ID Cabal Request for Comment Options

[Bob Boy]

Odd nature is asking that Giggy remove any references to actions of the Intelligent Design Cabal from off-wiki forums (including Wikipedia Review). Good luck with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ersonal_attacks

[Giggy]

Ya know, I'm rather glad I read this place, as I would totally have missed this otherwise. Requests directed at a user generally get a talk page notification.

[Moulton]

Filll has made a good faith effort by recently removing content referring to Moulton from his blog.

Since Filll doesn't accept comments at his blog, I stopped visiting it. Now I can't even remember what he had posted there.

Meantime, FeloniousMonk had posted on-wiki a scathing indicitment of me. Two days ago, he deleted the entire page, even though both FM and Filll still link to it in at least three different RfC's or RfAr's.

Meantime, on Dave Souza's talk page, we find this:

Moulton pages

Hi Dave. I understand Moulton's user pages were deleted because they revealed a user's identity, however I'm concerned that this eliminates some useful evidence in the ID discussions. Particularly, User_talk:Moulton/Answers is now redlinked at the ID RfC talk page. Would you have any objection to me linking this archival version instead? It may have been redacted, as I can't find any mention of the user's identity there. I'm also concerned that the evidence Filll linked to has been deleted, but I hesitate to contact FM about it directly. Gnixon (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote Darwin almost 150 years ago, "I cannot think now on the subject, but soon will." . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I found a copy of FM's evidence that was linked to by Filll, but I haven't looked through that page to see if it reveals personal info. Gnixon (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A big difference is that Moulton has steadfastly rejected the principle of anonymity of everyone on the internet and Wikipedia, including himself. He has been very open repeatedly about his name and other personal details. However, I and the other editors I know have not repeated this information that Moulton has revealed about himself. If he wants to advertise his personal details that is fine, but I personally do not think it is a good idea and I decline to assist him in this effort of advertising his personal information on the internet and Wikipedia if I can avoid it. That does not mean that links that are necessary to discuss Moulton's activities will always be devoid of this sort of information, because of his irresponsible wantonly cavalier attitude.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a right to have your anonymity protected to whatever extent is reasonably consistent with your preferences and behavior. Thus I don't think we should link to material that gives your name as discovered through emails. Is the material above okay in that respect? Gnixon (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, can you please link me to where Moulton revealed his full name on Wikipedia? Because it is my understanding that it first appeared on a subpage of FeloniousMonk's userspace, which has now been deleted, placed there by FM, not Moulton. Certainly I could be mistaken, however, so would appreciate your assistance in this matter, as you seem to be fully aware of such things. LaraLove|Talk 01:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Filll realizes that, while it's not hard to track down my surname, I have never posted it on-wiki. But FeloniousMonk did post that in the now-deleted evidence page that both FM and Filll still link to in the various Requests for Spammish Inquisition currently underway on the English Wikipedia.

Edited to add in LaraLove's post.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Bob Boy]

You know, if the ID Cabal had been satisfied to limit their thuggish groupthink strictly to the Intelligent Design articles, they probably could have run their little fiefdom forever without interference - they would only have had to put up with the occasional squawk from marginal figures (sorry, Moulton).

It was their need to take their Myrmidon-like tactics outside that walled garden which I think will ultimately be their downfall. They've managed to piss off everyone from RfA regulars to the free-content image crowd.

[LaraLove]

I think someone should just look at Filll's contributions to that one page. It's appalling.

[Milton Roe]

Odd nature is asking that Giggy remove any references to actions of the Intelligent Design Cabal from off-wiki forums (including Wikipedia Review). Good luck with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ersonal_attacks

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Here's the request:

I'm making this request here first. If Giggy ignores it I'll add it to my section of the RFC for community input. [[User:Odd nature|Odd nature]] ([[User talk:Odd nature|talk]]) 23:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Subtext: if you don't, I'm gunna report you to the teacher! But a direct threat would be unCIVIL.

Giggy response:

You're welcome to bring it up to the community via the RfC. I'm happy to assume good faith—I assume you've raised this for a valid reason, not to try and smother criticism—but I'm not going to take back stuff I stand by because it's offending you. Your best bet is to change your (and the group of editors who have been associated with this) behaviour, and thus prove my blog comments irrelevant. ''[[user:giggy|giggy]]'' _{([[user talk:giggy|(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)]])} 00:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Subtext: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I assume you've raised this for a valid reason, not to try and smother criticism. I will say I assume you've raised this for a valid reason, but personally, I can't think of any. The only thing I can actually think of, would NOT be assuming good faith. You twerp.

You know, Odd nature, you're quite welcome to come here and debate with us on neutral ground about this stuff. If your ideas have merit, they should be able to stand on their own, without resort of agumentum baculinum (i.e., that ban-club you invoke for use against effective and damaging criticism voiced on WP itself). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Giggy]

...ID Cabal...

It's times like these I wish I didn't associate my WP username with my WR name. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

I think someone should just look at Filll's contributions to that one page. It's appalling.

(IMG:http://judyonthenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/nowai.jpg)

...
Subtext: if you don't, I'm gunna report you to the teacher! But a direct threat would be unCIVIL.
...

Good point. Reminded me of a recent essay I saw; Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack (and I found that essay's AN reception somewhat ironic).

[Moulton]

While we're on the subject, let's take a look at the first few of the items in FM's scathing Indictment of Moulton...

Moulton

Conducting a campaign against Wikipedia

...and the Wikipedians who compose WikiProject Intelligent Design. The resulting disruption of Wikipedia includes meatpuppets and proxies recruited and directed by Moulton to edit on his behalf.

• 28 August 2007 A blog entry at Blogspot about his colleague's Rosalind Picard, Wikipedia bio. In the comments he outs the employer of one Wikipedia editor commenting there: [212]
  
  
• 18 September 2007 Another blog entry at Blogspot about his colleague's Wikipedia bio attacking the editors of "WikiProject Intelligent Design", "Now we are engaged in a great wiki war", etc.: [213]
  
  
• 23 October 2007 Another blog entry at Blogspot, this time repeating the claim that SlimVirgin is connected to "Britain's MI5 and/or the US CIA" in the context of the use of SPAs and sockpuppets: [214] But on 23 May 2008 he claims "I haven't said anything to or about SV, as I've never had occasion to encounter her in the pages of Wikipedia. Her backstory may be of interest to some but it holds no fascination or thrall for me" [215]
  
  
• [20 more bullet items]

OK, Scouts, here is your first assignment.

Go to the cited blog post at [212] and identify the Wikipedia editor whom FM is referring to.

Next, go to the cited blog post at [213] and adjudge how vicious it is.

Finally, go to the cited blog post at [214] and find the reference to a named Wikipedian.

[Gold heart]

OK, Scouts, here is your first assignment.

Go to the cited blog post at [212] and identify the Wikipedia editor whom FM is referring to.

Next, go to the cited blog post at [213] and adjudge how vicious it is.

Finally, go to the cited blog post at [214] and find the reference to a named Wikipedian.

Don't know the details, but I get the gist.
Some of these Wikiediots are as off the wall as McCarthyites.

They'll say just about anything to disparage. Even the KGB and the CIA were more subtle. More like blundering dunkle-headed Nazis, with no sense of logic or proportion. If you were a fiction writer, you just couldn't make this stuff up. Hyperbole! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Bob Boy]

Don't know the details, but I get the gist.
Some of these Wikiediots are as off the wall as McCarthyites.

They'll say just about anything to disparage. Even the KGB and the CIA were more subtle. More like blundering dunkle-headed Nazis, with no sense of logic or proportion. If you were a fiction writer, you just couldn't make this stuff up. Hyperbole! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

I can't find the specific quote now, but didn't someone from the ID Cabal say recently that, if someone says they don't believe in Intelligent Design, it's actually a sure sign that they really do believe in it?

This is a witch-floating test if I ever heard one.

[Giggy]

I can't find the specific quote now, but didn't someone from the ID Cabal say recently that, if someone says they don't believe in Intelligent Design, it's actually a sure sign that they really do believe in it?

This is a witch-floating test if I ever heard one.

Wouldn't that make most of the "cabal"'s members ID believers?

[Proabivouac]

Odd nature is asking that Giggy remove any references to actions of the Intelligent Design Cabal from off-wiki forums (including Wikipedia Review). Good luck with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ersonal_attacks

I take personal offense, as a Wikipedian, as a Wikipedia Reviewer and as an American to this attempt to impose Wikipedia rules on free speech elsewhere - this from the website that is "not censored."

This from a site the leadership of which not only fails to stop but actively facilitates attacks on and outings of its own volunteer contributors and "biography" subjects.

For example, upon Moulton himself.

The twofold rule appears to be: 1) personal attacks are not allowed on decent people, as we define them 2) personal attacks are mandated against bad people, as we define them.

[Moulton]

I'm still waiting to find out if I'm a vile miscreant or not.

The suspense is killing me.

[Cla68]

Filll has made a good faith effort by recently removing content referring to Moulton from his blog.

Since Filll doesn't accept comments at his blog, I stopped visiting it. Now I can't even remember what he had posted there.

Meantime, FeloniousMonk had posted on-wiki a scathing indicitment of me. Two days ago, he deleted the entire page, even though both FM and Filll still link to it in at least three different RfC's or RfAr's.

Meantime, on Dave Souza's talk page, we find this:

Moulton pages

Hi Dave. I understand Moulton's user pages were deleted because they revealed a user's identity, however I'm concerned that this eliminates some useful evidence in the ID discussions. Particularly, User_talk:Moulton/Answers is now redlinked at the ID RfC talk page. Would you have any objection to me linking this archival version instead? It may have been redacted, as I can't find any mention of the user's identity there. I'm also concerned that the evidence Filll linked to has been deleted, but I hesitate to contact FM about it directly. Gnixon (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote Darwin almost 150 years ago, "I cannot think now on the subject, but soon will." . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I found a copy of FM's evidence that was linked to by Filll, but I haven't looked through that page to see if it reveals personal info. Gnixon (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A big difference is that Moulton has steadfastly rejected the principle of anonymity of everyone on the internet and Wikipedia, including himself. He has been very open repeatedly about his name and other personal details. However, I and the other editors I know have not repeated this information that Moulton has revealed about himself. If he wants to advertise his personal details that is fine, but I personally do not think it is a good idea and I decline to assist him in this effort of advertising his personal information on the internet and Wikipedia if I can avoid it. That does not mean that links that are necessary to discuss Moulton's activities will always be devoid of this sort of information, because of his irresponsible wantonly cavalier attitude.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a right to have your anonymity protected to whatever extent is reasonably consistent with your preferences and behavior. Thus I don't think we should link to material that gives your name as discovered through emails. Is the material above okay in that respect? Gnixon (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, can you please link me to where Moulton revealed his full name on Wikipedia? Because it is my understanding that it first appeared on a subpage of FeloniousMonk's userspace, which has now been deleted, placed there by FM, not Moulton. Certainly I could be mistaken, however, so would appreciate your assistance in this matter, as you seem to be fully aware of such things. LaraLove|Talk 01:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Filll realizes that, while it's not hard to track down my surname, I have never posted it on-wiki. But FeloniousMonk did post that in the now-deleted evidence page that both FM and Filll still link to in the various Requests for Spammish Inquisition currently underway on the English Wikipedia.

Edited to add in LaraLove's post.

Filll and FeloniousMonk are quickly painting themselves into a corner, if they're not in one already. Of all the examples of Wikipedia editors self-destructing, this could end up being one of the most spectacular examples.

[Milton Roe]

Filll and FeloniousMonk are quickly painting themselves into a corner, if they're not in one already. Of all the examples of Wikipedia editors self-destructing, this could end up being one of the most spectacular examples.

And we like it! Here on WR

(IMG:http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/dark/skeksis2.jpg)

There's nothing so nourishing as to see the soft, harmless sysops on WP drained of their life forces...

(IMG:http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/barrypodling.jpg)

--SkekTek

[Bob Boy]

From the midst of his imminent desysopping, Felonious Monk declaims:

In other words, you're not willing to withdraw your personal attack or assume good faith. I see. That attitude isn't going to resolve this conflict. I see your off site characterizations of these editors as clearly a personal attack and failure on your part to assume good faith and your refusal to withdraw it as a further malicious act. I suggest Odd nature add this to the RFC unless Giggy withdraws his characterizations. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=220472252

FeloniousMonk accusing someone of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. Isn't that hilarious? Go get 'em, Monk! Dive that kamikaze into the infidels! (Mixing metaphors, I know.) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Bob Boy:

[Moulton]

Welcome to Bildungsroman in the Age of Character Assassination.

[Giggy]

From the midst of his imminent desysopping, Felonious Monk declaims:

In other words, you're not willing to withdraw your personal attack or assume good faith. I see. That attitude isn't going to resolve this conflict. I see your off site characterizations of these editors as clearly a personal attack and failure on your part to assume good faith and your refusal to withdraw it as a further malicious act. I suggest Odd nature add this to the RFC unless Giggy withdraws his characterizations. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=220472252

FeloniousMonk accusing someone of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. Isn't that hilarious? Go get 'em, Monk! Dive that kamikaze into the infidels! (Mixing metaphors, I know.) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

My response. To FM if you're reading this - I think the best thing to do is withdraw the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith noted by Moulton and others. And ask the community about my blog - I've said numerous times (and I'll say again) that I'm more than happy to have the community comment on it (in any way you want - RfC, ANI, Jedi Council).

[Moulton]

From the midst of his imminent desysopping, Felonious Monk declaims:

In other words, you're not willing to withdraw your personal attack or assume good faith. I see. That attitude isn't going to resolve this conflict. I see your off site characterizations of these editors as clearly a personal attack and failure on your part to assume good faith and your refusal to withdraw it as a further malicious act. I suggest Odd nature add this to the RFC unless Giggy withdraws his characterizations. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=220472252

FeloniousMonk accusing someone of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. Isn't that hilarious? Go get 'em, Monk! Dive that kamikaze into the infidels! (Mixing metaphors, I know.) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

My response. To FM if you're reading this - I think the best thing to do is withdraw the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith noted by Moulton and others. And ask the community about my blog - I've said numerous times (and I'll say again) that I'm more than happy to have the community comment on it (in any way you want - RfC, ANI, Jedi Council).

Given that the rules on these issues are subtle and difficult to interpret, and given that the requisite off-wiki research to glean or surmise the real name of a Wikipedian can vary from one or two easy clicks to months of research in the style of Daniel Brandt, I would prefer that those in authority with respect to the rules and policies carefully review these questions and provide some more coherent guidance. Also, I would ask those in authority to review the appropriate remedies, which evidently range, in some cases, from a mild rebuke and a civil request to redact, to extreme rapid-response measures including summary perma-banning, indefinite duration talk-page protection, wholesale erasure of userspace content, double-barreled scarlet lettering, and scathing condemnation heralded far and wide throughout the land.

It occurs to me that the rules and remedies in this confusing area of governance and regulation are a tad unsettled.

[Moulton]

Case in point...

At RfC/ID, there is a new discussion thread...

New Evidence Regarding User:FeloniousMonk

As preparation for an ArbCom case, FeloniousMonk repeatedly used off-Wikipedia evidence to out another editor's real life information. He did this by copying off-WP comments about the user (with the comments not being about the user's on-Wikipedia behavior) and did not redact the person's real name from these comments. This page was up for nearly a month with the outing information on the page. I have submitted a request to have the diffs with this user's real name oversighted. SirFozzie (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – in my Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design#Opinion added at 12:35, 15 June 2008, there is a quotation from the 16:41, 3 September 2007 comment by Moulton (→Repeated, tendentious nonsense: A Study of Wikipedia's Rule-Based System.),[2] "I have studied Wikipedia's rule-based system, and examined how well and how efficiently it achieves the overarching goal of rising to a reasonable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online journalism. You can read some of my findings here. Moulton 16:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)" The link is to an article "By Barry Kort", the second paragraph of which states – "Last week, I learned firsthand why the content of Wikipedia articles are considered unreliable. Elsewhere, I wrote an essay on my experience trying to correct an erroneous article in Wikipedia. It was a dispiriting nightmare." The "Elsewhere" link is to a Moulton Lava essay. Of course I have no idea what the user's real name is, as these could all be pen names. . . dave souza, talk 07:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the conventional by-line names of anyone publishing outside of academia could be pen names. For all I know, the Yahoo E-Mail name under which Filll is registered on Wikipedia and Skype could also be a pseudonym unrelated to the name on his birth certificate.

Were I desperate to call Filll up or pay a visit to his residence, I would be frustrated, as I don't know where he lives (short of knowing that as of last August he had a Comcast IP address subtending a router in Gambrills MD) or what name to look up in the phone book (if I even knew which phone book to look in).

At best I can contact him by E-Mail at his Yahoo Mail address, leave a private comment on his blog (where all comments go into a moderation queue), or use Skype. And I've employed all three methods of communication. But he does not respond.

I have similarly sent a few messages to Dave Souza via the on-wiki E-Mail feature. But he has never responded, either.

However, I do have evidence they read my personal blog.