indicating the truth and importance of the matter. If not, the article remains a "blow job", as you say. That is not a matter of PR, it is a matter of WP:RS. We go on what the sources say, not anyone's arguments or opinions on the matter. Wikidemon (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty amazing that Syntacticus hasn't the foggiest idea what the words "non-partisan", "tax exempt", "non-profit", or "endorsement" mean. I thought they taught those sort of things to the members of conservative "think tanks"... I guess standards are slipping noways. Oh well, I am amused by the "Red Lulu" phrase, although I'm pretty sure our friend from CRC is unaware of its allusions. In any case, Wikidemon is right, as almost always: if it's supposed to be notable that an officer of ACORN made a personal endorsement of a party (not really of a candidate), find a source that says so (no, an obscure interpretation of a blogged video isn't a source, let alone a WP:RS). LotLE×talk 17:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Lulu --> Pinko Lulu --> Pink Tutu. It's all logial. Threepillars (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that Lulu continues straddling the line of WP:OUTING by implying ("our friend from CRC") he knows my off-WP identity and holding out the fact that he does not use a pseudonym as some kind of badge of honor. It is as if he feels this somehow makes him better than me and the rest of the anonymous WP editors who comprise an overwhelming majority of all registered WP editors. Whatever. Moving along, there are some reliable sources such as Dan Cantor, executive director of the ACORN affiliate Working Families Party in New York, who says ACORN endorsed Obama. "We admit a little pride that ACORN's endorsement seems so threatening to Fox," Cantor wrote at Alternet on Nov. 1, 2008 in a post about the Bertha Lewis YouTube video. [[11]] Syntacticus (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cantor presumably is referring to ACORN's related org which can legally make endorsements.Threepillars (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And PRESUMABLY you are a mindreader so you know exactly what he meant when he said it. I can only go on the text. Syntacticus (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ACORN 8

WP:BRD

I created a new section after learning that a breakaway group has formed. I'll put more info in later as needed. Syntacticus (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would bet dollars-to-donuts that our friend from CRC was personally involved in setting up this doubtful organization, as some sort of agent provocateur. It's the usual pattern of his self-aggrandizement of his own outside efforts, which he then recycles onto WP and other websites as "important news". Frankly, it's about damn time that this user, and all associated IP addresses, is permanently blocked! (or actually, far overdue) LotLE×talk 09:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Only an interested party with a COI would revert the totally relevant factual addition to this article. I think it is time that you be blocked not only for your prohibited speculation about identity contrary to WP:OUTING but also for this flagrant act of vandalism. I am growing sick of your conspiracy theories (as if I'm in league with ACORN ex-board members who formed ACORN 8--give me a break) and related shit and I'm going to do something about it. I also don't see why you personally merit an article on WP given your virtually worthless contributions to learning that seem to spring out of your presumably diploma mill issued PhD in a useless subject (it must suck to be stuck in a dead end job after spending so many years in university); however, because I have a personal dislike for you based on your conduct here I will refrain from nominating it for deletion. Syntacticus (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt anyone else would support his contentious edit, but procedurally it is pretty unambiguous that having been reverted, the proper action isn't to edit war and spew insults, but rather to try to reach consensus for an addition. Please read WP:BRD, Syntacticus. LotLE×talk 06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So far you are the only editor objecting to the edit. I am happy to discuss the addition I made to the article but I think the change should stay in there for the time being, especially because only one person (you) objects to it. One objecting editor isn't exactly impressive. As far as the insults, may I remind you that you have been accusing me of COI and speculating about my identity for weeks now contrary to WP:OUTING. Tell me: What exactly is so contentious or hard to believe about the fact that a faction within ACORN differs from management and broke away in an effort to draw attention to the dissidents' concerns? Is the Pittsburgh Tribune Review article I cited somehow not a reliable source? How about the website the ACORN 8 set up? Are the newspaper and the ACORN 8 members lying? Is this somehow all just a conspiracy I am orchestrating in order to prevail in a WP editing dispute? Listen to how crazy that sounds, Lulu. It sounds like you are desperately grasping at straws in order to keep true but negative info about ACORN out of the article. I am reaching out to you now. The burden is on you to explain why the edit should be disallowed. As I see it, it is clearly relevant to the ACORN story. I'm not saying the ACORN 8 section should be huge but it should be there. For the time being I am putting it back in. Syntacticus (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And so Lulu takes it out again thus confirming he is engaged in an edit war. You, Lulu, are losing your marbles. You seem like you need professional help. Syntacticus (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)