Odd Nature has been personally attacked! Options Rating

[dogbiscuit]

But anyways, more on topic... Proabivouac, I'd never seen this http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...eaded&pid=71175 before. What a nasty piece of work.

Though it doesn't always seem like it, I am sure that most people here recognise the run of the mill Wikipedian as normal human beings and do not wish them any ill (as in fact many here do participate in some way). There does seem to be something of a rite of passage in joining here that you observe thinking that there are occasional aberrations, but they get fixed. After a time you find that there are more aberrations than you thought, and that they are not getting fixed.

Some here are more jaded than others, and there a widely differing opinions on how to resolve it. I think at the moment, the ID Cabal represent the most malicious group on Wikipedia. The evidence against them is enough to get normal editors banned, and you'll find that often the strident arguments against action are only made by the members of that grouping. It is the transparency of the abuse that is so troubling and in turn it begs the question of why those in a position to do something about it have struggled or determinedly refused to act.

What I do find interesting is the lack of faith in free speech, which is the fundamental excuse that the ID Cabal use - Creationism is so dangerous and poisonous it must be rooted out from every corner of Wikipedia. I am not a believer in free speech as a cure-all, a trite non-solution spouted out thoughtlessly, normally in defence of abuse, but I usually find in this sort of environment that there are passionate supporters of the principle that free speech is akin to giving as much rope as to hang themselves. Arguably, the repression enacted by the ID Cabal is highly anti-free speech - very anti-American in its principles of approach, which seems most curiously to contrast with its membership.

[Kelly Martin]

Me too, I enjoy googling and am curious and so on as much as the next person, and it's easy to get drawn into the game, but I don't want to condone outing or picking at people's private off-wiki stuff. (Tempting as it is.)

If it can be found with Google, it's not "private".

Don't buy into the silly line that "off-wiki" equals "private".

[wikiwhistle]

Me too, I enjoy googling and am curious and so on as much as the next person, and it's easy to get drawn into the game, but I don't want to condone outing or picking at people's private off-wiki stuff. (Tempting as it is.)

If it can be found with Google, it's not "private".

Don't buy into the silly line that "off-wiki" equals "private".

No but you know what I mean- would you or did you like it, when people were trying to dig up the dirt about you and publicise it? Especially a dating profile, that would feel embarrassing IMHO.

[guy]

Okay, Guynevere, have at it. Be sure to e-giggle now and then.

How did you find my real identity? Yes, I admit it.

[Kelly Martin]

No but you know what I mean- would you or did you like it, when people were trying to dig up the dirt about you and publicise it? Especially a dating profile, that would feel embarrassing IMHO.

If you do something in your past that embarrasses you in the future, the only honest thing to do is to admit the indiscretions of your youth, move on, taking what wisdom you can from your mistakes. One does not grow if one either dwells on the past, or tries to avoid it.

I've been subjected to the muckraking efforts of the "investigators" here and elsewhere; I'm sure they've had quite the chuckle at my checkered past and I am well-aware that much of it has been splattered around. While I'd have been happier if they hadn't done it, none of it has done me any real harm. If someone who really does matter (as opposed to random strangers on the Interner) brings it up, I can always say "Pah, the Internet, you never know what sort of crazy people you're dealing with there" and talk about Archimedes Plutonium or Timecube. It's well-known that the Internet is full of cranks and that you really can't trust anything you read there.

[Moulton]

Stand and Be Numbered: On Affirmatively Bearing Accurate Witness

There is a concept, dating back at least to the epoch of Moses and the Ten Commandments, of Bearing Accurate Witness.

The version we receive from that introduction of the concept into Western culture is stated as a proscription...

Do not bear false witness.

A more subtle ethical question is when to unmute, when to affirmatively articulate accurate witness rather than remaining silent.

I frankly don't have an insightful or sagacious answer to the ethical question of when to speak up.

But I will offer myself as a case where it mattered. In that case, I sincerely solicited advice before acting, as I had been warned to do by one of the adversarial editors affiliated with the Wikiproject on Intelligent Design. Alas, my trusted advisors remained mute. Nemine Contradicente.

And so, like FT2, I acted. I affirmatively bore accurate witness, as required by ethical principles, in forthrightly responding to Filll's insistent interrogatories at RfC/ID.

And lo and behold, per Filll's request, the adversarial editors immediately stormed Moulton's Shtetl, as if they were reprising Kristallnacht.

Now I ask you, is anything I have reported above inaccurate?

Please do not remain mute this time.

[wikiwhistle]

No but you know what I mean- would you or did you like it, when people were trying to dig up the dirt about you and publicise it? Especially a dating profile, that would feel embarrassing IMHO.

If you do something in your past that embarrasses you in the future, the only honest thing to do is to admit the indiscretions of your youth, move on, taking what wisdom you can from your mistakes. One does not grow if one either dwells on the past, or tries to avoid it.

No but Filll (if this is the same bloke) hasn't done anything mistaken by putting up a dating profile, a lot of people do it.(It's not even a particularly steamy one or anything.) The embarrassment doesn't come from his having done something wrong, but from it not being intended for the audience who's now viewing it (if you see what I mean.) The only 'mistake' he made was using the same nickname on it.

It's a shame people have to choose different usernames for on and off wiki, not so long ago people would have one or two usernames they used on a few sites, and that wouldn't be a mistake. Probably he created the profile before he came under fire on wiki so he wasn't to know not to use the same name.

[Moulton]

Does FeloniousMonk Trust the Anonymous Internet Cranks in The Soap Opera Forum on World Crossing?

If someone who really does matter (as opposed to random strangers on the Internet) brings it up, I can always say "Pah, the Internet, you never know what sort of crazy people you're dealing with there" and talk about Archimedes Plutonium or Timecube. It's well-known that the Internet is full of cranks and that you really can't trust anything you read there.

Does FeloniousMonk really matter? He unskeptically trusted the testimony of SimHacker/notluom, Bela, and gotham on WorldCrossing, whilst submitting Evidence to ArbCom on Wikipedia.

Does Paul Mitchell have any idea whose testimony he is relying on in his scathing indictment of Moulton (whom he and Dave Souza then link to my real life identity)?

[Moulton]

It's a shame people have to choose different usernames for on and off wiki, not so long ago people would have one or two usernames they used on a few sites, and that wouldn't be a mistake. Probably he created the profile before he came under fire on wiki so he wasn't to know not to use the same name.

Even then, it's nigh impossible to keep them all compartmentalized.

Not long ago on Wikipedia:Lectures, Filll was the featured speaker on the (infamous) AGF Challenge. Whilst participating in that session, he lost his IRC connection several times, and reconnected using two different ISP accounts. Notice in the posted transcript that he inadvertently reveals two more Internet login IDs or handles that he associates with his on-wiki avatar name.

Have those alternate Internet IDs and handles been investigated to see where they lead, in the same manner as Dave Souza and FeloniousMonk following off-wiki searches for "Moulton"?

[Poetlister]

It's a shame people have to choose different usernames for on and off wiki

I should never have used my Wikiname here. I might have avoided my second block if I hadn't, and certainly I wouldn't have had all these posts here about how I shouldn't have resumed editing after my unblock.

[prospero]

It's a shame people have to choose different usernames for on and off wiki

I should never have used my Wikiname here. I might have avoided my second block if I hadn't, and certainly I wouldn't have had all these posts here about how I shouldn't have resumed editing after my unblock.

I don't really understand why some people feel the need to criticize you. I think you contribute much to making the projects you work on better. You and Yehudi, despite the sour remarks about slaving away in Jimbo's salt mines.

This post has been edited by prospero: Sat 5th July 2008, 3:49pm

[wikiwhistle]

Okay, Guynevere, have at it. Be sure to e-giggle now and then.

How did you find my real identity? Yes, I admit it.

Fwoarrr.

[Winnie]

It just doesn't seem relevant - discussing people's identities has never really got anyone anywhere, unless you're in it just to piss the subject off (which is fair enough I guess).

Angering them is just a bonus The real point is that they are abusing the system, sock puppets and the like, and compiling the information with others lets us get all the evidence in one place and allows us to draw on each other's research skills.

[Kelly Martin]

No but Filll (if this is the same bloke) hasn't done anything mistaken by putting up a dating profile, a lot of people do it.(It's not even a particularly steamy one or anything.) The embarrassment doesn't come from his having done something wrong, but from it not being intended for the audience who's now viewing it (if you see what I mean.) The only 'mistake' he made was using the same nickname on it.

Why would you put anything in your dating profile that you wouldn't be willing to own up to? If he's done that, then it's his own foolishness at play and he should bear the consequences for such folly.

Anybody who's been on the Internet at least a week or so knows that anything you put on the Internet may be seen by anyone whomsoever. It is foolish not to moderate one's behavior in recognition of this simple fact.

[LaraLove]

No but Filll (if this is the same bloke) hasn't done anything mistaken by putting up a dating profile, a lot of people do it.(It's not even a particularly steamy one or anything.) The embarrassment doesn't come from his having done something wrong, but from it not being intended for the audience who's now viewing it (if you see what I mean.) The only 'mistake' he made was using the same nickname on it.

Why would you put anything in your dating profile that you wouldn't be willing to own up to? If he's done that, then it's his own foolishness at play and he should bear the consequences for such folly.

Anybody who's been on the Internet at least a week or so knows that anything you put on the Internet may be seen by anyone whomsoever. It is foolish not to moderate one's behavior in recognition of this simple fact.

Oh, for Christ sake. There's no reason to dig up shit like this. It's pointless and vindictive. Serves no meaningful purpose and you know it. Everyone knows I have nothing but disdain for Filll, but digging up irrelevant links and posting them is just pathetic. He posted a dating profile, big deal. Who cares? Go do something productive.

This post has been edited by LaraLove: Sun 6th July 2008, 5:11pm

[Lar]

No but Filll (if this is the same bloke) hasn't done anything mistaken by putting up a dating profile, a lot of people do it.(It's not even a particularly steamy one or anything.) The embarrassment doesn't come from his having done something wrong, but from it not being intended for the audience who's now viewing it (if you see what I mean.) The only 'mistake' he made was using the same nickname on it.

Why would you put anything in your dating profile that you wouldn't be willing to own up to? If he's done that, then it's his own foolishness at play and he should bear the consequences for such folly.

Anybody who's been on the Internet at least a week or so knows that anything you put on the Internet may be seen by anyone whomsoever. It is foolish not to moderate one's behavior in recognition of this simple fact.

Oh, for Christ sake. There's no reason to dig up shit like this. It's pointless and vindictive. Serves no meaningful purpose and you know it. Everyone knows I have nothing but disdain for Filll, but digging up irrelevant links and posting them is just pathetic. He posted a dating profile, big deal. Who cares? Go do something productive.

Wikiwhistle cares, apparently, saying it was dishy.

Other than that, no one should.

An eye for an eye means we're all soon blind.

[Moulton]

Hey, when an admirer like Filll posts a love letter like this, a guy's gotta know who his lovestruck fans are. I mean he even dishes out the dirt on our "affair".

[LaraLove]

Hey, when an admirer like Filll posts a love letter like this, a guy's gotta know who his lovestruck fans are. I mean he even dishes out the dirt on our "affair".

tl;dr

Okay, really, I read until the part about your "affair", then I caught a glimpse of the scroll bar and realized that I was only like a fourth of the way though, and thought "Oh, fuck that." Interesting read, though. Maybe I'll finish it someday.

I wonder how many subpages he has. I bet it's more than 99.99% of all editors.

This post has been edited by LaraLove: Mon 7th July 2008, 3:45am

[tarantino]

I wonder how many subpages he has. I bet it's more than 99.99% of all editors.

Around 360 subpages. That's almost 3 times as many as FT2.

[Giggy]

How many are about Moulton/WR?