A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[Derktar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...er:Orangemarlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210232016
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210231458

I don't know - we have an active contributor to Wikipedia Review apparently editing on behalf of another Wikipedia Review editor (who happens to be a permabanned editor). Not too big a leap at all... Guettarda (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right folks, I forgot to mention we re-programmed Krimpet a week or so ago and we are finally putting her to use.

So sorry you had to wander into that mess Krimpet.

[Moulton]

Good grief.

[Kato]

The treatment of Rosalind Picard's biography by this clique of Raul, OrangeMarlin and co, is an absolute scandal.

It is described here...

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080405/s...with-wikipedia/

[Somey]

Disgusting!

It's a good example, though, of how the deck is completely stacked in favor of revenge-grabbers - not only because of the civility and "AGF" rules that protect them as long as they retain that veneer of politeness, but because of natural human emotional and behavioral predictability. People trying to do something positive can almost always be bullied into submission by people trying to do something negative, because negative emotions and thoughts are much easier to sustain, if not escalate. That's part of man's basic animal nature: It takes a real effort to do something positive, but people who are into negativity can pretty much go at it all night, if that's what it takes.

It kind of makes sense that it would be over this issue, too, when you think about it.

[Moulton]

I would be interested in working constructively with responsible and mature admins — people of the caliber of Doc Glasgow — to devise a mutually agreeable way to solve the festering problems that have produced such a long-running Kafkaesque nightmare for everyone.

This is exactly what I'm hoping to see too - a mutually agreeable solution to the BLP disaster led by trusted, principled folks (and I'm not going to lie and pretend I'm one of them (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)) who can hear concerns from all sides. What's troubling is that this combative eye-for-an-eye outing approach, which just makes much of the WP community less receptive to any reform out of spite, is constantly setting back any hope of fixing things by driving the principled folks away.

Krimpet took quite a hammering in that disgraceful AN/I kerfuffle.

Still, I believe what's needed is a Truth and Reconciliation Process.

But I have no idea who would step forward to chair anything like that.

[Somey]

Opt-out... Reciprocity... Opt-out... Reciprocity... Opt-out... Reciprocity...

[Derktar]

Opt-out... Reciprocity... Opt-out... Reciprocity... Opt-out... Reciprocity...

Maybe we could just devote a whole day to displaying a big banner that says this before entering the site.

I doubt they would get it even if that happened though.

[Moulton]

Here is some useful information...

The two-sentence, 32-word, untitled petition that Picard and 100 other scientists and academics signed in 2001 reads as follows:

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.

Picard says this:

My agreement with the petition's first statement is based mostly on my experiments trying to get statistical physics simulations to generate complex specific patterns out of randomness. I don't know anybody who would disagree with the second statement in the petition.

To my mind, the only thing wrong with the second statement is that it's not broad enough. As a science educator, I encourage students to carefully examine the evidence for any theory.

As to the complexity of life, no one knows how DNA-based life as we know it ever got started in the first place. The puzzle of abiogenesis remains an unsolved problem in molecular biology.

[Jacina]

The way I see it is that we have 2 Theories (probably more but 2 "main" ones)

1. Evolution (and all its variants and whatnot)
2. Creation (and all its variants and whatnot)

Both are THEORIES both will probably NEVER be proved 100% (because doing that would require observation (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ), both have some things pointing to them, and some against.

However Wikipedia only allows for ONE theory (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

Ehh, hopefully we can agree to disagree on the whole evolution vs. creationism thing...

As for me, I'm certainly what one would call an "evolutionist" - which is to say that I have no qualms with the idea that evolution is a proven theory, and I'd be perfectly happy if people stopped calling evolution a "theory" and started referring to it as a "fact," which is what some scientists are actually starting to do in response to the recent ID business.

However, I do have qualms with people being targeted by WP attack editors and system-gamers just for having signed some stupid petition, getting lumped in with a bunch of people they have nothing to do with, and then never being able to get their privacy and their professional reputations back because those same attack editors insist that anyone who questions them has to "AGF."

It's just morally wrong to do that to a person, at least over something like that. I could probably see it if they'd mistakenly signed a petition that clearly advocated wiping out everyone under the age of 14 by feeding them to a swarm of locusts, though.

[Proabivouac]

The way I see it is that we have 2 Theories (probably more but 2 "main" ones)

1. Evolution (and all its variants and whatnot)
2. Creation (and all its variants and whatnot)

Both are THEORIES both will probably NEVER be proved 100% (because doing that would require observation (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ), both have some things pointing to them, and some against.

However Wikipedia only allows for ONE theory (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I disagree. Mere evolution is descent with modification. That most or all extant species developed from a single ancestor is obvious. That random mutation and natural selection are causes of susequent variation is similarly obvious. That they are the main or only causes is not as clear.

What we can say is that there is no coherent counter-explanation at this time, other than the, erm, deus ex machina of the creationists.

None of that touches on abiogenesis, really, expect by analogy: naturalism has worked well until now, so we can expect that this explanation is similarly naturalistic. There is of course no way to say that God didn't guide any or all of this change, but there is no evidence for it, besides the unauthored claims of scripture.

Even scripturally, Genesis is weak: not only doesn't the author identify himself, he makes no claim to have witnessed any of the events described, nor does he cite any chain of authority to this effect. It is as if people of the future came upon a contemporary book with really big letters which began, "Once upon a time…" and believed what followed, where it would be bad enough to assume that we believed it.

Additionally, I see no reason to believe that either the Jews or Jesus took this story seriously, or considered belief in it an important part in religion, other than the fact of its inclusion in scripture…and do we have any idea who made that decision, or why?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Kato]

The way I see it is that we have 2 Theories (probably more but 2 "main" ones)

1. Evolution (and all its variants and whatnot)
2. Creation (and all its variants and whatnot)

Both are THEORIES both will probably NEVER be proved 100% (because doing that would require observation (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ), both have some things pointing to them, and some against.

However Wikipedia only allows for ONE theory (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Evolution is observable and beyond dispute. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection to explain the complexity of life is a Scientific Theory, not some half baked theory we come up with lying on our backs staring at the moon. That other thing you mention has nothing to do with scientific theory, nor the article in question. I don't think you'll find anyone to agree with you here.

But if you want to discuss these matters, please do so in the "Politics, Religion and Such" forum.

[Somey]

Additionally, I see no reason to believe that either the Jews or Jesus took this story seriously, or considered belief in it an important part in religion, other than the fact of its inclusion in scripture…and do we have any idea who made that decision, or why?

Hard to say, but as long as nobody tries to claim it was SlimVirgin's doing, I'll be happy.

[Proabivouac]

However, I do have qualms with people being targeted by WP attack editors and system-gamers just for having signed some stupid petition, getting lumped in with a bunch of people they have nothing to do with, and then never being able to get their privacy and their professional reputations back because those same attack editors insist that anyone who questions them has to "AGF."

I also take issue the fact that the controllers of this article are pseudonymous, while Ms. Picard is not. Who is responsible for ensuring the fairness and veracity of that article?

I could probably see it if they'd mistakenly signed a petition that clearly advocated wiping out everyone under the age of 14 by feeding them to a swarm of locusts, though.

Does the world really need more unwanted children?

[Somey]

Who is responsible for ensuring the fairness and veracity of that article?

Well, y'see, the internet is like, uh, like a series of tubes....

I could probably see it if they'd mistakenly signed a petition that clearly advocated wiping out everyone under the age of 14 by feeding them to a swarm of locusts, though.

Does the world really need more unwanted children?

Okay, how about if the petition advocated wiping out everyone over the age of 14?

[Jacina]

Ah /shrug boils down to observation at the start, which is where the point of contention lies mainly.

One option does not wholly discount the other to boot.




I do think calling it a "whitewash" is quite POV though, was it a bad thing to sign? Obviously depends on your POV.

[UserB]

Additionally, I see no reason to believe that either the Jews or Jesus took this story seriously, or considered belief in it an important part in religion, other than the fact of its inclusion in scripture…and do we have any idea who made that decision, or why?

If Jesus was just a man who would have had to make a decision what he believed about origins (as opposed to the Christian belief that Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, who knows for a fact what happened because He was there), then all of Christianity is a vicious hoax anyway.

The Christian belief in the literal truth of the whole of scripture comes from, among other places, Matthew 5:18 where Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." You can read more about the theology of it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration (which is really a rather poor article).

[Moulton]

I don't know anyone who disputes evolution as Darwin defined it — the emergence of new species via descent with modification and natural selection.

On the other hand, I don't know anybody who has a good theory about how life as we know it arose in the first place. That's where the "complexity of life" issue is the main obstacle to be overcome. DNA and its replication cycle is complex. How that complex molecular machinery ever got started remains a scientific mystery. Perhaps it will solved in this century.

The evidence for Darwin's model is compelling. But it's also important to examine that evidence with a skeptical eye. Some of the evidence trotted out to support Darwin's model isn't probative. That's like including extraneous material in the proof of a mathematical theorem. It's important to appreciate which evidence is probative.

One valid complaint about Darwin's model is that it's a qualitative model rather than a quantitative one. What's needed is a stochastic model that corresponds to Stephen Jay Gould's notion of Punctuated Equilibrium. Stanislaw Ulam is one of the few mathematicians to make significant contributions to this important frontier. Ulam's seminal contributions to theoretical biology should not be overlooked.

And scientists who are concerned about these questions should not be confused with religious fundamentalists who prefer non-scientific explanations for the unanswered questions about the origin and complexity of life.

[that one guy]

CBM has some respect in my book. Krimpet gets a shit ton of respect for putting up with first being attacked on the secret mailing list, then putting up with this and what not.

Guettarda reminds me of another editor (guess who?) and seems to argue just for the sake of arguing.

My two cents on it all.

Also: Krimpet shows she's perfectly capable of defending herself (though she does call the people here loons).

[Moulton]

Reading that firestorm in the wake of Krimpet's contested edits, I can imagine how Moses must have felt when he parted the waters. Half of the suds line up on one side of the gap, and half line up on the other. Where is the middle ground?

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Jon Awbrey]

Reading that firestorm in the wake of Krimpet's contested edits, I can imagine how Moses must have felt when he parted the waters. Half of suds line up on one side of the gap, and half line up on the other. Where is the middle ground?

To hell with that! Where is higher ground!

Besides, I heard he did it with Jelloâ„¢.

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

[Moulton]

It looks like most of the remaining debate has settled into the bottom of the talk page for Picard's bio.

If anyone has any interest in a rebuttal to Filll's misinformation, I suppose I could post it here, but I reckon that would be like pissing into the wind.

[Somey]

Well, at least he admits to what he and his team are doing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210336704

Sorry, but the only reason she is on Wikipedia is she signed the petition. She is not particularly notable as an academic. If you believe she is, spend a week or two writing a proper biography for her in a sandbox and let others look at it. And yes lots and lots of people have tried to claim she did not sign and wanted us to write that she did not sign and the New York Times writer is a stupid #$%^&* for writing that she signed. And just trying to hide the fact that she signed and the NYT wrote an article about it probably is not going to fly. If this is so all-fired important to you, why are you afraid of doing any real work? Stop complaining and do some real writing.

All lies, of course. Nobody, nobody at all, is trying to claim that Picard didn't sign the petition, or that she was a "stupid #$%^&*" for doing so, and certainly not that she wrote what she signed! (where the f*** did that come from?). And nobody is trying to hide the fact that the NYT wrote an article that mentioned her as one of the signers, either.

We're simply saying that this shouldn't be treated as anything beyond the signing of a petition, i.e, a minor incident that shouldn't form the basis of an entire biography on the world's most heavily-scraped and -searched information site.

Anyone who takes Filll up on his offer to write about Picard in a "sandbox" is wasting their time, obviously - his team will never stop attacking Rosalind Picard, and they will never let this end.

"Stop complaining and do some real writing" is the standard rejoinder for people on WP who are faced with evidence of their own abuses and have no valid counter-arguments whatsoever.

[Moulton]

Half the lies Filll is posting there aren't even true.

[dogbiscuit]

Well, at least he admits to what he and his team are doing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210336704

...and in that rant, he admits to doing one large chunk of original research.

This is a classic case where a Primary Source (shock, horror) would resolve the issue. Put the two line petition up without the bastardised interpretation. The argument has never been about the petition, it has been about how a disreputable organisation has distorted the meaning of that petition and a group of editors have chosen to set that distorted interpretation up because of a piece in the NYT which decided on a particular interpretation.

[Moulton]

The NYT piece covered the controversy, but didn't endorse one interpretation or another. Two of the signers quoted in the story gave their own interpretation, which differed from the DI's interpretation, and also from the headline-writer's interpretation. The word "anti-evolution" does not appear in the text of the NYT article, nor on the newly launched web site the story was about.

[Jon Awbrey]

The puzzle of abiogenesis remains an unsolved problem in molecular biology.

That's nothing compared to the mystery of abinitiogenesis.
And Guy said, "Let There Be Arch Coal!"

And There Was Arch Coal.

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

[Sceptre]

Ack, Guettarda is not one of my favourite admins. I seem to remember him advocating for keeping this BLP nightmare. Kudos to Krimpet for at least trying to get rid of it - it is minor coatracking at the least.

[that one guy]

The good old "You share viewpoint X with banned user Y so therefore you're proxying for them" argument was played. Lovely

[dogbiscuit]

It is worth noting this vote stacking technique that our whiter than white defender of the faith OrangeMarlin uses.

[Proabivouac]

The good old "You share viewpoint X with banned user Y so therefore you're proxying for them" argument was played. Lovely

It appears to have become almost obligatory to insult the participants of this forum in general. Those who have registered here are then obliged to lob some insults of their own to prove their loyalty to WP.

It seems obvious that Krimpet was moved to take a look based on what appeared here on WR. Why not just admit it?

Clearly, all of them are reading the Review as well, or they wouldn't be aware of who posts here, or what we discuss.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Moulton]

I don't know how Krimpet came onto the case, but I thank her for having the courage to wade in.

In the end, Kim Bruning brought in another editor, Ottava Rima, who did a wonderful job fixing up the biography.

The dust probably hasn't settled yet, but hopefully we've turned a major corner today.

My deepest appreciation to Krimpet, Kim Bruning, Ottava Rima, and the many courageous defenders who stood up to the ID Cabal in the talk page discussions.

[tarantino]

After being slapped down on AN/I, Raul654 has protected Rosalind Picard. The anti-ID clique, having nothing better to do, then converges on Affective computing because they can. Nothing to see here, no siree.

[The Joy]

After being slapped down on AN/I, Raul654 has protected Rosalind Picard. The anti-ID clique, having nothing better to do, then converges on Affective computing because they can. Nothing to see here, no siree.

Actually, the ID Cabal is now singing on Rosalind Picard's article talk page. They are like vultures waiting for the lions to move away from the carcass.

There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, Jon Awbrey or the tongues of men for this treachery!

Moulton, has Ms. Picard called attention to this travesty to the press? Because I think Brian Bergstein or Cade Metz needs to see this debacle. I sense another Seigenthaler scandal approaching.

[Kato]

The talk page is embarrassing to read. It took me approximately 20 seconds of research to figure out what happened regarding this petition, when I first heard about it from Moulton last year. Yet these so called "scientists" on the talk page are going round in circles, talking out of their back-sides, and have missed the whole damn point of why people are complaining about the bio.

For the record, I am no scientist, but I'm a big supporter of Richard Dawkins in his campaign to challenge all forms of mumbo-jumbo that permeate our culture. So one could say I'm at least as adamant about rejecting bullshit as the likes of OrangeMarlin and co. But if these Wikipedia goons can't even figure out the basic facts in this case - how the petition was used and the scientists manipulated etc - then they should get the hell off the site. I throw them in the can with the clods who go around dowsing for water and praying to their moon gods for good weather.

Complete turkeys who should be ashamed of themselves.

Dawkins is right. Wikipedia presents great opportunity, and huge danger. When Dawkins presented his nightmarish vision of "evidence devalued" by Wikipedia and similar forums on his series "Enemies of Reason", he was backed by a huge scrolling screen of Wikipedia pages, accompanied by spooky music. He would likely disagree with Picard over the intricacies of Darwinian theory, but he would be appalled by the mistreatment of Picard at the hands of Wikipedia.

[Giggy]

It seems obvious that Krimpet was moved to take a look based on what appeared here on WR. Why not just admit it?

Yeah, but what's wrong with that...not seeing a problem with going to improve an article that's been tagged for cleanup - just that the tagging was done here, instead of using an ugly template message.

Kudos to Krimpet, aka Mrs. Moulton (or so we are to be told (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) )

[The Joy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

[Jon Awbrey]

After being slapped down on AN/I, Raul654 has protected Rosalind Picard. The anti-ID clique, having nothing better to do, then converges on Affective computing because they can. Nothing to see here, no siree.

Actually, the ID Cabal is now singing on Rosalind Picard's article talk page. They are like vultures waiting for the lions to move away from the carcass.

There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, Jon Awbrey or the tongues of men for this treachery!

Moulton, has Ms. Picard called attention to this travesty to the press? Because I think Brian Bergstein or Cade Metz needs to see this debacle. I sense another Seigenthaler scandal approaching.

Do not underestimate the re*cussedness of Elves, Ents, or Awbreys.

But this is such a typical phenomenon in Wikipedia, and its prevalence is one of the things that puts the lie to those who say, There Is No Central Control (WP:TINCC).

Sure, there are many areas of The Backwoods, The Boonies, The Hinterland, The Outback, The Steppes, The Great Northern Wasteland where editors develop content in relative peace and quiet. But there is no place that is safe from being slashed and burned and salted once the Keystone Kabal Kops get a Wiki-Whiff of their Wiki-Prey's blood, toil, tears, and sweat upon those grounds. And Wikipedia gives them all the tools they need to police the thoughts of any outpost that does not toe their Wiki-Party Line.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Giggy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

[The Joy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting?

Why would Raul or any highly-respected Wikipedian defend these people?

[Derktar]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting?

Why would Raul or any highly-respected Wikipedian defend these people?

Raul owns the global warming articles, and there is overlap with the ID crowd.

[Giggy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting?

No, it wouldn't - think of them as Gianos (no offence, but it's the best example we have!), and you know a block will only result in more shouting.

[The Joy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting?

No, it wouldn't - think of them as Gianos (no offence, but it's the best example we have!), and you know a block will only result in more shouting.

Has anyone tried disabling their e-mails and protecting their talk pages? That normally stops the shouting!

I would be a cruel administrator, wouldn't I? I have an extraordinary amount of patience, but I would have to show these people the door. Especially with what they're doing to a BLP victim.

[Cla68]

I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it.

[Derktar]

I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it.

Well this is how wikiworld works. Except eventually the heat dies down and uninvolved people stop caring/looking out and the thuggery begins again.

[Somey]

I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it.

I was impressed! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif)

I mean, we'll see how long it lasts and all, but it's certainly a lot better - the way the article looks at the moment, Rosalind Picard might not even choose to "opt out," assuming she were to ever get the chance.

Meanwhile, I'd been holding off on starting my own petition, to promote my theory of the Universal Smelliness of German Cheeses. But hey, it might actually be safe now.

[Moulton]

Moulton, has Ms. Picard called attention to this travesty to the press? Because I think Brian Bergstein or Cade Metz needs to see this debacle. I sense another Seigenthaler scandal approaching.

I rather doubt that Rosalind Picard has contacted the press, for two reasons.

First, the events on her BLP have been unfolding so rapidly, and with such intensity, that I doubt she has been able to keep up. I've been following such fast-breaking firefights on WP for some time, and I was unable to stay abreast of this one, which began at noon on Sunday with Krimpet's first edits on the BLP.

Second, Picard has neither the time nor the temperament to do what Siegenthaler or I did — namely publish essays, technical analyses, or Op-Ed pieces on episodes like this. Consider how much time and energy I have put into highlighting the BLP problem since last August. Picard has way too much important work to do in her faculty responsibilities at MIT to spend time putting a spotlight on the failings of Wikipedia. That's what the reformers of WR are here for.

Let me illustrate...

Among the essays and Op-Ed pieces I wrote was this blog post on the Media Ethics Blog at Utah State University. Among those participants here who visited that blog was PrivateMusings, who left me a comment that eventually led to my participation in Episode 6 of Not The Wikipedia Weekly (WP:NTWW). As you know, Durova and Filll eventually became regulars on NTWW, with Durova hosting several sessions, including the recent one with Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press. For both political and technical reasons, I was only able to participate via private text chat with Durova. Nonetheless, I was able to pose germane questions that both Durova and Bergstein agreed were good questions. In view of the technical glitches during the recording, I followed up by E-Mail to Bergstein to invite him to reprise his comments that were lost in the Skypecast technical difficulties. He called me up yesterday, and we spoke by phone for a good hour. In the end, Brian decided not to publish any personal critical commentary of Wikipedia lest it taint his status as an objective reporter on the technology beat. Already, Seth Finkelstein and Cade Metz have had to deal with backlash from WP on that score, and Brian's judgment was that it was not in his best interests as a journalist to editorialize on the subject of his stories. However, he did ask me about my own history with Wikipedia, and I filled him in on the story, as best I was able to narrate it from the perspective of someone inside the story. I also told him about the firestorm that had gotten underway on Picard's BLP with Krimpet's edits of Sunday noon.

As you may know, I made the acquaintance of Kim Bruning at the conclusion of the Skypecast session with Bergstein. Once the recording had ended, and after Bergstein had logged off, Durova added me to the voice conference and introduced me to Kim and some of the other panelists, who had asked why Greg and I had received less than a warm welcome to join the public Skypecast with Bergstein. Durova recited the background of my case, and I responded to questions from Kim and the others who had been unfamiliar with my case. Filll, who was also present, refused to present his side as long as I was present, so Adrian-DorfTrottel unceremoniously booted me off the Skypecast conference bridge to let Filll present his version without me being present to hear or rebut Filll. Both Durova and PrivateMusings were chagrinned at this uncongenial and uncollegial gesture of alienation, but let Filll have his say in camera without my presence. Afterwards, Kim Bruning and I conversed one-on-one on Skype, during which time he asked me to respond to his understanding of Filll's case against me. In the end, Kim made an offer: If Rosalind Picard would send him E-Mail with her concerns about the contents or tone of her biography, he would make a good faith effort to bring it into compliance with WP's standards and policies for BLPs.

I followed up by communicating Kim's offer to Picard, with a copy to Kim. Because of her busy schedule, it took me a week to get some face-time with Picard to explain to her who Kim was and what he was offering. Picard asked me to summarize it all in E-Mail, which I did. On Sunday, Picard found the time to review the situation and compose her entreaty to Kim (with a copy to me). As it happens, Picard's message to Kim went out at 6PM on Sunday, just hours after Krimpet had quietly made two edits to Picard's bio. By the time I caught up with that, the edit war between Krimpet and the ID Cabal had erupted into an AN/I firestorm. Then, yesterday, Kim called in another editor, Ottava Rima, to repair Picard's bio. The colloquies on the talk page tell the rest of the story better than I can.

In the meantime, I had sent Brian Bergstein a thank you message for his phone call to me, and left him an open invitation to look further into the story, should he find it of newsworthy value. I have no idea if Brian will look into it further, or decide whether it rises to reportable news by AP standards.

My guess is that Cade Metz or Seth Finkelstein would be more likely to pick this story up than Brian, given all the factors that such a story would have to encompass.

[Moulton]

Kudos to Krimpet, aka Mrs. Moulton (or so we are to be told (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) )

For the record, I had no direct contact with Krimpet, who evidently gleaned the story from postings here. When she made the edits to Picard's bio at noon on Sunday, I frankly didn't know who she was, having failed to remember that she and I had posted similar views in the NewYorkBrad thread.

After being slapped down on AN/I, Raul654 has protected Rosalind Picard. The anti-ID clique, having nothing better to do, then converges on Affective computing because they can. Nothing to see here, no siree.

Sigh.

What are the members of the ID Cabal doing hacking up editing an article on Affective Computing, a technical subject on which they have no meaningful background or expertise?

[Moulton]

I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it.

While I regret the ugly politics that have surfaced in the wake of this case, I am gratified that, at long last, more responsible and professional admins have become aware of the problem and lent their weight and their good offices to correcting it. In due course, I hope to be able to identify and thank each of the responsible editors and admins who (better late than never) stepped up to the challenge of doing the right thing here.

There is much more work to do. The Picard bio was just the tip of the iceberg for me. There is also the similar biography of James Tour, who was also featured in that same NYT story. The same undue weight and coatrack issues apply there, as well.

I was impressed! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I mean, we'll see how long it lasts and all, but it's certainly a lot better - the way the article looks at the moment, Rosalind Picard might not even choose to "opt out," assuming she were to ever get the chance.

Yes. What Kim Bruning and Ottava Rima pulled off yesterday was nothing short of a miracle.

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Proabivouac]

I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

It gets much worse than this, actually.

What are the members of the ID Cabal doing hacking up editing an article on Affective Computing, a technical subject on which they have no meaningful background or expertise?

While there were many problems with the article, I can think of no other answer here besides revenge. This is how Wikipedia editorial policy is formulated. There is no one who will take responsibility for the decisions that are made: formally, no decisions are being made. It's just volunteers, you know, helping out where they can according to WP policies.

Well this is how wikiworld works. Except eventually the heat dies down and uninvolved people stop caring/looking out and the thuggery begins again.

No one is blocked, no one is topic banned, and no one has been assigned responsibility for decisions about this (or any other) article. There is nothing to stop the problems from recurring; we can be fairly certain that they will.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Moulton]

I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

It gets much worse than this, actually.

Yes, it sometimes does.

What are the members of the ID Cabal doing hacking up editing an article on Affective Computing, a technical subject on which they have no meaningful background or expertise?

While there were many problems with the article, I can think of no other answer here besides revenge. This is how Wikipedia editorial policy is formulated. There is no one who will take responsibility for the decisions that are made: formally, no decisions are being made. It's just volunteers, you know, helping out where they can according to WP policies.

The irony is that I first went to Wikipedia last August, during a slow week, to see if WP even had an article on Affective Computing, and if it was in need of any updates, in anticipation of the start of another school year. And that's when I clicked on the name of the MIT faculty member who was the founder of the field of Affective Computing, and found this.

Editing articles on Wikipedia is like playing Whack-A-Mole.

No one is blocked, no one is topic banned, and no one has been assigned responsibility for decisions about this (or any other) article. There is nothing to stop the problems from recurring; we can be fairly certain that they will.

That's why I view this anecdotal case as indicative of a structural, systemic problem. Just fixing this one article does little more than shave off the tip of the iceberg. When I zoomed out from the first problematic article, I found it was far from a unique example.

While this thread began with an opening sneeze involving Krimpet and OrangeMarlin, perhaps the thread title could be revised to more accurately capture the essence of the story as it unfolded during the course of the opera.

The story reminds me of The Hary Janos Suite, but I daresay that's too obscure a musical reference to be meaningful to most observers here.

[that one guy]

The whole situation can be summed up as one big messy bold, revert, discuss. Except this time it became bold, revert, bitch and moan at each other, massively improve article, ???, PROFIT! (sorry, couldn't resist that).

Net positive for the article, net negative for some involved, and net zero for others involved.

[Proabivouac]

Yes, it sometimes does.

He presumes that his age and degree allow him to dictate to us and lecture to us, when many of us have more illustrious academic and professional credentials than he does

Many of us? On Wikipedia?

I know his background, having been both at Bell Labs and MIT and a PhD (and a few other graduate degrees).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163556281

Wait, Filll is himself claiming these credentials? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't think so. Okay, this is a big deal. I don’t doubt it or undoubt it, but Filll, please produce some evidence for these claims.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Moulton]

Yes, it sometimes does.

He presumes that his age and degree allow him to dictate to us and lecture to us, when many of us have more illustrious academic and professional credentials than he does.

Many of us? On Wikipedia?

I presume he means on Wikipedia, as that is where Filll is posting, in the annals of AN/I on the English Wikipedia.

I know his background, having been both at Bell Labs and MIT and a PhD (and a few other graduate degrees). [Possible Unblock of Moulton]

Wait, Filll is himself claiming these credentials? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't think so. Okay, this is a big deal. I don’t doubt it or undoubt it, but Filll, please produce some evidence for these claims.

Fill has never disclosed his academic record or credentials to me, so I don't know. I only have two graduate degrees -- MS and Ph.D, both from Stanford University. So the reference to "a few other graduate degrees" would not apply to me. If User:Filll (Bob Stevens) was ever at Bell Labs or MIT, I never met him at either place.

[Random832]

I know his background, having been both at Bell Labs and MIT and a PhD (and a few other graduate degrees). [Possible Unblock of Moulton]

Wait, Filll is himself claiming these credentials? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't think so. Okay, this is a big deal. I don’t doubt it or undoubt it, but Filll, please produce some evidence for these claims.

Fill has never disclosed his academic record or credentials to me, so I don't know. I only have two graduate degrees -- MS and Ph.D, both from Stanford University. So the reference to "a few other graduate degrees" would not apply to me. If User:Filll (Bob Stevens) was ever at Bell Labs or MIT, I never met him at either place.

It's an odd phrasing, but I think he's talking about you.

[Kato]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

[Jon Awbrey]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

Oh, now, Kato, you're just being bitter.

Good thing there's a pill for that.*

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

* Side effects. Okay, so it's a bitter pill, too. What did you expect?

[dogbiscuit]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

I'd disagree. What that page does show is an indisputable example of tendatious and biased editing, especially Filll, (get back to the editing Guys) who invented a long original analysis that avoided addressing the fundamental issue, but a textbook example of the ID cabal at work, unable to grasp that they were making it all up. It is another brick in the wall. I think one reason SV is a relatively uncontroversial subject these days is that the publicity of her actions has been so widespread that she no longer holds the title of "widely respected admin".

I take it that someone has worked down the petition line by line and attacked every signatory? Is it worth doing a check and seeing if the same behaviour has been applied? If it has, I'd be going for a block or a ban for, well, Lack of common Sense.

What is really annoying is that I think most people would agree that the ID movement is a fringe movement, and certainly almost entirely American based with little traction elsewhere in the world. So it is really annoying that dolts like OrangeMarlin give it credibility by distorting the case to make it seem like they do not believe their cause can stand the cold light of day. It almost makes me want to edit in favour of ID to redress the balance!

So Wikipedia does have a learning curve, it is just tediously slow, and as I was reminded, it requires the re-education of an infinite number of monkeys joining the project.

Ah, I've just contradicted myself, I'll get me coat.

[Moulton]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

I share your worry, Kato. The fact that they had to page-protect the Picard bio, coupled with the observation that two members of the ID Cabal then moved the battlefield over to the adjacent article on Affective Computing is evidence that the worry is well-grounded.

I am both intrigued and perplexed by the lack of organizational learning at WP. It's not like Peter Senge's notion of a "learning organization" is all that obscure or unfamiliar to people at WP.

But somehow or other, the learning process got arrested there.

I'd dearly love to understand why (and whether it can be kick-started).

[Jon Awbrey]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

I share your worry, Kato. The fact that they had to page-protect the Picard bio, coupled with the observation that two members of the ID Cabal then moved the battlefield over to the adjacent article on Affective Computing is evidence that the worry is well-grounded.

I am both intrigued and perplexed by the lack of organizational learning at WP. It's not like Peter Senge's notion of a "learning organization" is all that obscure or unfamiliar to people at WP.

But somehow or other, the learning process got arrested there.

I'd dearly love to understand why (and whether it can be kick-started).

In order to be capable of inquiry into a puzzling phenomenon, one has to be capable of entertaining many alternative hypotheses.

When one hypothesis does not account for the observations, then it is time to consider another.

Even though you know a lot of things, it is obvious from the things you say that you do not know Wikipedia very well at all. From what I've read of your story — heaven knows I haven't read it all — you got booted out of Wikipedia at very early stage, and this is probably why most of the things that you say are the sorts of things that most of us were saying at a very early stage of our trials there.

So it is not too surprising that you seem to be stuck on the Nøøb Hypothesis that the Wikipediot Population at large, in compact with the Foundation that "services" it, really are trying to craft a quality information source, but just don't know how.

I think that it might provide you with additional data and alternative hypotheses if you actually listened to the stories of others, instead of just preaching about plays and such.

Just A Thought …

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Moulton]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

I'd disagree. What that page does show is an indisputable example of tendentious and biased editing, especially Filll, (get back to the editing Guys) who invented a long original analysis that avoided addressing the fundamental issue, but a textbook example of the ID cabal at work, unable to grasp that they were making it all up.

That's an accurate assessment. Filll's representations are not especially well-grounded in evidence and reasoning. If I were there, I would supply copious evidence to debunk his assertions. But I am not there because Filll engineered the Spammish Inquisition to remove me.

I take it that someone has worked down the petition line by line and attacked every signatory? Is it worth doing a check and seeing if the same behaviour has been applied? If it has, I'd be going for a block or a ban for, well, Lack of common Sense.

Filll, more than anyone on the WikiProject on Intelligent Design, reviewed every version of the list, every name on the list, and every effort by anyone known to have gotten their name off the list. I believe he may have been the one most instrumental in compiling the List of Signatories of the Dissent Petition.

What is really annoying is that I think most people would agree that the ID movement is a fringe movement, and certainly almost entirely American based with little traction elsewhere in the world. So it is really annoying that dolts like OrangeMarlin give it credibility by distorting the case to make it seem like they do not believe their cause can stand the cold light of day. It almost makes me want to edit in favour of ID to redress the balance!

I am in favor of objective reporting, in a manner that achieves an impeccable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in writing articles for an encyclopedia.

So Wikipedia does have a learning curve, it is just tediously slow, and as I was reminded, it requires the re-education of an infinite number of monkeys joining the project.

I confess that I have utterly failed in my foolish quest to educate that cabal.

[Moulton]

From the talk page colloquy...

Decorum

Things have been very heated for a few days at this article. Google does index talk pages, unfortunately, and I'm concerned that some of the commentary here is indecorous. Let's remember that this is a living person's biography. Suggest a judicious early archiving of some of these threads, and/or implementing expandable box format. DurovaCharge! 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't for those walking in the footsteps of the banned user Moulton, we wouldn't be enjoying this fine conversation. Moulton's been recruiting meat puppets for this article for months at Wikipedia Review culminating in several large threads over the last 2 weeks and I have the diffs to prove it. Now in 24 hours we've had a wave of disruption from editors totally new to this article. Any of these who are active in the discussions at WR are simply acting on the behalf of a banned user, IOW, meat puppetry. I wonder if I'll see any names there I recognize from here? Odd nature (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[Sxeptomaniac]

From the talk page colloquy...

Decorum

Things have been very heated for a few days at this article. Google does index talk pages, unfortunately, and I'm concerned that some of the commentary here is indecorous. Let's remember that this is a living person's biography. Suggest a judicious early archiving of some of these threads, and/or implementing expandable box format. DurovaCharge! 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't for those walking in the footsteps of the banned user Moulton, we wouldn't be enjoying this fine conversation. Moulton's been recruiting meat puppets for this article for months at Wikipedia Review culminating in several large threads over the last 2 weeks and I have the diffs to prove it. Now in 24 hours we've had a wave of disruption from editors totally new to this article. Any of these who are active in the discussions at WR are simply acting on the behalf of a banned user, IOW, meat puppetry. I wonder if I'll see any names there I recognize from here? Odd nature (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I found the whole "Moulton as puppetmaster" scenario quite laughable. We exchanged a number of PMs here on the issue, and I don't recall you ever asking me to do more than look at the problems. It seems beyond their comprehension that you could have had a valid reason for being upset with the articles' condition.

Of course, since I've admitted communicating with you, the anti-ID crew now probably considers me your meatpuppet, in addition to their assumption that I'm already promoting ID, or some such nonsense.

I also noticed the absurd branching out into Affective Computing, and Odd Nature decided to mess with the James Tour article as well. They couldn't have an absolute victory at Picard's article, so they went to find one somewhere else, I think.

[Castle Rock]

God, he's a pathetic little man. PS Raul check WP:BLOCK, especially the part about blocking users you are in a dispute with.

[Moulton]

Heh. I found the whole "Moulton as puppetmaster" scenario quite laughable. We exchanged a number of PMs here on the issue, and I don't recall you ever asking me to do more than look at the problems. It seems beyond their comprehension that you could have had a valid reason for being upset with the articles' condition.

I'd be more than willing to release any PMs or E-Mails to dispel the notion that anyone is doing more than what their own conscience and personal values dictate.

Of course, since I've admitted communicating with you, the anti-ID crew now probably considers me your meatpuppet, in addition to their assumption that I'm already promoting ID, or some such nonsense.

Didn't we overlap on WP before I was indef-blocked? I think you even commented in the RfC that Filll filed against me.

I also noticed the absurd branching out into Affective Computing, and Odd Nature decided to mess with the James Tour article as well. They couldn't have an absolute victory at Picard's article, so they went to find one somewhere else, I think.

That will probably backfire on them.

[Cla68]

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Kato]

God, he's a pathetic little man. PS Raul check WP:BLOCK, especially the part about blocking users you are in a dispute with.

Raul is a weird kind of anti-Wikipedian. Judging by his ongoing antics, he is adamantly against all of the touted claims of the site. He is against discussion, consensus, anyone-can-edit, neutrality and so on. Rather, he exhibits autocratic control in the face of each the non-negotiable tenets.

He's a marvel.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Heh. I found the whole "Moulton as puppetmaster" scenario quite laughable. We exchanged a number of PMs here on the issue, and I don't recall you ever asking me to do more than look at the problems. It seems beyond their comprehension that you could have had a valid reason for being upset with the articles' condition.

I'd be more than willing to release any PMs or E-Mails to dispel the notion that anyone is doing more than what their own conscience and personal values dictate.

Thanks. I'll let you know if I decide to do that, but I don't think it will be necessary, as vague insinuations are more their style. Making claims that can be actively proven false would defeat their purpose, I believe.

Of course, since I've admitted communicating with you, the anti-ID crew now probably considers me your meatpuppet, in addition to their assumption that I'm already promoting ID, or some such nonsense.

Didn't we overlap on WP before I was indef-blocked? I think you even commented in the RfC that Filll filed against me.

Yep. That would be my first interaction with you, actually. I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.)

[dogbiscuit]

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

What I find amazing is that these people, knowing that they are editing in the full view of a large number of watchers, including members of ArbCom (who themselves must be in more agonies of anticipation of how they are going to swing this one when it inevitably ends up at ArbCom) actually must believe what they are doing is sensible. That is the scary thing.

I think they should be pulled over, sat them down and someone needs to play them the video tape evidence. Your good at RFCs aren't you? (And you should note that I am an editor of adequate standing as I make that comment).

This is a gem: Fill's been watching too many episodes of 24. Beep, Beep, Beep, Beep

[Kato]

I haven't paid that much attention to this clique over the years, but the more I read here, the more ridiculous they seem. The more dumb they appear.

I simply fail to accept that they can be so stupid as to not understand the matter of the petition, how it was used and so on. Geez, these ID cranks have been splicing up images of Scientists on Videos for years to manipulate the debate in the US. Poor old Dawkins can barely answer his phone lest some ID crank tapes him saying something and uses it against him.

Yet the damn obvious backstory behind this petition remains a mystery to Raul's posse who keep getting it wrong. Probably on purpose.

Of course, Moulton's demeanor has hardly helped matters since he arrived at WP last year, and it would have been preferable if someone had offered to be his "agent" as he acted as an "agent" for the BLP victims, but that is beside the point.

How on earth Jim62sch, Odd Nature and Raul still allowed to edit at the place is beyond me.

[Moulton]

I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.)

The principal troller was User:Baegis, who registered expressly for that purpose.

[dogbiscuit]

I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.)

The principal troller was User:Baegis, who registered expressly for that purpose.

Stunning. Your case started out dry and dull, and then you keep throwing these things out, you little tinker. Did they identify whose sock it was? I presume you were too new at the time to grasp that it was such a blatant one. Too late for checkuser now I guess, need Durova's skills on that one.

[Derktar]

I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.)

The principal troller was User:Baegis, who registered expressly for that purpose.

Stunning. Your case started out dry and dull, and then you keep throwing these things out, you little tinker. Did they identify whose sock it was? I presume you were too new at the time to grasp that it was such a blatant one. Too late for checkuser now I guess, need Durova's skills on that one.

Too many times have we seen this before. A new user starting out, doesn't really know the ropes, they quickly find themselves at odds with one of the power-players and become immersed in the wiki-politics game and then BAM, they fall into the trap.

[dogbiscuit]

Too many times have we seen this before. A new user starting out, doesn't really know the ropes, they quickly find themselves at odds with one of the power-players and become immersed in the wiki-politics game and then BAM, they fall into the trap.

I do think Moulton should now be promoted to the highest rank of honour that we can provide*, not only socked out of existence, but blocked for not wanting to write an encyclopedia, and still fuelling a mega drama-fest edit war some 9 months after he last edited an article. Way to go, Moulton. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

*Well, there had to be a catch, you've already got your own avatar and your own campaign, so I think we've run out of gifts. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Cla68]

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

What I find amazing is that these people, knowing that they are editing in the full view of a large number of watchers, including members of ArbCom (who themselves must be in more agonies of anticipation of how they are going to swing this one when it inevitably ends up at ArbCom) actually must believe what they are doing is sensible. That is the scary thing.

I think they should be pulled over, sat them down and someone needs to play them the video tape evidence. Your good at RFCs aren't you? (And you should note that I am an editor of adequate standing as I make that comment).

This is a gem: Fill's been watching too many episodes of 24. Beep, Beep, Beep, Beep

Jim62sch has already been taken to ArbCom once for his behavior, so an RfC wouldn't be necessary for him. He's on his second strike. An RfC is very time-consuming to draft and I'd rather, of course, be working on articles on subjects that I find interesting to me. But, if they keep up this garbage and refuse to correct their behavior on their own, then some more adult intervention may become necessary.

[tarantino]

God, he's a pathetic little man. PS Raul check WP:BLOCK, especially the part about blocking users you are in a dispute with.

It's amusing that Rau654, Filll et. al. have chosen to engage Relata refero in a battle of wits, but have arrived unarmed save for Mark Pellegrini's banhammer.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Raul654_by_David_Shankbone.jpg/120px-Raul654_by_David_Shankbone.jpg)

You will be civil on this page, or I will block you myself. Is this clear? Raul654

Say, Mark, that isn't a killer chihuahua, is it?

[Piperdown]

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

Holy shit. Cla68 is still kicking ass and taking names. You got some serious stamina, Chuck. I couldn't stand another minute with that W-P bullshit after the Gary Moreland Harris affair.

[Moulton]

I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.)

The principal troller was User:Baegis, who registered expressly for that purpose.

Stunning. Your case started out dry and dull, and then you keep throwing these things out, you little tinker. Did they identify whose sock it was? I presume you were too new at the time to grasp that it was such a blatant one. Too late for checkuser now I guess, need Durova's skills on that one.

Oh, he's still there. He even posted on this latest Roz Picard stuff. Search for his name in the talk page there. Filll thinks he's a great asset to the project.

[Jon Awbrey]

I haven't followed this whole thread, so I don't know if anyone has observed that an important influence in the background of this whole discussion is the adolescent view of science that comes out of Randroid Objectivism.

Here's a commentator who touches on it, however briefly:

Subjective Objectivity

Yesterday we went to see Jimmy Wales speak at the Nobel Peace Prize Center during the seminar “How Free is the Internet”. Jimbo was less controversial than his wikipedia page and his jokes were not funny. He repeated his mantra “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.” He also declared again that he is an “objectivist”. It is interesting that he has missed the entire post-modern debate about objectivity, (is that really possible?) and that he and the other panel members spent most of the session criticizing the Great Chinese Firewall, Tibet and Iran, and hardly mentioned equally insidious American and British control tactics and legislative sleight of hand. Anyway, we all love Wikipedia.

http://alejandra-aeron.com/blog/2008/05/06...ve-objectivity/

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Moulton]

Filll admits the petition can be interpreted seventeen ways from Sunday...

My personal view, which disagrees with some sources, is that the petition is written so vaguely that every single scientifically literate person, would agree with it. --Filll (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I happen to think that a scientifically literate person (such as James Tour or Rosalind Picard) might agree that scientists should examine the evidence for any proposed theory with a skeptical eye.

And so I suggested this way of writing the paragraph on the James Tour BLP...

Controversial petition

In February 2006, the New York Times reported 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." 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.

[Kato]

Filll admits the petition can be interpreted seventeen ways from Sunday...

My personal view, which disagrees with some sources, is that the petition is written so vaguely that every single scientifically literate person, would agree with it. --Filll (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I happen to think that a scientifically literate person (such as James Tour or Rosalind Picard) might agree that scientists should examine the evidence for any proposed theory with a skeptical eye.

And so I suggested this way of writing the paragraph on the James Tour BLP...

Controversial petition

In February 2006, the New York Times reported 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." 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.

Rework the "Tour's field of organic..." But otherwise, that seems a dry, neutral, accurate and satisfactory account of events.

By the way, I'm staggered by the naivety of the signers. But again, that is beside the point. There's no accounting for you lab coat wearing eggheads.

[Moulton]

Rework the "Tour's field of organic..." But otherwise, that seems a dry, neutral, accurate and satisfactory account of events.

It was immediately reverted on the grounds of WP:POINT in favor of an interpretation that Tour was a raving lunatic who was out marching for ID.

By the way, I'm staggered by the naivety of the signers. But again, that is beside the point. There's no accounting for you lab coat wearing eggheads.

No more naive than my presumption that Wikipedia was a real encyclopedia that adhered to some realistic standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in media.

How silly of me to have imagined that.

[Kato]

Rework the "Tour's field of organic..." But otherwise, that seems a dry, neutral, accurate and satisfactory account of events.

It was immediately reverted on the grounds of WP:POINT in favor of an interpretation that Tour was a raving lunatic who was out marching for ID.

By the way, I'm staggered by the naivety of the signers. But again, that is beside the point. There's no accounting for you lab coat wearing eggheads.

No more naive than my presumption that Wikipedia was a real encyclopedia that adhered to some realistic standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in media.

How silly of me to have imagined that.

Indeed. Most of us fell for that one. I certainly did, much to my chagrin. That sense of being cheated, having my talents and time wasted on that sham before the truth became blatantly obvious is probably one of my motivations for exposing the site's flaws now.

[Kato]

If you read the WP article on "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" it is biased from the start. (Again I may as well stress that I am a fully paid up member of RichardDawkins.net, have no time for any claims of "Intelligent Design", and would take a very dim view of anyone who tried to push that delusional mumbo-jumbo on my children)

Below is an example of how the agenda has been pushed onto the subject matter:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism states that:

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.

The statement, and its title, refer to evolution as "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory", both of which are vague, misleading and are not used by scientists to refer to current theories. In fact, the use of the term "Darwinism" in modern usage is usually a pejorative term employed only by creationists.

The bolded section is completely unnecessary and is not even attributed. The whole article has been framed to discredit the Discovery Institute. Sure, DI are deluded and manipulative, but what happened to "show don't tell"?

[Sxeptomaniac]

By the way, I'm staggered by the naivety of the signers. But again, that is beside the point. There's no accounting for you lab coat wearing eggheads.

I don't know... I tend to view petitions as a starting point, nothing more. If someone asks me to sign a petition, I'll often sign it just to give the subject a chance for more debate, unless it's something I'm obviously opposed to. Of course, I don't really have to worry much about protecting my professional image, either (I doubt I ever will, for that matter). Perhaps some others think along similar lines, though.

If you read the WP article on "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" it is biased from the start. (Again I may as well stress that I am a fully paid up member of RichardDawkins.net, have no time for any claims of "Intelligent Design", and would take a very dim view of anyone who tried to push that delusional mumbo-jumbo on my children)

Below is an example of how the agenda has been pushed onto the subject matter:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism states that:

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.

The statement, and its title, refer to evolution as "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory", both of which are vague, misleading and are not used by scientists to refer to current theories. In fact, the use of the term "Darwinism" in modern usage is usually a pejorative term employed only by creationists.

The bolded section is completely unnecessary and is not even attributed. The whole article has been framed to discredit the Discovery Institute. Sure, DI are deluded and manipulative, but what happened to "show don't tell"?

Ah, but they fear people making the "wrong" choices as to what to believe. Science is their religion, and they are the evangelists and defenders of the faith.

(As sometimes people have misunderstood when I have commented in similar situations in the past, let me be absolutely clear: I am not saying that science is a religion. However, it can certainly be made into one, as with many other things.)

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

[Moulton]

Science is their religion, and they are the evangelists and defenders of the faith.

I don't see it that way, for the simple reason that the members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design have not demonstrated even an elementary ability to engage in scientific reasoning. When it comes to evidence and reasoning, I look to the protocols of the Scientific Method as the gold standard. I was frankly appalled (and still am) at the utter failure of the editors in that clique to form and articulate hypotheses that are supported by a critical examination of the evidence.

If it were true that they are ardent in their belief and practice of the protocols of the Scientific Method, I daresay none of this disgraceful drama would ever have taken place.

Moreover, no self-respecting scientist would ever engage in anything so silly and unscientific as the Spammish Inquisition, except as a theatrical farce.

[Moulton]

Returning now to the latest postings in the colloquies on the Picard BLP talk page, they are increasingly revealing now.

It is becoming apparent that the editors in the WikiProject on Intelligent Design are hell-bent on publishing as encyclopedic fact a rather dubious theory of mind of a particular signer of the 2001 statement. But even if their haphazard theory of mind were accidentally correct, it would still be unpublishable since there is no clear evidence to support it. If anything, the evidence is that the subject of the bio is skeptical of all theories, from Darwin to ID, inclusive. Which, as I understand the Scientific Method, is a healthy attitude to take. For any theory or belief, what is the evidence and reasoning upon which a given theory or belief rests?

I have co-authored several peer-reviewed papers with Picard, including one prize-winning conference paper that is highlighted on Picard's bio. I know from direct experience how intensely rigorous Picard is when it comes to reporting the results of scientific experiments and crafting scientific theories to explain the experimental observations at hand. Picard doesn't let any explanatory theory slip by without a rigorous examination of the evidence, and rigorous scientific reasoning to support it.

For example, in her 1997 text on Affective Computing, she includes a description of my work in studying the relationship between emotions and learning (pp. 93-94). But she does not present the theory I had proposed because, in 1997, we had not yet carried out any rigorous scientific studies to properly ground the proposed theory. She doesn't even mention in the book that we have a tentative theory. It wasn't until 2001 that we first published a conference paper proposing the theory. That was the peer-reviewed publication that won the Best Paper Award at the International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2001).

[Moulton]

What hath Wiki wrought?

A dramatic exercise designed to reveal the unanticipated consequences of launching one of the most prominent ethically-challenged sites on the Internet.

The above exchange occured in the wake of Doc Glasgow's departure from Wikipedia over the intractability of the BLP problem.

Now, the latest example of the BLP problem is playing out on the very same biography that I first deigned to edit last August, in a futile effort to raise it (and others like it) to a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in media.

I note that FCYTravis (with whom I have not directly communicated, save for what he might have read in these threads), is making many of the same arguments I made, back in August.

[Jon Awbrey]

Science is their religion, and they are the evangelists and defenders of the faith.

I don't see it that way, for the simple reason that the members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design have not demonstrated even an elementary ability to engage in scientific reasoning. When it comes to evidence and reasoning, I look to the protocols of the Scientific Method as the gold standard. I was frankly appalled (and still am) at the utter failure of the editors in that clique to form and articulate hypotheses that are supported by a critical examination of the evidence.

If it were true that they are ardent in their belief and practice of the protocols of the Scientific Method, I daresay none of this disgraceful drama would ever have taken place.

Moreover, no self-respecting scientist would ever engage in anything so silly and unscientific as the Spammish Inquisition, except as a theatrical farce.

So tell me, in your Book Of Scientific Method (BOSM), 'splain to me again the part where it says:

Step Ω. When faced with a disturbing conclusion, throw up your hands, do a funny double-take, emit rubish H'yuck-H'yuck-H'yuck sounds, and blather on about Comic Operas and Dithyrambs?

'Cause I Must've Been Playing Hooky That Day …

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Sxeptomaniac]

Science is their religion, and they are the evangelists and defenders of the faith.

I don't see it that way, for the simple reason that the members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design have not demonstrated even an elementary ability to engage in scientific reasoning. When it comes to evidence and reasoning, I look to the protocols of the Scientific Method as the gold standard. I was frankly appalled (and still am) at the utter failure of the editors in that clique to form and articulate hypotheses that are supported by a critical examination of the evidence.

If it were true that they are ardent in their belief and practice of the protocols of the Scientific Method, I daresay none of this disgraceful drama would ever have taken place.

Moreover, no self-respecting scientist would ever engage in anything so silly and unscientific as the Spammish Inquisition, except as a theatrical farce.

That's true, but religion, especially when taken to extremes, has a way of corrupting the object of faith along the way. Surely you've noticed the similarities in the behavior of some of the group and and a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist.

[Moulton]

If it were true that they are ardent in their belief and practice of the protocols of the Scientific Method, I daresay none of this disgraceful drama would ever have taken place.

Moreover, no self-respecting scientist would ever engage in anything so silly and unscientific as the Spammish Inquisition, except as a theatrical farce.

That's true, but religion, especially when taken to extremes, has a way of corrupting the object of faith along the way. Surely you've noticed the similarities in the behavior of some of the group and and a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist.

Well, they adopt their beliefs on pure faith, without grounding them in evidence and scientific reasoning, and then seek to coerce others into swallowing their novel beliefs, or else.

'Cause I Must've Been Playing Hooky That Day …

Apparently so.

Or as Yehudi might put it, Ma-nishtanah ha-yom ha-zeh?

[Moulton]

While this thread began with an opening sneeze involving Krimpet and OrangeMarlin, perhaps the thread title could be revised to more accurately capture the essence of the story as it unfolded during the course of the opera.

The story reminds me of The Hary Janos Suite, but I daresay that's too obscure a musical reference to be meaningful to most observers here.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more meaningful topic title, given that we've now zoomed out a bit from the tip of the iceberg to discover other sharks in the water besides an orange marlin?

[Moulton]

Somewhere between last December and this week, someone removed from James Tour's BLP his published disclaimer that he is not a proponent of ID.

On his web page labeled "Evolution/Creation" [http://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=27], Tour writes that "I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design."

Is there some reason that express disclaimer vanished from Tour's bio?

[dogbiscuit]

While this thread began with an opening sneeze involving Krimpet and OrangeMarlin, perhaps the thread title could be revised to more accurately capture the essence of the story as it unfolded during the course of the opera.

The story reminds me of The Hary Janos Suite, but I daresay that's too obscure a musical reference to be meaningful to most observers here.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more meaningful topic title, given that we've now zoomed out a bit from the tip of the iceberg to discover other sharks in the water besides an orange marlin?

Nothing polite comes to mind. I would note that I did nominate them for tag team of the year back here, albeit with dodgy spelling.

The hatchet job on the article on Affective Computing is appalling. Tagging stuff that is a straightforward uncontroversial explanation with fact and vague. It is not about writing an article, it is about discrediting the subject to embarrass you and Picard. If its vague, reword it. If you can't, why are you trying to edit something you don't know anything about and the previous authors did.

The edit history shows a hit squad swarming.

Nasty people.

[Kato]

The behavior of these people, who have now moved onto the Affecting Computing article to use it as a vehicle to get revenge on you, is simply outrageous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

[Moulton]

What's even more exasperating is that I'm now exchanging messages with more than one person here in PM, which has no way to CC another person. One person PMs me asking a question and I answer it. Then someone else PMs me with the identical question and I have no way to bring up my previous response because neither the Firefox browser history nor the Sent Items retains a copy.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Jon Awbrey]

What's even more exasperating is that I'm now exchanging messages with more than one person here in PM, which has no way to CC another person. One person PMs me asking a question and I answer it. Then someone else PMs me with the identical question and I have no way to bring up my previous response because neither the Firefox browser history nor the Sent Items retains a copy.

There's a box you can check if you want to keep an archive copy —

Options √ Add a copy of this message to my sent items folder

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Moulton]

There's a box you can check if you want to keep an archive copy.

Thank you. I see that now. I use the PM feature so infrequently that I hadn't learned to defend myself against the default, which is to not save a copy.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Somewhere between last December and this week, someone removed from James Tour's BLP his published disclaimer that he is not a proponent of ID.

On his web page labeled "Evolution/Creation" [http://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=27], Tour writes that "I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design."

Is there some reason that express disclaimer vanished from Tour's bio?

It's part of the same editing behavior that messed up Affective computing (notice that Odd Nature gutted it under the rather deceptive summary "copyedit". I had to focus on preventing the article from saying that Tour signed a petition promoting ID, then the debate over at Rosalind Picard. I was going to go back and do some repair work on that section of Tour's article today.

It's rather frustrating how the debate at Picard's article turned out. Guettarda suggests a version of what had been argued for all along, and suddenly it's OK. The only possible explanation I can give is that the anti-ID crowd had to see the suggestion come from someone they consider one of their own. At least Guettarda seems to have some reading comprehension skills.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

[Moulton]

Is there some reason we can't all use open collaboration, rather than have competing factions compounded by awkard-to-use back-channel PMs, etc, in a silly effort to conceal who is or isn't exchanging messages with me?

[Somey]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more meaningful topic title, given that we've now zoomed out a bit from the tip of the iceberg to discover other sharks in the water besides an orange marlin?

How about "A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism"?

[Moulton]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more meaningful topic title, given that we've now zoomed out a bit from the tip of the iceberg to discover other sharks in the water besides an orange marlin?

How about "A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism"?

That works for me.

Perhaps the thread's subtitle could be A Crockwork Orange.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Moulton]

From Durova's blog...

Wikipedians often lose perspective when a particular page becomes a locus of contention. The reasons certain pages become flash points is another matter entirely, but I'd like to remind fellow editors that sometimes when we attempt to solve a problem and get frustrated with each other, we inadvertently make the problem worse.

[Jon Awbrey]

Wikipedians often lose perspective when a particular page becomes a locus of contention. The reasons certain pages become flash points is another matter entirely, but I'd like to remind fellow editors that sometimes when we attempt to solve a problem and get frustrated with each other, we inadvertently make the problem worse.

Words — Easy Peasy
Deeds — Not So Much

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

[Cla68]

A couple of threads related to this discussion broke out on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cla68#Stay_away
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cla..._appropriate.3F

For the record, earlier in this thread I wasn't threatening to out anyone. I was commenting on the fact that at least one press representative was aware of this situation. If he or any other journalist decides to write an article on this group of POV-pushers and their antics in Wikipedia, I don't think that the reporter would find it too difficult to learn of their real names. Besides the name of one of them that has been discussed by others already, I don't know any of their real names and am making no effort to find out their real names.

If the press did decide that this story would be of interest to a general audience, the Wikipedia editors who created this issue with their problematic behavior have only themselves to blame.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Somey]

For the record, earlier in this thread I wasn't threatening to out anyone. I was commenting on the fact that at least one press representative was aware of this situation. If he or any other journalist decides to write an article on this group of POV-pushers and their antics in Wikipedia, I don't think that the reporter would find it too difficult to learn of their real names.

Right - I believe the post you're referring to is this one, but Moulton wrote it, and it was more than two sentences... So the chances that they read all the way down to the part where he mentions Brian Bergstein are probably nil.

Moulton, of course, has never made any secret of his support for the idea of having all WP editors, or at least those who edit BLP's, be identifiable. Cla68, on the other hand, has never (to my knowledge) expressed support for such an idea... Am I right, Mr. Cla?

[Moulton]

I read those comments on Cla68's talk page as efforts to intimidate him. Dunno if that's an accurate or fair reading, but that's how it appeared to my sensitivities and sensibilities.

[The Joy]

Well, I was the one that asked if Rosalind Picard had contacted the press about her article. It's pretty much her only hope at this point as the ID Crowd has her article in their sights.

I've seen Wikipedians get hit by WP:TROUT, but I definitely don't want to see Cla get hit upside the head by an OrangeMarlin! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Edit: Somewhat off topic: I've noticed that the RFAs for Coppertwig and Risker have your support, Cla. Well, the ID Crowd that's attacking you on your talk page has gone in and opposed them all. Are you being wiki-stalked? Is the ID Crowd attacking your colleagues? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

[Cla68]

For the record, earlier in this thread I wasn't threatening to out anyone. I was commenting on the fact that at least one press representative was aware of this situation. If he or any other journalist decides to write an article on this group of POV-pushers and their antics in Wikipedia, I don't think that the reporter would find it too difficult to learn of their real names.

Right - I believe the post you're referring to is this one, but Moulton wrote it, and it was more than two sentences... So the chances that they read all the way down to the part where he mentions Brian Bergstein are probably nil.

Moulton, of course, has never made any secret of his support for the idea of having all WP editors, or at least those who edit BLP's, be identifiable. Cla68, on the other hand, has never (to my knowledge) expressed support for such an idea... Am I right, Mr. Cla?

Well, I guess since my name has been in the press linked to my userpage, I feel the point is moot since I'm outed. But, I know that's kind of a cop-out because I don't have my name on my Wikipedia userpage. I've been thinking about it lately, especially after that late night (for me) conversation I had in another thread about BLPs and Brandt. I avoided making edits to a BLP that I was reading about in the newspaper (about a 19-year old US Army medic who earned the Silver Star in Afghanistan) today for this reason.

I haven't decided for sure yet, but I think requiring identifiable editors only to be able to edit BLPs is probably a good idea.

[Derktar]

Wait, is that the same George William Herbert who made that laughable block on Krimpet for "harassment"?

Haha.

[Castle Rock]

Wait, is that the same George William Herbert who made that laughable block on Krimpet for "harassment"?

Haha.

Yeah, I wouldn't be to worried. His last infinite ban was this one:

05:38, 13 March 2008 Georgewilliamherbert (Talk | contribs) blocked "Mackan79 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Self identified as Judd Bagley / User:Wordbomb)

[Moulton]

I haven't decided for sure yet, but I think requiring identifiable editors only to be able to edit BLPs is probably a good idea.

I daresay that would have kept that ID Cabal out of those several biographies that I dared to remove the libel from.

[Cla68]

Wait, is that the same George William Herbert who made that laughable block on Krimpet for "harassment"?

Haha.

Yeah, I wouldn't be to worried. His last infinite ban was this one:

05:38, 13 March 2008 Georgewilliamherbert (Talk | contribs) blocked "Mackan79 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Self identified as Judd Bagley / User:Wordbomb)

Oh yes. I'm surprised that George would ever consider using his admin tools again after pulling that boner.

[Moulton]

Speaking of colossal mistakes, is it your impression, Cla68, that the WikiClique on Intelligent Design erred in adjudging me a tendentious POV pusher (with no interest in writing an encyclopedia) for opposing their concerted efforts to introduce false and defamatory content into those several BLPs?

[Derktar]

Wait, is that the same George William Herbert who made that laughable block on Krimpet for "harassment"?

Haha.

Yeah, I wouldn't be to worried. His last infinite ban was this one:

05:38, 13 March 2008 Georgewilliamherbert (Talk | contribs) blocked "Mackan79 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Self identified as Judd Bagley / User:Wordbomb)

Oh damn I forgot about that one!

Yeah, I don't think he will ever be so stupid as to use his admin tools again in controversial circumstances.

[Cla68]

Speaking of colossal mistakes, is it your impression, Cla68, that the WikiClique on Intelligent Design erred in adjudging me a tendentious POV pusher (with no interest in writing an encyclopedia) for opposing their concerted efforts to introduce false and defamatory content into those several BLPs?

I'm afraid I'm not fully familiar with what happened. Is there an ANI thread or ArbCom case that I could look at? Or a thread here where it was discussed?

[Moulton]

Speaking of colossal mistakes, is it your impression, Cla68, that the WikiClique on Intelligent Design erred in adjudging me a tendentious POV pusher (with no interest in writing an encyclopedia) for opposing their concerted efforts to introduce false and defamatory content into those several BLPs?

I'm afraid I'm not fully familiar with what happened. Is there an ANI thread or ArbCom case that I could look at? Or a thread here where it was discussed?

You can start at my old talk page, which will take you to the RfC. Be sure to read the RfC talk page, too.

This version of my talk page will take you to the RfAr.

See also the talk page archive for Picard's bio.

See also this op-ed here, and this collection of bits and pieces, too.

[Moulton]

Jim Schuler writes:

Hmm, one of my daughters is autistic (thus I have a dog in this chase); however, the term prosthetic is mierda del toro. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Jim Schuler has such a negative attitude toward pathbreaking work in Autism Research.

The term "prosthetic" comes from this paper...

An Exploratory Social-Emotional Prosthetic for Autism Spectrum Disorder

Rana el Kaliouby, Alea Teeters, and Rosalind W. Picard
MIT Media Lab

Abstract

We describe a novel wearable device that perceives and reports on social-emotional information in real-time human interaction. Using a wearable camera and other sensors, combined with machine perception algorithms, the system records and analyzes the facial expressions and head movements of the person with whom the wearer is interacting. We propose the application of the social-emotional prosthetic to assist the growing number of individuals diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in perceiving communication in a natural rather than a structured environment, bootstrapping their ability to learn and develop in social settings. The wearable device is a novel exploratory platform for researchers to gain a better understanding of social-emotional communication, enabling new kinds of measurements and interventions that may also help advance the theory of Autism.

[Derktar]

You'll also notice the typical tactics. Piling-on and beration in order to illicit a reaction, but unfortunately Cla is too smart to rise to the bait.

[The Joy]

You'll also notice the typical tactics. Piling-on and beration in order to illicit a reaction, but unfortunately Cla is too smart to rise to the bait.

Oh, indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fil..._of_information

[Jon Awbrey]

I used to hang out with folks who ran an artificial language lab that did a lot of rehab applications. I remember there being a dispute about the etymology of "prosthetic". People who took it as being simply the Greek for "extension" usually had no problem with the word. People who took it as deriving from "pro-aesthetic", for example, a limb provided "for the aesthetic benefit of the onlooker", tended to consider it offensive. I forget if there was ever any resolution of which was the true and which was the false etymology.

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

[Milton Roe]

I used to hang out with folks who ran an artificial language lab that did a lot of rehab applications. I remember there being a dispute about the etymology of "prosthetic". People who took it as being simply the Greek for "extension" usually had no problem with the word. People who took it as deriving from "pro-aesthetic", for example, a limb provided "for the aesthetic benefit of the onlooker", tended to consider it offensive. I forget if there was ever any resolution of which was the true and which was the false etymology.

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

Co-enzymes in biochemistry have prosthetic groups. These sometimes cannot be synthesized (and in other cases are synthesized), and are derived from vitamins, when not. But in all cases they're molecular extensions to hold a reactive group being worked on-- they certainly aren't for show.

Once more case where a false etymology often ruffles feathers: niggardly.

[Jon Awbrey]

Ha! I remember a time when some feminists at my old school protested the terminology "bachelor's degree". They didn't seem to know that the term refers to the "staff" or the "walking stick" that they give you when they hand you a sheepskin and tell you to hit the road.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Milton Roe]

Ha! I remember a time when some feminists at my old school protested the terminology "bachelor's degres". They didn't seem to know that the term refers to the "staff" or the "walking stick" that they give you when they hand you a sheepskin and tell you to hit the road.

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

Indeed. Same root as "bacillus", a staff shaped bacterium. Not to be confused with the Staph shaped bacterium, which is round...

And an argumentum baculinium is one put over with a bonk to the head, using said staff.

I'm reminded of once when somebody reading a tube of antibiotic wondered aloud where the name "Bacitracin" came from. "From a subtle bacillus cultured from a girl named Tracy" said I.

They didn't even smile, this was such a silly etymological suggestion. The best jokes are true.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Moulton]

Two other terms of art that come to mind are "Assistive Technologies" and "Innovative Technologies". The former has long been used to categorize technological aids to those with various disabilities or handicaps. The latter appears in recently published articles by Rosalind Picard, Rana el Kaliouby, and Matthew Goodwin describing the development and introduction of innovative new technologies for use with those diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Cla68]

Speaking of colossal mistakes, is it your impression, Cla68, that the WikiClique on Intelligent Design erred in adjudging me a tendentious POV pusher (with no interest in writing an encyclopedia) for opposing their concerted efforts to introduce false and defamatory content into those several BLPs?

I'm afraid I'm not fully familiar with what happened. Is there an ANI thread or ArbCom case that I could look at? Or a thread here where it was discussed?

You can start at my old talk page, which will take you to the RfC. Be sure to read the RfC talk page, too.

This version of my talk page will take you to the RfAr.

See also the talk page archive for Picard's bio.

See also this op-ed here, and this collection of bits and pieces, too.

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page. Those guys are trying to push back fairly hard. I'm going to look at the links you provided here and look harder at the ID-related articles and try to get fully oriented with the situation beyond what I know of a few behavioral issues with some of the editors in question.

[Aloft]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page.

Looks like you've been marked for termination. They're just waiting for someone to pull the trigger so they can all line up and endorse it.

[Proabivouac]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page.

Looks like you've been marked for termination. They're just waiting for someone to pull the trigger so they can all line up and endorse it.

Whereas if Cla68 were an administrator or arbitrator, then "outing" other contributors would have been perfectly alright, even commendable.

[Viridae]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page.

Looks like you've been marked for termination. They're just waiting for someone to pull the trigger so they can all line up and endorse it.

Not on my watch.

[KamrynMatika]

Isn't it bizarre how people spend so much time arguing over the little, trivial dramas like the lame Urban Rose thing and yet when an editor who has contributed reams of great content on top of being one of the few people left who tries to uphold integrity and standards of behaviour on the encyclopedia gets bullied by a pack of losers, nobody turns up to defend him? I see Viridae responding and Mackan being half-and-half but that's it.

I have half a mind to post on AN, if only to confirm that the majority of the admin base on Wikipedia is comprised of spineless cowards.

[Proabivouac]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page.

Looks like you've been marked for termination. They're just waiting for someone to pull the trigger so they can all line up and endorse it.

Not on my watch.

Thank you, Viridae.

What I want to know is, if their identities are so sacred to them - and I don't suggest that they shouldn't be - then why the hell do they feel it alright to attack others' real names via their "biographies?"

Suppose I'm not the first person to have asked that question…

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Peter Damian]

Very good, Dr Johnson.

Really there was no threats, no coercion, and definitely no signs of him burning down their userpage. That was idle commentary by a concerned wikipedian on a forum that is primarily composed of idle commentary. ViridaeTalk 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, could someone clarify what the original incendiary action was, i.e. what ignited this whole affair? Was it intelligent design or something?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Proabivouac]

I have half a mind to post on AN, if only to confirm that the majority of the admin base on Wikipedia is comprised of spineless cowards.

+clueless.

[Moulton]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page. Those guys are trying to push back fairly hard. I'm going to look at the links you provided here and look harder at the ID-related articles and try to get fully oriented with the situation beyond what I know of a few behavioral issues with some of the editors in question.

Good grief.

What I see there is a curious clique of anankastic characters exchanging vaguely worded anankastic conditionals with each other.

There is a subtle but significant distinction between coercion and manipulation.

Rather than slip into my customary mode of insufferable pedantry, I'll leave it as an exercise for the intelligent reader to tease out the nuances between coercion and manipulation.

[Cla68]

I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page. Those guys are trying to push back fairly hard. I'm going to look at the links you provided here and look harder at the ID-related articles and try to get fully oriented with the situation beyond what I know of a few behavioral issues with some of the editors in question.

Good grief.

What I see there is a curious clique of anankastic characters exchanging vaguely worded anankastic conditionals with each other.

There is a subtle but significant distinction between coercion and manipulation.

Rather than slip into my customary mode of insufferable pedantry, I'll leave it as an exercise for the intelligent reader to tease out the nuances between coercion and manipulation.

I think I'll leave that thread on my user page for a long while. It's very enlightening, isn't it?

[Moulton]

I think I'll leave that thread on my user page for a long while. It's very enlightening, isn't it?

Very much so.

However, in order for your adversaries to blank it against your will, they will have to go through the same kind of Spammish Inquisition RfC process with you as they did with me. Then Baegis will be able to request blanking of your personal talk page.

[Cla68]

I think I'll leave that thread on my user page for a long while. It's very enlightening, isn't it?

Very much so.

However, in order for your adversaries to blank it against your will, they will have to go through the same kind of Spammish Inquisition RfC process with you as they did with me. Then Baegis will be able to request blanking of your personal talk page.

I was going to say that it was unfortunate that this group decided to try to escalate things this way. But actually, I think it was fortunate, because now I'm obligated to look into the matter more deeply and either put up or shut up. DanT commented in that thread that the saber-rattling needs to stop. He's right. After I finish preparing this article for featured consideration I'm going to take some time and look at the past and present conduct of these editors more closely. If I find anything, and based on what I've seen so far there does appear to be more problematic behavior that needs to be addressed, then I'm going to ask them about it politely but directly. Hopefully they'll respond like adults.

[Viridae]

One thing at a time Cla (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Moulton]

Doubleplus, it's a really big iceberg, so you're gonna need a big crane to lift this puppy out of the water.

Fortunately, the tip of this iceberg ain't gonna break off easily. It's an eye-hook that is anchored deep into the body of the 'berg.

[msharma]

By the way, whats up on Privatemusings tlkpage? why is Filll desperate to get in touch, and suggesting "censoring" the Wikipedia weekly?