Attention ID editors, a Category 3 shitstorm is approaching, All editors are reminded to secure their belongings and seek refuge in Options

[Sceptre]

I'm like a headtrip to listen to...

Complete the Real Slim Shady lyrics to your likening (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Sceptre:

[Derktar]

I'm like a headtrip to listen to...

Complete the Real Slim Shady lyrics to your likening (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif)

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.

[Sceptre]

I'm like a headtrip to listen to...

Complete the Real Slim Shady lyrics to your likening (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

You have guts bringing it up here Sceptre.

Poor ID cabal, under siege these days.

Oh and the canvassing was so blatantly obvious, they didn't try hard to cover it up.

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

[Derktar]

I'm like a headtrip to listen to...

Complete the Real Slim Shady lyrics to your likening (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif)

You have guts bringing it up here Sceptre.

Poor ID cabal, under siege these days.

Oh and the canvassing was so blatantly obvious, they didn't try hard to cover it up.

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

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

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

This post has been edited by CrazyGameOfPoker:

[Sceptre]

I'm like a headtrip to listen to...

Complete the Real Slim Shady lyrics to your likening (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

You have guts bringing it up here Sceptre.

Poor ID cabal, under siege these days.

Oh and the canvassing was so blatantly obvious, they didn't try hard to cover it up.

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

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. :happy:

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.

This post has been edited by Sceptre:

[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."

[Sceptre]

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."

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

So are you SirSidaway now, Fozzie?

[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.

[Cla68]

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."

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Sceptre]

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."

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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.

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

[everyking]

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Extremely Dense Objects.


or EDOs for short.

[Moulton]

The section of the RfAr/ID-Eds 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: Previous Attempts at Dispute Resolution on my English Wikipedia talk page for some examples of fruitless previous attempts at Dispute Resolution with that group of allied editors.

[Moulton]

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.

My concern with the RfC Process is that I have found it to be indistinguishable from the Spammish Inquisition. See for example, this exemplary model of the collegial discussion excerpted verbatim from an RfC of some interest to me.

[Cla68]

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

That breeze may be picking up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ement_by_Daniel

[Alison]

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

That breeze may be picking up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ement_by_Daniel

Owch!! I'm curious as to what Daniel has stashed up his sleeve ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[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.

[Moulton]

From the R&D Department...

"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.

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

Thank you, R&D! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Giggy]

+1 zing to Rocksanddirt (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[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.)

[Bob Boy]

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

[Random832]

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

nothing good has come of that combination that I can see (unless you define "confusing the issue and making the case harder to follow" as good).

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

This post has been edited by Random832:

[dogbiscuit]

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

nothing good has come of that combination that I can see (unless you define "confusing the issue and making the case harder to follow" as good).

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

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

Being a long serving member of the community, or doing good for the project, is not an excuse for abusive behaviour or ignoring policy.

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.

[Giggy]

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

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

[prospero]

From the R&D Department...

"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.

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

Thank you, R&D! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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.

[Random832]

That breeze may be picking up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ement_by_Daniel

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]

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Sxeptomaniac]

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.

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.

[Random832]

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.

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

[Moulton]

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.

If you are aware of previous attempts to rein in these same editors, please take note that User:AGK (Anthony) has requested pointers to any such prior cases:

Comments from AGK

Query: how and where has the Community attempted to resolve the conduct issues with Intelligent Design editors? Has there been any attempts to actually bring in measures to keep conduct in check from the Community? Or are we just going to pass this straight onto the Committee, without trying to solve it ourselves? Anthøny 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[Giggy]

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.

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

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.

[Derktar]

Yes it appears Filll is no longer a part of the Wikiproject on Intelligent Design.

[Giggy]

The page history makes for some interesting reading. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[that one guy]

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

[tarantino]

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.

The good Dr. Filll has wiped his talk page, then pasted something he's been working on in his user space for the last three weeks.

The H20 part of his missive

I’ve been accused of canvassing the Dihydrogen Monoxide RFA. Canvassing is a serious matter and this deserves a response. I did not intentionally canvass. What I did do was e-mail three people and inform them that the RfA was happening. Mentioning the existence of an RfA to a small number of people, without suggesting how to vote, is normal communication among Wikipedians.

One thing I did that might not appear normal: instead of linking to the entire thread—which was what I intended to do, I just cut and pasted from the address bar on my browser window, thereby linking to the “oppose” subsection which I had recently visited. That was a careless mistake.

Pretty much all of us have posted the wrong link by accident some time or other, and that was exactly what I did. This mistake was so close to the link I actually intended to send that I didn’t even realize I’d made the error until comments about it came back to me.

I apologize for the mistake and I apologize for the confusion and distress it caused. I know the circumstances look dubious. I ask everyone who sees this statement to assume good faith and bear the following in mind:

* I contacted only three people.
* Nothing else in the short messages had any suggestion about how to vote.
* In over 30,000 edits and 3 featured articles, I’ve never made an error remotely like this one before.
* I promise it will never happen again.

[thekohser]

* I promise it will never happen again.

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

[Giggy]

I accept his apology.

[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...

Even statements as seemingly uncontroversial and innocuous as "The New York Times reported X on date Y" are seized on as evidence of some evil cabal perpetuating some nefarious agenda. And vendettas for daring to include such a statement in Wikipedia are mounted over and over and over, in support of an editor with a long history of disruption in other online communities.

What is incredible is that those who deign to attack their fellow editors feel completely at liberty to do so. They are allowed to continue and even encouraged by their fellow Wikipedians. And even more amazing is that there are not just one or two of these editors, but literally dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedians who hold this position. Not one Wikipedian in authority has given the slightest hint of questioning the reasonableness or prudence of allowing these kind of rampant attacks. The carnage of good faith editors is palpable, and the unquestioning acceptance of such vacuous arguments is staggering. The blatant and even gleeful vilifaction of editors who have dared to stand up to pseudoscience and mob rule by suggesting that it is permissable to include a statement in Wikipedia about a New York Times article is stunning. Those involved should be ashamed.

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.