> Your comment is the definition of an ad hominem argument: the author is a Bad Person so we should disregard anything he says.
"In some cases, a successful argument against the person can render an arguer's impartiality, sincerity, or trustworthiness open to question. This may be a weak form of argument, but it may be enough to alter the burden of proof on a controversial issue. And therefor it can be a reasonable criticism" -- Informal Logic, A Pragmatic Approach, Douglas Walton
> Why don't you respond to the actual claims?
Because I have zero obligation to take seriously any claims from heavily biased sources. Also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
People should feel free to research the author's past and decide for themselves if any article he writes on Wikipedia will be a fair assessment that includes both positives and negatives or more likely to be a heavily biased hit piece.
"In some cases, a successful argument against the person can render an arguer's impartiality, sincerity, or trustworthiness open to question. This may be a weak form of argument, but it may be enough to alter the burden of proof on a controversial issue. And therefor it can be a reasonable criticism" -- Informal Logic, A Pragmatic Approach, Douglas Walton
> Why don't you respond to the actual claims?
Because I have zero obligation to take seriously any claims from heavily biased sources. Also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
People should feel free to research the author's past and decide for themselves if any article he writes on Wikipedia will be a fair assessment that includes both positives and negatives or more likely to be a heavily biased hit piece.