Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Sceptre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAR#Intelligent_design_editors

Complete the Real Slim Shady lyrics to your likening

Posted by: Derktar

You have guts bringing it up here Sceptre.

Poor ID cabal, under siege these days.

Oh and the canvassing was so blatantly obvious, laughable even.

Posted by: Sceptre

Chaotic Neutral all the way, baybee. This is fair notification (though I did forget to bring it up on AN, and I really should).

Posted by: Derktar

Well you know they're going to call you a WR shill. I recommend a combination of the words harassment and stalking as descriptors, that should insulate you...somewhat.

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

I would suggest calling them ED trolls, to counter the WR shill accusation.

Posted by: Sceptre

They're going to have to temper themselves. If you knew you were under suspicion for murder, I doubt you'd go around stabbing people in broad daylight. That, and the thing that's got me through the ED harassment relatively unharmed is to ignore the lies - I'm not a full blown supporter of either WP or WR because some places on both disgust me (ID clique and Giano on WP, mostly). In short, I win, they lose if they lobby accusations.

Posted by: SirFozzie

while I think Sceptre has done himself no good by saying what he has here, I do think that it needs to be looked at, I just disagree with him that it should go straight to the ArbCom.

Amerique just proposed it get folded in to the ArbCom of DOOOOOOOM (FM/SV/Cla68/JzG et all).

My first thought is in my reply on the Arb page.

My 2nd thought is.

"We are Drama of ArbComBorg. You will be assimilated. Your Drama will be assimilated and added to our own."

Posted by: Sceptre

My only crime is a crappy analogy and perhaps a little bit of an adrenaline high. But still, the way OCR set the specification for A-Level Critical Thinking... I wouldn't really know

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

So are you SirSidaway now, Fozzie?

Posted by: SirFozzie

OW. You know how to hurt a guy, CGoP!

Nah. I just ran into the ID folks on a couple threads, and they rubbed me the wrong way, and seeing what they're doing certainly LOOKS like off-wiki collaboration. There's no way in hell I'm an involved party there.

I'm just afraid, right or wrong, they're going to point to Sceptre's thread here (not quite BADSITES, but pointing at his words) to try to Chewbacca Defense the whole thing.

Posted by: Cla68

Sceptre, you should have drafted an RfC first. There are plenty of people who could help you out with it and co-certify it with you. Allowing the community to comment on their behavior and put some peer pressure on them is something that should be done. I know that some will say here that RfCs don't do any good. I believe, judging by what several Arbs have said lately, that they intend to put some teeth back into the RfC process if we'll give it a chance.

Posted by: Sceptre

I'm not really one for RFCs... I MFD'd it, remember.

Posted by: everyking

The way it's shaping up, it looks more like a slight breeze.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Official Teams then:

The ED Trolls (brought to you by Cialis, for ED dysfunction due to too much drama)

The WR Shills (A Shilling for your thoughts?)

The WP ....?

Contest brewing here.

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

Extremely Dense Objects.


or EDOs for short.

Posted by: Moulton

The section of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR#Intelligent_design_editorss entitled "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" is a tad thin at the moment.

Perhaps I can help a little there.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Previous_Attempts_at_Dispute_Resolution on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton for some examples of fruitless previous attempts at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_Resolution with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Participants.

Posted by: Moulton

My concern with the RfC Process is that I have found it to be indistinguishable from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Archive#No_One_Expects_the_Spammish_Inquisition. See for example, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#These_are_a_few_of_my_favorite_lines%2E%2E%2E excerpted verbatim from an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Persecuted of some interest to me.

Posted by: Cla68

That breeze may be picking up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Daniel

Posted by: Alison

Owch!! I'm curious as to what Daniel has stashed up his sleeve ...

Posted by: that one guy

This shall be interesting. A second major cabal faces the firing line (the first is Slim's cabal).

"I absoultely feel that it should not be part of the Omnibus Adminstrator and Longtime Editor Reformation and Civility Patrol Act of 2008 hearing."

I nearly fell out of my chair at the naming of the case rocksanddirt is referencing.

Posted by: Moulton

From the R&D Department...

I haven't had a sustained belly laugh like that in ages.

Thank you, R&D!

Posted by: Giggy

+1 zing to Rocksanddirt

Posted by: Moulton

For the benefit of those of us from the planet Mars who are here studying the social dynamics of the modern Earthling online virtual community, it would be helpful to me if you would annotate your zingers with "Neener."

And please be sure to annotate your comebacks with "Neener, neener."

Thanks in advance. (Neener.)

Posted by: Bob Boy

Have any of the ID clique besides Jim62sch been the subject of ArbCom cases before?

Posted by: Random832

I think Lar hits the nail on the head with this:

I predict that this case will be merged, and strongly suspect that at least some of the arbitrators intended exactly that.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

If the intent is to come up with a ruling that says:

then they may believe that by combining these cases they can kill several birds with one stroke, with a collective slap down for a large group of editors without it appearing to be a witch hunt for an individual.

I doubt they really need a lot of evidence to come up with such an obvious ruling and they may take a view that if there is a general demonstration of poor behaviour and abuse, they can drag everyone down with a single ruling rather than picking over the bones of different editors individually.

Posted by: Giggy

Some of the parties named by Sceptre are also parties in the C68-FM-SV case. I don't know about previous cases.

Posted by: prospero

Actually, it was our old friend Raymond A. who coined that phrase as part of a comment in the JzG RFArb initial request (comment is now on the C68-FM-SV main talkpage).

As for the merit, well I think plenty of dispute resolution has been tried. Goodness knows that GTBacchus has tried to get the cantankerous editors to be better behaved, but they continue to claim that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are conspiracies to prevent them from fighting the pseudoscience they think is overtaking WP. Their CANVASS of DHMO's RFA is the final straw, it is high time this disgrace to the scientific community be taken down.

Posted by: Random832

That makes two people now (after Andonico) who have implied that key people in the "ID clique" were... shall we say "recruiting meatpuppets", via private e-mail.

[edit: quoted the wrong post]

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

I have to admit being a little curious about what the emails are and how they were acquired. It was pretty obvious there was some kind of secret collaboration going on, but I find it interesting that they seem to have suddenly slipped up lately.

Posted by: Random832

It looks like Andonico is saying he's personally been canvassed, I can't tell in Daniel's case.

Posted by: Moulton

If you are aware of previous attempts to rein in these same editors, please take note that User:AGK (Anthony) has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comments_from_AGK to any such prior cases:


Please be kind enough to forward to User:AGK (Anthony) any relevant prior cases that you may be aware of.

Posted by: Giggy

Yes, AO was personally canvassed (he originally said so on my RfA's talk page), but I don't think Daniel was. WJBscribe has since taken this up with Filll (see User talk:Filll#Emails about a current RfA), but there has been no onwiki reply, despite Filll having edited since then.

Posted by: Derktar

Yes it appears http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=216040222.

Posted by: Giggy

The http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design&dir=prev&offset=20080515142244&limit=5&action=history makes for some interesting reading.

Posted by: that one guy

Too late to stop the flood, the dam has already burst.

Posted by: tarantino

The good Dr. Filll has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFilll&diff=216292075&oldid=216210278#A_public_statement_about_the_DMHO_RfA something he's been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Filll/response2&limit=100&action=history for the last three weeks.

The H20 part of his missive

Posted by: thekohser

If it was an honest mistake, how can he promise that it will never happen again?

Posted by: Giggy

I accept his apology.

Posted by: Somey

Typical of this person, really... He can't get his way, so he's taking what he thinks is his ball and running home with it. Only it's not a real ball, and it's not even a real home...

I mean, it's blatantly self-serving nonsense. There are plenty of ways to mention that Rosalind Picard signed a petition that was later used in support of ID by the Dick-scovery Institure without making it the central focus, if not the entire content, of her BLP article, but that's not what they did. Framing what they did do as "uncontroversial and innocuous" is just plain lying.

It was simple character assassination, and it wasn't even all that subtle, either. And it's not an "evil cabal," it's a bunch of twits who think they're doing "science" a big f**king favor by using overblown cyberbullying tactics on mostly-harmless academics whom they happen to disagree with. Nobody is saying they have to "deny evolution" or "accept Intelligent Design" - that too is plain lying. And Wikipedia has been letting them do it, more than long enough.

Posted by: Random832

He'll be more careful not to get caught in the future.

Posted by: Moulton

I've crafted http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/.

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

It just highlights how absurdly self-centered and cliquish many in that group are. The only personal attacks that matter are the ones against them. Attempting to address the attacks they make against others just confuses Filll, because outsiders don't matter.

Posted by: Kato

On the Arbitration page, KillerChihuahua writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=216282849

Which article is this? Presumably KillerChihuahua is referring to Moulton's edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&oldid=152465684. Before Moulton arrived, it contained a number of false assertions since removed, and was a blatant WP:COATRACK. And the subject of that biography had nothing to do with "Intelligent Design", a fact which was at the heart of the dispute.

So this statement by KillerChihuahua has no validity at all.

Posted by: Bob Boy

Yes, that jumped out at me, too. Apparently that is the alibi the ID Club will stick with, regardless of any inconvenient realities.

Posted by: Giggy

From that same statement...

Does anyone know where it actually started?

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Well, logically, it clearly started on Wikipedia. The fact that Wikpedia Review picked up on this highly improper behaviour does not magic it away or make it any less improper.

I had a little hunt through here and didn't immediately pick up on whatever was the first mention. I was certainly aware of this abusive group early last year through some drive by incidents on policy pages (see JimSch62 and OrangeMarlin on WP:NOR where there was an extended debate by the likes of BlueBoar trying to sort out some issues, all by the book, and months of effort was torpedoed by a character assassination flashmob where the word went out that there were POV pushers about - no doubt creationist trolls) - one of the little incidents that pointed me in this direction. In fact I'd go so far as to say that if it was not for the likes of the ID Cabal, Wikipedia Review might have quite a few less members.

Wikipedia Review haters might like to consider which Wikipedian editors have actually created the appetite for this forum - who is the real problem?

Posted by: Kato

It started on Wikipedia, when it became apparent that a group of editors on ID and other scientific topics were tighter and more aggressive than a squadron of Gurkhas.

To prove that Giggy and Moulton weren't the first to notice this on WR, here is a post by me a year ago, before either of them were members of this site:



This next post by Ben on WR dates back two years:

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Stop trying to confuse us with your original research. This is Wikipedia we're talking about. The facts are beside the point.

Jon

Posted by: Kato

If you look at the list of names of those opposing Ben's anti-bullying petition from 2 1/2 years ago, the same names show up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benapgar/Bullying#Outside_view_by_FeloniousMonk

FeloniousMonk
Jim62sch
KillerChihuahua
dave souza
Guettarda
Freakofnurture (is that Odd Nature?)

As Ben explains, when he took the bullying to Arbcom, Raul - the "fixer" of the group - dismissed the claims and encouraged FeloniousMonk to keep it up. This poor attitude of condoning obviously appalling behavior has led to the mess we now see on WP.

Posted by: LaraHate

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design&diff=147709349&oldid=147188306
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design&diff=153760782&oldid=149112356
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design&diff=214492083&oldid=212606888
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design&diff=215834449&oldid=215593304
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=215870274&oldid=215863169
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design&diff=216040222&oldid=216022360

Good times.

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

Wait, how did he travel back in time to re-resign.

Posted by: Bob Boy

KillerChihuahua frequenty puts herself forward as the "reasonable one" who just happens to belong to the same WikiProject. But she's not at all averse to taking her place in the phalanx and fighting with the same tactics as the rest of them. I remember her going full-bore after Quadell last year for daring to leave Jim62sch an NPA warning - she badgered the hell out of him and I think ElinorD had to intervene, and it went to ANI...let me see if I can dig it up.

Ah, here it is -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Quadell/archive34#NPA_template

Posted by: Moulton

I first used the word "cabal" in reference to the WikiClique on Intelligent Design in http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/08/scathing-glances.html on http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/ on August 28th, 2007, just days before User:Filll and User:ConfuciusOrnis filed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Filll/RfC_Moulton&limit=500&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton against me. That same essay of last August was recently http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080405/so-i-am-disgusted-with-wikipedia/ on WR as an Op-Ed piece. In that commentary, I refer to the WikiClique on ID as "a cabal of anonymous and ethically challenged editors on Wikipedia."

Posted by: UserB

No.

Posted by: Sceptre

I doubt I'm a vexatious litigant - i'm pretty sure that to be one, you need to have multiple failed attempts. Most of my attempts for RFArs have passed.

Posted by: Moulton

Filll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comment_on_this_RfAr in that RfAr...


I have to admit I was vexed by the RfC that User:Filll, User:ConfuciusOrnis, and their allies in the WikiClique on ID filed against me last September.

To my mind a pro-science outlook would be accompanied by a scrupulous ethic of adhering to the protocols of the Scientific Method when crafting and publishing theories of a scientific nature.

But I have to agree with Filll, that I, too, was not aware that being an advocate of rigorous adherence to the protocols of the Scientific Method would have proven to be so offensive, obnoxious, and politically unacceptable to his colleagues in the ID group.

I didn't mind so much that KillerChihuahua thought I had no interest in writing an encyclopedia. After all, anyone can make a haphazard error in analytical thinking. What troubled me is that she acted on that erroneous hypothesis, translating a mere misconception into an administrative action that excluded me from further participation in the effort to craft accurate articles which rose to reasonable standards of quality and ethics in online media.

I have highlighted in blue some interesting passages where Filll hypethesizes the desires, goals, or intentions of others. I would be interested in hearing his evidence and reasoning to support those curious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind regarding the mindset of his several adversaries in this remarkable RfAr.

Filll also writes:


Last August, I was sore offended by inaccurate and unsupported content that I found in some half a dozen mainspace articles, including content that I specifically identified as false and defamatory.

Filll was disinclined to remove it, per his above-stated personal policy.

Posted by: Sceptre

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=217162837&oldid=217119715

Posted by: Derktar

I forget when any of those people he mentioned helped us "discuss the plan of attack."

And he doesn't know Lar is a steward does he.

Posted by: Alison

*sigh*

Hey, and you guys are holding back on me. I've been waiting patiently for my copy of the "plan of attack", so I know how to attack properly and you guys have been stalling. Hand over teh s3kr1t planz!!

(sorry, sorry, I know!)

Posted by: Sceptre

Seems like people are taking offense to the topic title. Damn, and I was just trying to be witty :'(

Posted by: Kato

This RFA has taken a bizarre twist.

Irpen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_uninvolved_Irpen:_this_sounds_familiar like someone staggering into a party drunk in the early hours. Irpen sees it all as a battle over the control of Wikipedia. He admits to knowing nothing about the case. Throws in a few attacks on Tony Sidaway, IRC, and invokes the grim spectre of SlimVirgin for good measure.

All of this has nothing to do with the case.

They really need to get to grips with these ludicrous ARBCOM interventions from people who have absolutely nothing relevant to say.

The case is a group of editors on Science articles violating core policies - notably BLP - and bullying people at will who object to this unsavory behavior. Anything else is drama-crazed gobbledygook and pure Sidaway.

Meanwhile, Odd Nature writes hilariously:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comment_by_User:Odd_nature

Odd Nature informs the Arbcom that the criminal mastermind of this whole enterprise, Moulton, is "all over Sceptre's thread." To be fair, Moulton is all over everyone's threads.

Posted by: Moulton

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

Unfortunately, I'd have to say that the creation of the topic here, while interesting, gives some tangibility to Oddnature's accusation of impropriety.

Personally, I'd have to say it's really poor conceived notion...and I just noticed the last note about Raymond. Guess it was the worker sacrificing himself for the queen.

I hope someone points out that Raymond's departure was based on paranoia as opposed to any sort of harassment.

Posted by: Milton Roe

COMMENT: Shoot, no! The Cabal already has its own backchannel for that (as admitted by Jimbo in his chatlogs to Rachel) and no others must be permitted. Besides, you also can also see in those logs what Jimbo wrote to Rachel about WR (yes, that's us), in the very same chat. He fears us. There are some nuts on WR, according to Jimbo! Who might think he has a conflict of interest altering facts about a stalking conviction, in a bio of his girlfriend (Wink, wink, LOL), and would use it against him. Poor thing. Later, he found out what stalking by this woman was like. POOR thing.

But again, you say, we don't want WR being used as a com channel to "harrass" Wikipedians. Even if it's for some screwup, like Jimbo's screwing up! Or anything else! It's just none of our business at WR! How dare we?

Well, Odd Nature, this one's for you: I dare.

You know, if I was even 10% as perverted as Jimbo and Rachel, I'd be using my Mac webcam to take pictures of me doing something nasty to myself with a vegetable.

But actually, I'm a reasonable sort of guy, who's gotten beyond notebook-wanking. Unlike your sole founder

I'm interested in ultimately improving Wikipedia as a general project, though I hate to see it used as a Jimbo-fiefdom. And, like almost everybody here at WR, that includes leveling instructive, constructive, and occassionally destructive criticism at WP. And you know what? If you don't like it, then

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Constructive criticism is for those who are open to change.

The last 8 years proves that it's totally wasted on Wikipediots.

Jon

Posted by: Milton Roe

Oh, there are wiki-mucki-mucks of various rank, who read here. Some who I'm sure we don't even know about. Example: Jimbo read, or he wouldn't have been feeling us, breathing down his neck, while he was cyber-sex-chatting to Rachel. Which, when you think about it, might have been one of our better coups. Think about it: here's Jimbo trying to get laid, and all he can think about is what the folks at WR will say if they find out! That must've required an extra Viagra to put the starch back in the original banhammer.

So, anyway, WP will change eventually. And the ideas we bring up here, will reappear after they've been planted in somebody's mind, rejected, revisited, reworked, and finally reborn as their very own ideas for how to improve Wikipedia!

No, WR won't get credit. Duh. But even if we don't, I'd still like to see WP improved into something resembling mankind's Encyclopedia Galactica, just for the hell of it. You gotta start somewhere. The journey of 1000 miles begins with a single off the cuff idea, passed on to another guy, who was working for a third guy who was mainly into computer pics of women's titties. That's the universe we live in. Hydrogen-->goo-->zoo-->you. Weird, but I didn't make the rules for this universe! Stuff happens here! Watch, and be amazed.

Jon, with all wuv , you seem to be a little short of amazement these days. Did somebody sneak up and pour a Pixiestick of powder into your piehole?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

You can't get http://www.orionsarm.com/eg/index.html from http://wikipedia.org/.

Jon

Posted by: Milton Roe

Oh, the first is fun. Hard astronomy plus sci-fi. But you'd be surprised how much of it actually IS in WP. Oh, yeah.

Posted by: Somey

Just to add a bit to the history of this issue as far as WR is concerned, back in April 2007 we had a new member named "Chahax" who posted http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1848&view=findpost&p=28254 on the "Intelligent Design" article itself. Essentially what happened there was that he'd seen the claim in the ID article that all of ID's public proponents are connected with the Discovery Institute (DI) in some way, and thought, "that can't be right, there must be at least one or two people who advocate all this ID schtuff who aren't with the DI," and tried to change the wording to something a little more equivocal - for which he got the ol' banhammer.

As it turns out, there really weren't any public proponents of ID at that time who aren't connected in some way with the DI. That may still be the case, in fact... Ironically, this is pretty much what the DI was trying to deal with when they circulated the "Scientific Dissent" petition. But whereas groups like the National Center for Science Education managed to come up with constructive and thought-provoking approaches to the ID challenge, such as http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp, Wikipedia instead resorted to bullying of n00bz, and ultimately, character assassination attempts against petition signers - many of whom were essentially duped into signing in the first place.

Posted by: Moulton

I asked Roz about the original petition that circulated in academia in 2001, prior to the DI's first publication via that anti-PBS ad attacking their new series on Evolution.

Roz said that it circulated via E-Mail and that she had searched her old E-Mail files looking for it, but couldn't find it after so much time had passed.

So a few days ago, I sent this inquiry into the Center for Science and Culture, the parent organization of the Discovery Institute...

Posted by: everyking

Ah, Chahax, I remember him. After Chahax was blocked, I encouraged him to relax a bit and promise to refrain from what was getting him in trouble in hopes that he could get himself unblocked. Some time afterward, when I made one of my many unsuccessful ArbCom appeals, Raul (in his dual role as both arbitrator and participant in the Chahax issue) accused me of aiding and abetting the enemy by encouraging Chahax to moderate himself and trying to secure his conditional unblock.

Posted by: Moulton

Yah, but is that a good thing or a bad thing, Kato?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: guy

That is a matter that is engaging the finest minds on WR in hours of passionate, indeed vehement, debate.

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

Not to worry. Even if you'd picked a perfectly bland, inoffensive title, they would have found some excuse for offense, and if they were to have had trouble finding out-of-context quote to serve their purposes, they would have just made something up.

Posted by: Milton Roe

No, no, that's Wikipedia you're talking about. Sheesh, it takes weeks, even months for people's WP Combat Reflexes™ to die down, here on WR. Think of it as PTSD of a kind. During that time, when nudged or startled or made fun of in a mild way, they tend to flail about like Jason Bourne being attacked by the CIA.

Calm. Calm.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Good or bad, it needs a simile. Moulton is all over everyone's threads like a cheap set of threads!

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

I must have misunderstood. I thought the "people" Sceptre was referring to was the anti-ID group, since they have made a habit of mining WR for quotes to use against editors in conflicts on WP lately.

Posted by: Random832

Yes it is indeed Wikipedia he's talking about, as that is where the people who are taking offense to the topic title are doing so.

Posted by: Sceptre

And it's being deferred to RFC/U. I'm going to guess that, despite deferral, it'll still be deleted for being uncertified.

Posted by: Moulton

What a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chintz remark.

Posted by: Milton Roe

If I were King of the Forest,
Not queen, not duke, not prince.
My regal robes of the forest,
would be satin, not cotton, not chintz.

There's more from the old verbal schmata-ria where that came from.

Posted by: Sceptre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sceptre%2C_Sxeptomaniac%2C_SirFozzie%2C_B

Posted by: Moulton

Here is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sceptre%2C_Sxeptomaniac%2C_SirFozzie%2C_B as prepared by User:Odd nature and User:Filll...

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

XD


Sorry, I just find truly misguided action hilarious.

Posted by: Derktar

Hey look it's Filll and Odd Nature! They're uninvolved parties right?

Lawl

Posted by: Moulton

This thread from last December is worth reviewing:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14119

Incidentally, there is no evidence that I'm aware of to support the theory that Odd nature is a sock puppet of FM.

Posted by: Moulton

This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Filll#G.27day_Filllfrom Filll on his talk page, is interesting...

Posted by: Cla68

As long as some of the anti-ID editors keep up with this kind of nonsense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sceptre%2C_Sxeptomaniac%2C_SirFozzie%2C_B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gnixon/Intelligent_design_RfC

there isn't really anything the rest of us need to do except watch their antics with amusement. Unfortunately, some of their other antics aren't amusing, as discussed extensively in this thread and others. So, they're delaying tactics won't ultimately be successful if they continue to act like this.

Posted by: Giggy

(emphasis mine)

Anyone received any canvassing emails which just happen to point to the section that looks most damning for the "WR cabal"?

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

Interesting that I was on the receiving end of the longest laundry list of fake evidence. Much of it is so bad I can't help but wonder if it's deliberately deceptive. Were they hoping no-one would actually check the links?

I am mildly surprised that they would bring up Guettarda's attack on me as part of three items on the list, though not surprised that they are attempting to revise history so that Guettarda's attack is now "evidence" I supposedly refused to address properly. After all, they had to find some way to make it appear I was out to get them.

Posted by: LaraLove

I particularly liked the "evidence" against SirFozzie. I clicked all the links, then re-read the claims that these links were apparently supposed to be in support of, and I stared at my computer screen with a face similar to

Then I read where Guettarda denied the existence of evidence to show that Filll had canvassed... I mean... he confessed. So then I had a face similar to

I also like that they keep mentioning my name (I think three times in the original statement), but there's a grand total of NO evidence regarding me. It's good times, and sort of a giant piece of evidence to support the claims made by the apparent WR Cabal against the apparent ID Cabal.

Posted by: Derktar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/ID_RFCs
The RfC has been nuked by Moreschi and now it seems dear old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Copy.

Posted by: guy

"Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design is open PouponOnToast (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)"

Posted by: Derktar

This page is interesting as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PouponOnToast/pernicious

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Jim62sch

For Lar, I'm fairly certain that Jim is referring to the old idiom "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark", meaning that he finds Moreschi's action suspicious.

In other words, he's conspiracy mongering with Odd nature.

Posted by: Sceptre

On another note, I'm on the Rosalind Picard talk trying to de-emphasise what the petition's used for - apparently the petition's statement is DI spin (but regardless, skepticism is what the petition does - that's an undisputeable fact).

While trying to get a bit of more neutral wording, Jim said http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosalind_Picard&diff=218464482&oldid=218460695. If that's not POV-pushing, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Moulton

What still needs to happen is to revise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Picard#Religion_and_science...

The above paragraph should be changed to read as follows...


I can provide the rationale to anyone here who requests it.

By the way, "the media" primarily refers to WP, as edited by the ethically challenged WikiClique on Intelligent Design.

Also, the comparable paragraph in the James Tour BLP also needs to be revised. And there is no need for that ridiculous and misleading heading, either.

Also, the lede sentence in List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" is blatantly false and defamatory of those same 103 scientists. It now reads:


The two-sentence, 32-word, untitled statement is neither pro-intelligent design nor anti-evolution. To publish that assertion is to commit libel, full stop.

Posted by: Cla68

Don't worry anyone, the nonsense from these editors is on its last legs. Moreschi is a very concientious admin, who doesn't do something unless its right. So, I think the anti-ID cabal is running on empty, although they probably won't admit to that right now.

Posted by: Moulton

I dunno if you caught it, but even WAS 4.250 expunged one of those specious insertions from a BLP today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mae-Wan_Ho&diff=218352612&oldid=218328520, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Mae-Wan_Ho.

Posted by: tarantino

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gnixon/Intelligent_design_RfC&diff=218670562&oldid=218662552:

So, you deny believing in ID? HAH, that proves you are one of them!

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Almost Durova-like in her Wiki-sleuthing days. !! made proper edits - !! is therefore ripening a sock.

Posted by: Sceptre

RFAR got declined, mostly for prematurity and wideness rather than there not being a problem. At the very least, the arbcom are aware of the group's incivility and canvassing - even if we AGF and accept Filll made a mistake, I don't think we can sugar-coat KillerChihuahua's canvassing on IRC.

Posted by: Moulton

Good Grief

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Deletion_of_personal_information, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_personal_information, and the http://aggieblue.blogspot.com blog.

Posted by: Giggy

What were you thinking?

Posted by: Somey

Would it be better if we changed it to "Category 2 shitstorm"? Those aren't quite as bad as the Category 3 ones.

I mean, we could try to mollify them somewhat by retitling it "Beleaguered Anti-ID Editors Voice Objections to Excretory Storm Categorization System," but that would be even longer than the title it has now.

Posted by: Moulton

I was thinking that Filll deserved a reply to his Question 5.

Update: And now I'm thinking it's time for a musical button...

Posted by: Moulton

OK, so there was this big shitstorm maelstrom today when I confused User:Filll Bob Stevens with User:Filll/Bob Stevens.

I had used the Special:PrefixIndex feature to look for the draft RfC that Filll and ConfuciusOrnis had originally prepared in Filll's userspace. Filll has a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&from=Filll&namespace=2 in his userspace. The one that caught my eye was the one that lacked the telltale slash. But I didn't notice the missing slash, so I mistakenly thought it was just another page in his own vast user space.

What I thought I was looking at was an evidentiary record that I presumed Filll had saved from an otherwise unidentified person who had tried to impersonate him earlier this year. But that was wrong. It was actually the imposter's original pages. Guettarda had simply blanked it with the annotation "impersonation".

The only thing on the page was a Zip+4 number, 22193-3515, which goes to the town of Woodbridge VA. When the person created the page, he put in the edit summary, "it is my number". And in his brief one-day career at the English Wikipedia, he even http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodbridge%2C_Virginia&diff=186627620&oldid=186474947 on Woodbridge VA.

Today, I noticed that there is yet another account on Wikipedia, User:Robert Stevens, who actively edits on ID-related articles. Indeed one can find talk page sections where both User:Filll and User:Robert Stevens are participating in the same discussion and exchanging comments with each other. Therefore they evidently know each other, on-wiki, as fellow editors.

If you do a Google search on http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Robert+Stevens+Woodbridge+VA+22193-3515, you get exactly one hit, so Mr. Stevens does appear to be a real person.

What we don't know is whether this is the same person as User:Robert Stevens on the English Wikipedia, or what connection, if any, either instance of "Robert Stevens" has to our Filll of ID Clique fame.

Perhaps it's all just a bizarre coincidence...

... Except for the unexpected shitstorm maelstrom that ensued today when I mistakenly confused the (then existing) User:Filll Bob Stevens page for the (non-existent) User:Filll/Bob Stevens page.

But wait...

There's more...

A search reveals there are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&redirs=1&search=CabalCounterIntelligenceUnit&fulltext=Advanced+search to the rogue impersonator's page. It seems the imposter signed his talk page comments with the name CabalCounterIntelligenceUnit. For example, in Talk:Evolution/Archive_45#Controversy:

Half an hour later, Filll posts his own comment just below that.

All very strange.

And then there's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AFilll+Bob+Stevens&year=&month=-1. The original page blanking by Guettarda appears to have been oversighted now (perhaps as a result of Sarah deleting the pages).

Way too complicated for me to figure out.

Posted by: Proabivouac

So what happened to his contribs? I suppose they must have renamed the user before deleting this page?

Posted by: Sceptre

The real damage of a hurricane is not its strength, but where it hits - remember, Katrina, the costliest hurricane in US history, was only a Cat. 3 when it made landfall in Louisiana. The '3' in this topic was just an arbitrary number.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I don't know, but this is all rather odd, and typical Wikipedian rule-mongering. Moulton has been talking of Bob Stevens in posts for a long time here and that does not appear to have been an issue, but the mere mention of the link on Wikipedia results in doom. Wikipedians seem to know that Filll is publicly known - which if I recall was due to his blog, so it does seem rather political to engineer a block based on a complaint of a link that was already known.

What Moulton's spot does question though is why Filll would talk to his namesake without raising an eyebrow - worthy of a checkuser on those 3 users, though you can't request a checkuser on wiki without revealing a real world identity.

Posted by: Moulton

Closely Watched Strains

Late last night, WJBscribe renamed User:Filll Bob Stevens to User:Renamed user 26. See the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AFilll+Bob+Stevens&year=&month=-1.

Here are his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Renamed_user_26 for his brief day in the sun as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Filll_Bob_Stevens&action=edit&redlink=1.


Filll is publicly known for several reasons, which I mentioned in the same WP talk page post that spawned yesterday's shitstorm maelstrom, and which has not (yet) been restored.

Our Filll had contacted not only me, but also Eugenia Scott of the NCSE and Alexandra Kahn of the MIT Media Lab. Eugenia Scott is the NCSE spokesperson who appears on many of the videos on the ID controversy, including the one produced by PBS Nova. Alexandra Kahn is the Media Relations Officer at the MIT Media Lab. Except that when Filll contacted her (on his own initiative), I had never heard of her before and had no idea who she was.

Now here is something that I did not link to or reproduce yesterday on my Wikipedia talk page. It's the http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/Bob.Stevens.txt over the first two day period when Filll first contacted me (at my request) to try to resolve the issues at Picard's BLP. That's when he disclosed (in the fourth or fifth message) that he had initiated contact (by phone and E-Mail) to Alexandra Kahn. Kahn, in turn forwarded that E-Mail on to Rosalind Picard who then responded by E-Mail to all three of us:


So Filll is known to those with whom he has initiated contact as Bob Stevens <hound9_3@yahoo.com>. He represented himself to Alexandra Kahn of the MIT Media Lab as an agent of Wikipedia, and began stipulating terms for revising Picard's BLP. It was only in his first message to me that he greeted me as Bob/Filll. Thereafter, he is Bob, and that's the name by which Alexandra Kahn and Rosalind Picard know him. They would not recognize the avatar name of "Filll" as he did not use it in the message(s) which went to them.

On WP:NTWW, his Skype ID is bob.in.md and it's tied to that same Yahoo E-Mail address. (That's how I looked him up in the Skype directory when I joined Episode 6 of WP:NTWW with Brian Bergstein.) On those Skypecasts, he is variously called by both names.

In order to http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/2008/06/moultons-answers-to-fillls-8-questions.html, I had to refer to the above E-Mail to him from Rosalind Picard. But she sent that to "Bob Stevens" as that is how he identified himself when he contacted Alexandra Kahn, the Press Liaison of the MIT Media Lab. So that's how I identified the recipient to whom Picard had sent her reply.

(Note that Filll has stated more than once that he never heard back from Picard. But I was one of three recipients on Picard's E-Mail to him of August 29 2007, in which she expressly thanks him for "what seems to be a nice shared goal of trying to get objective accurate information online.")

Posted by: Proabivouac

I, too, find this strange.

Moulton, can you provide links to conversations in which both User:Filll and User:Robert Stevens have been involved?

Posted by: Moulton

Yes, it's easy enough to find them using a Google search on http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+Filll+%22Robert+Stevens%22.

Among the many that turn up, I noted these as typical:

Talk:Objections_to_evolution#Proving_the_Objections_false

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary

Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed/Archive_3#Edit_needed

Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive35#Suggested_Version

Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed/Archive_5#Soapbox

Talk:Creationism/Archive_18#New_section

Talk:A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Alleged_BLP_violation

The examples go on and on. That should be enough for starters, methinks.

Posted by: prospero

Thank you Moulton! I was worried when there was no comment from you about this yesterday, but it seems like you really did your homework on this one. Not much more that I can add, but like I said in those AN/I threads, those ID punks rushing to AN/I was quite suspicious.

Alison and Lar, you guys really should forward this information to ArbCom. If what Moulton says is true, I have no reason to believe otherwise, then Filll has been up to no good. Not only has he potentially engaged in abusive sockpuppetry, he has misrepresented himself as an agent of the Foundation (yes, I know some on here think that all editors should be treated as such, but that isn't the point here).

Posted by: Moulton

I'm not convinced there is any sock-puppetry involved.

It's quite possible all three accounts are different people with the same name.

The so-called imposter/impersonator gave a Zip+4 code that uniquely identified a http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Robert+Stevens+Woodbridge+VA+22193-3515, who (among other things) edited the article on Woodbridge VA during his brief sojourn on the English Wikipedia. I suppose someone could call him up at the listed phone number and interview him to find out his story.

I have no idea who User:Robert Stevens is, but that may be yet a third person with that name. I suppose it would take a CheckUser to resolve the issue. Meantime, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Robert_Stevens&direction=next&oldid=57306391 is amusing.

Finally, I don't actually know that "Bob Stevens" is Filll's real name. It's the name he uses on his Yahoo E-Mail. But most people don't use their real name on Yahoo E-Mail, so it's possible he is using that name as a pseudonym, too. Nor do I know of any way to find out, one way or the other.

All I know for a fact is that Filll sent those E-Mails to me and to Alexandra Kahn, and used a Yahoo E-Mail account in the name of "Bob Stevens". What I can also tell you is that Bob/Filll originated his August 2007 Yahoo E-Mails to me from IP Address 69.140.98.149
[c-69-140-98-149.hsd1.md.comcast.net], which puts him in Maryland, just as his Skype ID, bob.in.md suggests.

Posted by: prospero

Hmm... Perhaps you are correct. Even if I'm not a fan of [[WP:BLP]], I still think that Filll "negotiating" with Dr. Picard "on behalf of the foundation" sounds coercive to me. He really ought to be ashamed of himself, especially considering how gracious and polite Dr. Picard was in her responses.

I have my own suspicions that he might be jealous of her working at a prestigious institution like MIT when perhaps he is not in a similar situation. The bitterness that I often see him display is what leads me to this conclusion. It wouldn't be the first time that I've seen a bitter, mediocre academic attempt to destroy a flourishing, successful one.

Interesting, I did not know we had that template. I think I'll go slap it on Crum375's userpage right now.

Posted by: Proabivouac

The distinction between Woodbridge, VA and Maryland may be one without an appreciable difference:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=Washington,+DC,+USA&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=image
(you may have to zoom out once to see Woodbridge, just south of Washington on the 95)

Posted by: Moulton

The http://maps.google.com/maps?q=5585+Shadybrook+Dr+Woodbridge+VA%2022193+3515 for the so-called http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Robert+Stevens+Woodbridge+VA+22193-3515 is way southwest of Washington DC. It's about 15 miles from the river that divides VA from MD, but there are no nearby river crossings.

Since Filll has a MD Comcast IP which subtends a router in http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Gambrills+MD (way NW of Washington), it's highly unlikely the Robert Stevens of Woodbridge VA corresponds to bob.in.MD, some 52 miles away by the shortest route.

Posted by: Moulton

Filll was actually negotiating with Alexandra Kahn, the MIT Media Lab Press Liaison (whom I finally met for the first time just last April).

I was there for Sponsor Week, which is a hectic time. Somebody I had never seen before came around looking for Picard, but she wasn't in her office. I introduced myself, and the person said, "Yes, I know who you are. I'm Alexandra Kahn." It took me half a minute to recollect the name and associate it with the person whom Filll had contacted six months earlier.

Somewhere (I think on Skype), Filll asserted that he had gone to MIT or otherwise had an MIT association. I recall noting that I had never met anyone at MIT named 'Bob Stevens', but then it's a big institution.

Posted by: Achromatic

Not necessarily, I've seen Olympia, WA Comcast IPs belonging to (or having last hop as) Everett WA, 75 mi north (and on the far side of Tacoma and Seattle, so it's not even a 'next big town' thing).

Posted by: Moulton

Perhaps Greg Kohs, who works for Comcast, can enlighten us.

Greg?

Posted by: Moulton

From the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_attempt_to_reveal_personal_information...

I looked up the http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy.

Then I sent this message to Durova, with a copy to Lar...

Posted by: LaraLove

Moulton, perhaps it's in this thread or another and I've just not come upon it, but did you reveal your real name on Wikipedia or did someone else? I read that one of the ID members revealed it on a subpage of theirs. I've seen the subpage, I just don't know if that's where your name first came on WP.

Posted by: Moulton

Let's see...

In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=166056766 User:NaGromOne added my name to the article on the name "Moulton" linking it to MicroMuse. I've been "Moulton" on MicroMuse since its inception in 1990.

Then two days ago, User:Toddst1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moulton&diff=next&oldid=205861217. Until now, I didn't know about that at all.

My name appears in the article on MicroMuse, but it currently doesn't link to my avatar name. My avatar name did appear in that article at one time, but User:Baegisthesock http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MicroMuse&diff=214203351&oldid=212135102 on May 22, 2008, a week after User:NaGromOne http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MicroMuse&diff=prev&oldid=212135102. But look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MicroMuse&action=history. Baegis and NaGromOne went back and forth on that one over a period of months, and Durova also stepped in at one point. Not sure what to make of that.

Still, none of that connects me to the use of that avatar name on Wikipedia.

Ah! Here's what you want...

In that http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eZjaHq0EQMAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence+site:wikipedia.org+%22Barry+Kort%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us#Responses_of_other_online_communities_to_Moulton page that FeloniousMonk just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=FeloniousMonk&page=&year=2008&month=6 a day or two ago, there it is:


Was that a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy that Durova was talking about?

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Oddly enough, I came across my real name in an article Wikipedia the other day (not Notable, just in passing, but it was an explicit reference to me), and no kind soul had linked it to my original real name user id there nor dogbiscuit, and nor should they without earning a ban according to current practice.

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

I would suggest Lar take a look at the THF fiasco, where User:TedFrank renamed his account to THF, and threatened anyone who linked to the rename log with harassment/outing.

I'd go search for links, but I'm in a bit of a hurry.

(In reference to the ANI thread)

Posted by: Proabivouac

Exactly.

It's worth repeating: those who attack real names from Wikipedia forfeit their own claim to pseudonymity.

And it falls to those who have just banned Moulton for violating the privacy policy to continue by demanding the resignations of JzG, Morven, Krimpet (who, disappointingly, has still not apologized) and others who are on the wrong side of this line.

Short of that, all this bleating amounts to nothing but a hypocritical joke.

Posted by: thekohser

I wonder what they'd make of this "outing block"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Fawn_Lake

I brought this to the attention of OTRS; they seemed willing to help, but technically unable; so I brought it to Cary and Erik, neither of whom replied; so I brought it to Sue and Mike, neither of whom replied, but it did inspire Cary to explain to me that he was very ill and couldn't meet up with Erik about this problem. What do you think? It's a clear "outing" with no proof, is it not? The blocking admin even admits that it could just as easily be an impersonator!

Greg

Posted by: Moulton

Do they offer any forensic evidence and analytical reasoning to support their theory?

Posted by: thekohser

That's rather beside the point, is it not?

Anyway, the evidence is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=218647857.


I don't know enough about our Internet nodes to comment intelligently. However, I do know that I have used a Comcast router using a computer in Pennsylvania that a Wikipediot admin insisted was in a county in Florida, about 1,100 miles away.

Posted by: LaraLove

I boldly added some emphasis.
That's precisely what I was thinking. You were handled for "outing" the already "outed" Filll and all the while FM has this subpage where he's not only outed you, but he's put your name in one paragraph so many times that no one could possibly read it and then forget your name. The hypocrisy and double standards are THICK on Wikipedia lately.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Isn't the proof right here? Or is there some other way you found out about this block?


In my experience, Comcast IPs show the location of their routing station (or whatever you'd call it) in that metro area, broadly defined.



I can't believe I just read that!

Posted by: Giggy

I would agree except you used the word "lately".

Posted by: Moulton

Much Ado About Who???

That's also the paragraph that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Questions a few days ago in the RfC/ID talk pages in his colloquies there with Dan Tobias, Giggy, and Gnixon...


Filll's reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Responses_of_other_online_communities_to_Moulton is that very section of FM's now-deleted evidence page.

I've lost track of how many times I've proposed that someone independently investigate http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eZjaHq0EQMAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence+site:wikipedia.org+%22Barry+Kort%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us#Responses_of_other_online_communities_to_Moulton.

The reason I've begged people to independently investigate it is because I can't begin to list the number of things that are hilariously wrong with it.

LaraLove identified something wrong with it that hadn't even occurred to me — namely that it apparently violates the very WMF Privacy Policy that Filll, FeloniousMonk, Blueboy96, Toddst1, and Durova raced to enforce just three short days ago with maximum available sanction (deletion, oversighting, permabanning, page-protection, and double-barreled scarlet lettering) and scathing condemnation.

But I saw something entirely different wrong with it. FM is relying on evidence and testimony from otherwise unidentified sources on other Internet forums. It would be enlightening to identify the sources upon whom FM is relying, establish their credentials, examine the context of their condemnatory remarks, and examine the evidence and reasoning of those handful of harsh critics from World Crossing, Slashdot, and The WELL.

Let's start with FM's paragraph from The WELL...


Now that paragraph has but one reference. Did anybody examine that reference to see what's in it? Where, pray tell, have you http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/WikiDrama.Editorial.html? [Plaintive note to Somey: It's really a bloody pain for me to reconstruct those WR editorials from old search engine caches. Please fix the real thing, eh?]

Now let's take just the first reference in FM's first paragraph referring to the International Digest Forum at World Crossing. FM is quoting a forum participant who uses the avatar name 'http://wc5.worldcrossing.com/webx?224@@11f27a39@.1de0ae2a/1639' who is responding to a "http://wc5.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de0ae2a/1639" nomination from 'http://wc5.worldcrossing.com/webx?224@@11f3472e@.1de0ae2a/1639'. You can click on the two avatar names to read the biography page of both 'http://wc5.worldcrossing.com/webx?224@@11f27a39@.1de0ae2a/1639' and 'http://wc5.worldcrossing.com/webx?224@@11f3472e@.1de0ae2a/1639'. Go ahead.

Now read the http://wc5.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de0ae2a/1639 that gotham is dissing and compare it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Moulton#Comment in Giggy's AN/Moulton disscussion:


And note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Moulton.27s_understanding_of_Filll, back on my own talk page (affectionately known as Moulton's Shtetl)...


Note that my reference to a year-old parody of the Rashomon effect goes to the same URL on World Crossing that FM is citing in terms of gotham's disdainful dismissal of it. But don't lose the deliciousness of the irony there. Be sure to read what the Rashomon effect is really about!

All that's missing from this comic opera is a coupla rim shots, Maestro.

And speaking of musical interludes, let's take another melodic break with one of our all-time favorite Forum Anthems...

Posted by: thekohser

While it's somewhat beside the point whether the account is my handiwork or not (of course it is)... the experiment enlightened us again on a few items:

(1) That the Wikipedia community is quite uncertain about when and how an "outing" of a real name not revealed "on wiki" is acceptable, if at all. It would seem that "trollish sockpuppeteers" are not included under the protective umbrella of privacy.

(2) That edits alone are sufficient cause to identify and name publicly a user, rather than supported by privately-disclosed CheckUser evidence. No CheckUser was run, AFAIK.

(3) That there are still editors who will blindly revert knowledgeable content, just because they don't approve of the supposed person (or impersonator) who has added the content. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uhligia&diff=next&oldid=216330504
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comcast_Center_%28office_building%29&diff=prev&oldid=218573839
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dictionary_of_National_Biography&diff=next&oldid=216304082

Really, the account didn't cause much damage, if you ask me. Yet, it explored various questions about privacy, content, and retribution. Wouldn't you say this is worthwhile exploration and learning?

I have another account on Wikipedia, active for over a week, and even contributing to some highly contentious articles. But, because I haven't "clued in" the admin police on who I am, the account is completely undisturbed. It truly underscores that on Wikipedia, the value of your edits is far more determined by who you are than by what you add.

Greg

Posted by: Moulton

And this gets down to the hair-splitting issue of on-wiki vs off-wiki.

I have never disclosed my surname on-wiki. Sure it's easy enough to follow off-wiki links to discover it. The same is true for many Wikipedians, including Durova and Filll. Durova has had to wrestle with the issue of her identity being revealed off-wiki and then having that now-public information find its way back to The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. As much as I abhor his tactics, Daniel Brandt has been instrumental in amplifying that dreadful feedback loop, much to the horror of many Wikipedians.

In my case, FeloniousMonk relied on an off-wiki chat forum that is hardly a WP:RS for much of anything encyclopedic, with the possible exception of an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Biographical_Information about the Internet-driven phenomenon of online virtual communities.

But let's skip past that technical rule violation for a minute and suppose that the policies did allow FM to draw in that material for the purposes of synthesizing some original research about a notorious Internet character named http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/MontanaMouse.html. Then what? How does Wikipedia assess its meaning and veracity? Or more to the point, how do Filll and FeloniousMonk make that assessment, since they are the only two Wikipedians who (as far as I know) are relying on that fascinating raw material from World Crossing (and Slashdot, among other such GOODSITES) to prove that I am a worthless vile miscreant, deserving of the harshest treatment that the consensus-building Admins of the English Wikipedia are empowered to summarily dish out, in accordance with the way they do things there.

Posted by: Sceptre

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=220354226&oldid=220333146

Posted by: Proabivouac

It seems obvious that nobody gives a fig about what happened at Slashdot or anywhere else. In order to prevail in the content dispute, they had to ban you. In order to justify that ban, they are obliged to argue that you're a bad person using whatever opportunities present themselves. Whether or not they believe what they're saying is immaterial. This is illustrated most elegantly by asking if FM sincerely and strongly believed that you'd posted
44,252 times on Slashdot, instead of only 31:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18432&view=findpost&p=104712
I wonder by this time if it makes any sense to blame these hamsters for for the Habitrail paths they choose.

Posted by: Moulton

Actually, what happened at Slashdot is very important. And Filll knows about that, since that's why I was so anxious to talk to him on the phone last August. And it's also in our E-Mails. I've only published the first two days worth of our E-Mails so far. During that first week, I went further into the story about the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18432&view=findpost&p=104726.

There is more to reveal here, including some E-Mail from that notorious Slashdotter that still sits, unopened, in my mailbox.

I propose to open it with others looking on, if I can figure out a way to do that so that remote viewers will understand that I will be seeing that E-mail for the first time, too.

Posted by: prospero

Check out the RFC talk to see Odd casting aspersions on Giggy for having the temerity to tell the truth. He's now demanding Giggy modify his blog or else...

Posted by: dogbiscuit

There is a little gem here where Odd Nature makes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=220247349&oldid=220246434.

Posted by: Moulton

I suppose it depends on what the word 'word' means.

Posted by: Bob Boy

Quoting Guettarda from the Felonious Monk Arb case:

I found this particular amusing in light of Guettarda's buddy Jim62sch and Jim's arbitration case, where Jim was not banned for making shockingly more serious threats than vague comments about journalists.

Posted by: Moulton

I was just reporting, as accurately as I could, the sentiments that Brian Bergstein conveyed to me on that occasion. I didn't contact him to talk about that, but he asked me about it, after we finished talking about whether he was willing to put into writing his NTWW answers to my questions that didn't get recorded in the Skypecast.

So I told him my story, along with my impression that it would not be a suitable for story in the mainstream press (because it was all way too complicated and convoluted). And Brian more or less agreed with that view, indicating that if anyone at all could tackle such a story, it would have to be someone like Cade Metz or Seth Finkelstein. But I never contacted either of them. I suppose if anyone ever decides to write a story, they will know how to find me. My identity isn't exactly a state secret.

Posted by: Moulton

Here is some amusing http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RoyBoy on the WikiClique on ID.