The Review hits the airwaves....., thanks for coming chaps..... Options Rating

[privatemusings]

well as many good folk around here will know, I've recently posted a new conversation over at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' featuring Somey (and who knew that it's pronounced summy?), Wordbomb, Wikipedia Review and Moulton...

thanks heaps for coming by guys - I hope the people who give it a listen find it interesting, and it helps promotes useful discussion etc....

it mightn't be the last of course...

cheers,

PM.

[Derktar]

5/5 Stars, will listen again.

Good job gents.

[Somey]

I wonder if there's a way to get a big, booming reverb effect on the microphone input in this computer? That, or maybe a full-blown echo/delay, plus some bass roll-off.

Also, it would be really cool to have Prokoviev's The Montagues and Capulets playing in the background whenever I say anything longer than, say, 20 seconds or so...

Anyway, I thought it went OK, though I didn't get a chance to put in a plug for the OO/NOB proposal. I've been trying to tell myself that's not necessarily bad, since it's always better for them to think it was their idea (and after all, technically it was). Oh well, maybe next time.

[Castle Rock]

Thanks for putting this together Privatemusings. Very interesting. I saw this gem on one of the Noticeboards.

hopefully the page is fairly self-explanatory, but I thought I'd just make a note here if there are administrators interested in having a listen to some points and perspectives from editors who have been shown the door for various reasons from this project - then they can so at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' - thoughts and feedback most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be kindof like... allowing banned users to post, via ogg, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...And the powers that be respond as well on Privatemusing's talk page as well.

In one case, a member there (almost certainly Lir) reported user:Snowspinner (an admin and english major in Florida) to police because of fictional stories (admittedly violent ones) he had put on his personal website. The police harassed Snowspinner, demanded he voluntarily be fingerprinted, threatened to search his garbage...

Was there ever a shred of evidence outside of IRC-based paranoia that it was in fact Lir?

This post has been edited by Castle Rock:

[Derktar]

Thanks for putting this together Privatemusings. Very interesting. I saw this gem on one of the Noticeboards.

hopefully the page is fairly self-explanatory, but I thought I'd just make a note here if there are administrators interested in having a listen to some points and perspectives from editors who have been shown the door for various reasons from this project - then they can so at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' - thoughts and feedback most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be kindof like... allowing banned users to post, via ogg, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...

Bwahaha, Didn't Kohs bring this up?

The irony detector has overloaded and blown up by this point.

Oh and I see Raul the pathological liar has shown up has he? Probably just trying to harass and intimidate Privatemusings off the site.

[Amarkov]

Thanks for putting this together Privatemusings. Very interesting. I saw this gem on one of the Noticeboards.

hopefully the page is fairly self-explanatory, but I thought I'd just make a note here if there are administrators interested in having a listen to some points and perspectives from editors who have been shown the door for various reasons from this project - then they can so at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' - thoughts and feedback most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be kindof like... allowing banned users to post, via ogg, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...And the powers that be respond as well on Privatemusing's talk page as well.

I thought everyone had finally realized that it's idiotic to say "LOOK LOOK TEH FOUNDER IS A NAZI THEREFORE WR IS EVIL!" I guess I overestimated Wikipedian common sense, though...

[Derktar]

Well the fact that the WR that exists now is NOT the proboards WR and that Igor had NOTHING to do with the WR that exists now is a fact that extends beyond the realm of Raul's fantasy world.

Personally I think Raul just wants some more attention from us.

[Somey]

In one case, a member there (almost certainly Lir) reported user:Snowspinner (an admin and english major in Florida) to police because of fictional stories (admittedly violent ones) he had put on his personal website. The police harassed Snowspinner, demanded he voluntarily be fingerprinted, threatened to search his garbage...

Was there ever a shred of evidence outside of IRC-based paranoia that it was in fact Lir?

No, but I for one would still like to know what was in that garbage.

"Admittedly violent ones" indeed... we'll just glom over that whole psychopathic-murderer angle as told from a first-person perspective part, shall we? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laughing.gif)

[Kato]

You guys sounded so good with those accents. Like Jim Henson creations!

PM asked me if I wanted to go on and talk about my forthright policy ideas for BLPs, but there wasn't a hope I'd figure out the Skype business in time. I would have just blown bum notes over your melodious chimes with my cigar stained Ozzy Osborne brogue anyway, so just as well. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well done.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Oh and I see Raul the pathological liar has shown up has he? Probably just trying to harass and intimidate Privatemusings off the site.

Liar, for sure. "Raul":

Wikipedia Review noted that he drew inspiration for his pay-me-to-edit-your-article buisness from Wikipedia:Bounty board and Wikipedia:Reward board. I'd like to point out that both of these articles state, very explicitly, that all donations are made to the Wikipedia Foundation

"Explicitly"?

Reward board:

The reward board is an informal page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the promotion of an article to featured article status) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on the task, similar to the German edition's de:Wikipedia:Auftragsarbeiten. The execution and details of the transaction are the responsibility of the participating parties, and the reward can be monetary, goods (books, cookies, etc.) or tit-for-tat editing (like improving another article). Please do not post offers of barnstars or other trivial rewards. (Use the Award Center for barnstar offers.)

Why does wikia/wikipedia generate liars?

[dogbiscuit]

The Rosalind Picard article is worth observing for its evolution. From a position of no knowledge of her, it first arrives with what looks like a typical CV style write up. Not sure who or why it puts up. It in passing mentions the petition. ID people then have a debate about the petition and the section wobbles around. Then, the main section which describes her career in neutral tones is simply chopped out as unsourced, leaving the hacked around, but sort of sourced, section on controversy.

I think this is such a telling interchange:

Rosalind Picard & A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism‎

Could people please stop removing Picard from Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" and removing the brief mention of the fact (and the fact that her 'dissent' is an opinion volunteered well outside her field of expertise). The first is a matter of unambiguous fact. The second is clearly notable, given its mention in the NY Times. Hrafn42 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42: Please arrange to talk to me by telephone. Your edits are a gross and egregious violation of WP:BLP:DNH policy. You are not a subject-matter expert on the subject of this article, and your edits are doing harm. Please cease and desist. Moulton 03:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: I am under no obligation to "talk to [you] by telephone." If you have something to say, say it here. As I presume you are not a professional biographer of scientists, you are not a "subject-matter expert on the subject of this article" either. Far more likely you are an associate of Picard's and thus subject to WP:COI (as well as WP:NOR). Hrafn42 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant clause of the WP:BLP:DNH...

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Moulton: The New York Times is not a tabloid! Picard's signing of this misleading, anti-scientific, creationist-inspired 'dissent' is a matter of public record within the mainstream media. It is neither "tabloid" nor "titillating". DNH is therefore completely irrelevant to these edits. Hrafn42 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[Moulton]

The nearly parallel BLP of James Tour was even more egregious, since Tour was already on record in that very NY Times article dismissing the slanted view that Hrafn was pushing into those biographies and related articles. Eventually James Tour was obliged to craft a lengthy piece on his personal web page to refute the false claims attributed to him and ballyhooed on Wikipedia.

[thekohser]

Why does wikia/wikipedia generate liars?

I think it's because they've taken their example from the Sole Flounder.

Mr. Pellegrini (Raul654) looks like a complete buffoon... He stated:

"Wikipedia Review noted that he drew inspiration for his pay-me-to-edit-your-article buisness from Wikipedia:Bounty board and Wikipedia:Reward board. I'd like to point out that both of these articles state, very explicitly, that all donations are made to the Wikipedia Foundation, not the person doing the editing. Being paid to edit an article absolutely clear-cut conflict of interest, and if he says he didn't think it was, he's a fool or he's lying."

The Wikipedia Reward Board states in several places:

"The reward board is an informal page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the promotion of an article to featured article status) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on the task..."

"This is purely a page for editors to offer rewards to other editors."

The Reward Board had essentially the same provisions of cash directly to editors in the Summer of 2006 when I started Wikipedia Review, as well. So, we can obviously see that Mark Pellegrini is a loose cannon. He's decided that I am either a "fool" or a "liar" -- about something which he has completely botched in public. Indeed, he is himself being a fool or a liar, so there's quite some irony there.

I don't want to have to contact my attorney friends in Delaware (where Pellegrini is in school, and where I lived for over 8 years).

If the Wikipedia administrator community hasn't learned by now -- it's neither polite nor wise to call me a liar. User:Durova did it in the Spring of 2007, after Jimmy Wales unblocked my account, and the pressure I and others applied escalated into her eventual abandonment of the admin bit.

I'd like to discuss this amicably in the medium where the damage was sown, but seeing as I am blocked from rebutting Raul654's aspersions where they have been cast, I hope someone will please reply publicly to him that he would be advised to redact or modify his statements, so that they are not defamatory claims backed up with utterly nothing but conjecture!

(And if someone could again replace the "buttocks" picture with Mark's headshot, that would be quite satisfying, too.)

Greg

[Aloft]

I liked this episode. Good choice of guests, and privatemusings is settling into his role well, I think. Good work.

[Moulton]

Raul654 is emblematic of the appalling lack of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online journalism. On the one hand he admits that he doesn't know the circumstances of the situation, but that doesn't stop him from fronting a haphazard (and demonstrably erroneous) theory of mind regarding what the subject of the BLP does or doesn't want known. Haphazard and unverified theories of mind about what someone believes or wants have no place in encyclopedic articles. Had Raul654 bothered to look into it, he would have found that Picard herself made a pair of edits to forthrightly disclose the fact that she signed the petition in question. What she took exception to (as did James Tour and several other co-signers of the original 2001 version) was the suggestion that the statement they signed was either anti-evolution (as suggested by the headline in the NY Times) or a 'dissent from Darwin' as later spun out by the Discovery Institute.

The unpopular point of view that I proposed is the one favored by rigorous scientists everywhere, namely that when examining any scientific theory, it is essential to adhere to the protocols of the Scientific Method.

Controversial Petition

In February 2006, the New York Times reported[1] that Dr. Tour was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers out of several hundred scientists and engineers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's newly launched website promoting a controversial petition characterized as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which states "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."[2] Tour's field of organic chemistry is a branch of scientific research which establishes his credentials as a practitioner and advocate of the protocols of the scientific method as they apply to all branches of science. The controversy arises from confusion over whether the statement is an expression of the technical protocols of the scientific method or an expression favoring a political agenda regarding the teaching of scientific subjects related to evolution.

Clearly the adversarial editors preferred the Discovery Institute's political point of view rather than the scientific point of view offered by the scientists themselves.

[dogbiscuit]

I'd like to discuss this amicably in the medium where the damage was sown, but seeing as I am blocked from rebutting Raul654's aspersions where they have been cast, I hope someone will please reply publicly to him that he would be advised to redact or modify his statements, so that they are not defamatory claims backed up with utterly nothing but conjecture!

Ah, but anything we communicate would be acting for a banned user and would have to be deleted, and suggesting that he redact to avoid legal action would clearly be a legal threat, so it will take a Respected User (i.e. nobody who admits to being here) to get away without a ban. So, Wikipedia policy means he's screwed, then?

[Alex]

The episode page has been nominated for deletion by NonvocalScream, a rather obvious sockpuppet.

[Jonny Cache]

The episode page has been nominated for deletion by NonvocalScream, a rather obvious sockpuppet.

Sorry, I haven't been following this.

NVS used to be WordMachine? But WordMachine also looks sockish?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[thekohser]

The episode page has been nominated for deletion by NonvocalScream, a rather obvious sockpuppet.

How DennyColt-esque. It's actually very funny. I hope that NonvocalScream gets some supports in the AfD, just to make it more interesting.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure if Mark Pellegrini refused to recant his errors about the Reward Board, it just serves our purposes all the better in mainstream media and in discussions with First State attorneys. (Note: the preparer of my last will and testament has his law office about 1000 yards from the University of Delaware campus. Raul654 better hope he finishes that PhD he's been birthing the past few years, so he can get out of Dodge before my vulture clasps onto him.)

Greg

[jorge]

The episode page has been nominated for deletion by NonvocalScream, a rather obvious sockpuppet.

Sorry, I haven't been following this.

NVS used to be WordMachine? But WordMachine also looks sockish?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Secretlondon ??

[Peter Damian]

A delete from Calton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calton

who doesn't seem to be a fan of this site 9('banned means, wait for it, banned'). Also now JzG and Phil Sandifer.

[edit] Some of what's going on in the page right now is jaw dropping. Accusations of sockpuppetry, checkuser requests &c. Can someone illuminate me, why is it an obvious sockpuppet a/c?


[edit]

Snippets:

Lawrence, I happen to know that NonvocalScream is an OTRS volunteer and has provided the necessary identifying information to the Foundation. Your attack on Scream is egregious and completely unworthy. I suggest you apologise or redact that statement. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I do believe this nomination is disruptive, since it's just going to generate absurd conflict over something no-one would have given a shit about otherwise, two days from now. Scream's editing history and OTRS status, and alleged Foundation connection also indicates he's a sock of someone established, given the newness of the account, so my calling him a sock is spot-on. My point is that we can't gauge who it is, for histories of sanction, biases, or problems, and thus something this inflammatory is suspect to many. Lawrence § t/e 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are being a disruptive twit. Please stop or accept our 24 hour all expenses paid vacation to somewhere other than Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Twit comment on me at MFD
Is a direct personal attack. Continuing personal attacks could lead to your being blocked. Please stop. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phil_Sandifer"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Random832]

Personally, I doubt NonvocalScream is a sock. Archfailure, on the other hand...

[BobbyBombastic]

I wonder if there's a way to get a big, booming reverb effect on the microphone input in this computer? That, or maybe a full-blown echo/delay, plus some bass roll-off.

I was sort of hoping that you would have wacky soundbytes to play, like a toilet flushing and a zany "wah, wah, waaaaah" or something.

Which reminds me...there used to be a guy that ran a website that would get on teamspeak and disguise his voice so no one would know who he was. I wonder how long it will take for a person to do that on PM's show?

I thought that this interview would have a good effect. It's easy to miss things like emotion and that sort of thing when communicating in text only and of course you have to trust that the other person is actually reading your words. It appears that some not only do not pay attention to what people type, but they don't listen to what they say either! As evidenced by Raul's refusing to listen to Wordbomb's explanation of the "spyware" (more like a web bug) that he sent slimvirgin.

You said in the podcast that you are a "technical ignoramus". I am not - I'm rather knowledgabout about computers and how they work. Wordbomb claimed in the podcast that the spyware he sent Slimvirgin was no different than any commercially available cookie. This is a complete untruth. If he was sending someone a link to a file on a server on which he had access to webserver logs (the http access log at /var/log/httpd) there would be no need for any client-side script -- he could simply check the log. Now, let's say he attached it the files to the email instead (so that he was sending the files themselves instead of a link to them) -- most (all?) email clients provide a utility for the sender of an email to request a return reciept (see [http://www.mozilla.org/quality/mailnews/tests/sea-mn-basfunc-return-receipt.html this] for example). It's equivalent to sending certified mail. What he sent - a surreptitious program that dials home to a mother server when the email it is attached to is accessed - is spyware by any definition.

I do not think Raul reads here, but someone please tell him to go back and listen to that again. He seems to have whipped himself into a frenzy and did not pay any attention to the explanation. If he chooses to disbelieve the explanation, that is one thing, but he out and out misrepresented it or misunderstood it.

Raul made several very ignorant remarks on PM's talk page, including stating that:

WR encouragese these acts and I consider all participants there to be either actively or tacitly guilty of fostering harrassment.

I considered rebutting him on wiki, then I thought that it is so ridiculous that it is better for people to see how stupid he is for themselves and I shouldn't do him the favoring of convincing him not to be so stupid.

[Random832]

Mr. Pellegrini (Raul654) looks like a complete buffoon... He stated:

[snip/]

The Wikipedia Reward Board states in several places:
[snip/]

Actually, I don't think Raul is lying, exactly...

Wikipedia:Bounty board was and is precisely as he describes, and he may have mixed the two up (and since he for whatever reason doesn't trust you, there's no reason for him to bother clicking to check his facts)

[thekohser]

I hope that NonvocalScream gets some supports in the AfD, just to make it more interesting.

Now we're f'in' TALKIN', guys! Now THIS is an Article for Deletion debate!

I can't wait to see the Henrik-o-meter in a few days for these pages:

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Check these links again on April 7th or so!

Greg

[jorge]

Personally, I doubt NonvocalScream is a sock. Archfailure, on the other hand...

Why? It seems pretty obvious to me that they are. They know way too much about WP for someone who's just been there 3 months

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=200964021

"== Characterizing others work ==
Characterizing the book as critical would be ok, as long as we are restating the books judgment and not our own. I just want to be sure that we do not reinsert this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Murphy&diff=200760136&oldid=200692714 this edit] regardless of the sourcing. This is not aimed at any one editor, however, it is a general statement about the edit. The edit did not appear to adhere to [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone|Fainess of Tone]] or [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Characterizing_opinions_of_people.27s_work|Characterizing opinions]]. We should be careful here and go slow. Regards, [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC) "

Anyone recognise the tone/mannerisms?

[thekohser]

Actually, I don't think Raul is lying, exactly...

Wikipedia:Bounty board was and is precisely as he describes, and he may have mixed the two up (and since he for whatever reason doesn't trust you, there's no reason for him to bother clicking to check his facts)

Well, I never said he's exactly lying. He might just be exactly a buffoon. He said:

I'd like to point out that both of these articles state, very explicitly...

I don't see how that could be a "mix up" of the two policy pages. I do see how it evidences a buffoon.

+++++++++++ ============= +++++++++++++

Anyone recognise the tone/mannerisms?

I smell expensive wine, perfectly cooked filet mignon, and a hint of Russian massage parlor oil. Woah! What was that bright beam of high-intensity flashlight light that I just saw?

Could it be???

Greg

[jorge]

A slip? They don't know their grammar either.

[Somey]

I was sort of hoping that you would have wacky soundbytes to play, like a toilet flushing and a zany "wah, wah, waaaaah" or something.

I'll work on that... there has to be a way to do it...

As for the MfD, howzabout I throw out this hypothetical: What if it had been just me being interviewed, and Moulton, thekohser and Wordbomb hadn't been involved at all? Or maybe me and Kato, or The Joy, or Guy, or any one of the majority of WR members who aren't banned from WP? I don't even have an account, and given that the others wouldn't be "banned users" - does anyone here honestly think they wouldn't come up with some other bogus reason for deleting the episode page and the associated files?

For an even more interesting example, what about Poetlister? She's (currently) banned on en.wikipedia, but an administrator on en.wikiquote - and like the people are saying, the audio files are hosted on Commons.

Also, this is perilously close to the kind of logic that would force them to delete the article on the movie Shoot 'Em Up, because "banned user" ColScott makes an appearance on the DVD "making of" bonus featurette.

[thekohser]

I find this funny, from Filll:

Let's consider a real example (that recently came up). Suppose someone has coauthored 10 books with their wife. And suppose that they also wrote 10 books on their own, and on this second group of 10 books, their wife is not listed as a coauthor. All 20 of these books are listed on their own website, for sale, and on various other websites, with the authorship list for each book listing either the person, or the person and his wife. All of these websites and descriptions of these 20 books agree with each other. Suppose that in interviews, this person mentioned that his wife had coauthored some of his books, and that this person listed this coauthorship in his autobiography.

So in their biography on Wikipedia, we state that this person has coauthored some of his books with his wife. And then this person contacts WP, using the OTRS system, and threatens to sue Wikipedia for mentioning his wife was a coauthor of some of his books. He wants us to mention that he wrote all the books himself and his wife was not involved.

What do we do?

Oh, you mean sort of like the co-founder of a huge web encyclopedia project contacts WP and threatens to go bat-feet insane if Wikipedia mentions the other co-founder as a co-founder?

I dunno.

What do we do, Filll?

[dtobias]

The deletion debate is going so heavily in the direction of keeping that it must be pretty embarrassing to Guy and company to find themselves so clearly on the opposite side of an issue from the community consensus, and no longer even able to rally a sizeable clique to gang up on their side.

Isn't it about time for the Wiki Defender to write another blog posting about how the trolls are winning again?

This post has been edited by dtobias:

[EricBarbour]

Also, this is perilously close to the kind of logic that would force them to delete the article on the movie Shoot 'Em Up, because "banned user" ColScott makes an appearance on the DVD "making of" bonus featurette.

My perverse nature indicates that perhaps they should do precisely that. Go all the way into Stalinist airbrushing, and start erasing the existence of everything that in any way relates to people they don't like.

Thereupon, WP will finally become what Messrs. Sandifer and Pellegrini obviously want it to be;
the North Korea of the internet. With themselves as top-ranked toadies to Dear Leader.

Wish I had a few of "Raul's common sense bricks", for throwing at certain pointy heads. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Oh, you mean sort of like the co-founder of a huge web encyclopedia project contacts WP and threatens to go bat-feet insane if Wikipedia mentions the other co-founder as a co-founder?

Heh heh heh.

[Moulton]

It's interesting how some of those commenting adopted the notion that all of us were "banned for good reasons" even though Somey has never even registered or edited on Wikipedia.

And I am not technically banned, but indefinitely blocked, for a remarkable reason that I wonder how many people there (or here) know or remember (let alone examined for validity).

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Somey]

More-o da Same-o:

The discussion with all of these people tended to focus heavily on the reasons surrounding their initial bans (and highly biased descriptions thereof) while glancing over their numerous misdeeds since. Also (and these would have been good points to put towards Somey) [1] there was one cases on WR where Wikipedia Review ranted at length about one or two socks that were absolutely not his, and that these were clearly good users who had been swept up by overzealous admins. When I checkusered them later, it turned out they were sockpuppets belonging to Jon Awbrey (another banned user/wikipedia review participant) impersonating Wikipedia Review. And while it's conceivable he didn't know and thus wasn't lying, I thikn he was lying and I take anything they say with with a large grain of salt.

Why would that be a good point to "put towards" me? I had nothing to do with that, and I didn't know it was going on. (Not that I would have cared!)

[2] It would have been nice of you to ask Somey about the real-world harassment that Wikipedia Review has spawned.

Except that all the examples he cites happened before I even became a member...

in another case, user:Katefan0 (a very good editor and generally a very nice person) was outed as a worker for Congressional Quarterly, and had to quit because of possible bad-effects on her job.

Never mind the conflict of interest, of course. And she "had to quit" Wikipedia, not her job. Let's just make that clear.

Of course, I expect Somey would give some idiotic answer along the lines of 'these are the acts of individual Wikipedia review participants and can't be used to judge the whole site', but frankly, WR encourages these acts...

Aren't all my answers idiotic? I thought that was the whole point... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Anyway, I'd probably mention that ALL of those things happened two years ago before I mentioned the fact that they're the acts of individual Wikipedia review participants and can't be used to judge the whole site. "We" and/or "WR" don't encourage anything, except to the extent that any web forum encourages people to do whatever it is they do.

And this, from User:Filll:

It was interesting to hear how Moulton is now presenting his "case" to outsiders. Amazing how different it seems to be than the facts, and even statements he himself has made in writing, which can be discovered with a little bit of digging. Anyone interested can look at a little tiny bit of the problem by looking at his RfC, but this barely scratches the surface; I only put as much in his RfC as was necessary to deal with this problem, and did not put in everything I could have. Since others have no particular reason to doubt Moulton or investigate his situation, he can maintain this story to them and get some sort of hearing, but it does not square with reality. However, I would ask the rational person to listen carefully to even what Moulton claims in that interview; the evidence that something is wrong is presented right in the interview if you pay attention.

Classic WP double-talk! Claim your opponent is wrong and doesn't "square with reality" without actually explaining why! Darkly hint that you've got more and/or secret information that you hasn't revealed! Tell everyone that it's "really obvious if you pay attention"!

Yes or no, "Filll" - did you, or did you not, edit-war over articles on people who had signed the ID petition, in order to keep their BLP articles in a state in which the petition appeared to the reader to be the single most important event in their lives?

And as for Filll's little "hypothetical," it's completely diversionary and irrelevant. However, in that case you'd give the person the option of having the article deleted completely, or else work within WP's strict, rigid confines to help shape its content. I think WP'ers would find that the vast majority of article subjects would end up not really objecting to the strict, rigid confines all that much, given the choice - except for people who are being targeted by WP attack editors like User:Filll, of course! The opt-out policy proposal is designed specifically for them.

[jorge]

NonVocalScream responded to the sockpuppet claims here- to answer why they seemed so experienced in regards to wikipedia they claimed that they had experience on other projects (how that would make them seeingly completely au fait with every aspect of policy on en.wikipedia I don't know).

When Lawrence Cohen asked if they could point to accounts- NVS stated "Anywhere on any Wikimedia project you see contributions from NonvocalScream "- but Lawrence couldn't find any and neither can I.

[Moulton]

I rather doubt I was the first person to raise objections to BLPs on the grounds of accuracy or ethics.

But at least two highly respected Wikipedians (NewYorkBrad and Doc_Glasgow) have recently acknowledged that the BLP problem is one of the most serious ethical problems facing the site.

The two or three BLPs which I ventured to correct were among the very first that I dug into at Wikipedia. Eric Barbour commented just a few days ago that he thought those particular BLPs were among the most egregious examples of BLP abuse that he had ever seen on Wikipedia. Unlike Eric, I had no frame of reference to compare the biographies of Picard, Tour, etc, with any others to assess how bad they were compared to any other BLPs.

There is little doubt in my mind that there is a real problem with BLPs in general, and those two or three in particular. I cannot fathom what Filll had in mind when he launched that RfC to examine the problem, but it's amusing to note that KillerChihuahua was hard pressed to come up with a valid reason for executing an indefinite block, and so she ended up concocting a haphazard (and patently erroneous) theory of mind to the effect that I "had no interest in writing an encyclopedia."

My interest in writing encyclopedia articles in my areas of expertise dates back to 2004 when I co-authored an 8-page article entitled "Electronic (Virtual) Communities" in the Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications.

[Somey]

Here's another:

Where would it leave Wikipedia to be open to any edit by anyone who shows up and demands to write unsourced content with no references and no reliable sources, contrary to our existing sources? Where would that leave "ethics" and "standards for good journalism" and "encyclopedic content" ?

Uh, exactly where it is now...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Anyway, this rant of his about the guy with the co-author wife was a classic strawman argument, for which the "conclusions" were based on pure lies and gross distortions that didn't even have much to do with the example. It's one of the worst I've seen, in fact.

Nobody here is insisting that WP abandon its BLP strictures in favor of including things that are "contrary to reliable sources" - AFAIK that's the polar opposite of what people here are suggesting. And of course, he's conveniently ignoring the OO/NOB proposal completely, which sort of goes back to why I was unhappy about not getting a chance to explain it. Then again, just about everyone who listens to that thing should be familiar with it, I'd imagine.

[Moulton]

I presume PrivateMusings and the other moderate editors here are following this, and appreciate the opportunity and need for dialogue on the issues that divide us on the BLP problem (both in general and as revealed in the particular cases where I did battle with Filll and his allies on the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design).

I hope the moderate editors here, including Lar, Viridae, NewYorkBrad, Doc_Glasgow, SirFozzie, and Alison (who am I leaving out?), will lend their good offices to these questions, in search of a reasonable resolution of both the general problem and the kind of specific examples which I happened to stumble onto last Fall.

[dogbiscuit]

So much text, there for so little time.

block log

Note: block log will remain, but this AN/I comment will be lost.

I've removed the tag because it really is very unlikely that he's Awbrey, considering the massive difference in writing style and MO. "Wikipedia accuses me of being hate-filled," for example, not something Awbrey would say. I don't doubt that it's a sock of someone though. -- Naerii 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

[dogbiscuit]

Anyway, this rant of his about the guy with the co-author wife was a classic strawman argument, for which the "conclusions" were based on pure lies and gross distortions that didn't even have much to do with the example. It's one of the worst I've seen, in fact.

Nobody here is insisting that WP abandon its BLP strictures in favor of including things that are "contrary to reliable sources" - AFAIK that's the polar opposite of what people here are suggesting. And of course, he's conveniently ignoring the OO/NOB proposal completely, which sort of goes back to why I was unhappy about not getting a chance to explain it. Then again, just about everyone who listens to that thing should be familiar with it, I'd imagine.

The likes of Filll are so involved with their own distorted view that I am sure that they really believe they are right. I suspect they assume that they are up against a clever argument which they can't quite put their finger on the sleight of hand, but they know it is in there - hence the comments like: "You only have to listen to here it": THEY can hear it, but they can't articulate it. It is much like they cannot hear the arguments from Moulton et. al. that the petition is not as they have described, therefore their whole raison d'etre for the conflict is null and void.

Rather like a day or so ago, where the thread here on "outing" a Wikipedia user who already had publicly identified himself (I guess that is a bit like outing Tom Robinson for singing Glad to be Gay) is the worst ever attack in the world ever. Brains don't engage. Unfortunately, though we think that having these faux-pas lying around helps, most readers just seem to accept the BADSITEs theme.

[Lar]

So much text, there for so little time.

block log

My bad. I got about 3 sentences into that, nodding to myself that ya, that scans like a Jonny Cache screed might, full of dense alliterations, hidden meanings, etc, and do I have time to puzzle it out just for fun.... when...

...alarm bells went off and I recognised it for what it was... Scott Pakin's work. Jonny, I'm disappointed in you, you're slacking.

[Kato]

So much text, there for so little time.

block log

My bad. I got about 3 sentences into that, nodding to myself that ya, that scans like a Jonny Cache screed might, full of dense alliterations, hidden meanings, etc, and do I have time to puzzle it out just for fun.... when...

...alarm bells went off and I recognised it for what it was... Scott Pakin's work. Jonny, I'm disappointed in you, you're slacking.

That's no Cache. To be honest I didn't think much of the guys's arguments, nor the pretentious prose. Cache uses all manner of techniques but they are playful rather than pretentious -- and they're usually funny if nothing else.

Update: I get it now... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Somey]

Update: I get it now... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I totally have to get my hands on the source code for that thing...

[thekohser]

So much text, there for so little time.

block log

My bad. I got about 3 sentences into that, nodding to myself that ya, that scans like a Jonny Cache screed might, full of...

So, can we say we have another innocent user blocked as a sockpuppet? Because I know this HarryPotter editor wasn't me. And Jonny could confirm that it certainly wasn't him.

Greg

[thekohser]

NonvocalScream realized that he/she was a doofus, and thus closed his/her own AfD early, as a Keep.

Quick eyeball of the "Delete" votes shows our rogue's gallery of the most brain-deficient characters on Wikipedia:

Calton "Everything is spam" Bollick
Guy "Riding to restore havoc" Chapman
Phil "The Chill" Sandifer
Michael "Der President asks, 'Mommy, is my Swiss cocoa hot now?'" Bimmler

What a lonely patrol, out on point, completely fragged by not just the rest of their company, but the whole regiment.

Too funny. Congratulations, dipwads!

Greg

[Jonny Cache]

So much text, there for so little time.

block log

My bad. I got about 3 sentences into that, nodding to myself that ya, that scans like a Jonny Cache screed might, full of …

So, can we say we have another innocent user blocked as a sockpuppet? Because I know this HarryPotter editor wasn't me. And Jonny could confirm that it certainly wasn't him.

Greg

BTDT — I can't even get that poor AnonIP from Deutschland cleared!

Ygolohcysp Esrever being what it is in Wikiputia, our most earnest efforts to exonerate the Grim HPWD would only be taken as utterly j'accusatory condemnations.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Mr. Pellegrini (Raul654) looks like a complete buffoon... He stated:

[snip/]

The Wikipedia Reward Board states in several places:
[snip/]

Actually, I don't think Raul is lying, exactly...

Wikipedia:Bounty board was and is precisely as he describes, and he may have mixed the two up (and since he for whatever reason doesn't trust you, there's no reason for him to bother clicking to check his facts)

Is anyone aware of Raul attempting to correct the "mix up" yet?

[dogbiscuit]

Is anyone aware of Raul attempting to correct the "mix up" yet?

He did backtrack a little:

There are two errors in my above comments I'd like to clarify - Wordbomb contacted me to let me know that it was an <img src> tag, which (as Random832 says below) is equivalent to the first thing I described - a link to a file on a sever to which he has access to the logs. This is not how it was described to me originally, nor how it was described in the podcast, but regardless, it's a mistake on my part. It's not quite as bad a thing as I had heard, but it's still a dirty thing to do(1). Second, Wikipedia:Reward board does, in fact, allow monetary payments to an editor as a reward for editing an article. However, most people would agree that being paid by another editor to improve an article he/she likes is not a conflict of interest (or at worst a pretty small one), whereas being paid by the subject of the article to improve it clearly is a very big conflict of interest.(2) Raul654 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Not as dirty as passing on what I would expect to be a confidential conversation to the subject of the complaint. (And anyone with any sense ignores receipt requested prompts!)

2. Which if Raul listened, he would be aware that this issue was discussed at length and an agreed solution found.

[Moulton]

It's remarkably difficult to correct an error without offending the party whose error is being corrected.

[Lar]

NonvocalScream realized that he/she was a doofus, and thus closed his/her own AfD early, as a Keep.

Quick eyeball of the "Delete" votes shows our rogue's gallery of the most brain-deficient characters on Wikipedia:

Calton "Everything is spam" Bollick
Guy "Riding to restore havoc" Chapman
Phil "The Chill" Sandifer
Michael "Der President asks, 'Mommy, is my Swiss cocoa hot now?'" Bimmler

What a lonely patrol, out on point, completely fragged by not just the rest of their company, but the whole regiment.

Too funny. Congratulations, dipwads!

Greg

You sounded fairly reasonable in that podcast... (for the most part). However, comments like "Congratulations, dipwads!"give me pause ... I have to wonder how they help anything. Why give the detractors of your message ammo?

So, can we say we have another innocent user blocked as a sockpuppet? Because I know this HarryPotter editor wasn't me. And Jonny could confirm that it certainly wasn't him.

That struck me as a throwaway sock of someone or another, based on behaviour patterns, with contributions that were disruptive (if amusing), so I'm not seeing unblocking as a good use of anyone's time, really. You knew that already, you just wanted to see if I'd respond this way, right?

[Moulton]

Not to change the subject or anything, but I was hoping that Lar and the other more moderate WP admins here would weigh in on the prospect of future round-table discussions featuring otherwise adversarial individuals on opposite sides of the table.

Civil dialogue, while perhaps rare and lacking in dramaturgy, may be the saving grace that allows these banal and unbecoming sniping wars to morph into something more constructive and peaceable, such as a Truth and Reconciliation Process.

[dogbiscuit]

Not to change the subject or anything, but I was hoping that Lar and the other more moderate WP admins here would weigh in on the prospect of future round-table discussions featuring otherwise adversarial individuals on opposite sides of the table.

Civil dialogue, while perhaps rare and lacking in dramaturgy, may be the saving grace that allows these banal and unbecoming sniping wars to morph into something more constructive and peaceable, such as a Truth and Reconciliation Process.

I would suggest that the good thing about a podcast is that someone like PrivateMusings, who is a trustable sort of character, could call a halt if things got heated, edit out the crap and restart. It could be the rules of engagement. PM entrusted to ensure that nobody is entrapped into a foolish exchange. And if the conversation failed for some reason, PM would know not to publish.

[thekohser]

You sounded fairly reasonable in that podcast... (for the most part). However, comments like "Congratulations, dipwads!"give me pause ... I have to wonder how they help anything. Why give the detractors of your message ammo?

Are you kidding, Lar? They LOVE IT when I feed their Hate Quivers with more ammunition! Their sole purpose on Wikipedia is to generate internal and external drama and conflict. I'm just helping my boys out. (Don't worry -- I have a master plan, and they're all part of it. These little shots across the bow are just laying the groundwork.)

What bothers me more, actually, is that you thought my time on the Skypecast was fairly reasonable "for the most part". Which part of my appearance was less than fully reasonable?

So, can we say we have another innocent user blocked as a sockpuppet? Because I know this HarryPotter editor wasn't me. And Jonny could confirm that it certainly wasn't him.

That struck me as a throwaway sock of someone or another, based on behaviour patterns, with contributions that were disruptive (if amusing), so I'm not seeing unblocking as a good use of anyone's time, really. You knew that already, you just wanted to see if I'd respond this way, right?

"Behaviour"? You live in MICHIGAN, Lar -- what's with the Queen's English?

Anyway, I agree that the user blocked couldn't care less about being blocked -- but why the "sockpuppet" label, if it's more readily apparent that it's a meatpuppet? And, even more importantly -- why pin the "Awbrey" label on an account that isn't anywhere NEAR Jon Awbrey's IP geolocation, nor aligned with Awbrey's more characteristic text-technique modus operandi?

As always on Wikipedia, what we have here is a kid loitering in front of a store that has a "no loitering" sign. The manager calls the cops, and the cops come and haul the kid off to the county jail for a night in a cell, because the owner told the 911 operator that he'd been having some shoplifting problems recently, from kids of a similar age, and the dispatcher and the duty officer conveyed a miscommunication. The kid's parents might be enraged, but the cops will just say, "Look, Mr. and Mrs. Wilkins, we now realize that Martin wasn't accused, per se, of shoplifting, but doesn't he have something better to do after school than to hang out in front of the Quik Chek when there's clearly a 'No Loitering' sign in place? It's too much legal hassle to go back and change the duty officer's report, because Marty's just a minor, and none of this will go on his permanent record, anyway. Please, just go home, and do encourage him to find a different hang-out than Mr. Valakrishna's convenience store."

How do you think Martin will grow up feeling about police and about immigrant store owners? Hopefully, completely respectful of both. But, is there at least SOME chance that the store owner and the police would be partially responsible if Martin grows up to show disrespect to both?

In closing -- how would YOU describe four lonely "Delete" voices among twenty-nine "Keep" votes on an Article for Deletion calling for the removal of a thoughtfully-organized, rational, calm roundtable discussion between banned editors and persons in good standing on Wikipedia? If you can think of a better word than "dipwads", I'll consider it for future discussions! Maybe I should try one of Guy Chapman's or David Gerard's favorite words to call adversaries?

Greg

[thekohser]

This is childish, and I don't feel good about myself for continuing it.

I rather need to come to grips with the fact that Wikipedia's regulatory personnel are peppered with liars and defamers, yet these do not make up the majority of the administrator team, but that the minority's "right" to publish these lies and defamatory statements on the world's seventh-most popular website is mostly condoned by the silent majority of administrators, and that I have no recourse to correct it, except to file an actual lawsuit against those who would defame me.

Given that the defamers are copyediting in Japan, cycling about England, fighting forest fires in Southern California, and living (I presume) in modest conditions near the University of Delaware, any legal pursuit of any one or all of them would quite easily be far more taxing on my wallet and my sanity than the potential benefit that might exist, I have very little choice but to paste a smile on my face, accept this ugly fact about Wikipedia, and merely tell anyone who's interested in listening... my story.

That is my challenge, and I wonder whether my character is capable of sustaining it? To smile. To smile while being defamed.

Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354

[Somey]

Well, you can't really expect them to defend their positions with facts, explanations, logical argument, or even references to events that occurred less than two years ago (apparently).

That would be a losing proposition for them, wouldn't it?

[guy]

Given that the defamers are copyediting in Japan, cycling about England, fighting forest fires in Southern California, and living (I presume) in modest conditions near the University of Delaware

You mean that they're not all living in a very similar way? That must be some cunning ploy.

[Somey]

That must be some cunning ploy.

Well, at least it's a good way to avoid lawsuits...

I mean, obviously User:Raul654 has never been known as a particularly honest or even sensible person, though I suppose he has a certain talent as a wiki administrator. The fact is, he knows he can say basically whatever he wants on WP and never be challenged. So why even bother, if not for the ego gratification? Better yet, why not just go for it and say, "I, User:Raul654, personally control all aspects of the world's largest and most popular information resource, and can have it and everyone associated with it do my bidding on a mere capricious whim"? If nobody challenges you on Wikipedia itself, then it must be true, right?

From my perspective, it sure looks like Raul accused Greg here of "lying" about whether or not he was the operator of two WP particular accounts, even though he couldn't possibly have been looking over his shoulder watching him create or use the accounts, nor could he have read any sort of admission by Greg to that effect because we know that no such admission exists. What's more, Greg has actually been fairly forthcoming about which accounts are his, when asked, at least after they ban them. So why "lie" about those two specifically? What was so special about them that he would have felt it necessary to "lie" about them after they were already blocked? And why should I even have to explain this? A little Occam's Razor ought to be enough for just about anyone in a case like this.

He also accused me of telling a "bald-faced lie" when I stated that we try to provide a "mostly-uncensored" forum for people who have criticisms of, or problems with, WP - not because we do, in fact, occasionally censor things (we do), but because of an incident that happened over two years ago, before I had even heard of Wikipedia Review, involving User:Grace_Note, whom he refers to as "Dr. Zen" because he knows quite well that Grace Note is one of the most disliked non-banned editors on Wikipedia. I've been told by several people that Grace Note was banned from WR because of his insistence on referring to other forum members as "Nazis" and "holocaust deniers" without the least bit of justification. To call that "censorship" is a bit like saying that people shouldn't have bullets removed from their bodies after they've been shot, because the bullet "serves a real purpose" and "has a right to be there."

Of course, it's been a long time, and Grace Note has apparently (hopefully!) lost interest in WP, not to mention WR-bashing. But just to give you an idea of the kind of guy Raul654 is using as his shining example of a martyred anti-WR-censorship crusader, here's part of an e-mail I received from Grace Note around the time we were floating the idea of redacting SlimVirgin's real name from the website:

Funnily enough, I kick myself at my laziness. I know Wikipedia well enough to own it if I had the time and resources. Give me twenty people, full time, and I would destroy it in a year. Mossad *should* hire me.

Admittedly, Grace Note asked me not to post that. But hey, it was a long time ago, and maybe he was just being coy, anti-censorship crusader that he is... and of course, if he thought I myself was working for the Mossad, he may have just been looking for a better job.

[Moulton]

Dr. Zen has been following these dramas for quite some time.

See the comments at the end of this blog post of mine, wherein both Dr. Zen and PrivateMusings append their remarks.

Dr. Zen also posted a concurrent comment on this WR Op-Ed piece from last October. That post includes his byline link back to his own personal blog.

[tarantino]

NonVocalScream responded to the sockpuppet claims here- to answer why they seemed so experienced in regards to wikipedia they claimed that they had experience on other projects (how that would make them seeingly completely au fait with every aspect of policy on en.wikipedia I don't know).

When Lawrence Cohen asked if they could point to accounts- NVS stated "Anywhere on any Wikimedia project you see contributions from NonvocalScream "- but Lawrence couldn't find any and neither can I.

I wonder what the deal is with this edit at meta? NonvocalScream requests an account on WMF and on the same edit he makes it appear that Cary Bass recommends it.

=== [[:w:user:NonvocalScream]] ===
+
+
*I would like to render templates for the wikimedia blog RSS on the WMF wiki. I would like to do the upload and rendering of the code in the WMF wiki environment for eventual publication to the WMF wiki. This is in line with some volunteer work I'm doing with ComProj.
+
Email xxx@xxx.xxx
+
+
[[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] 23:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
+
:I'm adding a recommendation. NS will be helping out Jay and myself with the blog and he certainly can be trusted to do the work on foundation wiki. [[User:Bastique|Cary Bass]] ^{[[User talk:Bastique|demandez]]} 23:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Impersonating a Foundation officer should be grounds for an indef block, but later, Anthere approves it.

BTW, I've seen his IRL name, and it appears he has 2 other accounts besides Wordmachine, One is still active, the other last was last used in 2004.

[jorge]

Impersonating a Foundation officer should be grounds for an indef block, but later, Anthere approves it.

BTW, I've seen his IRL name, and it appears he has 2 other accounts besides Wordmachine, One is still active, the other last was last used in 2004.

Oh look, user Aphaia says thanks to Anthere (Florence Devouard) "for handling that request"- where did Aphaia say anything about this before that? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)